(January 8, 2016 at 9:31 am)ChadWooters Wrote:

(January 7, 2016 at 10:32 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Morality is specific to the human species, and easily explainable by the science of evolution.

How would a uniquely human capacity for moral judgement exclude the possibility of an objective morality? The uniquely human capacity for reason presumably references real independent facts.

Having evolved behaviours and dispositions says nothing about the moral value of execising them.What am I missing?

Chad,

I would like to ask you a few personal questions: What, specifically, are your beliefs? Do you identify with theist or deist, or somewhere in the middle? Do you identify with a formal religion, and if so, which one? If you are Christian, how literally do you interpret the bible?

Obviously you don't have to answer any of these if you don't want to, but I think a debate between world views can only be a true debate if all parties are transparent and upfront about what, exactly, their views are.

Clearly, you are a very intelligent, well educated person. You must either hold an advanced degree in philosophy, or you have researched it independently because it is an area of interest and great importance to you. You describe your metaphysical position using philosophical language and theory at length, and eloquently. You explain your perspective of knowledge as the genus, and empirical science as the species (paraphrasing). The thing is, these arguments only go so far as to say: "there is more to this world than can be discovered by empirical science alone." You always fall short of actually saying what you believe in.

By poking out at other people's world views from a dark corner you become a moving target. It's not fair to shroud yourself in ambiguity while calling out ignorance left and right. How can you say, "your world view is wrong, and mine is right," without actually taking a stance anywhere on the spectrum? Are you afraid that if you admit to being Christian you will be held accountable for bridging that gap between the ambiguity of knowledge theory and the Christian God of the bible? Maybe it's my fault for never having asked you before.

The thing that gets me "riled up," is you REFUSE to admit to yourself that you can understand how philosophical theory in the absence of science might not be considered adequate evidence for a hard nosed atheist. Instead of just saying, "I can see how this might not be enough to convince you," you take an offensive position of, "well, if philosophy isn't enough to convince you, then I guess you just aren't educated enough in philosophy like I am. Go read Plato, and then, if you are as smart as me, you'll get it." That is unjustifiable arrogance on your part. Admit limitations in your argument where they exist, but for starters, be forthright about your faith! Oh, and demonstrate your spiritual knowledge. I am still waiting for someone to do that.

(January 9, 2016 at 11:39 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:  I am still waiting for someone to do that.

Yet, you didn't understand my argument (can't on making it like I was assuming a Creator is necessary while I was just using it as a placeholder to show something) and you stopped the conversation with me despite me telling you I have many more arguments. You said you were done and obviously didn't want to continue. So perhaps you are just waiting for people not to do that and then say there is no arguments. Or just misunderstand or deny arguments instead of understanding them which may lead you to accept them.

You didn't actually make an intelligible argument, I'm sorry. And I'm not even good at that kind of thing.

(January 9, 2016 at 12:15 am)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote:

(January 8, 2016 at 10:06 pm)popsthebuilder Wrote: I read the first paragraph. Maybe you're confused or something but the ancient Roman Catholic Church is responsible for all other sects and even partially responsible for Islam. Regardless of numerous attempts at varied times and levels, the Roman Catholic Church still managed to skew and lead most astray from true direction and faith in God.



Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

No, Pops, you're confused, and that's being kind because for justice I should presume you are dodging the ball.

The Catholic church was original xtianity, no shit! Read on, it's about actual history and the nature of sectarian violence. Also, stop pretending only Catholics are responsible for extreme injustice, torture, and insanely senseless executions of the innocent!

There is no religious organization worldwide in human history that has not had it's divisions or transgressions to some degree. No, religion cannot be forced out of existence, but it is our species lack of understanding or focus on the fact it is divisive makes it a poisonous concept to bridging gaps and management of or differences better.

All religions have multiple sects within the same umbrella label. Hindus and Muslims fight, Muslims and Muslims fight, Buddhists are also pitted against each other. Catholics and Protestants, black liberal baptists vs white GOP baptists. Sunnis vs Shiites. And not even atheist is a unifying label. You have Ayn Rand right wing economic atheists, gun worshiping atheists, and Che supporting atheists, and people like me in the middle, western pro business/but anti abuse anti pay gap, don't want all guns banned, but what we have now sucks, liberal socially but not politically correct.

And all that says to me is that we would do better as a species if more people would simply put the individual first and non violence first. We are still the same species.

Here we go again, Mystic.  It's not your fault that no one could grasp your brilliance...., it never is.  

Perhaps the issue is not that we don't understand, but that your "argument" is no such thing, and is in fact plainly inane for reasons that have been described to you, at length, numerous times.

(January 9, 2016 at 11:45 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: You didn't actually make an intelligible argument, I'm sorry.  And I'm not even good at that kind of thing.

There is these possibilities:

I don't understand your objection to it (why you don't accept it) while you are right, it's problematic.
I do understand it (and it's correct) but am being dishonest.
You don't understand that your objection is illogical.
You do understand why my argument is logical but are being dishonest.
There is more possibilities....

That said, whatever the case is. We can move on to more arguments. 

Why conclude there is no argument out there that can convince you?

On the subject of the nature of human morality, I came across this in Psychology Today. It's just one study obviously, but still interesting, to my pea brain anyway [emoji6]. I think much of our sense of right and wrong stems from a capacity for varying degrees of empathy.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the...ce-empathy

(January 9, 2016 at 11:52 am)MysticKnight Wrote:

(January 9, 2016 at 11:45 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: You didn't actually make an intelligible argument, I'm sorry.  And I'm not even good at that kind of thing.

There is these possibilities:

I don't understand your objection to it (why you don't accept it) while you are right, it's problematic.
I do understand it (and it's correct) but am being dishonest.
You don't understand that your objection is illogical.
You do understand why my argument is logical but are being dishonest.
There is more possibilities....

That said, whatever the case is. We can move on to more arguments. 

Why conclude there is no argument out there that can convince you?

:macks forehead:: I need another cup of coffee for this...

(January 9, 2016 at 11:52 am)MysticKnight Wrote:

(January 9, 2016 at 11:45 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: You didn't actually make an intelligible argument, I'm sorry.  And I'm not even good at that kind of thing.

There is these possibilities:

I don't understand your objection to it (why you don't accept it) while you are right, it's problematic.
I do understand it (and it's correct) but am being dishonest.
You don't understand that your objection is illogical.
You do understand why my argument is logical but are being dishonest.
There is more possibilities....

That said, whatever the case is. We can move on to more arguments. 

Why conclude there is no argument out there that can convince you?

Conveniently omitting the possibility that your "argument" is unintelligible, not problematic...unintelligible...I see.

(January 9, 2016 at 11:57 am)Rhythm Wrote:

(January 9, 2016 at 11:52 am)MysticKnight Wrote: There is these possibilities:

I don't understand your objection to it (why you don't accept it) while you are right, it's problematic.
I do understand it (and it's correct) but am being dishonest.
You don't understand that your objection is illogical.
You do understand why my argument is logical but are being dishonest.
There is more possibilities....

That said, whatever the case is. We can move on to more arguments. 

Why conclude there is no argument out there that can convince you?

Conveniently omitting the possibility that your "argument" is illogical, and that you just don't realize it..I see.

Honestly that is implied in the first possibility I mentioned. But another one of your demonstrations of your comprehension skills.