(September 4, 2018 at 9:06 am)robvalue Wrote: Even if there were moral facts, why would I care about them? Nothing happens if I don't follow them...I'm not going to do something just because it's a "moral fact"; nor will I not do something because it's "factually immoral".

This is the stupidest thing I've read in a long time. Nothing happens if you murder? Nothing happens if you molest children? Nothing happens if you rob a bank. Pleas, rob, do everyone a favor and go back to making innane videos.

(August 31, 2018 at 5:59 pm)Khemikal Wrote: The difference being social pressure and societal acceptance, not the nature of the belief.  The beliefs themselves aren't even advantageous - conformity in any belief can have the belief traded out for any other (and there are plenty).  None of these beliefs, meanwhile, has resisted change over time.  It's not true, for example, that the "best beliefs" - to use a quick term, are those that have been most successful at retaining members, because the beliefs aren't the same as they were even a decade prior.

The institutions, the apparatus of conformity, it's ability to service the religious economy (and it's changing needs)... is..again, the operative mechanism.

In another example of a delusion, however, the faithful think that it's -god- or the beliefs of the moment, themselves... doing all of that.  Yes, they've been indoctrinated, but what have they been indoctrinated into?  A delusional belief system.

The religion that is best at retaining members may be the one that adapts to change most readily. I wasn't talking about any 'best beliefs', but about entire religions. The supernatural beliefs themselves don't have any inherent advantage, but conforming to them may.

---

(September 4, 2018 at 1:04 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(September 4, 2018 at 9:06 am)robvalue Wrote: Even if there were moral facts, why would I care about them? Nothing happens if I don't follow them...I'm not going to do something just because it's a "moral fact"; nor will I not do something because it's "factually immoral".

This is the stupidest thing I've  read in a long time. Nothing happens if you murder? Nothing happens if you molest children? Nothing happens if you rob a bank. Pleas, rob, do everyone a favor and go back to making innane videos.

Appeal to moral facts or appeal to consequence...you don't know the difference?

(September 4, 2018 at 1:04 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: This is the stupidest thing I've  read in a long time. Nothing happens if you murder? Nothing happens if you molest children? Nothing happens if you rob a bank. Pleas, rob, do everyone a favor and go back to making innane videos.

Can you honestly say why it is that "murder" is wrong in your view?

(September 4, 2018 at 1:02 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote:

(September 4, 2018 at 12:58 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: And every time the Subjectivists wipe the floor with you . Your the worst defender of objective morality i have ever seen and every time the Secular Objectivists show your god magic is no basis for morality

Oh, I would happily accuse Neo of having an immoral dog. However, Neo carfully avoids specific claims in threads such as this simply because Neo is scared of having his notions challenged.

Oh yes he's very good at hiding his dodges and non answers in sophisticated sounding jargon .Strip that away thou and he's no better then your average fundie hick .

---

Quote:This is the stupidest thing I've  read in a long time. Nothing happens if you murder? Nothing happens if you molest children? Nothing happens if you rob a bank. Pleas, rob, do everyone a favor and go back to making innane videos.

No the stupidest thing is you thinking this stupid and Robs vids are then anything you could produce in 1000 years .

---

(September 4, 2018 at 12:58 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote:

(September 4, 2018 at 12:51 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: Wooter will just keep bombarding you with worthless question as smart as he imagines himself he's really just a apologist rhetoric machine mindlessly spewing talking feed to him by his puppet masters.

I know. But it amuses me that Neo is utterly unable to define anything. He/she/it cannot define their beliefs, the reasons for those beliefs, the reason that they accept them as true, why anyone else should accept them and so forth. The whole thing is a nonsense which devolves into "prove me wrong".

Well, prove me wrong about my garage dragon. Or the FSM, pasta be upon him. Samey, samey.

Yup he confuses his imagination with and argument

(September 4, 2018 at 11:18 am)Fake Messiah Wrote:

(September 4, 2018 at 10:58 am)MysticKnight Wrote: They claim they know exactly what God would or would not be, and then because of the design and situation we are, they use that to deny him. I will make a thread with ample evidence of this.

Actually nobody - not theists or atheists - knows how to define gods in the first place. What are they? The question could hardly be any simpler, but the answer is strangely elusive. Do you know? I'm not sure I do. People have been so enthralled with gods and religions for so long, many willing to kill and die for them, that this question ought to be considered among the most important of all, yet most people sail right by it and instead obsess over secondary issues such as which gods exist, how we should worship, which book gets it right, and how the gods mean for us to behave.

What makes a god? Are they all supernatural? Are they all immortal? Can all of them fly, or only some? Can they walk through walls? Can they read our thoughts? Do they know the future? Can a god have mental and physical frailties? Can a human become a god? Can a god become a human? What is it that makes someone or something a god in our eyes? What is a god?!

Like you, I find the concept of god so vague as to be useless in any way.

---

(September 4, 2018 at 1:04 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(September 4, 2018 at 9:06 am)robvalue Wrote: Even if there were moral facts, why would I care about them? Nothing happens if I don't follow them...I'm not going to do something just because it's a "moral fact"; nor will I not do something because it's "factually immoral".

This is the stupidest thing I've  read in a long time. Nothing happens if you murder? Nothing happens if you molest children? Nothing happens if you rob a bank. Pleas, rob, do everyone a favor and go back to making innane videos.

Bu if you follow the biblical morality you kill MORE people don't you. Biblical morality is worse than some psychopaths.

(September 4, 2018 at 8:33 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: nevertheless, there seems to be an overarching concept of human goodness that unites them all.

If by "unites them all" you mean only that the concept applies in all cases, perhaps there is. That is a hypothesis that could be checked.

(September 4, 2018 at 8:33 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: From there it is not too difficult to derive an overarching concept of goodness shared by both humans and non-human species. And from there it is not too difficult to conclude that there something like ‘The Good’ in which all good things participate and that this transcendent Good is real, in some ways perhaps more real than everyday reality.

No, the only claim to reality available to a concept is the accuracy with which it reflects the phenomenon to which it pertains. A concept isn't so much real in its own right as it is true. Perhaps you believe in a realm of Platonic archetypes whose ultimate reality exceeds the actual instances we find in the world. If you do we aren't using the words in the same way.

(September 4, 2018 at 8:33 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: This is by no means a clear-cut derivation but it was the conclusion made by Plato and adopted by many later pagan and Christian philosophers who call this God. They may indeed be mistaken. Most AF member seem to attribute the moral sense to some combination of animal instinct and social pragmatism. This is merely a difference of opinion between Plato. Plotinus, and Aquinas, among others and AF members. I see no justification for piling derision on people who hold opinions similar to some of the greatest thinkers of the past.

Some of the greatest, mistaken thinkers of the past perhaps.

In Wooters worldview goodness exists in magic fairyland

"Goodness" must have another definition then.  His god seems like a cunt.

He used to be, when he wrote that book. He's reformed. His objective morality is much better now.

(September 4, 2018 at 9:06 am)robvalue Wrote: Even if there were moral facts, why would I care about them? Nothing happens if I don't follow them (except God keeping score possibly, which I don't care about).

I'm not going to do something just because it's a "moral fact"; nor will I not do something because it's "factually immoral". I decide for myself what is moral, based on my judgement of real consequences, and the values I hold.

Just as you would do if you were persuaded there were moral facts and that a particular expert endorsed what you hope are the right ones. No way around it.

(September 4, 2018 at 9:06 am)robvalue Wrote: Only a psycopath would need to be told what to think is moral or not. Everyone else has the ability to decide for themselves.

Well, everyone may not have the same ability to decide but everyone has the same imperative to make a decision. Those unwilling to step up to that responsibility make the best tools for tyrants.

(September 4, 2018 at 9:06 am)robvalue Wrote: Moral facts implies factual values, and that's just a contradiction. You can use god's values, or some clever guy's values, or your hero's values, but ultimately you're making a choice to use that set of values. Why should I give a shit what God values? It's still his opinion at the end of the day.

I suppose at the end of the day we are all influenced by various experiences and sources. If reading the bible or Aquinas or Confucius helps someone to focus their ideas regarding morality that doesn't do any harm. But if they conceive themselves to be heeling to divine orders their humanity is diminished and they will become a tool for somebody.