Scientific knowledge versus spiritual knowledge

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Ok LadyCampus....

Another way to say that statement: "It's an objective necessary moral truth that an innocent baby should not be tortured for eternity for no crime on it's own with immense torture".

Do you agree with this statement?

Again...no.   Do -I- personally think that it is wrong to torture a baby?  Of course.  Where we disagree is you calling it an 'objective necessary moral truth,' because it's NOT an 'objective truth,' it is a subjective feeling.  This was explained to you already but apparently you still don't understand.

I believe Chad, since I made it plain that all bets are off on converting me, has put me on ignore. As referred to previously, crowds of thousands of Phoenicians and Canaanites gathered to ritually torture to death through burning the children of some among them, who were honored for giving them up without resistance and cheering with the crowd as their babies were tumbled down into the blazing belly of their god, which was popular on the Eastern Mediterranean. Of course most of them hated it, and there's a good chance that the priests who induced parents to give up their own when they came around to take them had a high incidence of sadism or psychopathy, but the point they sold the people on was their god demanded hard sacrifices, which they paid because their natural sense of morality had been twisted into believing it was morally right. Were the most elite citizens protected from selection by the priests, regardless of whatever system would make the process appear fair? Probably. Religious standards aren't made by those who follow them, they are made for others to keep them in line.

No, there isn't an objective standard of morality, and the corruption by religion of those who worshiped Moloch are an important lesson to all: when a society or government decides what the moral standards should be everyone it wields power over, then they should be as close to the bare evolved nature of the majority as possible, which it displays in actual behavior, and never religious standards set for other people.

[LadyForCamus]

If he puts you on ignore, does they mean he cannot see this post? Because I'd be HAPPY to repost it for you.

[LadyForCamus]

Again...no.   Do -I- personally think that it is wrong to torture a baby?  Of course.  Where we disagree is you calling it an 'objective necessary moral truth,' because it's NOT an 'objective truth,' it is a subjective feeling.  This was explained to you already but apparently you still don't understand.

I believe Chad, since I made it plain that all bets are off on converting me, has put me on ignore. As referred to previously, crowds of thousands of Phoenicians and Canaanites gathered to ritually torture to death through burning the children of some among them, who were honored for giving them up without resistance and cheering with the crowd as their babies were tumbled down into the blazing belly of their god, which was popular on the Eastern Mediterranean. Of course most of them hated it, and there's a good chance that the priests who induced parents to give up their own when they came around to take them had a high incidence of sadism or psychopathy, but the point they sold the people on was their god demanded hard sacrifices, which they paid because their natural sense of morality had been twisted into believing it was morally right. Were the most elite citizens protected from selection by the priests, regardless of whatever system would make the process appear fair? Probably. Religious standards aren't made by those who follow them, they are made for others to keep them in line.

No, there isn't an objective standard of morality, and the corruption by religion of those who worshiped Moloch are an important lesson to all: when a society or government decides what the moral standards should be everyone it wields power over, then they should be as close to the bare evolved nature of the majority as possible, which it displays in actual behavior, and never religious standards set for other people.

If he put you on ignore, does that mean he cannot see your post? Because, I'd be HAPPY to repost it for you.

[The Grand Nudger]

You're probably better off respecting another users ignore feature Camus.

[Brian37]

No just the opposite. Scientific method opens doors.

No one is disparaging the modern scientific method or the innumerable technological advances from which we benefit. All I am saying is that life has a qualitative aspect that cannot be analyzed or appreciated on a purely materialistic level. If your only gauge of what counts as reality is your physical and material well-being, then you have summarily discarded  the entire world of inner personal life that cannot be reduced to physical facts.

Stop projecting your desires of how you think I should view the world.

Saying "this is it" has nothing to do with my ability to feel and have emotions and appreciate art and life. How dare you presume for me what goes on in my head. What is inside me are my organs, and my brain is the only thing that regulates my emotions. But saying that is all there is does not mean I don't have emotions.

The only thing I have discarded are bullshit explanations. I don't have to sex up reality to appreciate it.

Yes there is just the material world. And just so you know, we can also scientifically measure our emotions through neurology and biochemistry. We can also use science to detect the things we cannot see with the naked eye, like the inside of a black hole because of the affects the unseen have on what we do see. Science like evolution explains quite beautifully how we evolved. Science does in very beautiful fashion super novas and galaxy and planet formations.

None of that takes my deep appreciation for my Mom, my best friend Bob, my cat, a sunset, a good movie,  a good book. How dare you.

[LadyForCamus]

No one is disparaging the modern scientific method or the innumerable technological advances from which we benefit. All I am saying is that life has a qualitative aspect that cannot be analyzed or appreciated on a purely materialistic level. If your only gauge of what counts as reality is your physical and material well-being, then you have summarily discarded  the entire world of inner personal life that cannot be reduced to physical facts.

Stop projecting your desires of how you think I should view the world.

Saying "this is it" has nothing to do with my ability to feel and have emotions and appreciate art and life. How dare you presume for me what goes on in my head. What is inside me are my organs, and my brain is the only thing that regulates my emotions. But saying that is all there is does not mean I don't have emotions.

The only thing I have discarded are bullshit explanations. I don't have to sex up reality to appreciate it.

Yes there is just the material world. And just so you know, we can also scientifically measure our emotions through neurology and biochemistry. We can also use science to detect the things we cannot see with the naked eye, like the inside of a black hole because of the affects the unseen have on what we do see. Science like evolution explains quite beautifully how we evolved. Science does in very beautiful fashion super novas and galaxy and planet formations.

None of that takes my deep appreciation for my Mom, my best friend Bob, my cat, a sunset, a good movie,  a good book. How dare you.

Yeah, for a believer in true essences of humans, Chad has a bizarre tendency to dismiss the sum and total of other people's humanity that just doesn't quite seem to follow with his world view...

[God of Mr. Hanky]

I believe Chad, since I made it plain that all bets are off on converting me, has put me on ignore. As referred to previously, crowds of thousands of Phoenicians and Canaanites gathered to ritually torture to death through burning the children of some among them, who were honored for giving them up without resistance and cheering with the crowd as their babies were tumbled down into the blazing belly of their god, which was popular on the Eastern Mediterranean. Of course most of them hated it, and there's a good chance that the priests who induced parents to give up their own when they came around to take them had a high incidence of sadism or psychopathy, but the point they sold the people on was their god demanded hard sacrifices, which they paid because their natural sense of morality had been twisted into believing it was morally right. Were the most elite citizens protected from selection by the priests, regardless of whatever system would make the process appear fair? Probably. Religious standards aren't made by those who follow them, they are made for others to keep them in line.

No, there isn't an objective standard of morality, and the corruption by religion of those who worshiped Moloch are an important lesson to all: when a society or government decides what the moral standards should be everyone it wields power over, then they should be as close to the bare evolved nature of the majority as possible, which it displays in actual behavior, and never religious standards set for other people.

If he put you on ignore, does that mean he cannot see your post?  Because, I'd be HAPPY to repost it for you.  

Thanks! I just felt it was important to get that point out there, on the real dangers of "objective" morality.

[Neo-Scholastic]

...Stop projecting your desires of how you think I should view the world...None of that takes my deep appreciation for my Mom, my best friend Bob, my cat, a sunset, a good movie,  a good book. How dare you.

So it is like I said. You don't actually live like everything is encompassed by scientific knowledge. I'm not trying to 'get into your head'. I'm taking you at your word and holding what you say up in front of you. Maybe you're getting all pissy because you don't like what you see?

[Neo-Scholastic]

I believe Chad, since I made it plain that all bets are off on converting me, has put me on ignore.

I read what you write. It just isn't worth responding to as it is generally immature and silly.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

...Stop projecting your desires of how you think I should view the world...None of that takes my deep appreciation for my Mom, my best friend Bob, my cat, a sunset, a good movie,  a good book. How dare you.

So it is like I said. You don't actually live like everything is encompassed by scientific knowledge. I'm not trying to 'get into your head'. I'm taking you at your word and holding what you say up in front of you. Maybe you're getting all pissy because you don't like what you see?

I see what you are trying to do, and that's where I don't like what I see - you are being extremely disingenuous, and particularly nasty for stooping to that level! Matters of emotion are not matters of fact, and when it comes to hard facts, no appeal to emotion can rightfully stand in. You do just that, and then when it fails you attempt to smear dirt all over those who still won't agree. Bad dog!