Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-02-2017, 08:38 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
What is wrong with saying "I don't know."

Why is that so hard? >_<'

Seriously, before the Big Bang (if there could be a before) we DON'T KNOW WTF IS GOIN ON. Maybe the universe has existed eternally and was just recycling itself, or maybe it just poofed itself or some pixie did it. WE DON'T KNOW.

I find it rediculous to assert that the universe had a beginning, even more rediculous to assert an intelligent (and therefore enormously complex) being did it.

Furthermore, a being that can't be created? You really think that's not special pleading? If anything it's an ASSERTION and can be discounted as such.

Ignorance is not to be ignored.

Check out my DA gallery! http://oo-kiri-oo.deviantart.com/gallery/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Loom's post
02-02-2017, 08:42 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 08:34 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 08:31 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  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.

Not compared to my 40 it ain't.

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
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
02-02-2017, 08:45 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 08:42 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 08:34 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Four years of research isn't relevant? You assume too much from age.

Not compared to my 40 it ain't.
Come on girly don't you know all us oldies are irrelevant and demented, I know I am Tongue Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes adey67's post
02-02-2017, 08:46 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 08:26 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(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.

No, Special Pleading is creating an exception for an otherwise universally (no pun intended) applicable rule, so your argument can rest on that illogical basis.

In this case, you have defined something into existence (the "necessary being") without evidence, and then defined (as uncreated creator) it in a way that allows it an exception to the rule of requisite causation (which also has no evidence, at that level), by saying it is the uncaused cause, or the uncreated creator.

It's the most basic and easy-to-understand form of Special Pleading I could possibly use as an example. Making up new word-salad to get around the basic problem of "the uncaused cause" doesn't mean you actually dodged the problem.

But it does mean you wasted your time. And ours.

"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
[+] 5 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
02-02-2017, 08:47 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 08:25 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(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) 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?

No it's just I'm accustomed to calls where I can converse directly. I don't generally do forums. I do feel a pressure to respond quickly.

"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, 08:48 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 08:45 PM)adey67 Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 08:42 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Not compared to my 40 it ain't.
Come on girly don't you know all us oldies are irrelevant and demented, I know I am Tongue Big Grin

Difference between us and him is that we know it.

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, 09:14 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 08:26 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Why is it that everyone who accused me of special pleading misquotes me? I said the necessary being can't be created.

And I'm saying that the whole idea of a "necessary being" is nonsense. Nothing is as necessary as you seem to think it is. We don't have to be here. The universe doesn't have to be here. Existence doesn't have to exist.

The only reason we're having this discussion at all is because we all happen to be here today, on a planet that also just happens to be here, in a universe that could just as easily not have existed -- in which case we wouldn't be here quibbling about it.

You are postulating a purely hypothetical entity of unknown nature and using that as a purported explanation. It explains nothing; it just raises more questions.

I'm sorry, but your beliefs are much too silly to take seriously. Got anything else we can discuss?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Astreja's post
02-02-2017, 09:28 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 02:45 PM)Naielis Wrote:  I don't really know how we can discuss anything if you reject philosophy. Are you saying all of philosophy is "wankery"?

No, there are a few useful bits of advice here and there. I think the Stoics are quite all right. Philosophy goes off the rails when it starts whinging about "truth." I am a strong agnostic and believe that it is impossible to know the absolute truth about anything.

Quote:Well pragmatism isn't very pragmatic. It's so easy to refute.

Refute it all you like. It isn't going to make me any less pragmatic.

Quote:These are just assertions from emotivism.

Yes, I'm rather fond of using my emotions. That doesn't mean that my conclusions are wrong, you know.

Quote:Well since your morality isn't objective, it doesn't apply to the Christian god.

I beg to differ. I have subjectively judged the Christian god to be evil -- an act that unambiguously applies my morality to that particular god concept. If such a deity exists (although I profoundly doubt it), its laws are no more objective than anything anyone else comes up with; its holy writ is just one opinion among many.

I'm sorry, but your beliefs are much too silly to take seriously. Got anything else we can discuss?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Astreja's post
02-02-2017, 09:42 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 06:25 PM)Naielis Wrote:  I don't think you understand. I've debated this subject almost daily for years.

You're 17. I'm 52. I've been debating topics such as morality etc since I was 16.

You are not experienced.

You're probably still a virgin for all I know.

Dial it down. You are not saying anything new. Real old rubbish I heard 30+ years ago. Only then it was done better.

Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Banjo's post
02-02-2017, 10:10 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 06:50 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 06:39 PM)mordant Wrote:  Valid in a classroom or an essay, but strangely divorced from something you inherently cannot have at your age, which is life experience.

Someday you'll understand the emptiness of theory in the face of practice.

I will echo Banjo ... nothing wrong with being young, but with youth often comes hubris and you should dial it down a notch or two, do more listening and less holding forth.

Life experience is a conservative value. I'm a liberal.

That would be hilarious if it weren't so ignorant.

Quote:Tried tradition is not better than a priori reasoning. And hubris comes with anti-theism, not youth.

No one was talking about tradition. Experience is not tradition. Facepalm

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: