Jason Streitfeld left a comment on the last post. I'd use the more conventional word "responded", except he didn't really do that.
Given his apparently bulletproof penchant for "I say it, therefore that's the way it is,"-type statements, one wonders whether he is a convert to atheism out of the Tony Alamo school of "Christianity", or was previously a disciple of one of those screaming preacher types who goes to university campuses and harangues the student passers-by with indiscriminate promises of Hell as final destination, near-universal refusal to engage in dialogue, stubborn conviction of Pelagian sinlessness, and utter cluelessness as to grace, tact, and irony.
I say this because his "rebuttals" never get beyond the level of naked pontification. If anyone is inclined to bow down and give his undying allegiance to Jason, I guess this kind of decree-from-on-high might be convincing.
I'll take your points as numbered.
1) Yes, I suppose I might be wrong. Up to the dissenter to provide an argument for that.
Knowing sthg "100%" is a bit unclear - how does that differ from knowing sthg infallibly? Just for the sake of argument, I'll say yes, I know 100% that all humans are created in God's image, b/c the Bible says so.
No need to go by DNA - that wouldn't have been available for most of human history. It's pretty easy - if an organism looks like a human and is the product of the union from two human parents, that organism is human. Sometimes a spade really is a spade. Humanity is a matter of ontology, not performance.
Chimp DNA is not close enough, no. And it doesn't matter what anyone THINKS - it remains true that a Jewish person is a human made in the image of God.
2) If you really recognise the is/ought distinction, I'd expect you to act consistently with that recognition, but I see virtually no such recognition in your writing.
Amazingly, though I've taken great pains to explain why your bogus "explanation" of how reason "informs" morality and how unreliable emotions are, you simply point me back to what you've already said. No need to go further here - feel free to engage the arguments anytime. You have a whole holiday weekend to do so.
3)Of course, we do care about lots of things. We wouldn't have survived natural selection if we didn't.
And? More is/ought conflation. This is precisely what I mean. Tell me WHY we OUGHT TO care about things, one thing, anything.
And the fact that we don't always agree only indicates that it takes work to live together.
Which speaks not at all to whether we OUGHT TO WANT TO live together. You're a walking begged question.
That's what morality is about--working together and getting along.
The great Pontifex Jason hath so decreed it, eh?
What is your argument for that? I don't grant that in the slightest.
I've explained at length why your assertion that "Christianity can" is, at best, unfounded, and at worst, a threat to the very well being of humanity.
*snort* As close as you've come is to make an vague and rather gauche assertion that God is by definition incoherent. Anyone can play that game. Materialistic atheism is by definition incoherent. Anyway, like I said, I'll get to that later.
Let me try to help you understand. Humor me for a moment. Pretend, just for the sake of argument, that Christianity is true. In what way, according to Christian teaching (aka, performing an internal critique) does Christianity fail to fulfill this? Prove your assertion, and remember - since this is an internal critique, you can have no recourse to your (question-begging) personal moral convictions.
I think I speak for most everyone reading when I say that no one cares about what YOU think on what is good and what is bad. We want to see ARGUMENTS.
I've also explained at length how my understanding of morality does, in fact, allow for objective moral judgments.
If you're not planning to interact with my numerous rebuttals on that score, I'm more than happy to leave that point where it is.
The irrational approach negates the very possibility of discourse, and so it is antagonistic to morality.
Make an argument!!!!! An argument!!! It's as if you've never heard the word "argument" before.
Let me try to help. Answer these questions:
1. Is it bad to be antagonistic to "morality"?
2. How do you know?
3. Why is it bad?
4. Why is discourse an integral part of morality?
5. How do you know that?
Answer those questions and it'll be a start. And seriously, spare me the naked assertions and "Well, that's just how it is" that you've been feeding up to this point.
And I can say, objectively, for rational agents at all times and places, that an approach to morality which rejects the possibility of negotiating values is immoral.
How do you know?
Are you not going to interact with the numerous rebuttals I posted on this very topic?