It's interesting how little of what you write about what I write has anything to do with what I've actually written.
Values aren't objective absent an independent arbiter and a standard that exists as an absolute regardless of our preference. Otherwise (and it's peculiar that I should have to explain this to an atheist) it's only a choice you've made in context. That you can rationalize a value isn't the same animal. Sure, a republic is better for most people. But why is what's better for most people the standard again?
That's why I said you were running in a circle on that one.
It's absolutely necessary if you want to claim objective truth in relation to a moral standard, supra.
Really? This philosophical chestnut? Absent the arbiter, which, presumably must be the Creator of the Universe; there's obviously no realm of thought where the arbiter is simply the (dare I say it) democratic principle of success? Get off your high horse. The religious claim here is moribund. And I dare say you damn well know it.
The ability for a human being to flourish actually does, objectively, depend on the absenteeism of the sorts of constraints applied by religion. Amplify that by magnitudes for the religions which constrain 50% of the population to chattel.
Logic is no more limited to a time frame than atheism appears, in your part, to be rooted in logic.
What? Logic 'appeared' well before the abrahamic religions. If this statement was intended to be more than pseudo intellectualism, you've lost me, sunshine.
Again not something I'm arguing against.
Though you have made every attempt to suggest that I thought otherwise.
No, a thing having benefit for X (with X being one or many) is certainly a good for X, but it doesn't follow that the standard is objectively true, only that it is true that the standard is beneficial for X, which I've never argued against. When you attempt to compare and declare X superior then you've overstepped, absent that authority I spoke to. Y's context, which you're comparing it to, will likely have a very different expectation and valuation.
Keep pulling back to this fallacy. I'm sure it serves you well.
But you are wrong.
What Authority are you speaking about, and what evidence do you have that this Authority has validity?
Which is where this stupid assertion falls, flatly on its arse.
You have exactly zero answer that has weight.
That really isn't the problem. The problem is that you're confusing the objective truth that X is beneficial with the idea that X is objectively superior. It isn't unless you accept the premise that its founded upon, which isn't objectively, demonstrably true absent that independent authority and arbiter.
It really is the problem. You're confusing your own ability to believe in some sort of ineffable higher power (absent of evidence), with the subtle realities of dealing with complex, incompatible modes of thought. Well done. You seem to think you've got it pegged. But please understand that you, and those like you are a problem. By all means, continue being presented with a serious philosophical issue; gaze at your navel for a while, and then raise your head only to suggest that more navel introspection is the only solution.
You've made a catastrophic error. You've simply assumed there is a supernatural arbiter, and thus decided no further thought is required. Once again, have your biscuit. But, while you're munching on said biscuit, do not try to assert any sort of superiority. You have none.
As an atheist you can argue for the king's standard, the mob's standard, the general or particular welfare and it remains objectively true that whichever standard you present will be superior for the recipient of the benefit, but that doesn't make it superior to the competitive idea, except within that confine (which itself is arbitrary).
The Competitive Idea? It's true in the sense that members of those societies are more fulfilled by the standards of those societies.
You're going back to your silly ineffable, yet utterly non-defined arbiter again, aren't you? More biscuits on the tray.
It's easily arguable, outside of the metaphysical value, that Christendom did far more good than it ever did ill, depending on your context.
I agree. Pretty much one of my central points, I think you'll find.
You have to make the case I owe reparations, which you haven't. That argument leads you back across the pond and by it you can tax nearly every people against some other, earlier and dominant culture. But it doesn't have much to do with my point, noting your impatience is a bit selectively problematic.
I do? Well, that or you read what I actually typed.
There is no "Islamic world". There are nations, many of which are Islamic. There are a great many people living in nations that aren't Islamic who are Muslims as well. At least one and arguably more of those Islamic states are staunch allies.
The 'Islamic World' is the reality of the constituents of Islam. There is an Islamic World. There is a Christian World, a Football World, a Capitalist World, a Goth World, etc, etc. You are, rather stupidly arguing against the central pilar of your own rather weak argument. But do crack on.
For my own comment, I was referring to those countries which have a stated Islamic Government. They do exist. I spend a lot of time in them.
Yes, we did. That's literally a nonsensical thing to write. You want a history lesson? You want to walk through the Holy Roman Empire and beyond?
Honestly.
I know you get a lot of credit here. But consider the source. Do I need a history lesson? Get over yourself. You're barking up the wrong tree here, sunshine. We did not observe wiser cultures because they were not wiser. We have built upon the foundations of previous cultures.
Get. Over. Yourself.
The chart of human progress has been trending upwards. There have been troughs, and plateaus, but wisdom has only come from observance. Never, and I do mean Never, from revelation.
Nonsensical? Once again, you're just not paying attention.
Didn't do anything of the sort. Stop overly romanticizing the moment.
Well, yeah, you did. As I just elucidated.
For those of us lucky enough to be living the life of a have and in certain parts of the world, absolutely. In many parts of the world, not so much. It's also a world more dangerously perched on the potential edge of extinction, one of our own making.
Yes. And?
And, again, the problem is with some elements of Islam in some areas of the world and not, demonstrably, with most of the well over a billion adherents.
Yup. Again, what's your point? You're neatly missing the history again, aren't you, while desperately trying to make me out to be saying all muslims are evil.
Idiot.
It's almost funny to see if the penny stamped with the phrase 'reformation' will drop with you people.
Numinous? Nonsense. Stalin was filled with hubris, with the foolish notion of self as the final arbiter of the good, as was Mao. They murdered in the millions in the name of no God at all.
And Stalin and Mao weren't full of the numinous delusion of grandiose power? Do you even own a dictionary?
Nearly monolithic, to read you.
And, not for the first time, you'd be wrong.
Your playing that card is hysterical (either).
lain:
Really? Have you ever read your own text? You have your own thread devoted to where you think you've out smarted other people. You've developed solipsism to an actual space on the internet where people can just perma-link it and drop in on you thinking you're very clever. Which you resolutely are not. Take a big whiff, sunshine; you're so full of yourself you don't even know when to stop.
Declarations aren't argument. Look at how I've answered you. That's argument. Supporting conclusion with fact, by way of. Noting actual problems with the construction of a contrary posit, that sort of thing.
And yet you see fit to declare to your heart's content. You're a funny little bugger, to be sure. How you've answered has been arguments to authority (often your own), and an utterly stupid and disjointed observance of history and politics. You've utterly refused to address the facts as they are and ran away to areas of philosophy that are either not relevant or out-dated. More biscuits.
See, that's sort of your song and dance. It has the form of something but reduces to emotion and a willingness to declare against someone without making the case.
I made the case. With a song and dance? Maybe. But the case is made. Not answered though. You have your own song and dance. And, to your credit, you do think you can cut a rug.
I'm not offering platitudes of any sort.
Maybe you'll do better when if you come back.
Maybe not. At least you managed it without cursing...so that's something.
Oh, you.
Maybe you'll do better.
One can only hope.
