Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-02-2017, 05:47 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 04:30 AM)Banjo Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 08:08 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  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?

I have zero memory of this. It may have been a joke. Do you have this PM?

If not, fuck you.

If so, I am very surprised. Why would I want nudes from you?????

I wouldn't worry too much mate Tomasias idea of a raunchy nude is probably an Amish girl in a chastity belt showing a hint of woolly stockinged ankle
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like adey67's post
03-02-2017, 06:06 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 05:47 AM)adey67 Wrote:  I wouldn't worry too much mate Tomasias idea of a raunchy nude is probably an Amish girl in a chastity belt showing a hint of woolly stockinged ankle

Actually I want him to produce it. If any mod' or admin' has access to deleted PM's, please show me.

I simply don't believe it. Unless I was somehow poking fun. That is the only reason I could think of.

If not this is actionable slander.

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
[+] 3 users Like Banjo's post
03-02-2017, 06:26 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 06:06 AM)Banjo Wrote:  
(03-02-2017 05:47 AM)adey67 Wrote:  I wouldn't worry too much mate Tomasias idea of a raunchy nude is probably an Amish girl in a chastity belt showing a hint of woolly stockinged ankle

Actually I want him to produce it. If any mod' or admin' has access to deleted PM's, please show me.

I simply don't believe it. Unless I was somehow poking fun. That is the only reason I could think of.

If not this is actionable slander.
If and its a big if this happened I'd bet money it was a joke probably in response to self righteous moralizing. But he need to put up the goods or retract his comment Imo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2017, 07:20 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 10:24 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  THIS for the WIN!

Heart

Hug Naielis

I love you mate! +1 Rep given.

F@cken' AWESOME right there. *Fist pump*

Please Naielis, through thick and thin, please stay with the forum.

Well thanks.

"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
03-02-2017, 07:27 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 11:09 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 08:26 PM)Naielis Wrote:  I've studied epistemology and metaphysics for years.

Great. Explain for me how "creation" or "causation" is possible without space-time.

Without space or time logic tends not to be worth much and epistemology and metaphysics go right out the window. You might as well have spent years studying the rind on blue cheese for what it's worth.

Causation is an immaterial even. It can be an aspect of a material act. Creation is the more interesting question. This question has been asked by many philosophers. The main response is that the creation was not a temporal act. Since the necessary being must have been atemporal, the act of creating time must have been atemporal. Many responses to this are arguments from incredulity. But some ask about the eternality of the act itself then. I still think this leads back to the same arguments from incredulity, but it does show how atemporality and eternality are beyond our complete understanding. Great question though.

"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
03-02-2017, 07:32 AM (This post was last modified: 03-02-2017 08:25 AM by adey67.)
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 07:27 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 11:09 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  Great. Explain for me how "creation" or "causation" is possible without space-time.

Without space or time logic tends not to be worth much and epistemology and metaphysics go right out the window. You might as well have spent years studying the rind on blue cheese for what it's worth.

Causation is an immaterial even. It can be an aspect of a material act. Creation is the more interesting question. This question has been asked by many philosophers. The main response is that the creation was not a temporal act. Since the necessary being must have been atemporal, the act of creating time must have been atemporal. Many responses to this are arguments from incredulity. But some ask about the eternality of the act itself then. I still think this leads back to the same arguments from incredulity, but it does show how atemporality and eternality are beyond our complete understanding. Great question though.

So basically in.plain English I'm guessing you are referring to the creator being outside of space/time am I right here and that he created outside of space time too ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes adey67's post
03-02-2017, 07:46 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 06:09 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 06:05 PM)Banjo Wrote:  Thanks.

Mate here's my advice, for what it's worth.

Before you post anymore, read around the website. Check out the subjects and debates that have already taken place.

If you do this you will better understand the community. We have people here who are highly qualified professionals in subjects such as biology, physics, theology etc.

I'd discontinue this debate. As I said it is old news to us.

BTW, it is not a crime to be young and inexperienced. Smile

Good luck to you.

I've seen and taken part in many debates. I was an atheist for years. I'm young, but I certainly don't think I'm inexperienced.

No one young and inexperienced think they are.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kemo boy's post
03-02-2017, 07:54 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 02:55 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  he thinks philosophy is above science
he thinks philosophy discovers facts (like in "sitting in your armchair, thinking hard, and POOF, you have a fact")
he throws around "metaphysics" without providing a definition
he thinks an argument is equivalent to evidence
he thinks having studied philosophy for (a couple of) years makes him *experienced* (hint: i have an engineering degree for more than his entire lifetime and i am working with people who have an experience spannig TWICE his lifetime)

If you think philosophy alone qualifies you for making statements about the entire physical reality, then you should maybe try sometihng *real* too, like hammering a nail into a wall for example, or building a house. That qualifies you for making statements about reality more than you may think.

I'm sorry I didn't define metaphysics. I thought it was fully understood. I think I've jumped too quickly into this. I apologize for my impatience here. I'll try to explain this now. Metaphysics aims to answer these two basic questions:
1. What is there?
2. What is it's nature?
Your metpahysical standing has to cohere with the Baconian method and all inductive reasoning if you want to have a coherent worldview based on scientism. Let's give an example to explain this further. Let's say you believe morality is subjective. Within that belief, you have a number of implications. This belief requires that you have a metaphysic which doesn't include or entail any objective morality. In this instance, I think scientism is coherent. But there are other things you have to consider. Let's say you believe you can use inductive reasoning. You have to have a metaphysic in which the world operates upon universal laws. Keep in mind that it's not inconsistent with any scientific observation, to conclude that you just happened to arrive at the same result. There is nothing about repitition of trials with the same result that is inconsistent with a universe operating on random chance. In fact, it's not inconsistent with a solipsist metaphysic. So if you want to accept that science actually helps the real world as many of you claim, you have to have an understanding of what that world is. All I'm asking is how you justify science without arbitrary and subjective presuppositions or logical fallacy. Keep in mind that metpaphysics and epistemology are intertwined. They are inseparable in this discussion. For example, you mentioned hammering a nail into a wall. My epistemological questions are simple: how do you know the nail exists? How do you know your hammer exists? What is reality? How do you know this? As a side note, I was going to major in engineering myself, but I found that applied math didn't suit me. I'm going to be majoring in pure math. This maybe a key difference in our perspectives here. You are very empirically oriented whereas I am more rationalist. It's possible we can work from that difference in future conversation.

"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
03-02-2017, 08:10 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 07:54 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Blah blah.

Come back in 8 years when you're a man.

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
03-02-2017, 08:13 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 06:26 AM)adey67 Wrote:  If and its a big if this happened I'd bet money it was a joke probably in response to self righteous moralizing. But he need to put up the goods or retract his comment Imo.

Why would I PM Tomasia?? I think him a dolt.

I rarely PM anyone.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: