If it wasn't for religion

[The Grand Nudger]

Nope.  Goodness and badness are not "stuff" floating around out there.  They're designations of what acts belong to conceptual sets and why we think so.  

The referent is some property or properties of an act.

No one thinks that we'll be filling any holes in the periodic table with goodium and badium.

[Acrobat]

Nope.  Goodness and badness are not "stuff" floating around out there.  They're designations of what acts belong to conceptual sets and why we think so.  

The referent is some property or properties of an act.

No one thinks that we'll be filling any holes in the periodic table with goodium and badium.

Some physical/material property of an act? “Stuff” so to say?

And not some existing non-physical/immaterial property?

[The Grand Nudger]

The referent is some property or properties of an act.

No one thinks that we'll be filling any holes in the periodic table with goodium and badium.

Some physical/material  property of an act? “Stuff” so to say?

No, not "stuff so to say".  Literally not stuff.  How many times do I have to say it?  

And not some existing non-physical/immaterial  property?

I don't think so, no.

When will you be done fishing? How hard is it to simply realize that you're unfamiliar with atheism, or what atheist think. That you are unfamiliar with moral realism..and moral philosophy in general? That you haven't the slightest clue what secularism refers to? It's okay to have been wrong about something because you just didn't know about it. It's another thing entirely to persist in your own narrow minded ignorance after these things have been explained to you.

Dig deep, into your own moral schema...and try to find a way to do what a good person would do in your situation.

[Acrobat]

“

Some physical/material property of an act? “Stuff” so to say?

No, not "stuff so to say". Literally not stuff. How many times do I have to say it?

And not some existing non-physical/immaterial property?

I don't think so, no.

When will you be done fishing? How hard is it to simply realize that you're unfamiliar with atheism, or what atheist think. That you are unfamiliar with moral realism..and moral philosophy in general? That you haven't the slightest clue what secularism refers to? It's okay to have been wrong about something because you just didn't know about it. It's another thing entirely to persist in your own narrow minded ignorance after these things have been explained to you.

Dig deep, into your own moral schema...and try to find a way to do what a good person would do in your situation.

“The referent is some property or properties of an act.”

I don’t think we mean the same thing when we say “stuff”.

So I’ll ask the question again, without the word.

Are the referent properties of the act, material properties?

When will you be done fishing?

I’m just giving you the opportunity to clarify, so I don’t keep getting accused of misinterpreting you.

[The Grand Nudger]

“The referent is some property or properties of an act.”

I don’t think we mean the same thing when we say “stuff”.

So I’ll ask the question again, without the word.

Are the referent  properties of the act, material properties?

I think so, yes.  That's a defining portion of natural realism.......

I’m just giving you the opportunity to clarify, so I don’t keep getting accused of misinterpreting you.

You're fishing.  You shouldn't have to.  You claimed that my realism must be contradictory, incoherent, or delusional..because atheist.  You've repeated the assertion more than once since.

You shouldn't need clarification on anything.  You can't cogently make that claim in ignorance or without already possessing clarity. Do you understand?

[Acrobat]

“The referent is some property or properties of an act.”

I don’t think we mean the same thing when we say “stuff”.

So I’ll ask the question again, without the word.

Are the referent  properties of the act, material properties?

I think so, yes.  That's a defining portion of natural realism.......

I’m just giving you the opportunity to clarify, so I don’t keep getting accused of misinterpreting you.

You're fishing.  You shouldn't have to.  You claimed that my realism must be contradictory, incoherent, or delusional.  You shouldn't need clarification on anything.  You can't l cogently make that claim in ignorance or without already possessing clarity.

So goodness and badness are also material properties that exist independent of our minds?

[The Grand Nudger]

Do you understand?

-and, no.

They're designations of what acts belong to conceptual sets and why we think so.

Goodness and badness are no more the material properties themselves than the elephant in your mind is an actual elephant somehow crammed into your skull.

I'm guessing that you don't realize this..but you're bickering about linguistics with me, not morality, at this point.

[Acrobat]

Do you understand?

No that’s why I’m asking you the question.

Of whether goodness and badness are material properties , that exist independent of our minds?

[The Grand Nudger]

Do you understand?

No that’s why I’m asking you the question.

Of whether goodness and badness are material properties , that exist independent of our minds?

You don't understand why you'd have to know something about my morality before claiming to know something about my morality?

As to the other. This has been very simple from the outset. I think that goodness and badness refer to material properties. Some act x either possesses those properties or it does not.

[Agnostico]

If you haven't yet, I advise you to watch this Ted talk: https://www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_waal_...anguage=en

My reference to a Ted talk was dismissed by everyone here without any explination as to why.
The theory that religion has a justified purpose and that civilization wouldn't of been possible without it makes some atheists go nuts.
Drowning out such thoughts with irrelevant white noise, attempted insults and fallacies.


Interesting that the talk reflects on the behaviours of chimps which I like to observe.
Not many people here have much knowledge on societies within the animal kingdom.
Even worse they reject this knowledge, ad hominem style along with human nature and instincts, a field of psycology.

The speaker talks about empathy and fairness seen in chimps. A very basic example of morals even the speaker acknowledges that.
Humans have a much higher level of moral concious than chimps.

In chimp societies we see filicide/infanticide. But there is reasoning behind it. Its usually for survival or to increase the chances of his genes being passed on.
Humans regard this as morally wrong. But for humans its acceptable to kill a baby weeks before its born.
50 million abortions a year. And the moral reasoning... "I dont want it" or "it was an accident" or "we can't afford it" or "because"

Chimps have a higher level of morality with babies in society than humans do these days.

Same with homosexuality. Animals have been observed having bisexual relations.
However there is only one species of animal in the world that will not procreate with the opposite sex in the wild if the opportunity arises. Humans.
It was listed as a mental condition but is now considered genetic and therefore encouraged at a very young pre pubescent age.

How does a homosexual gene possibly survive under darwinian mechanics? Its impossible.
Natural selection cannot pick homos over hetros. How is this homo DNA supposed to be passed on anyway without procreating?

So the chimps again have the moral high ground over modern humans regarding LGBTQP++ issues as well.
Sad thing is no new atheists recognizes these precursors of societal collapse because their knowledge of history is simplified.

In fact someone actually asked me why family is important in society.
Oblivious... LoL