Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-12-2016, 11:34 AM (This post was last modified: 07-12-2016 11:48 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(07-12-2016 10:32 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  The incoherence that only exists and has been demonstrated to you via often your own brought up sources.

Yes only a certain x group % of philosophers believe moral stance or whatever... which doesn't support their believe in Y thought. The reality is when you're further into a field the definitions go beyond 101 is or is not level of concepts.

That's why when you look into philosophical works there's dozens upon dozens of written and debated ideas on the ranges Relativism, Nihilism, or humanism can be understood as. It's not incoherent or all inconsistent, it's just deeply examined.

The majority of philosophers, close to 60% of them subscribe to objective morality, that there are intrinsic moral values, unlike you of course who believes intrinsic moral values don't exist.

And yes humanism, and it's ilk are incoherent, inconsistent all the way down. Works like After Virtue indicate quite clearly why that is.

Both of us should realize, that people are not inclined to recognize their own incoherencies, and inconsistencies, they like to brush over them, avoid confronting them, claim their being nuanced, etc.. when brought to their attention.

I think there might be a simple exercise to help people deal with the inconsistencies. Start with an area not in particular dispute among us. Let's say by thinking about moral behaviors and inclinations from an evolutionary perspective, in regards to others animals and their parallel behaviors. After you though of this for bit, consider whatever particular moral philosophy you hold, and then contemplate what possible effect holding that particular moral philosophy, has on your moral dispositions. Clearly other animals don't subscribe have moral philosophy, they don't subscribe to humanism, consequentialism, etc... So what unique effect, role do you imagine this moral philosophy you hold on yours or anyone else's proactive moral behavior?

Perhaps in trying to reconcile your beliefs about humanism as a moral philosophy, and our evolutionary programing here, some of these inconsistencies can start to become apparent. It should also be recognized that much of humanism, enlightenment era moral philosophy, where conceived long before much of our scientific understandings of morality were uncovered.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2016, 12:13 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(07-12-2016 09:42 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  You and the religious may just as well have imaginary obligations, but at least religious people can truly believe they are real, as real as their God, and hold on to this belief by tooth and nail, while you'll likely recognize yours are imaginary in a few short steps.

The obligations may be imaginary, but people are real. I like people enough to want them to be happy rather than unhappy. 'Nuff said.
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
07-12-2016, 02:27 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(07-12-2016 10:08 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Yes, I am here to test my personal theories, not sure why that's offensive.

Yes, I can see your confusion. I'm sure we're all here to be your little lab rats and to satisfy your curiosity.

(07-12-2016 10:08 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Atheists have their own personal theories regarding theists, that they're deluded, etc... The only difference is that when it comes to atheists, I like to test this out, to see if it's accurate or not, rather than assume that and repeat it with my theistic/atheistic buddies for the sake of high-fives and rep points.

Yet another generalization, if not an outright lie. If you had any actual curiosity about atheists, you would understand that many atheists were theists themselves and have had innumerable conversations with theists.

But, like I said, you aren't here to be honest.

(07-12-2016 10:08 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  And as far as sincerity is concerned, while it's appreciated, it's not particularly necessary.

Or understood apparently.

(07-12-2016 10:08 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Science tells me that when it comes to matters of the mind, you shouldn't put too much stock in the observed parties sincere rationalizations about themselves. I'll hear you out, but I'm busy dissecting your brain, and I'm more interested in aligning how it works, with the variety of scientific literature on brains in general, and animal behavior. As far as i'm concerned, the whole enlightenment enterprise, that serves as the basis for common beliefs about rationalism, objectivity, secular morality, truth, is all non-sense. But judging that individuals such as yourself have a sincere commitment to these things, your sincerity is only impediment to whats accurate here.

You have demonstrated in this very post that you have no idea of how science works, or even objective thinking.

You claim to be curious about what we think, yet in nearly every post you tell us what we think and refuse to change your opinions, even when corrected.

This could be arrogance, delusion or any number of things, but it is not science.

(07-12-2016 10:08 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I don't expect you to like this, no one particularly likes when someone picks up their worldview, or argues that they're deeply held beliefs are false. I don't expect to make fans in the process. But hey that's okay, as long as my curiosities are served.

I dislike being lied to. I dislike being told, incorrectly, what I supposedly think.

You are not arguing, supposedly, that my "deeply held beliefs" are false.

As far as morality goes, you have contributed nothing to the discussion, other than repeatedly bleating that atheists cannot judge morality.

This is not an attack on my beliefs, since you have presented nothing to support your position or contradict any other position.

(07-12-2016 10:08 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  It does seem that post such as yours, that are personal in nature, are defensive/protective on your part. To warn others to stay away from my dissecting of their world-views, to throw wrenches at my continued testing of my assumptions. It's why folks like you and TbD have relegated yourselves to avoiding answering any questions at all, and seem to convince others to do the same.

Actually I stopped reading your posts a while back. The repetitive drone was putting me to sleep. This thread just happened to catch my attention.

Creating a strawman and committing other logical fallacies does not equate to "dissecting world views".

No one here is obligated to interact with you in any way. You can ask whatever questions you want. Why should we bother to answer them, if you are not interested in our answers?

(07-12-2016 10:08 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  But you just make me even more curious, as to what exactly are you trying to protect here? What exactly are you trying to guard. For theists behaving similarly this might be obvious, they're protecting his cherished religious beliefs. But you, and other atheists? What is it that you feel so treated by? That's an interesting question.

There is no one here who needs protecting: Longtime posters know your routine. I've seen new posters suss you out in a matter of hours.

There is nothing to guard. Anything posted here is public. Perhaps you're merely projecting your own dishonesty. Or another attempt at provoking?

A more interesting question is "Why should anyone here care about your curiosity or your questions?"

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
08-12-2016, 08:35 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(07-12-2016 02:27 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  You claim to be curious about what we think, yet in nearly every post you tell us what we think and refuse to change your opinions, even when corrected.

No, I’m open to correction all the time, and as I said here in regards to my conclusions about atheists, they’re tentative at best, treated more like an hypothesis, than held as a fact. I try and respond to as many objections as I can. I listen to the responses, attempt to take in those responses in my subsequent replies, etc.. But the tendency is, that when things start getting peeled away, many atheists start to deflect, resort to personal attacks, and often even refuse to answer basic questions. Which I should say is common to theists and atheists alike in similar situations.

Quote:A more interesting question is "Why should anyone here care about your curiosity or your questions?”

For the same reason anyone else would care to respond to questions raised on a internet forum. Sometimes I get a lot of responses and answers, sometimes I don’t. Some people care to answer them, some don’t. They do so voluntary, and as long as there’s an adequate amount of responses, I’ll continue to ask my questions.

If you don’t particularly care to answer my questions, than it’s unlikely you’ll ever correct me. If you don’t care to answer my questions, than you don’t care to correct me either. So perhaps you should rethink your role as “corrector” of my assumptions here.

Quote:You have demonstrated in this very post that you have no idea of how science works, or even objective thinking

I start with a hypothesis, make several predictions based on this hypothesis, test that hypothesis out with the available resources at my disposal, consider possible variables, alternative conclusions, etc… If anything I don’t have the best resources for testing, and I’m not dealing with an exact science here, but I try and work as well as I can with what I have.

As far as objective thinking is concerned, I’m still waiting on hearing whether you think objective thinking is a uniquely human thing, or whether my dog, or beetles, or elephants think objectively as well, as opposed to purely subjectively. I lack a belief in objective thinking, so if you want to convince me of it, that I’m open to hearing you out as well.

Quote:I dislike being lied to. I dislike being told, incorrectly, what I supposedly think.

When it comes to other humans, I try and observe the same way that I do other animals, like my dog, since we’re so closely connected, have a shared evolutionary history. Chimpanzees don’t particular share their beliefs or rationalizations with us, yet we seem to have a good grasp on their behavior, patterns, and thought processes, perhaps even more so than ourselves. And we often learn a great deal about how our brain works, from those suffering from unique brain injuries, whose personal assessments are off as a result.

I’m interested in you as a biological creature, how your neurochemical brain works, what influence these factor have on our moral inclination, and beliefs. I observe humanity here as a species, not as individuals. Just like when it comes to observation about my dog, its based on observation and studies on dogs in general. So what your individuals rationalizations are, are not that interesting. I’ll hear them out, consider them, but they likely don’t hold as much value as you would like, because you’re not different than every other biological human being. You’re victim of a variety of biological and environmental factors, common to a multitude of others.

I don’t care whether you like it or not, when I make assumptions about how you think. You’re feelings on the matter of no real consequence to me. I want to know whether it’s true, not whether it makes you feel bad.

Quote:I'm sure we're all here to be your little lab rats and to satisfy your curiosity.

You’re as much of a lab rat, as any other human being or group being observed for the sake of scientific observations, or any other observation of animal behavior. You should be no more offended, than my dog should be when making observations regarding his behavior. Perhaps you should even be flattered.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2016, 09:31 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(08-12-2016 08:35 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  No, I’m open to correction all the time, and as I said here in regards to my conclusions about atheists, they’re tentative at best, treated more like an hypothesis, than held as a fact.

Your post history says the opposite.

(08-12-2016 08:35 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  But the tendency is, that when things start getting peeled away, many atheists start to deflect, resort to personal attacks, and often even refuse to answer basic questions.

When a poster continues to repeat inaccurate statements after multiple refutations, further discussion is pointless. If you are not listening to our answers, why should we bother to respond?

(08-12-2016 08:35 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  So perhaps you should rethink your role as “corrector” of my assumptions here.

I claimed no such role. Another fallacy on your part.

(08-12-2016 08:35 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  As far as objective thinking is concerned, I’m still waiting on hearing whether you think ...

You will continue to wait. You are closed to any answers or evidence that does not agree with you preconceptions.

(08-12-2016 08:35 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  When it comes to other humans, I try and observe the same way that I do other animals....

You try to sound scientific, yet your actions bely any knowledge of science.
Don't you think alienating and offending your "study group" will affect your results?

(08-12-2016 08:35 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  So what your individuals rationalizations are, are not that interesting. I’ll hear them out, consider them, but they likely don’t hold as much value as you would like, because you’re not different than every other biological human being. You’re victim of a variety of biological and environmental factors, common to a multitude of others.

Yawn. Blah blah blah. Human dog chimp blah. Nothing special insignificant victim. blah blah blah.

(08-12-2016 08:35 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  You’re feelings on the matter of no real consequence to me.

I shall try to control my disappointment.

(08-12-2016 08:35 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Perhaps you should even be flattered.

Honestly, I literally laughed out loud at this. Thumbsup

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
08-12-2016, 10:08 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(08-12-2016 09:31 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Your post history says the opposite.

No my post history, has explicitly indicated on numerous occasions that my views on atheists are tentative, are at best a hypothesis. You just want to distort this otherwise, even though I have stated this more often than I needed to.

Quote:I claimed no such role. Another fallacy on your part.

Oh okay so you’re not the “corrector”, so when you use terms like “we”, “our: etc., you’re not including yourself. In fact when you indicate that I’m not listening to “corrections” you’re referring to other people’s corrections, not yours.

Can you provide a single example were someone has attempted to correct me, and I didn’t listen to them? It should also be said, that not listening to them, and not agreeing with them are not the same thing. Even on occasions were I missed something in someone post, when someone points it out, I go back to that post, find it, and respond to it. I listen, or at least try to, I just don’t always agree.

Quote: You are closed to any answers or evidence that does not agree with you preconceptions.

What evidence is that? What evidence am I’m supposedly closed off too? I’ll wait.

Quote:You try to sound scientific, yet your actions bely any knowledge of science.
Don't you think alienating and offending your "study group" will affect your results?

Sure, but when you study group is going to be offended, just by the fact that you ‘re trying to studying them, as you might other animals, then it’s kind of unavoidable. I just have to work around it. I’m just conducting my own examinations and analysis here, the best way I believe I can with the resources available. I’m just using science here as an analogy. Whether or not it can officially be called a scientific investigation, is not all that important to me, and would seem more to be a semantic dispute than anything. If you think the methodology is flawed, you’re more then welcome to point that out. I’ll consider input on how to improve my methodology, bar having to molly coddle you folks.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2016, 12:54 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(08-12-2016 10:08 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Can you provide a single example were someone has attempted to correct me, and I didn’t listen to them?

I can. Let me dig it up. Do you know what a radix is yet?

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
08-12-2016, 12:57 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(08-12-2016 12:54 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(08-12-2016 10:08 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Can you provide a single example were someone has attempted to correct me, and I didn’t listen to them?

I can. Let me dig it up. Do you know what a radix is yet?

Oh god, I list some too.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...intentions

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...-aware-now

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2016, 01:43 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(08-12-2016 12:57 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Oh god, I list some too.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...intentions

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...-aware-now

Actually in the both of those thread you were corrected, but continued on as if that didn't occur.

In the first thread you accused me of holding that rocks have intentions. And I indicated on that very thread to you, that no they don't have intentions. Perhaps this was what you thought you were correcting in the first place?

On the second thread, you wanted to suggest that dementia patients have a better understanding of their mind/brains, then doctors do, but you just didn't want to accept that you were wrong.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2016, 01:47 PM (This post was last modified: 08-12-2016 02:09 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(08-12-2016 12:54 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  I can. Let me dig it up. Do you know what a radix is yet?

Thanks to you, I'd say somewhat. Though you spent less time explaining it to me, and more time astonished by the fact that I didn't know what it meant at the time.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Tomasia's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: