Morals, Christianity, Atheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-11-2014, 01:03 AM
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(21-11-2014 12:54 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(21-11-2014 11:48 AM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  That's the problem with belief systems....you can type, explain all you want....but no belief system has proven validity. None. It's all conjecture.

No belief system? Including atheism? Do you live in that relativist of a world? I'm fine if you do, because a lot of atheists and Christians around here seem dead set on absolutism.

Oh, please do explain how a lack of belief counts as a 'system'. Fucking dumdass...

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2014, 05:43 AM
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(24-11-2014 01:03 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(21-11-2014 12:54 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  No belief system? Including atheism? Do you live in that relativist of a world? I'm fine if you do, because a lot of atheists and Christians around here seem dead set on absolutism.

Oh, please do explain how a lack of belief counts as a 'system'. Fucking dumdass...

I think you are asking the wrong person for explanations.

If I may have a go:
A lack of belief counts as a system in the same way a stone counts as a pet: only to silly people who don't quite understand the concept of 'pet'.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free Thought's post
24-11-2014, 05:53 AM (This post was last modified: 24-11-2014 05:56 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(24-11-2014 05:43 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  
(24-11-2014 01:03 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Oh, please do explain how a lack of belief counts as a 'system'. Fucking dumdass...

I think you are asking the wrong person for explanations.

If I may have a go:
A lack of belief counts as a system in the same way a stone counts as a pet: only to silly people who don't quite understand the concept of 'pet'.

Not to put a damper on your analogy FT, but...

[Image: blog_Pet-Rock.png?1446]

It was a thing in the 70's here in the states, which considering the amount of drugs everyone was doing at the time, probably explains a lot...

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2014, 05:55 AM
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(24-11-2014 05:53 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(24-11-2014 05:43 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  I think you are asking the wrong person for explanations.

If I may have a go:
A lack of belief counts as a system in the same way a stone counts as a pet: only to silly people who don't quite understand the concept of 'pet'.

Not to put a damper on your analogy FT, but...

[Image: blog_Pet-Rock.png?1446]

It was a thing in the 70's, which considering the amount of drugs everyone was doing,, probably explains a lot.

That just proves my point.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2014, 02:14 PM
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(21-11-2014 04:34 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(21-11-2014 12:57 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Ah, yes. "lol dictionary"; the beloved recourse of the tedious. Do note that there are, right there, multiple meanings given.
Oh this is just rich. You're a joke cjlr.

Thanks, I'm here all week. Try the buffet!

(21-11-2014 04:34 PM)Stevil Wrote:  You complain that I don't use words "correctly" then you complain when I present a dictionary definition. Are you for real? Sadcryface2

Sorry you feel that way, mate.

Supplying a dictionary definition that explicitly contains multiple usage cases does not help clarify what is meant by a single specific usage. Nor, however, does the supplied quotation even support the usage I originally questioned; as such I find your response of questionable use as a citation...

(21-11-2014 04:34 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(21-11-2014 12:57 PM)cjlr Wrote:  If I were to say to you that I think you ought to do something, what would you think I meant by it?
I would think you are arrogant and delusional to be trying to tell me what I ought to do.

Would it concern you in any way that what you think may not reflect what others mean by what they say?

Notwithstanding that often, usage of words like "ought" (or, e.g., its kin, "should") are very much conditional, either implicitly or explicitly.
("If you wish A, then you ought to do B"...)

Just a thing to consider. I mean, I guess you're free to ignore all externalities, but...

Would you think it "arrogant and delusional" of me, if you were on fire and I told you you ought to seek medical attention?

(21-11-2014 04:34 PM)Stevil Wrote:  As I have said, you are not me, you haven't lived my life, you don't know my culture, beliefs or situation. You are totally unqualified to tell me what I ought to do.

The problem with incredibly simplistic blanket statements is that they leave no room whatsoever for subtlety or context.

What if you ask my* advice?
(*or, you know, anyone else's, if you have some apparent issue with me personally)

(21-11-2014 04:34 PM)Stevil Wrote:  If you were to word it differently as you have suggested "ought" in your mind is an expression of preference e.g. "I would prefer it if you would do X", then perhaps I might ask you to clarify why that is your preference or perhaps I would simply ignore you because your preference is irrelevant to me.

Unless, of course, we recall your much ballyhooed earlier claim that the preferences of others were relevant if they "affected you", not that that was ever well defined.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2014, 04:08 PM
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(24-11-2014 02:14 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(21-11-2014 04:34 PM)Stevil Wrote:  If you were to word it differently as you have suggested "ought" in your mind is an expression of preference e.g. "I would prefer it if you would do X", then perhaps I might ask you to clarify why that is your preference or perhaps I would simply ignore you because your preference is irrelevant to me.

Unless, of course, we recall your much ballyhooed earlier claim that the preferences of others were relevant if they "affected you", not that that was ever well defined.
Then it is more than a mere preference isn't it?

If someone is stealing your stuff, you don't tap them on the shoulder and say "It would be my preference if you don't steal my stuff"

You'd realise that your livelihood is at stake, you would be compelled to use force and risk retaliation in order to survive.
If you try use "preference" in this context then you are equivocating.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2014, 04:30 PM (This post was last modified: 24-11-2014 04:37 PM by cjlr.)
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(24-11-2014 04:08 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(24-11-2014 02:14 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Unless, of course, we recall your much ballyhooed earlier claim that the preferences of others were relevant if they "affected you", not that that was ever well defined.
Then it is more than a mere preference isn't it?

That appears not to follow from what I said.

Like, at all. But you were saying?

(24-11-2014 04:08 PM)Stevil Wrote:  If someone is stealing your stuff, you don't tap them on the shoulder and say "It would be my preference if you don't steal my stuff"

And? Have I suggested I or anyone else would (or ought to Rolleyes ) respond in such a manner?

If one didn't care, one likely wouldn't respond at all. As to either being robbed or not being robbed, why, yes, I do happen to have a preference. I suspect that you do too. My (hypothetical) response would be in accordance with that sentiment (among other things, naturally).

(24-11-2014 04:08 PM)Stevil Wrote:  You'd realise that your livelihood is at stake, you would be compelled to use force and risk retaliation in order to survive.
If you try use "preference" in this context then you are equivocating.

Could you clarify "this" context for me?
(Have I said "you ought not to rob me"? Have I said "there ought to be a law against theft"?)

And - how would that be equivocating?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2014, 06:03 PM (This post was last modified: 24-11-2014 07:17 PM by Stevil.)
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(24-11-2014 02:14 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Would you think it "arrogant and delusional" of me, if you were on fire and I told you you ought to seek medical attention?
It would be disingenuous and argumentative given the context of this thread and "discussion".
Clearly we are discussing "ought" in a moral context.
As in making a claim that a person has a moral obligation to behave in a certain way.

Your example above uses the word "ought" in a completely different context, one not related to this thread or conversation.

But I assume you are smart enough to know this. It is my opinion that you are intentionally being disingenuous and argumentative for the sake of it rather than being interested in having an engaging on-track conversation.

(24-11-2014 04:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(24-11-2014 04:08 PM)Stevil Wrote:  You'd realise that your livelihood is at stake, you would be compelled to use force and risk retaliation in order to survive.
If you try use "preference" in this context then you are equivocating.

Could you clarify "this" context for me?
(Have I said "you ought not to rob me"? Have I said "there ought to be a law against theft"?)

And - how would that be equivocating?
You have stated that your claim as to whether an external party ought to or ought not to do something (in a moral context) is merely a preference rather than a claim of objective moral obligation.

You try to interchange "moral beliefs" with opinions, you try to interchange "ought" (in a moral context) with personal preference. You then try to claim that since everyone has opinions then they must have moral beliefs, or you try to claim that you stating that someone ought to do X (in a moral context) is merely you proclaiming your preference, or offering a freindly suggestion for the external party to consider.

You flip flop between differing definitions (concepts) which share the same English word.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation
Quote:Equivocation ("to call by the same name") is classified as an informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time).

This allows you to actively practice mental gymnastics or to argue simply for the sake of it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: