The Moral Argument (revamped)

[createdtoworship]

I have to ask... Are you 'joshing' everyone? I know I'm not the only one whom is wondering... I sure do get a kick out of your responses either way; whether they are genuine, or you are merely trolling.... Still not sure...?

Okay, again, read post 851 FOR STARTERS. (i.e.) A sociopath demonstrates the same traits as a dolphin. So your argument fails. By even excluding all other points, then you would still have to conclude both dolphins and sociopaths only help others for personal gain. Please explain...

At the end of the day, your entire argument appears to be that only humans possess empathy. And when did I say empathy evolved?



Incorrect. You are anxiously awaiting my every post, reading it all, and then only addressing what you 'think' you can address The evidence is noted in your prior responses.



Or here's a more befitting conclusion. You don't really seem to grasp the complex gravity of this subject matter, and 'God' is the easier answer for you.

the first two sentences were merely ad hominem attack and you offered no facts to debate. IF you wish for me to adress something, you must use facts. I only adress facts for the most part.

here is a reply I posted in another thread, to make sure you seen it:

Disclaimer: As I've stated twice now, I agreed with @holo and also asked you, 'how would 'proving' that humans are the only ones capable of altruistic love actually 'prove' Yahweh? Okay, now to responding...

It doesn't by itself prove yahweh. That is not the point. The point is that you cannot provide a natural origin of sacrificial love. You say it evolved, but we don't see it in the animal kingdom. Dolphins helping surfers from sharks is not sacrificial as dolphins swim in groups and a sharks simply can't compete as they are typically sole hunters. So no sacrificial love there. At least not evidently. And that is all we can go on, you even agree in the next quote that you cannot read their mind. I cannot prove they don't love but I don't have to, you said they are loving others, and yet how do you prove that without reading their mind, so the next post self refutes everything you are saying. So I love it. Thanks again.

Like another responder already kind of illustrated, you can't ask them You can really only assess their actions.

adressed above. And thanks again for this debate. You are solidifying my view the more you debate. As per our agreement, I only reply to the first few sentences. Take care.


also to finish my first comment, if there is no natural explanation for sacrificial love, yet a supernatural does exist that is rational, then one must conclude that the supernatural origin of love is more correct than the natural view. And this among other things gives evidence to God's existence. It goes back to "if you seen something made, you know it had a maker." If nature cannot explain why love exists, and we see it in the world around us, and the fact that christians teach about loving enemies, having humility and loving in meekness and anonymity. Things I don't see taught in any other religion, this goes to show that christianity has a more complete view of love than other religions, so thus their God would be the one who created the most complete form of love in the universe.

thanks again. I like our shorter talks. It makes my life a lot easier.

 

[cvanwey]

I only adress facts for the most part.

Here's a fact. Sociopaths only help others when they need them. Using YOUR argument, 'just like a dolphin, which only help the perceived food givers'. Thus, a sociopath and a dolphin, even under your assumption, only help others in which they think can serve a need. You already 'ruled out' such conditions in humans with @holo

So how would you explain?

 

[createdtoworship]

Here's a fact. Sociopaths only help others when they need them. Using YOUR argument, 'just like a dolphin, which only help the perceived food givers'. Thus, a sociopath and a dolphin, even under your assumption, only help others in which they think can serve a need. You already 'ruled out' such conditions in humans with @holo

So how would you explain?

sociopaths are not the only ones who only help others when they need them, Generally work environments this is found in. But that does not mean all work places entail sociopaths. I have a few friends like that. They are by no means sociopaths.

 

[cvanwey]

sociopaths are not the only ones who only help others when they need them, Generally work environments this is found in. But that does not mean all work places entail sociopaths. I have a few friends like that. They are by no means sociopaths.

This does not address my point. The sociopath does not have the capacity for empathy, like you state, it is also hard to 'prove' in dolphins. So I'm giving you a LOT of leeway here; to demonstrate I really don;t even need to address the many other points.... But you have not addressed my assessment regardless. Even if I was to concede ALL other points, please address this one point alone....

Again, both a sociopath and a dolphin only help others whom can do something for them. A sociopath is a human. You ruled out all deficiencies with @holo , regarding humans, as they would still have the 'capacity for sacrifice'. Well, sociopaths don't present true empathetic abilities. Just like you assert that dolphins don't.

So I again ask, how does the capacity for empathy even begin to prove Yahweh?

 

[createdtoworship]

This does not address my point. The sociopath does not have the capacity for empathy, like you state, it is also hard to 'prove' in dolphins. So I'm giving you a LOT of leeway here; to demonstrate I really don;t even need to address the many other points.... But you have not addressed my assessment regardless. Even if I was to concede ALL other points, please address this one point alone....

Again, both a sociopath and a dolphin only help others whom can do something for them. A sociopath is a human. You ruled out all deficiencies with @holo , regarding humans, as they would still have the 'capacity for sacrifice'. Well, sociopaths don't present true empathetic abilities. Just like you assert that dolphins don't.

So I again ask, how does the capacity for empathy even begin to prove Yahweh?

so you can prove to me factually that there exists a sociopath who does not ever love sacrificially? Because he is bound by his diagnosis? What about a relapse? What about when his medicine kicks in? Thirdly in psychoanalysis rarely to you see clients that are so linear. Psychoanalysis is not a hard science for a reason. So because of this fact alone, I can fourthly....question the existence of sociopaths. So again you have to find evidence that at least one person diagnosed with being a sociopath, has never and will never show sacrificial love to prove your assertion that it's probable that he may not show sacrificial love. But that is impossible, because you can't see the future, and you haven't recorded his past. See there are so many variables, that this logic does not really work out. But you are invited to try again. At this point you will have to use a hypothetical, which invalidates the entire argument. So thanks for the debate however, we are done with this topic, unless you can provide more facts of the matter.

 

[cvanwey]

so you can prove to me factually that there exists a sociopath who does not ever love sacrificially?

Ted Bundy

Google 'did Ted Bundy feel empathy?'

"While serial killers do feel emotions, especially ones that motivate them to kill, such as hatred or sexual pleasure, they also lack the ability to feel a sense of regret, or remorse for their victims, which allows them to continue committing crimes without feeling guilty."

What about when his medicine kicks in?

There exists no medicine to induce empathy. And if/when there ever is, it may also worked on other species? You would again be right back to square one, demonstrating no difference between a sociopath and the additional species in which you invoked empathetic traits

Thirdly in psychoanalysis rarely to you see clients that are so linear. Psychoanalysis is not a hard science for a reason. So because of this fact alone, I can fourthly....question the existence of sociopaths.

Your right, psychiatry must be a sham. I guess we can also rule out, concretely anyways, ALL diagnosed non-physical based conditions

And yet, you appear to have a belief in a specific Book, based upon less...? Go figure...

So again you have to find evidence that at least one person diagnosed with being a sociopath, has never and will never show sacrificial love to prove your assertion that it's probable that he may not show sacrificial love.

Ted Bundy. No empathy.

 

[holo]

There exists no medicine to induce empathy.

MDMA, maybe.

 

[createdtoworship]

Ted Bundy

Google 'did Ted Bundy feel empathy?'

"While serial killers do feel emotions, especially ones that motivate them to kill, such as hatred or sexual pleasure, they also lack the ability to feel a sense of regret, or remorse for their victims, which allows them to continue committing crimes without feeling guilty."



There exists no medicine to induce empathy. And if/when there ever is, it may also worked on other species? You would again be right back to square one, demonstrating no difference between a sociopath and the additional species in which you invoked empathetic traits



Your right, psychiatry must be a sham. I guess we can also rule out, concretely anyways, ALL diagnosed non-physical based conditions

And yet, you appear to have a belief in a specific Book, based upon less...? Go figure...



Ted Bundy. No empathy.

ted bundy became a christian later in life. So again, even in your worst case scenario, you have no valid evidence. Besides even if he didn't, you didn't record his past memories to make sure that he didn't in fact mess up at any moment and had a loving moment. Rarely like I said is it so linear. I only adressed the first few sentences and didn't read the rest. Thanks!

 

[cvanwey]

ted bundy became a christian later in life. So again, even in your worst case scenario, you have no valid evidence. Besides even if he didn't, you didn't record his past memories to make sure that he didn't in fact mess up at any moment and had a loving moment. Rarely like I said is it so linear. I only adressed the first few sentences and didn't read the rest. Thanks!

If you don't wish to respond, then just don't. He was diagnosed as a psychopath, and is clinically unable to implement empathetic responses towards anyone outside his own 'family unit', at the very best. Drugs also cannot induce an empathetic response. And if drugs could, such drugs would also work on other species as well. Thus, (even excluding all my other points of evidence from post 851 and prior), a dolphin and Ted Bundy, or any other clinical psychopath for that matter, are unable to demonstrate 'sacrifice'. Unless you wish to 'discredit' all of psychiatry.

 

[cvanwey]

MDMA, maybe.

Yes, in search, I've found this drug as a candidate as well. But it is speculative thus far... Furthermore, if it works for psychopaths, it will most likely work for other empathic capable species.

 

[createdtoworship]

If you don't wish to respond, then just don't. He was diagnosed as a psychopath, and is clinically unable to implement empathetic responses towards anyone outside his own 'family unit', at the very best. Drugs also cannot induce an empathetic response. And if drugs could, such drugs would also work on other species as well. Thus, (even excluding all my other points of evidence from post 851 and prior), a dolphin and Ted Bundy, or any other clinical psychopath for that matter, are unable to demonstrate 'sacrifice'. Unless you wish to 'discredit' all of psychiatry.

so again you can prove the diagnosis's are perfectly sound? Doctors don't make mistakes? Could it be that he was just a rotten person? Instead of clinically or mentally ill? All these things you cannot prove. So if you can prove these things let me know. For now I assume you cannot. Take care. (as per our agreement I responded to the first few sentences, if you don't like being blocked or how I respond to your posts, then you don't have to reply to these posts if you don't want to.)

 

[cvanwey]

so again you can prove the diagnosis's are perfectly sound?

Don't have to actually... One of the main character traits of a psychopath, is complete lack in an empathetic response, outside of people they feel they need, (if even that much). Humans have been diagnosed as psychopathic. Unless you think this condition, in general as a whole, is bogus entirely?

Doctors don't make mistakes?

Of course they do. Hence, the concluded diagnoses, in general, of psychopathy, is unfounded entirely??? Again, many humans are diagnosed with this condition. For your argument to hold any water, this diagnoses, in general, would have to be incorrect in general, in which gets diagnosed to individuals, Ted Bundy included.

Could it be that he was just a rotten person? Instead of clinically or mentally ill?

Sure he was 'rotten.' In this case, for starters, he was 'rotten', as he demonstrated no remorse or empathy for his victims.

All these things you cannot prove.

Depends on what you count as evidence. Depends on what you consider 'proof' in anything really.

So if you can prove these things let me know. For now I assume you cannot. Take care. (as per our agreement I responded to the first few sentences, if you don't like being blocked or how I respond to your posts, then you don't have to reply to these posts if you don't want to.)

First of all, there exists no 'agreement.' You state you 'block' people when they debunk your assertions. There exists many examples of this, in your threads, as you have also presented to @Moral Orel @InterestedAtheist and maybe others....

Secondly, I have demonstrated sound evidence for many points. You simply ignore or reject them anyways.

 

[createdtoworship]

Don't have to actually... One of the main character traits of a psychopath, is complete lack in an empathetic response, outside of people they feel they need, (if even that much). Humans have been diagnosed as psychopathic. Unless you think this condition, in general as a whole, is bogus entirely?



Of course they do. Hence, the concluded diagnoses, in general, of psychopathy, is unfounded entirely??? Again, many humans are diagnosed with this condition. For your argument to hold any water, this diagnoses, in general, would have to be incorrect in general, in which gets diagnosed to individuals, Ted Bundy included.



Sure he was 'rotten.' In this case, for starters, he was 'rotten', as he demonstrated no remorse or empathy for his victims.



Depends on what you count as evidence. Depends on what you consider 'proof' in anything really.



First of all, there exists no 'agreement.' You state you 'block' people when they debunk your assertions. There exists many examples of this, in your threads, as you have also presented to @Moral Orel @InterestedAtheist and maybe others....

Secondly, I have demonstrated sound evidence for many points. You simply ignore or reject them anyways.

ok, in the first two sentences you did not prove that the diagnosis was valid. It could possibly be that he was just a really bad individual, you don't know because you didn't work with him on the case management. So this point is successfully refuted. So anyway, I know you posted a much larger post, however again you must give your best stuff first, if you wish a reply. If not then, thats ok. But sounds like you are still defending a defenseless position. I will no longer talk to you about ted bundy, for one because later in life he converted to christian, secondly because you didn't personally work on his case, thirdly, you are not qualified to diagnose patients yourself, so you must rely and have "faith" in someone elses qualifications. And fourthly those people must have done their job, honestly, in an unbiased fashion, and without mistakes. And even if they did a perfect job, you would still have to have faith in their methods, as you could not prove they did all the above accurately yourself. So I hope you learn from all this. I hope I am not talking to a wall. But when you say you can prove something, you really not to put forth a greater effort and cover all bases.

 

[cvanwey]

ok, in the first two sentences you did not prove that the diagnosis was valid. It could possibly be that he was just a really bad individual, you don't know because you didn't work with him on the case management. So this point is successfully refuted. So anyway, I know you posted a much larger post, however again you must give your best stuff first, if you wish a reply. If not then, thats ok. But sounds like you are still defending a defenseless position. I will no longer talk to you about ted bundy, for one because later in life he converted to christian, secondly because you didn't personally work on his case, thirdly, you are not qualified to diagnose patients yourself, so you must rely and have "faith" in someone elses qualifications. And fourthly those people must have done their job, honestly, in an unbiased fashion, and without mistakes. And even if they did a perfect job, you would still have to have faith in their methods, as you could not prove they did all the above accurately yourself. So I hope you learn from all this. I hope I am not talking to a wall. But when you say you can prove something, you really not to put forth a greater effort and cover all bases.

- Again, I stated I don't even have to go this far. Why?
- You would have to reject the existing diagnosis of 'psychopathy' in general, as a bogus and unfounded condition in general. And that there instead exists no such thing as a psychopath.
- Assuming you accept this 'mental condition' as a valid one, then this would mean at least one person has been properly diagnosed with it.
- In which case, I win. Meaning, a psychopath and a dolphin demonstrate the same behaviors, in that they only help others if they see a direct need from this person to be later met. This, of course, is assuming that all other points demonstrated are off the table

 

[createdtoworship]

- Again, I stated I don't even have to go this far. Why?
- You would have to reject the existing diagnosis of 'psychopathy' in general, as a bogus and unfounded condition in general. And that there instead exists no such thing as a psychopath.
- Assuming you accept this 'mental condition' as a valid one, then this would mean at least one person has been properly diagnosed with it.
- In which case, I win. Meaning, a psychopath and a dolphin demonstrate the same behaviors, in that they only help others if they see a direct need from this person to be later met. This, of course, is assuming that all other points demonstrated are off the table

why would I need to demonstrate that psychotherapy itself is invalid, when you don't have evidence of a proper diagnosis to begin with? Sorry but you can't make me do your homework, you said he had a diagnosis, now prove it. and let me repost my previous post on this: later in life he converted to christian, secondly because you didn't personally work on his case, thirdly, you are not qualified to diagnose patients yourself, so you must rely and have "faith" in someone elses qualifications. And fourthly those people must have done their job, honestly, in an unbiased fashion, and without mistakes. And even if they did a perfect job, you would still have to have faith in their methods, as you could not prove they did all the above accurately yourself. So I hope you learn from all this. I hope I am not talking to a wall. But when you say you can prove something, you really not to put forth a greater effort and cover all bases.

 

[cvanwey]

why would I need to demonstrate that psychotherapy itself is invalid, when you don't have evidence of a proper diagnosis to begin with? Sorry but you can't make me do your homework, you said he had a diagnosis, now prove it. and let me repost my previous post on this: later in life he converted to christian, secondly because you didn't personally work on his case, thirdly, you are not qualified to diagnose patients yourself, so you must rely and have "faith" in someone elses qualifications. And fourthly those people must have done their job, honestly, in an unbiased fashion, and without mistakes. And even if they did a perfect job, you would still have to have faith in their methods, as you could not prove they did all the above accurately yourself. So I hope you learn from all this. I hope I am not talking to a wall. But when you say you can prove something, you really not to put forth a greater effort and cover all bases.

Oh, you don't like it when others don't address all your 'points'? Tough You continue to set the 'criteria', not me. Below is a checklist (link) for psychopaths. Thus, I again ask... Is the determination of the term 'psychopath' a valid one, yes or no?

If yes, then again, excluding all my other links and points, a dolphin and a psychopath are one in the same - (in the specific sense that they possess no true empathy for others). Hence, some humans would not possess the ability for true sacrifice.

Psychopathy: Definition, Symptoms, Signs and Causes | HealthyPlace

Furthermore, it was you whom said you no longer wanted to discuss Ted Bundy. I'm simply granting your wish. And quite frankly, I don't even need to.

 

[createdtoworship]

Oh, you don't like it when others don't address all your 'points'? Tough You continue to set the 'criteria', not me. Below is a checklist (link) for psychopaths. Thus, I again ask... Is the determination of the term 'psychopath' a valid one, yes or no?

If yes, then again, excluding all my other links and points, a dolphin and a psychopath are one in the same - (in the specific sense that they possess no true empathy for others). Hence, some humans would not possess the ability for true sacrifice.

Psychopathy: Definition, Symptoms, Signs and Causes | HealthyPlace

Furthermore, it was you whom said you no longer wanted to discuss Ted Bundy. I'm simply granting your wish. And quite frankly, I don't even need to.

sir I don't read anything accept for the first line or two. It's okay though I am pretty much done with this conversation as you obviously cannot prove any diagnosis. The only way to prove a diagnosis is to ask the patient how they feel, is that objective? I mean how I feel is all of a sudden scientific now? So really, you should be done with this nonsense.

and I am glad that you are being affected by my blocking of your posts. Maybe next time you can learn to be polite all the time, so they don't have to block you. But putting more insults just lengthens your sentence. Right now your sentence is "until further notice." But if I see you being polite, not insulting, not being emotional in posts then I may lift your block, and fully address your posts. I mean it's gotta be irritating not the have someone read all that you write, and only respond to the first few lines. If it's not irritating you are a very patient individual.

 

[cvanwey]

sir I don't read anything accept for the first line or two. It's okay though I am pretty much done with this conversation as you obviously cannot prove any diagnosis. The only way to prove a diagnosis is to ask the patient how they feel, is that objective? I mean how I feel is all of a sudden scientific now? So really, you should be done with this nonsense.

The only 'nonsense' demonstrated here, is the fact that you are 'not reading posts', and still claiming 'victory' without even knowing what your opponent posts. However, I have a sneaking suspicion, that you do in fact read them Hence, as stated much prior, when you are pinned, you bow out.

Ta Ta

 

[cvanwey]

sir I don't read anything accept for the first line or two. It's okay though I am pretty much done with this conversation as you obviously cannot prove any diagnosis. The only way to prove a diagnosis is to ask the patient how they feel, is that objective? I mean how I feel is all of a sudden scientific now? So really, you should be done with this nonsense.

and I am glad that you are being affected by my blocking of your posts. Maybe next time you can learn to be polite all the time, so they don't have to block you. But putting more insults just lengthens your sentence. Right now your sentence is "until further notice." But if I see you being polite, not insulting, not being emotional in posts then I may lift your block, and fully address your posts. I mean it's gotta be irritating not the have someone read all that you write, and only respond to the first few lines. If it's not irritating you are a very patient individual.

Disclaimer: This is for all others whom further interact with you, not you so much; as this is a global and public forum. So feel free to 'block' what I write below

You must be right. No diagnosis for any mental condition truly and reliably exists. Autism, depression, anxiety disorder, or any others, which relates to one's brain states... This appears to be the ONLY way you can 'claim victory'; by muddying the waters entirely.

Again, you would have to completely reject psychopathy as a true diagnoses in general, to further your argument.

Otherwise, in conclusion, EVEN IF everything you stated about dolphins were true, that they only help humans because dolphins view humans as a food providing source, you would have to ALSO reconcile that some humans are diagnosed with the inability to empathize with others. Hence, there exists a population, whom share the traits of dolphins. Meaning, incapable of sacrifice.

And on a side note, as I noticed you changed your responses after I posted my last one, I'm not 'emotional', other than being amused by your apologetic tactics.

I must say, it does get rather old to be on the receiving end of the same 'ol argument, 'we all have faith in something.'

 

[createdtoworship]

duplicate