Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-02-2017, 11:45 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(04-02-2017 11:24 PM)Naielis Wrote:  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.

(Springy G reaches for Her Clue-By-Four™)

*BONK*

Shame on you, you pretentious little guttersnipe! You are guilty as charged regarding the logical fallacy of special pleading.

Now grow the fuck up and stop pretending that your silly-ass religious beliefs make you wise. If anything, they have made you execrably pretentious and rude. Why would I ever want to become like you?

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, 11:46 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(04-02-2017 11:40 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The argument regarding causation is not First Cause.
Is simply "proximate cause", (or "nearest cause"). An omnipotent deity could have created universe makers... which might explain why it has such a piss poor design.

Well I would agree that the necessary being could have created the universe indirectly through other beings. But I still think the necessary being would have to be the first cause.

"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, 11:47 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(04-02-2017 11:39 PM)Naielis Wrote:  I've already explained that I didn't use special pleading. And how did I equivocate?

You explained nothing. You simply denied what we all saw you do.
You "equivocate" the words "act", "actions" and "atemporal", (as well as Special Plead them also).

Quote:Ok there's really no need for hostility here. We're just trying to have a conversation about reality. I'm sorry if I offended you with anything I said previously. Hopefully, we can start over with this conversation. Also I don't think Wikipedia is a reliable source for this topic. I'd use IEP or Stanford. They both have great entries, although IEP is probably a bit better.

I need no advice from you. Wikipedia is valid until you say why what's written in the article is wrong. No one is "hostile". You do not merit
"hostility". We've heard all this shit a million times. You think you're special. You're not. It's impatience. Yet another theist spouting the same old garbage we've heard a million times thinks it's a revelation to us.

There is no way to "prove" a god. Theology (if you ever take it) says faith is a gift. If you don't need faith, you're THE ONLY theist on Earth who doesn't.

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
04-02-2017, 11:48 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(04-02-2017 11:45 PM)Astreja Wrote:  
(04-02-2017 11:24 PM)Naielis Wrote:  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.

(Springy G reaches for Her Clue-By-Four™)

*BONK*

Shame on you, you pretentious little guttersnipe! You are guilty as charged regarding the logical fallacy of special pleading.

Now grow the fuck up and stop pretending that your silly-ass religious beliefs make you wise. If anything, they have made you execrably pretentious and rude. Why would I ever want to become like you?

This is just rude. I addressed your points. Now please do me the same courtesy. I'm not a "pretentious little guttersnipe", whatever that means. I put this issue of special pleading to bed in a previous post. Again, perhaps you did not see 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
04-02-2017, 11:49 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(04-02-2017 11:46 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(04-02-2017 11:40 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The argument regarding causation is not First Cause.
Is simply "proximate cause", (or "nearest cause"). An omnipotent deity could have created universe makers... which might explain why it has such a piss poor design.

Well I would agree that the necessary being could have created the universe indirectly through other beings. But I still think the necessary being would have to be the first cause.

You have not addressed the absurdity of a god being "necessary".
The only reason it's "necessary" is you don't know what to do without it.
You bought the crap of WLC hook, line and sinker.
You suffer from low ambiguity tollerance, and a high need for cognitive closure. You don't need a Philosophy Professor. You need a shrink.

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
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
04-02-2017, 11:51 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(04-02-2017 11:44 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Lack of physical evidence is simply not relevant in this instance. We're talking about an immaterial being.

Why should I believe in an undetectable "immaterial being"? Why should I even consider such a concept? Utter nonsense -- Just another convenient gap that believers use to hide away their imaginary friend to try to explain its absence.

At a bare minimum I would expect such an entity to produce an energy trail, an imbalance leading to wherever it had hidden itself. Absent that, I can only conclude that the alleged "immaterial being" either is wholly imaginary, or is incapable of affecting the physical universe in any way whatsoever.

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, 11:56 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(04-02-2017 11:48 PM)Naielis Wrote:  This is just rude. I addressed your points. Now please do me the same courtesy.

No. With your attitude here, pretending to have the upper hand intellectually and speaking dismissively not only to Me but to others in this thread, you have forfeited any claim to our respect. You will have to earn it back, one post as a time.

Or you could just leave.

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
[+] 3 users Like Astreja's post
05-02-2017, 12:00 AM (This post was last modified: 05-02-2017 12:24 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(04-02-2017 11:51 PM)Astreja Wrote:  
(04-02-2017 11:44 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Lack of physical evidence is simply not relevant in this instance. We're talking about an immaterial being.

Why should I believe in an undetectable "immaterial being"? Why should I even consider such a concept? Utter nonsense -- Just another convenient gap that believers use to hide away their imaginary friend to try to explain its absence.

At a bare minimum I would expect such an entity to produce an energy trail, an imbalance leading to wherever it had hidden itself. Absent that, I can only conclude that the alleged "immaterial being" either is wholly imaginary, or is incapable of affecting the physical universe in any way whatsoever.

I would expect to see some evidence of the "properties" those who claim it exists say it has. The universe as we know it can be explained by Chaos Theory, Physics and Chemistry without invoking a god at all.
Everything we see needs no god. If there was one, it's totally irrelevant.

I would also expect to see *some* evidence that demonstrates the properties those who claim it exists are real. There is not a shred of evidence for any "god-activity" in this universe, and mountains of evidence there is none.

Every single god that humans have cooked up has a cultural and historical trail ...
"Every religion is true one way or another. It is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck in its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble." .... Joseph Campbell
The gods are fine as mythology. They have no other relevance, authority or value.

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
05-02-2017, 12:01 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(04-02-2017 11:56 PM)Astreja Wrote:  
(04-02-2017 11:48 PM)Naielis Wrote:  This is just rude. I addressed your points. Now please do me the same courtesy.

No. With your attitude here, pretending to have the upper hand intellectually and speaking dismissively not only to Me but to others in this thread, you have forfeited any claim to our respect. You will have to earn it back, one post as a time.

Or you could just leave.

I'm sorry if I seemed to condescend or seemed rude in any way, but I really don't recall doing this. Perhaps it's just my inability to communicate well through text.

"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
05-02-2017, 12:05 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(04-02-2017 11:47 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I need no advice from you. Wikipedia is valid until you say why what's written in the article is wrong. No one is "hostile". You do not merit
"hostility". We've heard all this shit a million times. You think you're special. You're not. It's impatience. Yet another theist spouting the same old garbage we've heard a million times thinks it's a revelation to us.

This seems to be hostile.

"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: