Evolution is not observable admits Jerry Coyne

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Is this what you've meant all along, Mohammad? I feel like it couldn't be, but it's an honest question.

No it's not an honest question. It's another tactic to try to divert attention away from the actual argumentation. The conceptual scheme of creationism is as simple as the rules of tic tac toe. The rule of subjectivity states one can only reach a conclusion about what the agency of a decision is, by choosing the conclusion. That was it.

It is solely people who conceive of choosing as sorting out the best result, using the facts about good and evil as sorting criteria, who have a problem with understanding. You insist on knowing for a fact what is good and evil, that is the mainstay of your emotional life, and that is why you have cognitive dissonance of not understanding anything I say.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I've noticed already. Infuriating. But it's whatever.

It's not whatever. That you regard love and hate as fact means your emotional life is phony. It means you do not express your emotions with free will, thus choosing, but in stead you scipt your behaviour according to the facts about what is loving and hateful.

 

[ArtieE]

Since you don't choose about what the agency of any decision is, you have no belief, no faith.

Makes no sense. Try rephrasing.

 

[ArtieE]

It is very obvious that whether or not love and hate are real would be a matter of opinion, for what we like and dislike to be opinion.

You've got absolutely nothing going for you reason, logic and evidence wise to sustain this bizarre idea they are fact.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/love-and-sex-in-the-digital-age/201501/is-your-brain-love
http://www.youramazingbrain.org/lovesex/sciencelove.htm

 

[ArtieE]

It's not whatever. That you regard love and hate as fact means your emotional life is phony.

No it means that it's a fact that love and hate exists.

It means you do not express your emotions with free will, thus choosing,

Of course I can use my free will to express my emotions or not.

 

[ArtieE]

The rule of subjectivity states one can only reach a conclusion about what the agency of a decision is, by choosing the conclusion. That was it.

Makes no sense. Try rephrasing instead of constantly repeating yourself.

 

[Valjean]

But what do emotions have to do with facts?

 

[leibowde84]

No it's not an honest question. It's another tactic to try to divert attention away from the actual argumentation. The conceptual scheme of creationism is as simple as the rules of tic tac toe. The rule of subjectivity states one can only reach a conclusion about what the agency of a decision is, by choosing the conclusion. That was it.

It is solely people who conceive of choosing as sorting out the best result, using the facts about good and evil as sorting criteria, who have a problem with understanding. You insist on knowing for a fact what is good and evil, that is the mainstay of your emotional life, and that is why you have cognitive dissonance of not understanding anything I say.

As I've stated many times before, I don't think that "good" and "evil" are objective or factual. I believe, like you, that they are subjective. Nice try though.

 

[ArtieE]

As I've stated many times before, I don't think that "good" and "evil" are objective or factual.

If you look at definitions of "good" and "evil" you'll consistently find that "good" is defined as something that is morally right or desirable or beneficial or advantageous to somebody or something etc and evil is defined as something immoral or undesirable or detrimental or disadvantageous to somebody or something etc.

I believe, like you, that they are subjective. Nice try though.

Those are the definitions no matter what somebody might subjectively think.

 

[The Hammer]

I provide a conceptual scheme integrating fact and opinion. I demonstrate how it works with examples from common discourse. My cards are all on the table. You've got nothing, which is why you resort to other tactics.

It is very obviously total nonsense that love and hate would be fact. They do not seem to be like a stone, or the circling of a planet, or any other thing in science, and any cursory investigation would show that the reality of them is not a fact.

It is very obvious that whether or not love and hate are real would be a matter of opinion, for what we like and dislike to be opinion.

You've got absolutely nothing going for you reason, logic and evidence wise to sustain this bizarre idea they are fact. Nobody ever presented a different conceptual scheme which validates both fact and opinion. It is all just one long diatribe of insults, stonewalling, pseudoscience, and whatever else.

Everything you speak of is pure speculation and conjecture, also known as an opinion, of which you are purporting as a fact. Let's agree to disagree, and drop this thread, considering no one can actually converse with you. By the way, no one being able to understand your reasoning, doesn't automatically make you right.

 

[leibowde84]

If you look at definitions of "good" and "evil" you'll consistently find that "good" is defined as something that is morally right or desirable or beneficial or advantageous to somebody or something etc and evil is defined as something immoral or undesirable or detrimental or disadvantageous to somebody or something etc.Those are the definitions no matter what somebody might subjectively think.

Those definitions are inherently subjective, and, thus, agree with my point.

 

[The Hammer]

It's not whatever. That you regard love and hate as fact means your emotional life is phony. It means you do not express your emotions with free will, thus choosing, but in stead you scipt your behaviour according to the facts about what is loving and hateful.

So, I should agree that love and hate are not actually real, and that the reality of life is that emotion is fake, so the only true position is the position of a stoic?

Or are you saying that since love and hate do not exist. What would look like hate (killing someone who disagrees with my religious point of view) is actually love because it is proving that they are incorrect by my pure ability to harm them in the first place, allowing them to meet our true creator?

 

[ArtieE]

Those definitions are inherently subjective, and, thus, agree with my point.

That "good" is defined as something that is morally right or desirable or beneficial or advantageous to somebody or something etc and evil is defined as something immoral or undesirable or detrimental or disadvantageous to somebody or something etc. is not something we just subjectively made up. They are a natural result of evolution and natural selection giving us instincts like the survival instinct and the instinct to procreate. Murder is immoral and bad and evil because the victim doesn't survive. Helping somebody to survive is good and moral. What is "good" or "evil" was established by evolution and natural selection long before we even started contemplating it.

 

[leibowde84]

That "good" is defined as something that is morally right or desirable or beneficial or advantageous to somebody or something etc and evil is defined as something immoral or undesirable or detrimental or disadvantageous to somebody or something etc. is not something we just subjectively made up. They are a natural result of evolution and natural selection giving us instincts like the survival instinct and the instinct to procreate. Murder is immoral and bad and evil because the victim doesn't survive. Helping somebody to survive is good and moral. What is "good" or "evil" was established by evolution and natural selection long before we even started contemplating it.

But, morality is different for different people. Killing isn't always wrong just because there is a victim. Helping someone isn't always good just because it benefits someone. What is good or evil to one person might not be to another. That means that they are subjective terms.

 

[ArtieE]

But, morality is different for different people.

No it isn't. What they think is moral is.

Killing isn't always wrong just because there is a victim.

No it isn't. Never said it was. Killing in self defense or to prevent the person killing somebody else is perfectly moral.

Helping someone isn't always good just because it benefits someone.

Would need a specific example to answer that one.

What is good or evil to one person might not be to another.

Would need a specific example to answer that one.

 

[leibowde84]

No it isn't. What they think is moral is.No it isn't. Never said it was. Killing in self defense or to prevent the person killing somebody else is perfectly moral.Would need a specific example to answer that one.Would need a specific example to answer that one.

mo·ral·i·ty
məˈralədē/
noun

1. principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

right
rīt/
adjective

1. morally good, justified, or acceptable.

In different cultures, what is "right" or "acceptable" changes. There are also various "justifications" that are "acceptable" in some cultures, but not in others. If you need examples of this, I am happy to provide them. This means that there is no "right" and "wrong", but, rather, only our subjective opinions or the opinion of populations that deem things "right" and/or "wrong". There is no absolute authority, and, as such, these terms are subjective.

If someone says that elective abortion is "wrong", and justifies their position saying that killing an innocent fetus/baby is "immoral", they can't be said to be absolutely correct or incorrect. As, it is debatable whether elective abortions might limit population growth, prevent poverty, give women more control over their lives, etc. (just one example). Morality, in other words, is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[leibowde84]

No it isn't. What they think is moral is.No it isn't. Never said it was. Killing in self defense or to prevent the person killing somebody else is perfectly moral.Would need a specific example to answer that one.Would need a specific example to answer that one.

Helping someone isn't always good just because it benefits someone.
Would need a specific example to answer that one. - Imho, helping a fugitive escape police capture is "wrong".
What is good or evil to one person might not be to another.
Would need a specific example to answer that one. - Some people consider sex outside of marriage to be "wrong". Some people don't see a problem with it at all.

 

[ArtieE]

In different cultures, what is "right" or "acceptable" changes. There are also various "justifications" that are "acceptable" in some cultures, but not in others. If you need examples of this, I am happy to provide them. This means that there is no "right" and "wrong", but, rather, only our subjective opinions or the opinion of populations that deem things "right" and/or "wrong". There is no absolute authority, and, as such, these terms are subjective.

The "absolute authority" on what is "right" and "wrong", "moral" or "immoral" is evolution and natural selection because we evolved different instincts such as the survival instinct and the instinct to reproduce. Survival and reproduction right, non-survival wrong. Murder is automatically immoral and wrong and evil according to evolution and natural selection because the victim doesn't survive.

If someone says that elective abortion is "wrong", and justifies their position saying that killing an innocent fetus/baby is "immoral", they can't be said to be absolutely correct or incorrect. As, it is debatable whether elective abortions might limit population growth, prevent poverty, give women more control over their lives, etc. (just one example). Morality, in other words, is in the eye of the beholder.

No it isn't. The reason we can't say whether selective abortion is moral or immoral, right or wrong is simply because we can't say whether such a tactic is detrimental or beneficial in the long run to the well-being and survival of the species. That's what the debate basically is about. Which strategy is acceptable to ensure the well-being and survival and successful reproduction of as many people as possible.

 

[leibowde84]

The "absolute authority" on what is "right" and "wrong", "moral" or "immoral" is evolution and natural selection because we evolved different instincts such as the survival instinct and the instinct to reproduce. Survival and reproduction right, non-survival wrong. Murder is automatically immoral and wrong and evil according to evolution and natural selection because the victim doesn't survive.

I disagree. I don't think that morality and survival are the same thing. Something that helps one to survive is not necessarily "right" or "moral". Just as something that might endanger someone is not necessarily "wrong" or "evil".

It sounds like you are a utilitarian, at least in this respect. Is that accurate?

 

[ArtieE]

Imho, helping a fugitive escape police capture is "wrong".

Yes it is. It would be beneficial for the fugitive but detrimental to all his potential victims and society as a whole so since the action is detrimental to more people than it benefits the action is immoral.

Some people consider sex outside of marriage to be "wrong". Some people don't see a problem with it at all.

If having sex outside of marriage is detrimental to the well-being of others or the stability of the society it is immoral. If not then no problem.