Boston Marathon explosions......

[PearlWatson]

I've mentioned them before. When I give you all the information up front, you ignore. If I hand out little dribbles, sometimes you ask for more.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism-moral/

https://www.strongatheism.net/library/philosophy/case_for_objective_morality/

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/camel...with-a-few-of-my-paths-to-objective-morality/

I said I wasn't chasing rainbows. So your links are worthless. Use your own "free thinker" mind if you want further engagement.

 

[One Brow]

I said I wasn't chasing rainbows. So your links are worthless. Use your own "free thinker" mind if you want further engagement.

Based on past history, I see no reason to think you will read it dispassionately. I'm not qualified to summarize every theory of natural, objective morality without doing hours of research. MY only point is that such theories exist. There are atheists who accept the existence of objective morality. Your claim of incompatibility is false.

 

[MVP]

As for why the U.S. has a high incidence of those things is because we have allowed God-deniers to control our government schools, teach our kids faux science, and all things that go against the judeo-Christian moral fabric of our society. Basically the increased prevalence of Liberalism goes right along with the increase in "indecency."

Thats the most unrealistic explanation I have seen. Why non religous countries which teach the same science have way less indecency compared to USA then? What is the reason there?
What faux science you are talking about? Can you be more specific?
What liberalism caused D.Fisher and M.Jackson to be indecent?

 

[MVP]

I don't believe I can go to a priest, confess, pray for 5 mins and be granted freedom from my "sins."

Me neither. But it is regular routine in catholic churches.

 

[PearlWatson]

Thats the most unrealistic explanation I have seen. Why non religous countries which teach the same science have way less indecency compared to USA then? What is the reason there?
What faux science you are talking about? Can you be more specific?
What liberalism caused D.Fisher and M.Jackson to be indecent?

U.S. families may be religious but our government schools ain't. In fact they purposely undermine the traditional Judeo-Christian morality, especially when it comes to teen sexuality. They encourage teens to play with fire. They pretend that condom usage is "safe" despite the science. It ain't no accident we have a high incidence of abortion and STD's, but it ain't religion's fault. New York, a liberal state, is the abortion capital of the World.

I don't know what countries you speak of.
I don't know what other "indecencies" you speak of.

 

[PearlWatson]

Based on past history, I see no reason to think you will read it dispassionately. I'm not qualified to summarize every theory of natural, objective morality without doing hours of research. MY only point is that such theories exist. There are atheists who accept the existence of objective morality. Your claim of incompatibility is false.

The existence of a counter claim means my claim is false. Thanks for that amusing contribution.

 

[One Brow]

They encourage teens to play with fire. They pretend that condom usage is "safe" despite the science.

Every single sex education curriculum teaches abstinence, including that abstinence is safest. Every. Single. One. Some also teach the usage of condoms, for teens that are unwilling to wait. Using a condom is much safer than not using one.

 

[One Brow]

The existence of a counter claim means my claim is false. Thanks for that amusing contribution.

Claim: If morality is man-made then there is no "good" there is simply "approved of by the humans around me."

Fact: Several philosophers recognize that morality is both man-made and that there is an objective good.

Now, unless you care to demonstrate the error of this fact, your claim is disproved.

 

[The Black Swordsman]

Claim: If morality is man-made then there is no "good" there is simply "approved of by the humans around me."

Fact: Several philosophers recognize that morality is both man-made and that there is an objective good.

Now, unless you care to demonstrate the error of this fact, your claim is disproved.

I'm trying to avoid this thread nowadays but very clear appeal to authority man :/

 

[PearlWatson]

Claim: If morality is man-made then there is no "good" there is simply "approved of by the humans around me."

Fact: Several philosophers recognize that morality is both man-made and that there is an objective good.

Now, unless you care to demonstrate the error of this fact, your claim is disproved.

Claim: There is no God.
Fact: Some people recognize there is a God.

Unless you care to demonstrate the error of the fact that some people recognize there is a God, your claim is disproved.

Fun fun fun.

 

[PearlWatson]

Every single sex education curriculum teaches abstinence, including that abstinence is safest. Every. Single. One. Some also teach the usage of condoms, for teens that are unwilling to wait. Using a condom is much safer than not using one.

I mean this claim alone demonstrates what religious people have to deal with when we come up against the Liberals who run and teach in our schools.

 

[PearlWatson]

Not really. You won't find me hanging out with anti-vaxxers or Men's Rights Advocates, even though many of them are atheists. You'll find me among the people who accept science/evidence because there is nothing better, promote equality, and seek a better culture. It's not a bad place to hang out.

I find the assumption behind that statement as really ignorant. The majority of God believers love real science. There are a ton of Christian scientists. Colton simultaneously has faith in the Joseph Smith vision and teaches physics. 2 of my gynos were Christian women. Even God-believing me enjoys learning about interesting or useful real scientific discoveries. I simply hate "scientism"/consensus "science"/Darwinism and the like for its corruption of real science.

I actually find you and I share many common interests.

Why eliminate identifying with your fellow human beings simply because they believe in God?

 

[Siro]

I find the assumption behind that statement as really ignorant. The majority of God believers love real science. There are a ton of Christian scientists. Colton simultaneously has faith in the Joseph Smith vision and teaches physics. 2 of my gynos were Christian women. Even God-believing me enjoys learning about interesting or useful real scientific discoveries. I simply hate "scientism"/consensus "science"/Darwinism and the like for its corruption of real science.

I actually find you and I share many common interests.

Why eliminate identifying with your fellow human beings simply because they believe in God?

Colton also accepts evolution as the correct explanation for the diversity of life that we see today, given the overwhelming evidence. You however, pick and choose what "real" science is, even though you barely know a thing about science, on the basis of how well it fits with your childhood-acquired ideology. So no, there was nothing ignorant about his statement.

 

[PearlWatson]

Colton also accepts evolution as the correct explanation for the diversity of life that we see today, given the overwhelming evidence. You however, pick and choose what "real" science is, even though you barely know a thing about science, on the basis of how well it fits with your childhood-acquired ideology. So no, there was nothing ignorant about his statement.

I don't know if that is the case. I've heard him express a belief in a God-driven common ancestry, which is part of ID theory, but none of that matters since he was simply a current example of a God-believing scientist. There are plenty of others.

Yes, I pick out the real science from the fake science.

I was actually perfectly happy "accepting" Darwin's theory up until 5 years ago when I delved more into it and learned that it was disproved and the only thing remaining was Atheist driven dogma.

 

[Siro]

I don't know if that is the case. I've heard him express a belief in a God-driven common ancestry, which is part of ID theory, but none of that matters since he was simply a current example of a God-believing scientist. There are plenty of others.

Yes, I pick out the real science from the fake science.

I was actually perfectly happy "accepting" Darwin's theory up until 5 years ago when I delved more into it and learned that it was disproved and the only thing remaining was Atheist driven dogma.

There is a difference between someone choosing to believe some kind of divine plan driving evolution, and complete denialism, which you fall into. And since the last time we discussed the subject you kept talking about "Darwinism" and "scientism" and how all the theories you don't like are conspiracies to steal your money, I have serious doubts that any of it is based on even a rudimentary analysis of actual evidence.

 

[PearlWatson]

There is a difference between someone choosing to believe some kind of divine plan driving evolution, and complete denialism, which you fall into. And since the last time we discussed the subject you kept talking about "Darwinism" and "scientism" and how all the theories you don't like are conspiracies to steal your money, I have serious doubts that any of it is based on even a rudimentary analysis of actual evidence.

Bolded: Complete denialism of what? I vaguely remember saying I don't have to choose between uncommon ancestry and intelligence driven common ancestry to reject Darwin's theory.
Underlined: don't know what you are talking about.

Am I supposed to care about your doubts?

 

[MVP]

I was actually perfectly happy "accepting" Darwin's theory up until 5 years ago when I delved more into it and learned that it was disproved

I would be interested to find out how it was disproved and by who?

 

[One Brow]

I'm trying to avoid this thread nowadays but very clear appeal to authority man :/

Yes, it is. I appeal to physicists on physics questions, to biologists on biology questions, and to philosophers on philosophy questions. Do you think that is an error?

 

[One Brow]

Claim: There is no God.
Fact: Some people recognize there is a God.

Unless you care to demonstrate the error of the fact that some people recognize there is a God, your claim is disproved.

Fun fun fun.

Yes, indeed. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss different spheres of knowledge.

Moral value systems are, essentially, formal constructs, built from a few basic principles using logic. Thus, any demonstration of how to construct one is sufficient to show one exists. In particular, to demonstrate than an atheist can have objective value, one need only start with a few positions consistent with ateism and construct an objective value system from them.

Existence claims are based on what is discovered, not constructed. If you claim there are snakes living in a specific holes, you would be expected to provide evidence particular to snakes (scat, track marks, etc.). If you claim there are fairies living in that hole, you would be expected to provide evidence for fairies. Evidence for snakes is commonplace, evidence for fairies (or God) is non-existent.

 

[One Brow]

Every single sex education curriculum teaches abstinence, including that abstinence is safest. Every. Single. One. Some also teach the usage of condoms, for teens that are unwilling to wait. Using a condom is much safer than not using one.

I mean this claim alone demonstrates what religious people have to deal with when we come up against the Liberals who run and teach in our schools.

You disagree with the bolded part? You don't think abstinence is the safest course?