Is morality objective or subjective?

[Gary Childress]

I quoted it a page or so back.

Lost in the mists of time, then.

Indeed. Like all those alleged "missing links," those sadly lost "progenitors" of ours.

But we all know that the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. If it were then all you Gob botherers wouldn't be bothering the rest of us with your opinions about the unknowable.

[Immanuel Can]

Lost in the mists of time, then.

Indeed. Like all those alleged "missing links," those sadly lost "progenitors" of ours.

But we all know that the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

We do. We also know that absence of evidence isn't scientific evidence.

[Gary Childress]

Indeed. Like all those alleged "missing links," those sadly lost "progenitors" of ours.

But we all know that the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

We do. We also know that absence of evidence isn't scientific evidence.

Sorry, no back peddling. Your opinions still lack evidence and that puts them on the same par as any other. Admit it. Just say it, Immanuel. Say, "I Immanuel Can don't know what happens when we die and don't know what the ultimate reality of this universe is". It'll be honest. Once you embrace honesty, you might start to feel better and you won't annoy honest people as much as you do now.

[iambiguous]

So, those who see nature as it really is see realistically and maturely when compared to any romantic or mythological view.

On the other hand, there are those who insist there is but one way in which to "see nature". Religiously -- objectively -- as they do.

The Satry Syndrome let's call it. And the equivalent of that here.

It's not whether morality is objective or subjective to this clique/claque. It's whether it is "natural".

And, in regard to things like race and gender and sexual orientation and Jews and liberals and politics, if you are not sure what is natural, they'll tell you.

But, in my view, what they won't tell you [there or here] is what actual policies they would pursue if they were in a position of power in a particular community. Would they go as far as, say, the Nazis? Or perhaps something a bit less draconian?

[Immanuel Can]

But we all know that the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

We do. We also know that absence of evidence isn't scientific evidence.

Sorry, no back peddling.

I wasn't. I was pointing out that the "common ancestor" theory isn't even remotely scientific. It's just speculative, and non-evidentiary. We have no such entity or fossil.

Your opinions still lack evidence and that puts them on the same par as any other.

Actually, they don't. But I've found that skeptics will disallow any evidence, and then just claim it's not evidence at all. Even such things as logic, inductive evidence, historical artifacts or mathematical proofs don't impress such skeptics. Heck, even a miracle wouldn't impress them. And they'll never tell you what would.

So one cannot beat such a strategy. It's just a determination to remain ignorant.

[Gary Childress]

We do. We also know that absence of evidence isn't scientific evidence.

Sorry, no back peddling.

I wasn't. I was pointing out that the "common ancestor" theory isn't even remotely scientific. It's just speculative, and non-evidentiary. We have no such entity or fossil.

Your opinions still lack evidence and that puts them on the same par as any other.

Actually, they don't.

Now, now, IC. We just talked about this. Be honest.

[Dubious]

Well, the broader discussion is uninteresting, either way, from a philosophical perspective. It has no impact on the theological issues. What does is human evolution. So what's your evidence for that, given that scientists freely confess that we have no "common ancestor" evidence, and all the "transitional forms" people seem to want to foist on us also seem to turn out to be fakes?

Where can we find evidence of the scientists making this free confession?

Good question!

I wonder how many scientists are finally and freely confessing their belief that Adam and Eve must have been the first common ancestor.

[Gary Childress]

Well, the broader discussion is uninteresting, either way, from a philosophical perspective. It has no impact on the theological issues. What does is human evolution. So what's your evidence for that, given that scientists freely confess that we have no "common ancestor" evidence, and all the "transitional forms" people seem to want to foist on us also seem to turn out to be fakes?

Where can we find evidence of the scientists making this free confession?

Good question!

I wonder how many scientists are finally and freely confessing their belief that Adam and Eve must have been the first common ancestor.

They need to start doing more digging in Mesopotamia. If they can dig up the bones of that snake that told Eve to eat the apple, it'll be score one for the God botherers.

[Immanuel Can]

Sorry, no back peddling.

I wasn't. I was pointing out that the "common ancestor" theory isn't even remotely scientific. It's just speculative, and non-evidentiary. We have no such entity or fossil.

Your opinions still lack evidence and that puts them on the same par as any other.

Actually, they don't.

Now, now, IC. We just talked about this. Be honest.

I just was.

You didn't like it.

Like I said, to a determined skeptic, nothing ever counts.

[Dubious]

I wasn't. I was pointing out that the "common ancestor" theory isn't even remotely scientific. It's just speculative, and non-evidentiary. We have no such entity or fossil.

Actually, they don't.

Now, now, IC. We just talked about this. Be honest.

I just was.

You didn't like it.

Like I said, to a determined skeptic, nothing ever counts.

Wow! Look who's calling the kettle black here! With so little insight regarding your own character, I wonder, when you stand in front of a mirror, do you notice anybody being there...or is theology really nothing more than the liveliest game in town by which to get attention?

[Harbal]

I quoted it a page or so back.

Lost in the mists of time, then.

Indeed. Like all those alleged "missing links," those sadly lost "progenitors" of ours.

Evidence with bits missing is still better than no evidence at all.

[Immanuel Can]

Lost in the mists of time, then.

Indeed. Like all those alleged "missing links," those sadly lost "progenitors" of ours.

Evidence with bits missing is still better than no evidence at all.

In the case of the "common ancestor" theory, you may as well talk about a whole "missing sequence." And interestingly, it's a sequence that people once tried to convince us had all its parts in place...until that story went to pieces on frauds and errors. And still, the theory persists.

Which shows us all that it's an ideology in search of evidence, not a scientific theory deduced from evidence.

[Gary Childress]

Now, now, IC. We just talked about this. Be honest.

I just was.

You didn't like it.

Like I said, to a determined skeptic, nothing ever counts.

Wow! Look who's calling the kettle black here! With so little insight regarding your own character, I wonder, when you stand in front of a mirror, do you notice anybody being there...or is theology really nothing more than the liveliest game in town by which to get attention?

Well, he claims he's seen the truth of the Bible but can't seem to give any solid evidence other than, 'you'll find out' or 'we'll see', maybe he's delusional and sees himself as more righteous by definition than atheists when he looks in the mirror. Of course, I'm diagnosed with "mental illness" so don't take my speculation as gospel.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, he claims he's seen the truth of the Bible but can't seem to give any solid evidence other than, 'you'll find out' or 'we'll see',

You haven't read enough. I've suggested multiple resources to people, including David Berlinski's book just a page or two back, but also including a wide range of both popular and academic resources on apologetics. Go back in my messages, here and on other threads, and you'll see a whole lot.

But like I say, no evidence counts for the skeptics.

If I'm wrong about that, prove me wrong. Here's how you can do it. Tell me what test you would accept as falsification for your Atheism. And if it's a test that can be performed, I'll have a go at it for you.

[Gary Childress]

Indeed. Like all those alleged "missing links," those sadly lost "progenitors" of ours.

Evidence with bits missing is still better than no evidence at all.

In the case of the "common ancestor" theory, you may as well talk about a whole "missing sequence." And interestingly, it's a sequence that people once tried to convince us had all its parts in place...until that story went to pieces on frauds and errors. And still, the theory persists.

Which shows us all that it's an ideology in search of evidence, not a scientific theory deduced from evidence.

Unlike the Church which as been spot-on about everything from the beginning.

I've seen claims that Noah's Ark has been found. Can I go visit the site and see for myself? At the very least it ought to have "Noah's Ark" written somewhere on it.