(September 2, 2012 at 6:06 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: I'm curious, are you using modal logic to make your argument? That might be why we are not seeing eye to eye here.

I'll repeat what I told you previously: you know philosophy, but you don't know it well enough. You take the knowledge that you do have and use it as a shield, trying to convince others that you're a philosophical genius. I'm guessing that you've done it often enough, that you've managed to fool yourself, too.

But... no. Philosophy is what I do for a living.

I'd rate you at a C- "Must try harder".

(September 2, 2012 at 5:54 pm)Red Celt Wrote: The World Turtle myth is more believable than you being an atheist.

It's what generation after generation after generation of your ancestors did... and surviving and reproducing... isn't that kinda the whole fucking point? They succeeded. Except they eventually produced you. So they didn't succeed very well, did they?

Oh bless. Don't be so harsh on your brain. Let us do that for you.

I'm talking about this above argument, Red Celt.

Is it modal? Because I've always struggled with modal arguments. Is it S5 or S4.3?

Maybe I'm interpreting it using the wrong syntax. Could you represent it in S5 for me please?

(September 2, 2012 at 6:34 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Maybe I'm interpreting it using the wrong syntax. Could you represent it in S5 for me please?

I could do... but there are 2 conditions.

(September 2, 2012 at 4:11 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Scepticism is a healthy attitude to adopt; it is, after all the default position. That said, try not to confuse scepticism with a blanket, out of hand rejection of what might be evidence purely because it goes against the grain of your opinions. To consider that one may be wrong is the sign a of truly open mind.

I think you'll agree with this: nobody should believe anything they hear on the internet until they can get it confirmed by another more reliable source. I'm a scientist, I like data and new information. For now, this is filed under to be confirmed.

Here's something pretty intense for you to be skeptical about: http://thesalarmy.org/DTMG/miracle12.htm
I'm still skeptical on this report, though I know such miracles are possible. My wife had a congenital knee defect healed in prayer. You should remain skeptical about my claim and the salvation army one because you can't confirm either. BUT, I think you should be equally skeptical about a claim that neither event occurred. That would be the default position. Right?

---

(September 2, 2012 at 6:11 pm)MeasH Wrote:

(August 30, 2012 at 11:39 pm)Atom Wrote: How do atheists know what is morally right or morally wrong? Is morality cultural, gut feel, are there any basic principled you can use? Opinions?

Atheism is a very flexible philosophy, so that can vary. Personally, I know when something is wrong when it is unfair or leads to unfairness. For example, I believe murder is wrong because if some one is murdered, they lose their life.

If you could kill Adolf Hitler before he came to power would you do it? In case you are wondering, I wouldn't. I think something worse would be likely to happen.

Quote:Many people believe homosexuality is wrong, but I believe it's not wrong because there's nothing bad encrypted in it.

I'm not challenging you on this question, but I'm curious about what you mean by "encrypted in it".

(September 2, 2012 at 6:41 pm)Red Celt Wrote:

(September 2, 2012 at 6:34 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Maybe I'm interpreting it using the wrong syntax. Could you represent it in S5 for me please?

I could do... but there are 2 conditions.

What are the two conditions?

(September 2, 2012 at 2:12 pm)Atom Wrote:

(September 1, 2012 at 10:01 pm)Boccaccio Wrote: It appears that stephenmills1000 has disappeared, perhaps not wanting to answer the questions I raised in the last few paragraphs here.

Are you now the person with whom to speak, Atom? If so, would you mind taking up those questions on stephenmills behalf?

I suspect he went to sleep and attended Church. hock:

What, for about three days?

So, are you going to respond, or would you like to wake up Stephenmills so he could respond?

You also have made no reply to my point addressed directly to you in the same post about evidence (not anecdote) for empathic behaviour in animals. Should we search Google Scholar for current research on your behalf, or as a scientist is that something you can do?

Your opening question has already been answered, albeit not as you expected. You have no evidence and no adequate epistemology for a god-based morality whereas animals survive and prosper in co-operative groups, and we substantially refine basic reciprocity into more ordered and complete moral systems which have served for our survival so far.

(September 2, 2012 at 3:53 pm)Atom Wrote: I pondered the three questions.... That's why I'm interested in how other atheists reconcile the questions I asked.

Well, I think I've provided my answer. Morality is subjective and, no, that doesn't mean "anything goes" nor does it mean "all moral codes are equal".

I'm still curious if someone could explain to me exactly what "objective morality" is supposed to be, even in theory.

Quote:You're equivocating on the term "mind". My OP and the questions I posted were about atheist opinions on morality. I'm trying to keep my opinions from taking the discussion off topic.

My intent is only to explain why Christians don't get an "out" here, trying to create a special exception for God, that somehow a code created in the mind of God is not subjective as it would be for any other mind. This strikes me as the logical fallacy, special pleading.

(September 2, 2012 at 8:18 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote:

(September 2, 2012 at 6:41 pm)Red Celt Wrote: I could do... but there are 2 conditions.

What are the two conditions?

Oh, so the next step is to actually ask what the two conditions are? OK. I mean, I was following your lead, so if that's the rules of this particular game...

Condition 1: Blaspheme.

And when I say "blaspheme" I mean really let rip. Include some text that states that no matter what you may or may not pray for (outside of this forum) your words here are your true irrevocable thoughts about God.

Be bold.

Be awesome.

Blaspheme.

(grabs some popcorn)

(September 2, 2012 at 8:28 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: I'm still curious if someone could explain to me exactly what "objective morality" is supposed to be, even in theory.

I have taken it as not subject to any judgement of a human mind other than that the human makes a free will decision to follow the moral rules, or not, in a strict fashion, accepting the moral decisions arrived at by external means or entity. Whether we ourselves judge such moral decisions or their process to be good or bad is of course subjective and not in play.

Is that a fair summary, Atom (in the absence of stephenmills1000)?

(September 2, 2012 at 8:36 pm)Red Celt Wrote: Condition 1: Blaspheme.

And when I say "blaspheme" I mean really let rip. Include some text that states that no matter what you may or may not pray for (outside of this forum) your words here are your true irrevocable thoughts about God.

Can I do that?

*Looks up at the sky* Fuck you, God. Fuck you with a big, rusted, jagged, dirty piece of metal. Fuck you with it hard. If you want to do something about it, come and get me. Fuck you with HIV infected blood caked all over that piece of metal.

Anyway, I'm pretty certain Vinny here is a troll whose just trying to get a reaction from atheists, not to mention his 'Jersey Shore wannabe' persona is a little insulting to me as an Italian, but, hey, I'd rather not get worked up and feed the troll.