|
Only short hairstyle can be acknowledged this summer too "dressed hair". Remaining are qualified rather to categories "dressed", read quite liberated, mutinous. The expression of the colour, the storm of uncontrollable curls, the smoothness trippant into the total anarchy. In a word the mutiny and the revolt. |
morality can evolution explain morality? (1 viewing) (1) Guests
Favoured: 0
|
|
|
TOPIC: morality can evolution explain morality?
|
|
|
|
morality can evolution explain morality?
|
|
|
<snip I think you're getting feelings and knowledge confused. Instead of modus ponens, take my other example, If xy and yz then xz. That is a true statement whether I feel sad, happy, gaseous, bloated, or neutral (which is actually what I feel). My feelings are irrelevant. The feelings *you* mentioned aren't that certain feeling I was talking about. I was talking about the feeling of recognition. the one you feel everytime you recognize something is true. If you didn't have that feeling you'd not *know* that the transitive property you mentioned was true. Intuition? Presumption? What feeling are you referring to? I thought I just *said* what feeling I was talking about
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
morality can evolution explain morality?
|
|
|
(snip) (snip) I *don't* think I have the cart before the horse, because I think we needn't believe in God to have accurate moral perceptions. I don't agree that Christ being the way implies that a given atheist cannot have more accurate moral perceptions than a given Christian theist. IMO, we can start with the knowledge that _object_ive moral facts exist and can properly see that as evidence that God exists
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
morality can evolution explain morality?
|
|
|
<snip I think you're getting feelings and knowledge confused. Instead of modus ponens, take my other example, If xy and yz then xz. That is a true statement whether I feel sad, happy, gaseous, bloated, or neutral (which is actually what I feel). My feelings are irrelevant. The feelings *you* mentioned aren't that certain feeling I was talking about. I was talking about the feeling of recognition. the one you feel everytime you recognize something is true. If you didn't have that feeling you'd not *know* that the transitive property you mentioned was true. Intuition? Presumption? What feeling are you referring to? I thought I just *said* what feeling I was talking about
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
morality can evolution explain morality?
|
|
|
your flippant paraphrases and then you complain that *I* am using a strawman argument? What do flippant phrases have to do with a strawman argument? The particular flippant phrases *were* the strawmen. Nice try. Nice dodge on your part. But you are wrong here. I ASKED A QUESTION! I *asked* if you were thinking we non-fundies were afraid to embrace all of the bible, and I asked it because it seemd to me that was the only way to make sense of your complaint. I already answered your question in the very next sentence. But before you did that, you accused me of twisting your words, even though you twist my words continually. I think you're not particularly clear with your words. I'm trying to understand what your words mean, I'm not trying to twist your words. FIne neil. (snip) That's a minor difference from what I suggested IMO. All I can say is that IMO you have no reason to doubt that I honestly think that things like Christ rose from the dead are true. I have no doubt that you think that, of course. The key word is honestly
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
morality can evolution explain morality?
|
|
|
<
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
wrote in message (snip) THE DEFINITION: invalid (adjective) not valid, in particular: *[especially if an official document or procedure] not legally recognized and therefore void because contrvening a regulation or law: the vote was declared invalid because of a technicality of the law. (SNIP) I was using the first definition
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
morality can evolution explain morality?
|
|
|
(snip) And what is a moral fact? Things like: the nazi genocide was wrong. That is quite historically particular. I'm not sure what you are saying here. IMO The nazi genocide would have been wrong in any period of history. Was your point that I didn't give a moral *rule*? It's the difference between a particular and a universal; that's all. As you have said elsewhere, some degree of specificity about the situation has to be described. But nazi genocide seems to be a particular. Maybe now we can think about how _object_ive morality would work
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
