Evolution is not observable admits Jerry Coyne

[McBell]

It is not easy to ignore what I write, because I write plain easy to understand facts. Which is why all the atheists panic about what I write.

A real legend in your own mind.
Truely

 

[ArtieE]

One doesn't need factual certitude to call some woman beautiful, or to call you evil. One needs emotions, confidence, judgement, subjectivity.

No, you need "factual certitude" about what evil actually is and then show that I actually am evil. If you don't I'll sue you for slander and you'll see what your "emotions, confidence, judgement, subjectivity" is worth. Maybe that will teach you the difference between calling some woman beautiful and calling me evil.

 

[outhouse]

It is not easy to ignore what I write, because I write plain easy to understand facts

Its very easy to throw worthless rhetoric where it belongs.

You have not brought any facts. Nor anything credible to discuss.

 

[leibowde84]

It was immoral because it is detrimental for a society if people go around killing other people for whatever personal reasons and society lost one murderer but gained another so that's hardly an improvement either. Can't you see the big picture?

The big picture is not what we are discussing. We are discussing whether it is valid to hold the OPINION (subjective) that the murder is both moral and immoral, depending on where you are coming from. I would say that both opinions are valid and, thus, morality is subjective.

 

[leibowde84]

Meaning to say morality is different for gazelles, and lions, different for Aryans and Jews. Associating subjectivity to physical differences, and not associating subjectivity to choosing.

Where did you get that from?! I said, "morality is different to different people". This is not due to physical differences, but, instead, differences of opinion. Do you have a reading comprehension problem, or are you just slow in general? I've never made the claim that differences in morality is due to physical differences. And, I'm not sure that the term even applies to non-humans ... but that would be another discussion.

 

[ArtieE]

The big picture is not what we are discussing. We are discussing whether it is valid to hold the OPINION (subjective) that the murder is both moral and immoral, depending on where you are coming from. I would say that both opinions are valid and, thus, morality is subjective.

Doesn't matter where you're coming from. People may hold different opinions but what actually is or isn't moral doesn't change.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Where did you get that from?! I said, "morality is different to different people". This is not due to physical differences, but, instead, differences of opinion. Do you have a reading comprehension problem, or are you just slow in general? I've never made the claim that differences in morality is due to physical differences. And, I'm not sure that the term even applies to non-humans ... but that would be another discussion.

It is what you said. Different opions for different people. And seeing as that you explicitly denied subjectivity related to choosing, it can only mean you associate different opinions to physical differences (in the broadest sense of what is physical).

 

[leibowde84]

Doesn't matter where you're coming from. People may hold different opinions but what actually is or isn't moral doesn't change.

And, that's where we will have to agree to disagree. I don't think something can be considered as "moral" objectively. Different people place different levels of importance on different factors, and I fail to see an authority. In my example, you basically claimed that we were "breaking even", but you still thought it was immoral.

 

[leibowde84]

seeing as that you explicitly denied subjectivity related to choosing

Please cite the comment where I did this. You often dishonestly make claims of this sort, then refuse to back them up. Is this the same old Mohammad, or are you willing to put your money where your mouth is?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Please cite the comment where I did this. You often dishonestly make claims of this sort, then refuse to back them up. Is this the same old Mohammad, or are you willing to put your money where your mouth is?

It is already quite apparent that it is true by that you talk of morality being different for different people.

When subjectivity is at issue, then obviously precision about subjectivity matters.

So that you don't talk about subjectivity in terms of 1 person being capable to choose 2 different things, but in stead talk about 2 different people choosing 2 different things, then....obviously...

 

[leibowde84]

It is already quite apparent that it is true by that you talk of morality being different for different people.

When subjectivity is at issue, then obviously precision about subjectivity matters.

So that you don't talk about subjectivity in terms of 1 person being capable to choose 2 different things, but in stead talk about 2 different people choosing 2 different things, then....obviously...

So, you were being dishonest. Remember, you said that I made this claim "explicitly". So, either you were lying, or you don't understand what the word "explicit" means.

 

[ArtieE]

And, that's where we will have to agree to disagree. I don't think something can be considered as "moral" objectively. Different people place different levels of importance on different factors, and I fail to see an authority. In my example, you basically claimed that we were "breaking even", but you still thought it was immoral.

The authority was evolution and natural selection giving us the survival instinct etc. Survive right die wrong. That is why we perform surgeries so that people can survive you see, and that is why murder is morally wrong because murder victims DIE.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

So, you were being dishonest. Remember, you said that I made this claim "explicitly". So, either you were lying, or you don't understand what the word "explicit" means.

Yes that's what I said, and I stand by that. And I can't be bothered to look it up.

It is already shown that you are a liar by what you write here. I mean it is shown over and over that you relate subjectivity to different people, different environments, different societies, and not relate subjectivity to different options which can be chosen.

 

[leibowde84]

Yes that's what I said, and I stand by that. And I can't be bothered to look it up.

It is already shown that you are a liar by what you write here. I mean it is shown over and over that you relate subjectivity to different people, different environments, different societies, and not relate subjectivity to different options which can be chosen.

Then it shouldn't be hard to cite my comment.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Then it shouldn't be hard to cite my comment.

It would be extremely hard since it actually wasn't said by you and the whole declaration seems to be aimed at everyone, including other Muslims. The problem is with him not you.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

It would be extremely hard since it actually wasn't said by you and the whole declaration seems to be aimed at everyone, including other Muslims. The problem is with him not you.

More crap from the evilutionists. It is shown in the readily available posts previous, over and over, that Leibowde associates different morality to different people, different environments, different societies, and so on.

When subjectivity is the subject at issue, then obviously you need to be precise about how subjectivity works. He did not associate subjectivity to choosing, he explicitly denied it, and he would still explitly deny that subjectivity operates by choosing about what the agency of a decision is. Choosing if the agency of a decision is goodness or evil, either conclusion being valid when chosen.

All you evolutionists, materiallists, physicalists, nazi's, communists, and whatever, reject subjectivity in this sense of freedom. That you reject it is the reason why you are evolutionists, materialists, physicalists, nazi's, communists and whatever.

 

[Midnight Rain]

More crap from the evilutionists. It is shown in the readily available posts previous, over and over, that Leibowde associates different morality to different people, different environments, different societies, and so on.

When subjectivity is the subject at issue, then obviously you need to be precise about how subjectivity works. He did not associate subjectivity to choosing, he explicitly denied it, and he would still explitly deny that subjectivity operates by choosing about what the agency of a decision is. Choosing if the agency of a decision is goodness or evil, either conclusion being valid when chosen.

All you evolutionists, materiallists, physicalists, nazi's, communists, and whatever, reject subjectivity in this sense of freedom. That you reject it is the reason why you are evolutionists, materialists, physicalists, nazi's, communists and whatever.

Point something out then. I mean all you do is say random stuff that doesn't link together. I think you reject subjectivity because all Muslims inherently reject subjectivity because they believe that salt and fresh water doesn't mix.

 

[viole]

More crap from the evilutionists. It is shown in the readily available posts previous, over and over, that Leibowde associates different morality to different people, different environments, different societies, and so on.

When subjectivity is the subject at issue, then obviously you need to be precise about how subjectivity works. He did not associate subjectivity to choosing, he explicitly denied it, and he would still explitly deny that subjectivity operates by choosing about what the agency of a decision is. Choosing if the agency of a decision is goodness or evil, either conclusion being valid when chosen.

All you evolutionists, materiallists, physicalists, nazi's, communists, and whatever, reject subjectivity in this sense of freedom. That you reject it is the reason why you are evolutionists, materialists, physicalists, nazi's, communists and whatever.

Silly and intolerable physicalism. It seems to get in the way of my freedom to fly by flapping my arms really fast.

Ciao

- viole

 

[outhouse]

Point something out then

I judge fanaticism and fundamentalism by how far people are from reality, part of that is how well they communicate, or fail to.



The CPU has gone bonky and the gates are not operating properly and it stops all credible input. Everything is channeled through a mythological filter before it stores information on the hard drive.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Morality is somewhat of a meaningless concept. It's suppose to be non-circumstantial, but most things that are "good" or "bad" depend on circumstance.