You're appealing to an external authority, which is understandable but unnecessary.[/qutoe]
It's absolutely necessary if you want to claim objective truth in relation to a moral standard, supra.
Obviously I do not agree with this, and while being an interesting and necessary conversation, it's actually an aside to this topic. I assume your 19th Century philosophy is being discussed elsewhere in this forum.
Logic is no more limited to a time frame than atheism appears, in your part, to be rooted in logic.
Values, and their context are very, very important, as are their acceptance.
Again not something I'm arguing against.
If you'd paid attention, you'd have noted that it's exactly the same argument.
No, a thing having benefit for X (with X being one or many) is certainly a good for X, but it doesn't follow that the standard is objectively true, only that it is true that the standard is beneficial for X, which I've never argued against. When you attempt to compare and declare X superior then you've overstepped, absent that authority I spoke to. Y's context, which you're comparing it to, will likely have a very different expectation and valuation.
And clearly you haven't paid attention.
That really isn't the problem. The problem is that you're confusing the objective truth that X is beneficial with the idea that X is objectively superior. It isn't unless you accept the premise that its founded upon, which isn't objectively, demonstrably true absent that independent authority and arbiter.
As an atheist you can argue for the king's standard, the mob's standard, the general or particular welfare and it remains objectively true that whichever standard you present will be superior for the recipient of the benefit, but that doesn't make it superior to the competitive idea, except within that confine (which itself is arbitrary).
Obviously Christendom was the problem once upon a time. Now it's not. It did leave a wake of utter destruction, but it has also (utterly inadvertently) spawned a new way of thinking and operating.
It's easily arguable, outside of the metaphysical value, that Christendom did far more good than it ever did ill, depending on your context.
Right. So, as an American, just how much of your income do you devote to reparations for the slave trade? Oh? None? Who cares.
You have to make the case I owe reparations, which you haven't. That argument leads you back across the pond and by it you can tax nearly every people against some other, earlier and dominant culture. But it doesn't have much to do with my point, noting your impatience is a bit selectively problematic.
The Islamic world is rich as [redacted]. It sits on a huge section of the world's most coveted resource. Cry. Me. A. River.
There is no "Islamic world". There are nations, many of which are Islamic. There are a great many people living in nations that aren't Islamic who are Muslims as well. At least one and arguably more of those Islamic states are staunch allies.
We didn't observe older and wiser cultures;
Yes, we did. That's literally a nonsensical thing to write. You want a history lesson? You want to walk through the Holy Roman Empire and beyond?
Stop looking for a golden age that never was.
Didn't do anything of the sort. Stop overly romanticizing the moment.
The world right now is better than it ever has been.
For those of us lucky enough to be living the life of a have and in certain parts of the world, absolutely. In many parts of the world, not so much. It's also a world more dangerously perched on the potential edge of extinction, one of our own making.
If Islam doesn't pull its [redacted] together it will get crushed. It's that simple. It might not be pretty, it certainly won't be moral, but it will happen.
And, again, the problem is with some elements of Islam in some areas of the world and not, demonstrably, with most of the well over a billion adherents.
Poverty does make people angry as all hell. Poverty is rife, and it sucks. It takes something numinous to take and angry guy and turn him into a murderer. Islam is filling that hole right now.
Numinous? Nonsense. Stalin was filled with hubris, with the foolish notion of self as the final arbiter of the good, as was Mao. They murdered in the millions in the name of no God at all.
How uniform do you think I think it is?
Nearly monolithic, to read you.
Well, while I'd otherwise love to be patronised,
Your playing that card is hysterical (either).
lain:
I'd rather you either countered my argument with something salient or presented a rational way forward.
Declarations aren't argument. Look at how I've answered you. That's argument. Supporting conclusion with fact, by way of. Noting actual problems with the construction of a contrary posit, that sort of thing.
It's not over though, there's a whole bunch of us in Europe reaching out, your middle of the road platitudes are a mildly amusing stepping stone. Everyone plays their part.
See, that's sort of your song and dance. It has the form of something but reduces to emotion and a willingness to declare against someone without making the case.
I'm not offering platitudes of any sort.
Maybe you'll do better when if you come back.
Well done you. Have a biscuit.
Maybe not. At least you managed it without cursing...so that's something.
