Originally posted by CanadaguyThere is a contradiction there. You say you don't know if there is a right or wrong but later are prepared to accept something as right if it is put to you in a "thoughtful and complete manner". Without getting into a debate on religion I'll give an example. Fred says there is a god, Dred says there is no god. One of these two is right and one is wrong. Quite clearly there is right and wrong. Right?
I don't know if there is a right or wrong. If they're right and they express there ideas in a thoughtful and complete manner which can be back up then I'll have to contemplate these ideas and see if there is any problems which they have not addressed. If these problems are easily explained I'll have to contemplate the matter further before adjusting ...[text shortened]... my ideas and proclaiming that they are indeed right and I was operating under false information.
Originally posted by Wajomacould be, but I'll never know unless I die. Maybe I should have said I'd be willing to alter my position on the topic, and then try to create a position that merges all ideas. Is that better? I know sometimes my thoughts get lost in translation.
There is a contradiction there. You say you don't know if there is a right or wrong but later are prepared to accept something as right if it is put to you in a "thoughtful and complete manner". Without getting into a debate on religion I'll give an example. Fred says there is a god, Dred says there is no god. One of these two is right and one is wrong. Quite clearly there is right and wrong. Right?