RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (32) < ... 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24 25 ... >   
  Topic: Young Cosmos, A Salvador Cordova project< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2008,17:12   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 03 2008,16:51)
     
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 03 2008,16:48)
     
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,16:29)
I said his work was peer reviewed.  That means *reviewed by his peers*.  He told me about several of them in a phone conversations

Ah, took you long enough to think of a getout. Phone conversation so no URL or other supporting info. We have to take your word for it.

So, back to the jellyfish it would appear.

Were his *peers* creationists or "darwinists"?

This is of course how peer review works and how most people inderstand the concept of peer review.

"Hello, cwose freind? Can my buk has peers reviewed?"

Sure, his peers reviewed it. It was reviewed by his aunt, this guy he knew who was always at the public library, this guy down the hall at his SRO hotel who claimed to be a physicist, this nice lady who read his water meter, and this guy who used to live down at the park who used to shout a lot. I think he's dead now.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2008,17:16   

Quote
FtK, if you don't understand what can possibly evolve via darwinian mechanisms and what can not, why the fuck should anyone pay any attention to anything you say about anything that has anything to do with any part of 'evolution'?


--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2008,17:16   

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,15:07)
Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 03 2008,17:00)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,14:29)
I also know that he discussed his hydroplate theory with Dr. Robert S. Dietz, one of the founders of the Plate Tectonic Theory many times.  They even became friends, so I can't imagine that he is the lying crank that you all believe him to be.  In that case, it was not a formal peer review, but I can think of no one better to discuss his theory with.  Granted, Dietz didn't agree with his theory, as he had his own.  But neither would he debate him, even after stating that he would and helping Brown form the debate agreement.

According to your link, Brown's interactions with Dietz were regarding the terms and conditions of a possible debate.  Dietz was not part of a peer-review process, even an informal one.  It's pretty clear, even from the creationist source you provided, that Dietz would have not been kind to Brown's work* if he had reviewed it.



*My contribution to International Understatement Week.

Hello?  I already stated that Dietz did not provide a formal review.  Are you not reading what I wrote?  I wrote exactly what I meant.  Don't put words in my mouth.

Why did you say 'peer reviewed' rather than reviewed by peers? Since peer review has a well-understood definition, ie formally refereed after submission to a journal, it strongly appears that you were intentionally conflating your colloquial definition with the normal one. Why do you insist on expressing your thoughts with as little clarity as possible (eg, refusing to use a synonym for condone)?

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2008,17:17   

Quote
You don't seem to be able to understand the difference between advocate and understand.  We see that this is true daily from you, when you advocate that the earth is 6000 years old but you can't possibly understand why that must be.  Skatje apparently understands that people may love their pet, and this is a far cry from advocating that they have missionary style sex with their pet.  You advocate Intelligent Design Creationism but you show no signs, whatsoever, of understanding IDC.  You advocate Wally Brown's book but clearly you don't understand a word of it.


Get back up on your cross lady.

Edited, because I can because I am not a post deleting tard, and also to add that in the original (see page 13) there were italics around 'advocate' and 'understand' to stress the point made again recently upthread by I think assassinator that 'understanding why someone may want to fuck their pet dolphin' is not the same as saying 'everyone should fuck their pet dolphin'.  Just that people get attached to things, and everyone has a hangup.  Some people it's fucking a zebra, for FtK it is a persecution complex and a hardened belief in a nonsense fairy tale that gives her a personal sense of meaning in the universe and keeps her from fucking crocodiles and murdering everyone at ATBC, because, see (and I'll bring this to a close, all heads bowed all eyes closed), Jesus Loves Her.  That is all She Knows.  And if you take that away from her, she is going to be pretty pissed.  Might even rape her grandmaw.  So, good people, let this crazy fool be.

And All The Lard's People Said:




--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
csadams



Posts: 124
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2008,17:23   

Y'see, FtK, many posters here are professional scientists who have had their work peer-reviewed.  In academia, "peer review" is generally accepted to mean that the research is anonymously critiqued by others qualified in that particular field.

Peer review can be brutal.  To even suggest that Brown has submitted his work for peer review is an insult to real scientists who have taken that risk.

It would be like me stating that I could out-model Heidi Klum based on the fact that my husband likes the way I look.  D'ya get the difference?

--------------
Stand Up For REAL Science!

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2008,17:23   

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,15:07)
Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 03 2008,17:00)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,14:29)
I also know that he discussed his hydroplate theory with Dr. Robert S. Dietz, one of the founders of the Plate Tectonic Theory many times.  They even became friends, so I can't imagine that he is the lying crank that you all believe him to be.  In that case, it was not a formal peer review, but I can think of no one better to discuss his theory with.  Granted, Dietz didn't agree with his theory, as he had his own.  But neither would he debate him, even after stating that he would and helping Brown form the debate agreement.

According to your link, Brown's interactions with Dietz were regarding the terms and conditions of a possible debate.  Dietz was not part of a peer-review process, even an informal one.  It's pretty clear, even from the creationist source you provided, that Dietz would have not been kind to Brown's work* if he had reviewed it.



*My contribution to International Understatement Week.

Hello?  I already stated that Dietz did not provide a formal review.  Are you not reading what I wrote?  I wrote exactly what I meant.  Don't put words in my mouth.

I'm not putting any words in your mouth.  Let's take a look at these words of yours:

Quote
In that case, it was not a formal peer review, but I can think of no one better to discuss his theory with.


I know you've had occasional struggles with the English language. so I'll explain.  Use of the word "formal" in the above sentence implies that there was an "informal" review.  There's no evidence that Dietz gave any sort of review whatsoever: formal, informal, casual, off-the-cuff... nothing in your link says anything about a review.

As you claim to have written exactly what you meant, how about showing us something to support your assertion that Dietz gave an informal peer-review of Brown's work?

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2008,17:25   

Quote (argystokes @ Jan. 03 2008,17:16)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,15:07)
Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 03 2008,17:00)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,14:29)
I also know that he discussed his hydroplate theory with Dr. Robert S. Dietz, one of the founders of the Plate Tectonic Theory many times.  They even became friends, so I can't imagine that he is the lying crank that you all believe him to be.  In that case, it was not a formal peer review, but I can think of no one better to discuss his theory with.  Granted, Dietz didn't agree with his theory, as he had his own.  But neither would he debate him, even after stating that he would and helping Brown form the debate agreement.

According to your link, Brown's interactions with Dietz were regarding the terms and conditions of a possible debate.  Dietz was not part of a peer-review process, even an informal one.  It's pretty clear, even from the creationist source you provided, that Dietz would have not been kind to Brown's work* if he had reviewed it.



*My contribution to International Understatement Week.

Hello?  I already stated that Dietz did not provide a formal review.  Are you not reading what I wrote?  I wrote exactly what I meant.  Don't put words in my mouth.

Why did you say 'peer reviewed' rather than reviewed by peers? Since peer review has a well-understood definition, ie formally refereed after submission to a journal, it strongly appears that you were intentionally conflating your colloquial definition with the normal one. Why do you insist on expressing your thoughts with as little clarity as possible (eg, refusing to use a synonym for condone)?

Goodness, I think I could say just about anything and it would be wrong.  If I said peer reviewed or reviewed by peers in the wrong way, I apologize.  If there is some rule among scientists as to how and when to use those words, I am simply not aware of it.  

And, again, I honestly do not know what the problem is with the word condone!  I assure you that I will try very hard to remember to never use that word in this forum again.  It made perfect sense to me as I didn't want to say "advocates" or "condemns".  The perfect word to me is "condone".  It's exactly what I meant.

I still don't even know what the other definition of condone is.  No one has posted it unless I've missed it somewhere.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
someotherguy



Posts: 398
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2008,17:30   

Ya'know, I remember a day when this thread was about the craziness of Sal Codorva's Young Cosmos blog, not about Ftk.    Is there any chance that folks could get back to discussing Sal in this thread and Ftk in her own thread?  Just another thought.

--------------
Evolander in training

  
csadams



Posts: 124
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2008,17:33   

Quote (someotherguy @ Jan. 03 2008,17:30)
Ya'know, I remember a day when this thread was about the craziness of Sal Codorva's Young Cosmos blog, not about Ftk.    Is there any chance that folks could get back to discussing Sal in this thread and Ftk in her own thread?  Just another thought.

Sorry.  I just got fed up with the question-dodging.

Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

--------------
Stand Up For REAL Science!

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2008,17:36   

Quote (csadams @ Jan. 03 2008,18:33)
Sorry.  I just got fed up with the question-dodging.

Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

No, not your fault at all.  The two are joined at the hip, and with Ftk's attention craving martyrdom issues, it was both unsurprising and quite possibly inevitable.

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
someotherguy



Posts: 398
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2008,17:38   

Quote (csadams @ Jan. 03 2008,17:33)
Quote (someotherguy @ Jan. 03 2008,17:30)
Ya'know, I remember a day when this thread was about the craziness of Sal Codorva's Young Cosmos blog, not about Ftk.    Is there any chance that folks could get back to discussing Sal in this thread and Ftk in her own thread?  Just another thought.

Sorry.  I just got fed up with the question-dodging.

Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

Oh, you certainly don't need to apologize.  I was just putting out a statement of general preference about what comments should go on which threads.

Mostly, I just think that all the bruhahaha over the Zoophilia Incident and Backlash is getting in the way of some serious--and well-deserved--mocking of Sal's writings.

--------------
Evolander in training

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2008,17:40   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 03 2008,17:17)
Quote
You don't seem to be able to understand the difference between advocate and understand.  We see that this is true daily from you, when you advocate that the earth is 6000 years old but you can't possibly understand why that must be.  Skatje apparently understands that people may love their pet, and this is a far cry from advocating that they have missionary style sex with their pet.  You advocate Intelligent Design Creationism but you show no signs, whatsoever, of understanding IDC.  You advocate Wally Brown's book but clearly you don't understand a word of it.


Get back up on your cross lady.

Edited, because I can because I am not a post deleting tard, and also to add that in the original (see page 13) there were italics around 'advocate' and 'understand' to stress the point made again recently upthread by I think assassinator that 'understanding why someone may want to fuck their pet dolphin' is not the same as saying 'everyone should fuck their pet dolphin'.  Just that people get attached to things, and everyone has a hangup.  Some people it's fucking a zebra, for FtK it is a persecution complex and a hardened belief in a nonsense fairy tale that gives her a personal sense of meaning in the universe and keeps her from fucking crocodiles and murdering everyone at ATBC, because, see (and I'll bring this to a close, all heads bowed all eyes closed), Jesus Loves Her.  That is all She Knows.  And if you take that away from her, she is going to be pretty pissed.  Might even rape her grandmaw.  So, good people, let this crazy fool be.

And All The Lard's People Said:



You are an absolutely disgusting individual....full of hatred, and your portrait of me is so far from true it is unbelieveable.

You put Sal to shame a hundred times over with your antics.  Yet absolutely no one calls you on it.  No one.  Yet, posters here believe that I should be held accountable for every single word that Sal says, and that I should go and confront him whenever he is being unfair.

You people certainly do not live by example.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2008,17:42   

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,16:03)
Quote (Assassinator @ Jan. 03 2008,15:48)
Do still NOT understand why Sal's point is complete and utter nonsense?

In the sense of Sal's attempt at humor?  Of course, it was nonsense and listed as humor.  I assure you that he doesn't think that Skatje "advocates" "young ladies" to engage in intercourse with pigs and introduce them to their parents as their bethrothed.

As for the rest of our discussion, Skatje's comments, and my stance on atheist morality.  I stand firm.  What I've said is simply not "disgusting" or "wrong".  Neither have I lied about anything.

The words I've been called at PZ's place are beyond the pale, and I'll await his apologize....probably until the day I die.

Really....how many times have I repeated this? We DO NOT CARE about his humor, his words, his style of writing, ANYTHING but the point he is making about morality and Darwinism.
So odd, I've sad the above so many times, why doesn't come through?
Quote
You put Sal to shame a hundred times over with your antics.  Yet absolutely no one calls you on it.  No one.  Yet, posters here believe that I should be held accountable for every single word that Sal says, and that I should go and confront him whenever he is being unfair.

Do you have any idea why Sal is put on display like that? And who says we are holding you accountable? We're holding you accountable for agreeing with the point he is making without listening to ANY response from any of us why the point he is making is complete and utter nonsense, worth putting on display. And if you want to know why it's worth to be put on display, just ask, it's fairly simple.

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2008,17:46   

Quote (someotherguy @ Jan. 03 2008,18:38)
Quote (csadams @ Jan. 03 2008,17:33)
Quote (someotherguy @ Jan. 03 2008,17:30)
Ya'know, I remember a day when this thread was about the craziness of Sal Codorva's Young Cosmos blog, not about Ftk.    Is there any chance that folks could get back to discussing Sal in this thread and Ftk in her own thread?  Just another thought.

Sorry.  I just got fed up with the question-dodging.

Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

Oh, you certainly don't need to apologize.  I was just putting out a statement of general preference about what comments should go on which threads.

Mostly, I just think that all the bruhahaha over the Zoophilia Incident and Backlash is getting in the way of some serious--and well-deserved--mocking of Sal's writings.

Well as utterly moronic pointless as this thread has become, the truth is that it's all vaguely topical to the thread title.

Sort of appropriate, now that I think about it.

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2008,17:47   

Quote
If there is some rule among scientists as to how and when to use those words, I am simply not aware of it.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

Did you really think that all this fuss about peer-review was simply whether or not it had been read by scientists?

Quote
I still don't even know what the other definition of condone is.  No one has posted it unless I've missed it somewhere.


You missed it when I originally defended your use of the word here.

Frankly, I find your behavior over these word issues to be bizarre. When you asked me to provide a synonym that would be more appropriate, I gave you several. And then you implied you might as well keep using 'condone' because all those synonyms meant the same thing!

OK, I'm sorry for putting this in the Sal thread, is there any way to move the conversation back where it belongs?

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2008,17:47   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 03 2008,17:36)
Quote (csadams @ Jan. 03 2008,18:33)
Sorry.  I just got fed up with the question-dodging.

Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

No, not your fault at all.  The two are joined at the hip, and with Ftk's attention craving martyrdom issues, it was both unsurprising and quite possibly inevitable.

Jerk.  We are not "joined at the hip".  I don't even know Sal personally.  I've talked to him once, and I've exchanged about 7 email with him.  From what I've read from his posts at UD, I agree with him about many issues, but I certainly do not agree with him about everything and vise versa.  

I do not support him when he uses belittling humor like the antics I find here.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2008,17:49   

Ok, Walt Brown stuff needs to go on the Ftk thread.

Cordova's garbage and Ftk's silly attempts at defending his putrescence should remain here, however.

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2008,17:51   

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,17:47)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 03 2008,17:36)
Quote (csadams @ Jan. 03 2008,18:33)
Sorry.  I just got fed up with the question-dodging.

Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

No, not your fault at all.  The two are joined at the hip, and with Ftk's attention craving martyrdom issues, it was both unsurprising and quite possibly inevitable.

Jerk.  We are not "joined at the hip".  I don't even know Sal personally.  I've talked to him once, and I've exchanged about 7 email with him.  From what I've read from his posts at UD, I agree with him about many issues, but I certainly do not agree with him about everything and vise versa.  

I do not support him when he uses belittling humor like the antics I find here.

But do you condone him?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2008,17:56   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 03 2008,18:51)
But do you condone him?

Oh Geez.  Not again.

**Whops Arden upside the head**

Condone that.

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2008,18:02   

Quote (Assassinator @ Jan. 03 2008,17:42)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,16:03)
 
Quote (Assassinator @ Jan. 03 2008,15:48)
Do still NOT understand why Sal's point is complete and utter nonsense?

In the sense of Sal's attempt at humor?  Of course, it was nonsense and listed as humor.  I assure you that he doesn't think that Skatje "advocates" "young ladies" to engage in intercourse with pigs and introduce them to their parents as their bethrothed.

As for the rest of our discussion, Skatje's comments, and my stance on atheist morality.  I stand firm.  What I've said is simply not "disgusting" or "wrong".  Neither have I lied about anything.

The words I've been called at PZ's place are beyond the pale, and I'll await his apologize....probably until the day I die.

Really....how many times have I repeated this? We DO NOT CARE about his humor, his words, his style of writing, ANYTHING but the point he is making about morality and Darwinism.
So odd, I've sad the above so many times, why doesn't come through?
Quote
You put Sal to shame a hundred times over with your antics.  Yet absolutely no one calls you on it.  No one.  Yet, posters here believe that I should be held accountable for every single word that Sal says, and that I should go and confront him whenever he is being unfair.

Do you have any idea why Sal is put on display like that? And who says we are holding you accountable? We're holding you accountable for agreeing with the point he is making without listening to ANY response from any of us why the point he is making is complete and utter nonsense, worth putting on display. And if you want to know why it's worth to be put on display, just ask, it's fairly simple.

I've discussed *the point*, which is moral relativism and the fact that atheists have no moral base.  Their morality is based on evolutionary change over billions of years.  That is why bestiality cannot be deemed *immoral* by an atheist.  They can say that some forms of bestiality may by hazardous to your health for a variety of reasons.  But, they can't say they are immoral.  It is not "immoral" to sleep with your brother, it is not "immoral" for a women to have sexual relations with another women just because they met in a bar and felt the need to achieve orgasm - no strings attached.  It is not "immoral" to cut a child from it's mother's womb at 24 weeks of pregnancy.  

There is nothing to base "morality" on.  Acts are either good or bad based on how people at a given time and place time feel it will affect others.  Those beliefs can change *over time*.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2008,18:11   

Quote
When you asked me to provide a synonym that would be more appropriate, I gave you several. And then you implied you might as well keep using 'condone' because all those synonyms meant the same thing!


LOL, that does sound bizarre!  Here's the deal.  I must go down on record saying that I believe that "condone" is the best word to use in this instance.  I'll remember to use the synonyms in the future at this forum.

As far as the definition of moral relativism, here is mine:

Quote
In philosophy, moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth; moral subjectivism is thus the opposite of moral absolutism.


--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2008,18:14   

Christians don't have a moral base too, are you the same as those wierdos from the Westboro Baptist Church?? I think not. Are you a Jehova Witniss? Are all Christians the same?
You're not just putting atheists into boxes, you're just stuffing them into 1 big ballroom. I'm an atheist, how do you know I base my moral beleives on evolution? If you have payed attention, or did any proper research, you would know that evolution has nothing to do with morality in the way we're talking about it. Evolution is science, science does not dictate morality, it only discribes things.
Your generalisation is awfull. And what's the foundation of this generalisation anyway? What made you think those things?

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2008,18:22   

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,19:02)
I've discussed *the point*, which is moral relativism and the fact that atheists have no moral base.  Their morality is based on evolutionary change over billions of years.  That is why bestiality cannot be deemed *immoral* by an atheist.

Ftk: All you've done is define "morality" such that your conclusion must be true. To whit: "morals" for you are BY DEFINITION universal, absolute, unchanging, and God-given. Then, of course, atheists must BY DEFINITION lack a moral base, and by implication lack morality.  

But here is the definition my (online) dictionary produces:

   
Quote
moral |?môr?l; ?mär-|
adjective

concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character : the moral dimensions of medical intervention | a moral judgment.

• concerned with or adhering to the code of interpersonal behavior that is considered right or acceptable in a particular society : an individual's ambitions may get out of step with the general moral code.
• holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct : he is a caring, efficient, moral man.
• derived from or based on ethical principles or a sense of these : the moral obligation of society to do something about the inner city's problems.
• [ attrib. ] examining the nature of ethics and the foundations of good and bad character and conduct : moral philosophers.
noun
1 a lesson, esp. one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience : the moral of this story was that one must see the beauty in what one has.
2 ( morals) a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do : the corruption of public morals.
• standards of behavior that are considered good or acceptable : they believe addicts have no morals and cannot be trusted.


That's it. You notice the complete absence of "universal," "absolute," "unchanging," and "God-given."

Most atheists, agnostics, and others who don't share your religious predelictions remain interested in a code of interpersonal behavior, proper conduct, ethical principles, standards of behavior and so on. It is only by insisting upon your own, idiosyncratic and inherently religious definition that you can argue that they are not. Indeed, IMHO, they are more likely to have given the ethical questions and dilemmas with which they are confronted real thought, because canned, absolutist, and ultimately authoritarian solutions to those dilemmas are not of interest to them.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
someotherguy



Posts: 398
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2008,18:24   

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,18:11)
Quote
When you asked me to provide a synonym that would be more appropriate, I gave you several. And then you implied you might as well keep using 'condone' because all those synonyms meant the same thing!


LOL, that does sound bizarre!  Here's the deal.  I must go down on record saying that I believe that "condone" is the best word to use in this instance.  I'll remember to use the synonyms in the future at this forum.

As far as the definition of moral relativism, here is mine:

Quote
In philosophy, moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth; moral subjectivism is thus the opposite of moral absolutism.

Not basing one's morals on some alleged "universal standard" != basing one's morals on "nothing."

--------------
Evolander in training

  
someotherguy



Posts: 398
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2008,18:27   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 03 2008,18:22)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,19:02)
I've discussed *the point*, which is moral relativism and the fact that atheists have no moral base.  Their morality is based on evolutionary change over billions of years.  That is why bestiality cannot be deemed *immoral* by an atheist.

Ftk: All you've done is define "morality" such that your conclusion must be true. To whit: "morals" for you are BY DEFINITION universal, absolute, unchanging, and God-given. Then, of course, atheists must BY DEFINITION lack a moral base, and by implication lack morality.  

But here is the definition my (online) dictionary produces:

   
Quote
moral |?môr?l; ?mär-|
adjective

concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character : the moral dimensions of medical intervention | a moral judgment.

• concerned with or adhering to the code of interpersonal behavior that is considered right or acceptable in a particular society : an individual's ambitions may get out of step with the general moral code.
• holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct : he is a caring, efficient, moral man.
• derived from or based on ethical principles or a sense of these : the moral obligation of society to do something about the inner city's problems.
• [ attrib. ] examining the nature of ethics and the foundations of good and bad character and conduct : moral philosophers.
noun
1 a lesson, esp. one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience : the moral of this story was that one must see the beauty in what one has.
2 ( morals) a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do : the corruption of public morals.
• standards of behavior that are considered good or acceptable : they believe addicts have no morals and cannot be trusted.


That's it. You notice the complete absence of "universal," "absolute," "unchanging," and "God-given."

Most atheists, agnostics, and others who don't share your religious predelictions remain interested in a code of interpersonal behavior, proper conduct, ethical principles, standards of behavior and so on. It is only by insisting upon your own, idiosyncratic and inherently religious definition that you can argue that they are not. Indeed, IMHO, they are more likely to have given the ethical questions and dilemmas with which they are confronted real thought, because canned, absolutist, and ultimately authoritarian solutions to those dilemmas are not of interest to them.

Exactly what I said--only a lot better!   :D

--------------
Evolander in training

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2008,18:31   

In your world, FtK, do bears steal picnic baskets and pull pranks on park rangers?

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2008,18:38   

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,18:02)
There is nothing to base "morality" on.  Acts are either good or bad based on how people at a given time and place time feel it will affect others.  Those beliefs can change *over time*.

Right. As opposed to being either good or bad based on how people at a given time and place feel it will affect God's opinion of them. Billions of years of selection have nothing on the eternal applicability of Levitical Law, transubstantiation, racial intermarriage, women clergy (or even speaking in church), etc., eh? And an evolutionary sense of fairness shared among distantly related species (look up unequal pay and expectation of fairness in capuchin monkeys some time) is downright schismatic compared to the unified base of beliefs shared by Christendom...all 10,000+ sects of that unity. Oh, wait. You were talking atheists vs. theists -- surely theists as a whole are even more united in their moral base.

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2008,18:44   

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 04 2008,00:02)
I've discussed *the point*, which is moral relativism and the fact that atheists have no moral base.  Their morality is based on evolutionary change over billions of years.  That is why bestiality cannot be deemed *immoral* by an atheist.  They can say that some forms of bestiality may by hazardous to your health for a variety of reasons.  But, they can't say they are immoral.  It is not "immoral" to sleep with your brother, it is not "immoral" for a women to have sexual relations with another women just because they met in a bar and felt the need to achieve orgasm - no strings attached.  It is not "immoral" to cut a child from it's mother's womb at 24 weeks of pregnancy.  

There is nothing to base "morality" on.  Acts are either good or bad based on how people at a given time and place time feel it will affect others.  Those beliefs can change *over time*.

Mein gott....

Ok, technically, this is mostly correct. Unfortunately, any kudos you would have had might well have been immediately invalidated by one teensy little thing right at the start.

Quote
Their morality is based on evolutionary change over billions of years.


Err....how do you mean evolutionry FtK? Evolutionary as in "it changes" or as in "molecule to man" or some similar biological meaning.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2008,18:56   

Hol' up Hol' up Hol' up
Quote
What I said was that they have no true base for morality.


You have no 'true base for morality' either.

You believe in fairy tales.  

Edited to Add:

Talking snakes.  Eight people and a boat load of animals and venereal disease.  Talking burning bushes (not Nandina).  Zombie haploid lighter than water Redeemer of All Mankind.

Be honest, thou impostor.  YOU don't have a true base for morality.  That is why you are patently dishonest and misrepresent others.  Because of your insecurities and martyr complex.  And you love it.

Edited to Edit to Add:

This applies to Sal too.  Just to get back on topic, Lou.

now, incorygible, taking moral lessons from fairy tales is fine.  that is what they are for.  taking them as literal truth and the base of a philosophy that is used to oppress others and distort the truth is not.  That is what you see here.  

Some people you just can't reach, they are too far in the bottom of the latrine.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2008,18:59   

We're beginning to stray afield of Sal and his (utter and complete lack of) morals, his blog, or his stupidity.

If we're not going to get back to Young Cosmos and the vacuity and idiocy of that place, then we need to move this conversation back to Ftk's thread.

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
  948 replies since July 31 2007,08:19 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (32) < ... 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24 25 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]