Still, the crucial point historically is that the Europeans had in fact arrived; and while that may well have been difficult to demonstrate at the very beginning, how easily might it have been in the years that followed?
Given for example all the facts contained in this assessment: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_ … e_Americas
Bottom line [mine]: In the either/or world facts are there. But, in a No God world, mere mortals are either able to ascertain them or they are not.
Same with Buddhists and karma and enlightenment here and now and reincarnation and Nirvana there and then. What Buddhist beliefs can in fact be demonstrated about them in regard to their reactions to the coronavirus here and now as that impacts on how they imagine these behaviors will translate into their fate there and then.
Or in regard to any other behaviors in which conflicting goods and conflicting assessments of the afterlife manifest themselves in any particular context.
Exploring that part is either important to folks here or it is not. If it is not, then they are advised to avoid my posts here altogether.
How utterly preposterous! Like if someone cannot actually demonstrate to me things that clearly can be demonstrated – re physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, meteorology, geology, demography, the rules of logic, etc. – it must be true only in their minds.
Like at the recent Harvey Weinstein trial [in regard to rape and sexual assault] there were not any number of facts brought forth able to establish that which reasonable men and women on the jury were obligated to believe.
But: sans God there are still any number of nihilists and narcissists and sociopaths out there able to rationalize his behaviors merely by shifting the focus of human morality to that which satisfies their own perceived wants and needs.
Then this part…
I will leave it to others to arrive at their own conclusions regarding the extent to which this reveals more about him than about me.
I have my own conjectures of course. It’s just that in the past I would get this sort of reaction from the objectivists. And I always presumed it revolved around the extent to which my own arguments were increasingly chipping away at theirs. They would become ever more perturbed as they began to imagine what the consequences might be for their own “real me” in sync with the “right thing to do” if my point of view actually did make more sense in a No God world.
But KT seems to share many of the same assumptions that I do about morality in a No God world.
What then could be the source of his own fulminations above? Again, I have my own suspicions. And they revolve around the distance between my reaction and his reaction to being a “fractured and fragmented” personality.
But here he has to be willing to bring his philosophical assumptions down out of the clouds and examine them with me given a particular context. Given my own philosophical assumptions derived from the arguments made in my signature threads.