(October 11, 2021 at 2:03 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Will you be dismantling moral realism, or no?

(October 11, 2021 at 1:04 pm)ayost Wrote:

(October 7, 2021 at 5:41 pm)ayost Wrote: I know that as time went on in later centuries the church and the state became intertwined in a way that was destructive for the church. And the Church (as in the big organization, not local believers) failed immensely to fulfill Christ's mission. No argument there.

However, the idea that the canon or the body of orthodox beliefs was just the result of political bickering is too simple. First, there's evidence that 22 of the 27 books of the NT were considered core writings by the mid second century. Second, early on as these texts were circulated there was no controlling body forcing people to only read certain things. The NT spread organically through multiple lines that couldn't be controlled. You couldn't suppress writings, they were very where and their transmission uncontrolled. Also, you aren't telling the whole story. Some doctrines survived and won out despite political victories by the opposition, like Arianism and Constantius II. I don't think accidental is a good description. I think there was much more happening than that.


Thank you, truly. And likewise.

---

(October 11, 2021 at 12:44 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Do I?  Strange.  It's a good thing you came along to tell me what I think.  I'd have never known otherwise.  

From your response above, you appear to understand perfectly well why your stated view is self referentially false.  You see thousands of years worth of explanations, and competing explanations.  It's almost as if people do have moral systems and explanations for their moral systems.  It's almost as if "because christ" isn't an answer to the question of why or whether it's wrong to curbstomp the neighbors kid..but fuck me if you could think of any reason besides that, eh?  Obviously, if you're that ignorant, then other people must also be.



Get your shit together.  Don't want people to treat you like a dumb asshole, stop putting in the work.

And what happens when one person's moral system collides with another person's moral system and we all start explaining our moral systems?

You act like people have never thought torture was "not wrong", or slavery, or genocide, or rape, or burning babies alive, or sacrificing children. Way worse things than curbstomping a kid have been considered "not wrong".

(October 11, 2021 at 1:21 pm)ayost Wrote:

(October 11, 2021 at 1:14 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Are you describing your moral system?  I thought you were a "because christ" guy, not a "because we evolved to do it" guy....?  We're omnivores...too, you don't see me running out to roast people on a spit.

The fuck is wrong with you?

I'm sorry, since I am so stupid and you are so smart I assumed that you would be able to tell when I was stepping into your worldview to say something. I'll talk slower and be more clear.

I'm telling you there is no agreed upon moral system among humans, as evidenced by the fact that you and I don't agree on morality.

(October 11, 2021 at 3:10 pm)ayost Wrote:

(October 11, 2021 at 2:03 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Will you be dismantling moral realism, or no?

Sure. Are the moral facts in moral realism objective?

(October 11, 2021 at 3:13 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(October 11, 2021 at 1:04 pm)ayost Wrote:

---

And what happens when one person's moral system collides with another person's moral system and we all start explaining our moral systems?

You act like people have never thought torture was "not wrong", or slavery, or genocide, or rape, or burning babies alive, or sacrificing children. Way worse things than curbstomping a kid have been considered "not wrong".

How does objective religious morality solve this problem?

(October 11, 2021 at 3:18 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(October 11, 2021 at 3:10 pm)ayost Wrote: Sure. Are the moral facts in moral realism objective?

That's the definition of the term.  So much for dismantling my world view as soon as I offer it.  Then again, you may have the same understanding of soon as christ.

(October 11, 2021 at 3:07 pm)brewer Wrote: No evidence, just belief, OK by me, time to move along @ayost. You've got nothing even remotely convincing.

(October 11, 2021 at 3:29 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: The same way that I know anything else is objective.  Moral realism isn't exactly a novel idea.  Not that it matters how I personally know.  What's the holdup?  There either are or there are not moral facts.  I came to see some dismantling.  My position is that there are - you gonna get around to telling me otherwise at some point?