"TOLERANCE" is the virtue of a man without convict

[MeDeFe]

Then I would very much like to see that proof.

If your own existence doesn't prove it to you then I doubt anything I could say to you would satisfy your demand.

Actually I meant the mathematical proof that 1 + 1 = 2. I clearly put in two paragraphs (although very short ones), the first referring to your first and the second referring to your second.

And what if there is a physical world? It's just another huge network, consisting of matter and force fields in a vast number of combinations that can all influence each other.

So if I'm understanding this correctly, you are questioning the existence of a physical world? If this is so then how do you even verify that we are having this discussion?

You are not understanding it correctly. What I am saying is that the physical world is also one huge relativity where nothing, not even the whole of it, is absolute (in the sense "without limits; not controlled by anything or anyone else"), as you have probably heard or read not even time is the same everywhere.

You're still talking about everyday language, while this is at heart a philosophical-theological topic bordering on the metaphysical.

You're talking about everyday conversations again, I maintain that this is not one of those.

Of course I am. I speak English this way without people trying to dissect the words I'm using. I allow other people to speak this way as well without demanding that they define them further. It's how conversation takes place. Grammar is important, but not as terms are interchangeably understood.

So you're saying that here and now you don't care about having a serious discussion with clearly defined terms to avoid confusion, fine then we might as well stop here and now. You know, I think that in order for a productive conversation to take place all persons involved need to understand to a sufficiently large degree what an other person exactly means when he uses a word. Usually this is no problem, but every now and then there are words with several meanings, and things might, just might, become problematic and require some clarification.
I feel that this is one of those time.

Earlier you said:

for everyday language and when used as an adverb I'll grant that you're right, however, 'absolute' (whether as an adjective or a noun) and 'complete' are not synonymous

So I went back again to see if I had really made that much of a leap.

Thesaurus.com - as an adjective complete is a synonym of absolute.

MSN Encarta - as an adjective complete is a synonym of absolute.

Wordsmyth.com - as an adjective complete is listed as a synonym of absolute.

Merriam-Webster Online - as an adjective in the 2nd use as in "having no exceptions or restrictions", complete is used as a synonym of absolute.

Free Dictionary.com - as an adjective complete is listed as the first definition of absolute.

WordNet Online - when used as an adjective complete is used as a synonymous definition of absolute.

So I'm not just playing free and fancy with the word. I've now taken the time to check and see if I used it correctly and I have. I've taken the time to talk to people who are more knowledgeable than myself in this field and they have confirmed to me that it has been used correctly.

Syzygy's original statement was:

There is no such thing as absolute right or wrong.

It was used as an adjective. What kind of right and wrong?....absolute right and wrong. In order for his statement to be correct it relies on itself to be absolutely/completely correct. That is a fallacy.

If the statement is correct and there is no absolute right or wrong, then on what basis would you or anyone else have the right to correct my use of the word 'absolute'? I would be just as correct as anyone else in using it however I wished.

If there is no right and wrong, then on what moral basis could you and I (and everyone else here on CC) condemn racism, sexism, and mass murder?

I hope you noted that my preferred definition also popped up in your links, once (even twice, if you count MSN Encarta, too (separate article)) as the first offered.
"unconditional, unlimited" on MSN Encarta
"2. free of restrictions or limits.", "4. free of any external standard; not relative." on Wordsmyth
"1 exercising power or authority without interference by others" on Merriam-Webster
"3.a. Not limited by restrictions or exceptions; unconditional", "4. Unconstrained by constitutional or other provisions" on thefreedictionary
"complete and without restriction or qualification" on wordnet

The last implies something more than just 'complete', does it not?

But what can we conclude? That both of us are right in our differing ways of using the word. However, since there are so many meanings I think I'm right in wanting to clearly define which of those applies when I use the word 'absolute', and also to know which applies when you use the word.

And you still have not said how you get from "without limits; not controlled by anything or anyone else" or "that which can exist without being related to anything else" to "completely". This is one of the reasons why I want the use of the word defined clearly.

And why is adultery wrong?

Because God said it is and revealed this through His written word, the Bible. Mankind tries to explain it away.

I'll pass on this one, it leads to a complete different discussion, maybe a bump of the "logic dictates" thread is in order.

Because at one point you promised not to do it, and the most wide-held view is that promises need to be kept. The alternative could easily be the breakdown of all society, which is not something that most people would think desireable. If our norms were different and sexual intercourse was not to be limited to one partner at a time in traditional marriage, say marriage was only there for economical benefits, noone would care if people sleep with whoever they like, whether they're married to someone or not.

Yeah, I used to believe this almost word for word. It is very articulate and intelligently put forth. However, it is justifying that which God says is absolutely wrong. This is the point that I've been trying to ultimately arrive at. Now please don't get me wrong. I am not saying that you have to believe in God or absolutes, but rather that I do. I've chosen for myself to stop justifying my own wrong behavior. I can't worry about how other people will perceive me (bigot, homophobe, self-righteous). All I can do is put forth why I personally will not continue justifying it.

What I wrote does not justify adultery (meaning that a person has had sexual intercourse with another person he or she is not married to, despite prmoises made in the marriage ceremony or at any other time), not in our society nor in any other. It's merely an argument that under different circumstances (a different idea of what marriage is and includes) adultery (here simply meaning sex with an other person than the one you're married to, since there would be no promises not to do this included in the marriage ceremony. If they have been made at an other point the scenario become almost identical to what's the case in our society) would not be seen as wrong, the term might not even exist under such circumstances since it would just be sex, no more and no less.

Such an argument does not make adultery any more or less wrong or right, it merely shows that wrong and right here are defined by social norms and history.

That depends on how you phrase the questions, "do you agree with X, yes/no" is usually not a good way to go, though.

Well, I'm telling you that I believe 'X' is 'X'. It cannot be both 'X' and 'not X' at the same time.

Let me restate the form of the question in a somewhat clearer way.
"Do you agree with X? Answer 'Yes' or 'No'."
That's the form that I think should be avoided since it gives the matter of X an appearance of black or white that I have never really seen anywhere. No matter how hard I have looked.

I'll have to introduce the technical terms 'types' and 'tokens' at this point.
A type is a collective term that refers to one, well, type of action or thing.
A token is an individual occurence of a type.
For example: 'killing' is a type, tokens of this would be a robbery where the victim is shot or stabbed to death, the legally sanctioned execution of a convicted criminal, a soldier shooting an enemy soldier in a war, or a massacre of civilians by the military.

To continue: Even though individual occurrences (tokens) of any given type of action might have been condemned as unjustifiable the fact remains that there has always been some other token that has been justified, for me this is evidence (all right, circumstantial such) that 'right' and 'wrong' are not as clear as one might think.

[luns101]

Alright then, thank you for considering my points once again. It looks like the crux of this is that you think I'm avoiding a correct usage of the term absolute, which would invalidate the fallacy. At the same time, I think you're trying to dissect the word in order to avoid the fallacy of the statement. For me, I'm not willing to take the gamble with my soul that absolute values don't exist and that I won't be held accountable. Others here are obviously comfortable with taking that gamble.

[unriggable]

Sweet fucking jesus. Everything is a yes or no, 0 or a 1. Abso-fucking-lutely. Add a bunch of absolutes and you get a gray in-betweens you see that make you deny absolute in the first place.

[radiojake]

Wow, sending up the white flag so soon? You might have a better chance at debate if next time you leave out the name calling and stick to the substance of the topic at hand.


carry on....

What are you talking about?? In your last post before this you simply added some colour to my previous text and tried pointing out contradictions that weren't even there. I would say it seemed you put up the white flag because you had nothing substantial to add.

[jay_a2j]

Wow, sending up the white flag so soon? You might have a better chance at debate if next time you leave out the name calling and stick to the substance of the topic at hand.


carry on....

What are you talking about?? In your last post before this you simply added some colour to my previous text and tried pointing out contradictions that weren't even there. I would say it seemed you put up the white flag because you had nothing substantial to add.

I don't enjoy repeating myself. (although it probably would have been less time consuming then editing your post with colors and bold) You resorted to name calling when you had nothing to say. I documented your contradiction, which you ignored. If you don't see the contradiction that's not my problem, its yours...I pointed it out.

[joecoolfrog]

There are none so blind as those who will not see
Good news that Walmart have started selling Jesus dolls though,hopefully kids will now see him in his true light as being no different to Spiderman or the other cartoon heros.

[vtmarik]

There are none so blind as those who will not see
Good news that Walmart have started selling Jesus dolls though,hopefully kids will now see him in his true light as being no different to Spiderman or the other cartoon heros.

As in a person with qualities worth emulating, rather than a legacy worth corrupting?

[DangerBoy]

I'm paying attention, believe me. I just talked to a friend of mine who teaches mathematics at the local high school here, and she said that if she couldn't prove that 1 + 1 = 2 then she would be asked to resign her position.

The point I'm trying to make here is that there are absolutes within math and science. I do believe that these make up reality. I believe I actually exist. I believe you actually exist. I believe that we are actually having a discussion and that this is all really happening within the space/timecontinuum (sp?). How else could we validate our own reality if there were no absolutes. There are also absolute spiritual laws by the same reasoning.

Then I would very much like to see that proof.

[vtmarik]

Proof that 1+1=2

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/51551.html