Is morality objective or subjective?

[Gary Childress]

That's the body. But we aren't talking about the mere body: we're talking about...well, use your own word: the mind, the self, the consciousness, the soul, the cognition...pick the term you like.

Why do you think other animals don't have consciousness or cognition, and that we have a soul? whatever that's supposed to be.

I think that's what I've been saying: our cognitions are so qualitatively different from all other animals.

Since we do operations that are qualitatively beyond any other "animal," we certainly are fundamentally distinct. If you don't believe we are, why aren't you devoting your persuasive energies to convincing the chimps, the cats, the fish and the paramecia?

Because there aren't any of those things posting on the forum.

Okay, then weasels, snakes and worms?

Yes. Anyone who doesn't believe in the Biblical God must be a rodent or repulsive toxic creature of some kind. Do us all a favor, Christians, just kill us. Life is not going to get any better and living in lies and deceit are the order of the day, especially when one doesn't even know one is living in lies and deceit. Knowledge is useless. Philosophy is useless. Better to read the Bible and wait for the "Second Coming". I'm sure it'll be happening any day now. Tik, tik, tik, tik, tik...

[FlashDangerpants]

It's a natural deduction. If we were once random atoms, then some rudimentary organism in pond scum, then some kind of fish, then some kind of amphibian, and so on, then evolutionism would seem to suggest that being what we are is, in some important sense, "higher" than that. But then the deduction comes: if the process of evolution got us this far, what's the evidence it won't get us farther? Who's to say that you and I are the most highly-evolved version of the human creature? Who's to say that in another billion years, human beings won't be much more "high" than we are now?

That's an induction.

I was only speaking colloquially. Most people are not aware of what "induction" is, except that they think it has something to do with heat.

My point is merely that there is a logical line that runs from evolutionism to the belief that human beings are still evolving to higher states. And that's a really short and easy line.

I thought it was pretty obvious that it wasn't deductive in form. Perhaps you should take a course in philosophy some time.

[Harbal]

That's the body. But we aren't talking about the mere body: we're talking about...well, use your own word: the mind, the self, the consciousness, the soul, the cognition...pick the term you like.

Why do you think other animals don't have consciousness or cognition, and that we have a soul? whatever that's supposed to be.

I think that's what I've been saying: our cognitions are so qualitatively different from all other animals.

Lots of animals are different to other animals in some respect, but they are still just animals. As I said, I don't dispute that we are remarkable among all other animals, which makes us a remarkable animal, but nonetheless, an animal. I don't expect you to agree; you are not at liberty to agree, and I understand that.

Because there aren't any of those things posting on the forum.

Okay, then weasels, snakes and worms?

[Dontaskme]

No "mincing."

Defining. Read the text, and you'll see I'm right.

You are defining the word 'spirit' to mean exactly what you want it to mean in a subjective sense.

[Immanuel Can]

That's an induction.

I was only speaking colloquially. Most people are not aware of what "induction" is, except that they think it has something to do with heat.

My point is merely that there is a logical line that runs from evolutionism to the belief that human beings are still evolving to higher states. And that's a really short and easy line.

I thought it was pretty obvious that it wasn't deductive in form. Perhaps you should take a course in philosophy some time.

So...you don't know what "colloquially" means?

[Gary Childress]

Just give up. We're only entertaining him because when everyone is blind, anyone can say they "see the light" and lead others wherever they want. I'm done with this world. Christians and woo believers win because this world is a mess and we humans are unable to sort it out. We'll never be able to sort it out. Let IC wait for the second coming. We all have time on our hands and nothing remarkably noble or heroic to do with it, except die in pain someday.

[Immanuel Can]

Why do you think other animals don't have consciousness or cognition, and that we have a soul? whatever that's supposed to be.

I think that's what I've been saying: our cognitions are so qualitatively different from all other animals.

Lots of animals are different to other animals in some respect, but they are still just animals.

That is certainly true. But it doesn't really tell us anything about the question in hand.

As I said, I don't dispute that we are remarkable among all other animals, which makes us a remarkable animal, but nonetheless, an animal. I don't expect you to agree; you are not at liberty to agree, and I understand that.

Well, what makes me "not at liberty" is a thing called "reason." So, yeah.

Human beings are cognitively, personally, socially, and otherwise very different from animals. We share only some basic building blocks or mechanisms with them. The provebial "ghost in the machine," the soul, or mind, or awareness, is quite special.

[Lacewing]

...my theological examples to the contrary.

They don't help us in the case of "spirit" in the theological sense.

Why are you using the term theology when you're only considering your own particular Christian view?

[FlashDangerpants]

I was only speaking colloquially. Most people are not aware of what "induction" is, except that they think it has something to do with heat.

My point is merely that there is a logical line that runs from evolutionism to the belief that human beings are still evolving to higher states. And that's a really short and easy line.

I thought it was pretty obvious that it wasn't deductive in form. Perhaps you should take a course in philosophy some time.

So...you don't know what "colloquially" means?

I know that you are too much of a pedant to intentionally refer to an induction as a deduction on some supposed grounds that you like to communicate more easily with the common man, especially as it is he over whom you absolutely love to lord your supposed superior education via that same pedantry.

[Harbal]

I think that's what I've been saying: our cognitions are so qualitatively different from all other animals.

Lots of animals are different to other animals in some respect, but they are still just animals.

That is certainly true. But it doesn't really tell us anything about the question in hand.

All that I have mentioned so far tells me enough to come to my own conclusion.

As I said, I don't dispute that we are remarkable among all other animals, which makes us a remarkable animal, but nonetheless, an animal. I don't expect you to agree; you are not at liberty to agree, and I understand that.

Well, what makes me "not at liberty" is a thing called "reason." So, yeah.

No, it's a thing called the Bible, which is quite the opposite of reason. Although lots of non-religious people also think that humans are something completely different to all other animals; in fact, most probably do. I suppose it depends on how objectively you are able to look at the question.

Human beings are cognitively, personally, socially, and otherwise very different from animals. We share only some basic building blocks or mechanisms with them. The provebial "ghost in the machine," the soul, or mind, or awareness, is quite special.

I guess most people think along those lines, but I don't agree with them.

[Atla]

Human beings are cognitively, personally, socially, and otherwise very different from animals. We share only some basic building blocks or mechanisms with them. The provebial "ghost in the machine," the soul, or mind, or awareness, is quite special.

Most animals may not be self-aware but many of them have their own little minds. To think otherwise is imo a form of animal abuse.

[Alexis Jacobi]

AJ: I do not say "God does not exist", I say that the belief in God is thoroughly unsupportable by any reasoned means

IC: Well, lots of people think you're verifiably wrong about that. You should read up on apologetics, at the very least.

You are bullshitting. But you also fundamentally misunderstand the subtlety of what I do try to articulate. No other alternative exists for you but misunderstanding. And this is typical for you and your style. If you mentioned just one -- just one! -- reasoned support for the existence of the god-concept you involve yourself with, you would prove your point, here among your peers.

You cannot. Not only that but you will not. You won't make the effort and you never have. Your reasoning, such as it is, is expressed as:

The Bible says God exists. The Bible is proof that God exists. I believe in the Bible. Therefore I believe in God. And because I believe in the Bible and God, God exists.

The god you define is not, shall I say, a creature of reasoned argument. It is not a *demonstrable proposition*. Faith positions are of another order.

Now, you could refer to your own subjective experiences where you feel, sincerely, that the God you relate to has manifest for you in your life. Yet you don't because you'd open yourself to a more personalized ridicule. These are not empty of meaning certainly, and what we experience of divinity or the sacred (or the mystical) on the inner plane is definitely not something I dismiss (quite the contrary).

But these experiences don't prove much of anything -- at least objectively.

Let me say that I have read a good deal of Christian apologetics and there are numerous strains of it. Two I will mention.

One is the hyper-emotional Pentecostal-Evangelical 'testimony of faith'. You know, "I was a terrible sinner and God descended in my worst moment and guided me to my salvation." Jimmy Swaggart (who I actually like in many ways and who is an excellent musician) is a good example.

The other, which I respond to more, is that of mature Catholicism. It proposes the wholesomeness of the entire picture of a life well-lived, and rationally lived, in relation to the Christian sacrifice. It is theological material, rationally organized, that encourages the renovation and maintenance of deep ethical commitments (Catholic social doctrine) and serves an Ideal that is pictured and symbolized by Jesus, by the lives of Saints, and by the feminine figure of Maria.

There is another strain too and while not precisely Christian and more Platonic I could refer to Richard Weaver's philosophical metaphysical-apologetics. But he opens the doors to other ways of thinking about such things when he speaks about "the metaphysical dream of the world".

[Harbal]

Human beings are cognitively, personally, socially, and otherwise very different from animals. We share only some basic building blocks or mechanisms with them. The provebial "ghost in the machine," the soul, or mind, or awareness, is quite special.

Most animals may not be self-aware but many of them have their own little minds. To think otherwise is imo a form of animal abuse.

You can't abuse an animal with a thought.

[Atla]

Human beings are cognitively, personally, socially, and otherwise very different from animals. We share only some basic building blocks or mechanisms with them. The provebial "ghost in the machine," the soul, or mind, or awareness, is quite special.

Most animals may not be self-aware but many of them have their own little minds. To think otherwise is imo a form of animal abuse.

You can't abuse an animal with a thought.

Thoughts lead to actions

[Lacewing]

So...you don't know what "colloquially" means?

I know that you are too much of a pedant to intentionally refer to an induction as a deduction on some supposed grounds that you like to communicate more easily with the common man, especially as it is he over whom you absolutely love to lord your supposed superior education via that same pedantry.

Such a 'supposed superior education' could have been put to much better use than by an entrenched religious zealot who relies so heavily on distortion and dishonesty. He is apparently not even smart enough to realize how such behavior is clearly seen for what it is: a swirling delusional dance for none but himself.