…to your Scrabble arsenal. Arsenal as in the weapons you can bring to bear against your opponent. Armoury being where you keep your weapons safe. Jesus Christ Baden get your shit together. :wink:

:chin: ….option 2.

What have you done with the real T Clark?

It REALLY feels like it this time. Not sarcasm.

Then what is the difference between the bible and any other book of old stories? If anyone can interpret any meaning (even opposite to what the words say cuz..interpretation) from it, why not rely on all the other much better quality books that have improved and expanded on everything the bible has to teach us?
The arguments about the bible being valuable because of its interpretive value actually undermines the bibles value because if the bible is just a book of helpful stories then its a terrible source of helpful stories. Morality? What the ten commandments? Please, the bible is a source of morality like a rotting corpse is a source of food. There are plenty of much better sources than the bible, and so by relegating the bible to the status of Aesop fables we should feel very justified putting in the shelf next to tales of Zeus and Odin and Far Side cartoons and then from there to the garbage can (or floor if you have to level a table).
Also, the “interpretists” argument has really nothing they can say to someone justifying evil by their interpretation of the bible. That is the consequence of the interpretive free for all being advocated.

“Too on fire”? As opposed to a completely useless comment that contributes absolute zero?
I think I prefer “too on fire”. Lets hear it.

Worse, self righteous.

If you were mean spirited to their face, its really nothing more to be mean spirited here when they get banned.
Its like not speaking ill of the dead…if the dead was a prick that doesnt change just because people want to pretend they weren’t for a few days.

Ignore the behaviour police, good riddance to a moron.

It seems like the micro managing would require more focus. The initial conditions could be set to whatever the desired result is, so why bother micro managing? Make the universe self micro managing.
Thats one difference

What final nail in his coffin are we at now?

Thank you for the thoughtful reply.
I think the claims 1-3 are a fair assessment of what Ive offered in the OP.
Claim 4 was actually an example for some of the claims 1-3 and shouldn't be taken as a claim unto itself. Im not sure it adds anything claims 1-3 do not cover.

Im not sure what context claims 5-7 are for. What are the gaps you mention? If I understand those then perhaps claims 5-7 will make more sense to me.
Also, I take it you disagree with one or more of my premisses?

If countries with the same rate of mental health issues have a lower rate of mass shootings then something other than mental health must explain the higher rate of mass shootings. — Michael

Which countries would that be?
Also, there are different kinds of mental unhealth and not all of them result in mass shootings. The prevailing mental health problem in the US seems to lead to a certain percentage of mass shooters. Other countries might have mental health issues that result in less violent reactions.

One explanation is the higher rate of gun ownership. — Michael

I think that could be part of the explanation. Its hard to settle on a specific breakdown of contributing factors but it seems to me that mental health is a significant factor yet gets ignored by and large. Mental health care in the states is horrible, and its unsurprising mental sickness seems so abundant there.

Objective value is an oxymoron. All value is subjective, in order for something to have value it has to be valuable to someone (or a value someone possesses, depending on how you use the word “value”).
This doesnt make value an illusion, nor a lie. What your OP does is expose that objective value is a non-sensical pursuit.

How about something like:

“Religions are myths and I ignore them unless someone tries to use them to justify telling me what to do”

Easier to write AND to read. Better, no?
Why do you expound like your sentences are a game of word Tetris?
When did you and Getting to the Point have such a terrible falling out? Is there any chance at reconciliation?

What this shows is that ubiquitously, folk do not make decisions on the basis of rationally maximising their self-interest. Some other factor intervenes. What that is, is open to further research. — Banno

No, it shows that sometimes “ folk do not make decisions on the basis of rationally maximising their self-interest.”
Some other factor CAN intervene.
You opened your post showing the above conclusion to be false.
That is all.

Fair enough, thanks for sharing.

its not just about justification, its about making sense. Your position makes no sense, it is contradictory.
Also, you are conflating terms again. Ethical judgements are more than just emotional reactions but you are treating them the same in your argument. Being inclusive of emotional reactions does not give emotional reactions primacy.
I suppose it’s a waste of my breath though isnt it? You don’t need to make sense cuz feelings.
To each their own.

Sounds like we agree.

Health risks and government intervention aside? Sure, why waste all that food when people are starving?

True. So, then, it's okay to cut up dead brain-people and package them to sell for meat? — Vera Mont

Well two things, first it depends on the context under which you are asking that question. There has been talk of government mandates etc, but the points Im making were about the ethics of it so if you could elaborate the question a bit I can better answer.
Two, regardless of the above eating human meat has numerous harmful effects. Cannibal societies die out from the practice.

Is there anything wrong with that? Answer - no. — T Clark

I disagree. Anything can be justified with “emotional judgements”, therefore it is a poor metric for justification.
Emotional judgements may have their place in the human experience but not when defending a moral position.
Also, using “emotional judgements” to justify your position doesnt negate the logical contradiction
you make that I described above. Even if we accept “emotional judgements” as a justification one still shouldnt hold a position (however it was arrived at) that is contradictory. Contradictory positions don’t make sense.
Also, Emotional judgements and rationality are not mutually exclusive.

Ok, but if you aren’t sure what a person is how can you know a corpse is still a person?
Aren’t you basing a conclusion (a corpse is a person) on something you aren’t able to even define (what a person is)?
At the very least it seems to me you should be no more confident that a corpse is a person than you are confident what a person is…no?

Ok.

I understand the distinction you are making between human and person. I meant to say "person" in the same sense you are using it. You and I disagree about whether or not people in a vegetative state are people. That's a matter of value, not fact. — T Clark

Maybe. How do you define “person”?

To their family and friends, yes. — Vera Mont

That doesnt mean that they are. That is a sentimental illusion people might use for comfort, but does not form an actual basis to claim anything. In what way would they be a person if braindead? What possible definition of “person” could you be using here that includes a biological entity with no mind in it?

Human and person are not interchangeable, are you wanting to say the braindead are human or persons? I would say they obviously human, but not a person.
What do you mean “we get to decide what we consider human”? What merit does such a decision have? How do you justify that statement?

I think its pretty obviously due to squeamishness, not logic. Its really the same thing, ghoulish perhaps but not immoral. Its a carcass, an empty shell. In fact one could argue the merits of its morality, if one thinks of recycling and not being wasteful as moral imperatives.

Even if they are brain dead? Still a person?

The biggest philosophical puzzle I’ve encountered is the people who are trying to solve them. :wink:

That seems fair to me.

Thats why I referred to it as your pet false equivalence. It was clear the issue sticks in your craw. I realize you dont think its false of course but when I made comments like “in service of your false equivalence” I meant it to allude to your passion for this issue. Its obviously important to you.
I believe you, so apologize for chalking it up to a bit of trolling (which btw, doesnt really offend me). I’ve made a note to myself so that I too will try harder in our next exchange.

If atheism consisted merely in a lack of theism; I wonder where the motivation to argue for it would derive.

It seems to me that atheism would in many cases consist merely in lack of theism, and it seems likely that we don't get any argument coming from those people; we probably don't hear their voices. — Janus

The motivation is self defense. When theism wants to teach creationism in schools or prevent gay people from getting married then we must argue.
If theists didn’t do those things, people wouldnt have nearly the same reasons to argue.
When a theist uses their theism as a basis for things that effect other people, I think its perfectly reasonable to ask them to justify the theism. Thats where most of the arguments begin.

There seems to be no doubt that in many cases atheism is actually antitheism; and in those cases it would certainly count as an ideology. — Janus

I agree, I think antitheism is what most people are criticizing when they criticize atheism. I don’t know if antitheism is an ideology, but its at least a position on theism which goes beyond the simple binary stance on theism that atheism is.

On both sides, I would argue, we find the ideologues; one side arguing that everyone ought to believe in God and the other side arguing that everyone ought not believe in God. — Janus

I don’t think you need to be an ideologue to argue against theism, as mentioned above theists give you plenty of reason to argue without the need to be an ideologue.

Of course they do. It's part of their ideology and it's why the offer restrictions on religion. The atheism you find in communist countries isn't just an innocuous mission statement, but it informs the way they control their people and beliefs, and it's also part of their fundamental Marxist ideology. — Hanover

Atheism has no ideology. Thats why you always have to mention communism and marxism etc along with the atheism. Atheism alone has no edicts, no rules, no goals…its merely a position on theism.

It is therefore possible (and quite common) for a theist and an atheist to be secularists, meaning they have whatever beliefs they might have, but they don't believe government should involve itself in enforcing those beliefs.

What this means is that I disagree with your comment I quoted above, where you assume what my response to you would be. That is, I do not believe a theocracy can be secular because that is a self-contradictory statement. If a nation has a religious belief system and they use it as law, that would not be secularist, but would be theocratic, and it would be immoral. — Hanover

Uh..ok. I stand corrected as to what your response was going to be.

the same token, a government that has taken a formal stance on the issue and determined itself atheistic and then attempted to impose those beliefs on others would be as immoral as the theocracy I described above. — Hanover

Agreed, but that immorality wouldnt have atheism as its source.

That is, I have provided you the very example you were looking for, which was that of an oppressive atheist. What you are trying to say, which is simply false, is that the communist nations cited just happen to be atheist, just like they may happen to have red flags, and those two facts have nothing to do with their immorality. What I am saying is that I fully understand your distinction between relevant and irrelevant causes of the oppression, and I am saying that the atheism factor looms large as one factor among many in informing the cause of communistic oppression. — Hanover

We are talking about atheism, not communism.
Also, Im not saying they just happened to be atheist.
Listen:
Im saying that atheism is not the reason for their immorality. Atheism is not a ethical system, nor a system of belief of any kind. Again, this is why you must attach your criticisms of atheism to communism.

The point you are missing is that an atheist government doesnt do anything based on its atheism. What they do, they do for other reasons. You really need to get this bit down. Its important.
To which of course you will reply with a reference to the lack of theism being the source of any immorality.
Go ahead and make the case, I’m listening.

If my recent experience with you is representative, your response to posts you don't like is to question the motives and good will of those you disagree with. — T Clark

My conclusion was based on your responses. Maybe my conclusion is incorrect.
You DID rephrase what I said and tried to put words in my mouth. When I attempted to clarify what I actually meant you said it was irrelevant. You quoted my points partially and followed up with short rebuttals that ignored most of what I said. You didnt clarify points but quickly chalked them up to…I don’t know, atheist dogmatic responses?
It all gave me the impression that this wasnt a discussion for you. It seemed like you were annoyed and sorta fucking with the source of your annoyance. If you were actually interested in a good discussion you would have listened better, or so I imagined.
It wasn’t because I didnt like your post though, I’m not that petty. A good discussion needs disagreement.
I am understand where youre coming from, I admit I do rely on assessment of motive and good will when I cannot think of better explanations for peoples responses. Its the internet, a shitshow of personality disorders and the bravely anonymous. One must exercise caution.

I'm not "leaving it out." It's not relevant. — T Clark

It most certainly is relevant. Its what I’m talking about, and what you are commenting about. I just explained in my previous post exactly why its relevant. You choosing to ignore it in service of your pet false equivalence doesn't make it irrelevant.
You're obviously deeply invested in equating theism and atheism, have at it. I’ve made my point clearly and don’t think Ill add more.

Another reason it's irrelevant. — T Clark

You are the one who broadened it out! :lol:
You were being a word weasel, rephrasing what I said, leaving words out or adding them as you needed to in order to service your false equivalence. I point it out and your response is “bah its not relevant anyway”. Hilarious.
Im beginning to understand this isnt a discussion for you, but rather some adversarial trolling. So doubly hilarious for you I guess, congratulations.

Unless the atheist"s lack of morality arises from his atheism — Hanover

Your case to make.

Or some other ideology. — Janus

Yes, agreed. To be honest I think theism takes some unfair blame for what is just tribalism.

Are you saying that theists as a group do more bad things than atheists? — T Clark

No. Im saying theists as a group do more bad things based on their theism than atheists do bad things based on their atheism, and that theism can be the basis for a bad act by a good person.
You keep leaving out the “based of on their theism/atheism” part in service of your false equivalence.
Leaving that bit out is entirely different, because then you are just talking about groups (as opposed to what those groups do according to the groups theistic structure). Once you broaden the scope by talking about groups in that way theism and atheism become a false dichotomy, for we know that they are far from the only moral factors/basis. Thats another discussion Id be willing too have, but its its not the same thing that I am discussing here.

Where did you look and how hard? :roll:
As in the example in bigotry towards gays above, you can reference any instance where someone who is otherwise good, commits some immoral thing based solely on their theism. Have you seriously never seen evidence of that?

In order for this to be true, one of two things must also be true.

1) Atheists must do bad less than religious people do. I see no evidence of this.

2) Religious people must be better people than atheists are. — T Clark

I don’t see it. Atheists and theists are people, people can be good or bad. The same is true for vegans and non-vegans, farmers and not farmers, etc. people being people.
The difference is that the atheist is not referencing his religious belief system for instruction, the theist is. That is why it is a false equivalency. For example:
You got a bigot against gay people. He is a bigot because of his deep insecurity that he might be gay cuz he got a boner in the boys locker room in highschool and everyone made fun of him. This person could be atheist or theist, it really doesnt matter.
Now you have a non-bigot. They are a non bigot because there was no such incident as a catalyst/reason. This time however, whether or not they are an atheist or theist certainly matters, because the theist can read and learn from religion to be bigoted. The atheist has no such reference he can make to atheism, his atheism cannot be the reason for becoming a bigot.
So it bears repeating, good people do good things, bad people do bad things but for a good person (i don’t hate gay people) to do a bad thing (oh I hate gays now, bible says its a sin) you need religion.
So, Ill fix your statements (sorry, you left out key components in service of your false equivalence)
1) Atheists must do bad based on their atheism less than religious people do bad based on their theism. I see plenty of evidence of this.
2) Religious people must be better people based in their theism than atheists are based on their atheism.

To which my reply would be 1) is correct. 2) is incorrect because nothing is based on atheism.

You might have a point if you were talking about anti-theists, but alas with atheists your point doesnt land at all Im afriad.