https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/atheists-sound-the-alarm-decline-of-christianity-is-seriously-hurting-society?fbclid=IwAR1gqxIp82bWg1sXU5mprzpL0Ls0vShTQp1cM7gdTpLwsW5yfnRMtO3KRnI

New Evidence For Atheism Exhibit Just Large Empty Warehouse

NEW YORK, NYAn all-new "Evidence for Atheism" exhibit opened at the Freedom from the Sky Fairy Museum was revealed to just be a large, empty warehouse during its opening weekend, sources confirmed Friday.

"Over the past ten years, we've carefully collected every single piece of archaeological, historical, philosophical, and scientific evidence that clearly demonstrates our intricate universe came from nothing," the museum's curator said during opening ceremonies. "It is our hope that your faith in the lack of a sky daddy is strengthened as you browse the extensive collection of artifacts, documents, and photographs that support the tenets of atheism."
As attendees then excitedly entered the large exhibit floor, they were greeted with a wide-open industrial warehouse that was completely empty.
The exhibit also included an automated audio tour feature, which consisted of an iPod-like device that played nothing but static to guide attendees wandering around the 60,000-sf warehouse, staring at nothing in particular.
https://babylonbee.com/news/new-evidence-for-atheism-exhibit-just-large-empty-warehouse

This is what Christian apologists have been saying for years. The atheists and agnostics said we were crazy. Looks like some of them are realizing the error of their ways. The problem is I still remember all the ad hominems of their thought leaders and them giving license to regular folks to then behave in similar fashion to Christians. We have taken a lot of unfair abuse for stand up for what is right. If these atheists are sincere, they should now lead the way and publicly apologize and call others to do so as well. The regular folks need to know that their agnostic and atheistic leaders were wrong and behavior was reprehensible.

BaylorFTW said:

---

This is what Christian apologists have been saying for years. The atheists and agnostics said we were crazy. Looks like some of them are realizing the error of their ways. The problem is I still remember all the ad hominems of their thought leaders and them giving license to regular folks to then behave in similar fashion to Christians. We have taken a lot of unfair abuse for stand up for what is right. If these atheists are sincere, they should now lead the way and publicly apologize and call others to do so as well. The regular folks need to know that their agnostic and atheistic leaders were wrong and behavior was reprehensible.

---

Can you show me on this doll where the mean atheist touched you?

quash said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

This is what Christian apologists have been saying for years. The atheists and agnostics said we were crazy. Looks like some of them are realizing the error of their ways. The problem is I still remember all the ad hominems of their thought leaders and them giving license to regular folks to then behave in similar fashion to Christians. We have taken a lot of unfair abuse for stand up for what is right. If these atheists are sincere, they should now lead the way and publicly apologize and call others to do so as well. The regular folks need to know that their agnostic and atheistic leaders were wrong and behavior was reprehensible.

---

Can you show me on this doll where the mean atheist touched you?

---

Thank you for proving my point.

BaylorFTW said:

---

quash said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

This is what Christian apologists have been saying for years. The atheists and agnostics said we were crazy. Looks like some of them are realizing the error of their ways. The problem is I still remember all the ad hominems of their thought leaders and them giving license to regular folks to then behave in similar fashion to Christians. We have taken a lot of unfair abuse for stand up for what is right. If these atheists are sincere, they should now lead the way and publicly apologize and call others to do so as well. The regular folks need to know that their agnostic and atheistic leaders were wrong and behavior was reprehensible.

---

Can you show me on this doll where the mean atheist touched you?

---

Thank you for proving my point.

---

If your point is to prove how butthurt you are

Jack and DP said:

---

https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/atheists-sound-the-alarm-decline-of-christianity-is-seriously-hurting-society?fbclid=IwAR1gqxIp82bWg1sXU5mprzpL0Ls0vShTQp1cM7gdTpLwsW5yfnRMtO3KRnI

---

Christianity is hardly a bastion and repository for morality.

TexasScientist said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/atheists-sound-the-alarm-decline-of-christianity-is-seriously-hurting-society?fbclid=IwAR1gqxIp82bWg1sXU5mprzpL0Ls0vShTQp1cM7gdTpLwsW5yfnRMtO3KRnI

---

Christianity is hardly a bastion and repository for morality.

---

Which system do you think is better?

Atheists oppose the wrong god.

TexasScientist said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/atheists-sound-the-alarm-decline-of-christianity-is-seriously-hurting-society?fbclid=IwAR1gqxIp82bWg1sXU5mprzpL0Ls0vShTQp1cM7gdTpLwsW5yfnRMtO3KRnI

---

Christianity is hardly a bastion and repository for morality.

---

Which system do you think is better?

---

How about this for a start? Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism and empiricism) over acceptance of dogma or superstition. ..... humanism may refer to a non-theistic life stance centered on human agency and looking to science rather than revelation from a supernatural source to understand the world. - Wikipedia

---

Congrats on your statement concerning your theological beliefs.

'Theology Doesn't Matter,' Says Man In Bold Theological Statement

HAPPY VALLEY, OR In a bold theological statement issued on his Facebook page Wednesday, local Christian man Clay Bernard boldly declared that "theology doesn't matter."

Bernard suggested that theology is "nothing but noise," inadvertently revealing his deeply held personal understanding of the nature and character of God and divine revelation. He further suggested that other aspects of the Christian faith are "far more important," a declaration that is a central tenet of his own personal theology of God and the Bible.
"It's just all about loving each other and knowing Jesus, not about theology," he wrote in a Facebook status, unaware that his statement included at least three theological truth claims regarding God's purpose for man kind. "God doesn't want us to memorize facts about Him or try to systematize Him in books. We should all just follow Jesus's example."
Berard carefully and systematically laid out his views in clear, well-defined points, providing a rudimentary systematic theology of God for his followers.
At publishing time, Bernard had declared no one could ever be absolutely sure about anything, a fact about which he was absolutely sure.
https://babylonbee.com/news/theology-doesnt-matter-says-man-bold-theological-statement

Waco1947 said:

---

Atheists oppose the wrong god.

---

What concerns me Waco, is that you oppose the real God.

TexasScientist said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/atheists-sound-the-alarm-decline-of-christianity-is-seriously-hurting-society?fbclid=IwAR1gqxIp82bWg1sXU5mprzpL0Ls0vShTQp1cM7gdTpLwsW5yfnRMtO3KRnI

---

Christianity is hardly a bastion and repository for morality.

---

Which system do you think is better?

---

How about this for a start? Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism and empiricism) over acceptance of dogma or superstition. ..... humanism may refer to a non-theistic life stance centered on human agency and looking to science rather than revelation from a supernatural source to understand the world. - Wikipedia

---

Ok, let's take a look at this nontheistic position.

1. What happens when you have competing values and agencies of human beings? Who wins out and why? For example, let's say a mother decides she needs money and wants to kill her toddler to sell her parts and organs so the mother can enjoy more of her value and agency. Does her value and agency trump the toddler's?

2. If a religious person and a humanist have a dispute, does the humanist always win out because they are supposedly not dogmatic or superstitious? What about the value and agency of the religious person?

3. How do you explain the uniformity in the laws of nature which science relies upon if God did not create such uniformity?

BaylorFTW said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/atheists-sound-the-alarm-decline-of-christianity-is-seriously-hurting-society?fbclid=IwAR1gqxIp82bWg1sXU5mprzpL0Ls0vShTQp1cM7gdTpLwsW5yfnRMtO3KRnI

---

Christianity is hardly a bastion and repository for morality.

---

Which system do you think is better?

---

How about this for a start? Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism and empiricism) over acceptance of dogma or superstition. ..... humanism may refer to a non-theistic life stance centered on human agency and looking to science rather than revelation from a supernatural source to understand the world. - Wikipedia

---

Ok, let's take a look at this nontheistic position.

1. What happens when you have competing values and agencies of human beings? Who wins out and why? For example, let's say a mother decides she needs money and wants to kill her toddler to sell her parts and organs so the mother can enjoy more of her value and agency. Does her value and agency trump the toddler's?

2. If a religious person and a humanist have a dispute, does the humanist always win out because they are supposedly not dogmatic or superstitious? What about the value and agency of the religious person?

3. How do you explain the uniformity in the laws of nature which science relies upon if God did not create such uniformity?

---

1. Is the mother claiming a religious exemption from the law?

2. The person with the best argument wins.

3. Creationism is one explanation. I prefer the answers and questions that proceed from a naturalistic explanation.

quash said:

---

1. Is the mother claiming a religious exemption from the law?

---

This is a hypothetical society where Texas Scientist's humanistic ideas control things. I am asking him how does he determine whose rights trump others when they clash?

quash said:

---

2. The person with the best argument wins.

---

And how do you determine what is the best argument? What criteria do you use? You have to have some way of saying this good and this is bad or this is better than another idea.

quash said:

---

3. Creationism is one explanation. I prefer the answers and questions that proceed from a naturalistic explanation.

---

Then, it would seem the best you can say is I have faith that someday there will be a naturalistic explanation for the uniformity of the laws of nature.

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

Well, that went strawman in a hurry.

quash said:

---

Well, that went strawman in a hurry.

---

Not so. Are you afraid of a discussion of foundations?

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Well, that went strawman in a hurry.

---

Not so. Are you afraid of a discussion of foundations?

---

Hopefully, they will be up to the challenge. But we can always hope if they dodge such scrutiny that they have the wisdom to realize their position is not very sound and needs to be revisited. .

BaylorFTW said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/atheists-sound-the-alarm-decline-of-christianity-is-seriously-hurting-society?fbclid=IwAR1gqxIp82bWg1sXU5mprzpL0Ls0vShTQp1cM7gdTpLwsW5yfnRMtO3KRnI

---

Christianity is hardly a bastion and repository for morality.

---

Which system do you think is better?

---

How about this for a start? Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism and empiricism) over acceptance of dogma or superstition. ..... humanism may refer to a non-theistic life stance centered on human agency and looking to science rather than revelation from a supernatural source to understand the world. - Wikipedia

---

Ok, let's take a look at this nontheistic position.

1. What happens when you have competing values and agencies of human beings? Who wins out and why? For example, let's say a mother decides she needs money and wants to kill her toddler to sell her parts and organs so the mother can enjoy more of her value and agency. Does her value and agency trump the toddler's?

2. If a religious person and a humanist have a dispute, does the humanist always win out because they are supposedly not dogmatic or superstitious? What about the value and agency of the religious person?

3. How do you explain the uniformity in the laws of nature which science relies upon if God did not create such uniformity?

---

1. What happens when you have competing values and agencies of human beings? Who wins out and why? For example, let's say a mother decides she needs money and wants to kill her toddler to sell her parts and organs so the mother can enjoy more of her value and agency. Does her value and agency trump the toddler's?

The same thing that happens with any culture. Society always relies upon what it believes to be the better choice. I would much rather moral decisions be made and based upon evaluation of the overall wellbeing of individuals involved in light of what is harmful to their state of existence. As opposed for instance, to moral decisions made upon unverified religious beliefs in the supernatural, such as a religious father believing it is in the best interest of his wife or daughter to strap on a suicide vest, and setting it off to kill as many infidels as possible, so that he improves his standing in the hereafter. Or, in the case of a devoutly religious person handing over his concubine to a mob to be violated, murdered and dismembered.

2. If a religious person and a humanist have a dispute, does the humanist always win out because they are supposedly not dogmatic or superstitious? What about the value and agency of the religious person?

Again, decisions should be made based upon what is harmful to the wellbeing of others. That is what currently underlies and is the basis of our present system of laws in our culture. It would be considered immoral and unlawful to stone to death a woman for religious immoral behavior in our country, as opposed to a biblical or Islamic requirement in a religious theocracy. Why would any right thinking society, supposedly interested in the well being of others, prefer moral determinations be based in religious dogmatic and superstitious beliefs?

3. How do you explain the uniformity in the laws of nature which science relies upon if God did not create such uniformity?

The laws of nature are scientifically derived, tested and reliable descriptions of how the forces and principles of nature interact. These principles came into existence part and parcel with the spontaneous formation of our universe. For instance, when you climb aboard a commercial aircraft, you are counting on human understanding of the principles of thrust and lift to take you safely where you are going, as opposed to believing in a legion of angels lifting the aircraft and transporting it to its destination. You're counting on applied physics to deliver you safely, as opposed to some unverified supernatural force.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

TexasScientist said:

---

1. What happens when you have competing values and agencies of human beings? Who wins out and why? For example, let's say a mother decides she needs money and wants to kill her toddler to sell her parts and organs so the mother can enjoy more of her value and agency. Does her value and agency trump the toddler's?

The same thing that happens with any culture. Society always relies upon what it believes to be the better choice. I would much rather moral decisions be made and based upon evaluation of the overall wellbeing of individuals involved in light of what is harmful to their state of existence. As opposed for instance, to moral decisions made upon unverified religious beliefs in the supernatural, such as a religious father believing it is in the best interest of his wife or daughter to strap on a suicide vest, and setting it off to kill as many infidels as possible, so that he improves his standing in the hereafter. Or, in the case of a devoutly religious person handing over his concubine to a mob to be violated, murdered and dismembered.

---

You are claiming your system would have better morality but when I give you a specific scenario upon which we could compare it with a Christian one, you avoid answering the specific question.
Better choice is a vague word. How do you arrive at what is the better choice? How do you know that you are making the better choice for the long term as opposed to merely choosing the perceived better choice in the short term?

TexasScientist said:

---

2. If a religious person and a humanist have a dispute, does the humanist always win out because they are supposedly not dogmatic or superstitious? What about the value and agency of the religious person?

Again, decisions should be made based upon what is harmful to the wellbeing of others. That is what currently underlies and is the basis of our present system of laws in our culture. It would be considered immoral and unlawful to stone to death a woman for religious immoral behavior in our country, as opposed to a biblical or Islamic requirement in a religious theocracy. Why would any right thinking society, supposedly interested in the well being of others, prefer moral determinations be based in religious dogmatic and superstitious beliefs?

---

Your thinking about what is in the well being of others will undoubtedly be seen as a harm to religious people who won't like your so called progressive society. And when these two groups have an argument, you are going to have to pick a winner and it would seem that winner will always be in favor secular folks. And again you are going to run into the issues I mentioned in #1. Long term versus short term conflict and also you will have different groups (men, women, children, adults, racial groups, ethnic groups, religious groups, etc. who all have different ideas of what is harmful to them and in their best interest.

TexasScientist said:

---

3. How do you explain the uniformity in the laws of nature which science relies upon if God did not create such uniformity?

The laws of nature are scientifically derived, tested and reliable descriptions of how the forces and principles of nature interact. These principles came into existence part and parcel with the spontaneous formation of our universe. For instance, when you climb aboard a commercial aircraft, you are counting on human understanding of the principles of thrust and lift to take you safely where you are going, as opposed to believing in a legion of angels lifting the aircraft and transporting it to its destination. You're counting on applied physics to deliver you safely, as opposed to some unverified supernatural force.

---

You would still need to show how a spontaneous formation of the universe could account for uniformity in the laws of nature. On the face of it, random chance doesn't seem to lead to uniformity and order.

BaylorFTW said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

1. What happens when you have competing values and agencies of human beings? Who wins out and why? For example, let's say a mother decides she needs money and wants to kill her toddler to sell her parts and organs so the mother can enjoy more of her value and agency. Does her value and agency trump the toddler's?

The same thing that happens with any culture. Society always relies upon what it believes to be the better choice. I would much rather moral decisions be made and based upon evaluation of the overall wellbeing of individuals involved in light of what is harmful to their state of existence. As opposed for instance, to moral decisions made upon unverified religious beliefs in the supernatural, such as a religious father believing it is in the best interest of his wife or daughter to strap on a suicide vest, and setting it off to kill as many infidels as possible, so that he improves his standing in the hereafter. Or, in the case of a devoutly religious person handing over his concubine to a mob to be violated, murdered and dismembered.

---

You are claiming your system would have better morality but when I give you a specific scenario upon which we could compare it with a Christian one, you avoid answering the specific question.
Better choice is a vague word. How do you arrive at what is the better choice? How do you know that you are making the better choice for the long term as opposed to merely choosing the perceived better choice in the short term?

TexasScientist said:

---

2. If a religious person and a humanist have a dispute, does the humanist always win out because they are supposedly not dogmatic or superstitious? What about the value and agency of the religious person?

Again, decisions should be made based upon what is harmful to the wellbeing of others. That is what currently underlies and is the basis of our present system of laws in our culture. It would be considered immoral and unlawful to stone to death a woman for religious immoral behavior in our country, as opposed to a biblical or Islamic requirement in a religious theocracy. Why would any right thinking society, supposedly interested in the well being of others, prefer moral determinations be based in religious dogmatic and superstitious beliefs?

---

Your thinking about what is in the well being of others will undoubtedly be seen as a harm to religious people who won't like your so called progressive society. And when these two groups have an argument, you are going to have to pick a winner and it would seem that winner will always be in favor secular folks. And again you are going to run into the issues I mentioned in #1. Long term versus short term conflict and also you will have different groups (men, women, children, adults, racial groups, ethnic groups, religious groups, etc. who all have different ideas of what is harmful to them and in their best interest.

TexasScientist said:

---

3. How do you explain the uniformity in the laws of nature which science relies upon if God did not create such uniformity?

The laws of nature are scientifically derived, tested and reliable descriptions of how the forces and principles of nature interact. These principles came into existence part and parcel with the spontaneous formation of our universe. For instance, when you climb aboard a commercial aircraft, you are counting on human understanding of the principles of thrust and lift to take you safely where you are going, as opposed to believing in a legion of angels lifting the aircraft and transporting it to its destination. You're counting on applied physics to deliver you safely, as opposed to some unverified supernatural force.

---

You would still need to show how a spontaneous formation of the universe could account for uniformity in the laws of nature. On the face of it, random chance doesn't seem to lead to uniformity and order.

---

"And yet it moves."

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

But why should we use the "best interests in terms of harm and well being" as a criterion? Perhaps better criteria are more along the lines of what is best for me in the short term regardless of consequences to others since in a materialist world YOLO and I think I should maximize my position, pleasures, experiences, etc in whatever way I want.

BaylorFTW said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

1. What happens when you have competing values and agencies of human beings? Who wins out and why? For example, let's say a mother decides she needs money and wants to kill her toddler to sell her parts and organs so the mother can enjoy more of her value and agency. Does her value and agency trump the toddler's?

The same thing that happens with any culture. Society always relies upon what it believes to be the better choice. I would much rather moral decisions be made and based upon evaluation of the overall wellbeing of individuals involved in light of what is harmful to their state of existence. As opposed for instance, to moral decisions made upon unverified religious beliefs in the supernatural, such as a religious father believing it is in the best interest of his wife or daughter to strap on a suicide vest, and setting it off to kill as many infidels as possible, so that he improves his standing in the hereafter. Or, in the case of a devoutly religious person handing over his concubine to a mob to be violated, murdered and dismembered.

---

You are claiming your system would have better morality but when I give you a specific scenario upon which we could compare it with a Christian one, you avoid answering the specific question.
Better choice is a vague word. How do you arrive at what is the better choice? How do you know that you are making the better choice for the long term as opposed to merely choosing the perceived better choice in the short term?

There are always moral dilemmas, regardless of whose system of moral values you apply. As our species evolved, and population increased, it became necessary to formulate equitable standards of behavior upon which cooperation between individuals and groups of individuals could rely to maintain order and survivability. Cultures can either devise a system of standards based upon arbitrary whim, upon claims of religious divine revelation, or upon careful evaluation of what is harmful to the one's wellbeing and the wellbeing of others.

TexasScientist said:

---

2. If a religious person and a humanist have a dispute, does the humanist always win out because they are supposedly not dogmatic or superstitious? What about the value and agency of the religious person?

Again, decisions should be made based upon what is harmful to the wellbeing of others. That is what currently underlies and is the basis of our present system of laws in our culture. It would be considered immoral and unlawful to stone to death a woman for religious immoral behavior in our country, as opposed to a biblical or Islamic requirement in a religious theocracy. Why would any right thinking society, supposedly interested in the well being of others, prefer moral determinations be based in religious dogmatic and superstitious beliefs?

---

Your thinking about what is in the well being of others will undoubtedly be seen as a harm to religious people who won't like your so called progressive society. And when these two groups have an argument, you are going to have to pick a winner and it would seem that winner will always be in favor secular folks. And again you are going to run into the issues I mentioned in #1. Long term versus short term conflict and also you will have different groups (men, women, children, adults, racial groups, ethnic groups, religious groups, etc. who all have different ideas of what is harmful to them and in their best interest.

All the more reason for evidence based morality in terms of the wellbeing of others. We already have conflict between religious groups that do not take into consideration anyone's wellbeing, before dishing out their moral codes. You are right, in that religion sees harm in placing the wellbeing of others ahead of religion's preconceived notions. Isn't it better to have evidence based standards, as opposed to standards derived from some groups religious dogma?

TexasScientist said:

---

3. How do you explain the uniformity in the laws of nature which science relies upon if God did not create such uniformity?

The laws of nature are scientifically derived, tested and reliable descriptions of how the forces and principles of nature interact. These principles came into existence part and parcel with the spontaneous formation of our universe. For instance, when you climb aboard a commercial aircraft, you are counting on human understanding of the principles of thrust and lift to take you safely where you are going, as opposed to believing in a legion of angels lifting the aircraft and transporting it to its destination. You're counting on applied physics to deliver you safely, as opposed to some unverified supernatural force.

---

You would still need to show how a spontaneous formation of the universe could account for uniformity in the laws of nature. On the face of it, random chance doesn't seem to lead to uniformity and order.

The laws of nature are descriptions of how the forces at work in the universe interact. They are part and parcel to the universe and its formation. They came into being with the formation of the universe. With a given universe there is a given set of laws part and parcel. Another universe may have different governing laws. The laws governing our universe are not random to this universe.

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

But why should we use the "best interests in terms of harm and well being" as a criterion? Perhaps better criteria are more along the lines of what is best for me in the short term regardless of consequences to others since in a materialist world YOLO and I think I should maximize my position, pleasures, experiences, etc in whatever way I want.

---

When hominids were limited in numbers and cognitive skills, your YOLO approach, or survival of the individual, and individual solitude, was most likely the norm. However, as our cognitive skills evolved, our ability to communicate evolved, our ability to develop and us tools evolved, and our numbers grew, it became necessary to work together cooperatively, with reliable standards of behavior in order to prosper and survive. Your YOLO philosophy, to the extent that it negatively impacts others wellbeing, disrupts necessary order for collective wellbeing.

quash said:

---

"And yet it moves."

---

What many people say when I am at work but have not yet had my coffee.

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

But why should we use the "best interests in terms of harm and well being" as a criterion? Perhaps better criteria are more along the lines of what is best for me in the short term regardless of consequences to others since in a materialist world YOLO and I think I should maximize my position, pleasures, experiences, etc in whatever way I want.

---

When hominids were limited in numbers and cognitive skills, your YOLO approach, or survival of the individual, and individual solitude, was most likely the norm. However, as our cognitive skills evolved, our ability to communicate evolved, our ability to develop and us tools evolved, and our numbers grew, it became necessary to work together cooperatively, with reliable standards of behavior in order to prosper and survive. Your YOLO philosophy, to the extent that it negatively impacts others wellbeing, disrupts necessary order for collective wellbeing.

---

Do you also think the morality would change over time? Or is the morality for man always the same regardless of time and place? Do you advocate for situational ethics?

BaylorFTW said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

But why should we use the "best interests in terms of harm and well being" as a criterion? Perhaps better criteria are more along the lines of what is best for me in the short term regardless of consequences to others since in a materialist world YOLO and I think I should maximize my position, pleasures, experiences, etc in whatever way I want.

---

When hominids were limited in numbers and cognitive skills, your YOLO approach, or survival of the individual, and individual solitude, was most likely the norm. However, as our cognitive skills evolved, our ability to communicate evolved, our ability to develop and us tools evolved, and our numbers grew, it became necessary to work together cooperatively, with reliable standards of behavior in order to prosper and survive. Your YOLO philosophy, to the extent that it negatively impacts others wellbeing, disrupts necessary order for collective wellbeing.

---

Do you also think the morality would change over time? Or is the morality for man always the same regardless of time and place? Do you advocate for situational ethics?

---

" The moral arc bends towards justice." MLK

quash said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

But why should we use the "best interests in terms of harm and well being" as a criterion? Perhaps better criteria are more along the lines of what is best for me in the short term regardless of consequences to others since in a materialist world YOLO and I think I should maximize my position, pleasures, experiences, etc in whatever way I want.

---

When hominids were limited in numbers and cognitive skills, your YOLO approach, or survival of the individual, and individual solitude, was most likely the norm. However, as our cognitive skills evolved, our ability to communicate evolved, our ability to develop and us tools evolved, and our numbers grew, it became necessary to work together cooperatively, with reliable standards of behavior in order to prosper and survive. Your YOLO philosophy, to the extent that it negatively impacts others wellbeing, disrupts necessary order for collective wellbeing.

---

Do you also think the morality would change over time? Or is the morality for man always the same regardless of time and place? Do you advocate for situational ethics?

---

" The moral arc bends towards justice." MLK

---

We are asking for specificity and y'all continue to give vague answers. It is becoming more and more apparent that y'all haven't thought this through.

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

But why should we use the "best interests in terms of harm and well being" as a criterion? Perhaps better criteria are more along the lines of what is best for me in the short term regardless of consequences to others since in a materialist world YOLO and I think I should maximize my position, pleasures, experiences, etc in whatever way I want.

---

When hominids were limited in numbers and cognitive skills, your YOLO approach, or survival of the individual, and individual solitude, was most likely the norm. However, as our cognitive skills evolved, our ability to communicate evolved, our ability to develop and us tools evolved, and our numbers grew, it became necessary to work together cooperatively, with reliable standards of behavior in order to prosper and survive. Your YOLO philosophy, to the extent that it negatively impacts others wellbeing, disrupts necessary order for collective wellbeing.

---

I understand all that. Simply pointing out that you offer no basis for selecting any criterion that doesn't require a value judgment based on some arbitrary notion. This is no different in kind from some "theocratic approach".

---

Quite the contrary. I have given you a basis for making judgements, that relies upon empirical objective evidence through applying science to determine what is harmful to wellbeing. Ultimately, a given society or culture has to adopt those results. A theocratic approach basis is rooted in dogma. My approach would determine stoning is immoral, because it harms the victims wellbeing. A theocratic approach would determine stoning is a god's moral requirement because some shaman declares it.