Why does science always upstage God?

[ayost]

Will you be dismantling moral realism, or no?

Sure. Are the moral facts in moral realism objective?

[LadyForCamus]

I know that as time went on in later centuries the church and the state became intertwined in a way that was destructive for the church. And the Church (as in the big organization, not local believers) failed immensely to fulfill Christ's mission. No argument there.

However, the idea that the canon or the body of orthodox beliefs was just the result of political bickering is too simple. First, there's evidence that 22 of the 27 books of the NT were considered core writings by the mid second century. Second, early on as these texts were circulated there was no controlling body forcing people to only read certain things. The NT spread organically through multiple lines that couldn't be controlled. You couldn't suppress writings, they were very where and their transmission uncontrolled. Also, you aren't telling the whole story. Some doctrines survived and won out despite political victories by the opposition, like Arianism and Constantius II. I don't think accidental is a good description. I think there was much more happening than that.


Thank you, truly. And likewise.

---

Do I?  Strange.  It's a good thing you came along to tell me what I think.  I'd have never known otherwise.  

From your response above, you appear to understand perfectly well why your stated view is self referentially false.  You see thousands of years worth of explanations, and competing explanations.  It's almost as if people do have moral systems and explanations for their moral systems.  It's almost as if "because christ" isn't an answer to the question of why or whether it's wrong to curbstomp the neighbors kid..but fuck me if you could think of any reason besides that, eh?  Obviously, if you're that ignorant, then other people must also be.



Get your shit together.  Don't want people to treat you like a dumb asshole, stop putting in the work.

And what happens when one person's moral system collides with another person's moral system and we all start explaining our moral systems?

You act like people have never thought torture was "not wrong", or slavery, or genocide, or rape, or burning babies alive, or sacrificing children. Way worse things than curbstomping a kid have been considered "not wrong".

How do religious moral systems solve this problem?

[LadyForCamus]

Are you describing your moral system?  I thought you were a "because christ" guy, not a "because we evolved to do it" guy....?  We're omnivores...too, you don't see me running out to roast people on a spit.

The fuck is wrong with you?

I'm sorry, since I am so stupid and you are so smart I assumed that you would be able to tell when I was stepping into your worldview to say something. I'll talk slower and be more clear.

I'm telling you there is no agreed upon moral system among humans, as evidenced by the fact that you and I don't agree on morality.

There isn’t even an agreed upon moral system among Christians. You see?

[The Grand Nudger]

Will you be dismantling moral realism, or no?

Sure. Are the moral facts in moral realism objective?

That's the definition of the term.  So much for dismantling my world view as soon as I offer it.  Then again, you may have the same understanding of soon as christ.

[ayost]

---

And what happens when one person's moral system collides with another person's moral system and we all start explaining our moral systems?

You act like people have never thought torture was "not wrong", or slavery, or genocide, or rape, or burning babies alive, or sacrificing children. Way worse things than curbstomping a kid have been considered "not wrong".

How does objective religious morality solve this problem?

Well, if you have an infallible, objective moral standard that you appeal to then when fallible people (Christians) have a dispute you go to the infallible, objective moral standard for a resolution.

[The Grand Nudger]

We've got another one that's confused a fairy's subjective whims for an objective system.

[ayost]

Sure. Are the moral facts in moral realism objective?

That's the definition of the term.  So much for dismantling my world view as soon as I offer it.  Then again, you may have the same understanding of soon as christ.

Ah yes, the non-committal atheist response.

Well non-committal atheist, how do you know if something is objective? How do you know something exists beyond your judgments or personal feelings or opinions? How do you know something is a fact, in that respect? Do you have any experiences beyond your judgments or personal feelings or opinions that would lead you to believe that something exists beyond them? If so, please describe that experience here.

---

No evidence, just belief, OK by me, time to move along @ayost. You've got nothing even remotely convincing.

Honestly I'm ignoring you, I'm not even reading your posts. Just this one bc it's a single line.

[The Grand Nudger]

The same way that I know anything else is objective. Moral realism isn't exactly a novel idea. Not that it matters how I personally know. What's the holdup? There either are or there are not moral facts. I came to see some dismantling. My position is that there are - you gonna get around to telling me otherwise at some point?

[ayost]

The same way that I know anything else is objective.  Moral realism isn't exactly a novel idea.  Not that it matters how I personally know.  What's the holdup?  There either are or there are not moral facts.  I came to see some dismantling.  My position is that there are - you gonna get around to telling me otherwise at some point?

Ok, well you said nothing there. How do you know anything else is objective?

[The Grand Nudger]

We can know whether a thing is objective when it fits the definition of an objective proposition.

For example, if I say that something about curbstomping a kid makes it wrong - that's an objective claim. If I say that something about what a fairy says or believes, or..even, whether it exists... makes a thing right or wrong, that's a subjective claim.