Gay marriage

[Aruntraveller]

In the case of homosexuality, what some antitheists would believe is actually personal preference suddenly becomes a binding absolute moral arbitration on everyone and so moral realism is expressed.

So are you accusing NS of being an antitheist?

[Roses]

Vlad's posts are so muddled it is hard to understand what he is supposed to be saying.

[Gordon]

OK Some Antitheists do not have an absolute morality or do not see morals as having reality. Therefore logically there is no moral arbitration, merely an exercise in the expression of personal preference which is then actually and logically not applicable outside that personal preference. In the case of homosexuality, what some antitheists would believe is actually personal preference suddenly becomes a binding absolute moral arbitration on everyone and so moral realism is expressed.

So, to precis, in your view 'antitheists' (*whoever they are) eschew objective morality - yes?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So, to precis, in your view 'antitheists' (*whoever they are) eschew objective morality - yes?

Some do.

[Gordon]

But not all?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But not all?

I'm sure there are antitheists who are moral realists. In fact my point is that  those who aren't often make an exception when it comes to sticking it to the Church in a fashion most reminiscent of the biggest, shiniest most minty humbugs in the sweetshop.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So are you accusing NS of being an antitheist?

Would that surprise you or shock you?

[Gordon]

I'm sure there are antitheists who are moral realists. In fact my point is that  those who aren't often make an exception when it comes to sticking it to the Church in a fashion most reminiscent of the biggest, shiniest most minty humbugs in the sweetshop.

So, if you're sure that there "are antitheists who are moral realists", where do you think these 'anitheists' think their moral values come from?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So, if you're sure that there "are antitheists who are moral realists", where do you think these 'anitheists' think their moral values come from?

Their real absolute moral values I think you mean. I think there moral theory is correct in that it is moral reality. That like everyone else, they have an iffy moral praxis reflecting ,like everyone else, an aptitude for moral confusion , I believe the conviction they have ultimately comes from God. You would have to find out from them where they think it comes from. Sam Harris could be your man for that.

[Gordon]

Their real absolute moral values I think you mean. I think there moral theory is correct in that it is moral reality. That like everyone else, they have an iffy moral praxis reflecting ,like everyone else, an aptitude for moral confusion , I believe the conviction they have ultimately comes from God. You would have to find out from them where they think it comes from. Sam Harris could be your man for that.

In my experience, Vlad, few non-theists subscribe to objective morality and that it is more the case that it is theists, such as Alien (late of this parish) who go down the objective morality route (since they think their 'God' is the source of morals).

Your stance is confusing - you seems to be dicing and slicing terms and concepts for the hell of it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In my experience, Vlad, few non-theists subscribe to objective morality and that it is more the case that it is theists, such as Alien (late of this parish) who go down the objective morality route (since they think their 'God' is the source of morals).

Your stance is confusing - you seems to be dicing and slicing terms and concepts for the hell of it.

Whatever.

[Gordon]

Whatever.

Thank you for the thoughtful response.

[Owlswing]

Vlad's posts are so muddled it is hard to understand what he is supposed to be saying.

He is trrying to make himself sound super, sorry, hyper intelligent!

[Owlswing]

In my experience, Vlad, few non-theists subscribe to objective morality and that it is more the case that it is theists, such as Alien (late of this parish) who go down the objective morality route (since they think their 'God' is the source of morals).

Your stance is confusing - you seems to be dicing and slicing terms and concepts for the hell of it.

Replace the italics above with "to try to convince everyone here that he is, in fact, intelligent!"

[Roses]

Replace the italics above with "to try to convince everyone here that he is, in fact, intelligent!"

One would take a lot of convincing!

[Owlswing]

One would take a lot of convincing!

One Hell of a lot! 

[Steve H]

My own theory 'Swing is that for many antitheists homosexual rights in the issue of Gay marriage comes second to sticking one on the church and the opportunity for a choice bit of linguistic imperialism.

And talking of coming second to those aims some antitheists are willing to sacrifice their theories on morality as well to become honorary moral realists. In my very, very humble opinion.

You post an enormous amount of crap, sometimes achieving pure word-salad, but just for once, you're spot-on. Well done. (How's that for a back-handed cmpliment?)

[Steve H]

You might like to translate that into English!

It makes perfect sense to anyone with a good command of English.

[Roses]

It makes perfect sense to anyone with a good command of English GIBBERISH.

[Owlswing]

It makes perfect sense to anyone with a good command of English GIBBERISH.

 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Steve,

Ok, ok, I surrender. Having thought about it a lot recently, and having rejected my own argument based on anatomy as breaking Hume's law (in the bible bigotry thread, q.v., op cit, ibid, idem, ad nauseam, etc.), I find myself without a logical leg to stand on, and since the thought of agreeing with anyone as vile as Andrew Pierce is anathema, I remove my objection to gay marriage. It was never very strong, anyway: I'd never have dreamed of campaignong against it. I confess to a continuing mild revulsion to the idea of two chaps getting their end away*, but as long as such a revulsion is recognised for the instinctive, illogical gut-feeling that it is, and dismissed, it isn't homophobia. My argument that it is changing the age-old definition of marriage failed when I realised that I have always firmly believed in women's ordination, which was a radical re-definition of the priesthood, and realised how much my "radical redefinition" argument resembled the hate-fueld bilge spouted against women priests by "Backward In Bigotry".
So I now approve of gay marriage, and hope that church gay weddings will eventually take place. Perhaps Really Sanctimonious** could finally stop accunsing me of "twee homophobia" in every post in which he mentions me at all, and nobody ever asgain, and one poster in particular, could suggest that I never change my mind or am impervious to reason.
*but not two chapettes, curiously. It has been noted by others that instinctive revulsion to homosexuality is stronger towards people of the same sex as the person revolted, than towards people of the opposite sex. I don't feel any revulsion about Lesbians.
**and if RS had not been so sanctimonious for so long, I might have got here sooner.

I doff my cap to you for your honesty and self-awareness here.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Steve,

It makes perfect sense to anyone with a good command of English.

Vlad has a poor command of English. Not just weak spelling and grammar, but the inappropriate use of terms he clearly doesn't understand and so cannot use in coherent sentences. Long ago and far away I advised him to try using plain terms that he did understand (or at least to look up the meanings of the words he was attempting before trying them) but, predictably, he ignored that advice so we still have the linguistic car crash results we see today.   

[Steve H]

Steve,

Vlad has a poor command of English. Not just weak spelling and grammar, but the inappropriate use of terms he clearly doesn't understand and so cannot use in coherent sentences. Long ago and far away I advised him to try using plain terms that he did understand (or at least to look up the meanings of the words he was attempting before trying them) but, predictably, he ignored that advice so we still have the linguistic car crash results we see today.

Indeed, very often his posts approach word-salad. That one, however, was commendably plain and clear (except to LR).

[Roses]

Indeed, very often his posts approach word-salad. That one, however, was commendably plain and clear (except to LR).

Your posts are often word-salad on this forum due to very poor spelling!

[Steve H]

Your posts are often word-salad on this forum due to very poor spelling!

How dare you presume to calumniate my orthography, you contumelious flibbertigibbet? Apart from the occasional obvious typo, my spelling is perfect.