Hans Blaster said:

It wasn't. You introduced "fitness" to the discussion.

Click to expand...

Might want to look back to @partinobodycular claims

Hans Blaster said:

It is quite to the point. You provided a source that did not back your claim, nor is it even relevant to the general claim about "morality and fitness".

Click to expand...

Nope, it doesn't have anything to do with the issue at hand.

Hans Blaster said:

I had to go back 2 days and 80 posts to find something resembling that. (And I ran into an invocation of the 3rd chapter of genisis first.) When I did find it it was about innate "objective" morality.

Click to expand...

Must have missed it.

Hans Blaster said:

There is no point to morality with out the cooperative nature of the human lifestyle. Non-social animals don't need a "morality".

Click to expand...

Sure, but the question is whether human morality is a univeral or if it is particular to specific social settings. For example, was the holocaust morally wrong or was it acceptable because it was legitimate in that social setting?

Hans Blaster said:

No "naturalistic falacy" nor is morality "grounded in evolution". Morality is no more grounded in evolution than air breathing, bipedalism, internal gestation, or cardiovascular systems, yet each are the product of evolution. Evolution is the process of change in living populations and the scientific frameworks that explain the process.

Click to expand...

Attempts to defend morality from an evolutionary heritage are clearly attempts to ground morality in evoltution, and are a clear example of the naturalistic fallacy. You may not be making that mistake, but several of your compatriots have.

Hans Blaster said:

Evolution of social animals explains the need for organizing principles and why mental facilities like a "theory of mind" (the ability to build a model of what someone else's mental state, motivations, and intentions are), empathy, and sense of fairness might have "fitness" and be favored in populations. It are these evolved mental properties (instincts) of humans upon which we build our moral systems.

Click to expand...

Considering there is no current theory that adequately explains minds, it is quite the reach you are making here.

Hans Blaster said:

What we "ought" to do depends on what we value that interacts with our base moral and social instincts.

Click to expand...

But are these universal, or do they only depend on the social setting we find ourselves in?

Hans Blaster said:

Even if someone else is making that claim, I am not. Fitness, as it would apply here is to the evolutionary benefit of having the basis for having moral opinions and the instincts that shape them. That does not make evolved moral bases grounded on "fitness". (It is a misuse of the term.)

Click to expand...

You may not be, but you entered into an ongoing discussion where that was the central contention. There are two separate issues, one that evolution is capable of explaining to a certain degree(behavioral factors) and one that it simply cannot, which is the more primitive question of how we establish and defend that things are moral rather than simply social conventions.

BCP1928 said:

Misogyny aside, there's some really weird stuff in that rant. How did the Green New Deal raise utility prices? It never even was a law. How did migrants raise rents?

Click to expand...

You act like these need to make some sort of sense.

My Presbyterian pastor was a prison chaplain for a while. He met some incarcerated conmen when he was there.

He commented "I wonder if there is salvation for con men! I really do!"

He added "They told so many lies that I wondered if they knew what the truth was themselves after a while".

They could be very convincing. He said they could sit on the other side of his desk and just about sell him the shoes off his own feet.

So "Is there salvation for conmen?"

Well, I don't know if that made total sense, because I don't really know what populism means. To be honest. But only because it's always used as a slur, and I can't trust slurrers.

...But I wish you'd try to understand what I see.

BCP1928 said:

You accused Warden in so many words of denouncing Christianity as pseudoscience. That is slanderous and disgusting.

Click to expand...

See this is you butting into a discussion you were not involved in and misunderstanding it. Now your doing exactly what your accusing me of doing.

Go back and read what I actually said in its context and stop putting everything I say under a microscope looking for bad stuff all the time.

I actually used Christian belief or in the case of Warden Deistic belief as an example of an alternative knowledge that cannot be explained by the science. The point was in demanding peer review and science to prove alternative knowledge which may include experience and belief and transcedent knowledge is wrong as it belongs in another realm or category of reality.

So an obvious comparison is religious belief. In this case Christian belief which is common on this forum. So demanding science and then calling all alternative knowledge as whacko or pseudoscience is actually calling Christian whacko and pseudoscience.

By the way Warden is not a Christian. He is a Deist and thats completely different. But nevertheless I was not calling anyone anything. In fact it was the other way around. By making out the alternative knowledge of the ancients which included spirituality and belief in transcedent things as whacko it logically follows also calling Christianity as whacko. Why don't you object to this. Your very selective in your moral outrage. You also don't properly read posts.

BCP1928 said:

Nobody is calling "ancient and indigenous knowledge" pseudoscience, either--just your imaginary ideas about it.

Click to expand...

Ok so if the ancients used spiritual knowledge or transcedent knowwledge. Some sort of knowledge that cannot be explained or verified by science. Then that knowledge is referred to as whacko and pseudoscience.

How does this not follow that the same kind of knowledge is derived from religion in general including Christianity or Indigenous knowledge. How does it not apply as well. How does the same logical arguement not apply to all relaigion and trancedent knowledge of ancients and indigenous peoples.

It all cannot be peer reviewe or verified by science. So if not meeting the science standard equals pseudoscience its a logical followon.

Otherwise are you saying that no one thinks this knowledge is pseudoscience. then why are people calling it pseudoscience when its suggest such knowledge existed. If they are not saying that then they have to retract all objections to such knowledge being unreal and not a valid form of knowledge. Thus proving my case that such knowledge existed.

Did not Warden say absolutely everything I said is pseudoscience. I included the ancients rteligious beliefs and spirituality as a big part of that knowledge. So it logically follows that all religion and belief is pseudoscience.

In fact did not I use this exact analogy and logic to you earlier. I have repreated this logic about 10 times in this thread and you suddenly realise and get it completely out of context lol. Please read carefully what I say. I know I have poor grammar and spelling but its not that bad lol.

The Barbarian said:

That's a blanket condemnation of republicans, and IMO, an undeserved one. The unprincipled have control of the republican party at the moment, but there are certainly republicans who have protested and criticized their lack of principles.


Yeah, "government by the consent of the governed"; that's what our nation was founded on. Wannabee tyrants have always tried to find ways around it. So far, they've failed. Hopefully, again.

Click to expand...

No it looks like a revival of the old classic divisions coming round again. Truly!

Truly it's popularity verses Tradition, where democrats really have become the wholeness of their actual name. It's undeniable.

Wokism, and all that is clearly a revival of old style populism, where traditional man/ woman/ family values is absolutely traditional.

...But it was a real eye-opener when I put two and two together, where the word "Democrats" actually does mean 'by popular vote' by it's very definition.

2PhiloVoid said:

What you're saying is possible because folks, especially these days in our Post-modernistic world, can take just about any idea, however accurate our inaccurate, and turn it into a sort of shibboleth of identity.

On the other hand, at least some of these sorts of outcomes might be a symptom of addiction (or mental problems) rather than merely prolonged ideation.

Click to expand...

Thank you, Philovoid.
i agree with you. Let me please be more accurate (ideas become clearer in my brain):
For instance, if they are unable to resist gluttony, is it ridiculous to think they invent a god to worship that would teach gluttony is a part of human nature, that has to be honoured. But, to feel respectable, they invent too some easier forbiddings this god would teach as well and that they observe. For instance, their god would command to wash their hands twice instead of once before eating.
You obviously are a wicked man, or a sinner if you don't observe this prescription

Landon Caeli said:

I don't know if most democrats have noticed this, but there really are no ideals or principles. It's whatever becomes "popular" in the here and now, is all they do.

Click to expand...

That's a blanket condemnation of republicans, and IMO, an undeserved one. The unprincipled have control of the republican party at the moment, but there are certainly republicans who have protested and criticized their lack of principles.

Landon Caeli said:

But that's actually logical, because the very word "democrat" is based on the popular vote.

Click to expand...

Yeah, "government by the consent of the governed"; that's what our nation was founded on. Wannabee tyrants have always tried to find ways around it. So far, they've failed. Hopefully, again.

The Liturgist said:

And how do you know the reliability and provenance of this vision, particularly when it appears to clash with actual Gospel text of our Lord and His Apostles?

Your opposition to the idea that He will come like “a thief in the night”, that is to say, unexpectedly, appears prima facie to contradict several New Testament scriptures

Click to expand...

I know what I saw. I saw the Holy Land cleared and empty of all the ungodly peoples.
I see no clash with what I promote from the Prophesies and with what the Apostles taught. Maybe it just clashes with your beliefs?

The 'coming like a thief' does not and cannot apply to the glorious Return, when Jesus comes with the Trumpet call of God; 1 Thess 4:16
It applies to the terrible Day of the Lords fiery wrath, years before the Return. The Lord will not be seen on that Day.

The Liturgist said:

the idea that all Christians had it wrong for 20 centuries

Click to expand...

The most important doctrines were correctly held and preached; Salvation, how we should live, etc. But the Prophetic Word has been hidden from general understanding. This is because God wants the end times to be our great test of faith. 1 Peter 4:12
Proved by Matthew 11:25-26 and Daniel 12:10....only a few wise leaders will understand.

rambot said:

Pray, where did his dad's wealth go?
He gave it to charity right?

No. He gave it to Donald. Over 400m.
We talk about it because it helps explain his ineptitude in business. You know how hard it is to bankrupt casinos? Multiple times? It's not something a competent businessman does.



Oh. Not arguing he's riich. His supporters let him enriching himself and his family through his office.


But his name ain't Hunter so you don't care.

Click to expand...

Really, where was that charge among all the other things he was charged with?
Let me know when he’s charged with enriching himself through the office of the president
And turning $400 million into $7 billion ain’t bad at all

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

You really enjoy putting words in my mouth, and also for someone who rags on people being emotional and using such language, your entire wording reeks of nothing but emotional appeals to what you believe to be authorities.

Click to expand...

Ok I don't think I put words in your mouth. I don't think you realise you do it in using extreme and absolute words with your claims. Or other qualifying words like "horrendous" when pointing out something.

We can all add little qualifiers to what we say. Its just a way of trying to make your words sound truer when they are not. Your better off adding reasoning to support your claim. Strong words don't give a false claim any truth.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

But let's actually try and be sensible adults here and go back on the actual OP topic, for whatever it's worth.

Click to expand...

OK thats good. Rather than all the fallacies. I think this thread has more complaints and fallacies than addressing the content.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

I'll repeat a phrase I've said numerous times here: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Click to expand...

This is a silly claim and overused. You don't even accept any evidence remember. You said "nothing in the slightest is true or fact or evidence in what I said". Why even bother with you Warden when notrhing I say means anything.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

Why is it that despite all of your claims about advanced technology existing from the Ancient Egyptians, a period that lasted over 3000 years, not including the near two-thousand year period from its decline to the present day, have we not found a single piece of, or even a single actual example of, said advanced technology?

Click to expand...

Your don't listen do you. Why even bother explaining things to you anymore. You never listen and ignore everything and make out is all rubbish. Why bother.

Why is finding the tech going to prove the case. We are going back to something I already explained. If we don't find the gun will that mean no gun was used.

What if the tech is stone softening or weakening. What sort of machine do you think we would find for stone softening or weakening. Is there a massive stone softening machine.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

Why do we not see a single piece of artistic contemporary depictions of said advanced technology, especially for the building of the pyramids, which were huge things and worthy of being recorded?

Click to expand...

Why do we not see any depiction at all of building the pyramids, making the hard stone vases, or cutting blocks. This is a silly line of arguement.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

Why do we not have Greek or Roman texts describing this advanced technology, which surely they would have found wondrous and wanted to record or even copy?

Click to expand...

Why would they find anything. Did the Romans find big ramps or pullies or aqua lifts to build the pyramids. Wheres all the tech for building the pyramids. You would think such a massive project would at least be recorded. But nothing, absolutely nothing is said or shown.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

Why is there not a single piece of said advanced technology existing but only the rudimentary stuff still exists?

Click to expand...

Whats the rudimentary stuff.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

Where is the advanced technology you claim to exist?

Click to expand...

This is a fallacious line of arguing. I have already shown that it does not follow that not finding the devices or method means we cann tell what method was used.

You seem to just ignore stuff and repeat the same fallacious arguements that have already been explained.

You should see what Medic4Christ said about Joshua. He was a pastor of a church that scammed people out of money and the behind the scenes about the Sept 23 live stream.. and people are STILL following Joshua... I agree with Medic, this IS a cult and it's unreal.

Login to view embedded media

Yarddog said:

Immigrants are in more need of compassion than most Americans.

Click to expand...

If we are to be truly Christ like, we would be compassionate to everyone,, not just the poor... Or the immigrant...

Jesus forgives the sins of all. And he fed all.

(I say this because I think it's a very valuable statement)