Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…lol, why does one associate intelligence with an inability to determine what is even right or wrong, ..…

That is not what he meant. He wasn’t implying that intelligent people have an unusual inability to determine what is so but, rather, intelligent people have a greater ability to determine when we should be uncertain of what is so which as I type this (and I have heard that there is a very nasty one going around in my area 🙁 ).[/b]

mmm, so knowing when there is doubt is a mark of intelligence, right ok, that makes sense, although it still does not solve the problem of reducing the uncertainty, so let me ask you this Andrew, i have been reading some philosophy, Nietzsche, beyond good and evil, not because i want to adopt the ideas, but to try to determine why he rejected Christianity and what he formed, in his own mind as the alternative.

the first part is relatively simple it was the death of his father and perhaps sickness and the struggle for life, but it seems to me that he failed, quite profoundly to establish an alternative morality, therefore do you think that it is possible for a human to transcend ideas of good and evil and formulate a universal morality and if so, how? and also what is this new morality, why is it better than what went before?

I hope you don't get ill, really, as for spell checkers, man the one that comes with firefox is a Yankie spell checker, takes all my English words and puts z everywhere there should be an s.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
mmm, so knowing when there is doubt is a mark of intelligence, right ok, that makes sense, although it still does not solve the problem of reducing the uncertainty, so let me ask you this Andrew, i have been reading some philosophy, Nietzsche, beyond good and evil, not because i want to adopt the ideas, but to try to determine why he rejected Christi a Yankie spell checker, takes all my English words and puts z everywhere there should be an s.

…mmm, so knowing when there is doubt is a mark of intelligence..…

No, not;
“knowing when there IS doubt”
but;
“knowing when there should be doubt”
-because that is what he meant.

Note that I am sure he meant that assertion as a generalisation rather than something to be taken to be true literally all the time -obviously it must be possible for an intelligent person to be sure of himself!

……right ok, that makes sense, although it still does not solve the problem of reducing the uncertainty...…

That’s because that is irrelevant to what he said.

…do you think that it is possible for a human to transcend ideas of good and evil and formulate a universal morality and if so, how and also what is this new morality, why is it better than what went before?
..…

Why are you suddenly talking about morality and good and evil ? I do not know what this has got to do with what just said in the last few posts.

-but, in answer to your question, I personally don’t think there is such thing as “moral” let alone “universal morality” whatever that is supposed to mean.
Therefore, I regard the question as a nonsense question that has no answer.

Personally, when I am kind or want to be kind, I am kind or want to be kind for emotional reasons rather than any “moral” belief.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…mmm, so knowing when there is doubt is a mark of intelligence..…

No, not;
“knowing when there IS doubt”
but;
“knowing when there should be doubt”
-because that is what he meant.

Note that I am sure he meant that assertion as a generalisation rather than something to be taken to be true literally all the time -obviously it m ...[text shortened]... t to be kind, I am kind or want to be kind for emotional reasons rather than any “moral” belief.[/b]

you cannot evade it quite so easily my friend (for to recognize if there should be doubt is to acknowledge that there is the possibility that doubt exists, the question of when this takes place i cannot determine why it is relevant, unless i misunderstand you, which is also possible), therefore if we are to dispense with Christianity, as taught by Christ, (im not talking about the new liberal theology which finds its definitions in pseudo scientific claims, like genetics for example thus advocating homosexuality which i provide just by way of example), then what will you replace it with. i thought that when we were talking about certainty or otherwise that it was understood that the main area of uncertainty was within the realm of morality, for other types of 'knowledge', are generally well defined, as in science for example.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you cannot evade it quite so easily my friend (for to recognize if there should be doubt is to acknowledge that there is the possibility that doubt exists, the question of when this takes place i cannot determine why it is relevant, unless i misunderstand you, which is also possible), therefore if we are to dispense with Christianity, as taught by Ch ...[text shortened]... rality, for other types of 'knowledge', are generally well defined, as in science for example.

…you cannot evade it quite so easily my friend, if we are to dispense with Christianity..…

Who said anything about “dispense with Christianity”? -not me.

……in pseudo scientific claims, like genetics for example thus advocating homosexuality ...…

Not sure what you mean here;

Are you implying that genetics is pseudo science? -if so, in what way is it pseudo science?

In what way does genetics “advocating homosexuality“? (if that is what you are saying). You can never rationally derive a moral proposition from a scientific one (although, sadly, I have, in despair, noticed on occasions that sometimes some scientists think they can and I am sure you can point out no end of so called “scientific” websites that confirm this).

…then what will you replace it with...…

If I was talking about “dispense with Christianity” (which I wasn’t) then I would ask why it would be necessary to “replace” it with something. What is the function of Christianity that cannot be preformed without it?

…it was understood that the main area of uncertainty was within the realm of morality....

For others this may or may not be true but, for me, personally, there is no “uncertainty within the realm of morality” because there is no “morality” to be “uncertain” of (nor “certain” of ).

Originally posted by dystoniac
How sad you will be when the day comes and you find out that you were wrong. If we Christians are wrong, then we have nothing to lose; we will rot in the ground alongside atheists. If atheists are wrong, then their corpses will rot and their souls will be forever dead with regret about how they lived. Think about, friend.

Pascal's Wager is an obviously faulty argument.

Originally posted by dystoniac
How sad you will be when the day comes and you find out that you were wrong. If we Christians are wrong, then we have nothing to lose; we will rot in the ground alongside atheists. If atheists are wrong, then their corpses will rot and their souls will be forever dead with regret about how they lived. Think about, friend.

Such sappy sentiments from a supposed follower of the God of Love, in expressing that love. How very nice. That little Get Out Of Jail Free card won't work, though; you gotta dig deeper than that or be lost as well.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Pascal's Wager is an obviously faulty argument.

I think you meant Porter Wagner?

Originally posted by Badwater
Such sappy sentiments from a supposed follower of the God of Love, in expressing that love. How very nice. That little Get Out Of Jail Free card won't work, though; you gotta dig deeper than that or be lost as well.

Whatever, dude. Good luck.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…you cannot evade it quite so easily my friend, if we are to dispense with Christianity..…

Who said anything about “dispense with Christianity”? -not me.

……in pseudo scientific claims, like genetics for example thus advocating homosexuality ...…

Not sure what you mean here;

Are you ...[text shortened]... e is no “morality” to be “uncertain” of (nor “certain” of ).[/b]

ah, now we are getting to the crux of the matter, what do you mean, there is no morality?

Originally posted by dystoniac
I think you meant Porter Wagner?

Erm, no.

Is it possible you've not heard of Pascal's Wager? That would explain why you present it as if it were a convincing argument, at least.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Erm, no.

Is it possible you've not heard of Pascal's Wager? That would explain why you present it as if it were a convincing argument, at least.

Yeah, I've heard of Pascal's Wager, and he had a good point, but he used the point of believing God as having nothing to lose vs. not believing and potentially going to Hell; well, God's warning and His desire for us to live eternally is not based on theory but on promise.

Originally posted by dystoniac
Yeah, I've heard of Pascal's Wager, and he had a good point, but he used the point of believing God as having nothing to lose vs. not believing and potentially going to Hell; well, God's warning and His desire for us to live eternally is not based on theory but on promise.

No, he didn't.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ah, now we are getting to the crux of the matter, what do you mean, there is no morality?

There is no “moral” nor “immoral” nor “morally right” nor “morally wrong” and no moral/ethical beliefs correspond to anything in reality other than what is purely in peoples minds and it has no rational meaning to say things like “X is morally right” etc.

Note: this is not a view reprehensive of what the majority of atheists believe and I recognise that fact.

Now I tried my best to answer your question but you haven’t answered any of mine.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
There is no “moral” nor “immoral” nor “morally right” nor “morally wrong” and no moral/ethical beliefs correspond to anything in reality other than what is purely in peoples minds and it has no rational meaning to say things like “X is morally right” etc.

Note: this is not a view reprehensive of what the majority of atheists believe and I recognis ...[text shortened]... that fact.

Now I tried my best to answer your question but you haven’t answered any of mine.

mmm i do not think that you can state that it exists merely in peoples minds, for when we see or feel or are the victim of say a moral injustice, if it only existed in the mind we would be able to calmly accept it as a mere product of the mind, but clearly many don't and thus feel compelled to act, so how does this have any basis in rationality, i do not know. sorry what was your question?

Originally posted by dystoniac
Whatever, dude. Good luck.

Good luck to you too
😵