Atheism and morality



27052015, 05:56 PM




RE: Atheism and morality
(27052015 05:47 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:I'm radixing through a migraine and Imitrex.(27052015 05:20 PM)Clockwork Wrote: Peep this: 

27052015, 06:08 PM
(This post was last modified: 27052015 06:15 PM by GirlyMan.)




RE: Atheism and morality
(27052015 05:44 PM)Tomasia Wrote:(27052015 05:28 PM)GirlyMan Wrote: And that is precisely why you should never ever ever ever again try to appeal to mathematics in your arguments. You embarrass all of humanity when you do. This is elementary math. It's the latter. I personally am quite interested in your read on various metaphysical concepts I have also gone walkabout myself. But the more you appeal to something you admittedly don't know dick about the less I am interested. You diminish your credibility. There is but one truly serious philosophical problem.  Camus 

1 user Likes GirlyMan's post 
27052015, 06:16 PM




RE: Atheism and morality
(27052015 06:08 PM)GirlyMan Wrote: It's the latter. I personally am quite interested in your read on various metaphysical concepts I have also gone walkabout myself. But the more you appeal to something you admittedly don't know dick about the less I am interested. So you believe that anyone with an elementary knowledge of mathematics, could recognize that 2+2=4, is not objectively true? 

27052015, 06:26 PM




RE: Atheism and morality
(27052015 06:08 PM)GirlyMan Wrote: But the more you appeal to something you admittedly don't know dick about the less I am interested. You diminish your credibility. So I'm diminishing my credibility by not knowing what a radix is? Or understanding why 2+2=4, is not objectively true? 

27052015, 06:28 PM
(This post was last modified: 27052015 06:45 PM by GirlyMan.)




RE: Atheism and morality
(27052015 06:16 PM)Tomasia Wrote:(27052015 06:08 PM)GirlyMan Wrote: It's the latter. I personally am quite interested in your read on various metaphysical concepts I have also gone walkabout myself. But the more you appeal to something you admittedly don't know dick about the less I am interested. Chas is right, there is a serious conflation of terms here between objective/subjective and absolute/relative. Yes, an elementary grasp of mathematics would recognize that 2+2=4 is relative to the radix. The terms "objectivity" and "subjectivity" applied to math and logic is just so much noise and nonsense. There is but one truly serious philosophical problem.  Camus 

3 users Like GirlyMan's post 
27052015, 06:35 PM
(This post was last modified: 27052015 06:44 PM by GirlyMan.)




RE: Atheism and morality
(27052015 06:26 PM)Tomasia Wrote:(27052015 06:08 PM)GirlyMan Wrote: But the more you appeal to something you admittedly don't know dick about the less I am interested. You diminish your credibility. Not by not knowing. But by continuing to appeal to shit in your arguments you admittedly have not even an elementary knowledge of. Leave the math and logic out. Duh. ... It's not your ignorance of formal reasoning that diminishes your credibility, it's your insistence that you're not ignorant which does. There is but one truly serious philosophical problem.  Camus 

2 users Like GirlyMan's post 
27052015, 06:46 PM




RE: Atheism and morality
(27052015 06:28 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:(27052015 06:16 PM)Tomasia Wrote: So you believe that anyone with an elementary knowledge of mathematics, could recognize that 2+2=4, is not objectively true? It surprising that you think this knowledge is elementary. Even just doing a quick search on whether math is objective, pulls up a forum, in which pretty much everyone answering the questions believes it is: "Math is about as objective as you can get." "Mathematics itself is inherently objective." "Math is the epitome of objective truth." http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/show...hp?t=22418 Of course they could all be wrong here. It should also be noted that most people, including myself don't take a philosophy of math course where the question of objectivity might be explored. And it doesn't seem that an elementary knowledge of mathematics results in people acknowledging that it's not objective. But even so, doing a bit more reading, it seems that there's a variety of positions here, like mathematical realism: "Mathematical realism, like realism in general, holds that mathematical entities exist independently of the human mind. Thus humans do not invent mathematics, but rather discover it, and any other intelligent beings in the universe would presumably do the same. In this point of view, there is really one sort of mathematics that can be discovered; triangles, for example, are real entities, not the creations of the human mind. Many working mathematicians have been mathematical realists; they see themselves as discoverers of naturally occurring objects. Examples include Paul Erdős and Kurt Gödel. Gödel believed in an objective mathematical reality that could be perceived in a manner analogous to sense perception. Certain principles (e.g., for any two objects, there is a collection of objects consisting of precisely those two objects) could be directly seen to be true, but the continuum hypothesis conjecture might prove undecidable just on the basis of such principles. Gödel suggested that quasiempirical methodology could be used to provide sufficient evidence to be able to reasonably assume such a conjecture. Within realism, there are distinctions depending on what sort of existence one takes mathematical entities to have, and how we know about them. Major forms of mathematical realism include Platonism and empiricism." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics 

27052015, 06:54 PM




RE: Atheism and morality
(27052015 06:35 PM)GirlyMan Wrote: Not by not knowing. But by continuing to appeal to shit in your arguments you admittedly have not even an elementary knowledge of. Leave the math and logic out. Duh. ... It's not your ignorance of formal reasoning that diminishes your credibility, it's your insistence that you're not ignorant which does. Well, I do know that if i have two apples, and receive another two apples that I'll have four apples. And if I add all the tires on my car that I'll have four. But your passion and adamance that these summations are not objective, has me doubting myself, and has piqued my curiosity a great deal. Beyond the ad hominem attacks, and the ridicule for not know what a radix is, I'm pretty curious now. 

27052015, 06:58 PM
(This post was last modified: 27052015 07:01 PM by GirlyMan.)




RE: Atheism and morality
(27052015 06:46 PM)Tomasia Wrote:(27052015 06:28 PM)GirlyMan Wrote: Chas is right, there is a serious conflation of terms here between objective/subjective and absolute/relative. Yes, an elementary grasp of mathematics would recognize that 2+2=4 is not absolute. That's just kinda like assumed and shit. The terms "objectivity" and "subjectivity" applied to math and logic is just nonsense. And it's fucking definitionally relative. Is that as objective we can get? There is but one truly serious philosophical problem.  Camus 

27052015, 07:00 PM




RE: Atheism and morality
(27052015 06:58 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:(27052015 06:46 PM)Tomasia Wrote: It surprising that you think this knowledge is elementary. Even just doing a quick search on whether math is objective, pulls up a forum, in which pretty much everyone answering the questions believes it is: Isn't everything definitionally relative to you? 

« Next Oldest  Next Newest »

User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)