I was just given two AiG Newletters.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-03-2012, 01:54 PM (This post was last modified: 19-03-2012 01:57 PM by Logica Humano.)
RE: I was just given two AiG Newletters.
(19-03-2012 09:18 AM)SixForty Wrote:  To Logica Humano: (sorry, I can't seem to use the quotes. The first few posts I made here they worked fine. Since then, they stopped working - the text in the quotes simply doesn't show up. I don't know if it was something I did or not, but if it was, I can't figure it out.)

They work fine for me.


(19-03-2012 09:18 AM)SixForty Wrote:  I find this to be completely arbitrary. Why is objectively morality not the default view? I see numerous other aspects of the universe that are completely objective and not subjective. For example, laws of logic are objective (the law of non-contradiction exists at every point in the universe and at every point in time throughout history), mathematical truths are objective (1 + 1 = 2 always, everywhere, no matter what), the uniform laws of nature are objective (the law of the conservation of angular momentum exists whether or not I'm standing here on earth today or sitting inside a distant star a thousand years ago, even if I'm not using the law or feeling it's effects, it still exists). All of these things are clearly objective by default. It is clearly logical to accept morality to be the same. Objective morality should be the default view. I would say that claiming objective morality does NOT exist is the extraordinary claim.

There is a difference between empirical and objective, but I digress. You have yet to prove to me that morality is objective.

That argument is very fallacious.

(19-03-2012 09:18 AM)SixForty Wrote:  You're earlier argument was that there was no objectivity outside the human psyche, morality is just a predisposition in the mind, and it is an evolutionary trait found in animals. My argument is that the sentiment you've expressed breaks down to absurdity quickly by similar analogies in the animal kingdom. I could just as easily say "eating our young is acceptable in my psyche; it's a predisposition in my mind; it is an evolutionary trait found in animals". By your reasoning, this would by moral. I claim that is absurd, and patently false. Given that it is false, it thereby refutes the claim that no objective morality exists outside the human psyche.

It is not as easy as that. No mentally healthy human has the predisposition to believe "eating our young is acceptable", and most mental conditions are genetic. That is my point. Society (the norm) dictates the very little objectivity in morality.

As I have said, morality is subjective. You are nearly proving me right here.

(19-03-2012 09:18 AM)SixForty Wrote:  No - I never say that. My claim is not that people will start acting like animals, it's that people will have complete justification if they do act like animals. You yourself have given them that justification by your own argument above.

Do not bullshit me, I can see through your ignorance right now.

I have not given a justification. As I have repetitively stated for all my past posts, THERE IS A CERTAIN OBJECTIVITY TO MORALITY. The norm that society creates. If the morality evolves to the point where infanticide is morally acceptable, so be it. I do not see it becoming acceptable, but I do see Evolution becoming widely accepted.

(19-03-2012 09:18 AM)SixForty Wrote:  I've seen all the evidence. And when I take off the naturalistic and materialistic glasses and really look at the evidence, it doesn't support evolution. Not even really all that close.

Please, oh, please define to me the way you look at it.

(19-03-2012 09:18 AM)SixForty Wrote:  Good thing I never actually claimed things have been accepted on a whim - just that they can be! Smile But I'll throw you a bone on that one. Just consider mob mentality in a riot. You have a group of friends who would never consider breaking the law. They get caught up in a mob riot, and all of a sudden they are justifying vandalism, theft, assault. Their view of what is socially acceptable (and therefore moral in your view) changes almost instantly, for no good reason at all.

Yes, there individual view is morally right in there minds at that moment. The TOTALITY of modern society would view such acts as IMMORAL, therefore supporting my previous statements.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2012, 02:02 PM
RE: I was just given two AiG Newletters.
Update on quotes:

It seems they are only broken for Fire Fox users.

[Image: RHcn6pd.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2012, 02:04 PM
RE: I was just given two AiG Newletters.
(19-03-2012 02:02 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Update on quotes:

It seems they are only broken for Fire Fox users.

Another triumph for Google Chrome!

[Image: g-chrome.jpg]

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Logica Humano's post
19-03-2012, 02:07 PM
RE: I was just given two AiG Newletters.
(19-03-2012 02:04 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(19-03-2012 02:02 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Update on quotes:

It seems they are only broken for Fire Fox users.

Another triumph for Google Chrome!

[Image: g-chrome.jpg]

That's a big triumph- it way overcomes having to deal with ads plastered across every website. Dodgy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2012, 02:11 PM
RE: I was just given two AiG Newletters.
(19-03-2012 02:07 PM)kineo Wrote:  
(19-03-2012 02:04 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(19-03-2012 02:02 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Update on quotes:

It seems they are only broken for Fire Fox users.

Another triumph for Google Chrome!

[Image: g-chrome.jpg]

That's a big triumph- it way overcomes having to deal with ads plastered across every website. Dodgy

I have no idea what you are talking about. I have almost no ads on Google Chrome.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2012, 02:15 PM
RE: I was just given two AiG Newletters.
(19-03-2012 02:11 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  I have no idea what you are talking about. I have almost no ads on Google Chrome.

You still have to see ads on every site that has ads on it- not ads from Chrome itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2012, 09:53 PM
RE: I was just given two AiG Newletters.
Convergent evolution occurs if two separate groups of organisms thrive in similar environmental conditions. These two groups of organisms will have analogous structures. The wing is a fine example, here's a diagram to illustrate:
[Image: Homology.jpg]
No.1 is a pterosaur, No.2 is a bat, and No.3 is a bird. Note that the structure of the bat wing is homologous to mammal forearms (pentadactyl limbs). Different species facing similar selection pressures will lead to the phenomena of convergent evolution.

Also, phylogenetic trees serve as guides to trace common ancestry. Different data will yield different trees. Also, are you really expecting all the fossils of the most recent common ancestor to be uncovered? You have to consider that fossilisation is very rare in the first place.

Anyway, here's a picture of one of my favourite transitional fossils, Tiktaalik. Cute guy in my opinion.
[Image: 060406.tiktaalik-3.jpg]

I'm somehow reminded of this...
[Image: medium_247e6cf0778ea8ce8c0e61c32c85dd64.png]

Welcome to science. You're gonna like it here - Phil Plait

Have you ever tried taking a comfort blanket away from a small child? - DLJ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like robotworld's post
20-03-2012, 08:56 AM
RE: I was just given two AiG Newletters.
(19-03-2012 02:15 PM)kineo Wrote:  
(19-03-2012 02:11 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  I have no idea what you are talking about. I have almost no ads on Google Chrome.

You still have to see ads on every site that has ads on it- not ads from Chrome itself.

I actually don't. I see almost no adds on almost every site. This works immaculately.

But, yes. SixForty is basing his argument on the assumption that a scientific fact is false.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2012, 09:05 AM
RE: I was just given two AiG Newletters.
[Image: 060406.tiktaalik-3.jpg]

Grandma! Big Grin

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
20-03-2012, 09:24 AM
RE: I was just given two AiG Newletters.
(20-03-2012 08:56 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(19-03-2012 02:15 PM)kineo Wrote:  
(19-03-2012 02:11 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  I have no idea what you are talking about. I have almost no ads on Google Chrome.

You still have to see ads on every site that has ads on it- not ads from Chrome itself.

I actually don't. I see almost no adds on almost every site. This works immaculately.

But, yes. SixForty is basing his argument on the assumption that a scientific fact is false.

Sorry for continuing to derail here- but neat! I didn't know Chrome had extensions now, last time I checked it didn't yet. But that was quite a while ago. Sorry for my wrong assumption! Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: