A Challenge for Moral Realists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-01-2016, 06:33 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(17-01-2016 05:17 PM)coyote Wrote:  
(17-01-2016 04:45 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Um, they own it how? You would like to make this case somehow? Besides, the topic was about the term "moral" and somehow whatever you did to decide to change it to be about "believe" is on you.. You argument is sketchy here at best anyway..

It's been a philosophical term just as long. Yes, it's not a science concept.. it's been a philosophical one outside of religion as long as it's been a so called religious one. There is no science or religious term dichotomy here. It goes back over 2 thousands of years in excessive philosophical study throughout that same millennia. The debate of belief/truth/knowledge and what is what goes back to this era as well. The concepts of moral goes back to these contexts as well and aren't hampered by religious views of it.

You just keep reverting to conversation on topics BUT THEN THEY COULD use x... so what? That's just letting fear and others dictate a conversation about actual terms you can identify. If you want to talk about topics on a conversation for the sake of the ideas then keep talking about it. You're not beholden to possible outcomes of the world to have a legitimate systematic discussion somewhere man.
Care to recite the names of the planets for me? What do you think about the current scientific pursuit of the God Particle??

How about the Hail Mary thrown by Rodgers in yesterday's game? Goddamn, that was a helluva pass! And the Seahawks tried a big comeback today, but being down 31-0 at the half they didn't really have a prayer.

Your points that diverged isn't relevant to the idea of things. Is there an influence of religious terminology into commonplace, sure?

Does that mean any term that has a religious connotation is only talked about in a religions connotation and disregard that it has a as academically and socially strong philosophical or psychological meaning?

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-01-2016, 08:05 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(17-01-2016 06:33 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(17-01-2016 05:17 PM)coyote Wrote:  Care to recite the names of the planets for me? What do you think about the current scientific pursuit of the God Particle??

How about the Hail Mary thrown by Rodgers in yesterday's game? Goddamn, that was a helluva pass! And the Seahawks tried a big comeback today, but being down 31-0 at the half they didn't really have a prayer.

Your points that diverged isn't relevant to the idea of things. Is there an influence of religious terminology into commonplace, sure?

Does that mean any term that has a religious connotation is only talked about in a religions connotation and disregard that it has a as academically and socially strong philosophical or psychological meaning?

No. What it means is that its original context was a religious society. So to utilize language whose context was originally set in a religious society, in order to argue against the very religion from which society that language emerged, is merely going to convince the believer that you are just another believer. And we know how productive that is....

Language matters.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2016, 08:36 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(17-01-2016 08:05 PM)coyote Wrote:  
(17-01-2016 06:33 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Your points that diverged isn't relevant to the idea of things. Is there an influence of religious terminology into commonplace, sure?

Does that mean any term that has a religious connotation is only talked about in a religions connotation and disregard that it has a as academically and socially strong philosophical or psychological meaning?

No. What it means is that its original context was a religious society. So to utilize language whose context was originally set in a religious society, in order to argue against the very religion from which society that language emerged, is merely going to convince the believer that you are just another believer. And we know how productive that is....

Language matters.

As does history... and your history of the language is inaccurate. So you're just arguing it to believe in some mythical being to bicker against. These concepts are stemmed from an ancient philosophical context.

Besides this wasn't or isn't some argument "against religion" you're so focused on that.... like that is the point or product of all conversation here, which it isn't.

When Finny or Stevil and I don't agree on sociological concepts, this isn't something

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: