Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-02-2017, 12:05 AM (This post was last modified: 05-02-2017 12:18 AM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(04-02-2017 11:46 PM)Naielis Wrote:  But I still think the necessary being would have to be the first cause.

But the problem of induction brings into question whether causality is a property being observed or a property being imposed. Given what we know about space/time equivalence it seems likely to me that causality is a necessary invention for us to make any sense at all of the world. We see patterns which aren't really there because that's what we do. We see patterns. We have to. We're wired to. But just because causality has primacy over other inventions doesn't mean it's not an invention.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
05-02-2017, 12:09 AM (This post was last modified: 05-02-2017 12:25 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(05-02-2017 12:05 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(04-02-2017 11:46 PM)Naielis Wrote:  But I still think the necessary being would have to be the first cause.

But the problem of induction brings into question whether causality is a property being observed or a property being imposed. Given what we know about space/time equivalence it seems likely to me that causality is a necessary invention for us to make any sense at all of the world. We see patterns which aren't really there because that's what we do. We see patterns. Just because causality has primacy over other inventions doesn't mean it's not an invention.

I already brought this up. He ignored it, per his usual MO.
He thinks it's reasonable to slap the known properties of the macro universe we can observe to other situations. There is no justification for that.
We know the quantum world works in it's own way. We know that close the a Black Hole, nothing works the way it does for us, this far from one.
He's picked a small subset of the known universe, and extrapolated from that small subset to what would be "outside" this universe. That is absurd.
We also don't know what Dark Matter and Dark Energy are, or how they work. 95% of this universe is unknown. Making generalizations about Reality from a 5% sample is ridiculous.

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
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
05-02-2017, 12:13 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(05-02-2017 12:01 AM)Naielis Wrote:  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.

May I suggest reading your words aloud, and imagining how you would feel if someone said them to you?

I found your phrase "... but please be a bit more careful before you accuse people of fallacy" extremely offensive. This is what it implies:
  • that I posted thoughtlessly,
  • and that I was making a false accusation.

Naielis, I do not appreciate being accused of something I know I did not 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
05-02-2017, 12:14 AM (This post was last modified: 05-02-2017 12:33 AM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(05-02-2017 12:09 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(05-02-2017 12:05 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  But the problem of induction brings into question whether causality is a property being observed or a property being imposed. Given what we know about space/time equivalence it seems likely to me that causality is a necessary invention for us to make any sense at all of the world. We see patterns which aren't really there because that's what we do. We see patterns. Just because causality has primacy over other inventions doesn't mean it's not an invention.

I already brought this up. He ignored it, per his usual MO.
He thinks it's reasonable to slap the known properties of the macro universe we can observe to other situations. There is no justification for that.

Well now I'm not sure whether Nailthis sees the problem of induction as a problem or not. I was under the impression he did. No? If you accept the implications of the problem of induction on causality then debating over a "first" cause or a "necessary" cause is just a metaphysical circle jerk where nobody gets off.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
05-02-2017, 12:31 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(05-02-2017 12:14 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(05-02-2017 12:09 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I already brought this up. He ignored it, per his usual MO.
He thinks it's reasonable to slap the known properties of the macro universe we can observe to other situations. There is no justification for that.

Well now I'm not sure whether Nailthis sees the problem of induction as a problem or not. I was under the impression he did. No? If you accept the implications of the problem of induction on causality then debating over a "first" cause is just a mental circle jerk.

That's what the BS of beings (contingent and not) basically comes down to. He uses it when it's convenient, and asks other to justify their methods, even when he does not.

He'll be an atheist in a matter of months. Tongue
An "agnostic theist" who recites WLC. That's rather funny. Laugh out load

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
05-02-2017, 01:18 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
He's 17. He'll grow out of it. I was a cocky bastard at 17 too, I'm sure.

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
05-02-2017, 01:58 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
At work.

(04-02-2017 11:48 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(04-02-2017 11:45 PM)Astreja Wrote:  (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.

No Naielis. "Gutter snipe" is in the same league as me commenting on your 'Spratt' status. Thumbsup

When folks here a bouts get 'Serious' with their indications of the quality of your parental conceptual conjugations you'll certainly know it.

Thumbsup

Big Grin

Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Peebothuhul's post
05-02-2017, 03:33 AM
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... 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.

This is an accusation. And the last part is quite insulting. Perhaps you should read your comments too.

"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, 04:20 AM (This post was last modified: 05-02-2017 04:24 AM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Naielis, you keep telling us that your expertise (as you see it) in philosophy means that you can demonstrate that deism (at least) is rational, while atheism is not.

We keep telling you the problems with your basic premises, but you keep ignoring that and asserting instead that we have not addressed, let alone disproved, your assertions. But as you should know, in logic you cannot have a reasonable outcome if any of your premises are flawed.

If your assertion was a valid one, it would be difficult to find a serious, top-level philosopher who was an atheist. And yet, it turns out that nearly 2/3rds of them are atheists. Some theists among them have tried to assert that it's for emotional, rather than logical reasons (Plantinga, for instance, whose arguments are addressed, below), but the following article explains why that is a vapid and inaccurate claim:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/log...sts-part-i
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/log...ts-part-ii
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/log...s-part-iii
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/log...ts-part-iv
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/log...sts-part-v

(It's a multi-part article; I posted individual links because some of the ones in the article itself are broken, apparently because they changed the URL.)

My point here is that you strike those of us who have been dealing with these questions of philosophy for decades, arguments which are so new and exciting to you, and we can see that you are committing the sorts of should-be-obvious-to-you (as it is to us) errors with the sort of brash assurance that can only be generated by someone of your level of youth and inexperience-- or else an overwhelming case of Dunning-Kruger Syndrome.

(Before you take umbrage yet again, I would point you to the start of the definition of DKS where it explains that it results from low ability, rather than low intelligence, despite the common misuse of this term to call the person stupid.)

Your sneering tone, right out of the gate, did not predispose anyone here to take you or your arguments seriously, particularly when you made such a glaring error right out of the gate--one that has been repeatedly pointed out to you--and you refused to even acknowledge it, or to recognize that it was an error.

As far as we can tell, you have simply chosen a particular subset of religious philosophy that feels good to you, and then came here attempting to use your high IQ (probably higher than anyone you know in real life) to intellectually intimidate people into agreeing with you or fighting with you on your own terms about it. Everything about your tone is aggressive and/or derisive, and in return you were answered by hostility and derision.

This should not surprise you. And yet it does. This is another indicator of inexperience in real intellectual discourse.

But you are no longer in the shallow pool that is your highschool-aged circle. You're among some extraordinarily intelligent adults. It is insulting to us that you would come here and try to pretend you have some insight or knowledge of which we are unaware, on a forum where several members have advanced degrees in the sciences, as well as decades of experience in reading philosophers and dealing with these particular questions as a hobby.

So, with all due respect, you can take your umbrage and shove it back up your ass, from whence you appear to have pulled your version of WLC's pseudo-scientific philosophy.

"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
05-02-2017, 04:52 AM (This post was last modified: 05-02-2017 04:56 AM by Naielis.)
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(05-02-2017 04:20 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Naielis, you keep telling us that your expertise (as you see it) in philosophy means that you can demonstrate that deism (at least) is rational, while atheism is not.

We keep telling you the problems with your basic premises, but you keep ignoring that and asserting instead that we have not addressed, let alone disproved, your assertions. But as you should know, in logic you cannot have a reasonable outcome if any of your premises are flawed.

If your assertion was a valid one, it would be difficult to find a serious, top-level philosopher who was an atheist. And yet, it turns out that nearly 2/3rds of them are atheists. Some theists among them have tried to assert that it's for emotional, rather than logical reasons (Plantinga, for instance, whose arguments are addressed, below), but the following article explains why that is a vapid and inaccurate claim:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/log...sts-part-i
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/log...ts-part-ii
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/log...s-part-iii
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/log...ts-part-iv
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/log...sts-part-v

(It's a multi-part article; I posted individual links because some of the ones in the article itself are broken, apparently because they changed the URL.)

My point here is that you strike those of us who have been dealing with these questions of philosophy for decades, arguments which are so new and exciting to you, and we can see that you are committing the sorts of should-be-obvious-to-you (as it is to us) errors with the sort of brash assurance that can only be generated by someone of your level of youth and inexperience-- or else an overwhelming case of Dunning-Kruger Syndrome.

(Before you take umbrage yet again, I would point you to the start of the definition of DKS where it explains that it results from low ability, rather than low intelligence, despite the common misuse of this term to call the person stupid.)

Your sneering tone, right out of the gate, did not predispose anyone here to take you or your arguments seriously, particularly when you made such a glaring error right out of the gate--one that has been repeatedly pointed out to you--and you refused to even acknowledge it, or to recognize that it was an error.

As far as we can tell, you have simply chosen a particular subset of religious philosophy that feels good to you, and then came here attempting to use your high IQ (probably higher than anyone you know in real life) to intellectually intimidate people into agreeing with you or fighting with you on your own terms about it. Everything about your tone is aggressive and/or derisive, and in return you were answered by hostility and derision.

This should not surprise you. And yet it does. This is another indicator of inexperience in real intellectual discourse.

But you are no longer in the shallow pool that is your highschool-aged circle. You're among some extraordinarily intelligent adults. It is insulting to us that you would come here and try to pretend you have some insight or knowledge of which we are unaware, on a forum where several members have advanced degrees in the sciences, as well as decades of experience in reading philosophers and dealing with these particular questions as a hobby.

So, with all due respect, you can take your umbrage and shove it back up your ass, from whence you appear to have pulled your version of WLC's pseudo-scientific philosophy.

"So? What's wrong with that? What is morally wrong with doing damage to the world in your ethical system?" This was my first comment back on page 83. My tone wasn't sneering. It wasn't harsh. It wasn't condescending. All of you interpreted it that way. I was more than fair for the majority of the discussion. But I get bombarded with insults all the way through. Atheists condescend to theists everywhere they go like they're the damn master race. And then they have the audacity to act like they're the victims. I bring up justification for science and most of you brush it off like justification is beneath you. Atheists need not justify their beliefs to a mere theist. You dismiss my arguments every step of the way. I explain several times how I never employ special pleading. And yet this goes ignored. Not a single one of you thought it might be worth your time to consider whether you'd rightfully accused me of fallacy. Why are you all so willing to just mindlessly attack someone when you haven't even talked to them in person. You haven't even heard most of my thoughts on these issues. Did any of you bother to read those entries I gave? I suppose that too would be beneath you. I don't want to be in a conversation where I'm treated like a bad person from the very beginning because of what I believe about a god. I'm done with this thread. The only mistake I made here was hoping I could have a decent conversation about reality. But, like all people, you've ingrained your beliefs into your ego. They've come to define you. I won't waste my time any longer. Oh and by the way, your first argument about atheists in philosophy is an appeal to authority. Nice try 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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: