Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-02-2017, 01:35 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 12:33 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 11:48 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  "everything created needs a creator, except that creator"?

Sorry but that is the very definition of special pleading.

Good thing that's not what I said.

What you said was "The creator was not created so it needs no creator. The creator is the necessary being."

That is special pleading.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Chas's post
02-02-2017, 01:40 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 12:53 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 12:49 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Close enough.

The creator was not created. I didn't say everything needs to be created but the creator. So it's simply not special pleading.

So you say.

In any case:

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

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
02-02-2017, 02:09 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 01:28 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 01:02 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  WTF? You said that in the first sentence, then say you didn't say that in the second sentence.

If you're going to create arbitrary distinctions without a difference, then you are dishonest.

I created no arbitrary distinctions. I never said everything must be created only to make an exception for the creator. I made a distinction between necessary and contingent beings.

A claim about the universe for which you have zero evidence and a claim about a being which you have no evidence.

You can wank to William Lane Craig's sophistry, but you still have zero evidence, just another silly argument.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like TheInquisition's post
02-02-2017, 02:20 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 12:20 PM)Naielis Wrote:  But we're back to the main issue here: why is what God did wrong? Is your answer to this question a statement of truth?

You hope to use philosophical wankery to find truth? No. Not gonna happen. Russell and Whitehead tried to find the foundational truths of mathematics in the Principia Mathematica and couldn't do it. Philosophy, which is considerably less precise and consistent than mathematics, and which purports to make sense of humans and their myriad thoughts and behaviours, hasn't a chance in Niflheim.

I am a humanist and a pragmatist with a moderately laissez-faire view of society. My morality doesn't need metaphysics and it certainly doesn't need religious commandments. It just needs compassion, empathy and a heaping helping of common sense. "Whenever possible, don't interfere with others' lives and avoid causing harm." I put myself in the other person's shoes and don't inflict on them anything I wouldn't inflict on myself. Moreover, I frequently help people attain things they do clearly and explicitly want, if those things don't conflict with my view of Life, the Universe and Everything. The rest, as they say, is commentary.

My worldview is why I see the Christian god in particular as evil: In the Bible it harms billions of thinking, feeling beings because it has all the power and makes all the rules, and can't control its own epic hissy-fit temper. It and I are polar opposites, morality-wise.

As for necessary beings -- Heck, I don't even think the universe is actually "necessary." You can't define something into existence by insisting that it has to be there.

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
[+] 6 users Like Astreja's post
02-02-2017, 02:33 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 01:30 PM)morondog Wrote:  What do YOU think?

It doesn't matter what I think in that context. You were giving a reason for why dualism fails, but you only attacked certain schools of dualism. I think the immaterial can influence the material. I don't see why I'd need to know how this happens if I can justify that it does.

"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
02-02-2017, 02:36 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 01:35 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 12:33 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Good thing that's not what I said.

What you said was "The creator was not created so it needs no creator. The creator is the necessary being."

That is special pleading.

It simply is not. I'm not making any exception for the creator. I'm making an important metaphysical distinction between contingent and necessary beings. Then I formulate a conclusion about the existence of a necessary being. Then I can specify about the necessary qualities of the necessary being. This is not special pleading.

"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
02-02-2017, 02:42 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 02:36 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 01:35 PM)Chas Wrote:  What you said was "The creator was not created so it needs no creator. The creator is the necessary being."

That is special pleading.

It simply is not. I'm not making any exception for the creator. I'm making an important metaphysical distinction between contingent and necessary beings. Then I formulate a conclusion about the existence of a necessary being. , Create an ad-hoc rationalization. Then I can specify about the necessary qualities of the necessary being. , Then you make shit up. This is not special pleading. This is lying for Jesus.

Fixed it for you!

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
02-02-2017, 02:45 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 02:36 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 01:35 PM)Chas Wrote:  What you said was "The creator was not created so it needs no creator. The creator is the necessary being."

That is special pleading.

It simply is not. I'm not making any exception for the creator. I'm making an important metaphysical distinction between contingent and necessary beings. Then I formulate a conclusion about the existence of a necessary being. Then I can specify about the necessary qualities of the necessary being. This is not special pleading.

Was it necessary for you to say necessary so many times?

"If you keep trying to better yourself that's enough for me. We don't decide which hand we are dealt in life, but we make the decision to play it or fold it" - Nishi Karano Kaze
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2017, 02:45 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 02:20 PM)Astreja Wrote:  You hope to use philosophical wankery to find truth? No. Not gonna happen. Russell and Whitehead tried to find the foundational truths of mathematics in the Principia Mathematica and couldn't do it. Philosophy, which is considerably less precise and consistent than mathematics, and which purports to make sense of humans and their myriad thoughts and behaviours, hasn't a chance in Niflheim.
I don't really know how we can discuss anything if you reject philosophy. Are you saying all of philosophy is "wankery"?
(02-02-2017 02:20 PM)Astreja Wrote:  I am a humanist and a pragmatist with a moderately laissez-faire view of society.
Well pragmatism isn't very pragmatic. It's so easy to refute.
(02-02-2017 02:20 PM)Astreja Wrote:  My morality doesn't need metaphysics and it certainly doesn't need religious commandments. It just needs compassion, empathy and a heaping helping of common sense. "Whenever possible, don't interfere with others' lives and avoid causing harm." I put myself in the other person's shoes and don't inflict on them anything I wouldn't inflict on myself. Moreover, I frequently help people attain things they do clearly and explicitly want, if those things don't conflict with my view of Life, the Universe and Everything. The rest, as they say, is commentary.
These are just assertions from emotivism.
(02-02-2017 02:20 PM)Astreja Wrote:  My worldview is why I see the Christian god in particular as evil: In the Bible it harms billions of thinking, feeling beings because it has all the power and makes all the rules, and can't control its own epic hissy-fit temper. It and I are polar opposites, morality-wise.
Well since your morality isn't objective, it doesn't apply to the Christian god.
(02-02-2017 02:20 PM)Astreja Wrote:  As for necessary beings -- Heck, I don't even think the universe is actually "necessary." You can't define something into existence by insisting that it has to be there.
Well most philosophers are convinced that the truths described by logical laws are necessary. But the question of necessary beings is about entities. Many have argued that universe is necessary. I think most argue for energy being necessary. But I would say these violate the Principle of Proportionate Causality.

"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
02-02-2017, 02:46 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 02:36 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 01:35 PM)Chas Wrote:  What you said was "The creator was not created so it needs no creator. The creator is the necessary being."

That is special pleading.

It simply is not. I'm not making any exception for the creator. I'm making an important metaphysical distinction between contingent and necessary beings. Then I formulate a conclusion about the existence of a necessary being. Then I can specify about the necessary qualities of the necessary being. This is not special pleading.

Of course it's special pleading. We don't do alternative facts here.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Full Circle's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: