Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-02-2017, 06:03 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(04-02-2017 03:26 PM)Naielis Wrote:  You are not being intelligent with my arguments here. You simply assume that your sight is valid. You have no justification.

You mean I don't answer the way you want, and follow you down your childich newbie rabbit hole. Humans learn by a long process (I realize you know nothing at all about how human infants/children learn), that what they think they see is what is actually there. Too bad for you, I have every justification. There are all kinds of ways to TEST human visual systems, and determine whether they are accurately working or not. When you get all big and go to school, you will learn about that in Biology 101. We are also well aware of the limits of human vision, and have invented things to enhance that.

Quote:You think the fact that I can learn things means philosophy is useless? What? How does that conclusion even come close to following from the premise?

Did Philosophy discover antibiotics, electricity, Uncertainty, Relativity, ever solve a math problem, feed anyone, keep anyone warm or cool, or save a life ? No.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
04-02-2017, 06:16 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(04-02-2017 03:26 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Ok let me put this as kindly as I can. You are not being intelligent with my arguments here.

Let me put this as kindly as *I* can. Your arguments are not particularly intelligent or well-constructed. You're playing silly buggers with a whole raft of viewpoints, stumbling from one logical fallacy to another and hiding in your solipsistic bunker when we point out the obvious flaws in your arguments. Your debating style is akin to taking all the spices out of the cupboard and all the condiments out of the fridge, dumping them all on a stale heel of bread, and then sniffing in disdain when we refuse to eat it.

You don't philosophy very well at all. Pick one system and use it coherently, rather than jumping around from one thinker to the next in the hope of scoring a point against us.

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
[+] 6 users Like Astreja's post
04-02-2017, 06:22 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(04-02-2017 11:51 AM)adey67 Wrote:  Thanks guys I was beginning to doubt my sanity, its good to hear others consider philosophy a load of old wank, cos it is.

No, philosophy has value; just not what Naielis and Xian Philo think it is.

Philosophy is largely about questions, not answers.
It teaches us what questions to ask and how to ask them.

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
[+] 5 users Like Chas's post
04-02-2017, 06:26 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(04-02-2017 12:33 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(04-02-2017 11:51 AM)adey67 Wrote:  Thanks guys I was beginning to doubt my sanity, its good to hear others consider philosophy a load of old wank, cos it is.

I was gonna major in it but then I took a class in realism my junior year and realized, you know what computer science might be a more prudent choice. Minored in it instead. It has its uses. One is to keep an eye on the batshit bonkers scientists for they know not what they do. They don't have a very good track record at anticipating the consequences of their actions especially since they became Death, the destroyer of worlds and shit.

In my final year as an undergrad math major, I took a senior philosophy seminar (I had taken several philosophy courses) in mathematical logic - just me and an Associate Professor. In the second semester, this professor wanted me to enter the philosophy PhD program - he would recommend me to the department.

However, computers and money beckoned more strongly. Yes

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
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
04-02-2017, 06:38 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Naielis is having the same conversation that every intelligent, curious 17-year-old has.
In fact, I think there is only one ongoing conversation that many teens join when they start having Deep Thoughts® and leave after a few years as they mature intellectually.
In between, the conversation changes character or goes through the pot stage, the beer stage, the hallucinogenic phase, but not always.

Some of my friends and I started having that conversation around age 12 or 13 while camping out, staring up at the vast bowl of stars. (There were more stars then due to less light pollution.)

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
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
04-02-2017, 08:17 PM
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.

Kindly give one example of immaterial causation. Last I checked you needed something to cause something else.

Quote:Creation is the more interesting question. This question has been asked by many philosophers.

Since Aristotle made his Unmoved Mover famous over 2300 years ago and almost certainly before that. Do you really think at this old news is somehow novel to us? Clearly you did not bring your A game.

Quote:The main response is that the creation was not a temporal act.

This is a contradiction in terms. Acts and actions are temporal by definition.

Quote: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

There is a distinction between incredulity and impossibility. If your arguent results in contradiction then your deity is impossible and you have just killed it via reduction to adsurdity.

Quote:but it does show how atemporality and eternality are beyond our complete understanding.

While the answer "I don't know" is entirely valid in many contexts it makes for extremely poor evidence of anything. It is not a compelling reason for me to believe in your imaginary friend.

What you need to do is step back from the keyboard and take a few minutes to ponder what conditions external to the universe must entail. A complete lack of space-time for a start. Next you need to formulate an epistemology that functions in that environment. I suggest that you begin by avoiding all nouns and verbs. Good luck with that.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Paleophyte's post
04-02-2017, 08:30 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(04-02-2017 06:22 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(04-02-2017 11:51 AM)adey67 Wrote:  Thanks guys I was beginning to doubt my sanity, its good to hear others consider philosophy a load of old wank, cos it is.

No, philosophy has value; just not what Naielis and Xian Philo think it is.

Philosophy is largely about questions, not answers.
It teaches us what questions to ask and how to ask them.

For example, it might teach you that asking the wrong questions leads to very unfortunate asnwers.

Questions like "What caused causation?" have no semantic value and lead to answers like "God".

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Paleophyte's post
04-02-2017, 10:01 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
It dawns on me that we may see a few more WLC-esque sophists pimping the "big words expressing gobbletygook so therefore God is okay for smart people" line, now that Dr. Craig himself has figured out the way for philosophy grads to make an income, fleecing the less-literate and more-credulous religious crowd who wish to feel like they have intellectual justification for their belief in magical universe-creating wizards.

I think Chas put it best. The kid's obviously pretty intelligent, but he's just now getting into the top layers of something that really ought to be studied under proper tutelage, and has ignored other areas of knowledge that could have better directed him toward a more coherent outlook. I hope that he finds such a professor, so we don't wind up with another disingenuous sophist trying to set scientific thought back a thousand years.

"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
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
04-02-2017, 10:16 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(04-02-2017 03:38 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(04-02-2017 03:26 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Ok let me put this as kindly as I can. You are not being intelligent with my arguments here. You simply assume that your sight is valid. You have no justification. You just assert it and hope no one notices. You think the fact that I can learn things means philosophy is useless? What? How does that conclusion even come close to following from the premise? Then you have the audacity to throw around insults about other people's critical thinking? You're being extremely dismissive and rude. I can't converse with people if they not conversing with me. You refuse to have any fruitful conversation. If you decide that you want to take argument seriously, then please let me know.

We do not assume it is valid. We test it against the proposition that it is not valid. That is why science is more important than philosophy, and why they referred to your ideas as "navel-gazing". You can sit around and ponder "what ifs" and "how do you knows" all day, but in the end what matter is what is testable and verifiable to the maximum extent possible, given the basic set of assumptions that our senses are valid-- because so what if they're not, when we still receive a consistent response to the tests?

You're going to do a lot of work, learning all this philosophy, and in the end all you'll come to is realizing that you've learned to ask a lot of essentially irrelevant questions and gotten equally irrelevant answers.

[Image: e20df4b016db52c12cc7a82a6d92c8746816527c...2ab05c.jpg]

When you then deign to condescend to us, as though we dismiss your arguments for failure to understand them, you're going to get glib condescension in return.

Your dismissal of philosophy is premature and foolish. Pithy slogans and memes like that aren't enough to fuel a worldview.

"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
04-02-2017, 10:26 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(04-02-2017 06:16 PM)Astreja Wrote:  
(04-02-2017 03:26 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Ok let me put this as kindly as I can. You are not being intelligent with my arguments here.

Let me put this as kindly as *I* can. Your arguments are not particularly intelligent or well-constructed. You're playing silly buggers with a whole raft of viewpoints, stumbling from one logical fallacy to another and hiding in your solipsistic bunker when we point out the obvious flaws in your arguments. Your debating style is akin to taking all the spices out of the cupboard and all the condiments out of the fridge, dumping them all on a stale heel of bread, and then sniffing in disdain when we refuse to eat it.

You don't philosophy very well at all. Pick one system and use it coherently, rather than jumping around from one thinker to the next in the hope of scoring a point against us.

What logical fallacies have I employed? Name one. I don't know what you're referring to when you say "a whole raft of viewpoints". You seem opposed to diversity of ideas.

"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: