(December 7, 2017 at 1:30 pm)Jehanne Wrote: The Catholic Church used to teach that aborted fetuses were consigned to the Limbo of the Children.  The Church has changed its (her) mind on that one.

They still do. When the rcc is confronted by the fact that a dogma is losing it believers, instead of dropping it it simply stops teaching it. This is because of papal infallibility making catlick dogma extremely inflexible.

Quote:Jehanne, father of 5, supposed lover of science, says there is no difference between sperm and an unborn child!

CL a member of a religion that boasted for 800 years that there was no such distinction . And still hold unscientific , Irrational and harmful positions on abortion!

---

Quote:Let me go find a 3 hour YouTube video on the subject to clear it all up!

Indeed maybe the theists will actually take the time to watch it before posting a link to a shitty  apologetics  blog that supposedly refutes it .(and does not ) before proclaiming that it's"good stuff" .

---

Quote:Let me go find a 3 hour YouTube video on the subject to clear it all up!

Your right wally like apologists your attention span is short. Maybe Khem should put it in term you and your theist cohorts can handle . Maybe a colouring book .

(December 8, 2017 at 9:39 pm)Wololo Wrote:

(December 7, 2017 at 1:30 pm)Jehanne Wrote: The Catholic Church used to teach that aborted fetuses were consigned to the Limbo of the Children.  The Church has changed its (her) mind on that one.

They still do. When the rcc is confronted by the fact that a dogma is losing it believers, instead of dropping it it simply stops teaching it. This is because of papal infallibility making catlick dogma extremely inflexible.

It's not in the latest Catechism (2nd edition, by the way), but that's slated for a revision here soon (next century?), with Francis' new "dogma" of the divorced and civilly remarried receiving the "Blessed Sacrament".

(December 8, 2017 at 12:02 pm)wallym Wrote: 1)  I understand you weren't directing it at me.  But you and I were the ones exchanging posts.  So it's a bit of a non-sequitur to address christian beliefs again, in a discussion you and I are having that has nothing to do with christian beliefs. Talking about christians, for the most part, isn't that exciting.

I'm not fussed about Christians either. But I do think their views are relevant enough to point out as absurd in a discussion about Christian (and other theist) views (go reread your OP). And I have to keep pointing this out because everytime you "open your mouth" about morality, theists are all too happy to support what you have to say, not having understand anything about what other atheists have been telling them about how God is not needed for morality to be objective.

Quote:But here we have atheism, where we've got all these different opinions on how people should live their lives and there's substantial disagreements on the nature of a godless world, and you're still hung up on the God stuff.  You're an atheist. You've made the call on their pitch. It's time to move on. Don't be one of these losers who just follows around the 5 theists and says "Nuh-uh" after every post, and that's the extent of their philosophical endeavors.

Ok, great. We can have a discussion, you and I, on what morality should be like when you are ready to go beyond what your intuition as a self-admitted sociopath says about morality. And for this, you need to start a bit of heavy reading on philosophical matters to do with morality and ethics. Now this doesn't mean I will stop responding to what Christians continue to argue, especially if I do think it's utterly wrong what they're saying. And I have attempted some serious responses to them, brief as they may be, to which they don't even respond to and just move on only to repeat their fallacies at a later time.

Quote:2) The thing with objectivity, is that it's premises also have to be objective.  An objective conclusion based on a subjective premise is subjective.  That's where people are going to try and slip one by you.

Like others have said, I don't think you understand what objective vs. subjective means. I don't even know what you mean by "subjective premise". That we have the ability to come up with a system to determine and assess the moral rightness and wrongness of acts means that it is possible for morality to be objective without the need for a upper being like God. Even if it were the case that we've yet to come up with an adequate system, or even if all the systems proposed have problems, this doesn't change the fact that objective [godless] morality is possible. In fact, any system that requires God to be the ground for morality is going to end up with lots of problems because no set of criteria that are backed by God is accessible to us, and it's not needed anyway (Occam's razor and all).

Anyway, it's ok to not be well-read on everything in philosophy. I admit my ignorance when it comes to ethics, so the best route for me would be to do some relevant reading and thinking in light of the new stuff learnt. I suggest the same for you and for the theist members here (e.g., Steve and C_L) who clearly have not read anything outside of apologetic materials with regards to morality.

(December 9, 2017 at 12:10 am)Grandizer Wrote:

---

(December 8, 2017 at 12:02 pm)wallym Wrote: 1)  I understand you weren't directing it at me.  But you and I were the ones exchanging posts.  So it's a bit of a non-sequitur to address christian beliefs again, in a discussion you and I are having that has nothing to do with christian beliefs. Talking about christians, for the most part, isn't that exciting.

I'm not fussed about Christians either. But I do think their views are relevant enough to point out as absurd in a discussion about Christian (and other theist) views (go reread your OP). And I have to keep pointing this out because everytime you "open your mouth" about morality, theists are all too happy to support what you have to say, not having understand anything about what other atheists have been telling them about how God is not needed for morality to be objective.

Quote:But here we have atheism, where we've got all these different opinions on how people should live their lives and there's substantial disagreements on the nature of a godless world, and you're still hung up on the God stuff.  You're an atheist. You've made the call on their pitch. It's time to move on. Don't be one of these losers who just follows around the 5 theists and says "Nuh-uh" after every post, and that's the extent of their philosophical endeavors.

Ok, great. We can have a discussion, you and I, on what morality should be like when you are ready to go beyond what your intuition as a self-admitted sociopath says about morality. And for this, you need to start a bit of heavy reading on philosophical matters to do with morality and ethics. Now this doesn't mean I will stop responding to what Christians continue to argue, especially if I do think it's utterly wrong what they're saying. And I have attempted some serious responses to them, brief as they may be, to which they don't even respond to and just move on only to repeat their fallacies at a later time.

Quote:2) The thing with objectivity, is that it's premises also have to be objective.  An objective conclusion based on a subjective premise is subjective.  That's where people are going to try and slip one by you.

---

Like others have said, I don't think you understand what objective vs. subjective means. I don't even know what you mean by "subjective premise". That we have the ability to come up with a system to determine and assess the moral rightness and wrongness of acts means that it is possible for morality to be objective without the need for a upper being like God. Even if it were the case that we've yet to come up with an adequate system, or even if all the systems proposed have problems, this doesn't change the fact that objective [godless] morality is possible. In fact, any system that requires God to be the ground for morality is going to end up with lots of problems because no set of criteria that are backed by God is accessible to us, and it's not needed anyway (Occam's razor and all).

Anyway, it's ok to not be well-read on everything in philosophy. I admit my ignorance when it comes to ethics, so the best route for me would be to do some relevant reading and thinking in light of the new stuff learnt. I suggest the same for you and for the theist members here (e.g., Steve and C_L) who clearly have not read anything outside of apologetic materials with regards to morality.

This is kind of funny, because the second part I highlighted, shows that you do not understand what subjective and objective mean in regards to the moral argument for God.  It doesn't have anything to do with it being accessible to us, ones knowledge of it, or speaking objectively about it.  It is about the nature of morality, and what is the basis for calling anything right or wrong.  An objective morality, is what gives one any real rights (that I have heard tossed around here a lot lately).  It why you can talk about rights and morals outside of the individual or the social grouping, at all, and that they may be correct or incorrect in doing so.  So despite your confidence, you are only demonstrating your ignorance.

(December 8, 2017 at 8:02 am)Jehanne Wrote:

(December 8, 2017 at 2:09 am)Tizheruk Wrote: 1. Moses did not write  Genesis

2. Guessing a number of stars is not impressive 

3. Nope the ancients could observe  way more then 600 stars .

There are at least 10^24 stars in the Cosmos and around 100 * 10^9 human beings have lived since the first homo sapiens sapiens evolved.

But only 6000 of them are visible to the human eye, remember we were discussing a time when man had no way other than their eyes to observe the night sky.

GC

(December 9, 2017 at 1:03 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(December 9, 2017 at 12:10 am)Grandizer Wrote:

---

I'm not fussed about Christians either. But I do think their views are relevant enough to point out as absurd in a discussion about Christian (and other theist) views (go reread your OP). And I have to keep pointing this out because everytime you "open your mouth" about morality, theists are all too happy to support what you have to say, not having understand anything about what other atheists have been telling them about how God is not needed for morality to be objective.


Ok, great. We can have a discussion, you and I, on what morality should be like when you are ready to go beyond what your intuition as a self-admitted sociopath says about morality. And for this, you need to start a bit of heavy reading on philosophical matters to do with morality and ethics. Now this doesn't mean I will stop responding to what Christians continue to argue, especially if I do think it's utterly wrong what they're saying. And I have attempted some serious responses to them, brief as they may be, to which they don't even respond to and just move on only to repeat their fallacies at a later time.

---

Like others have said, I don't think you understand what objective vs. subjective means. I don't even know what you mean by "subjective premise". That we have the ability to come up with a system to determine and assess the moral rightness and wrongness of acts means that it is possible for morality to be objective without the need for a upper being like God. Even if it were the case that we've yet to come up with an adequate system, or even if all the systems proposed have problems, this doesn't change the fact that objective [godless] morality is possible. In fact, any system that requires God to be the ground for morality is going to end up with lots of problems because no set of criteria that are backed by God is accessible to us, and it's not needed anyway (Occam's razor and all).

Anyway, it's ok to not be well-read on everything in philosophy. I admit my ignorance when it comes to ethics, so the best route for me would be to do some relevant reading and thinking in light of the new stuff learnt. I suggest the same for you and for the theist members here (e.g., Steve and C_L) who clearly have not read anything outside of apologetic materials with regards to morality.

This is kind of funny, because the second part I highlighted, shows that you do not understand what subjective and objective mean in regards to the moral argument for God.  It doesn't have anything to do with it being accessible to us, ones knowledge of it, or speaking objectively about it.  It is about the nature of morality, and what is the basis for calling anything right or wrong.  An objective morality, is what gives one any real rights (that I have heard tossed around here a lot lately).  It why you can talk about rights and morals outside of the individual or the social grouping, at all, and that they may be correct or incorrect in doing so.  So despite your confidence, you are only demonstrating your ignorance.

Uh, thats you strawmanning me by committing a non sequitur. Not my problem if you cant read.

Quote:But only 6000 of them are visible to the human eye, remember we were discussing a time when man had no way other than their eyes to observe the night sky

False . And even if it were not the passage your trying to hoc is not impressive.

(December 8, 2017 at 10:17 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(December 8, 2017 at 9:39 pm)Wololo Wrote: They still do. When the rcc is confronted by the fact that a dogma is losing it believers, instead of dropping it it simply stops teaching it. This is because of papal infallibility making catlick dogma extremely inflexible.

It's not in the latest Catechism (2nd edition, by the way), but that's slated for a revision here soon (next century?), with Francis' new "dogma" of the divorced and civilly remarried receiving the "Blessed Sacrament".

It's almost like they are just making shit up as they go along.  Go figure.

(December 8, 2017 at 7:46 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

Quote:I am arguing epistemology. If a moral system can produce ambiguity as described above and then leaves it to people to insert their biases caused by feelings/ideas/opinions to make up the balance of the consideration as to a moral question, then that is simply not an objective system. It may produce objective results in most cases, but it is not an objective system. 

Something isn't any less objective just because subjective agents are capable of finding a place to insert their subjectivity.  I've been trying to explain this to you for some time now.  Nor would an objective system always provide full or complete answers to any question.  It could only provide as much as there were relevant facts available...and if relevant facts are missing..well..that's that.   

I understand your position. Your moral system produces some level of objective morality on most questions because most questions have some objectively knowable fact of the matter. 

Quote:Moral realism isn't a magic bullet that provides a curt answer to every moral question with no ambiguity, absolutely and in every scenario regardless of circumstance - it can;t while simultaneously satisfying the defining criteria of an objective moral system.  Though, in the case of abortion, at least in my assessment, there is no ambiguity.  All relevant facts considered, it would be morally and legally abhorrent to sentence women to childbirth.  Full stop.

Setting aside that you use pejorative language to make you position appear stronger, you are completely wrong there is no ambiguity--even under your system. At the most, you have explicitly denied any rights or value to the child and at the least you have given preference to the mothers desires over the rights or value of the child. This is totally subjective.

---

(December 8, 2017 at 7:59 pm)Khemikal Wrote: I do understand, btw, Steve, that you think that killing a fetus is morally abhorrent...but you're not killing them, nor are you complicit in killing them..and all that will or can be achieved by you (or I) sticking our noses in business that is emphatically not ours..is to make the whole situation shittier.

Tell me, as a moral realist..what's worse.  A shitty situation..or one which, by your own actions..you've made even shittier?

You are literally saying that this issue is entirely subjective. Thank you.