Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-02-2017, 11:11 PM (This post was last modified: 04-02-2017 11:21 PM by Astreja.)
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(04-02-2017 10:26 PM)Naielis Wrote:  What logical fallacies have I employed? Name one.

Unsupported assertions about a hypothetical uncaused cause, and attempting to exempt your hypothetical entity from requiring causation. That's two.

Quote:I don't know what you're referring to when you say "a whole raft of viewpoints". You seem opposed to diversity of ideas.

You can't seem to keep your ideas straight. In particular, you oscillate between the poles of certainty (your insistence that there simply has to be a sentient first cause) and solipsistic uncertainty (nitpicking about us having to "justify" a given POV). You also appear to be doing this solely for the purpose of buttressing your own arguments and discounting ours, which makes you a friggin' hypocrite devoid of intellectual integrity, hence an utter disgrace as a philosopher.

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
04-02-2017, 11:16 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(04-02-2017 10:47 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(04-02-2017 10:28 PM)Naielis Wrote:  I can justify science. You cannot.

You're very special, aren't you.
I bet you have big hands too.

(And the little bitch whines at me about being insulting and dismissive).

You are. You're not even engaging the argument. You're dismissing it.

"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, 11:17 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Your arguments are so fatally flawed that dismissing them is the merciful thing to do.

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
[+] 5 users Like Astreja's post
04-02-2017, 11:24 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(04-02-2017 11:17 PM)Astreja Wrote:  Your arguments are so fatally flawed that dismissing them is the merciful thing to do.

When arguments are not even wrong ... are they Alt_wrong?

Consider

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
04-02-2017, 11:24 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(04-02-2017 11:11 PM)Astreja Wrote:  Unsupported assertions about a hypothetical uncaused cause, and attempting to exempt your hypothetical entity from requiring causation. That's two.

I gave several links that go through arguments for the necessary being. Perhaps you didn't see them, but please be a bit more careful before you accuse people of fallacy. And for the last time, that simply was not special pleading. You have to prove that all things require causation. You have not. I have linked arguments that show exactly why there can't only be contingent beings. I haven't exempted anything. In fact, you commit fallacy here. Category error. You treat necessary beings like contingent beings.

(04-02-2017 11:11 PM)Astreja Wrote:  You can't seem to keep your ideas straight. In particular, you oscillate between the poles of certainty (your insistence that there simply has to be a sentient first cause) and solipsistic uncertainty (nitpicking about us having able to "justify" a given POV). You also appear to be doing this solely for the purpose of buttressing your own arguments and discounting ours, which makes you a friggin' hypocrite devoid of intellectual integrity, hence an utter disgrace as a philosopher.

I apologize if this "oscillation" seems odd, but it really isn't a logical issue. There are things I think you can know with epistemic certainty. I simply acknowledge that some things are either unknowable or are knowable only in a falliblist sense. But if all beliefs in one's worldview are known by fallibilism, nothing is known.

"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, 11:26 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(04-02-2017 11:17 PM)Astreja Wrote:  Your arguments are so fatally flawed that dismissing them is the merciful thing to do.

This seems like a rationalization.

"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, 11:26 PM (This post was last modified: 05-02-2017 12:20 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(04-02-2017 11:16 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(04-02-2017 10:47 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You're very special, aren't you.
I bet you have big hands too.

(And the little bitch whines at me about being insulting and dismissive).

You are. You're not even engaging the argument. You're dismissing it.

You have an "argument" ?
You spend too much time with theists who *do* this shit by rote.
You couldn't "argue" your way out of a paper bag.
All you do is make assertions, change the meanings of words, and declare how good you think you are at this.

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, 11:29 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(04-02-2017 10:39 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(04-02-2017 10:16 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Your dismissal of philosophy is premature and foolish. Pithy slogans and memes like that aren't enough to fuel a worldview.

I did not dismiss philosophy. There's even such a thing as a PhD in the Philosophy of Science. As you point out, we do indeed use philosophy to justify the scientific outlook.

What I said was that your "what if"-type questions are moot, since we must make certain assumptions about the world in light of the fact that there's nothing more than a thought-exercise to suggest everything may be illusory. And even if that happens to be the case, our illusion tells us that certain things within the illusion are consistent-- that's where science operates, in the realm of "testable and found to be consistent".

And the part you ignored, in my reply, was that I pointed out that it doesn't matter how intelligent you are-- you came here, to a board filled with people who are as intelligent as you are, and immediately deigned to condescend to us, then took umbrage when your false assumption about why your ideas were being rejected led us to treat you in the way that we did...

...and will continue to do, as long as you speak this way.

Edit to Add: By the way, that meme was hilarious. "WHY do you want fries with that"? Come on. Stop being a pretentious douchebag.

When did I condescend to you? I really don't think I did. I came here with the intent to have an intelligent discussion. I received very little. I get bombarded with insults and people ignoring my arguments. It's not pretentious or elitist to know when your arguments aren't being understood.

"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, 11:30 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(04-02-2017 11:26 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(04-02-2017 11:16 PM)Naielis Wrote:  You are. You're not even engaging the argument. You're dismissing it.

You have an "argument" ?
You spend too much time with theists who *do* this shit by rote.
You couldn't "argue" your way out of a paper bag.
All you do is make assertions, change the meanings of words, and declare how good you think you are at thus.

I think it is you who just makes assertions. And name one word I've redefined.

"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, 11:31 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(04-02-2017 10:54 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(04-02-2017 10:40 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Perhaps you'd care to explain to me what it is you're meaning with your comment:


I...am having trouble understanding the two halves of the sentence when read together.

He's had a hardon for the problem of induction for like 50 posts now. Not sure why he keeps going on and on about it. It's become tedious.

Perhaps it's because you and others tend to ignore it.

"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: