Most negative presidential trait, according to the public: Atheism, of course

posted at 8:01 pm on May 19, 2014 by Allahpundit

Not the most negative conceivable trait, of course, just the most negative trait that a major candidate might plausibly have. Obviously, being an axe-murderer would hurt your chances at the White House more than atheism would. I think?

Atheism’s been at the bottom of the barrel of these polls for years now. I just like blogging them because I like to grumble, especially when “The Walking Dead” is on hiatus and I’m deprived of my natural outlet.

ath

Tough stuff — although, while it might not look it, atheism is less of a liability than it used to be. Gallup ran its own poll on presidential traits two years ago and found an interesting trend towards acceptance of the godless. People won’t vote for an atheist happily, but increasingly, they will vote for one:

g-ath

I took that as a hopeful sign when I blogged it at the time, but now that I look again, yeesh. A mere 14-point increase over 34 years? No wonder Obama hasn’t come clean yet.

But never mind all that. The Pew poll responsible for today’s atheism tidbit covers a lot of ground and has some verrrry interesting data bearing on 2016. Look again at the first table above and compare the number who say being a governor is a positive trait to the number who say Washington experience is. See now why Bush, Christie, and Walker are all thinking so intently about getting in? Another figure from the same poll is even more striking. In 1987, when people were asked whether being a member of Congress or being a governor was better preparation for the presidency, 66 percent said the former versus just 22 percent who said the latter. That gap’s been narrowing ever since, to the point where the two are now treated by equal numbers as the better qualification — 44 percent apiece in today’s poll.

The identity-politics nuances are interesting too. Thirty-five percent of Latinos say they’d be more willing to support a Latino candidate, which helps explain why Julian Castro is suddenly in line for a cabinet position. And note this one:

wom

You already knew that lefties are in “it’s time” mode when it comes to electing the first woman president, but this shows the magnitude of Hillary’s pioneer appeal. See now why economic populism isn’t going to make Jim Webb viable in a Democratic primary against her? She couldn’t checkmate Obama with her break-the-glass-ceiling message in 2008 because the novelty of his candidacy was even more profound than hers. In 2016, though, unless another woman challenges her, the First Woman President brand is going to be all the lefty cred she realistically needs to keep liberals off her back in a primary and at the polls in the general.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6

My PERSONAL RELEVANCE is immaterial in the grand scheme of things. Obviously I value my family more than the dung beetle, but time values neither.

Didn’t think it would be necessary to have to spell that out for you.

mazer9 on May 21, 2014 at 4:15 PM

If your own personal relevance is immateriality – then why should your own values matter at all?

Your empty insane philosophy has truly rendered you a dung beetle in all things.

By your own admission you are nothing more than a collection of chemical processes. And so are your fellow insects.

Augustinian on May 21, 2014 at 4:26 PM

I appear to believe what as a “point of faith”? We went from talking about morals and standards to “natural law”, which I said nothing about. It’s like we are having two entirely separate debates here. Could you please be more clear?

When I think of “natural law” I think of things like Gravity. Not sure what that has to do with morals.

mazer9 on May 21, 2014 at 4:21 PM

You are ignorant of America’s founding principles.

Are you seriously unable to see societies are capable of doing self-destructive things such as declaring societally damaging behaviors ‘moral?’

I have to go, but I’ll be back in a couple of hours. I really am flabbergasted at your inability to understand this point.

fadetogray on May 21, 2014 at 4:37 PM

This illustrates perfectly the problem with religious belief.

mazer9 on May 21, 2014 at 3:26 PM

If as you claim, you are nothing but chemical reactions, why are you so down on others who are dancing to their DNA?

davidk on May 21, 2014 at 4:42 PM

fadetogray on May 21, 2014 at 3:22 PM

I am talking about people like Peter, Paul, Lazarus, and Jesus the Christ.

davidk on May 21, 2014 at 4:44 PM

I have to go, but I’ll be back in a couple of hours. I really am flabbergasted at your inability to understand this point.

fadetogray on May 21, 2014 at 4:37 PM

I know how you feel.

Just look at his responses in my exchanges.

Augustinian on May 21, 2014 at 4:45 PM

mazer9 et.al., I know that God exists the same way you know that the chair you sat on would hold you and not crash to the floor.

Based on reason, experience, and observation, you know that it would hold you. You believed that it would hold you–you had faith that it would hold you because you knew it would hold you.

Now, given the second law of thermodynamics, you also know that some day it will not hold you or some future person or dog. But for now you had faith that it would because you knew it would.

I believe that God exists, have faith that He exists because I know He exists. I know based on reason, experience, and observation.

davidk on May 21, 2014 at 4:51 PM

If your own personal relevance is immateriality – then why should your own values matter at all?

Your empty insane philosophy has truly rendered you a dung beetle in all things.

By your own admission you are nothing more than a collection of chemical processes. And so are your fellow insects.

Augustinian on May 21, 2014 at 4:26 PM

Because I and other humans place a value on them. The universe doesn’t care however.

I’m sorry that you find that “empty”. It is what it is. Again, your ego won’t allow you to accept the obvious.

mazer9 on May 21, 2014 at 5:09 PM

mazer9 et.al., I know that God exists the same way you know that the chair you sat on would hold you and not crash to the floor.

Based on reason, experience, and observation, you know that it would hold you. You believed that it would hold you–you had faith that it would hold you because you knew it would hold you.

Now, given the second law of thermodynamics, you also know that some day it will not hold you or some future person or dog. But for now you had faith that it would because you knew it would.

I believe that God exists, have faith that He exists because I know He exists. I know based on reason, experience, and observation.

davidk on May 21, 2014 at 4:51 PM

You “know” for the same reasons Muslims “know” there god exists.

It’s absurd to compare religious faith to sitting in a chair.

It’s more like walking off a 10-story building and expecting not to crash land.

mazer9 on May 21, 2014 at 5:11 PM

If as you claim, you are nothing but chemical reactions, why are you so down on others who are dancing to their DNA?

davidk on May 21, 2014 at 4:42 PM

I don’t know. Why are Christians down on Muslims?

mazer9 on May 21, 2014 at 5:12 PM

You are ignorant of America’s founding principles.

Are you seriously unable to see societies are capable of doing self-destructive things such as declaring societally damaging behaviors ‘moral?’

I have to go, but I’ll be back in a couple of hours. I really am flabbergasted at your inability to understand this point.

fadetogray on May 21, 2014 at 4:37 PM

Societies are capable of doing a lot of things for various reasons. “Morality” is an evolving human construct.

Pick up your bible. What was considered “moral” a couple thousand years ago wouldn’t be tolerated today. At least not in our country.

mazer9 on May 21, 2014 at 5:16 PM

Because I and other humans place a value on them. The universe doesn’t care however.

I’m sorry that you find that “empty”. It is what it is. Again, your ego won’t allow you to accept the obvious.

mazer9 on May 21, 2014 at 5:09 PM

So…. you have relevance and rights because you “believe” you have them. That’s some magical faith you have there. It’s purely subjective of course. My what an ego you have.

And when others who are more powerful come along who don’t believe as you do – then what?

Augustinian on May 21, 2014 at 5:21 PM

You “know” for the same reasons Muslims I “know” there god exists my relevance and rights exist.

mazer9 on May 21, 2014 at 5:11 PM

*Edited for ironic accuracy*

Augustinian on May 21, 2014 at 5:24 PM

*Edited for ironic accuracy*

Augustinian on May 21, 2014 at 5:24 PM

Please humor me as to the irony. Your comparing invisible gods to things that actually exist.

mazer9 on May 21, 2014 at 5:35 PM

Please humor me as to the irony. Your comparing invisible gods to things that actually exist.

mazer9 on May 21, 2014 at 5:35 PM

Relevance and rights exist? Really?

Because you said they were all a matter of belief. In other words a matter of faith. You and others “place a value on them”.

See. Now you’re arguing with yourself.

Augustinian on May 21, 2014 at 5:42 PM

Please humor me as to the irony. Your comparing invisible gods to things that actually exist.

mazer9 on May 21, 2014 at 5:35 PM

uhm….. you’re comparing invisible gods to your invisible baseless beliefs.

The irony overfloweth in this one.

Augustinian on May 21, 2014 at 5:44 PM

I appear to believe what as a “point of faith”? We went from talking about morals and standards to “natural law”, which I said nothing about. It’s like we are having two entirely separate debates here. Could you please be more clear?

When I think of “natural law” I think of things like Gravity. Not sure what that has to do with morals.

mazer9 on May 21, 2014 at 4:21 PM

I said nothing about Islam or Muslims.

I have to assume by your responses that not only do you not understand natural law you do not understand reason and logical discourse.

As long as you cling to a naturalistic presupposition (a supposition you accept by faith) we will not be able to come even close on any agreement in these matters.

davidk on May 21, 2014 at 5:53 PM

Societies are capable of doing a lot of things for various reasons. “Morality” is an evolving human construct.

Pick up your bible. What was considered “moral” a couple thousand years ago wouldn’t be tolerated today. At least not in our country.

mazer9 on May 21, 2014 at 5:16 PM

You appear to be so wedded to the idea that the label holds all of the meaning that you cannot conceive of any other way of looking at it.

Clearly there are behaviors more compatible with highly mobile, technologically advanced urban societies than they are with much less mobile and less technologically advanced agrarian societies. That has nothing to do with natural law, only in how it applies.

For instance, in either kind of society freedom of speech will generally enhance the power of the society and the well being of its members. That’s just the way humans are wired and their societies can be made to thrive. Responsible citizens having the right to defend themselves and having some kind of say in the decisions made by the society in general regarding law and war are also rules of society that benefit it and cross all the way from biblical times to the present.

That you cannot see this basic reality can lead you down all kinds of crazy paths of runaway moral equivalence and default psychopathy.

BTW, I don’t have a bible. I am a deist.

fadetogray on May 21, 2014 at 6:36 PM

Satan, Your Kingdom Must Come Down, -Robert Plant

Akzed on May 21, 2014 at 7:53 PM

Societies are capable of doing a lot of things for various reasons. “Morality” is an evolving human construct.

Pick up your bible. What was considered “moral” a couple thousand years ago wouldn’t be tolerated today. At least not in our country.

mazer9 on May 21, 2014 at 5:16 PM

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” – G.K.Chesterton

Well now, since morality is an “evolving human construct” and rights and relevance are entirely dependent on the “values we place on them” (all according to your vacuous zeitgeist philosophy) you’ll be perfectly okay when concentration camps and gulags evolve back into this morally bankrupt “value” system of ours – won’t you?

Augustinian on May 21, 2014 at 8:23 PM

As long as you cling to a naturalistic presupposition (a supposition you accept by faith) we will not be able to come even close on any agreement in these matters.

davidk on May 21, 2014 at 5:53 PM

Naturalistic presupposition as opposed to what? A supernatural one?

OK.

mazer9 on May 21, 2014 at 9:33 PM

Well now, since morality is an “evolving human construct” and rights and relevance are entirely dependent on the “values we place on them” (all according to your vacuous zeitgeist philosophy) you’ll be perfectly okay when concentration camps and gulags evolve back into this morally bankrupt “value” system of ours – won’t you?

Augustinian on May 21, 2014 at 8:23 PM

No because those aren’t my moral values. I’m sure a person living in old testament times wouldn’t have even blinked.

How many Southerners not even 200 years ago had a problem with slavery? Now billionaires lose basketball teams as a result of racism.

mazer9 on May 21, 2014 at 9:37 PM

you’re comparing invisible gods to your invisible baseless beliefs.

The irony overfloweth in this one.

Augustinian on May 21, 2014 at 5:44 PM

Why would I compare invisible gods to anything? I might as well be comparing invisible unicorns.

mazer9 on May 21, 2014 at 9:39 PM

So…. you have relevance and rights because you “believe” you have them. That’s some magical faith you have there. It’s purely subjective of course. My what an ego you have.

And when others who are more powerful come along who don’t believe as you do – then what?

Augustinian on May 21, 2014 at 5:21 PM

It takes very little “faith” to know I feel happiness. You should really look the word up in a dictionary.

mazer9 on May 21, 2014 at 9:41 PM

Why would I compare invisible gods to anything? I might as well be comparing invisible unicorns.

mazer9 on May 21, 2014 at 9:39 PM

Now you’re comparing invisible unicorns to your invisible baseless beliefs.

Oh and – your beliefs are still invisible and baseless.

Obfuscate much?

Augustinian on May 21, 2014 at 9:47 PM

No because those aren’t my moral values. I’m sure a person living in old testament times wouldn’t have even blinked.

How many Southerners not even 200 years ago had a problem with slavery? Now billionaires lose basketball teams as a result of racism.

mazer9 on May 21, 2014 at 9:37 PM

Actually those were moral values to the Nazi’s and the Communists because they placed value on them.

And how can you possibly criticize any of them when you clearly stated that morality is an “evolving human construct” and rights and relevance are entirely dependent on the “values we place on them”?

You have no basis for your “morality” other than popular opinion of the age.

And the Nazi’s agreed with you. They called it “Might makes Right”.

Augustinian on May 21, 2014 at 9:52 PM

It takes very little “faith” to know I feel happiness. You should really look the word up in a dictionary.

mazer9 on May 21, 2014 at 9:41 PM

And people claim they know God – and yet, you demand proof not faith.

So show me empirical evidence of your “happiness”.

Augustinian on May 21, 2014 at 9:54 PM

And people claim they know God – and yet, you demand proof not faith.

So show me empirical evidence of your “happiness”.

Augustinian on May 21, 2014 at 9:54 PM

Does a feeling and a supposed being have the same burden of proof?

Really?

mazer9 on May 21, 2014 at 10:52 PM

Does a feeling and a supposed being have the same burden of proof?

Really?

mazer9 on May 21, 2014 at 10:52 PM

Both are experienced internally. And what makes you think the supposed being is separate from your ability to experience those feelings in the first place?

What purpose do those feelings serve?

Augustinian on May 21, 2014 at 11:02 PM

Does a feeling and a supposed being have the same burden of proof?

Really?

mazer9 on May 21, 2014 at 10:52 PM

If an internal experience is real to you even though it is impossible for you to objectively prove – what makes you so sure that other more profound experiences do not also exist beyond the limits of empirical evidence?

Augustinian on May 21, 2014 at 11:09 PM

Actually those were moral values to the Nazi’s and the Communists because they placed value on them.

And how can you possibly criticize any of them when you clearly stated that morality is an “evolving human construct” and rights and relevance are entirely dependent on the “values we place on them”?

You have no basis for your “morality” other than popular opinion of the age.

And the Nazi’s agreed with you. They called it “Might makes Right”.

Augustinian on May 21, 2014 at 9:52 PM

Why does it evolve? Because people and their standards change over time and place. My particular morality isn’t the same as was practiced in Nazi Germany. It is for that reason I and many others condemn it.

I’m pretty sure if I existed 2,000 years ago, I might have seen things differently.

And as far as my “basis” is concerned if I am positing that morality is a human construct and I am indeed a human, then it’s pretty apparent that I have a basis for morality.

mazer9 on May 21, 2014 at 11:09 PM

Why does it evolve? Because people and their standards change over time and place. My particular morality isn’t the same as was practiced in Nazi Germany. It is for that reason I and many others condemn it.

I’m pretty sure if I existed 2,000 years ago, I might have seen things differently.

mazer9 on May 21, 2014 at 11:09 PM

You have no moral basis on which to condemn any of it other than the popular opinion of your given time. And what happens when popular opinion “evolves” again? Your moral constructs are as tenuous as the shifting sands.

On what moral basis will you object to the new immoral behaviors to come?

Augustinian on May 21, 2014 at 11:15 PM

And as far as my “basis” is concerned if I am positing that morality is a human construct and I am indeed a human, then it’s pretty apparent that I have a basis for morality.

mazer9 on May 21, 2014 at 11:09 PM

In other words, morality is whatever you say it is.

Brilliant.

Augustinian on May 21, 2014 at 11:16 PM

If an internal experience is real to you even though it is impossible for you to objectively prove – what makes you so sure that other more profound experiences do not also exist beyond the limits of empirical evidence?

Augustinian on May 21, 2014 at 11:09 PM

How “profound” are they if they are “beyond the limits of empirical evidence”?

Moreover me claiming happiness and that unicorns exist are to completely different types of claims requiring different standards of evidence.

mazer9 on May 21, 2014 at 11:24 PM

In other words, morality is whatever you say it is.

Brilliant.

Augustinian on May 21, 2014 at 11:16 PM

Morality has always been whatever we say it its.

mazer9 on May 21, 2014 at 11:25 PM

And as far as my “basis” is concerned if I am positing that morality is a human construct and I am indeed a human, then it’s pretty apparent that I have a basis for morality.

mazer9 on May 21, 2014 at 11:09 PM

Humans are nothing more than a collection of chemical processes – just like every other insignificant species. You said so yourself.

Therefore the dung beetle has just as much of a claim on “morality” as you do.

Again. Your arguments are simply brilliant.

Augustinian on May 21, 2014 at 11:25 PM

Humans are nothing more than a collection of chemical processes – just like every other insignificant species. You said so yourself.

Therefore the dung beetle has just as much of a claim on “morality” as you do.

Again. Your arguments are simply brilliant.

Augustinian on May 21, 2014 at 11:25 PM

Do we talk about the morality of sharks when they eat humans? No.

You know why we don’t? Because like I’ve said before morality is a HUMAN CONSTRUCT.

mazer9 on May 21, 2014 at 11:27 PM

How “profound” are they if they are “beyond the limits of empirical evidence”?

mazer9 on May 21, 2014 at 11:24 PM

You tell me. Is your “love” for your wife profound?

Or basically insignificant?

Moreover me claiming happiness and that unicorns exist are to completely different types of claims requiring different standards of evidence.

From where does your ability and need for “happiness” come?

Augustinian on May 21, 2014 at 11:28 PM

Morality has always been whatever we say it its.

mazer9 on May 21, 2014 at 11:25 PM

Actually no. The basis of morality has its basis in unalienable rights based on Natural Law.

But as far as your position goes, the Nazis and Communist were perfectly moral in their crimes against humanity.

Again. Brilliant.

Augustinian on May 21, 2014 at 11:31 PM

Do we talk about the morality of sharks when they eat humans? No.

You know why we don’t? Because like I’ve said before morality is a HUMAN CONSTRUCT.

mazer9 on May 21, 2014 at 11:27 PM

Uhm…. pssst.

You said human existence was nothing more than chemical processes. Remember that? And uhm…. that’s true of the shark as well.

So what makes humans special?

Augustinian on May 21, 2014 at 11:35 PM

Uhm…. pssst.

You said human existence was nothing more than chemical processes. Remember that? And uhm…. that’s true of the shark as well.

So what makes humans special?

Augustinian on May 21, 2014 at 11:35 PM

Humans have evolved a more advanced brain that gives us a consciousness that no other animal has. It is what makes us human.

We humans even have insanity pleas which recognizes the fact that due to mental disorders (chemical imbalances) some people aren’t fully responsible for their actions due to the fact that they lack control over their actions.

mazer9 on May 21, 2014 at 11:47 PM

Actually no. The basis of morality has its basis in unalienable rights based on Natural Law.

But as far as your position goes, the Nazis and Communist were perfectly moral in their crimes against humanity.

Again. Brilliant.

Augustinian on May 21, 2014 at 11:31 PM

There you go again attributing a human phenomenon to your supernatural friend with absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

My position is that humans determine their own morality. My own particular moral position is irrelevant to that fact. Ultimately the position that matters is that of the prevailing morality.

Nazis lived in an era where there morality wasn’t the prevailing one. Perhaps at another time in human history, it would have been a different story.

A perfect example is the US 150 years ago compared to today.

mazer9 on May 21, 2014 at 11:57 PM

Humans have evolved a more advanced brain that gives us a consciousness that no other animal has. It is what makes us human.

mazer9 on May 21, 2014 at 11:47 PM

Uhm… you do know that other species have consciousness. Right?

But wait – what about people in comas. Are they no longer human?

Or what about people who have lost consciousness when they pass out – do they cease to be human at that time?

Augustinian on May 21, 2014 at 11:57 PM

There you go again attributing a human phenomenon to your supernatural friend with absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

mazer9 on May 21, 2014 at 11:57 PM

Well that’s strange, because you have yet to give me any evidence that your own internal feelings actually exist. And yet you “believe” they are real. So I guess your faith is special.

My position is that humans determine their own morality. My own particular moral position is irrelevant to that fact. Ultimately the position that matters is that of the prevailing morality.

Nazis lived in an era where there morality wasn’t the prevailing one. Perhaps at another time in human history, it would have been a different story.

A perfect example is the US 150 years ago compared to today.

Yeah, like I said before: you have no moral basis on which to condemn any of it other than the popular opinion of your given time. And what happens when popular opinion “evolves” again? Your moral constructs are as tenuous as the shifting sands.

On what moral basis will you object to the new immoral behaviors to come?

“Morality” based on the opinions of the age isn’t morality at all. It’s simply amoral consensus.

Augustinian on May 22, 2014 at 12:05 AM

Well that’s strange, because you have yet to give me any evidence that your own internal feelings actually exist. And yet you “believe” they are real. So I guess your faith is special.

Why would you require evidence of MY INTERNAL FEELINGS? They are my feelings. The request just sounds absurd on its face.

Yeah, like I said before: you have no moral basis on which to condemn any of it other than the popular opinion of your given time.

No. I have my moral basis. Whether anybody else might agree with it is up for debate. Ultimately the prevailing morality is what will win the day. We don’t exist in vacuums. We live in societies with other people. Morality is a societal as well as a human construct.

And what happens when popular opinion “evolves” again? Your moral constructs are as tenuous as the shifting sands.

There’s ample evidence throughout history that the prevailing morality shits. Again look at the US now commpared to 150 years ago.

On what moral basis will you object to the new immoral behaviors to come?

Mine. Again, it doesn’t mean anybody else will agree with it or that it would be the prevailing one, but it will still be mine nonetheless.

“Morality” based on the opinions of the age isn’t morality at all. It’s simply amoral consensus.

You saying it isn’t doesn’t make it so.

mazer9 on May 22, 2014 at 12:26 AM

Uhm… you do know that other species have consciousness. Right?

But wait – what about people in comas. Are they no longer human?

Or what about people who have lost consciousness when they pass out – do they cease to be human at that time?

Augustinian on May 21, 2014 at 11:57 PM

I find it of particular interest you left out the scenario where a person lose permanent function of their brain.

Passing out and comas are temporary states of being.

And I do realize that other higher animals have consciousness. They very well might feel some moral obligation to one another as a result. Hard to say though given our inability to talk to them about their views on morality.

mazer9 on May 22, 2014 at 12:41 AM

“Morality” based on the opinions of the age isn’t morality at all. It’s simply amoral consensus.

You saying it isn’t doesn’t make it so.

mazer9 on May 22, 2014 at 12:26 AM

That”s what A’s been saying to you all along.

As long as you cling to a naturalistic presupposition (a supposition you accept by faith) we will not be able to come even close on any agreement in these matters.

davidk on May 21, 2014 at 5:53 PM

Naturalistic presupposition as opposed to what? A supernatural one?

OK.

mazer9 on May 21, 2014 at 9:33 PM

As opposed to a metaphysical one.

OK?

davidk on May 22, 2014 at 7:54 AM

Why would you require evidence of MY INTERNAL FEELINGS? They are my feelings. The request just sounds absurd on its face.

mazer9 on May 22, 2014 at 12:26 AM

Yes of course. You consider your “feelings” to be reality – even though their “reality” consists of absolutely no empirical evidence whatsoever. They are purely an internal experience beyond the limits physical proof, and yet you accept them as “reality”, which is in essence the exact same paradigm for religious faith. Especially Christianity. You accept your own personal faith of feelings simply because you “know” it through some sort of unprovable “experiences” and that’s perfect fine for you. But when someone else claims to know an even more profound internal spiritual/religious experience you hypocritically yell “Yeah right! What a load of crap! That’s nonsense! Show me the proof! Show me the proof! I demand it! If you can’t physically see, feel, and hear it – it ain’t real!!!”

So yeah, you’re not only intellectually vapid and trite – you’re overall shallow, dense, and completely lacking any sense of introspection. But most of all, you’re a hypocrite who fanatically evangelizes his own form of myopic beliefs.

No. I have my moral basis. Whether anybody else might agree with it is up for debate. Ultimately the prevailing morality is what will win the day. We don’t exist in vacuums. We live in societies with other people. Morality is a societal as well as a human construct.

Congratulations. Once again you’ve embraced the Nazi mantra of “Might makes right”. Which is tantamount to mob rule. Like I said before, that’s not morality – it’s an amoral consensus formed out of the survival of the fittest. You don’t actually hear yourself, much less even understand the true depths of your own self-defeating premise, do you. Well no. Obviously not.

There’s ample evidence throughout history that the prevailing morality shits. Again look at the US now commpared to 150 years ago.

I have no idea what that intellectually flaccid slang statement is even suppose to mean. And I seriously doubt that you do either. Your contextual understanding of human history (which is very limited in scope and depth) reads like a propaganda comic-book straight from the bowels of Marxism. All immoral acts eventually cycle back around because shallow self-serving troglodytes like yourself are always ready to bastardize morality for your own selfish gain. Your type always makes the largest goodness very very small in order to fit it into your own childish ego.

On what moral basis will you object to the new immoral behaviors to come?

Mine. Again, it doesn’t mean anybody else will agree with it or that it would be the prevailing one, but it will still be mine nonetheless.

And once again, the circular self-serving reasoning of one hand clapping in unison with self. Be sure to use that brilliant argument if ever the popular consensus asks you why they shouldn’t take you and your loved ones away into captivity and death.

You saying it isn’t doesn’t make it so.

And there we have it. Your entire philosophical premise summarized in the standard axiom of the spoiled 9 year old.

You do realize that the reasoning of that statement utterly defeats itself- right? Well, no. Of course you don’t

*sigh*

Augustinian on May 22, 2014 at 11:20 AM

I find it of particular interest you left out the scenario where a person lose permanent function of their brain.

mazer9 on May 22, 2014 at 12:41 AM

By all means include them, too. There was no deceptive intent in their lack of inclusion. I consider them to be fully human. In fact their inclusion strengthens my point. So thank you for pointing that out.

And your point is?

Oh that’s right, your point has to be (according to the basis of your line of reasoning) that they are no longer human.

So you would be fine with eliminating them.

Passing out and comas are temporary states of being.

And I do realize that other higher animals have consciousness. They very well might feel some moral obligation to one another as a result. Hard to say though given our inability to talk to them about their views on morality.

Temporary or not – my question to you was – do they cease to be human during those periods. And yeah, I did notice that you skirted that point entirely. Because you’re intellectually dishonest.

And following the line of reasoning you’ve establish – why should humans have any higher moral relevance than animals?

Why shouldn’t animals have an even higher relevance than humans?

Augustinian on May 22, 2014 at 11:34 AM

“Morality” based on the opinions of the age isn’t morality at all. It’s simply amoral consensus.

You saying it isn’t doesn’t make it so.

mazer9 on May 22, 2014 at 12:26 AM

That”s what A’s been saying to you all along.

davidk on May 22, 2014 at 7:54 AM

Thank you David. Can you believe this guy?

I can’t tell if this is intentional obfuscation on his part or if he is truly that dense. Either way, it’s like debating a child.

“No sceptical philosopher can ask any questions that may not equally be asked by a tired child on a hot afternoon.” – G.K.Chesterton

Augustinian on May 22, 2014 at 11:37 AM

As opposed to a metaphysical one.

OK?

davidk on May 22, 2014 at 7:54 AM

I can guarantee you that that went over his head by a light-year mile.

Trees have more awareness of being.

Augustinian on May 22, 2014 at 11:44 AM

As opposed to a metaphysical one.

OK?

davidk on May 22, 2014 at 7:54 AM

I can guarantee you that that went over his head by a light-year mile.

Trees have more awareness of being.

Augustinian on May 22, 2014 at 11:44 AM

So many who are steeped in worldviews informed by the Hegelian dialectic cannot (maybe refuse to) see a tertium quid.

davidk on May 22, 2014 at 12:38 PM

I can’t tell if this is intentional obfuscation on his part or if he is truly that dense. Either way, it’s like debating a child.

Trying to debate a postmodernist is like trying to herd cats.

davidk on May 22, 2014 at 12:39 PM

Trying to debate a postmodernist is like trying to herd cats.

davidk on May 22, 2014 at 12:39 PM

argumentum ad consequentiam

mazer9 on May 22, 2014 at 1:36 PM

mazer9

reductio ad absurdum

davidk on May 22, 2014 at 3:27 PM

So many who are steeped in worldviews informed by the Hegelian dialectic cannot (maybe refuse to) see a tertium quid.

davidk on May 22, 2014 at 12:38 PM

“The whole secret of mysticism is this: that man can understand everything by the help of what he does not understand. The morbid logician seeks to make everything lucid, and succeeds in making everything mysterious. The mystic allows one thing to be mysterious, and everything else becomes lucid” – G.K.Chesterton

Augustinian on May 22, 2014 at 3:46 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6