Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I have read very little, if anything, that rejected faith. Neither have you. What has been offered, repreatedly, are a number of rational bases for moral and ethical decision-making.

People are rejecting your assertion that a faith in the Judeo-Christian model God is the only supportable basis for an ethical or moral code.

If you are not going to read what I write don't comment on it. I have never asserted that a "Judeo-Christian model God is the the only supportable basis for an ethical moral code". You are making the classic straw man argument. You are assigining statements to me that I never made and then arguing against those statements.

Originally posted by taxwonk

he whole business about Darwin and natural selection is, it seems to me, a diversion at best, or sophistry at worst. Your resistance to accept the existence of pre-Jewish moral or ethical codes has been similarly diverting, but has failed to either support your point or refute the contrary view.

When did I resist an acceptance of a pre-Jewish moral or ethical code. By stating there is a universal moral code, obviously, that predates the Jewish written law. I have never referred to Jew, Jewish, Christian or Christian when referring to the code. That is just an ignorant assumption you made on your part.

Originally posted by taxwonk If it makes you feel better to adhere to a moral standard because you believe God has commanded it, so be it. But why, in the name of all that is holy, would you insist upon arguing to others who find other reasons for supporting a moral life that they should not, unless they do so to follow God? Do you really believe God cares why people act morally?

The argument, I find, is an important question, because how we feel about right and wrong usually forms the basis of our political philosophy. People are pointing out to me their theories on a non-divine basis for morality and I am simply explaining why have rejected those ideas. I am interested in their responses because I have been searching for a rational basis for morality but I have never found one that is convincing to me. The whole scientific rational process is proposing theories and then exposing those theories to tests (or criticisms) to see if they hold up. That is what I am doing here. Why do you have a problem with that? I would find it very interesting if someone came up with a nondivine basis for morality that I thought stood up to all the problems I have found with other theories. Clearly this whole discussion is way beyond you, so why don't you just ignore it. When people get bored with it they will simply stop responding to me. In the name of all that is holy, if you don't like this exchange why not leave it alone?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
here's your problem.
If you truly believe that you're too new here. No one has ever changed anyone's mind here. I helped fringey figure out how to get donuts from her work cafateria, but other than that, there's hasn't even been co-operation across the politic divide.

Not true. At severe risk to my reputation, I told people that I thought you were funny. And you got your wife to make custom made avatars for me to give to paigow's socks. We are a microcosm of evolutionary cooperative behavior here.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
If you believed any of this, or more accurately practiced any of this, you would spend more time working for your employer to justify your job than posting here every five fucking minutes. Or are you one of the "only out for myself" guys that natrual selection didn't quite completely eliminate.

My tribe could kick your tribe's ass.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Not true. At severe risk to my reputation, I told people that I thought you were funny.

I can confirm that his reputation suffered for the assertion.

[soup sandwich]

Originally posted by Spanky
The whole scientific rational process is proposing theories and then exposing those theories to tests (or criticisms) to see if they hold up. That is what I am doing here. Why do you have a problem with that?

Because your fallback position cannot be proven or even tested. Your fallback position essentially amounts to the equivalent of "it happens by magic".

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I can confirm that his reputation suffered for the assertion.

Dyslexia is a bitch. when i first saw this, my mind processed it as:

• insertion ass suffered

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
here's your problem.
If you truly believe that you're too new here. No one has ever changed anyone's mind here. I helped fringey figure out how to get donuts from her work cafateria, but other than that, there's hasn't even been co-operation across the politic divide.

Sorry to give a serious response to your post, and maybe I am just an ignorant fool, but I have changed my position on a few things because of postings to this board. There are many people on this board (conservative and liberal) whose ideas I am very interested in and whose thoughts and arguments effect my own. If that was not the case I would not read and post to this board.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by soup sandwich
Because your fallback position cannot be proven or even tested. Your fallback position essentially amounts to the equivalent of "it happens by magic".

I think the fall back position can be somewhat tested, but essentially that sums up my position pretty well. I am still considering your proposal for option C.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Dyslexia is a bitch. when i first saw this, my mind processed it as:

• insertion ass suffered

I think it was more likely wishful thinking than dyslexia.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

From Congress Daily PM, via ThinkProgress:

"Senate Majority Leader Frist will file for cloture on President Bush’s nomination of William Myers to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later this week, according to sources on and off Capitol Hill, wasting no time in testing the resolve of 14 Republican and Democratic senators who forced at least a temporary halt to the battle over Democratic filibusters of President Bush’s judicial picks. "

I would think this is more of a test of the resolve the 7 Republicans in the Group of 14, but that's just me.

Are you ready to rrrrrrrruuuuuummmmmmmbbbbbbbblllleee?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
If morality is converging, why is it converging?

Because we persuade each other and the better reasoned position slowly wins out. You see a microcosm of this on the board, in the fact that no one is still insisting that the WMD are in Syria, or that Hank increasingly accepts that the President lied to get political support for his war.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Not true. At severe risk to my reputation, I told people that I thought you were funny. And you got your wife to make custom made avatars for me to give to paigow's socks. We are a microcosm of evolutionary cooperative behavior here.

On the subject of Hank's Avatars - you need some new ones. You have recycled the ones you have a few times since I have been here. I used to look forward to seeing what your next one would be, but now it seems I have seen them all.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Spanky
On the subject of Hank's Avatars - you need some new ones. You have recycled the ones you have a few times since I have been here. I used to look forward to seeing what your next one would be, but now it seems I have seen them all.

That goes for his posts, too.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
The questions comes down to this:

1) Everyone by posting to this board assumes everyone on the board has the same view of right and wrong. If we disagree on something people assume that is because the person has not thought out their position correctly, but once they see the fallacy of their thinking they will change their mind. So by posting on this board we are all assuming that we share a common morality.

No. I assume that we all start with different views of right and wrong, but that we can agree on many things, and that our views are open to reason and persuasion. Bilmore disagrees on the latter count, and I try to persuade him that he's wrong.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
Have Mills or Rawls come up with a theory on the source of the moral code that we all assume exits.

Why does it need a source other than their own reason? If everything needs a prior source, again you've set up the argumetn so there's only one answer.

Or maybe I should just ask you what the source of any religion's moral code is? Is "God told Moses" a satisfactory answer to you?