A Deconstruction of the Moral Argument
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-05-2014, 08:15 PM
RE: A Deconstruction of the Moral Argument
(12-05-2014 08:08 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  ..... aaaaaaand he's managed to change the topic again. Slippery like an eel. Anyhow, since he's not talking to me any more, I'll talk to the rest of you.

I'm starting to think JW doesn't actually know what he's talking about.

... no, actually, I've thought that for a while.

What I'm starting to think is that he doesn't even understand what he's trying to say.

He's put forward, frequently, an argument that hinges on the concept of objectivity. When challenged on it, he has only managed to copy-pasta from Craig's website. (CRAIG! Have SOME dignity, why don't you! I mean, copy-pasta from Aquinas, or Descartes, or Plantinga... anyone but CRAIG! .... or Ham or either Hovind. Or Comfort. ... okay, so Craig's not the only bad choice. But STILL!) When this didn't actually resolve my question about what JW actually meant by the words he was typing out onto his screen, he... just ignored the question. It's like he doesn't actually have a comprehension of what he's writing.

I mean, isn't this something that he SHOULD know? DIDN'T he have an actual thought he was trying to convey here? I mean, it's not like he's just regurgitating other Theistic arguments without processing them first... that'd be spamming under forum rules, which is a banning offense. So no, that can't be it, we've never had a theist like that in here. No, he must have had SOME thought or comprehension of his own he was trying to convey (even if someone else had it first... eh, nothing new under the sun), something that he is capable of clarifying even if it isn't directly addressed on Craig's site. So, why can't he produce? Why is he running away from the thread topic faster than a punk teen with a '22 who suddenly realized that the SWAT team whose APC he was taking potshots at had taken offense?

nothing you wrote ultimately is of any consequence. Nor can you give me one reason why I should not live however i want to. if atheism is true, i can live a life of complete disregard for anyone and you could live a perfect life and when we die we both are worm dust food.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2014, 08:17 PM
RE: A Deconstruction of the Moral Argument
(12-05-2014 07:14 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(12-05-2014 07:10 PM)pablo628 Wrote:  So you don't believe the book is true, you are more prone to interpreting what it says to fit your ideas?
I'd ask you to enlighten me but I really think I know what it means and, you're getting kinda boring.

Great!

And guess what?

Even if the Bible made no mention of slavery, you would still find fault with it.

You would still find a reason why it is bunk, garbage, trash, ridiculous, fairy tale, insanity, etc. etc.

You would still think it stupid for saying you were a sinner who is in need of a Saviour.

There is so much more wrong with that book we wold have no difficulty pointing it out.

And, yes, the concept of a savior who was vicariously sacrificed for others' sin is a morally disgusting concept without logical, historical or factual support.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
12-05-2014, 08:20 PM
RE: A Deconstruction of the Moral Argument
(12-05-2014 08:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(12-05-2014 07:14 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Great!

And guess what?

Even if the Bible made no mention of slavery, you would still find fault with it.

You would still find a reason why it is bunk, garbage, trash, ridiculous, fairy tale, insanity, etc. etc.

You would still think it stupid for saying you were a sinner who is in need of a Saviour.

There is so much more wrong with that book we wold have no difficulty pointing it out.

And, yes, the concept of a savior who was vicariously sacrificed for others' sin is a morally disgusting concept without logical, historical or factual support.

so?

your view has us both going to the same place. worm food city.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2014, 08:21 PM
RE: A Deconstruction of the Moral Argument
(12-05-2014 07:46 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(12-05-2014 07:37 PM)pablo628 Wrote:  Or complete bullshit. you forgot that one.

Or that one too!

When I was an atheist I did not need a reason. I did not feel I had to have a justification for not accepting the bible. I just never cared nor did I care about those who did care about it. I lived and let live. I spoke neither for it nor against it because I was too busy with other things. When I was an atheist, I had a different train of thought than what many here have. I did what I wanted to and allowed others the same opportunity. I never felt compelled to whine and cry about what religious people were doing. I did not think it ultimately mattered what anyone did so why should I waste the few years I had sticking my nose in other people's business?

Some of you seem to think your whining and crying actually matters.

Your experience is your own - don't attempt to foist it off on others.

Reason is why I'm an atheist - your delusions and fear keep you enslaved to an incoherent ideology, and make you rant and rave. You are pitiful.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
12-05-2014, 08:30 PM
RE: A Deconstruction of the Moral Argument
(12-05-2014 08:20 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(12-05-2014 08:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  There is so much more wrong with that book we wold have no difficulty pointing it out.

And, yes, the concept of a savior who was vicariously sacrificed for others' sin is a morally disgusting concept without logical, historical or factual support.

so?

your view has us both going to the same place. worm food city.

Now you are getting it! First fact you have said - although I don't think any self respecting worm would want to venture into any soil that your sour ass has occupied.

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Timber1025's post
12-05-2014, 08:37 PM
RE: A Deconstruction of the Moral Argument
(12-05-2014 08:15 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(12-05-2014 08:08 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  ..... aaaaaaand he's managed to change the topic again. Slippery like an eel. Anyhow, since he's not talking to me any more, I'll talk to the rest of you.

I'm starting to think JW doesn't actually know what he's talking about.

... no, actually, I've thought that for a while.

What I'm starting to think is that he doesn't even understand what he's trying to say.

He's put forward, frequently, an argument that hinges on the concept of objectivity. When challenged on it, he has only managed to copy-pasta from Craig's website. (CRAIG! Have SOME dignity, why don't you! I mean, copy-pasta from Aquinas, or Descartes, or Plantinga... anyone but CRAIG! .... or Ham or either Hovind. Or Comfort. ... okay, so Craig's not the only bad choice. But STILL!) When this didn't actually resolve my question about what JW actually meant by the words he was typing out onto his screen, he... just ignored the question. It's like he doesn't actually have a comprehension of what he's writing.

I mean, isn't this something that he SHOULD know? DIDN'T he have an actual thought he was trying to convey here? I mean, it's not like he's just regurgitating other Theistic arguments without processing them first... that'd be spamming under forum rules, which is a banning offense. So no, that can't be it, we've never had a theist like that in here. No, he must have had SOME thought or comprehension of his own he was trying to convey (even if someone else had it first... eh, nothing new under the sun), something that he is capable of clarifying even if it isn't directly addressed on Craig's site. So, why can't he produce? Why is he running away from the thread topic faster than a punk teen with a '22 who suddenly realized that the SWAT team whose APC he was taking potshots at had taken offense?

nothing you wrote ultimately is of any consequence. Nor can you give me one reason why I should not live however i want to. if atheism is true, i can live a life of complete disregard for anyone and you could live a perfect life and when we die we both are worm dust food.

Eh, I could argue the question of consequences, which I think you're badly misrepresenting. But the point that I'll take from this is that you're no longer even trying to advance moral argument. I'll leave my questions about the definitions of objective morality standing, but let them recede into the background, and so long as you don't bring up the moral argument again, you need not be faced with the challenge of actually explaining what you mean on the topic. Of course, everyone in the forum will now know that you're incapable of articulating even the most basic elements of what you're trying to argue, and consequently none of us will have the slightest respect for the things you say in the future, any more than we'd much respect a seven-year-old declaring that the fireflies are really ghosts. But then, that was the case already. So, matter tabled. Ciao!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2014, 08:38 PM (This post was last modified: 12-05-2014 09:49 PM by evenheathen.)
RE: A Deconstruction of the Moral Argument
(12-05-2014 08:06 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  the sun will burn out long before the universe experiences heat death or either the big crunch.

if you want to be a real trooper, a real champ, then talk about this when you talk against religion. tell the whole truth.

If there is no god, and science is the best explanatory and predictive system we have to rely on, then you are absolutely correct with that statement.

Why would anyone want to live their lives in brainwashed fear, committing to bring others into a state of mental subjugation to a power that doesn't exist, if instead we could be freeing ourselves of thousands of years of an oppressive ponzi scheme in order to be able to actually enjoy the short flash of sentience we are lucky enough to have in this weird and wonderful universe?

The greatest trick the human mind ever played, was convincing itself that we aren't all God. We will all live on in the heavens for eternity, we just won't know it.

I'm perfectly okay with that.

You can stick with your fear and repression if you'd like, but I think you know as well as anyone here that there is no possible way that the bible, or any other written-by-man holy book, is true.

edit:

That is to say, that I've carefully examined every part of my life that I hold of any importance over the last decade of my life. I know where you come from, I was raised from birth with it and was immersed with idea of belonging to an infallible everything along with a lot of other people here, so religion is one thing I examined pretty carefully.

When I did that, it became evident that for every stone I unturned, there was no god underneath it. You haven't brought anything to the table that I haven't at least once in my life laid awake at night and pondered. The apologetics don't wash, they never have and they never will. Theology is as subjective as humans are, and it's obviously by human design. I'm just sayin'....

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like evenheathen's post
12-05-2014, 09:35 PM (This post was last modified: 12-05-2014 09:41 PM by Taqiyya Mockingbird.)
RE: A Deconstruction of the Moral Argument
(12-05-2014 02:20 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(12-05-2014 09:21 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  In other words:

Premise 1: Objective morality exists.
Premise 2: For objective morality to exist, there must be some higher power authoring or enforcing it.
Conclusion: Existence of such a higher power.

Swap the order of the premises at will.



Looks like it fits the bill to me. If this isn't the version you're using, what is?

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties exist
3. Therefore, God exists.


Except, moron, that a Hindu or Brahminist can claim PRECISELY the same thing about karma-reincarnation:

1. If karma-reincarnation does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties exist
3. Therefore, karma-reincarnation exists.


....and I can claim the same thing about the Flying Spaghetti Monster:

1. If The Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties exist
3. Therefore, The Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.


Rinse and repeat with any and every made-up magical fairy that ever was imagined.


And fuck the hell off, cunt.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2014, 09:41 PM
RE: A Deconstruction of the Moral Argument
(12-05-2014 02:35 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(12-05-2014 02:20 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties exist
3. Therefore, God exists.

Neither premise is consistent or justifiable.

Taking your failtacular implosion of a cosmological "argument" as a guide, you will defend your premises as inexplicably self-evident, refuse to even define your own terminology, and dance around the burden of proof as though it were a maypole.

Hey, whatever happened to the TWO debates this asshole was flailing around in the Boxing Ring? As I recall, he fled BOTH of them without even the slightest explanation.


What about that, Jermy?

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2014, 09:43 PM
RE: A Deconstruction of the Moral Argument
(12-05-2014 06:53 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(12-05-2014 06:31 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  I am noticing a disturbing trend where you say we don't understand your argument because we are evil atheists.

I am simply stating it is not about arguments Mr. Tadlock.

Arguments do not cause a man to kneel in worship. A man's knees must bend because he chooses to bend them. Because he wants to bend them.

I have to get there intellectually first before I choose anything. You just stated that arguments don't do that. Never mind the logical paradox, you just said what I needed to hear; you need to 'feel' it, you can't reason it. Great. Not that I needed another reason but that is exactly all I need to move on.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Michael_Tadlock's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: