Is morality objective or subjective?

[Harbal]

Whitehead's Thesis is that scientific method was a byproduct of Theism. But I don't see anywhere that he thought it was anything more than that.

And his thesis was the by-product of fanciful, over religious speculation.

You might wish that. And I understand if you do. You have obvious reasons to prefer that.

The only question is, is it true? If Whitehead is wrong, then what is the truth? It certainly isn't that secularism or one or another form of Atheism gave rise to science, or that polytheism did, or that science and faith are polar opposites. So, correct the story, if you can.

You always want to turn everything into a conflict between theism and atheism. Science developed out of the human instinct for exploration and investigation. We start doing it as babies, when take an uncoordinated swing at whatever is in front of us, just to see what will happen. Studies show that atheist babies are just as prone to doing this as Christian babies.

I sometimes wonder if you are driven more by one-upmanship than by Christianity.

[Gary Childress]

Yes. They were very big on iPhones, steam engines and electric toothbrushes, I hear.

They came up with the foundations of ...

You did say, "there's nothing we know today...etc." Don't blame me for what you said.

BTW, I didn't say that. I was paraphrasing things I've read. A. N. Whitehead spoke of all of Western Philosophy being a footnote to Plato, for example.

[Immanuel Can]

You always want to turn everything into a conflict between theism and atheism.

So...no alternate theory, then? You just don't like Whitehead's, and reject it because it doesn't favour you?

[Immanuel Can]

They came up with the foundations of ...

You did say, "there's nothing we know today...etc." Don't blame me for what you said.

A. N. Whitehead spoke of all of Western Philosophy being a footnote to Plato, for example.

Well, he clearly didn't mean "there's nothing we know today..." So if that was your attempt to paraphrase, it wasn't awfully accurate.

[Harbal]

You always want to turn everything into a conflict between theism and atheism.

So...no alternate theory, then? You just don't like Whitehead's, and reject it because it doesn't favour you?

I reject it because it's stupid.

[Alexis Jacobi]

This "quotation" of yours is not a quotation at all. I never said it, nor would I. You faked it.

Sorry: you're just plain wrong again...or more likely, being deliberately deceptive. I see that, once again, I wasted my time by even responding to you.

Too bad. You had one interesting thing to say, and then you blew it.

To talk with you is to talk with a generality of Christians. The general view of Christians is that The Fall is an on-going process that cannot be stopped except by association with Jesus. This is the core of the Christian assertion. If you don’t *accept* Jesus you go to Hell. But also without Jesus in life life becomes evermore hellish.

“Seek ye first the Kingdom of Zion and all things will be added unto you” is the generalized idea. [But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.]

So in no sense am I off the mark, nor being deceptive. No one would interpret a paraphrase as a direct quote.

First your assertion was that Christianity, somehow, instigated the scientific revolution and you submitted numerous arguments to that effect. Then you backed away to “theism”.

My assertion? It arose out of a complex of conditions, influences and reasons not the least being will.

You are a strange, confused man with a strange, confused Christian platform. You are narcissistically fixated on your own idees fixes that it is nearly impossible for you to hear what others are saying.

You don’t really know what wasting time is or isn’t.

[Immanuel Can]

You always want to turn everything into a conflict between theism and atheism.

So...no alternate theory, then? You just don't like Whitehead's, and reject it because it doesn't favour you?

I reject it because it's stupid.

But with no contrary theory.

So it's "stupid" because it points out a complex relation between faith and science that the Atheist "enlightentment" story clearly failed to capture at all, and which credulous skeptics have clearly bought into without so much as a credible alternative. They believe it because they want to, not because they have any reason to think it's true.

So which version is really "stupid"?

[Immanuel Can]

So in no sense am I off the mark, nor being deceptive. No one would interpret a paraphrase as a direct quote.

You put it in quotation marks, and tried to represent it as what I thought. It was wrong, even as an alleged paraphrase.

That was a deliberate lie, and you were caught out. Don't get all red-faced now, and pretend you didn't do it. You were bold enough to do it the first time. Now be man enough to own your mistake.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I reject it because it's stupid.

Immanuel attempts to possess and employ Whitehead’s assertions. Immanuel contaminates everything with his defect of fanaticism.

What Whitehead wrote, however, is philosophically considerable and he was a very intelligent man with many contributions.

I would not dismiss the gist in it so readily.

[Alexis Jacobi]

…

My suggestion? Stop this ridiculous attempt to fashion a red herring so that you avoid examining what I did say.

It is a time-worn tactic of yours, Immanuel.

[Gary Childress]

You did say, "there's nothing we know today...etc." Don't blame me for what you said.

A. N. Whitehead spoke of all of Western Philosophy being a footnote to Plato, for example.

Well, he clearly didn't mean "there's nothing we know today..." So if that was your attempt to paraphrase, it wasn't awfully accurate.

OK. Fair enough.

[Harbal]

So...no alternate theory, then? You just don't like Whitehead's, and reject it because it doesn't favour you?

I reject it because it's stupid.

But with no contrary theory.

If I were to propose a "contrary theory", it would make me look as childish as you are making yourself look. I long since grew out of the "my dad's bigger than your dad" phase.

[Immanuel Can]

…

My suggestion? Stop this ridiculous attempt to fashion a red herring...

The "herring" was yours, and it is above, so anybody can read it.

You're just embarassing yourself now. Quit digging...you've hit bottom.

[Immanuel Can]

I reject it because it's stupid.

But with no contrary theory.

If I were to propose a "contrary theory", it would make me look as childish as you are making yourself look.

So no theory. And yet, gratuitous refusal to entertain Whitehead's?

[Harbal]

I reject it because it's stupid.

What Whitehead wrote, however, is philosophically considerable and he was a very intelligent man with many contributions.

Okay then, the portion of the argument that IC presented to us was stupid. I can't comment on anything he didn't present.