A Challenge for Moral Realists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-01-2016, 06:52 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(17-01-2016 06:37 AM)coyote Wrote:  Oy. Don't you grasp that it is the word 'belief' that allows religionists to categorize atheism as merely one more belief system??

Don't you grasp what I wrote? Or it didn't occured to you that believers may still want to label atheists as ones who also believe regardless of their use of word belief? Didn't it occured to you that labeling atheists as different kind of believers may be caused by fear, by fear that they're right in not believing? I'm afraid that you're putting too much stock in words.

(17-01-2016 06:37 AM)coyote Wrote:  Of course I can't 'ban' you from using the word. I really don't get why multiple posters here are accusing me of trying to do that. You are free to continue using the word.... just be aware that it is exactly that usage which lowers the conversation to, and legitimizes the nonsense of, the irrational.

Did you even read what I wrote? That I try not to use said word?

(17-01-2016 06:37 AM)coyote Wrote:  I believe in global warming.
There, I've just taken all the science out of the conversation, and allowed the endless nonsense spewed by deniers to play on the same field as the abundant data and constantly-improving data models.

See how that works?

I see how that works in your mind but I doubt that one word is capable of "taking entire science" from conversation. But if you believe it then I care not.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-01-2016, 07:02 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(17-01-2016 04:04 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(17-01-2016 03:40 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  I lack the belief in space wizard cause there is no evidence for it existing. Also which may be even more important apparently parents were bad at indoctrination.


As in, you believe that the space wizard doesn't exist because the concept hasn't met it's burden of proof.


We all have beliefs, and this popular atheist dodge that we all 'lack belief in god' does nothing but muddy the waters. Do you believe god exists as anything more than a concept? No? Then you conversely believe that god is nothing more than a concept until sufficiently defined and backed by evidence. That's not a lack of belief, it is itself a belief; just with a different opinion. Once again the important underling principle is always the 'why' part, and for many of us it comes down to evidence. Good critical thinkers and those who value evidence gauge the strength of their beliefs against the weight of the available evidence or lack thereof. But a concept that lacks evidence in support of it doesn't get a 'lack of belief', you simply believe it isn't true because it fails it's burden of proof; and that belief shouldn't change without additional evidence.


Atheists do not lack a belief in gods, we believe the god concept has no merit in reality because as of yet all meaningful and falsifiable definitions have failed to meet their burden of proof.

Yet it is exactly this approach that allows religionists to contend that THEIR beliefs deserve equal weight in the classroom with YOUR beliefs. Here's how: "what caused the Universe?"
Religionist: I believe it was God.
Atheist: I believe it was the BigBang.
Followup question: "What caused your stated cause?"

See that? Right there, your beliefs are exactly equal to those of the believer. So you'd better be prepared to teach Jesus in science class.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-01-2016, 07:16 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
"I'm afraid you're putting too much stock in words" - another poster

In the process of communication, especially when not face to face, words are everything. How we deploy them makes a huge difference. All the difference really.

"I don't believe in God"

Vs

"Given there is zero available scientific evidence of the existence of God, a rational working model of the world includes no deity".

Yes the second sentence takes eight seconds longer to say. But it conversationally obliterates the penchant of religionists to say "well you don't believe but I do, my belief is at least as good as yours".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-01-2016, 07:24 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(17-01-2016 07:16 AM)coyote Wrote:  "I'm afraid you're putting too much stock in words" - another poster

In the process of communication, especially when not face to face, words are everything. How we deploy them makes a huge difference. All the difference really.

In conversation with sensible person there is no need to watch for every word, conversations with fools or indoctrinated are just waste of breath.

(17-01-2016 07:16 AM)coyote Wrote:  "I don't believe in God"

Vs

"Given there is zero available scientific evidence of the existence of God, a rational working model of the world includes no deity".

Yes the second sentence takes eight seconds longer to say. But it conversationally obliterates the penchant of religionists to say "well you don't believe but I do, my belief is at least as good as yours".

So believer will say that you believe in science so this is still the same and again you're fucked and you wasted 8 seconds of your life.

Also words "I don't believe in god" are sugesting lack of belief rather than having one I would say.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-01-2016, 07:55 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(16-01-2016 07:26 PM)coyote Wrote:  
(16-01-2016 04:52 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I just don't get the direction of, well relgionists state so I state... so what?

There is no reason to base not actually directly relevant topics to religious positions that they aren't from. Theism is the only proposition relevant to what a religious position claims.

You can be amoral, but concern for fellow humans & other creatures is using a moral value on some levels. Stevil may be truly amoral as far as any psychological/sociological layers of what moral would be. Not that it's a problem but it's a more possible thing.

Actually, it (refusing to utilize religionist language) has consequences elsewhere. Consider this statement: "I believe in evolution". Do you see a problem with that statement??

Not sure how that's relevant to my contrast.

My point is you're using a theistic/religions view of a concept to determine how you consider the idea of the concept.

There's different points here. Your rebuttal of not using religious language isn't the same topic here. I'm not saying don't ignore all possible religious people's views when in context of considering flaws of religious communication.

The simplified point is don't let religious views dictate the ideas they have no ownership of.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
17-01-2016, 04:19 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(17-01-2016 07:55 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(16-01-2016 07:26 PM)coyote Wrote:  Actually, it (refusing to utilize religionist language) has consequences elsewhere. Consider this statement: "I believe in evolution". Do you see a problem with that statement??

Not sure how that's relevant to my contrast.

My point is you're using a theistic/religions view of a concept to determine how you consider the idea of the concept.

There's different points here. Your rebuttal of not using religious language isn't the same topic here. I'm not saying don't ignore all possible religious people's views when in context of considering flaws of religious communication.

The simplified point is don't let religious views dictate the ideas they have no ownership of.
Ahhhh, but they DO own it! They own the language; almost all words and conceptualizations come down to us across centuries or millennia from societies that, lacking science, had no other option. Therefore, conveying new concepts requires linguistic precision.

And there is no word or concept more owned by religionists than BELIEVE.

I find it curious, to say the least, that folk who spew thousands of words in support of their worldview are so bafflingly resistant to being more precise about it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-01-2016, 04:40 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
At work.

Um..... Coyote? I don't think you're close to the mark there about language and its history. No
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-01-2016, 04:42 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(17-01-2016 04:40 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

Um..... Coyote? I don't think you're close to the mark there about language and its history. No
Really? At least tell me why, fer Chrissakes



(See what I did there?)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-01-2016, 04:45 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(17-01-2016 04:19 PM)coyote Wrote:  
(17-01-2016 07:55 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Not sure how that's relevant to my contrast.

My point is you're using a theistic/religions view of a concept to determine how you consider the idea of the concept.

There's different points here. Your rebuttal of not using religious language isn't the same topic here. I'm not saying don't ignore all possible religious people's views when in context of considering flaws of religious communication.

The simplified point is don't let religious views dictate the ideas they have no ownership of.
Ahhhh, but they DO own it! They own the language; almost all words and conceptualizations come down to us across centuries or millennia from societies that, lacking science, had no other option. Therefore, conveying new concepts requires linguistic precision.

And there is no word or concept more owned by religionists than BELIEVE.

I find it curious, to say the least, that folk who spew thousands of words in support of their worldview are so bafflingly resistant to being more precise about it.

Um, they own it how? You would like to make this case somehow? Besides, the topic was about the term "moral" and somehow whatever you did to decide to change it to be about "believe" is on you.. You argument is sketchy here at best anyway..

It's been a philosophical term just as long. Yes, it's not a science concept.. it's been a philosophical one outside of religion as long as it's been a so called religious one. There is no science or religious term dichotomy here. It goes back over 2 thousands of years in excessive philosophical study throughout that same millennia. The debate of belief/truth/knowledge and what is what goes back to this era as well. The concepts of moral goes back to these contexts as well and aren't hampered by religious views of it.

You just keep reverting to conversation on topics BUT THEN THEY COULD use x... so what? That's just letting fear and others dictate a conversation about actual terms you can identify. If you want to talk about topics on a conversation for the sake of the ideas then keep talking about it. You're not beholden to possible outcomes of the world to have a legitimate systematic discussion somewhere man.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-01-2016, 05:17 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(17-01-2016 04:45 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(17-01-2016 04:19 PM)coyote Wrote:  Ahhhh, but they DO own it! They own the language; almost all words and conceptualizations come down to us across centuries or millennia from societies that, lacking science, had no other option. Therefore, conveying new concepts requires linguistic precision.

And there is no word or concept more owned by religionists than BELIEVE.

I find it curious, to say the least, that folk who spew thousands of words in support of their worldview are so bafflingly resistant to being more precise about it.

Um, they own it how? You would like to make this case somehow? Besides, the topic was about the term "moral" and somehow whatever you did to decide to change it to be about "believe" is on you.. You argument is sketchy here at best anyway..

It's been a philosophical term just as long. Yes, it's not a science concept.. it's been a philosophical one outside of religion as long as it's been a so called religious one. There is no science or religious term dichotomy here. It goes back over 2 thousands of years in excessive philosophical study throughout that same millennia. The debate of belief/truth/knowledge and what is what goes back to this era as well. The concepts of moral goes back to these contexts as well and aren't hampered by religious views of it.

You just keep reverting to conversation on topics BUT THEN THEY COULD use x... so what? That's just letting fear and others dictate a conversation about actual terms you can identify. If you want to talk about topics on a conversation for the sake of the ideas then keep talking about it. You're not beholden to possible outcomes of the world to have a legitimate systematic discussion somewhere man.
Care to recite the names of the planets for me? What do you think about the current scientific pursuit of the God Particle??

How about the Hail Mary thrown by Rodgers in yesterday's game? Goddamn, that was a helluva pass! And the Seahawks tried a big comeback today, but being down 31-0 at the half they didn't really have a prayer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: