Beating a Banned Horse
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-08-2014, 04:02 AM
Beating a Banned Horse
I apologize to anyone who followed my debate with Jeremy E. Walker. After a difficult move to a new home I found myself without an internet connection for nearly a month. It seems that during my absence Mr. Walker has managed to get himself banned. However, let it never be said that I shirked the responsibility of presenting a rebuttal to his arguments. Since I am unable to do it in the boxing ring, I will here.

Mr. Walker fell into a well worn pitfall in his attempt to argue the merits of faith while simultaneously threatening to tout "evidence" for Christianity. When this was pointed out to him in some detail, he cried "Strawman". I will appeal to the honesty and intelligence of the reader to discern that it is not a straw man argument, but addresses a central religious paradox.

Mr. Walker stated incorrectly that moral statements are not within the realm of science. Although it has been traditionally taught that values are the domain of theology and philosophy and facts are the domain of science, this is only the case when values are not considered as facts about conscious experience. When considered as such, and weighed as objectively as possible against other states or situations of conscious experience, a moral landscape begins to emerge in which it can be determined with precision what actions or conditions are morally superior or desirable. Sam Harris explains the entire concept with more skill and expertise than I can hope to muster here in his book "The Moral Landscape".

Mr. Walker attempted yet again to shift the burden of proof when he insisted that I present evidence for metaphysical naturalism before any supernatural explanations can be ruled out. It is not metaphysical naturalism that requires evidence but the supernatural, naturalism being the result of a lack of such evidence. It could be argued, and might have been by Mr. Walker, that it is not unreasonable to believe in the supernatural on the grounds that there is no evidence against it either. This un-falsifiable assumption is to that extent a weak one and is easily dispatched with Occam's potent razor.

Mr. Walker cried "Strawman" yet again when I criticized his clumsily veiled implication that science cannot comment on the supernatural. Whether his vagueness was accidental or deliberate he succeeded mainly in disciplining my efforts at clarification, and acting as though it constituted some kind of victory.

Mr. Walker attempted to argue that due to inevitable bias even among scientists he was free to state whatever he wished about scientific topics regardless of his credentials. Call me old fashioned, but I prefer the traditional method of consulting actual scientists on their respective areas of expertise, or referring to their published works. Mr. Walker is not qualified.

Mr. Walker was wrong when he stated that the moral argument does not presuppose god's existence, unless he cares to one day explain how his "objective standard", god, manages to be such while non-existent? In that case, he would be making my case for me, that any possible objective moral standards are invented by man. Such inventions are no greater in authority than the people who imagined them and who's moral variation so frustrate Mr. Walker. The only bankruptcy of ideas present here is the obvious emotional inability to cope with reality, coupled with the worship of human invention. Rather than examining moral problems with solutions in mind, Mr. Walker would rather add one more fiction to the scrap pile of authorities meant to control wayward humanity.

Quote:In a world without God, people like Yang can do whatever they want because they are gods. They determine what is meaningful, what is good, what is bad, what is appropriate, and how they spend their few years on this earth. If they think life is a game of cat and mouse, of trying to avoid detection and capture whilst simultaneously axing people and shoveling them to death, then that is their prerogative. You nor anyone else can condemn them for being evil, or immoral, for they determine what is evil and immoral just like you do...their opinions may differ, but so what. When the law abiding honorable, self-righteous, vegan, humanist atheist dies after living a life of benevolence, they die just like Yang and just like Andrei.

Contrast this with the notion that there is a god who allowed it to happen and did nothing. Contrast it with the notion that Yang could repent and go to heaven, while any random non-believer will suffer the eternal anguish of hell. Contrast it with the "axing" of people committed by the Israelites in obedience of divine command. These flawed fictions solve no moral questions, but shed a great deal of light on the emotional and mental weakness of those like Mr. Walker who understand the injustice of the world, but prefer a fiction to facing it honestly.

Quote:They are neither ultimately better or worse of than those who lived lives eating people and raping them.

Mr. Walker tried to deny his deeply insulting comparisons between those with secular morals and disgusting criminals who committed abhorrent atrocities, but he just couldn't hide what a pile of shit he really was in the end. He asked me some time ago why I was so quick to call him dishonest. Well, this is why. I have examples of him saying awful things and then lying about it. Sometimes you meet a believer with a genuine desire for discussion and free inquiry on this cite, someone thoughtful and honest. Sometimes you get Mr. Jeremy E. Walker and the only thing left to do is explain to him what a cunt he is. If you ever read this Jeremy, you're a cunt.

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness.

-Karl Marx
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Dark Phoenix's post
25-08-2014, 04:11 AM
RE: Beating a Banned Horse
(25-08-2014 04:02 AM)Dark Phoenix Wrote:  I apologize to anyone who followed my debate with Jeremy E. Walker. After a difficult move to a new home I found myself without an internet connection for nearly a month. It seems that during my absence Mr. Walker has managed to get himself banned. However, let it never be said that I shirked the responsibility of presenting a rebuttal to his arguments. Since I am unable to do it in the boxing ring, I will here.

No, that's okay, I'll watch... Popcorn

[Image: 88611-beating-dead-horse-gif-South-P-ZqEc.gif]

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: