(February 1, 2019 at 11:39 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: Your mistaken appraisal of your objections ability to call moral realism into question demonstrates that you cannot possibly comment on it's being contradictory, incoherent, or delusional.

I know, it was an embarrassing defeat for you. You got slapped in the face with a dominos pizza, lol. I get it, you’re trying to save face, but you’re just making it worse for yourself.

You ruined objectivism for all your buddies here, that they’re left trying to defend emotivism instead.

Demonstrating, for the umpteenth time..that you cannot possibly comment on moral realism being contradictory, incoherent, or delusional.

The folks here run the gamut of positions on the issue. Some are realists, some are subjectivists, some are relativists, some are emotivists, some are nihilists. They advocate for their own positions without any need of reference to mine. Most...have disagreed with me on this issue in any given thread on the issue. It seems as if there's literally nothing about this issue on which you can cogently comment.

(February 1, 2019 at 12:05 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: Demonstrating, for the umpteenth time..that you cannot possibly comment on moral realism being contradictory, incoherent, or delusional.

Why not? Which component of you moral realism have I failed to understand? Referents? The material properties of acts you call bad? The Mental designations? Etc...?

Have I used any of these elements inappropriately when taking about dominos pizza? If so, how so?

Quote:The folks here run the gamut of positions on the issue. Some are realists, some are subjectivists, some are relativists, some are emotivists, some are nihilists. They advocate for their own positions without any need of reference to mine. Most...have disagreed with me on this issue in any given thread on the issue. It seems as if there's literally nothing about this issue on which you can cogently comment.

And why do you think they disagree with you? Because they fail to understand your position accurately? Out of ignorance? Because you failed to properly articulate and defend it?

That you keep asking questions of moral realism demonstrates that you lack the relevant subject knowledge to comment on it's being contradictory, incoherent, or delusional.

Do you understand? You would actually have to know what you were talking about. You don't.

---

(February 1, 2019 at 1:22 pm)Acrobat Wrote: And why do you think they disagree with you?

I have an opinion on that, actually.  If it weren't for religion, and how effectively the realist well was poisoned by other-than-realist superstition inaccurately claimed to be moral realism, it would be less of an uphill conversation.

(January 31, 2019 at 7:35 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

(January 31, 2019 at 7:26 pm)Dr H Wrote: Actually I was thinking of direct brain stimulation of those parts of the brain which are active when you do perceive a cup that is actually there.  This could be done electrically, with certain drugs, and possibly magnetically.

And, of course, there's hypnosis and other forms of suggestion.

Optical illusion was not at the top of my list.

Sure, like a brain in vat scenario, or us living in the matrix.

No, more like the way your brain actually works.
Through electrochemical processes.

Your brain can't tell the difference between you seeing a cup sitting on a table,
and me stimulating the same parts of your brain, in the same way, with electrodes
to make your brain think it's seeing a cup sitting on a table.

Quote:If they were true would cast doubt all of perceptions and experiences. But absent of any defeater, like some compelling factor to make me think im a brain in vat, I have no reasons to doubt my sense experiences.

All perceptions are doubtful.
All experiences are subject to interpretation.

Welcome to Real Life™.

if it wasn't for religion (Christianity) None of us that live in a western society would even be here.

For the people that grew up in a Christian family I can understand their hate towards religion.
I was the same about 12 years ago when I was an atheist. I was bitter, i felt betrayed. I was an anti theist but i never evoked debates with religious people.

I was able to look past and beyond the Christain claims to search for truth. Addressing a religious claim only hindered my search for knowledge.
So I stopped appealing to theist claims and started to think for myself. And so as i concluded that there is a posibility of some kind of creator and became agnostic.

The people that weren't bought up in a religious family have absolutely nothing to be angry at.
There cries of victimhood and oppression is a typical millenial trait along with the shaming and intolerance.
Christianity doesn't affect the people who choose not to be involved in it today. So the criticisms and anger from these people are without foundation.
Religion never disadvantage these people who never believed in God anyway.

Thats one part of modern atheism i dislike. The attack on religion. Unprovoked from what i can see. And without a sucessful example to replace religion.

Or, maybe, watching religion dick people over is troubling for anyone with functional empathy? Replace it? That's like asking what I would replace cancer with. Nothing screwball, lol.

(February 1, 2019 at 1:35 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: That you keep asking questions of moral realism demonstrates that you lack the relevant subject knowledge to comment on it's being contradictory, incoherent, or delusional.

Do you understand? You would actually have to know what you were talking about.  You don't.

---

(February 1, 2019 at 1:22 pm)Acrobat Wrote: And why do you think they disagree with you?

@Gae Bolga

I have an opinion on that, actually.  If it weren't for religion, and how effectively the realist well was poisoned by other-than-realist superstition inaccurately claimed to be moral realism, it would be less of an uphill conversation.

It we really hard to refrain from sorting out what's his name but, as usual have done it for me, and far more succinctly.



I have two questions;

 I've read quite a few of your posts. We usually seem to be simpatico. I seem to have missed something. Where exactly have all these other people disagreed with you?.
Quite a list of isms. I agree with the one  I understand. Eg relativism, nihilism, err, that's about it, I don't understand 'moral realism, especially from a theist. I've always thought such people believe in moral absolutism.
Me?  Moral relativist, a bit nihilistic, cynic, realist, skeptic and misanthrope.-----that's today, I haven't had my coffee an I'm cranky.
I'd be me have a simple explanation of; emotional realism , subjectivism and emotivism. I suspect the last two are about personal perception and emotional perception (?) but really don't know.
Cheers

(February 22, 2019 at 7:26 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: Or, maybe, watching religion dick people over is troubling for anyone with functional empathy?  Replace it?  That's like asking what I would replace cancer with.  Nothing screwball, lol.

Ye but ur just a hypocrite who only disagrees with everything and makes false accusations when ur unable to respond.
Ur beef is with theologians, not me. So unless u start being reasonable im not taking u seriously...

Interesting how u decide to replace the law, founded on christianity with nothing... Great forward thinker you are... LoL
Anyway

You
Your

You don't have a character limit here, it's not Twitter nor sms.

---

The law is only founded in Christianity because, for a very long time, Christianity had the power to impose itself as the law of the land... And some of those laws are basic common sense anyway.