(May 9, 2017 at 2:45 pm)Aroura Wrote:

(May 9, 2017 at 2:23 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Exactly right. I want you to come out clearly and say that the evil of the Holocaust is not a moral fact. If someone has to explain to you why it was wrong then you wouldn't understand anyway.

---

The evil of the Holocaust is not a moral fact.  It is a moral opinion held by myself, and most people. 
There are plenty of people who hold a different opinion of the Holocaust.  
Do you deny that the people with a difference of opinion on this topic exist?

(p.s.  Just because you cannot fathom why a person holds a certain moral opinion does not make your position fact.  I cannot understand how anyone views the holocaust as anything but a monstrosity, yet they do.)

---

Oh, and I have a perfect "for instance".  For instance, I would call a creator drowning all but a handful of his sentient creations (genocide) pretty clearly Evil.
I'm willing to bet you will dispute that God's act, in this instance, is evil, even though it seems pretty obvious to me!  That's because it's an opinion, not a fact.

I would also call the Levites killing 3000 people, and keeping the virgins alive for sexual indenture is also a pretty fucking heinous moral crime.  And yet I'm willing to bet you would defend this also.

And countless other similar examples.  What seems morally reprehensible to one person is defended by another person, who does not have to be morally reprehensible themselves to defend it.

I always love the holocaust example . For the fact it is the greatest example in my opinion to the fault of holding morality as an objective moral fact predicated on authority . To the Nazi's killing the Jews was not just an opinion. It was an OBJECTIVE moral fact that Jews were evil and degenerate. And that all other groups and cultures were inferior to the Aryans and that the killing our breeding them out was objectively good. And doing differently was morally abhorrent . The problem with groups like the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany was not that they rejected religion. (they didn't ) But that they took all the worst elements of religious morality.

(May 9, 2017 at 2:23 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(May 9, 2017 at 2:11 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Sure, physicalism posits a mind which exists in a world of its own making.  This 'intentionality' that you speak of can be of things that are entirely fictions of the mind.  Even without physicalism, we know that not everything thought up by the mind exists as a real world thing.

You just cut off the branch on which you were sitting. Since everything in the mind is of its own making, then any connection to something real is entirely fortuitous.

In deed it is! Let us give thanks for having evolved in such a way as to successfully link our sensory/cognitive array to something real. Good old evolution!

(May 9, 2017 at 4:21 pm)Whateverist Wrote:

(May 9, 2017 at 2:23 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: You just cut off the branch on which you were sitting. Since everything in the mind is of its own making, then any connection to something real is entirely fortuitous.

In deed it is! Thank goodness  for having evolved in such a way as to successfully link our sensory/cognitive array to something real.  Good old evolution!

Indeed natural selection produced a flawed but good brain with a good general picture of the environment we live in . And reasonable sensory apparatus despite it's limits.

(May 9, 2017 at 4:30 pm)Orochi Wrote:

(May 9, 2017 at 4:21 pm)Whateverist Wrote: In deed it is! Thank goodness  for having evolved in such a way as to successfully link our sensory/cognitive array to something real.  Good old evolution!

Indeed natural selection produced a flawed but good brain with a good general picture of the environment we live in . And reasonable sensory apparatus despite it's limits.

Remember back to when we could barely detect light at all?  Swimming randomly around in the ocean, coming up t0o high and getting picked off or too low and finding nothing to eat.  Those were truly the bad old days.  Once we could detect light though, oh boy.  Moving toward it or away from it worked like a charm.

(May 9, 2017 at 4:21 pm)Whateverist Wrote:

(May 9, 2017 at 2:23 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: You just cut off the branch on which you were sitting. Since everything in the mind is of its own making, then any connection to something real is entirely fortuitous.

In deed it is!  Let us give thanks for having evolved in such a way as to successfully link our sensory/cognitive array to something real.  Good old evolution!

But you know theists if it's not sprinkled with divine fairy dust it has to be "Random Chance" or "Can't be relied on" It's has to be top down (As if the insures the above ) never down up .

---

(May 9, 2017 at 4:34 pm)Whateverist Wrote:

(May 9, 2017 at 4:30 pm)Orochi Wrote: Indeed natural selection produced a flawed but good brain with a good general picture of the environment we live in . And reasonable sensory apparatus despite it's limits.

Remember back to when we could barely detect light at all?  Swimming randomly around in the ocean, coming up t0o high and getting picked off or too low and finding nothing to eat.  Those were truly the bad old days.  Once we could detect light though, oh boy.  Moving toward it or away from it worked like a charm.

Yeah good times . Well for us for all those who died it kind of sucked.

Some times it does feel like they're arguing for more than it's being okay for adults to have special, non-rational beliefs.

---

(May 9, 2017 at 4:35 pm)Orochi Wrote:

(May 9, 2017 at 4:21 pm)Whateverist Wrote: Remember back to when we could barely detect light at all?  Swimming randomly around in the ocean, coming up t0o high and getting picked off or too low and finding nothing to eat.  Those were truly the bad old days.  Once we could detect light though, oh boy.  Moving toward it or away from it worked like a charm.

Yeah good times . Well for us for all those who died it kind of sucked.

Their's was a lesser god. They prayed but didn't have our connections.

(May 9, 2017 at 4:30 pm)Orochi Wrote:

(May 9, 2017 at 4:21 pm)Whateverist Wrote: In deed it is! Thank goodness  for having evolved in such a way as to successfully link our sensory/cognitive array to something real.  Good old evolution!

Indeed natural selection produced a flawed but good brain with a good general picture of the environment we live in . And reasonable sensory apparatus despite it's limits.

Gee, where did all the skepticism go?

(May 9, 2017 at 4:44 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(May 9, 2017 at 4:30 pm)Orochi Wrote: Indeed natural selection produced a flawed but good brain with a good general picture of the environment we live in . And reasonable sensory apparatus despite it's limits.

Gee, where did all the skepticism go?

Elementary, my dear Watson.  We're deducing from the given back to a plausible stepping stone.  Could be wrong, but at least we're not colluding on anything nutty.

(May 9, 2017 at 2:23 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(May 9, 2017 at 2:11 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: All you've done is double-down on your original assertion and attempted to shift the burden of proof.  What you haven't done is give a reason why moral opinions are evidence of moral facts.  

Exactly right. I want you to come out clearly and say that the evil of the Holocaust is not a moral fact. If someone has to explain to you why it was wrong then you wouldn't understand anyway.

You're fucking hysterical. If there are moral facts, they exist only in as much as they are a reflection of a shared, evolved psychology. As such, I don't believe there are any absolute moral facts, including whether the holocaust was evil. Moral truth is relative, the appropriate level of context being that of the species. A lion cares not one whit that humans were killed during the holocaust. Your appeal to emotion with the "wouldn't understand [it] anyway" remark is noted and ignored. You're simply begging off on providing an explanation because you, yourself, are incapable of providing an explanation for your noncognitive grunts and groans. All you've managed to say is, "The holocaust -- boo!" You haven't given any kind of explanation for moral facts whatsoever, and thus your assertion that the revulsion toward the holocaust is evidence of a moral fact is nothing but a lot of posturing to avoid having to face the failure of your worldview to account for morality as something other than magic.

(May 9, 2017 at 2:23 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(May 9, 2017 at 2:11 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Sure, physicalism posits a mind which exists in a world of its own making.  This 'intentionality' that you speak of can be of things that are entirely fictions of the mind.  Even without physicalism, we know that not everything thought up by the mind exists as a real world thing.

You just cut off the branch on which you were sitting. Since everything in the mind is of its own making, then any connection to something real is entirely fortuitous.

That doesn't even remotely follow. Any connection between something real and our mind's contents is a result of selective pressures upon the evolution of the brain. Only under your theory of the mind is the connection between reality and the contents of the mind fortuitous, literally. You call it God. It's nothing more than explaining the resemblance between mind and reality as something that "just happened"; it's magic, according to you. Pot, meet kettle.

(May 9, 2017 at 2:23 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(May 9, 2017 at 2:11 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Care to disprove physicalism?

I don't need to. It's mere assertion.

So I'm expected to accept whole hog your metaphysical gobbledy gook about moral facts, but you don't need to do squat. Nice double standard you've got there.

(May 9, 2017 at 4:46 pm)Whateverist Wrote:

(May 9, 2017 at 4:44 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Gee, where did all the skepticism go?

Elementary, my dear Watson.  We're deducing from the given back to a plausible stepping stone.  Could be wrong, but at least we're not colluding on anything nutty.

Neo clearly can't read note all the caveats I put in my wording "THAT IS SKEPTICISM " As opposed to his screeching "god done it because of feels"

---

Quote:I don't need to. It's mere assertion.

Nope it's a conclusion based on persistent observation.  Mere assertion is your metaphysical jerking off founded on a dusty book .