Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-02-2017, 05:03 AM (This post was last modified: 05-02-2017 05:12 AM by adey67.)
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(05-02-2017 01:18 AM)Banjo Wrote:  He's 17. He'll grow out of it. I was a cocky bastard at 17 too, I'm sure.

Agreed, a little story,
My whole family were nurses my dad was nursing professor at the local college of nursing. By age 8 I had a reading age of 21 and by age 12 was able to answer correctly many of the questions in the final nursing examination papers my dad was marking. Aged 18 when it came my time to start nursing college I was pretty damned confident, by aged 19 I realised how I didn't know as much as I thought infact I came to realise I knew a lot less than I thought I did, I buckled down worked hard and did pass my exams but my natural abilities my intelligence my self directed study my family connections all counted for very little in the end, I needed proper tutelage to be a professional nurse but I also had to find these truths out for myself I needed those life experiences to give me some humility and understanding.
This Naielis, is why people bang on about your age and lack of experience because they are very relevant to the conversation, unfortunately you don't or maybe cannot see this yet. I guarantee you that in two or three years time you will look back on this post and thread and realise that maybe these oldies had a point, good luck for the future young padawan. Regards Adey.
Edit: You can dismiss this as an appeal to authority and you probably will but it isn't its common sense that's all it is. Also try and lose the hubris, it wont make you any friends at university either with your peers or professors.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like adey67's post
05-02-2017, 05:15 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(04-02-2017 03:51 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  So you end up with huge swathes of it that are complete idiocy and gibberish, and exist only to make people feel smarter than anybody else. Good philosophy exists, but the reputation it has is mostly from people having to deal with the crowds and crowds and crowds of idiots who don't really know what they're doing, but have easy access to a thesaurus and too much ego for their own good.

This. There are some really good philosophers of science out there... Kuhn is one that I can think of off the top of my head. And then there's the pretentious wanker crowd, who are numerous.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2017, 07:23 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(04-02-2017 10:39 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Edit to Add: By the way, that meme was hilarious. "WHY do you want fries with that"? Come on. Stop being a pretentious douchebag.

A friend of mine studied in Heidelberg, one of the most renowned and the oldest university in Germany. He asked me "What do you tell a PhD in the historic city centre of Heidelberg?"
Answer: "I want ketchup with my fries"

The studends and PhDs themselves laughed at that joke! And many of them knew it was not far form reality, when your studies are about sinology, or something like that.
When i once worked with the clinic attached to Heidelberg university i had to deal with a network admin who had a PhD in geology.

He is 17 and hasnt seen a univesity form the inside yet. So why should he know that many of the students know exactly what future possibly will bring for them.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deesse23's post
05-02-2017, 07:48 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(05-02-2017 04:52 AM)Naielis Wrote:  "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.

You may not see it that way, but it is. It is an unceasing slander that is thrown our way by theists, practically every day on this forum, that we have no "basis" for our ethical/moral judgments. It's horse-shit, but it apparently doesn't stop you from presuming that your theism gives you some moral high ground that we lack.

I might as well have walked into a church and declared that even though most think it's the most reasonable conclusion, there's no solid evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ (a true statement with which even theologians don't seriously argue) and expected no repercussions. Starting with that basis is not the way to make friends with church members with whom I wish to have discussions, as it establishes a note of hostility to them right off the bat. If you cannot grasp this basic principle then you are either socially inept or willfully blind.

(05-02-2017 04:52 AM)Naielis Wrote:  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 were snide and condescending at every turn, acting as if we did not know or could not counter your arguments, simply because most of us chose not to re-hash what is almost literally a weekly conversation, on this board.

We don't condescend to theists because they're theists, we condescend to assholes who come in here and behave like assholes.

And we don't need to "justify" our ideas to anyone, let alone someone who has not established a solid premise for their conclusions in the first place.


(05-02-2017 04:52 AM)Naielis Wrote:  You dismiss my arguments every step of the way. I explain several times how I never employ special pleading. And yet this goes ignored.

You did not get ignored. You were responded to repeatedly on this point, including one from me. You simply did not like that we saw through your attempt to use redefinition to sidestep the special pleading, and continued to insist you were not using it when in fact you were.

(05-02-2017 04:52 AM)Naielis Wrote:  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.

We did rightfully accuse you of fallacy. Your unwillingness to acknowledge that basic fallacy did not encourage us to try to look more deeply into your ideas; it told us that you were either willfully ignorant, blind, or dishonest. None of those suggest that we should do anything more than tell you to fuck off until you get some better ideas.

(05-02-2017 04:52 AM)Naielis Wrote:  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.

Of course we read them. Is it in your mind somewhere that because we do not agree with you, and do not accept your premises or your derived conclusions, that we did not hear you?

Oh what arrogance!

(05-02-2017 04:52 AM)Naielis Wrote:  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.

Hopefully you are not done learning. Despite all the knowledge you have managed to acquire, you are still an amateur in this field, presenting arguments that sound good to the layperson but that are not taken seriously by most of the field of philosophy.

(05-02-2017 04:52 AM)Naielis Wrote:  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.

Again with the arrogance of youth and ignorance. It never fails to amaze me, the brief time it takes you types to confirm your prejudices in reaction to our unwillingness to recognize your unquestionable brilliance.

You cannot cite one example of "ingrained beliefs" that one of us holds, because we don't hold them in that way. You have failed to grasp what atheism is.

This response is just some verbal diarrhea you just spit onto the forum when you were angry that people rejected your ideas as unsubstantiated.

(05-02-2017 04:52 AM)Naielis Wrote:  I won't waste my time any longer.

Well maybe there is a god after all. Dodgy

(05-02-2017 04:52 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Oh and by the way, your first argument about atheists in philosophy is an appeal to authority. Nice try though.

No, moron, it's not. I was not relying upon their authority to prove a point; I was pointing out that if your bold statements about the unavoidable conclusions of philosophy were true, then it would be rare to find atheists in the field because they would also be likely to come to that same conclusion that you have herein asserted.

Yet they do not. The reasonable conclusion is that you do not grasp philosophy as well as you think you do.

As an evolutionary biologist, I often make the same point during discussions about science, when religionists come here to tell me that evolution is an atheistic idea. I point out that 1) there's not really such thing as an atheistic idea in the sense that they mean it, and 2) if that was true then we would find only atheists in the field of evolutionary biology, and yet many of the top people in the field of evolutionary science are Christians, et cetera.

It is not an argument based on the authority of their position, but a counterpoint to the idea that only an atheist could conclude that evolution is reality. When 62% of philosophers come to the conclusion that there's unlikely to be a true god-story, it is a strong counterpoint to your contention that theism is the logical conclusion of philosophy.

But nice try.

"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
[+] 7 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
05-02-2017, 08:37 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
@Rocket Surgeon

I would say that his "arguments" doesn't sound good even to layperson. It's just big pile of bullshit hidden behind fancy language.

“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” - this sums up newest snowflake perfectly.


Wysłane z mojego 6045K przy użyciu Tapatalka

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2017, 08:49 AM (This post was last modified: 05-02-2017 08:53 AM by adey67.)
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(05-02-2017 08:37 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  @Rocket Surgeon

I would say that his "arguments" doesn't sound good even to layperson. It's just big pile of bullshit hidden behind fancy language.

“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” - this sums up newest snowflake perfectly.


Wysłane z mojego 6045K przy użyciu Tapatalka

I'm afraid as a layperson I have to agree with you Szuchow I like a good standard of language use, but I'm always a little suspicious of overly polysyllabic jargon and word salad, it can be used as camouflage for poor content or as a way to either intimidate or obfuscate quite often.
Academic really as I believe snowflake has left the building. Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes adey67's post
05-02-2017, 09:02 AM (This post was last modified: 05-02-2017 07:06 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(05-02-2017 04:52 AM)Naielis Wrote:  "So? What's wrong with that? What is morally wrong with doing damage to the world in your ethical system?"

It's unethical. Facepalm


eth·ics
ˈeTHiks/Submit
noun
1.
moral principles that govern a person's behavior or the conducting of an activity.
"medical ethics also enter into the question"
synonyms: moral code, morals, morality, values, rights and wrongs, principles, ideals, standards (of behavior), value system, virtues, dictates of conscience
"your so-called newspaper is clearly not burdened by a sense of ethics"
2.
the branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles.

I certainly hope you are not promoting the usual theist crap that those who have no belief in the gods have no ethics.

Quote: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.

Why would you care ? You're not a theist.

Quote:I bring up justification for science and most of you brush it off like justification is beneath you.

It is. It's obvious. The fact you want to talk about it does not make it an interesting topic. It's boring.

Quote:You dismiss my arguments every step of the way. I explain several times how I never employ special pleading. And yet this goes ignored.

They deserve to be dismissed. They're not "your" arguments. We've heard all that clap-trap a million times before. You think they are valid as you are a newbie.
Explaining why you *think* you didn't commit fallacies does not mean you didn't. You did. Repeatedly. You can't accept the fact.

Quote: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.

So now you read minds ? This is a forum of *written comments*. If you need to be coddled *in person*, find a therapy group, or learn to write.

Quote: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.

Wrong. A lie. Waa waa waa. They were read, and dismissed.

Quote: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.

No one said you were a "bad person". Another lie. Just one that has no good arguments. You said you were an "agnostic theist". Now it appears you are neither.

Quote:I'm done with this thread. The only mistake I made here was hoping I could have a decent conversation about reality.

Wrong. You ignored every refutation of the nonsense you presented. You can't handle the truth.

Quote: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.

Really ? First you whine about how YOU are treated by people who have never met you, and now you turn around and do THE very thing you whine about. You're not wasting your time. You wasted OUR time.

There are as many kinds of atheists here as there are people here. You have not a shred of evidence that atheism "defines" anyone here, AND you can't even say what that actually means.

Quote:Oh and by the way, your first argument about atheists in philosophy is an appeal to authority. Nice try though.

Which proves you don't even know what that fallacy is.
An appeal to authority IS VALID, *if* the appeal is to "valid" authority in their field of knowledge, and invalid (fallacious) if the appeal to an authority OUTSIDE their field of knowledge.
A surgeon is an authority in the field of surgery, and NOT an expert in psychiatry. That's really not so difficult. Weeping

Sorry if you think we're rude. Instead think "passionate". Tongue


Some reasons why your arguments are known to be "invalid".
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_first_cause


"Multiple Causes
Finally, there is nothing in the argument to rule out the existence of multiple first causes. This can be seen by realizing that for any directed acyclic graphWikipedia's W.svg which represents causation in a set of events or entities, the first cause is any vertex that has zero incoming edges. This means that the argument can just as well be used to argue for polytheism.

Radioactive Decay
Through modern science, specifically physics, natural phenomena have been discovered whose causes have not yet been discerned or are non-existent. The best known example is radioactive decay. Although decay follows statistical laws and it's possible to predict the amount of a radioactive substance that will decay over a period of time, it is impossible — according to our current understanding of physics — to predict when a specific atom will disintegrate. The spontaneous disintegration of radioactive nuclei is stochastic and might be uncaused, providing an arguable counterexample to the assumption that everything must have a cause. An objection to this counterexample is that knowledge regarding such phenomena is limited and there may be an underlying but presently unknown cause. However, if the causal status of radioactive decay is unknown then the truth of the premise that 'everything has a cause' is indeterminate rather than false. In either case, the first cause argument is rendered ineffective.

Virtual Particles
Another counterexample is the spontaneous generation of virtual particles, which randomly appear even in complete vacuum. These particles are responsible for the Casimir effectWikipedia's W.svg and Hawking radiation.Wikipedia's W.svg The release of such radiation comes in the form of gamma rays, which we now know from experiment are simply a very energetic form of light at the extreme end of the electromagnetic spectrum. Consequently, as long as there has been vacuum, there has been light, even if it's not the light that our eyes are equipped to see. What this means is that long before God is ever purported to have said "Let there be light!", the universe was already filled with light, and God is rendered quite the Johnny-come-lately. Furthermore, this phenomenon is subject to the same objection as radioactive decay.

Fallacy of Composition
The argument also suffers from the fallacy of composition, being what is true of a member of a group is not necessarily true for the group as a whole. Just because most things within the universe require a cause/causes, does not mean that the universe itself requires a cause.

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
[+] 7 users Like Bucky Ball's post
05-02-2017, 09:13 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(04-02-2017 11:48 PM)Naielis Wrote:  I put this issue of special pleading to bed in a previous post. Again, perhaps you did not see this.
You seriously think you put an issue to bed simply by denying it?

Wow, I can see that philosophy has done WORLDS of good for you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like mordant's post
05-02-2017, 09:35 AM
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.
Then we are talking about meaningless nonsense. Do you not understand that the concept of the supernatural is useless blather?

We are material beings in a material universe. Asserting the immaterial is foolish by definition because a material / natural being has no ability to access the immaterial / supernatural and make supportable assertions concerning it.

The moment anything supernatural inserts itself into the natural, it becomes natural, and subject to examination in the usual ways.

God is either wholly supernatural and therefore nothing but human fantasy and speculation, or he is natural and yet leaving no evidence of his existence or influence on things. Either way, god-claims are not supportable or substantiated in any way.
(04-02-2017 11:44 PM)Naielis Wrote:  I don't think you're working within my epistemology here.
Thankfully, no.
(04-02-2017 11:44 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Do you think physical evidence is necessary in every justification?
Yes, in the context you established for this discussion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like mordant's post
05-02-2017, 09:46 AM (This post was last modified: 05-02-2017 10:10 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Put another way, there may not be any physical evidence for any god, however if the concept of "god" is relevant in any way, one would expect to see some (any at all) evidence for it's activity. There is none. And given the definitions theists give god, ("loving" etc) one would expect *intervention* on some level. There is none.

Epicurus
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

Quote:Do you think physical evidence is necessary in every justification?

What is non-physical "evidence", how would it even be detected by physical beings (or what does that even mean) ?

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: