(June 17, 2023 at 12:10 pm)R-Farmer Wrote:

(June 16, 2023 at 6:22 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Is there some objection you have to harm based objectivism?

Only that there are no examples of it. As there is not one point of morality in all of human culture or in human history that has not had it's morality status changed. If Moral objectivity was a valid concept then wouldn't there be at let one example of it? Doesn't the very definition of the phrase indicate that there is an intrinsic moral value that does not change? If so please provide an example of this objective moral value that remains constant while society changes around it.

Come now, that’s -obviously- untrue. If you had no other example of harm based objectivism I’m still right here, telling you that I prefer harm based objectivism.

Cutting all the way to the chase…if that’s not what god is doing then Idc what amoral pronouncements it makes. If that’s what god is doing…well…why the fuck are you still arguing with me in the first place?

(June 17, 2023 at 3:07 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: Restating the same apologetics over and over isn't a new thing here.

There are no awards for talking the most.

I agree restating the same old apologetics isn't new.. That's why I brought several different apologetics to the table. 

We talked about sin being like a virus rather than point of morality, how all morality is relative, even objective morality. My position on the ark may not have originated here in this thread but it seemed new enough to thrown a few of you for a loop. because like the other two previous examples once all the low hanging fruit, like how did the eggs show up, or how where they incubated or did mrs Noah breast feed all the animals were in fact plausibly answered that subject was seemingly dropped rather quickly. In fact outside of these low hanging fruit questions the subject was either dropped or attacks on me or my cognitive abilities began. 

So while I agree volume of content does not nor should not win any prizes, I am in fact bringing content that is at least different enough, that the typical stock answers you guys are use to providing do apply to what I have said here. Not only that I have demonstrated that I can plausibly defend these apologetics to the point that the counterpoint side of the conversation degrades into a ad hom attacks against me personally. (this is seemingly the hallmark of an atheist concession of a subject matter. IE can't attack/address the subject any more so try and kill the messenger.)

 Which is seemingly where we are now, and what brings me to my final point. I understand I am on your home turf and as a gesture of good will I will allow you guys the last word once the topical relevant portion of the discussion has concluded. Now don't misunderstand. I'm not going to tuck tail and run just because you call me mean names during the discussion. What I am saying/offering is if and when you guys completely stop talking about the subject matter and only say obscene or nasty things about me personally I will not respond to those things. At this point feel free to claim your victory.

For example the two posts above this one were just 100% ad hom attacks. I will not be directly addressing those. If they wish either poster can claim they 'won.'

All colors are red, even green?

Just fyi..we do get this stuff all the time. None of it is new to us - as I explained..I have this exact conversation pretty often. Ask around, most of these guys are bored of me typing shit like "statements that purport to report facts"..especially when I could be making wicked dick jokes and posting puppy pics.

(June 17, 2023 at 3:14 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(June 17, 2023 at 12:10 pm)R-Farmer Wrote: Only that there are no examples of it. As there is not one point of morality in all of human culture or in human history that has not had it's morality status changed. If Moral objectivity was a valid concept then wouldn't there be at let one example of it? Doesn't the very definition of the phrase indicate that there is an intrinsic moral value that does not change? If so please provide an example of this objective moral value that remains constant while society changes around it.

Come now, that’s -obviously- untrue.  If you had no other example of harm based objectivism I’m still right here, telling you that I prefer harm based objectivism.

Cutting all the way to the chase…if that’s not what god is doing then Idc what amoral pronouncements it makes.  If that’s what god is doing…well…why the fuck are you still arguing with me in the first place?

This isn't even universally accepted in the world today.

as several countries and cultures embrace 'harm based discipline/punishment' as being good for the over health of society. In fact the majority of the world embraces harm based 'discipline' with children and with adults.

(June 19, 2023 at 9:08 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: All colors are red, even green?

Just fyi..we do get this stuff all the time.  None of it is new to us - as I explained..I have this exact conversation pretty often.  Ask around, most of these guys are bored of me typing shit like "statements that purport to report facts"..especially when I could be making wicked dick jokes and posting puppy pics.

I'm sorry I should have been more clear. I am not speaking about everyone here when I say or simply refer to 'you guys.' You for instance, are very well versed with your arguments, and it seems you are in fact experienced with the subject matters at hand. I was referring to the guys who have abandoned the subject of discussion completely and started name calling. You have not done that . I value your efforts in maintaining this topic. which is why I will do what I can to stay on subject so long as you care to respond.

@R-Farmer I am in awe of the fact that you think you brought new arguments to this raving band of heathens.

(June 19, 2023 at 10:06 am)arewethereyet Wrote: @R-Farmer I am in awe of the fact that you think you brought new arguments to this raving band of heathens.

His arguments don't completely suck, but Christians will always be disingenuous when arguing their perspective. I should know, I used to be the same way.

(June 16, 2023 at 11:19 am)R-Farmer Wrote:

(June 16, 2023 at 8:57 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method

1, why are you arguing with the Father of modern Philosophy of Science? Karl popper set narrow parameters on what can be considered 'science.'

2, please Note the primary methodologies to vetting scientific theory verses historical facts.

I ask you to look up and read the first section of the wiki page concerning the scientific method. (I can't post links or quote the page because of the links imbedded on the page)

Do you notice how the Historical method and scientific method have different rules and standards of proof? Do you see how in the scientific method requires 7 different steps. Karl Popper said these 7 steps are necessary and must be observed and completed before a subject can be considered to be a scientific subject or field of study. Anything that falls outside of the rigors of the scientific method Can NOT be considered science.. One can not observe any point of history and one can not produce a reproducible experiment to prove or disprove history as again history is based on eye witness testimony or commentary of a given event. Or primary or secondary source material.

1. I don't believe in reverencing authority figures, I am freaking' allowed to disagree with Carl Popper. Citing him is one thing, saying he's right because he's Carl Popper is another. I'm perfectlly comfortable with not bowing to Carl Popper as the be-all and end--all of what science is.

2. Don't assign me homework.

(June 16, 2023 at 11:30 am)R-Farmer Wrote:

(June 16, 2023 at 9:04 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: If the story was never intended to meet a reasonable standard of evidence for determining if its claims are actually true in reality, in what way am I mistaken for not believing the story is actually true in reality?

Again back to my analogy of turning lead into gold.

Your 'reasonable standard' in my story was when you took an already known defeated process of turning lead into gold, using those finding to assume all other claims are equally invalid.

Meaning your reasonable standard is NOT a reasonable standard. Your reasonable standard becomes a confirmation bias when you refuse to test the formula as prescribed, and substituted your own processes/known failed experiment.

If you made an honest effort you would test the formula as prescribed.

I'm getting really tired of you impugning my honesty. It's not my obligation to test your formula. It's your obligation to demonstrate it, an obligation you are clearly seeking to evade. You don't need to tell, or even be convincing, if you can show.