Morality

[Acrobat]

Not at all, which is why I've been trying to familiarize you with moral realism.  


To a non natural realist, the badness of the thing is directly apprehended by the intellect.  It's a non empirical fact which is only coincidentally informed by the empirical facts of the matter (say, harm).  A property that some object has, that many otherwise disparate objects -can- have. 

To a natural realist, the badness of the thing is shorthand for observing a grab bag of empirical properties.  Harm is used illustratively as an umbrella term for these...but it can get needlingly specific depending on which variant of natural realism one refers to.  

So, on the one hand, it's not actually true that a moral fact is an evaluative premise or proposition on it's face..but, if it were..that poses no more difficulty than certifying any other list of empirical premises or propositions.

Do you find that objection difficult to handle in your own divine morality, and how do you address it?

Still dancing I see. Go back to my questions, answer them Yes or No, and then if you like you can further elaborate.

[LastPoet]

All this long winded bullsittery should belong in the philosophy section. My opinion anyway, but seems good for ya. (everyone knows my opinion about the subject of thinking about thinking )

*runs off*

[The Grand Nudger]

Still dancing I see. Go back to my questions, answer them Yes or No, and then if you like you can further elaborate.

....?

You have my answers, if you have an issue with those answers then lay it out, there's no sense in me quoting myself again.

[Acrobat]

Still dancing I see. Go back to my questions, answer them Yes or No, and then if you like you can further elaborate.

....?

You have my answers, if you have an issue with those answers then lay it out, there's no sense in me quoting myself again.

K I get it, you don’t want to answer my pretty straightforward yes or no questions.

Why? I guess that will remain a mystery.

[The Grand Nudger]

Not at all, which is why I've been trying to familiarize you with moral realism.  


To a non natural realist, the badness of the thing is directly apprehended by the intellect.  It's a non empirical fact which is only coincidentally informed by the empirical facts of the matter (say, harm).  A property that some object has, that many otherwise disparate objects -can- have. 

To a natural realist, the badness of the thing is shorthand for observing a grab bag of empirical properties.  Harm is used illustratively as an umbrella term for these...but it can get needlingly specific depending on which variant of natural realism one refers to.  

So, on the one hand, it's not actually true that a moral fact is an evaluative premise or proposition on it's face..but, if it were..that poses no more difficulty than certifying any other list of empirical premises or propositions.

Do you find that objection difficult to handle in your own divine morality, and how do you address it?

......sigh.......do you come from some place where "not at all" is an ambiguous or mysterious answer?

Do you, have a problem..with any of my answers..or is the problem that you have..that I've answered your questions?

[Brian37]

....?

You have my answers, if you have an issue with those answers then lay it out, there's no sense in me quoting myself again.

K I get it, you don’t want to answer my pretty straightforward yes or no questions.

Why? I guess that will remain a mystery.

Nothing you have asked is "straightforward."

Been at debate since 01 on an almost daily basis, so if you think your argument's here are new, you'd be wrong. And I am sure lots of other atheists here would agree.

The pattern is the same.

"I'm not arguing my God claim, holy book or religion, I just want you to answer my questions".

Seen that from Muslims and Jews and Buddhists and Hindus too over the years.

You have  goal. So just admit it, and stop pretending you don't.

I do have a goal. My goal is to get you to consider you only think you need a religion/god, but I'd argue you don't need a god or a religion. 

Your goal is to try to convince us you picked the correct club/God.

Why have I noticed this pattern from every religion over the years? Because while they claim in one thread they are not trying to point you somewhere, the same person starts another thread, or goes to another website to argue they got it right.

Your problem is you are simply not used to your tactic exposed and simply expect us to go, "Gee isn't that a nifty claim".

If you are not afraid of your position, then don't back off of it, defend it. But I am no fool, this is not my first rodeo. 

When the theist cant simply quote their holy book, they do what you are doing here, and pretend that is not what they are doing. Then when they cant get away with that, they attack science. Then when they cant get away with that, they claim science points to their club/deity/religoin/god.

I don't pretend in any thread, or back off my position that humans make up religions/god/s.

Now again, this is not about human rights at all, just telling you your logic is still based on old mythology.

[Acrobat]

Do you, have a problem..with any of my answers..or is the problem that you have..that I've answered your questions?

Yes the problem with your answers, is that it doesn’t directly answer the questions I posed. If they did you would have directly answered them yourself, rather than expect me to parse out some supposedly relevant pieces, or try and squeeze a square peg into a round hole.

It seem to me that the reason that you refuse to do it, is because you feel trapped by them, that you risk falling into a well of contradictions, saying things that negate your previous claims, defeating your own argument.

What I have trouble telling is if it’s something people like yourself do willfully, or if it’s a cognitive defense like cognitive dissonance. That you can’t really see that you haven’t actually answered my questions, blinded by your own impairments.

[The Grand Nudger]

As expected, the problem that you have, is that I answered your questions.  You just don't like the answers. Carry on bitching about me like a little girl, lol.

[Acrobat]

As expected, the problem that you have, is that I answered your questions.  You just don't like the answers. Carry on bitching about me like a little girl, lol.

If you answered my questions directly I’d have yes or no responses, along with elaboration if necessary. I don’t see that you provided this, you dodged the question multiple times, and have still refused to answer then directly, you also never explained why you couldn’t answer them as I suggested you do.

[The Grand Nudger]

I could quote myself again...but....?

If there's something specific that you find unclear, just ask.  That's how this works.