re political atheists kcochran nyx cs du edu keith justified and ancient cochran writes how many contridictions do you want to see good question if i claim something is a general trend then to disprove this i guess you d have to show that it was not a general trend no if you re going to claim something then it is up to you to prove it think cold fusion well i ve provided examples to show that the trend was general and you or others have provided some counterexamples mostly ones surrounding mating practices etc i don t think that these few cases are enough to disprove the general trend of natural morality and again the mating practices need to be reexamined try to find immoral non mating related activities so you re excluding mating related activities from your natural morality no but mating practices are a special case i ll have to think about it some more yes i think that the natural system can be objectively deduced with the goal of species propogation in mind but i am not equating the two as you so think that is an objective system isn t necessarily the natural one are you or are you not the man who wrote a natural moral system is the objective moral system that most animals follow indeed but while the natural system is objective all objective systems are not the natural one so the terms can not be equated the natural system is a subset of the objective ones now since homosexuality has been observed in most animals including birds and dolphins are you going to claim that most animals have the capacity of being immoral i don t claim that homosexuality is immoral it isn t harmful although it isn t helpful either to the mating process and when you say that homosexuality is observed in the animal kingdom don t you mean bisexuality because we can t determine to what end we should be moral are you claiming to be a group we usually implies more than one entity this is standard jargon read any textbook the we forms are used throughout well i m saying that these goals are not inherent that is why they must be postulates because there is not really a way to determine them otherwise although it could be argued that they arise from the natural goal but they are somewhat removed postulate to assume posit that s right the goals themselves aren t inherent i can create a theory with a postulate that the sun revolves around the earth that the moon is actually made of green cheese and the stars are the portions of angels that intrudes into three dimensional reality you could but such would contradict observations i can build a mathematical proof with a postulate that given the length of one side of a triangle the length of a second side of the triangle and the degree of angle connecting them i can determine the length of the third side but a postulate is something that is generally or always found to be true i don t think your postulate would be valid guess which one people are going to be more receptive to in order to assume something about your system you have to be able to show that your postulates work yes and i think the goals of survival and happiness do work you think they don t or are they not good goals keith
