How do we know what is right, and what is wrong?

[Compassionist]

How do we know what is right, and what is wrong? For example, I think it is wrong to be a herbivore or a carnivore or an omnivore, or a parasite. I think all living things should be autotrophs. I think only autotrophs are good and the rest are evil. However, I am not certain that my thoughts are right. Can herbivores, carnivores, omnivores, and parasites become autotrophs at will? If so, why don't they? If they can't become autotrophs at will, is it really their fault that they are not autotrophs?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #660]

Supernaturalism has perfectly good answers to those problems.

So you claim but are unwilling to show those points. No surprises there Tanager.

If you change your mind, and you are actually able to table anything to support your philosophical claim, - like I said, I will then examine and critique the points if I can, and will do so with more than a sentence of opinion.

If you don't think your supernatural philosophy is central, so be it. We can drop the subject of your supernatural God from the topic.

[boatsnguitars]

And supernaturalism has perfectly good answers to those problems.

You can't be serious. What is supernaturalism? Magic? What evidence do you have of it - at all? How do you know Supernaturalism has the capacity to do the work you think it can do?

[The Tanager]

And supernaturalism has perfectly good answers to those problems.

You can't be serious. What is supernaturalism? Magic? What evidence do you have of it - at all? How do you know Supernaturalism has the capacity to do the work you think it can do?

The supernatural would be some force or thing outside of the natural world. Magic would be a type of supernaturalism. Christianity would be a different type of supernaturalism. You bring up many different issues here that are off-topic of this thread. If you want to start a new thread and tell me about it, pursuing one of these topics, do so, let me know, and I'll try to get to it and share my thoughts.

[boatsnguitars]

You've described what homeopathics would call a cure all. What can't Supernaturalism do?!

Be detected? But it can do everything else? Create universes, raise the dead, etc?

Odorless, tasteless, temperature-less, non-physical, invisible, etc... Yet interacts when it wants to but can't be shown?

C'mon! You're describing a childish concept!

[The Tanager]

You've described what homeopathics would call a cure all. What can't Supernaturalism do?!

Be detected? But it can do everything else? Create universes, raise the dead, etc?

Odorless, tasteless, temperature-less, non-physical, invisible, etc... Yet interacts when it wants to but can't be shown?

C'mon! You're describing a childish concept!

No, expecting a non-natural thing (if it exists) to be supported by natural evidence (the things you described) is an illogical expectation.

[boatsnguitars]

You've described what homeopathics would call a cure all. What can't Supernaturalism do?!

Be detected? But it can do everything else? Create universes, raise the dead, etc?

Odorless, tasteless, temperature-less, non-physical, invisible, etc... Yet interacts when it wants to but can't be shown?

C'mon! You're describing a childish concept!

No, expecting a non-natural thing (if it exists) to be supported by natural evidence (the things you described) is an illogical expectation.

Oh, it's illogical now? For us to ask for evidence for something that you claim does everything your imagination can dream up, but we can't see unless we want to see?

Nope.

Your claim isn't that is can't be supported by natural evidence (or is it now?), but that we can't detect it when natural evidence points to it.

So, let's pull this thread. Jesus was allegedly resurrected b y supernatural means. You now claim that we can't expect to support supernaturalism by natural means - so are you claiming that it's stupid to think Jesus was resurrected by supernatural means?

Further, what are you claiming is evidence of the supernatural - if not natural things?

I really want to understand your position. You think it's an illogical expectation to "expecting a non-natural thing (if it exists) to be supported by natural evidence (the things you described)"

So why do you believe in the supernatural? Did you have a supernatural experience of it? Why are you, a natural creature, even aware of the existence of the supernatural if you can't experience it?

Seriously, if you can't expect to logically expect the supernatural, why do you expect it?

Or is this an admission that your belief in the supernatural is illogical? (as it appears to be)

Or, wait! Are you claiming you are supernatural? I think you owe us an explanation!

There is a lot to unpack here and I hope you spend some time doing so.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #666]

Let me try to clarify for you the same thing I've been saying all along. The conclusion that an actual resurrection happened is a philosophical conclusion. Yes, it is built off of physical evidences (empty tomb, claims of post-mortem appearances to Jesus' disciples, the origin of the Christian movement centered on a bodily resurrrected messiah), but reasons beyond these using philosophy.

In the exact same way, the conclusion that the disciples lied or stole the body or any other explanation, are also philosophical claims that are built off of physical evidences but go beyond them.

Ultimately, my point is that this isn't a scientific issue, whatever conclusion you come to. Science plays a role in it, but it can't (alone) give us a sound conclusion. Everyone turns to philosophy to reach their conclusion.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #666]

Let me try to clarify for you the same thing I've been saying all along. The conclusion that an actual resurrection happened is a philosophical conclusion. Yes, it is built off of physical evidences (empty tomb, claims of post-mortem appearances to Jesus' disciples, the origin of the Christian movement centered on a bodily resurrrected messiah), but reasons beyond these using philosophy.

In the exact same way, the conclusion that the disciples lied or stole the body or any other explanation, are also philosophical claims that are built off of physical evidences but go beyond them.

Ultimately, my point is that this isn't a scientific issue, whatever conclusion you come to. Science plays a role in it, but it can't (alone) give us a sound conclusion. Everyone turns to philosophy to reach their conclusion.

I find this response a perfect example of why Religion is a negative influence.

On one hand you are acknowledging you don't have any good evidence of the Rez, but then claim - shockingly - that you have physical evidence of tagential events to the Rez - which is simply untrue.

You don't have "physical evidences" of:
empty tomb - you have a claim written in a book. There is no tomb. If there is, please tell us where it is.
claims of post-mortem appearances to Jesus' disciples - claims are not physical evidence.
the origin of the Christian movement centered on a bodily resurrrected messiah - this is not a physical evidence. It's a belief held by people, like all other religious beliefs. One wouldn't claim the existence of Islam is physical evidence Mohammad rode a horse into Heaven.


You seem to believe claims are physical evidence - they aren't. I can't understand why you think they are.

However, religious leaders (who are intimately interested in people joining their religion for financial reasons) have convinced followers that claims = evidence. It's downright evil.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #668]

No, I’m claiming that there is good evidence of the resurrection, via historical and philosophical reasoning involving physical occurrences. Historical and philsophical reasoning is the only thing we can have here. You, in rejecting the resurrection, are also making a claim via historical and philosophical reasoning alone.

[boatsnguitars]

I know you are claiming it! We all see that! So are Mormons, Muslims and wackos.

The claim means nothing! Why can't you see that?!?!

By rejecting your claim, I am not making a claim. I am rejecting it.

Support your claim!

This is absurd.

If I claim 1+1=3, and I give you 1 marble, then another: how many do you have? 3?

No! You have 2.

That is called "Evidence", it's called "proof".

Why can't religious people understand that? What kind of idiocy and lies have you been taught that you don't understand that a claim isn't evidence?