Why science and religious fatih need not be in conflict: It's as easy as 1-2-3!

[Little Rik]

Intuitional science was proposed thousand years before anyone would start physical science.  

Intuitional "science" is crap.  Billions of people throughout history have been "looking within."  None of the crap you spout comes from that practice.  Your spiritual crap is nothing but dogma passed down through the centuries.  Your beliefs about "God" are crap.  You have nothing but a feeling to show for your efforts.  "Feelings" as evidence is crap.  No matter how many excuses you give for not being able to show the truth of your "intuitional science" they will remain just that: pathetic excuses.  Fuck you and your dogmatic 'spirituality'.  You're nothing but a clone of older myths and legends.  Nothing in your meditation is guiding you.  On that score, you're nothing but a deluded crank.  Your intuitional science hasn't and won't deliver anything real because it's nothing but dogma influenced navel gazing.

Cut the crap fool.  

Even animals and plants know that feelings are evidence.
I doubt that an imbecile like you has ever been in love.

Do me a favor Yog.
Clean your eyes and your brain if of course you got one.  




(color mine)

[Fireball]

I'll pass on that heaping shovel full of horse shit he seems to be so willing to share. You can have mine for your lawn or garden.

Huh, you just made me realize, I no longer have any lawn.  The hell strip between the sidewalk and the street still has a horrible running grass.  The bastard who owns the neighboring building actually planted the stuff on purpose and piped irrigation more than forty feet onto my hellstrip from his.  If I wasn't so afraid of wasting a ton of water since I have no shut off, I'd rip the plumbing out of there.  Instead I've tried to disable them all by pouring pic glue over the sprinkler heads.

He ran plumbing to your property?   If it's like where I live, you don't technically own that, it belongs to the city. Be that as it may, that's kind of weird. Instead of gluing them shut, just unscrew the risers and put in plugs when they aren't running. I ended up with crappy grass taking over my beautiful lawn after my wife hired gardeners when I was out of town on business for many months at a time. We have black plastic sheeting on it now, to kill it so we can put in drought tolerant plants.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Even animals and plants know that feelings are evidence.

Indeed. The revulsion people feel towards the Holocaust is evidence that there are moral facts.

[Aroura]

Even animals and plants know that feelings are evidence.

Indeed. The revulsion people feel towards the Holocaust is evidence that there are moral facts.

What about all the people who don't feel revulsion towards it?

What about all the people who, under normal circumstances would have felt revulsion, but under Nazi rule, willingly participated?

(Also, plants know feelings (as in emotions) are evidence....really, you agree with this?)

[Neo-Scholastic]

Indeed. The revulsion people feel towards the Holocaust is evidence that there are moral facts.

What about all the people who don't feel revulsion towards it? What about all the people who, under normal circumstances would have felt revulsion, but under Nazi rule, willingly participated?

As I said elsewhere, it takes a special effort to believe in moral relativism in the face of Man's deepest depravities. People who do not feel sickened by the violence and inhumanity of the National Socialism are sociopaths. That a whole population can dull itself to such horrors is not evidence that nothing was deeply wrong.

[Angrboda]

Even animals and plants know that feelings are evidence.

Indeed. The revulsion people feel towards the Holocaust is evidence that there are moral facts.

The revulsion people feel towards the holocaust is evidence that there are moral opinions, not that there are moral facts. This is weak, Chad. The feelings are evidence that people have feelings. Nothing more. Perhaps you'd like to explain how you torture moral facts out of this? The ubiquity of an opinion is not evidence that it has an objective grounding. That's simply a non sequitur.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Indeed. The revulsion people feel towards the Holocaust is evidence that there are moral facts.

The revulsion people feel towards the holocaust is evidence that there are moral opinions, not that there are moral facts.  This is weak, Chad.  The feelings are evidence that people have feelings.  Nothing more.  Perhaps you'd like to explain how you torture moral facts out of this?

You seem to have a penchant for ignoring intentionality. Feelings are not just feelings - they are feelings about something. Feeling don't just arise for no reason in response to nothing. The horror of tragedy, outrage at injustice, and the pangs of conscience are responses tosomething about or in the world. Sorry, but I'm going to go with the idea that the wrongness of the Holocaust is immediately obvious to anyone with a properly functioning conscience. If someone is going to say that it isn't they better have a damn good reason. Do you?

[Angrboda]

The revulsion people feel towards the holocaust is evidence that there are moral opinions, not that there are moral facts.  This is weak, Chad.  The feelings are evidence that people have feelings.  Nothing more.  Perhaps you'd like to explain how you torture moral facts out of this?

You seem to have a penchant for ignoring intentionality. Feelings are not just feelings - they are feelings about something. Feeling don't just arise for no reason in response to nothing.

Oh? You've never had a nightmare? Never felt anxiety over nothing? That you feel is no indication that the feeling is a response to something real.

The horror of tragedy, outrage at injustice, and the pangs of conscience are responses to something about or in the world.

All you're doing is restating your initial premise, that feelings are evidence of moral facts.

Sorry, but I'm going to go with the idea that the wrongness of the Holocaust is immediately obvious to anyone with a properly functioning conscience. If someone is going to say that it isn't they better have a damn good reason. Do you?

Sure, physicalism posits a mind which exists in a world of its own making. This 'intentionality' that you speak of can be of things that are entirely fictions of the mind. Even without physicalism, we know that not everything thought up by the mind exists as a real world thing. Care to disprove physicalism? Hell, just provide a naturalistic explanation for morals. You can't do that, can you, because your answer is all witchcraft and sorcery. Some 'obvious' truth that is.

All you've done is double-down on your original assertion and attempted to shift the burden of proof. What you haven't done is give a reason why moral opinions are evidence of moral facts. You're all bluster without a whiff of reason to your answer.

[Neo-Scholastic]

All you've done is double-down on your original assertion and attempted to shift the burden of proof.  What you haven't done is give a reason why moral opinions are evidence of moral facts.  

Exactly right. I want you to come out clearly and say that the evil of the Holocaust is not a moral fact. If someone has to explain to you why it was wrong then you wouldn't understand anyway.

---

Sure, physicalism posits a mind which exists in a world of its own making.  This 'intentionality' that you speak of can be of things that are entirely fictions of the mind.  Even without physicalism, we know that not everything thought up by the mind exists as a real world thing.

You just cut off the branch on which you were sitting. Since everything in the mind is of its own making, then any connection to something real is entirely fortuitous.

Care to disprove physicalism?

I don't need to. It's mere assertion.

[Aroura]

All you've done is double-down on your original assertion and attempted to shift the burden of proof.  What you haven't done is give a reason why moral opinions are evidence of moral facts.  

Exactly right. I want you to come out clearly and say that the evil of the Holocaust is not a moral fact. If someone has to explain to you why it was wrong then you wouldn't understand anyway.

---

The evil of the Holocaust is not a moral fact.  It is a moral opinion held by myself, and most people. 
There are plenty of people who hold a different opinion of the Holocaust.  
Do you deny that the people with a difference of opinion on this topic exist?

(p.s.  Just because you cannot fathom why a person holds a certain moral opinion does not make your position fact.  I cannot understand how anyone views the holocaust as anything but a monstrosity, yet they do.)

---

Oh, and I have a perfect "for instance". For instance, I would call a creator drowning all but a handful of his sentient creations (genocide) pretty clearly Evil.
I'm willing to bet you will dispute that God's act, in this instance, is evil, even though it seems pretty obvious to me! That's because it's an opinion, not a fact.

I would also call the Levites killing 3000 people, and keeping the virgins alive for sexual indenture is also a pretty fucking heinous moral crime. And yet I'm willing to bet you would defend this also.

And countless other similar examples. What seems morally reprehensible to one person is defended by another person, who does not have to be morally reprehensible themselves to defend it.