My views on objective morality

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Let's go. 

Only if I get to do the spanking...

Can I watch?

[J a c k]

Well, I think a party is getting started and everything. Maybe the skies will clear 
Losty is going. Empress. Lady for Camus. Benny! 

---

oh, and now Hanky! 

[Whateverist]

I never said anything bad about CL's appearance, nor about her choice of avatar.  I said that people in this thread are treating her differently than other theists, and that this different treatment isn't due to the quality of her thoughts or logic-- since I don't see that there IS much quality to her thoughts or logic.  I said people are treating her differently because of who they think she is, and scolded THOSE people for being shallow: shame on them for letting feelings supercede thought.

So you're saying that all theists, because they are theists, deserve to be treated in the same disrespectful manner. Who they are and what their qualities are as people shouldn't enter into it. Wow.

This is what I do, and will continue to do, everytime a theist enters the "Philosophy" section with wishy-thinking, and I don't much care how nice people think that particular theist is, since that's irrelevant to the doing of philosophy.  I mean, look at the outrageously offensive shit Rhythm has said to me and vice versa, and we were at least attempting to put together logical ideas-- where was the talk of mod action then?  There was none.  So from whence does this double standard come that a theist can invade my precious Philosophy section spewing wishy-thinking with very little attempt to support it with. . . ya know. . . IDEAS and LOGIC and EVIDENCE and stuff?

Never got the memo that the philosophy section was now under your personal direction. Whatever you think philosophy is all about you sure as hell don't speak for me.

I don't have a problem giving hostile atheists room to work through their shit but no you don't get to be an upfront asshole and have all atheists fall in behind you because its really us against them. Grow the hell up. I'm tired of your sorry act.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Okay I see a lot of activity along these lines since yesterday, so let me set the record straight for those of you who haven't bothered to, you know, actually read what I said about CL and her appearance.

I never said anything bad about CL's appearance, nor about her choice of avatar.  I said that people in this thread are treating her differently than other theists, and that this different treatment isn't due to the quality of her thoughts or logic-- since I don't see that there IS much quality to her thoughts or logic.  I said people are treating her differently because of who they think she is, and scolded THOSE people for being shallow: shame on them for letting feelings supercede thought.  I guarantee if I said the same shit about Harris or other theists here, nobody would even be talking about this shit.  The fact is that CL has presented nothing but wishy-thinking, puppy-dogs and rainbows, and absolutely no coherent philosophical argument in favor of objective morality.

This is what I do, and will continue to do, everytime a theist enters the "Philosophy" section with wishy-thinking, and I don't much care how nice people think that particular theist is, since that's irrelevant to the doing of philosophy.  I mean, look at the outrageously offensive shit Rhythm has said to me and vice versa, and we were at least attempting to put together logical ideas-- where was the talk of mod action then?  There was none.  So from whence does this double standard come that a theist can invade my precious Philosophy section spewing wishy-thinking with very little attempt to support it with. . . ya know. . . IDEAS and LOGIC and EVIDENCE and stuff?

That's true, you didn't in fact call the actuality of her femininity into question at all, and that accusation almost got accepted de facto! I wouldn't have said anything about her "jugs", but I do agree with you that there really is a problem when one person is protected so fiercely by her friends that she is immune to being questioned on her own words. It's almost understandable because it's very easy to like such a good-natured person who appears to be so innocent, and probably is, but in a community which values honest and logical discourse, everybody must stand or fall on what they say. Nymphadora in particular is doing her no real favors.

I left this discussion once I saw we were simply circling back. But it's fair to say I was interrogating her pretty closely, and not one person stepped up for her.

[Losty]

Of course Thump, because you Sir are a gentleman.

[bennyboy]

So you're saying that all theists, because they are theists, deserve to be treated in the same disrespectful manner.  Who they are and what their qualities are as people shouldn't enter into it.  Wow.

CL has started a thread about a very legitimate and serious philosophical question without doing her homework. Even Harris took the time to watch a bunch of videos, to put together a string of ideas, and to cite references. I started plenty respectful, asking her philosophical questions about her ideas, and after about 30 pages of "La la la, objective morality, rape is objectively evil, God is good," and nothing else, and the ridiculous way in which you and others were treating philosophical challenges as personal attacks against your new buddy, I pointed out that double standard. Live with it.

This is what I do, and will continue to do, everytime a theist enters the "Philosophy" section with wishy-thinking, and I don't much care how nice people think that particular theist is, since that's irrelevant to the doing of philosophy.  I mean, look at the outrageously offensive shit Rhythm has said to me and vice versa, and we were at least attempting to put together logical ideas-- where was the talk of mod action then?  There was none.  So from whence does this double standard come that a theist can invade my precious Philosophy section spewing wishy-thinking with very little attempt to support it with. . . ya know. . . IDEAS and LOGIC and EVIDENCE and stuff?

Never got the memo that the philosophy section was now under your personal direction.  Whatever you think philosophy is all about you sure as hell don't speak for me.

I don't have a problem giving hostile atheists room to work through their shit but no you don't get to be an upfront asshole and have all atheists fall in behind you because its really us against them.  Grow the hell up.  I'm tired of your sorry act.

I like the philosophy section because people try to. . . oh I don't know. . . do philosophy and stuff. So long as someone is really putting their all their effort into that, I will debate-- and pleasantly-- until the cows come home. But I don't think CL is a great logician who happens to be nice. I think she's being a nice person IN LIEU of making sufficient arguments, and that this is disrespectful to people who enjoy actually doing philosophy.

As for you-- do you think so little of CL that you have to be her champion? Fine. Let's start a 1 vs. 1 debate, and you can argue how coherent the God idea is, and how rape, while being objectively evil, is sometimes necessary in a universe created by an all-powerful God. No? Then stop throwing up a smoke-screen and let's get back to arguing about the OP, rather than what a cutie-pie sweetheart CL is, and what a big bad meanie I am.

Because the difference between me and 90% of the people piling onto this thread-- on both sides-- is that I'm actually interested in arguing about what objective morality is, and whether it's even a coherent idea.

[Losty]

Well, I think a party is getting started and everything. Maybe the skies will clear 
Losty is going. Empress. Lady for Camus. Benny! 

---

oh, and now Hanky! 

A good naked spanking generally clears up any negative feelings....what did no one say naked? Hmm...naked seems best to me. Just to be on the safe side.

[Joods]

You made it clear yesterday that yo are attacking me because you believe you should be a moderator. The above makes clear why you are not, nor should you ever be.

Really? Show me where I did that or even said that. I did not name anyone in particular in this thread, during my defense of Cathy, so for you to state that I was attacking you, is an outright lie. And to say I did it using the excuse that I believe I should be a moderator? Don't you think that's a little far fetched, considering I never even said such a thing?

[bennyboy]

Okay, guys, I'd like to slam on the breaks. I hope the fighting can stop, because I really do want to get back to the OP. Specifically, I want to address a question to CL if she's still around. I'd like a simple answer. I'm willing to start discussion again in a spirit of support and all-embracing peace and love, if my question can be answered simply:

What logical reason do you have that causes you to believe that objective morality exists, or what evidence do you have that causes you to believe that objective morality exists?

[God of Mr. Hanky]

You made it clear yesterday that yo are attacking me because you believe you should be a moderator. The above makes clear why you are not, nor should you ever be.

Really? Show me where I did that or even said that. I did not name anyone in particular in this thread, during my defense of Cathy, so for you to state that I was attacking you, is an outright lie. And to say I did it using the excuse that I believe I should be a moderator? Don't you think that's a little far fetched, considering I never even said such a thing?

I'm not going to bother dealing with your shit anymore, Nympho. Your attacks against me over the past two days are in black and white, and you've really been a bigger cunt about everything than most theists which I've encountered. You've been acting like nobody other than you and your select few friends deserves any respect on this site, therefore you can go fuck yourself.