Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Moral Realism?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by seer View Post
    Actually Jichard, the more I think about this the more confused I become.
    I'm 50/50 on whether you're feigning this.

    I am not sure what you mean by all this.
    I told you exactly what was meant by it. And it was fairly clear, since not only do mainstream philosophers and mainstream scientists get it, but other people on this forum got it just find. To repeat:

    No, they aren't, but nor a biological properties physical, nor are astronomical properties physical, nor are... You've have this explained to you before by a number of people. Once again: there are natural properties that are non-physical, since they don't occur at the level discussed in the science of physics. You can go back to pretending that this point has not been told to you.


    And again:

    The main problem here has to with levels of scientific explanation. There are various levels of scientific explanation. To help illustrate the point, imagine using a microscope or telescope. Depending on your level of magnification, you'll observe different processes, phenomena, and so on. We deal with the different levels by using have different sciences for different levels. For example, sub-atomic physics deals with lower-level phenomena than does astronomy.

    Now, if you want to address a given phenomena, you need to select the science that addresses the level at which that phenomena emerges (or a science which addresses a level close to that phenomena's level). For example, it would be foolish to try and use sub-atomic physics to explain the motion of planets. Sub-atomic physics operates at way too low a level, the scientific tools of sub-atomic physics won't be of much help to you in dealing with large-scale planetary motion, etc. You instead need the tools of astronomy, especially in terms of discussing gravitational effects of large bodies. Now, does that show that there's some dualism between atoms and planets, that planets are made out of non-material substance, etc. No. It simply shows that it's often hard to explain a phenomenon that occurs at one level (ex: a planet's orbit around a star) with a phenomenon that occurs at a very different level (ex: a planet's sub-atomic constituents), even if you already know that (in some sense) the features/processes occurring at one level are constituted by (or emerge from) the features/processes occurring at another level.


    So there's no need to continue feigning.

    Are you saying that morality is more than the result of biological adaptation, that there are universal and absolute moral facts or truths?
    No, I'm saying exactly what I said to you: moral properties are not physical properties, since they don't occur at the level discussed by the science of physics. That's not a problem for naturalism, since natural properties don't need to be physical properties. For example, biological properties are not physical properties, nor are psychological properties.

    This has been explained to you again and again and again and...
    "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

    Comment


    • Originally posted by seer View Post
      It was a yes or no question: Does God and His immutable attributes, including His immutable moral character, exist independently of and objectively to humankind and the universe?
      It was a question based on a false presupposition, which I then addressed.

      What you're doing is akin to asking:
      Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
      and then complaining when someone answers by pointing out the false presupposition underlying your question (namely: that I've stopped beating my wife.

      In your case, your false presupposition is contained in your phrases "objectively to humankind and the universe", where you falsely presuppose that the "objective" in this context, is agent relevant or dependent on point of view. It isn't, as was explained to you, so your question was based on a false presupposition:

      Same mistaken "objectively to humankind" phrase. I've already explained why that's a mistake on your part. Please have the intellectual honesty to address that, for once, as opposed to repating the same mistake as if you'd think I'd be too stupid to notice. Once again:
      "On the standard accounts of "subjective" or "objective" used to define "moral subjectivism" and "moral objectivism", it wouldn't make sense to talk about about something being objective from one of view and subjective from another point of view. Instead, they would be objective simpliciter or subjective simpliciter. To put it another way: if it's mind-dependent, then it's mind-dependent from any view-point. For example, the statement "Jichard dislikes cake" would be subjectively true simpliciter, since it's true or false in virtue on my attitude. That would be the case from my perspective, God's perspective, or anyone else's perspective. Similarly, "God commands X" would be subjectively true simpliciter because it's true or false depending in virtue of God's expressed attitude. And that would be the case from my perspective, God's perspective, or anyone else's perspective.

      That's why divine command theory is recognized as a forum of moral subjectivism, no matter how much you pretend otherwise."


      So how about you actually address that point, seer, instead of trying to hide your false claims behind loaded questions?
      "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Jichard View Post
        I'm 50/50 on whether you're feigning this.



        I told you exactly what was meant by it. And it was fairly clear, since not only do mainstream philosophers and mainstream scientists get it, but other people on this forum got it just find. To repeat:

        No, they aren't, but nor a biological properties physical, nor are astronomical properties physical, nor are... You've have this explained to you before by a number of people. Once again: there are natural properties that are non-physical, since they don't occur at the level discussed in the science of physics. You can go back to pretending that this point has not been told to you.


        And again:

        The main problem here has to with levels of scientific explanation. There are various levels of scientific explanation. To help illustrate the point, imagine using a microscope or telescope. Depending on your level of magnification, you'll observe different processes, phenomena, and so on. We deal with the different levels by using have different sciences for different levels. For example, sub-atomic physics deals with lower-level phenomena than does astronomy.

        Now, if you want to address a given phenomena, you need to select the science that addresses the level at which that phenomena emerges (or a science which addresses a level close to that phenomena's level). For example, it would be foolish to try and use sub-atomic physics to explain the motion of planets. Sub-atomic physics operates at way too low a level, the scientific tools of sub-atomic physics won't be of much help to you in dealing with large-scale planetary motion, etc. You instead need the tools of astronomy, especially in terms of discussing gravitational effects of large bodies. Now, does that show that there's some dualism between atoms and planets, that planets are made out of non-material substance, etc. No. It simply shows that it's often hard to explain a phenomenon that occurs at one level (ex: a planet's orbit around a star) with a phenomenon that occurs at a very different level (ex: a planet's sub-atomic constituents), even if you already know that (in some sense) the features/processes occurring at one level are constituted by (or emerge from) the features/processes occurring at another level.


        So there's no need to continue feigning.



        No, I'm saying exactly what I said to you: moral properties are not physical properties, since they don't occur at the level discussed by the science of physics. That's not a problem for naturalism, since natural properties don't need to be physical properties. For example, biological properties are not physical properties, nor are psychological properties.

        This has been explained to you again and again and again and...
        OK, that is all fine, for now, I have to think about it. But, so you are not saying that morality is more than the result of biological adaptation, that there aren't are universal and absolute moral facts or values?
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • Originally posted by seer View Post
          OK, that is all fine, for now, I have to think about it. But, so you are not saying that morality is more than the result of biological adaptation, that there aren't are universal and absolute moral facts or values?
          Originally posted by seer View Post
          Are you saying that morality is more than the result of biological adaptation, that there are universal and absolute moral facts or truths?
          Your question makes no sense, since you're (once again) confusing causation with reference. Basically, you seem to think there is some conflict between:
          morality (by which I assume you mean moral beliefs) being caused, in part, by biological adaptations
          and:
          there being moral facts

          That makes no sense. It's akin to saying there is a conflict between:
          science (by which I mean sscientific beliefs) being caused, in part, by biology adaptations
          and:
          there being scientific moral facts
          That makes no sense, since scientific beliefs can be about scientific facts, regardless of how those scientific beliefs are caused. For example, suppose that evolution was apart of the cause for humans thinking that a certain plant was toxic. Does that mean there is no scientific fact about whether the plant is toxic? Nope. To say otherwise, is to commit the genetic fallacy by using the causal origin of a belief to argue that there is no fact of the matter for the belief.

          Parallel points in the moral case: you're committing the genetic fallacy by trying to move directly from moral beliefs causally result from biological adaptation to there are no moral facts which moral beliefs are about. This is a big no-no in philosophy of biology.


          So, feel free to phrase your question in a way that does not presuppose something fallacious.
          "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

          Comment


          • Originally posted by seer View Post
            Yes I see that you arbitrarily stop the justification process when it is convenient for you.
            Not arbitrary, since I gave a reason for it.

            I did not once say that might makes right. But the fact is, in your universe there is no ultimate justice. What use is a moral system without justice?
            Might makes right is your position. You think that actions can be morally right if and only if a powerful deity says so and punished those who don't do the right thing.

            Anyway, you're committing the fallacy of appeal to consequences: whether moral claims are true or false, does not depend on whether or not they bring about position consequences you like (such as th good being rewarded and the bad being punished).

            Again this is a pure assertion on your part. We can demonstrate that cell theory is useful for understanding cell biology. You have not demonstrate, on any level, that moral realism is useful or even true.
            Please stop calling something an "assertion" just because you don't have the wherewithal to address it. Moral realism answers meta-ethical questions just as Cell Theory answers biological questions. I even pointed you sources on the sorts of questions it answers. For example:
            Originally posted by Jichard View Post
            Start with Wikipedia and proceed from there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism

            Or you can read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy page on this, or the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy page on this.
            That's not just an "assertion", since I backed up the claim. Tell me when you have an honest response to that, beyond your usual pretending that evidence has not been cited to you. Lying won't cut it.
            "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Jichard View Post
              Your question makes no sense, since you're (once again) confusing causation with reference. Basically, you seem to think there is some conflict between:
              morality (by which I assume you mean moral beliefs) being caused, in part, by biological adaptations
              and:
              there being moral facts

              That makes no sense. It's akin to saying there is a conflict between:
              science (by which I mean sscientific beliefs) being caused, in part, by biology adaptations
              and:
              there being scientific moral facts
              That makes no sense, since scientific beliefs can be about scientific facts, regardless of how those scientific beliefs are caused. For example, suppose that evolution was apart of the cause for humans thinking that a certain plant was toxic. Does that mean there is no scientific fact about whether the plant is toxic? Nope. To say otherwise, is to commit the genetic fallacy by using the causal origin of a belief to argue that there is no fact of the matter for the belief.

              Parallel points in the moral case: you're committing the genetic fallacy by trying to move directly from moral beliefs causally result from biological adaptation to there are no moral facts which moral beliefs are about. This is a big no-no in philosophy of biology.


              So, feel free to phrase your question in a way that does not presuppose something fallacious.
              OK, I'm just trying to get a grip on what you are actually saying (and believe me, I don't yet). You do believe that there are universal, absolute moral values or facts? And that moral beliefs gained by biological adaptations somehow reflect these universal values?
              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

              Comment


              • Originally posted by seer View Post
                OK, I'm just trying to get a grip on what you are actually saying (and believe me, I don't yet).
                Now 75/25 on whether you're feigning.

                You do believe that there are universal, absolute moral values or facts?
                I'm not a moral absolutist. I'm a moral realist. And you've been told what that means several times

                And that moral beliefs gained by biological adaptations somehow reflect these universal values?
                Moral beliefs are true or false in virtue of the moral properties of the actions, person, groups of persons, etc. to which they refer to.

                I'm not going to go with your term "universal values" because I suspect that you misunderstand what "values" means in this context (that is: you think it refers to what people care about [ex: I value my wife], as opposed to the things in virtue of which statements about what is morally good or morally bad are true or false, which is what it actually means in meta-ethics). If you use "values" in the way it's actually used in meta-ethics when discussing "moral values", then moral beliefs about what is morally good and morally bad, would refer to moral values.
                "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Jichard View Post

                  I'm not a moral absolutist. I'm a moral realist. And you've been told what that means several times.
                  From what I have been reading some moral realists are absolutists - correct?



                  Moral beliefs are true or false in virtue of the moral properties of the actions, person, groups of persons, etc. to which they refer to.

                  I'm not going to go with your term "universal values" because I suspect that you misunderstand what "values" means in this context (that is: you think it refers to what people care about [ex: I value my wife], as opposed to the things in virtue of which statements about what is morally good or morally bad are true or false, which is what it actually means in meta-ethics). If you use "values" in the way it's actually used in meta-ethics when discussing "moral values", then moral beliefs about what is morally good and morally bad, would refer to moral values.
                  That is fine, so are there things that are universally bad or good?
                  Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Jichard View Post
                    Please stop calling something an "assertion" just because you don't have the wherewithal to address it. Moral realism answers meta-ethical questions just as Cell Theory answers biological questions. I even pointed you sources on the sorts of questions it answers. For example:
                    The question is why is moral realism true? I have been reading the last couple of days about moral error theory and moral nihilism, especially Alex Rosenberg's take on moral nihilism. He would not agree that moral realism is true. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...d/#more-157596
                    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by seer View Post
                      The question is why is moral realism true?
                      Please don't tell falsehoods. You've repeatedly gone on about whether or not moral realism is useful, and I've repeatedly told you that that's a fallacious appeal to consequence, since moral realism doesn't need to be useful in order to be true. Furthermore, I explained to you how moral realism was useful, insofar as it answers meta-ethical questions.

                      But here you are, pretending that the issue was just whether moral realism was true. Well, that statement is shown to be a falsehood (or maybe even a lie) each and every time you talked about whether moral realism was useful. Here's one:
                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      We can demonstrate that cell theory is useful for understanding cell biology. You have not demonstrate, on any level, that moral realism is useful or even true.

                      Originally posted by seer
                      I have been reading the last couple of days about moral error theory and moral nihilism, especially Alex Rosenberg's take on moral nihilism. He would not agree that moral realism is true. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...d/#more-157596
                      seer, a bit of advice: don't misrepresent sources on topics you're not familiar with, just because you find it convenient for your position. You did that, for example, in the discussion on physicalism, where you quoted a source that contradicted you, but intentionally quote-mined the source to leave out the portion that contradicted you. That was deceptive.

                      I'm telling you this because I suspect you're about to pull you misrepresentation tactic on moral error theory / moral nihilism. And it won't work. It especially won't work for you on me, since I guarantee that I'm better read in moral error theory than you. In fact, I know more about the position than I do about moral realist positions. For example, I've read both of Richard Joyce's books (he's who I named myself after), every single paper he's every written on the topic, Mackie's book, Jonas Olson's book, Richard Garner's book, Charles Pigden paper on the subject, etc. There is no way in the world that you're going to get away with misrepresenting moral nihilism to me. Don't even waste your time.


                      So congratulations on finding someone who thinks moral nihilism. So what? You do realize Rosenberg accepts atheism, right, along with naturalism? Are you going to agree with him on that to, or does you intellectual consistency not go that far?
                      "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Jichard View Post
                        Please don't tell falsehoods. You've repeatedly gone on about whether or not moral realism is useful, and I've repeatedly told you that that's a fallacious appeal to consequence, since moral realism doesn't need to be useful in order to be true. Furthermore, I explained to you how moral realism was useful, insofar as it answers meta-ethical questions.

                        But here you are, pretending that the issue was just whether moral realism was true. Well, that statement is shown to be a falsehood (or maybe even a lie) each and every time you talked about whether moral realism was useful. Here's one:
                        Are you kidding Jichard? Look at my quote, that you posted:

                        We can demonstrate that cell theory is useful for understanding cell biology. You have not demonstrate, on any level, that moral realism is useful or even true.

                        I have been asking right along about both its usefulness and its truthfulness. So I guess you can not demonstrate that it is true. And the bottom line Jichard, moral realism makes no difference to humankind. It will not change a mind or convert a soul. So what good is answering meta-ethical questions when it has no practical use. Apart from academic navel gazing.


                        So congratulations on finding someone who thinks moral nihilism. So what? You do realize Rosenberg accepts atheism, right, along with naturalism? Are you going to agree with him on that to, or does you intellectual consistency not go that far?
                        So you agree that not all atheists who understand this issue agree with moral realism - correct?
                        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by seer View Post
                          Are you kidding Jichard? Look at my quote, that you posted:

                          We can demonstrate that cell theory is useful for understanding cell biology. You have not demonstrate, on any level, that moral realism is useful or even true.

                          I have been asking right along about both its usefulness and its truthfulness.
                          And yet you pretend that you only asked whether it was true. That's called lying:
                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          Originally posted by Jichard View Post
                          Please stop calling something an "assertion" just because you don't have the wherewithal to address it. Moral realism answers meta-ethical questions just as Cell Theory answers biological questions. I even pointed you sources on the sorts of questions it answers. For example:
                          The question is why is moral realism true?
                          Feel free to admit that was addressed, without resorting to lying.

                          So I guess you can not demonstrate that it is true.
                          More fabrications on your part, to avoid admitting your point was addressed'

                          And the bottom line Jichard, moral realism makes no difference to humankind.
                          Does moral realism answer meta-ethical questions? Feel free to answer, as opposed to the usual dishonesty.

                          It will not change a mind or convert a soul.
                          Now you're just making up more nonsense.

                          So what good is answering meta-ethical questions when it has no practical use. Apart from academic navel gazing.
                          I'm sorry, but that's a silly response That's like objecting to a mathematical theory by saying it's of no practical use and won't help you cook food. I'm sorry, but what sort of person objects to a position in meta-ethics on those grounds? Meta-ethics is not about building houses, cooking food, etc. It's silly of you to object to it because it doesn't have the magical consequences you wish it did.

                          But I get it: you think science, meta-ethics, etc. is "academic navel gazing". Then how about you leave informed discussion of the subject to those who understand it? Maybe you can go find something else that you consider of "practical use" (plumbing, or something), and leave discussion of moral objectivism, objective morality, etc. to those who don't find answers on those topics to be "academic nave gazing"?

                          So you agree that not all atheists who understand this issue agree with moral realism - correct?
                          So you agree that the majority of philosophers who understand this issue reject theism - correct?

                          Of course, you're engaged in your usual intellectual double-standards.. You think it's some big deal to point out one atheist who doesn't agree with me on one topic. Yet you have no problem with the vast majority of philosophers (who know more than you ever will on the topic), disagreeing with you on theism. Sad that this is what you're left to resorting to.
                          Last edited by Jichard; 07-22-2015, 09:34 PM.
                          "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Jichard View Post
                            And yet you pretend that you only asked whether it was true. That's called lying:
                            Feel free to admit that was addressed, without resorting to lying.
                            Nonsense Jichard, I never claimed that I was only asking about usefulness, good grief man, you know that I also have been asking about it truthfulness.



                            More fabrications on your part, to avoid admitting your point was addressed'
                            Yes you asserted it was true, you believe it is true, but you have not demonstrated why it is true.


                            Does moral realism answer meta-ethical questions? Feel free to answer, as opposed to the usual dishonesty.
                            But I already agreed that you are free to make up a moral theory then claim that it answers meta-ethical questions. But that has nothing to do with reality.



                            Now you're just making up more nonsense.
                            And that is the point isn't it. Moral realism doesn't change any ones moral behavior - so as far as having a positive effect on our behavior it is pretty much useless.



                            I'm sorry, but that's a silly response That's like objecting to a mathematical theory by saying it's of no practical use and won't help you cook food. I'm sorry, but what sort of person objects to a position in meta-ethics on those grounds? Meta-ethics is not about building houses, cooking food, etc. It's silly of you to object to it because it doesn't have the magical consequences you wish it did.

                            But I get it: you think science, meta-ethics, etc. is "academic navel gazing". Then how about you leave informed discussion of the subject to those who understand it? Maybe you can go find something else that you consider of "practical use" (plumbing, or something), and leave discussion of moral objectivism, objective morality, etc. to those who don't find answers on those topics to be "academic nave gazing"?
                            No, it is like saying that a mathematical theory has no practical use at all. What good is a ethical theory that has no actual effect on ethical behavior?



                            So you agree that the majority of philosophers who understand this issue reject theism - correct?
                            No, in case it escaped you, they reject moral realism - but not on religious grounds like you accused me. So men of good will can reject moral realism without religious motives.
                            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by seer View Post
                              Nonsense Jichard, I never claimed that I was only asking about usefulness, good grief man, you know that I also have been asking about it truthfulness.
                              When you were shown how moral realism was use, you pretended that you were only asking about whether it was true. No need for you to say otherwise, as if you're fooling anyone by telling blatant falsehoods.
                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              Originally posted by Jichard View Post
                              Please stop calling something an "assertion" just because you don't have the wherewithal to address it. Moral realism answers meta-ethical questions just as Cell Theory answers biological questions. I even pointed you sources on the sorts of questions it answers. For example:
                              The question is why is moral realism true?
                              Be honest, and tell the truth.

                              Yes you asserted it was true, you believe it is true, but you have not demonstrated why it is true.
                              You've been given arguments. no need to keep pretending otherwise.

                              But I already agreed that you are free to make up a moral theory then claim that it answers meta-ethical questions. But that has nothing to do with reality.
                              You didn't answer the question. I didn't ask you a question about what I claimed. I asked you a question about what you accept. Please stop dishonestly pretending otherwise.

                              So once again: Does moral realism answer meta-ethical questions? Feel free to answer, as opposed to the usual dishonesty.

                              And that is the point isn't it. Moral realism doesn't change any ones moral behavior - so as far as having a positive effect on our behavior it is pretty much useless.
                              Fallacy of appeal to consequence. Might as well say that Cell Theory is false and useless, since it doesn't have a positive effect on behavior. That would be silly, of course, since the point of Cell Theory is not to change behavior. It's to answer biological questions. Similarly, the point of moral realism isn't to change behavior. It's to answer meta-ethical questions. You keep evading this point.

                              No, it is like saying that a mathematical theory has no practical use at all. What good is a ethical theory that has no actual effect on ethical behavior?
                              For the umpteenth time: because it answers meta-ethical questions. How mant times can you keep pretending this hasn't been addressed, before your own dishonesty makes even you feel uncomfortable?

                              Originally posted by seer
                              Originally posted by Jichard
                              So you agree that the majority of philosophers who understand this issue reject theism - correct?
                              No, in case it escaped you, they reject moral realism - but not on religious grounds like you accused me. So men of good will can reject moral realism without religious motives.
                              You're lying. The majority of philosophers accept moral realism, and reject theism.
                              http://philpapers.org/surveys/result...1&grain=coarse

                              Feel free to retract that lie.
                              "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Jichard View Post

                                Fallacy of appeal to consequence. Might as well say that Cell Theory is false and useless, since it doesn't have a positive effect on behavior. That would be silly, of course, since the point of Cell Theory is not to change behavior. It's to answer biological questions. Similarly, the point of moral realism isn't to change behavior. It's to answer meta-ethical questions. You keep evading this point.
                                Good, so you agree that you have an ethical system that has zero effect on ethics. And it has zero effect on discovering what is actually right or wrong. So again, what good is it?
                                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by seer, Today, 07:40 AM
                                0 responses
                                1 view
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seer
                                by seer
                                 
                                Started by Starlight, 07-24-2021, 09:58 PM
                                137 responses
                                560 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seer
                                by seer
                                 
                                Started by seer, 07-20-2021, 12:05 PM
                                182 responses
                                912 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seer
                                by seer
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 07-16-2021, 07:39 AM
                                76 responses
                                422 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Mountain Man, 07-05-2021, 04:27 PM
                                74 responses
                                445 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X