First of all, I'm not going to apologize for saying that you lied when you said, "you know all the answers" because you were just being belligerent. Don't get emotional. Be cheerful like me. I am feeling very cheerful right now. Actually, I'm cheerful most of the time - especially when I debate. Don't be angry and call me a know-it-all. It makes you look like a smart aleck kid and I want my forum page to be free from that kind of boring talk. I want it to be a step up from the romper room of the KR page.

If you want to debate the issue then debate them. If you want to start calling me a know-it-all or even imply it - do it on the KR page.

Back to the issues.

<Gregor Samsa Mendel: So, according to your definitions of logic and simple reasoning, homosexuality must be considered immoral whether someone believes in your version of a theistic worldview or your version of a non-theistic world view. Is that it?>

Now you seem to understand what I'm saying. Yes. But you can't marginalize my arguments by calling them "mine". That doesn't work. I'm alert to that.

<What you consider logical argument, I consider pointless sophistry.>

Okay, so this is how you answered,

<If you want to debate my arguments, and since you now understand them, you should show me where I'm wrong. If you can't do that then you should agree with me.>

You've left my points in tact and they all stand.

Not only that, but your last post again belies your anger as you began it by judging me again. You just can't let the little stuff go, can you?

Ad hominem will not refute my logic or points. You can do all the arm waving you want. You can shrug your shoulders contemptuously and say, "sophistry".

But you can't engage in the arguments directly.

Because this is all I talk about all the time.>

Except when you don't. For example,

<May-11-13
Premium Chessgames Member Big Pawn: What a rating difference to overcome! Nice job Simonet! An inspired game by black for sure and with my favorite opening.>

In America <GSM> when we say all the time we don't mean it literally.

Now, you have not addressed the points in three or four rounds now. You continue to play with the little stuff.

You are angry.

There's never a good reason to be angry, right?

You'll never stop reading what I write. You can't take your eyes off of it. You aren't fooling me.

This is ALL that a liberal can bring to the table.

Come to my forum and insult me, avoid my questions, call me a know it all and then try to misdirect the argument.

You have nothing to offer and you worldview is garbage. I mock your God (yourself - you) and you can't defend it. Your worldview is untenable in the face of scrutiny.

They always run when the truth comes. Liberals are full of pride. That's why they act the way they act, even as grown adults.

I love exposing this kind of thing. Love it, love it, love it! This is what I was born to do, obviously.

Fact is, theism (more precisely Christianity) is the more rational worldview. Real Christians are intellectual, well reasoned and unafraid. Real Christians have no fear and stand up to evil.

Real Christians love God and love their neighbors as they love themselves. So it's important to remember that debates are not about just winning or losing (at least not philosophical debates concerning God, morality etc...) and ultimately the truth is discovered and shared because we should care about our fellow brethren here on earth.

Is there any more to it?>

It's hard arguing with everyone :)

--

<Why can't a pastor produce food? Can you think of any pastors that were unable to produce food? >

And thus we find the root of our differences in interpretation. I thought you meant people acting out solely one thing. As it turns out, you were not that strict.

Given that my counter-proposition was assuming that silly strict interpretation - it obviously falls as well.

--

Oh sure, the point I raised was flawed - no doubt about it. I suppose much more interesting, than whether my.. uhm.. how to say it, impulsive (or perhaps slightly absurd) objection negates the previous point, is what the previous point encompassed.

Given enough time, I might think of a thousand different objections, which from my point of view to some extend negate the original point. And BP might disagree a thousand times - and we'd go back and forth without really making any headway.

I think these discussions are very tricky, given that you'd first have to dig for definitions, e.g. what is the nature of morality. Can this be found using logic; can occupations be immoral, or are only the actions composing the occupation immoral?

et cetera et cetera.

Which requires a large investment of time and patience - and a rather limited group of participants (say 2-3) to make sure everyone knows what the exchange concerns.

On a sidenote: it seems a bit odd you say people are talking rather than exchanging. Though perhaps closer to reality, 'talking' implies only the production is important rather than the receiving and understanding as well. Suppose talking to versus talking with? Hmm.. anyway, I digress.

I initially thought mister BeePee and mister Bee were off to a nice start - but closer inspection indicate their interaction has crashed.

As you can see by reading the posts, as soon as gsm realized that his argument held no water, he resorted to ad hominem attacks.

I tried to bring him back to the topic itself but that was a bit like putting a cat in the bath tub.

<morality>

The argument for homosexuality being moral is so weak that we can be very generous to the other side in how morality is defined and still show that its immoral.

The problem with non theistic definitions of morality is that they have no objective basis with which to ground them. This is why non theistic ethicists appeal to reason and, unbelievably, common sense when trying to determine the nature of moral values and duties. Typically this leads to discussions about evolution and various social and biological conditioning factors (based on survival and natural selection) that have supposedly surfaced as a result.

Based on this non theistic theory of morality and how it came to be, we can conclude that at base level we have been conditioned to act "morally" because it is/was necessary in order to survive.

But if morality springs from the well of survival then how can we say that engaging in homosexual behavior is moral? If everyone were only having homosexual sex the whole human race would soon be extinct.

So even given a morally relativist worldview, homosexuality can be shown to be immoral.

Yes, I agree with you <dak> that defining morality can be tricky. I'm reminded of how Socrates once remarked that he has never met anyone who really knew what virtue was. There is a lot of gray area on some moral issues to be sure! However, some things are easily realized as right and wrong. We know that it is right to love and provide care for one's children. We also know, unquestionably, that killing 41 school children and setting them on fire is wrong.

However, the fact that we believe that moral values and duties exist objectively leads us to a discussion of where such values come from. This is a question of ontology whereas questions about how we come to know right and wrong is a question of epistemology.

It's important not to mix the two. In other words we can not argue for or against ontological questions regarding morality via epistemological arguments. That would commit a fallacy known as the genetic fallacy. This is the reason that, while popular on the laymen level, sophisticated atheists and humanist (and the like) never make those kinds of arguments. They are easy to disprove.

So, keeping the question of morality in the ontological realm we should ask, "do you believe that objective moral values and duties exist?"

If you believe they do exist you should be a theist, logically.

But either way, as my arguments show, one need not be a theist in order to see the homosexual behavior is immoral.

1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.

2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.

3. Therefore God exists.

Zimmerman NOT GUILTY!

Happy Dance!!

We have some common ground. I entirely agree with this sentiment. I'll add one - There is never a good reason to worry - ever.

<<Big Pawn: Thought for the day: There is never ever a good reason to be angry - ever>

We have some common ground. I entirely agree with this sentiment. I'll add one - There is never a good reason to worry - ever.>

Yes, we have very strong common ground indeed. I agree with you; there is never a good reason to worry - ever!

This implies that we can actually choose our emotions. This requires, I think, a strong, disciplined mind. We must choose which thoughts to dwell on, but most people do not think they have this capability. Rather, from what I hear and read, most people feel like they are prisoners of their "personality". They say, "I worry a lot. It's just how I am"

I think we can all distinguish between two main types of thoughts:

1. Those that pass through the mind. These thoughts are not products of our own mind. Where do they come from? No one really knows.

2. The second kind of thought is what I call the "decision" thought. We can use this "decision" thought to choose which thoughts to look at and focus on.

I imagine that our minds have a room in it with a TV that is always on. The TV has 800+ channels. There is always something being broadcast on each channel. These channels represent passing thoughts. Some channels have scary movies on them and if we watch them we become scared too. Some channels have sad movies or stories on them. If we watch those we will get sucked in and feel sad, perhaps even crying while watching the TV.

We can't prevent, it seems, this "TV" from broadcasting. This is the thought of the first kind.

What we can do, however, is pick up the remote control and choose which channels to watch. This requires discipline and is entirely under our control.

I choose not to watch these channels:

1. The Worry Channel.
2. The Get Angry about something channel.
3. The "think about how I've been wronged" channel.

I think it's important to realize that those thoughts that pass through our minds do not define us. They are not us. If I mention to you right now "A big purple elephant drinking beer" - and then immediately ask you to banish that image (or thought) from your mind, it's impossible to do so. That is not your thought.

However, we can exercise our discipline over the remote control and choose which channels to watch.

An example - X happened. X was unjust and injured me and I am angered. We can now progress our thoughts along two lines. 1. My anger at X is soooooo righteous. X was so unjust. I am furious at X or 2. My anger at X is futile. I should try to rectify the situation without this auxiliary and harmful emotion.

Incidentally I do not wish to continue the discussion on Rogoff, for now at least (though of course I may succumb to the temptation).

For the record, I'm not sure about P2, and don't think your examples of horrific abuses help to establish it. I disagree with P1 as I don't see how God helps to ground moral values except through Divine Command, which I reject for numerous reasons. My point about Kant was that he thinks OMV exist due to reason (and the associated autonomy and dignity) as well as being discoverable through it, thus it is not a genetic fallacy as it is an epistemological and an ontological claim.

<For the record, I'm not sure about P2, and don't think your examples of horrific abuses help to establish it>

(P2: OMV exist)

Why call those examples horrific? If moral values are just opinions, then why judge them at all? <kellmano>, this is what's at stake here, intellectually.

If moral values exist subjectively (implying relativism) then they are merely opinions. This is similar to what kind of ice cream you like more, chocolate or vanilla.

Do you really feel that moral values are merely opinions, like opinions on chocolate and vanilla?

I think you want to agree with me that raping and infant is wrong. Hate is objectively bad (good and bad pertain to values - right and wrong pertain to obligations).

Regarding Kant:

If Kant thinks that moral values are the product of reason, then he does not think they exist objectively but rather subjectively.

Objectively existing would mean that moral values exist in reality, independent of our opinions.

Subjectively existing would mean that moral values are opinions and exist only as opinions do: in our minds.

So if Kant believes that moral values are do not exist objectively, then how could Kants claim address ontology? You said it addressed both ontology and epistemology. If Kants claim leads to subjective morality then he's not even trying to posit an ontological explanation for objective moral values - because he does not believe they are objective.

If Kant agreed with premise 2,then he would have the burden of finding a transcendental foundation for these moral values exist from. He would need to find the paradigm of moral values. He would indeed be looking for an ontological explanation at this point.

But Kant is denying P2. He's saying morals exist in the mind alone.