Moral objective values...

[whisperit]

[font=Verdana]In one of his papers, Dr. William Lane Craig (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig) argues moral objective values is to say something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so. If God does not exist, what is the foundation for moral objective values?[/font][/url]

[JohnA]

And the character assassination continues, or the weak attempt at it - shall we be honest here.

Why not add something to the debate, instead of weak ad hominems and strong assertion fallacies. Rallying non existent troops to support a fallacious position seems redundant.


Suppose my opponent focused more on defending his incoherent position than exposing his strength in offering fallacies, would one gain more respect for him, or his style or debate points (the non existent ones)?

But Danmark already surrendered that he does not and can not follow this golden rule. That is besides demonstrating conclusively that his written word is not to be trusted. And now it seems he is reverting to a new tactic, without realising it says more about him than he thinks.

Socrates — 'When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.'

[Artie]

That is clearly false. Except for Artie and Danmark. I am not sure if they represent humanity or if the rest of us represents humanity. They fail to clarify their positions, but are great at assertion fallacies.

"The document which was signed by 300 representatives of the world's religions at the 1993 Parliament of the World's Religions in Chicago says "We are interdependent. Each of us depends on the well-being of the whole, and so we have respect for the community of living beings. We must treat others as we wish others to treat us." http://www.fowpal.org/f/english/F_d_056.html

You can just count how much of humanity is covered by representatives for 300 religions and then add everybody else who also live by the Golden Rule. The people you call "the rest of us" seem to be pretty outnumbered don't you think?

Right. So you can not defend this rule - everything you say you is merely affirming it is false.

Actually the opposite.

If this rule was true then you would not need 300 religions to sign it.

They signed it because it's true of course otherwise they wouldn't have signed it.

And now you offer your affirmed position that this rule is false with an argument from authority and population.

No, you said and I quote: "I am not sure if they represent humanity or if the rest of us represents humanity." I just proved to you that we represent most of humanity. It's hard to say who you represent. I have never met anybody else who doesn't understand the Golden Rule is a good rule. Are there anybody else here who supports JohnA and thinks the Golden Rule is false and fake and incoherent etc?

Your arguments are getting more desperate with every new post from you.

And the hole you are digging for yourself is getting deeper and deeper.

Let me sum up: I represent people who think "one should help others as one would like others to help oneself" and you represent those who think this is false and bullshit so you represent the people who think you should not help others. Right?

[JohnA]

That is clearly false. Except for Artie and Danmark. I am not sure if they represent humanity or if the rest of us represents humanity. They fail to clarify their positions, but are great at assertion fallacies.

"The document which was signed by 300 representatives of the world's religions at the 1993 Parliament of the World's Religions in Chicago says "We are interdependent. Each of us depends on the well-being of the whole, and so we have respect for the community of living beings. We must treat others as we wish others to treat us." http://www.fowpal.org/f/english/F_d_056.html

You can just count how much of humanity is covered by representatives for 300 religions and then add everybody else who also live by the Golden Rule. The people you call "the rest of us" seem to be pretty outnumbered don't you think?

Right. So you can not defend this rule - everything you say you is merely affirming it is false.

Actually the opposite.

If this rule was true then you would not need 300 religions to sign it.

They signed it because it's true of course otherwise they wouldn't have signed it.

And now you offer your affirmed position that this rule is false with an argument from authority and population.

No, you said and I quote: "I am not sure if they represent humanity or if the rest of us represents humanity." I just proved to you that we represent most of humanity. It's hard to say who you represent. I have never met anybody else who doesn't understand the Golden Rule is a good rule. Are there anybody else here who supports JohnA and thinks the Golden Rule is false and fake and incoherent etc?

Your arguments are getting more desperate with every new post from you.

And the hole you are digging for yourself is getting deeper and deeper.

Let me sum up: I represent people who think "one should help others as one would like others to help oneself" and you represent those who think this is false and bullshit so you represent the people who think you should not help others. Right?

Once again, you fail to address my questions. Why is that?

Let me sum up: I represent people who think "one should help others as one would like others to help oneself" and you represent those who think this is false and bullshit so you represent the people who think you should not help others. Right?

WHy WHY WHY?
Why do you pretend to know to believe my beliefs?

I represent people who think "one should help others as one would like others to help oneself"

Is that in all conditions, in all circumstances? If not, then your golden rule falls flat. It already fell flat because you refuse to help me argue my point, you reject my point. SO, you are NOT following this rule at all.
Will you love my enemies for me? Answer this question. Will you love my enemies for me? Will you love my enemies for me? Answer this question. Will you love my enemies for me? Answer this question. Will you love my enemies for me? Will you love my enemies for me? Answer this question.
Will you help a rapist and a murderer to execute their crimes? Answer this question.
Will you help a rapist and a murderer to execute their crimes? Answer this question.
Will you help a rapist and a murderer to execute their crimes? Answer this question.
Will you help a rapist and a murderer to execute their crimes? Answer this question.
Will you help a rapist and a murderer to execute their crimes? Answer this question.
Will you help a rapist and a murderer to execute their crimes? Answer this question.

and you represent those who think this is false and bullshit so you represent the people who think you should not help others. Right?

INCORRECT.
I am saying that this golden rule is wishful thinking = it has no evolutionary support, it is not backed by science at all. There may be some benefit in helping another person, under certain conditions & circumstances, but this does not follow that this is a universal rule supported by scientific evidence. Why would it be good for me to help a bank robber, or a murderer?

Biased prevents one from being honest with yourself, and a broken reason filter is even worse. It prevents one from filtering the nonessential wishful thinking, but allows for processing of faulty reasoning ("wishful thinking") and to present it as "fact".
If you can not understand why it is not good to help a rapist, then you are not worth my time.

[Artie]

WHy WHY WHY?
Why do you pretend to know to believe my beliefs?

What does "Why do you pretend to know to believe my beliefs?" mean?

I represent people who think "one should help others as one would like others to help oneself"

Is that in all conditions, in all circumstances? If not, then your golden rule falls flat. It already fell flat because you refuse to help me argue my point, you reject my point. SO, you are NOT following this rule at all.
Will you love my enemies for me? Answer this question. Will you love my enemies for me? Will you love my enemies for me? Answer this question. Will you love my enemies for me? Answer this question. Will you love my enemies for me? Will you love my enemies for me? Answer this question.

How I am supposed to love your enemies for you? The Golden Rule says "one should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself". If you have enemies who treat you badly you don't like that so you shouldn't treat them badly in return. Nothing to do with me.

Will you help a rapist and a murderer to execute their crimes? Answer this question.
Will you help a rapist and a murderer to execute their crimes? Answer this question.
Will you help a rapist and a murderer to execute their crimes? Answer this question.
Will you help a rapist and a murderer to execute their crimes? Answer this question.
Will you help a rapist and a murderer to execute their crimes? Answer this question.
Will you help a rapist and a murderer to execute their crimes? Answer this question.

Of course not. The Golden Rule says "one should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself" and I wouldn't want others to help others to rape or murder me so I won't rape or murder or help others to rape or murder others either. That is called "aiding and abetting".

and you represent those who think this is false and bullshit so you represent the people who think you should not help others. Right?

INCORRECT.
I am saying that this golden rule is wishful thinking = it has no evolutionary support, it is not backed by science at all. There may be some benefit in helping another person, under certain conditions, but this does not follow that this is a universal rule supported by scientific evidence. Why would it be good for me to help a bank robber, or a murderer?

It wouldn't. The Golden Rule says "one should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself" and I wouldn't like to be robbed or murdered so I won't rob or murder or help somebody who robs or murders. To rob and murder and to help rob and murder amounts to the same thing. It is called "aiding and abetting".

I wouldn't want others to help others to rob or murder me so I won't help others to rob or murder others either.

Or did that get too complicated? It's the Golden Rule with a few extra words added.

[JohnA]

WHy WHY WHY?
Why do you pretend to know to believe my beliefs?

What does "Why do you pretend to know to believe my beliefs?" mean?

I represent people who think "one should help others as one would like others to help oneself"

Is that in all conditions, in all circumstances? If not, then your golden rule falls flat. It already fell flat because you refuse to help me argue my point, you reject my point. SO, you are NOT following this rule at all.
Will you love my enemies for me? Answer this question. Will you love my enemies for me? Will you love my enemies for me? Answer this question. Will you love my enemies for me? Answer this question. Will you love my enemies for me? Will you love my enemies for me? Answer this question.

How I am supposed to love your enemies for you? The Golden Rule says "one should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself". If you have enemies who treat you badly you don't like that so you shouldn't treat them badly in return. Nothing to do with me.

Will you help a rapist and a murderer to execute their crimes? Answer this question.
Will you help a rapist and a murderer to execute their crimes? Answer this question.
Will you help a rapist and a murderer to execute their crimes? Answer this question.
Will you help a rapist and a murderer to execute their crimes? Answer this question.
Will you help a rapist and a murderer to execute their crimes? Answer this question.
Will you help a rapist and a murderer to execute their crimes? Answer this question.

Of course not. The Golden Rule says "one should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself" and I wouldn't want others to help others to rape or murder me so I won't rape or murder or help others to rape or murder others either. That is called "aiding and abetting".

and you represent those who think this is false and bullshit so you represent the people who think you should not help others. Right?

INCORRECT.
I am saying that this golden rule is wishful thinking = it has no evolutionary support, it is not backed by science at all. There may be some benefit in helping another person, under certain conditions, but this does not follow that this is a universal rule supported by scientific evidence. Why would it be good for me to help a bank robber, or a murderer?

It wouldn't. The Golden Rule says "one should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself" and I wouldn't like to be robbed or murdered so I won't rob or murder or help somebody who robs or murders. To rob and murder and to help rob and murder amounts to the same thing. It is called "aiding and abetting".

I wouldn't want others to help others to rob or murder me so I won't help others to rob or murder others either.

Or did that get too complicated? It's the Golden Rule with a few extra words added.

I won't rape or murder or help others to rape or murder others either.

Thanks for your honesty. Therefore, this golden rule is false, can not apply in all conditions or circumstances.

It's the Golden Rule with a few extra words added.

Again, admitting that this golden rule is false, can not apply in all conditions or circumstances. It fails since you reject the 2 assumptions:
i) all people are the same, ii) you know what all people want/need.


You are getting more and more desperate, and can you not even see that you are yourself showing this rule is faulty. Keep going, as the evidence is mounting to support my assertion. And the irony is that you have NONE, NO evidence at all for your assertion.


And the other irony is that you are not even offering the Golden rule. You are offering your own version:

I represent people who think "one should help others as one would like others to help oneself"

But the Golden rule is: One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.

LOL.
You are arguing that this Golden rule is false, by presenting your own version of it. And you are even arguing that your own version is false because you will not help a murderer or rapist or love my enemies for me.


Oh dear.

[10CC]

[Replying to post 724 by JohnA]

So exactly what imperatives are controlling influences upon the way you live your life?

[JohnA]

[Replying to post 724 by JohnA]

So exactly what imperatives are controlling influences upon the way you live your life?

1. Evolution (empathy and ethics - max survival, min extinction / suffering for our species)
2. Society (laws - even if I do not agree with all of them)
3. Thinking (not wishful thinking, but reasoning based on a public square)

In the above order.

What are yours?

[10CC]

[Replying to post 724 by JohnA]

So exactly what imperatives are controlling influences upon the way you live your life?

1. Evolution (empathy and ethics - max survival, min extinction / suffering for our species)
2. Society (laws - even if I do not agree with them)
3. Thinking (not wishful thinking, but reasoning based on a public square)

In the above order.

What are yours?

Woops

#1 can be aka "the golden rule"

Well done sir.

You have thus solved your own dilemma.

[otseng]

this is false and bullshit

Moderator Comment

Profanity of any kind is not allowed on the forum.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[JohnA]

[Replying to post 724 by JohnA]

So exactly what imperatives are controlling influences upon the way you live your life?

1. Evolution (empathy and ethics - max survival, min extinction / suffering for our species)
2. Society (laws - even if I do not agree with them)
3. Thinking (not wishful thinking, but reasoning based on a public square)

In the above order.

What are yours?

Woops

#1 can be aka "the golden rule"

Well done sir.

You have thus solved your own dilemma.

#1 can be aka "the golden rule"

Well done sir.

Really?
Are you claiming that this Golden Rule is a product of evolution? Is this for humans only, or all life? Is this for all humans, or just non-faulty humans? Do you have any evidence for your claim? Any peer reviewed scientific journal that were accepted by science?

So when I read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule "This concept [golden rule] can be explained from the perspective of psychology, philosophy, sociology and religion" - I would need to surrender my critical faculties to accept that these "ideologies" are science. I would need to accept the 2 base assumptions that i) all life is the same, and ii) all life's wants and needs are the same. I would need to accept that a rule = sceintific theory without any evidence for this other than wishful thinking.

Also, would you love my enemies for me? I would need to reject the fact that you will reject this golden rule, as evidence that the golden rule exists and is real.

How absurd.

BTW, you have not answered my question:
So exactly what imperatives are controlling influences upon the way you live your life?