Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-02-2017, 07:43 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 05:50 PM)Banjo Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 05:42 PM)Naielis Wrote:  I didn't ask for anyone's phone number. That is simply a lie. I PMed them my SKYPE username.

Not a lie. A mistake. Even sending an unasked for Skype address is perhaps poor etiquette?

Naielis offered to Skype and sent their username. I declined. They said OK.
While I was surprised, I was not offended.

(even tho I'm American... Tongue )

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fatbaldhobbit's post
02-02-2017, 08:00 PM (This post was last modified: 02-02-2017 08:07 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 09:32 AM)Naielis Wrote:  What about someone who doesn't have the instinct to live in peace and harmony? Why are they wrong?

They're not wrong. They're just not acting in their own best interest.

(02-02-2017 09:32 AM)Naielis Wrote:  It seems you reduce your morality to subjectivism.

I know I do.

EDIT: Wait. Did I just resurrect a 150 post old post? Fuck me.

EDIT 2: Wait, that post was made today. dammmnnn Doublefuck me. Hobo

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2017, 08:08 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 05:50 PM)Banjo Wrote:  Even sending an unasked for Skype address is perhaps poor etiquette?

You have some nerve! I wasn't going to share this, several months ago you asked me to send you some nudes, and I politely declined, and chalked it up as chemo-brain. And here you are offended that someone asked to exchange Skype addresses?

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Tomasia's post
02-02-2017, 08:08 PM (This post was last modified: 03-02-2017 05:55 PM by mordant.)
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 07:03 PM)Naielis Wrote:  You need further justification. For example, why are you able to use inductive reasoning? That's the foundation of science and yet most scientists never deal with this problem.
The burden of proof isn't on me for "further justification". I'm not making positive claims for the existence of deities. The burden is on theists to evidence their god(s).

I don't need to "assert science". I need to hear the first shred of evidence, reasoning or logical argument in favor of their claims. My job is just to wait for someone, anyone, to evidence their god claims. In any way. At. All.

I realize that formal philosophy is all about tying yourself in knots so that nothing is provable or defensible, and that's fine. My stepson is finishing up his philosophy degree (he leans to Continental) so I'm not unaware of or disinterested in that heady world. However for practical purposes of real-world living, I am just a person who doesn't believe things that aren't reasonably evidenced, so far as I need them to be in order to find them believable.

Science uses deductive and inductive (and abductive) reasoning in an integrated way, so I don't think it's fair to suggest that it's "based on" inductive reasoning alone.

As a technologist I see the success of applied science every day, and make a lot of $$ off it on a regular basis. This is in contrast to the failed epistemology of religious faith, which has never invented or innovated anything, and when I followed it, invariably led me wrong. In fact religion exists pretty much by stealing ideas and claiming them as its own, in my observation. So forgive me if I find science a teeeeeeensy little bit more credible than religious faith or ideation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like mordant's post
02-02-2017, 08:20 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Wow.. I just did a lot of reading to catch up on this thread, and all I get is a person who can't understand why "A creator is that being which is uncreated" is Special Pleading and then goes on to claim that he has a solid grasp of philosophy, which undermines atheism... wow.

I want the last 20 minutes of my life back. Dodgy

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
02-02-2017, 08:22 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 08:08 PM)mordant Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 07:03 PM)Naielis Wrote:  You need further justification. For example, why are you able to use inductive reasoning? That's the foundation of science and yet most scientists never deal with this problem.
The burden of proof isn't on me for "further justification". I'm not making positive claims for the existence of deities. The burden is on theists to evidence their god(s).

I don't need to "assert science". I need to hear the first shred of evidence, reasoning or logical argument in favor of their claims. My job is just to wait for someone, anyone, to evidence their god claims. In any way. At. All.

I realize that formal philosophy is all about tying yourself in knots so that nothing is provable or defensible, and that's fine. My stepson is finishing up his philosophy degree (he leans to Continental) so I'm not unaware of or disinterested in that heady world. However for practical purposes of real-world living, I am just a person who doesn't believe things that aren't reasonably evidenced, so far as I need them to be in order to find them believable.

Science uses deductive and inductive (and abductive) reasoning in an integrated way, so I don't think it's fair to suggest that it's "based on" inductive reasoning alone.

As a technologist I see the success of applied science every day, and make a lot of $$ off it on a regular basis. This is in contrast to the failed epistemology or religious faith, which has never invented or innovated anything, and when I followed it, invariably led me wrong. In fact religion exists pretty much by stealing ideas and claiming them as its own, in my observation. So forgive me if I find science a teeeeeeensy little bit more credible than religious faith or ideation.

You claim to be interested in the real world. Without philosophy, you fail to even know what that world is. You see science succeed? Your eyes exist? You know this how? Philosophy does not aim to tie any knots. Philosophy aims to ask the most basic questions so you can form a cogent epistemological structure. Reject philosophy and you reduce every claim you make about a deity to subjectivist conjecture.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2017, 08:25 PM (This post was last modified: 02-02-2017 08:41 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 07:03 PM)Naielis Wrote:  For example, why are you able to use inductive reasoning? That's the foundation of science and yet most scientists never deal with this problem.

"induction is the glory of science and the scandal of philosophy." - C.D. Broad

I think the response to that is we have no option but to trust (it's a more accurate term than "believe" in these sort of matters) the principle of induction. Without it we don't have a coherent system for making sense of anything. And we have to make sense of shit or we kinda go all catatonic like a deer caught in the headlights. As far as justification, "it just works" is the best justification there is.

Oh and dude, you got like 75 posts in less than 24 hours. Are you on crack?

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2017, 08:26 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 08:20 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Wow.. I just did a lot of reading to catch up on this thread, and all I get is a person who can't understand why "A creator is that being which is uncreated" is Special Pleading and then goes on to claim that he has a solid grasp of philosophy, which undermines atheism... wow.

I want the last 20 minutes of my life back. Dodgy

Why is it that everyone who accused me of special pleading misquotes me? I said the necessary being can't be created. I do have an understanding of philosophy. I understand the difference between contingency and necessity. I've studied epistemology and metaphysics for years. Special pleading is ignoring inconveniences to their argument. How am I doing that? I've yet to see an explanation of this.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2017, 08:31 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 08:26 PM)Naielis Wrote:  I've studied epistemology and metaphysics for years.

At 17 yo that's not a particularly impressive claim. just sayin'

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like GirlyMan's post
02-02-2017, 08:34 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 08:31 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 08:26 PM)Naielis Wrote:  I've studied epistemology and metaphysics for years.

At 17 yo that's not a particularly impressive claim. just sayin'

Four years of research isn't relevant? You assume too much from age.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: