Pissing off the atheists/naturalists

[Gary Childress]

If you believe that morality is possible then you accept P2.

That is a separate issue and a separate question to "Why do you believe morality is possible?"

A moral skeptic would simply argue that morality is impossible. Burden of proof's on you....

Equivocation. Go find someone stupid enough to buy your garbage.

[Skepdick]

If you accept P2 thajt's exactly what you are claiming.

You keep trying to cram everything into your categories, as if that's the real agenda.

No, I am not. Take your reductionist mindset elsewhere.

Morality is possible is not a categorical claim. It's a possibility claim.

It's possible to build airplanes.
It's possible to cure cancer.
It's possible to erradicate poverty.
It's impossible to get you to admit error.

Possible. Impossible.

Those aren't categories. Those are statements of fact about the world.

[Skepdick]

If you believe that morality is possible then you accept P2.

That is a separate issue and a separate question to "Why do you believe morality is possible?"

A moral skeptic would simply argue that morality is impossible. Burden of proof's on you....

Equivocation. Go find someone stupid enough to buy your garbage.

Which term am I equivocating?

[Gary Childress]

If you believe that morality is possible then you accept P2.

That is a separate issue and a separate question to "Why do you believe morality is possible?"

A moral skeptic would simply argue that morality is impossible. Burden of proof's on you....

Equivocation. Go find someone stupid enough to buy your garbage.

Which term am I equivocating?

Just about every term you use, idiot. If you can't see your own fallacies then fuck off, it's not my job to educate you.

Fucking names himself skepDICK. How fitting. Loser.

[Skepdick]

Equivocation. Go find someone stupid enough to buy your garbage.

Which term am I equivocating?

Just about every term you use, idiot. If you can't see your own fallacies then fuck off, it's not my job to educate you.

Fucking names himself skepDICK. How fitting. Loser.

Yes, it's exactly your job to educate me. I don't know what I don't know.

Claims of fallaciousness or equivocation requires evidence. Point it out! Help me learn from my mistakes.

If you don't provide evidence then I am justified in calling you an irrational and illogical reason-hating idiot.

Or there's an even more fitting explanation. I've met the burden of proof, but you don't want to accept the conclusion.

[Gary Childress]

Which term am I equivocating?

Just about every term you use, idiot. If you can't see your own fallacies then fuck off, it's not my job to educate you.

Fucking names himself skepDICK. How fitting. Loser.

Yes, it's exactly your job to educate me. I don't know what I don't know.

I can't educate stupid. It takes someone more your level to do that. I don't know where to start.

[Skepdick]

Just about every term you use, idiot. If you can't see your own fallacies then fuck off, it's not my job to educate you.

Fucking names himself skepDICK. How fitting. Loser.

Yes, it's exactly your job to educate me. I don't know what I don't know.

I can't educate stupid. It takes someone more your level to do that. I don't know where to start.

Good. So you can educate me. Because I am not stupid.

I've told you exactly where to start. Which term am I equivocating? If you can't point it out - why are you claiming equivocation?

Personal attacks aren't befitting somebody of your level of superior intellect. Just teach me.

[Gary Childress]

Yes, it's exactly your job to educate me. I don't know what I don't know.

I can't educate stupid. It takes someone more your level to do that. I don't know where to start.

Good. So you can educate me. Because I am not stupid.

I've told you exactly where to start. Which term am I equivocating? If you can't point it out - why are you claiming equivocation?

OK, hotshot. Start looking up the term "natural" and tell me what you end up with. Then come back to me when you decide that two negatives don't give a person the freedom to choose whatever they want out of fiat.

God help us all. Are you really this stupid or are you trying to be a vane smartass?

[Lacewing]

It's impossible to get you to admit error.

Ah! Now here's a phrase that we can use about you!

It may be impossible to get you to admit error in the facts you claim and the limitations you present. People have tried to show you other considerations. You are unmoved. So your rigid position and limited parameters must be very important to you.

[Skepdick]

It's impossible to get you to admit error.

Ah! Now here's a phrase that we can use about you!

Can you?

It may be impossible to get you to admit error in the facts you claim and the limitations you present. People have tried to show you other considerations. You are unmoved. So your rigid position and limited parameters must be very important to you.

Absolute bullshit.

I have placed exactly ZERO constraints on you on how you demonstrate the possibility of morality. Just demonstrate it! However you see fitting.

For starters, you go ahead and explain how anthing I am doing is an "error". What makes you believe that you are right and I am wrong? That sounds like a moral judgment.

And with that we are back on topic...

[Gary Childress]

It's impossible to get you to admit error.

Ah! Now here's a phrase that we can use about you!

Can you?

It may be impossible to get you to admit error in the facts you claim and the limitations you present. People have tried to show you other considerations. You are unmoved. So your rigid position and limited parameters must be very important to you.

Before you get me to admit to any "error" first you have to tell me why you think you are right and I am wrong. What's "rigid" about my "parameters"? I am just using English like everybody does.

So... back to the topic.

Fair enough. Would you clarify your position? Are you suggesting that there can be no "source" for morality other than a "nonnatural" one? Or are you suggesting that there can be no "source" for morality other than a "natural" one?

Some people are dicks because they need to be. Others appear to do it for fun. Hopefully, you're the former.

[Skepdick]

Fair enough. Would you clarify your position? Are you suggesting that there can be no "source" for morality other than a "nonnatural" one? Or are you suggesting that there can be no "source" for morality other than a "natural" one?

You are putting the horse before the cart.

A SOURCE is an input to some process. Morality (if it is possible) is the OUTPUT of some process. Morality is an end-product

f(nature + humans) = morality

To accept P2 is to accept the end product is possible.

We still need to get to HOW it's possible; or WHY the interaction between humans and nature results in anything we call "morality".

[Gary Childress]

Fair enough. Would you clarify your position? Are you suggesting that there can be no "source" for morality other than a "nonnatural" one? Or are you suggesting that there can be no "source" for morality other than a "natural" one?

You are putting the horse before the cart.

A SOURCE is an input to some process. Morality (if it is possible) is the OUTPUT of some process. Morality is an end-product.

To accept P2 is to accept the end product is possible.

We still need to get to HOW it's possible; or WHY the output of the process is "morality".

Why do we "need" to get to "how it's possible; or why the output of the process is morality"? Are you trying to program a robot to be a human? Otherwise, there's no more point in your inquiry than asking someone to show why murder is wrong.

Fucking scientists. All they know is how to do and not why. Has it ever occurred to you that some things are not worth doing or asking?

[Skepdick]

Why do we "need" to get to "how it's possible; or why the output of the process is morality"?

Because merely concluding that social dynamics and evolutionary pressure results in morals is begging the questiion!

It results in social norms. This helps you determine social and anti-social behaviour.

It doesn't help you determine "right" and "wrong" behaviour.

Are you trying to program a robot to be a human? Otherwise, there's no more point in your inquiry than asking someone to show why murder is wrong.

And that's what a true moral skeptic would demand. Why is it wrong?

Fucking scientists. All they know is how to do and not why. Has it ever occurred to you that some things are not worth doing or asking?

I am asking exactly WHY?

murder
/ˈməːdə/
noun
1.
the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

WHY are you justified in calling murder "wrong"?

[Gary Childress]

Why do we "need" to get to "how it's possible; or why the output of the process is morality"?

Because merely concluding that social dynamics and evolutionary pressure results in morals is begging the questiion!

So is saying that "it's because God wants it that way." What else is new?