Which, in the present context, is of no moment whatsoever. What I'm missing is a reason to care. That's a perceptual problem on your end. You feel put upon because a sacred cow of yours is under attack, whereas when atheists start threads demanding this or that of theists, I find them about as "demanding" as stale beer. You're not paying much attention to this thread. I haven't tried to shut down a damn thing, obviously. Your account is nonsensical and it could hardly be otherwise, seeing you clearly have no understanding of awareness.
You haven't attacked "a sacred cow". You have attacked a straw man. Really? So you can name a single atheist here who supports precisely the position that you have outlined? You said the definition was not up for discussion. That's shutting things down. You still have yet to address my account. I pointed you to the post that contained it in the post you responded to. The closest you've come is the flippant complaint that any account I give would be too long. Curiously, that's the one part you decided to ignore in your response. This whole "Atheists haven't examined empathy closely enough, and I'll 'prove' it by steadfastly refusing to examine empathy with any depth" argument is getting old. Funny, I'm aware of the fact that I'm annoyed by it . . . and yet I'm still annoyed. That's impossible! Are you willing to discuss the account I've provided? Here's a more thorough explanation that I provided on another thread based on the summary I gave here:
Please, you wouldn't be here if I hadn't. Not gonna bother, seeing it's only gonna give you an excuse for yet more caviling. No, that's setting the boundaries of what I'm willing to discuss, just as the OP implicitly indicates that I'm willing to discuss empathy and related issues and not the history of bobsled racing. I've given it as least as much attention as it merits. If you find that unsatisfactory, take your issue to my people in Customer Service.
So no debate or discussion. I don't know why I keep expecting that you'll do anything more than troll. I guess that's what the ignore button is for. Goodbye.
Well, it is of moment in the context of the argument you were alluding to in your first post. I am not at all opposed to the idea that someone might have been sloppy when writing down the idea (and I'd be the first to criticise them for it), but if you're interested in addressing the idea rather than the grammar by which it was presented, you should have an accurate understanding of the argument. The line you quoted was relevant for the distinction between the actual argument and the straw man you easily and correctly dispatched. Ok. Welcome back when you actually do care about morality.
You have very vividly dispatched the argument you argued against, but nobody actually made that argument in the first place. The argument they actually made, you seem to have misunderstood.
Simply but definitively put, empathy is nothing more than an imaginative act. My problem is the twisted logic that would be required to reject other issues as being nothing more than imagination, then attempt to use imagination to attempt to prove a point. I believe there is a special word for that type of activity.
Vigilantism: Vicks What if a convicted armed robber decides to become a reformed citizen and undercover vigilante after serving his prison sentence? Would we believe that such a person could be like an American comic book superhero such as Batman (DC Comics)? Why do we celebrate behavior-disintegration Hollywood (USA) horror films such as "Halloween II" [1981] or the artistic value of behavior-demoralization American comic book super-villains such as Hobgoblin (Marvel Comics)? Halloween II (Film)
