Another attack on moral subjectivism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-06-2015, 08:16 AM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 08:14 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(28-06-2015 08:07 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  If I thought you were actually reading to understand instead of reading to deny, I'd give a shit about your replies.

And you think Stevel, Matt, Tear are actually reading to understand as opposed to me? It's interesting all of us tend to repeat the same argument, while you tend to subscribe some level of dishonesty, a refusal to understand on my part? They all seems to raise the same objections I have to your views. Yet you believe that when it comes to me this rejection is based on an active refusal to understand your view.

It seems the only reason you're inclined to believe this is because I'm a theists, and they are all atheists. It seems that you suffer a bit too much for some anti-theistic bias, some prolonged chip on your shoulder.

Aww look at you, calling me dishonest. As if i fucking care about your opinion.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2015, 08:17 AM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
Why do you reply to me, tomasia? Why do you ask me questions or try and respond to the points in my post when you have been told that not only do I not respect you or your opinion, but I think you're a totally dishonest prick?

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2015, 08:24 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 08:16 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Aww look at you, calling me dishonest. As if i fucking care about your opinion.

No, I don't think you're dishonest, because I think dishonesty would require the deception to be intentional. If I were to guess, I would think you likely had some tough experiences with religious people in your life, and you're prone to taint every believer with that same brush, not out of choice.

Me and you have a tough relationship here, different than the ones I have among other atheists I routinely disagree with. Nor am I sure how to resolve it. I haven't put my finger on why that is, but I guessing that it's not so much about me at all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2015, 08:27 AM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 08:24 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(28-06-2015 08:16 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Aww look at you, calling me dishonest. As if i fucking care about your opinion.

No, I don't think you're dishonest, because I think dishonesty would require the deception to be intentional. If I were to guess, I would think you likely had some tough experiences with religious people in your life, and you're prone to taint every believer with that same brush, not out of choice.

Me and you have a tough relationship here, different than the ones I have among other atheists I routinely disagree with. Nor am I sure how to resolve it. I haven't put my finger on why that is, but I guessing that it's not so much about me at all.

No, it's about you. If I thought you were being honest about your intentions here, I'd give a shit about your replies. But you're dishonest (mostly with yourself I assume) about why you (a theist) are on an atheist forum arguing your opinion against that of the atheist forum members.

With you having dishonest intentions, I can't take anything you say or ask as anything other than a back-handed attempt at preaching (which you do without realizing it). Until you gain some ability of introspection, your opinion is moot.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2015, 08:28 AM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 08:14 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(28-06-2015 08:07 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  If I thought you were actually reading to understand instead of reading to deny, I'd give a shit about your replies.

And you think Stevel, Matt, Tear are actually reading to understand as opposed to me? It's interesting all of us tend to repeat the same argument, while you tend to subscribe some level of dishonesty, a refusal to understand on my part? They all seems to raise the same objections I have to your views. Yet you believe that when it comes to me this rejection is based on an active refusal to understand your view.

It seems the only reason you're inclined to believe this is because I'm a theists, and they are all atheists. It seems that you suffer a bit too much for some anti-theistic bias, some prolonged chip on your shoulder.

Don't try and play psychiatrist. You don't know what you're doing, clearly.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2015, 08:31 AM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 08:10 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(28-06-2015 08:01 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  If a part of a theory is false, and someone claims that the theory is true, then they are making a false claim. This isn't my opinion.

For example, if I claim that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen, and that steel is made primarily of copper, then I'm making a false claim even though part of the claim is true. If I modify my claim to state that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen, and that steel of made primarily of iron, then I'm making a true claim. This isn't context dependent.

And your example still implies black and white, right or wrong, as if all choices are between two options and two options only.

Here, let me use this example Matt. Even when it comes to mineralogy (which would be further complicated by petrology), it is almost never quite so black and white so as to be between two options.

I present to you, the most common group of minerals on the Earth's surface.
[Image: 8bfea176ce262b0b11f05e5ea0a9726e.jpg]

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2015, 08:36 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 08:17 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Why do you reply to me, tomasia? Why do you ask me questions or try and respond to the points in my post when you have been told that not only do I not respect you or your opinion, but I think you're a totally dishonest prick?

Probably because you're not the only person in this thread. Questions that you avoid responding to, someone else might, or might incorporate in one form or the other.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2015, 08:38 AM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 08:36 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(28-06-2015 08:17 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Why do you reply to me, tomasia? Why do you ask me questions or try and respond to the points in my post when you have been told that not only do I not respect you or your opinion, but I think you're a totally dishonest prick?

Probably because you're not the only person in this thread. Questions that you avoid responding to, someone else might, or might incorporate in one form or the other.

I smell more bullshit.[Image: 06163e3ef935ebe0a3ddc9b5a80a193c.jpg]

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2015, 09:03 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 08:01 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  If a part of a theory is false, and someone claims that the theory is true, then they are making a false claim. This isn't my opinion.

For example, if I claim that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen, and that steel is made primarily of copper, then I'm making a false claim even though part of the claim is true.
This might not be what you're saying, but it seems to be very heavily implied, that that logic would work like:

P1 Water is made of hydrogen and oxygen, and steel is made of cheese
P2 We know steel is not made of cheese
C Therefore, water is not made of hydrogen and oxygen

That line of reasoning is very, very bad.
When two claims are made together you separate them into their component parts, and verify each claim on its own.

[Image: fdyq20.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like LostLocke's post
28-06-2015, 09:07 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 09:03 AM)LostLocke Wrote:  
(28-06-2015 08:01 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  If a part of a theory is false, and someone claims that the theory is true, then they are making a false claim. This isn't my opinion.

For example, if I claim that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen, and that steel is made primarily of copper, then I'm making a false claim even though part of the claim is true.
This might not be what you're saying, but it seems to be very heavily implied, that that logic would work like:

P1 Water is made of hydrogen and oxygen, and steel is made of cheese
P2 We know steel is not made of cheese
C Therefore, water is not made of hydrogen and oxygen

That line of reasoning is very, very bad.
When two claims are made together you separate them into their component parts, and verify each claim on its own.

Thank you LL Thumbsup

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: