Locke

That doesn't address the point that you are sticking up for nice people by calling other people names. That doesn't seem to fit. 1. I'm sorry that you think people should get away with making statements that are illogical during a debate. 2. I'm sorry that you think my tone is condescending.

Maybe I didn't make it clear that I'm still referring to you making this post: I just find it to be unnecessarily rude and a slap in the face to your entire ideology. What? You only have to be nice to people who you think are nice?

Of course it is. But you don't know enough about it to ever bring it up in a discussion - as shown by how you answered my questions. Which is why you should never have proposed it as a valid theory.

So you don't like the arrogance of some Christians, and therefore you acknowledge your own arrogance by judging them as cowards? I think any devout Christian who understands his faith would agree that helping people is a major part of their faith. That's why the Bible mentions helping the poor in 2,100 verses in the Bible (compared that to the 6 verses in the Bible that talk about homosexuality). My problem with you is that, although I agree that arrogance is a huge problem in the Church and always has been, instead of talking about it rationally, you decide to express a great deal of hate and anger towards the faith in general. I'd ask you this question: How will calling names help bridge the gap? How will generalizing a faith by those who have hijacked it and turned it into something not, help solve problems in the world?

In normal circumstances I would agree with you, however I feel that it is dangerous to be making posts like Viktor is. To sum it up, he is making up his own theory and passing it off very confidently on this public message board until someone questions it. A "theory" that is as loose as it turned out to be should never have any place in a real discussion because it throws off any chance at intellectual debate. Nothing against Viktor personally, I just believe that such speculation should never pop up like it did. It just doesn't make any sense.

I'm curious as to what your life philosophy is that allows you to judge people you have never met or spoken with and have a clean conscience about it. Or are you speaking about one Christian in particular? Because if he really is as arrogant as you say he is, I can assure you that God would agree with you wholeheartedly.

You agree that your own theory doesn't really make sense? Does that make sense for you to do that?

So it is your belief that people are born straight, and then during puberty a hormone is triggered that makes them homosexual? I really can't answer that question. I would assume no, but I haven't the knowledge to give it the thought it's deserving of. I'm just curious because it is my experience that a large majority of children show interest in the opposite sex long before puberty. It seems strange that it would just be "reversed" like that.

So it is your belief that people are born straight, and then during puberty a hormone is triggered that makes them homosexual?

My experience with people who are homosexual is that they knew they were at around age 6-7. The only confusion they felt was from society telling them they were supposed to think differently. 6-7 is long before puberty would have even begun starting.

Because I already told you one hundred times that the theory you're presenting is not flawless and makes assumptions itself. Your reply was exactly what I expected, so I have nothing more to say. I only see you hammering that I don't understand something that I understand perfectly well and I'm done with it. I have challenged you numerous times to show me how my logical theory is flawed and you have failed to respond every time. Don't complain about me continually talking about it until you can show me an example where it is wrong.

That was a discussion about you calling him arrogant. Afterwards, you said you believe in absolute morality and I asked you what it was based on: hence, this discussion. I never made the claim you can't have absolute morality without God - I said you can't have it without a standard. I then asked you what your standard was and you responded "logic." The reason you are unconvinced is because you have still FAILED to supply ANY situation where you can determine morality WITHOUT breaking the is/ought gap. If you provided an example, I could show you how it's impossible. I'm not claiming you don't understand it, you keep showing that you don't understand it. For instance: The is/ought gap has nothing to do with scientific discovery, yet your example was about Newton discovering gravity. This shows that you do not understand the concept. Yes you did. I asked you what you base it on and you said: Logic is not an assumption. "Bad" is an opinion. It is not something we can logically prove. If it was, you would give me an example after I have asked you numerous times to do so. It's not a logical position for absolute morality like you said you believe in. What is bad to one person can be good to another. Except all that is morality subjective to the person. You said you believe in absolute morality. Because you don't understand it. Provide me with one example where logic is the sole tool in deciding the morality of something. Just one. I've asked you numerous times and you have yet to respond - yet even without you being able to give me ONE example, you still tell me that you are "unimpressed" with the logical theory I have presented you with.

That's about the silliest thing I've heard - your point is quite irrelevant. But if you want, I will play your game. My assumption: The Bible is true. - Therefore, God existing is no longer an assumption. His qualities are no longer an assumption. Etc. Happy? Quit being pedantic. I'm done with discussing with you. I thought I'd give you another chance but you still just act ridiculous. Enjoy responding to no one.

And where do you get the basic principles of what Gods qualitys are from? I'm not interested in having that discussion - it is irrelevant to the point at hand.

Thats still two assumptions. God exists. God has those characteristics that defines morality. Unless you are assuming that if your God does not exist, no other God can exist? Of course that's my belief. It is only one assumption. I believe in a God that has x characteristic. I don't believe in a God that does not have x characteristic. It is only one assumption. I don't assume God exists and then assume that he has a quality. I believe that God with x qualities exists. Period.

Would you agree that relying on God for an absolute standard of morality is illogical then. Since the next step after assuming God exists is the assumption that Gods laws are moral? If you set up the argument like that, then yes. However, that's not my belief. Here is my belief: Assumption: A God whose very nature defines morality, exists. My belief in God includes the characteristics I believe him to have. It is not a separate premise.

That's entirely the point of the article. I guess what you don't understand is that the "is/ought" gap is a logical fallacy ABOUT morality. An "is" statement is a logical statement - but an "ought" statement is a moral statement. The problem is that you cannot go solely from an "is" statement to an "ought" statement purely by logic. You have to make an assumption. You still don't seem to understand what the is/ought gap really is. It is the problem between connecting logic with morality without an assumption. If you claim you can make absolute moral statements purely from logic, then you are failing to see your basic assumptions. Once again, you still have failed to give me any one moral situation where logic is your sole tool for explaining absolute morality. This debate stems from you telling me that logic is your basis for absolute morality and me asking you to give me a moral situation where you can explain this. Unfortunately, you have not done such a thing because it is impossible. I'm not adapating anything because it was not my point to begin with. I want to know your standard of absolute morality. You tell me it is logic. I want to know how you can use logic to determine morality. You refuse to explain it. Exactly. You would agree with my point then? That when someone is talking about moral actions, there has to be 1 fundamental axiomatic assumption that is made, and all other points come from the logical use of that assumption.

I know exactly who it was written as and it was terribly written. Is that an appeal to authority? I believe so. You do not that is a logical fallacy, right? The is/ought gap is a MORAL dillema - it has nothing to do with science. Science has nothing to do with morality and therefore it has nothing to do with the is/ought gap. Those are only is statements, they are not ought statements. You clearly don't understand the concept. If you honestly believe what you just wrote, then the reason you are arguing with me is because you don't understand what the is/ought gap is. Exactly! That is the entire point. Morality cannot be based on logical proofs - there absolutely has to be a point of faith involved if you are going to suggest absolute morality. That point comes from your very first premise - where you decide what good is. Then every other moral action can logically be deduced from that, but you have to make the primary assumption. The is/ought gap is best explained like this: You cannot move from an "is" statement to an "ought" statement without making an assumption. Meaning, no factual observation can ever cause a logical conclusion towards morality - or a "should" statement. No matter how many observations I make about survival, about people being sad when you steal from them, or anything like that - there is no logical step between those "is" statements and me saying what you "ought" to do. In absolute morality, there has to be a primary assumption. What Duke_Freedom doesn't understand in that article is the primary assumption that was made. The philosopher writing that claims that he uses "direct reason" to decide that murder is wrong - and THEN he logically shows different moral arguments using deductive reasoning. However, he never logically shows WHY direct reasoning tells him murder is wrong, he merely states it. (That is it is terribly written Duke). So Warrior, you actually do agree with me now? That when you have absolute morality you absolutely have to make at least one assumption to decide what good is (which can be based on facts, but not necessarily concluded from them) and then all forms of morality can be logically proven from that. Without at least one assumption though, an "ought" statement can never logically come from an "is" statement. Duke: You have still failed to show me an example of a logical construction of a moral statement. You're right. But there is still an assumption there (and I'm sure you're willing to admit it). That is, utilitarianism is best, or right, or good - or however you want to say it. After that initial assumption about utilitarianism, you can logically show the morality of any situation - but you need that assumption about utilitarianism first. Which is what Duke_Freedom doesn't understand.

It's interesting that you posted this link a couple days after I wrote an article about that very same finding. Strange coincidence...

There are two problems with this. The first problem I will address explains the problem of the is/ought gap - the second problem is a symptom of crossing the is/ought gap. Problem 1: All you did was explain why it is illogical to kill other people if we want to survive. When we talk about morality, we are talking about "right" and "wrong," - "good" and "bad." You have no proven your major assumption in this point to be logically true, and that is that our survival "right," or "good," and therefore actions that promote are survival are moral. It is a fact that species strive for survival, but it is not a fact that this basic instinct is a good thing. You are making an assumption about the basis of your morality, and then logically proving other events to be moral. I want you to define "good" and therefore, "moral" without any assumptions - entirely based on logic. Hint: It can't be done. Problem 2: The second problem with your scenario is a symptom of breaking the is/ought gap. In an attempt to logically define good, you assumed that any natural and biological trait is a good thing. Because of that assumption, you have now defined pedophilia to be a moral act. Do you agree?

Lots of animals show affection with their mouths, they just don't have control over their lips in the way we do.

The article was fallacious because the line about "direct reasoning" - which is the foundation of his entire point - does not offer any logic to it, which counters his entire point. I will back down from this argument if you can present me with one moral thought that comes from only logic. However, my guess is you will avoid the question entirely because it is impossible to do such a thing. The reason I have not explained why it is impossible is because you constantly avoid giving me any moral situation where you can solve it with only logic. If you gave me such a situation, I would have the resources to explain to you why the is/ought gap makes it impossible. You searching for arguments against the is/ought gap on Google doesn't mean you're presenting me with a refutation of it - that article was terribly written.

I'm not talking about Christians. I'm talking about you telling me that "fundamentalist" and "intolerance" is negative because of your personal experience.

For something that is claimed to be "impossible", I am strangely enough able to find enough critics who disagree with that opinion and who raise some interesting possible fallacious presumptions in the arguement that points out that it is "impossible" per definition. Anyway, I'm not interested in discussing the is/ought "problem", but I think this guy here summarizes my stance on it very well if you want to know my stance anyway. It also explains the standard more or less that you want to hear so gladly. If you can't explain your own theory in this debate, then walk yourself out of it.

There is a Japanese family that lives next door to me. They don't mow their lawn, they let their kids go wild around the neighborhood, and have general poor neighborhood etiquette. I know this from personal experience. Does that mean that Japanese people by definition are like that?