How is it consistent to criticize the left for hating America AND not having an objective morality ?

[Ken-1122]

The abolitionists would disagree.

I'm not talking to abolitionists, I'm talking to you. Do you disagree? If so, please explain why.

 

[Ken-1122]

The nature of reality? ... like Pascal and Kant, I wish I fully knew what it is so I could tell you. That's why the bottom level of my epistemic framework is filled with Existential Angst, like it is for most other people.

What about the other questions? Is it your view that knowledge is not information and truth is not information that aligns with reality? Or do you not have an answer to those questions either

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What about the other questions? Is it your view that knowledge is not information and truth is not information that aligns with reality? Or do you not have an answer to those questions either

At the moment, I'm rather tired of thinking about it all. Being that you sound so much like my son in your responses, I'm kind of just burned out at the moment.

 

[Ken-1122]

At the moment, I'm rather tired of thinking about it all. Being that you sound so much like my son in your responses, I'm kind of just burned out at the moment.

So your son has a habit of asking questions you can't answer as well?

 

[gaara4158]

That doesn’t answer how we know if laws are right. Or, how do we know that the laws we have are the right ones to keep society functioning?

We can directly observe how well society is functioning by a plethora of objective measures. These measures will reflect how effective our laws are at maintaining society.

 

[Hammster]

I can't help it if you don't fully understand the nature of your argument.

Please explain it, then. Show me how you got from point A to point B.

 

[Hammster]

I'm not talking to abolitionists, I'm talking to you. Do you disagree? If so, please explain why.

I disagree, and I’d use the abolitionists as an example. Chattel slavery wasn’t right, but it kept society running.

 

[Hammster]

We can directly observe how well society is functioning by a plethora of objective measures. These measures will reflect how effective our laws are at maintaining society.

With that logic, 18th century slavery was right.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So your son has a habit of asking questions you can't answer as well?

Yes. In his agnosticism/atheism, he most certainly does. And he's just smart like that.

However, he does have a hard time wrapping his mind around what it means for dear ol' dad to be an "existentialist Christian" which, I think, answers more questions than he realizes.

In your case, though, you might want to realize that a part of our shared reality is that there's a limit to the effective, meaningful questioning of others anyway. Imitations of Socrates don't always prove helpful, particularly so if an atheist already has his mind made up in advance of his inquiries that he's not expecting to agree with anything that someone like myself has to say.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

We can directly observe how well society is functioning by a plethora of objective measures. These measures will reflect how effective our laws are at maintaining society.

Have those "objective" measures determined that Christianity is bad for everyone's functioning?

 

[Ken-1122]

I disagree, and I’d use the abolitionists as an example. Chattel slavery wasn’t right, but it kept society running.

I'm the one who said laws don't need to be right, they only need to be consistent; remember? Chattel slavery was not right, but it was consistent. You're making my point!

 

[Ken-1122]

Yes. In his agnosticism/atheism, he most certainly does. And he's just smart like that.

However, he does have a hard time wrapping his mind around what it means for dear ol' dad to be an "existentialist Christian" which, I think, answers more questions than he realizes.

In your case, though, you might want to realize that a part of our shared reality is that there's a limit to the effective, meaningful questioning of others anyway. Imitations of Socrates don't always prove helpful, particularly so if an atheist already has his mind made up in advance of his inquiries that he's not expecting to agree with anything that someone like myself has to say.

I'm not like that; I'm always open to new information. If I were as closed minded as you seem to suspect I am, I would still be Christian!

 

[NxNW]

Please explain it, then. Show me how you got from point A to point B.

Which aspect of the dichotomy applies to you? Do you have the desire to commit mass murder, or not?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm not like that; I'm always open to new information. If I were as closed minded as you seem to suspect I am, I would still be Christian!

Ok, then. So, I stand corrected: I should recognize that you actually want a discussion with me because you're genuinely interested in what I have to say, even though you've already indicated that you strongly surmise you'll likely disagree with just about anything I might say, strawman/interpolate some things I say, and you'll ignore any sources which inform my own position.

I think part of the problem here is that I like discussions that have clear goals rather than just random flotsam of unending questions that trail off into the nether ...

It also doesn't help that you're choice of language is like a gun. What's your intended target and goal here on CF, Ken? To learn from them?

 

[gaara4158]

With that logic, 18th century slavery was right.

No, with that logic it was legal. The contingent of the populace who did not find society to be running well under that set of laws won in the end, as it is now illegal.

Have those "objective" measures determined that Christianity is bad for everyone's functioning?

Christianity isn’t a law that you can turn on and off with the stroke of a pen, so it’s hard to say.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Christianity isn’t a law that you can turn on and off with the stroke of a pen, so it’s hard to say.

For some other atheists today, it's not hard for them to say, even if Christianity isn't a law at all.

I'm glad to hear that it's hard for you to say, though.

 

[Hammster]

I'm the one who said laws don't need to be right, they only need to be consistent; remember? Chattel slavery was not right, but it was consistent. You're making my point!

Right. You said laws don't have to be right. And now you are saying that a law wasn’t right. According to you, that’s not relevant.

 

[Hammster]

Which aspect of the dichotomy applies to you? Do you have the desire to commit mass murder, or not?

No, I have no desire to commit mass murder.

 

[Hammster]

No, with that logic it was legal. The contingent of the populace who did not find society to be running well under that set of laws won in the end, as it is now illegal.

That would mean that there was no moral reason to be opposed to slavery.

 

[NxNW]

No, I have no desire to commit mass murder.

So an objective reason to ban it is unnecessary for you?