[Gabriel Synthesis]

basically what you're saying is you got it wrong?

[Forgone Conclusion]

Nope

[Andrew]

Forgone Conclusion, on Nov 8 2005, 05:49 PM, said:

I think you're argument about this topic shows alot about how you think. When I discussed it with Ed, i kept going down a more logical scientific route, based on evolution, etc, whereas he approached froma more theological angle. Needless to say, we didn't make much headway

Science can only ever be logical in the sense of inductive logic, as that's the system within which it operates. However, when people describe something as logical they allude to the security provided by deductive logic.

In other words, the way you're using the phrase "logical scientific" is wrong. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that Ed's argument was more logical than yours.

[Forgone Conclusion]

ok, i'm not going to go into what i meant by logic and scientific, as i can't be arsed, and i'm getting bored of having these arguments for now. I'm sure Ed's argument was probably better than mine, since he's studying the subject at uni, and i haven't done anything like this in a good few years, but the point i was TRYING to make was that we seemed to approach the same question from different angles..

OK!??!?!?!?

[where_i'm_calling_from]

i didn't approach it from a theological point of view at all, thats not what the subject is about. you're just stupid. i was telling you that you can't just say 'evolution' explains morality, because its like saying science explains why things fall. you have to be more specific and i was trying to encourage you to look at whether morality is prescribed, an emotional reaction, a fact of the matter etc etc, which though i explained to you time and time again you didn't seem to understand.

[Gabriel Synthesis]

but i did

me > curtis

[where_i'm_calling_from]

does that mean you're bigger than curtis?

[Gabriel Synthesis]

greater than

[where_i'm_calling_from]

i would have to agree. and you know why? because you're a member of team cool. and you can read a simple passage and induce meaning from it, whereas curtis can't.

[Gabriel Synthesis]

TC

[Forgone Conclusion]

Yeah, but Ed, everytime I did go into more detail, you just went round in a big circle, leading me to believe it was YOU who was slightly slow. I answered every single point you made, as you know full well

[Gabriel Synthesis]

"your mum" doesn't count as an answer curt

as you know full well

[where_i'm_calling_from]

not at all...and didn't you just say you were in no doubt that my arguments were better?

[Forgone Conclusion]

They probably were, doesn't make mine any less valid or correct though - you didn't once disagree with any of the points I made