From Deism to Atheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-04-2015, 10:34 AM
RE: From Deism to Atheism
(29-04-2015 10:27 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(29-04-2015 10:16 AM)Chas Wrote:  You are wrong - look up 'assertion'.

You mean Merriam Webster is wrong:

STATEMENT:

: something stated: as
a : a single declaration or remark : assertion

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/statement

Or are they correct here?

Quote:Now how about you address the actual point.

Perhaps I've missed the point you're making, because all I see is you quibbling about my word choices?

See here.

You are the one who started quibbling over definitions. It's not about the meaning of 'statement', it is about what a 'statement of fact' is.
You misidentified an opinion as a fact.

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
29-04-2015, 10:43 AM (This post was last modified: 29-04-2015 10:48 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: From Deism to Atheism
(29-04-2015 10:34 AM)Chas Wrote:  You are the one who started quibbling over definitions. It's not about the meaning of 'statement', it is about what a 'statement of fact' is.
You misidentified an opinion as a fact.

So it's not about the "statement" part, it's about the "fact" part?

Are you aware that if I were to make a statement of fact, that this doesn't mean that it is actually true? Do you recognize, a claim that there's a tea pot orbiting the sun, is a statement of fact?

That a person making such a claim, is not stating an opinion?

You've created a semantical argument, that you're just making up as you go along.

Quote:You are the one who started quibbling over definitions.

Are you delusional? lol. You're the one that started this detour, by quibbling over my use of the word "statement of fact", as being grammatically inaccurate.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2015, 10:49 AM
RE: From Deism to Atheism
(29-04-2015 10:43 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(29-04-2015 10:34 AM)Chas Wrote:  You are the one who started quibbling over definitions. It's not about the meaning of 'statement', it is about what a 'statement of fact' is.
You misidentified an opinion as a fact.

So it's not about the "statement" part, it's about the "fact" part?

Are you aware that if I were to make a statement of fact, that this doesn't mean that it is actually true? Do you recognize, a claim that there's a tea pot orbiting the sun, is a statement of fact?

That a person making such a claim, is not stating an opinion?

You've created a semantical argument, that you're just making up as you go along.

No, I am not making it up - you are ignoring the meanings of words and phrases.

'Statement of fact' means you are stating facts. Your so-called statement of fact was expressing an opinion.

But you go right ahead miscommunicating and I will continue to call out your sloppy use of language.

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
29-04-2015, 10:52 AM
RE: From Deism to Atheism
(29-04-2015 10:49 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(29-04-2015 10:43 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  So it's not about the "statement" part, it's about the "fact" part?

Are you aware that if I were to make a statement of fact, that this doesn't mean that it is actually true? Do you recognize, a claim that there's a tea pot orbiting the sun, is a statement of fact?

That a person making such a claim, is not stating an opinion?

You've created a semantical argument, that you're just making up as you go along.

No, I am not making it up - you are ignoring the meanings of words and phrases.

'Statement of fact' means you are stating facts. Your so-called statement of fact was expressing an opinion.

But you go right ahead miscommunicating and I will continue to call out your sloppy use of language.

You say it's sloppy, you haven't really convinced me of this, in fact you dodge questions attempting to clarify, like you did here. So I'll ask it again, since I'm bored, and awaiting Steval's response.

If I claimed that a teapot is orbiting the sun, would I be stating an opinion? Would you classify this as a statement of fact?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2015, 10:57 AM
RE: From Deism to Atheism
(29-04-2015 10:52 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(29-04-2015 10:49 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, I am not making it up - you are ignoring the meanings of words and phrases.

'Statement of fact' means you are stating facts. Your so-called statement of fact was expressing an opinion.

But you go right ahead miscommunicating and I will continue to call out your sloppy use of language.

You say it's sloppy, you haven't really convinced me of this, in fact you dodge questions attempting to clarify, like you did here. So I'll ask it again, since I'm bored, and awaiting Steval's response.

If I claimed that a teapot is orbiting the sun, would I be stating an opinion? Would you classify this as a statement of fact?

Fine, I will concede that point.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
29-04-2015, 11:01 AM
RE: From Deism to Atheism
thank you
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2015, 11:05 AM
RE: From Deism to Atheism
(29-04-2015 10:43 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(29-04-2015 10:34 AM)Chas Wrote:  You are the one who started quibbling over definitions. It's not about the meaning of 'statement', it is about what a 'statement of fact' is.
You misidentified an opinion as a fact.

So it's not about the "statement" part, it's about the "fact" part?

Are you aware that if I were to make a statement of fact, that this doesn't mean that it is actually true? Do you recognize, a claim that there's a tea pot orbiting the sun, is a statement of fact?

That a person making such a claim, is not stating an opinion?

You've created a semantical argument, that you're just making up as you go along.

Quote:You are the one who started quibbling over definitions.

Are you delusional? lol. You're the one that started this detour, by quibbling over my use of the word "statement of fact", as being grammatically inaccurate.

Actually every teapot that we know of orbits the sun, just about every 24 hours. I think I have 3 maybe, that do so every day. No wait. 4. I forgot about 1.

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
29-04-2015, 11:11 AM
RE: From Deism to Atheism
(29-04-2015 11:05 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Actually every teapot that we know of orbits the sun, just about every 24 hours. I think I have 3 maybe, that do so every day. No wait. 4. I forgot about 1.

Mine are slower; they take a full year.
Tongue

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like unfogged's post
29-04-2015, 11:14 AM
RE: From Deism to Atheism
(29-04-2015 11:05 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(29-04-2015 10:43 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  So it's not about the "statement" part, it's about the "fact" part?

Are you aware that if I were to make a statement of fact, that this doesn't mean that it is actually true? Do you recognize, a claim that there's a tea pot orbiting the sun, is a statement of fact?

That a person making such a claim, is not stating an opinion?

You've created a semantical argument, that you're just making up as you go along.


Are you delusional? lol. You're the one that started this detour, by quibbling over my use of the word "statement of fact", as being grammatically inaccurate.

Actually every teapot that we know of orbits the sun, just about every 24 hours. I think I have 3 maybe, that do so every day. No wait. 4. I forgot about 1.

I believe your teapots, like mine, orbit the sun once a year.

Or are you a geocentrist? Consider

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
29-04-2015, 04:13 PM (This post was last modified: 30-04-2015 12:51 AM by Stevil.)
RE: From Deism to Atheism
(29-04-2015 07:43 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(28-04-2015 03:46 PM)Stevil Wrote:  But that is the truth. You claim something as universally wrong because you don't like it.

That’s not the truth. When I say something is morally wrong, I’m making a factual statement, even if that statement is false, or the equivalent of saying there’s a tea pot orbiting the moon.
You believe it to be a statement of fact but this doesn't mean that it is. It is your opinion that it is a statement of fact because in your opinion moral truths exist.

With the teapot orbiting the moon we can state that a teapot can be observed by visual examination and comparing it to other teapots. We can put tea inside it and see if it can be used to transfer tea to a tea cup, so in someway the claim can be verified and this verification would be objective and universal meaning it has potential to be a statement of fact because either there is a teapot orbiting the moon or there isn't, having total knowledge would resolve this answer.

But your claim to murder being immoral isn't a statement of fact. It would be a statement of fact if objective morality exists. But if objective morality doesn't exist then it isn't a statement of fact. Since there is no way to prove if morality is objective, subjective or doesn't exist then your claim as to it being a statement of fact is merely an opinion. In your opinion objective moral truths exist.

(29-04-2015 07:43 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  That it’s wrong independent of whether I like it or not. I may like to keep the wallet you dropped, but I may return it to you, against this desire, because I see it as wrong, as a violation of some moral law.
Yes, you have a set of beliefs which guide your decision making. It seems you are making the distinction that your beliefs and your immediate desires may conflict.
Im my worldview the conflict arises based on my understanding of long term consequences versus my immediate desires. For example if I see a Ferrari I may have a desire to possess it (to steal it) but my long term desire to be free and not hunted by police wins out in the conflict.
You deem it that Good people obey moral rules.
I deem it that some people are better at delayed gratification than others, that some people are in more desperate situations than others, that some people are more risk takers than others.
We both see the same behaviours but our explainations although in some ways similar, are also vastly different.

(29-04-2015 07:43 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  all I’m doing here is justifying why it was okay for me to violate this moral law in this instance, a defense that likely wouldn’t hold up in a hypothetical moral court, nor one that held up to the accusations of my conscious, that my theft was indefensible, and I was wrong.
The only person you are justifying things to is yourself, in order to not feel guilty for violating a moral belief that you hold.
Some Catholics feel guilt for having sexual thoughts about someone.
Some Catholics feel guilty for having sex with their husband or wife, because the church has convinced them that it is sin if they aren't trying to make babies.

Feelings of guilt is not evidence for objective morality. There is nothing remarkable about guilt, it isn't a thing that is in tune with moral laws governing the universe.

(29-04-2015 07:43 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  This is where you're confused. I’m not talking about moral behavior, but moral knowledge. Just because I know that stealing is wrong, doesn’t mean that I won’t steal...
OK, sure, some people do things that they believe to be morally wrong.
But if we are to focus on discovery of moral knowledge (moral truths), how do we go about objectively discovering this?
For example you claim that you know that stealing is wrong, how do you know this?
(29-04-2015 07:43 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  You seem to be prone to viewing things in a systemizing way. This seems to be the way you grapple with questions like this. So I’d assume you perception and objection here, would be in a consideration of something akin to a robot, programmed with a series of laws, and if such laws were in place than these robots would act in accordance with these laws. This seems to make sense of why you object to the moral law, by appealing to human behavior contrary to these very principles.
Well, no. I object because there isn't an objective way to come to the conclusions that you are making. It seem to me that you are presenting your own opinion as if it is fact and claiming that it must be fact because some other people also agree with you.
(29-04-2015 07:43 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  To put it simply it’s pathological, in a lot of cases this blatantly clear. If some one were going out and torturing babies just for the fun of it, we’d recognize this individuals as deranged, as having something psychologically wrong with him. And we mean this literally. In fact I gave some examples of this in my previous post, regarding the man who killed his wife, and Nazis.

It involves a sort of denial, a series of lies we have to tell ourselves, delusions. Aspects not true for people who like country music vs those who like hip hop.
I hear what you are saying, but you are still basing your argument off ad populum. We consider "normal" human behaviour those things that most people do. For cases which differ from the norm we often create labels for e.g. Aspergers etc. It's a declaration of how something differs from the general behaviour of others, it does not make any claims as to moral truths.
(29-04-2015 07:43 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:Don't you think that living in a society of people it makes sense to outlaw murder because no one in that society wants to be murdered?



Of course it makes sense, just like speeding limits, and homeowners policies make sense. But murder being illegal, just like speeding is illegal, is not the same as seeing murder as morally wrong.
Really? Are you able to prove they are not the same thing?
At one point abortion was illegal (murder of the unborn) and most people would have been shocked to hear of an abortion being performed. Now that abortion is leagal, most people don't think twice about it.
Samething with gay sex, at one point many western countries considered it immoral and worthy of death penalty or imprisonment, at that time many people would have been shocked to see a person be openly gay. Now people don't think twice about it.
In my country prostitution is now legal. The beliefs and opinions of the general public can change but if morality were objectively true then these things can't change.

(29-04-2015 07:43 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  It’s evident that the wrongness of murdering an innocent child, is far more fundamental.
But apparently the "wrongness of murdering the unborn isn't fundamental?
This is all ad populum arguments.
(29-04-2015 07:43 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:Should we interfere in their lives and stop them killing their own defective babies? Merely because we don't like it?

No, if it was merely a matter that we don’t like it, than we shouldn’t be interfering at all, as suggested by Dr. Erwin Frank. But luckily there are folks who don’t see it as a matter of not liking it, but morally wrong, and the Brazilian Government passed an infanticide law in 2011, as a result.
I feel it is a shame that you so strongly believe that you are right and that they are wrong. It is a shame that a government can interfere with an isolated tribe like this. Forcing the beliefs of the government onto these people, I disagree with it. I hope that if we ever do discover intelligent life on other planets that we don't go there with our guns and force them to comply to our moral beliefs.
(29-04-2015 07:43 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:Love is a vague concept. I would expect it means something somewhat magical to you. Something godly. ….We both have our different opinions as to the root cause for my own behaviour.

I think I may have been mistaken. I used to think that you were pretty normal, and as a result of certain commitments, held the views you did, but perhaps didn’t really believe them. Now, I think you’re just odd, and your views are a result of this oddness.
Great that you think I am odd, I too think religious people think in an odd way. But it would better suit our purposes to focus on the topic of the discussion rather than the person making the argument. As i understand things, Christian organisations really get inside the heads of their believers, they put a lot of effort in getting you to see the world with Christian coloured glasses. Even words are often redefined for you. For you god is "love" for me love is just a conceptual word to express a range of emotions and behaviours. For me love cannot be an invisible magical creature. If you and me are in conversation there is no point us talking about love but individually using our different meaning for the word. This way we will talk past each other or even argue about semantics.
(29-04-2015 07:43 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  It’s seems like a pretty straightforward question, no magic was being implied here.
No, the question wasn't straight forward. We both consider "love" to have different meanings.
(29-04-2015 07:43 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Do you think your wife and kids love you? Do you believe you parents did/do?
I don't see the relevance of the question to our discussion. If I understand what you are getting at I could attempt to explore what you are trying to explore and express this in a way that has consistent meaning to my atheist mind and your Christian mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: