Show your original post and let's see what you originally said. I would only be incorrect if you originally said "The dictionaries prove that morality is subjecrive as long as I'm allowed to cite definitions from words other than that of "morality."
Reprint your original post so that I can laugh as you flail to justify it once more, as I did with your earlier citation of some plant genera.
Lies, lies, like buzzing flies.
Do your lies not burn, like smoke in the eyes?
You should know, every lie you circulate undermines you when you pontificate.
Nope, I don't know what you're looking at but such a deinition does not appear in M-W Online, which is the one I cited. It gives examples that INCLUDE religious belief but also cites examples of POLITICAL belief. By all means keep repeating your false equivalence, it's slightly amusing.
I haven't said that I require evidence for a believer to validate his belief. I have stated that atheists cannot define their criteria for evidence, and so far no one has done so. The atheists here, not I, raised the question of evidence. Try to keep things straight.
The question of non-human entities intervening in human development remains viable, as a hypothesis. You want to prove that it's not viable? Define the evidence you use to validate the phenomena you consider "real."
More silly lies. I previously linked to an essay defining the intersubjective, but no one wanted to pay attention to the definitions because they were too busy desperately defending their shallow philosophies. You did not "ask me to expand," you simply dumped on the hypothesis with your usual knee-jerk tendencies. I did not say that I knew "formless entities" definitely existed, as you repeatedly claimed (and lied), but it remains a possible reason for many tribes to believe in deities based on their particular cultures. You blow your stack like a fretful child whenever anyone challenges your materialistic view, and that's all you're doing here, just the way you did when you failed to undermine Frank's hypothesis. In the mini-essay response to Mulefoot I gave examples of intersubjective moral positions that existed even within the context of a non-theistic hypothesis, but you did not consider them examples because I did not give you "evidence"-- even though for months you have been unable to define your concept of evidence. Now, go shake your fists again, like always.
(1) I see that I left out one or two words here and there, so I will clarify. I was saying that you do not know that modern animist societies have never been influenced by societies in other states of development, you just want to believe that the former societies have remained preserved like flies in amber for scientists to study. (2) I agree that every society has expoused beliefs about gods and/or spirits, whatever the origins of those beliefs, so why were you nattering on about animist societies being "pre-moral" in some vague manner-- something for which you have no evidence, only a hypothesis. (3) I know that you can rewrite any position to suit your false conclusions, but I have no intention of letting you "fill in the other side." (4) Everything you have said about anthropology indicates that you only favor it when you think it proves your foregone conclusions. I doubt even atheist anthropologists would favor your Caveman Rotary Club, where you have primitives sitting around making societal determinations, just because you think this scenario excludes religious inspiration.
As clear and concise as possible, the god.
Your responses have nothing to do with anything, especially your thread claim.
Perhaps English is not your native language?
Lacking any argument in support of your claim suffices.
We find no need to create evidence without a reason.
How do you define evidence?
(1) And by your own definition I initially made no remarks about your character or background, though you did so to me for some false notion of rhetorical advantage. As yet you haven't even admitted so doing, so we see that "ad hominem" is also just another falsehood in your quiver of phantom arrows. (2) For you to make the statement that I had been "hurt" by an atheist, you would need material evidence. What evidence did you use? (3) The separation remains arbitrary. If your purpose is to make meretricious arguments about the relativism of feeling and therefore of all morality based in feelings, then you succeeded, but it's no great accomplishment. (4) I have already described the differences and you chose to ignore the points to cleave to your dogma. (5) Ideals such as prudence are objective according to how they enhance the function of society. Individuals can disagree as to the specific applications of an ideal but usually they do so with some other application of an ideal, not an absence of ideals as such. (6) No, you look more servile than I do because you confuse necessary ideals with mere opinion, all in service to a dogma of relativism. (7) Nope, you totally implied that the slave does not want to be receive the benefits of a prudent society by seeking freedom. The act of fleeing slavery does not exist in a vacuum; one does so to achieve a desired result. (8) Yes, you may argue as much as you like but your equivalence of rapist and rape-victim undermines all of your efforts. I merely pointed out that your position lacks consistency and therefore any accusations re consistency you make to me are fallacious by your own embrace of the aforementioned false equivalence. (9) Nope, I explained to you that anthropology is a science despite not being "predictive," so your definition remains inadequate. (10) The tears of your emoji are the tears of desperation.Sure..... now where in here does it say ad hominems have to be about people?
Ad Hominen
Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments that are usually fallacious. Often currently this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion often using a totally irrelevant, but often highly charged attribute of the opponent's character or background. The most common form of this fallacy is "A" makes a claim of "fact", to which "B" asserts that "A" has a personal trait, quality or physical attribute that is repugnant thereby going off-topic, and hence "B" concludes that "A" has their "fact" wrong – without ever addressing the point of the debate.
A common misconception is that an ad hominem attack is synonymous with an insult. This is not true, although some ad hominem arguments may be insulting by the person receiving the argument.
Material evidence? What's that?Why don't you go ahead and define evidence for me.
What arbitrary separation? My separation of the objective from the subjective is purposeful and with reason.
Where is the substance of this argument? Again nonsensical is just name calling, where is the argument to describe how they're desires aren't equally subjective.
Explain to me how ideals are objective when people disagree about them.
It doesn't establish that shit for me but then I'm less servile than you appear to be. How do you explain our disagreement?
That's you make believing the motivations of a fantasy person for the sake of you frail argument. I never argued a slave wants anarchy just different rules and a different type of society by virtue of slavers having to force their participation in the slave one. That's what makes social rules and constructs subjective.
I am in position to make arguments, this is a debate board. Try addressing those arguments if you disagree with them instead of focusing on your feelings about me. Not all societies control rapists, famously, at the start of the American slaver society rape of slaves was perfectly legal. Hell up until the 90s it was still legal in some places to rape your wife. Rape has been legal in this country for a lot longer than it has been illegal.
Funny because Im the one explaining it to you.
I'm having a hell of a time pointing out the nonsense that are your counter arguments.
Yep
Lol. This is the definition I am using. Straight from M-W
www.merriam-webster.com
I will continue to point out that lacking belief in a god or gods is by definition, not a belief. The same way not playing baseball isn’t a sport.
Nonsense as usual
You are free to point out a lie I have made but since you have repeatedly admitted you have said untrue thigns I think you should put down the stone and leave your glass house
Do you see the part where it mentions attacking some other attribute of the person making the argument rather than the substance of the argument itself? That's you when you refer to our philosophical views as materialistic drivel. That's just name calling. There's no substance to that disagreement. I'm not saying don't do it, I do it as well but I admit to it. I don't pretend it's a rational counter argument like you're doing here for all our entertainment. Maybe your fragile psyche glossed over the part where I called my comments about an atheist hurting you a jest and like for like but it is there. I'll quote it for you for extra shits and giggles if you really want me to dog walk you there publicly.
Its not arbitrary. Its the rational conclusion to each of us having our own feelings and moral compasses. My supporting evidence for this belief is our seperate and individual biological systems and operations from which our feelings emerge from.
I've addressed every single one of your points. You, who admittedly doesnt even remember me clearly stating that atheist must of hurt you comment was a jest, haven't proven yourself to be particularly reliable on this front.
We all have our own ideas about what is prudent in any given situation. That's what makes it subjective. Chattel slavery enhanced the function of American slaver society while the slaves themselves found it prudent to resist their function in that slave society.
What are necessary ideals? Give an example of one. I believe you tried to argue being against rape was one of them until I reminded you how rape was legal in this country for a lot longer than it's been illegal. What happened to that argument?
What the ****? I don't recognize that description. What I said was that a slave might feel it prudent to escape a slave society while slavers of a slave society may find it prudent to prevent that. My argument is that prudence is subjective.
Why? What's your argument for how that undermines my efforts.
What lack of consistency? You claiming lack of consistency isn't the same as you demonstrating it. Go ahead and attempt to do the latter.
My defintion wasnt about anthropology or all of science. It was about how we know someone understands the function and operation of a thing.
In your frail fantasies maybe. Feel free to share more of those.
