Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-12-2014, 11:09 AM
Re: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
A claim and fact are two different things. It's not semantics.

I can *claim* to own your house, but the *fact* is I don't.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Clockwork's post
14-12-2014, 11:25 AM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(14-12-2014 11:09 AM)Clockwork Wrote:  A claim and fact are two different things. It's not semantics.

I can *claim* to own your house, but the *fact* is I don't.

I guess this is kind of how telephone works, lol.

Of course they are not the same thing, and no one said or implied that they were.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2014, 11:30 AM
Re: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
Then I stand (well, sit) corrected. I just recently skimmed through this thread.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Clockwork's post
14-12-2014, 12:14 PM (This post was last modified: 14-12-2014 12:46 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(14-12-2014 10:24 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(14-12-2014 08:32 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  What you claim as "truth" is nothing but your opinions.

Sure, if you wanna say it's an opinion, in the same sense that a claim that there's a tea pot orbiting the sun, is an opinion that's fine.

As long as you understand that my opinion is not a matter of taste, like my opinion that eggs taste better scrambled than over easy.

This work for you?

What the POINT was, was that moral "truths" were "truth claims". Since there is no way to verify them as facts, they are nothing more than opinions. So your false analogy does not work. Whatever your opinions are with respect to morality, (and your eggs-taste thingy is both irrelevant and misses the POINT), there is no way to verify them, and they are no more than your opinions.

Do try to follow along, AND stick to the point.

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
14-12-2014, 01:33 PM (This post was last modified: 14-12-2014 01:41 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(14-12-2014 12:14 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  What the POINT was, was that moral "truths" were "truth claims". Since there is no way to verify them as facts, they are nothing more than opinions. So your false analogy does not work. Whatever your opinions are with respect to morality, (and your eggs-taste thingy is both irrelevant and misses the POINT), there is no way to verify them, and they are no more than your opinions.

Do try to follow along, AND stick to the point.

That's funny.

So you want me to stick to your point, which is a clear misunderstanding of my point?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2014, 01:43 PM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(14-12-2014 01:33 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(14-12-2014 12:14 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  What the POINT was, was that moral "truths" were "truth claims". Since there is no way to verify them as facts, they are nothing more than opinions. So your false analogy does not work. Whatever your opinions are with respect to morality, (and your eggs-taste thingy is both irrelevant and misses the POINT), there is no way to verify them, and they are no more than your opinions.

Do try to follow along, AND stick to the point.

That's funny.

So you want me to stick to your point, which is a clear misunderstanding of my point?

Wrong again. YOU are the one attempting to redefine what a "fact" is, and how that relates to your moral CLAIMS. It's not "my point". Defend your OWN redefinition of the word "fact", or STFU.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
14-12-2014, 02:40 PM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(14-12-2014 01:43 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(14-12-2014 01:33 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  That's funny.

So you want me to stick to your point, which is a clear misunderstanding of my point?

Wrong again. YOU are the one attempting to redefine what a "fact" is, and how that relates to your moral CLAIMS. It's not "my point". Defend your OWN redefinition of the word "fact", or STFU.

No, I was never trying to redefine anything, and I'm surprised to find myself arguing word choices for 20 or so posts, or that there are all these nuances between statements, claims, opinions, etc...

This is not even an argument that I want to have. Even when I concede, that we can change the words around with terms you're more comfortable with, like opinions, rather than statements, since the meaning I'm trying to convey is the same regardless, you still want to needlessly argue about this.

You seem to have latched on to this meaningless quibble, and refuse to let it go. It was amusing for a little, but got boring real quick. At this point, I'll just wait around for someone with something substantive to say.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2014, 02:50 PM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(14-12-2014 11:25 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(14-12-2014 11:09 AM)Clockwork Wrote:  A claim and fact are two different things. It's not semantics.

I can *claim* to own your house, but the *fact* is I don't.

I guess this is kind of how telephone works, lol.

Of course they are not the same thing, and no one said or implied that they were.

You exactly said and implied they are. Your exact prroccess was giving an example of CLAIMS and calling them FACTS.

How are you this dishonest or this stupid?

If they're opinions of taste or opinions on what you think is true, they're both worthless points.

You think you're getting to some grand point when you were trying to go on about moral wrongness and how people don't have some "objective" points to their moral codes, but so what? This angle your getting at is known and shown by 18th century philosophy. It's the social contract and societal patterns that are devising these ideas of moral, you being a dick is harmful, type of claims.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
14-12-2014, 03:07 PM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(14-12-2014 02:50 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  You exactly said and implied they are. Your exact prroccess was giving an example of CLAIMS and calling them FACTS.

How are you this dishonest or this stupid?

No, I didn't.

In fact to avoid these sort of implications. I made an explicit choice when defining what I meant by statement of fact to use false and even unverifiable claims, such as a tea pot orbiting the sun, the holocaust was a hoax, 9/11 was an inside job as examples. And I've used such examples repeatedly to drive this point home.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid700220


At this point there's no excuse, for calling me dishonest, other than you just haven't been following along.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2014, 03:11 PM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(14-12-2014 02:40 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(14-12-2014 01:43 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Wrong again. YOU are the one attempting to redefine what a "fact" is, and how that relates to your moral CLAIMS. It's not "my point". Defend your OWN redefinition of the word "fact", or STFU.

No, I was never trying to redefine anything, and I'm surprised to find myself arguing word choices for 20 or so posts, or that there are all these nuances between statements, claims, opinions, etc...

This is not even an argument that I want to have. Even when I concede, that we can change the words around with terms you're more comfortable with, like opinions, rather than statements, since the meaning I'm trying to convey is the same regardless, you still want to needlessly argue about this.

You seem to have latched on to this meaningless quibble, and refuse to let it go. It was amusing for a little, but got boring real quick. At this point, I'll just wait around for someone with something substantive to say.

Good.
You have nothing to say.
YOU said it was about "semantics" and now are totally unable to support your claims. It is not. It's about words having specific meanings, and slippery-slimy believers attempting to appropriate certain words ("facts") and attach them incorrectly and disingenuously to their cults.

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: