Toaster strudel alliance takes on drugs, atheists and liberalism

[Darkstar]

Good thing I never said anything like that.

Good thing. Wisdom comes when you see things for what they are, not what you want them to be, or someone else wants you to think they are.

You're good at this irony thing, aren't you?

When you abandon all of your selfish desires and desire nothing other than to know, and understand, and see clearly, apart from anything else moving you, just to be aware and to listen, not trusting your mind or anyone elses mind, just listening, trying to understand not only the particular thing in front of you but how everything fits together, and you listen, and listen, and pray, then you will find God.

Wow. That was...extremely vague. If you can't trust your mind or anyone elses, then how do you know that you aren't just crazy? (or being decieved by Satan)

I agree that empathy is a tool for responding to human nature, but it does not ground empathetic desires philosophically, it raises the question of why they are there and what causes them.

They confer and evolutionary advantage. I suppose you think god magically put them there, huh?

But to call human rights opinions ignores the large amount of data that suggests that they are not opinions, many would call this data from intuition far more meaningful than the psuedo-religion of naturalism.

What is "data from intuition"? Are you saying that because it seems like common sense that there should be rights means that idea was magically put into our heads by god?

Either human rights are explained teleologically (people are designed) or they are opinions

necessarily (A v B)
either A and ~B - Teleological/God explanation for rights, deny naturalism
or ~A and B - evidence that rights are teleological is false, accept naturalism

There is a massive amount of evidence to say that A is true, from every single civilization.

There is "a massive amount" of evidence from every civilization for god. Like the Egyptions prove Ra, the Greeks prove Zeus, the Norse prove Thor, etc. Or...do the widely differing and contradictory accounts actually destroy their collective credibility, rather than cement it?

What you are saying is completely contrary to ordinary language in almost every single society. The human experience captures an appraisal of the nature of morality as something that is not reducible to opinions. Indeed, to suggest so would bring sharp rebuke and condemnation in almost every single society in history.

It is not simply that you are moving one idea to another, you are substantially changing the course of human history and removing a great deal of the collective perceptions that humans have had on the nature of their existence.

You mean like the collective perception by nazis that Jews were inferior and should die? What would people think now if Hitler won and rewrote history? I'm most certainly not saying that all morals are mere opinions (though some are). It depends on how you define "opinion". If you read the article I posted (maybe you didn't see it, as it was added with an edit) you wouldn't be having this misunderstanding. One can use reason and empathy to argue for or against certain morals. There are such things as right and wrong, they are just slightly harder to pin down than one might think.

What you are doing is very serious and very evil. Human rights are not reducible to opinions, as the overwhelming witness of history says.

Well...you can be a rather sudden and harsh judge sometimes. Good thing I'm not the same way...
Just to mention, the witness of history also says wars should be liberally fought, as that is how is was for much of recorded history.

Now it is even more vaguely defined than before. Should I say that "authority" is the combination of empathy and reason, then?

No, it is not a combination of either. Those are tools to perceive the nature of authority, not to define it. If you saw a man who through using a combination of empathy and reason sought to fill his house with canned food because he believed the apocalypse was coming, that would not give the mans actions authority.

Well, if he was wrong, then either he wasn't using reason correctly, or any sane person would be following his example.

That is to say, empathy and reason are not sufficient conditions for ethics. It is possible to have any number of possible courses of actions that could be based to some degree on empathy and reason and be wrong. Empathy could be channeled towards false ends, for instance, a defense attorney could arouse a sense of empathy for a crooked CEO on trial. Reason could be used to seemingly ground the belief in what was supposedly true. But the person is still guilty. Empathy is not a sufficient condition for the authority of morals.

Remember what I said about justice contradicting morality? You have to deal with the lawbreakers, even if the way you deal with them (lock them up, take some of their money) would be immoral in other circumstances.

So you pressupose that Christian ethics are the ultimate moral code. What exactly are Christian ethics, anyway Does it contain all of that terrible OT stuff too?

Christian ethics, I would not limit to Christians only as I believe Muslims, Jews, other faiths can be saved, involve people perception of the divine nature inside of them, responding to it like Job and Melchizedek did, that God calls all people to fear God and do what is right. God wants all people to obey God, which means to a large degree, following the command "to love your neighbor as yourself".

That's still rather vague, but I doubt there will ever be a definitive answer as I cannot just ask god for clarification.

Wait a minute..."love your neighbor as yourself"? You mean use empathy?

So evolution gave people a wrong idea of morality and then society fixed it? How does that solve the problem?

Evolution gave a basic understanding of morality, and when society developed, it was refined.

If rights come from the government, why are people not justified in taking them away. If there is a cause that requires rights to be justified outside the government, then there is some external thing that allows rights or not.

If the government takes away our rights, we can overthrow them. That's part of the deal (at least in America). The government is not justified in taking away our rights in that it is part of the government's side of the deal (in exchange for legislative power) to protect our rights, and not abuse the powers vested within it. The power of a democratic government comes from (in theory) the people.

You are treating society as if it has some sort of value apart from peoples perception of it. Why is that? What makes society valuable, even when people don't consider it to be valuable?

It helps you survive, creates social networks, improves the efficiency of many things and helps maintain order.

I think that how we treat each other is the most important thing in life. The question of what is the right way to treat others should be given extremely serious consideration.

Yes, it should. Which is why I researched multiple moral theories and have thought about them, rather than following the advice of a 2000+ year old book without an questioning of the source.

Yeah...so why doesn't god do that? Or are you saying he does so through religious "authority"? There are some theists at AF who aren't too fond of the Roman Catholic Church.

HE DOES! GOD DOES DO THAT ALL THE TIME! Sanctify yourself. Go hang around Pentecostals or Charismatics. God does reveal himself

To people who are already sold on the idea, or very desperate for it to be true. (or just plain crazy)

Yes, there are controversial issues in the church. It is difficult business to run a church and receive revelation from God. Not all spiritual leaders are saved. Not all have the Holy Spirit. You have to look for it. God is real.

So if not all spiritual leaders are saved, then how do we know which are and aren't?