Best of from FB Apologetics group
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-02-2015, 10:09 PM
RE: Best of from FB Apologetics group
(01-02-2015 07:49 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  OP: In your world view, why is circular reasoning wrong? (fucking really?)

[Image: dPeoPet.gif]

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2015, 12:05 AM
RE: Best of from FB Apologetics group
(02-02-2015 08:09 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Random post in a thread about the resurrection: " I didn't realize that there were actually people out there that don't believe Jesus Christ rose from the dead!!
If this is true, what do they believe??"


AHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAA! No one is that naive! What the hell!?

Actually we believe that Jesus Christ rose again but is still dead. And he wants your braaaains.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2015, 01:38 AM
RE: Best of from FB Apologetics group
(03-02-2015 12:05 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(02-02-2015 08:09 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Random post in a thread about the resurrection: " I didn't realize that there were actually people out there that don't believe Jesus Christ rose from the dead!!
If this is true, what do they believe??"


AHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAA! No one is that naive! What the hell!?

Actually we believe that Jesus Christ rose again but is still dead. And he wants your braaaains.

[Image: enhanced-buzz-4883-1333641173-17.jpg]

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Free Thought's post
03-02-2015, 06:23 AM
RE: Best of from FB Apologetics group
(03-02-2015 01:38 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  [Image: enhanced-buzz-4883-1333641173-17.jpg]

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/lich.htm

Quote:Alignment
Any evil.

Explains the motherfucker's fixation on eternal torture and unprecedented sense of narcissism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
04-02-2015, 11:07 AM
RE: Best of from FB Apologetics group
Well, I decided to unfollow the group. I haven't left (it's a closed group), but I'll stop seeing stuff in my news feed. It's just so disheartening dealing with the prevalent viewpoint of that group.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RobbyPants's post
12-07-2015, 07:24 PM
RE: Best of from FB Apologetics group
So I joined a different apologetics group a while ago on FB at the request of one of the few decent people I met on this last shitty one. It's based on people not being complete asshats to each other, so the discussions are usually a lot better. I actually found a member of TTA there last week (or rather, he found me). Anyway, I breached protocol tonight and got into a morality debate with a theist. Here we are, so far:


Me:The reason will vary from person to person. I don't see anything making morality objective.

EDIT: I suppose you probably want to know MY reason. For me, it's a combination of empathy and how I value the consequences.



Him:Are there any objective moral values or duties, on your view?


Me:No.


Him://it's a combination of empathy and how I value the consequences//

Why is it better to be empathetic? Why do consequences matter?



Me:Objectively? It isn't. It's how I evaluate things.


Him:So, same question- according to your evaluation.


Me:You mean why do I evaluate it as better to be empathetic/why do consequences matter?

I don't see empathy as something I choose to do because it's better; it's a trait I have.

Why do I feel consequences matter? Part of that comes from empathy (I don't want to hurt people) and some comes from social contract. At the end of the day, we accomplish more working together than on our own (or worse yet, against each other). We can't work together without certain amounts of mutual understanding and cooperation. Cooperating with people means I get a MUCH higher standard of living and relative peace of mind about worrying about being attacked, all for the cost of me not attacking other people, which is something I wasn't going to do ANYWAY (see empathy, above).



Him://I don't see empathy as something I choose to do because it's better; it's a trait I have.//

Fair answer; but this is a descriptive state of affairs. It offers no reason why you OUGHT to be empathetic. And by extension, no reason why you OUGHT to act in accordance with a social contract.



Me:There IS no ought. Everyone evaluates this differently. Luckily, most people seem to be fine with some level of social contract, and most seem to display empathy.


Him:Is (or should) everyone be bound to the rules of the social contract?


Me:Objectively or in my opinion?


Him:If they're different, tell me both. Lol


Me:I don't believe there is any objective SHOULD. I don't see anything making these things objectively true.

I already explained why I evaluate having a social contract as better than not. I can say that society as a whole says that people should follow the rules, and I can get on board with that, but that's not the same as it being objectively so.



Him:So, what's the point of abiding by a social contract if I don't have to? Put another way, why have a social contract if it's not binding? If it's not binding, then it wouldn't be wrong for someone to not abide by it.

//I can say that society as a whole says that people should follow the rules//

What "rules" are you referring to?



Me://So, what's the point of abiding by a social contract if I don't have to? Put another way, why have a social contract if it's not binding? If it's not binding, then it wouldn't be wrong for someone to not abide by it.//

The "point" is that everyone gets a better standard of living. I like the fact that I can talk to you over the Internet because:

1) People worked together to provide the infrastructure and utilities needed to communicate like this.

2) Society put a value on education and I was able to get one.

3) I'm not actively fighting the Huns from scaling the wall right now.

4) A crap ton of other things I'm too lazy to think about at the moment.

We get this standard of living because we cooperate. We cannot cooperate meaningfully if we're worried that the other guy is going to shank us and steal all of our tacos. And I love tacos. Tongue

//What "rules" are you referring to?//

Whatever ones you were referring to three posts from your last post:

("Is (or should) everyone be bound to the rules of the social contract?")



Him://I believe in promoting normal human well being and animal well being//

Why?

Rob, sounds like you're endorsing consequentialism alongside the social contract, is this a fair interpretation?



Me:I'd say so.


Him:So, with regard to consequentialism, why is it better to have "good" consequences? I don't see a way for the consequentialist to answer this without being circular.


Him:Also, is consequences the only thing that matters?



I always hate when I have to explain the reason for social contract.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-07-2015, 08:07 PM
RE: Best of from FB Apologetics group
I'm not going to post all of the back and forths between the last post and this, but I like this gem. I knew this was where he's been going the whole time, but it took him until now to say it:


Him: Fair enough.

//no one has ever given me a solid reason to believe it IS objective.//

So essentially, you're claiming that there are no objective moral values or duties. So if I came up with at least one, there is at least one element to morality that is objective. Here goes:

We have an objective moral duty to refrain from kicking innocent babies in the face for fun.

This means that there is no circumstance in which it is not morally wrong to kick an innocent baby in the face for fun. Not to shift the burden, but absent reason to think the contrary, it stands that this is an objective moral duty.



Me: It is not OBJECTIVELY wrong. Still, most people will say that it is wrong, and they'll totally jail you or kick you back in the face.

You haven't proven this is objectively wrong it it looks like you're simultaneously trying to prove your point with an Appeal to Emotion and an Argument from Adverse Consequences.

Just because you find moral relativism personally distasteful doesn't mean that morality is objective. Again, no one has given me a solid reason to believe that morality is objective, so I see no reason to believe it is. Informal logical fallacies are no exception, even when paired up.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-08-2015, 05:19 AM
RE: Best of from FB Apologetics group
This is the weirdest argument I have ever seen:

Argument [from the law of excluded middle] for God's existence.
It is as follows;
1.) For every proposition, it is either that the proposition is true, or its negation is true. [The law of excluded middle]
2.) This, "God does not exist", is a proposition.
3.) Hence it is either that this proposition "God does not exist" is true, or its negation is true.
4.) This proposition "God does not exist" is not true because it entails a paradox.
5.) Hence the negation of this proposition "God does not exist" is true.
6.) The negation of this proposition "God does not exist" is this proposition "God exists"
7.) Hence this proposition "God exists" is true.
8.) Therefore, God exists.
Premise 4 can be supported as follows:
The proposition, "God does not exist", is incoherent because it affirms and negates the existence of God at the same time. That which is incoherent is not true.
Therefore, the proposition is not true.
Consider, " God (something) does not exist"
It is like saying this,
"God (something) is nothing".
Even if God is a concept it exists. Something (God) cannot be nothing. Hence, given that nothing implies non existence, it implies that, irrespective of what God is, God cannot not exist. For it is something.
So, irrespective of what God is, the proposition is incoherent and therefore, given that that which is incoherent is not true, it is not true. So it negation must be true.



My response: #4 doesn't affirm God; it acknowledges this particular god-claim and negates it.

...or are you saying leprechauns exist, because saying they don't exist would be affirming them? Because that's the EXACT same argument you're making for God's existence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
03-08-2015, 05:30 AM
RE: Best of from FB Apologetics group
Seems to be an attempt to say "I am suuuuuuuuuuuuuper clever, therefore God exists"

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-08-2015, 06:04 AM
RE: Best of from FB Apologetics group
(03-08-2015 05:30 AM)morondog Wrote:  Seems to be an attempt to say "I am suuuuuuuuuuuuuper clever, therefore God exists"

Yeah. I showed him how a clever person can prove leprechauns. Tongue

This guy's been making a new post each day. Also, he hasn't been responding to the deluge of criticism he's gotten each day. This one was just the best I've seen, so I had to repost it. I have never seen anyone make that argument before.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: