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
15-12-2014, 11:32 AM (This post was last modified: 15-12-2014 11:38 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(15-12-2014 09:38 AM)morondog Wrote:  This got a bit TL; DR and rambly, my apologies. Not even sure if I answered your questions - but I had a crack at them anyway.

While I can see what makes an "opinion" an opinion in your view. I tend to agree with Chas's views here. I find it more streamlined, less dependent on judgement, and more consistent, in my opinion, with everyday understanding.

But I'll keep your understanding in mind, whenever I read any of your post, so that I can try and be faithful to your intent and meaning.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2014, 03:50 PM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(15-12-2014 11:32 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(15-12-2014 09:38 AM)morondog Wrote:  This got a bit TL; DR and rambly, my apologies. Not even sure if I answered your questions - but I had a crack at them anyway.

While I can see what makes an "opinion" an opinion in your view. I tend to agree with Chas's views here. I find it more streamlined, less dependent on judgement, and more consistent, in my opinion, with everyday understanding.

But I'll keep your understanding in mind, whenever I read any of your post, so that I can try and be faithful to your intent and meaning.

... I write this crap off the top of my head old bean. I don't adhere to any particular creed of what constitutes an opinion Tongue I rely on my feels to tell me what is smelly disgusting woo and what is hard crunchy science Big Grin

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
15-12-2014, 08:54 PM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(15-12-2014 10:53 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(15-12-2014 10:04 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No. They are not even fact claims. Facts are verifiable, as has been pointed out to you NUMEROUS times. They are opinions.
They are not now, nor ever will be verifiable.
They will never be recognized as 'facts".

Well, I tend to agree with Chas's understanding of things here. That the statement "there's a teapot orbiting the sun" is a truth claim, for it to be an opinion, I would have to state "it's my opinion", there's a teapot orbiting the sun.

That's in no way different from what many have been saying to you, only it adds the word "Truth" before claim. When others were saying it's a claim, you got defensive and opposed it. Yet with the word TRUTH added you feel like it's justified with your idea because it has that fancy term that you associate to the point you have been trying to make about FACT.

Regardless... you have spend another 20 or so posts when you were ABOUT to make your point. Instead, you complain about it being bogged down but ignore when people say, I'll accept your terms go on to something of any merit you think you are going to say. It's quite intellectually depressing and funny to see such a coherent failure.

To what you said to be last time. Judging an opinion via true or false is a degrading of the point of true/false. It's more meaningless distinctions you want to make for some reason. Probably because your conflating "everyday understanding" with any mattering philosophical or scientific understanding.

"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
[+] 2 users Like ClydeLee's post
17-12-2014, 12:00 PM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(15-12-2014 08:54 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  That's in no way different from what many have been saying to you, only it adds the word "Truth" before claim. When others were saying it's a claim, you got defensive and opposed it.

Let's not revision history here. I never opposed or became defensive. In fact if my behavior was anything it was accommodating. If it was a quibble over word choice, I was willing to accommodate nearly each and every request, about it being a claim rather than a statement, as truth rather than fact, as opinion rather than claim, etc...

So you seem to be operating from a distorted perspective if you saw otherwise.

Quote:Instead, you complain about it being bogged down but ignore when people say, I'll accept your terms go on to something of any merit you think you are going to say. It's quite intellectually depressing and funny to see such a coherent failure.

I don't know how you come to surmise that this described course of events took place, other that you're in possession of quite an extraordinary imagination, that flips the world upside down. lol.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2014, 01:30 PM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(17-12-2014 12:00 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(15-12-2014 08:54 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  That's in no way different from what many have been saying to you, only it adds the word "Truth" before claim. When others were saying it's a claim, you got defensive and opposed it.

Let's not revision history here. I never opposed or became defensive. In fact if my behavior was anything it was accommodating. If it was a quibble over word choice, I was willing to accommodate nearly each and every request, about it being a claim rather than a statement, as truth rather than fact, as opinion rather than claim, etc...

So you seem to be operating from a distorted perspective if you saw otherwise.

Quote:Instead, you complain about it being bogged down but ignore when people say, I'll accept your terms go on to something of any merit you think you are going to say. It's quite intellectually depressing and funny to see such a coherent failure.

I don't know how you come to surmise that this described course of events took place, other that you're in possession of quite an extraordinary imagination, that flips the world upside down. lol.

You know I have quotes and quotes of your in this thread exemplifying exactly what I'm talking about... how is it revisionist history when you're reading it at the moment? You have constantly showed a lot mishandling of phrases and word-choices.

Such as "don’t want to be a dick to you, but you do it make it pretty tempting" starting a post against KC where you got defensive and showed a start to being disturbed into your ideas in this thread already, and Showing you are unhappy people already have a perception of you different from what you want to give out.

Multiple times I said, fine go on and just get to your point (this is again YOU NOT DOING THAT) instead you bog it down actually complaining about the semantics and complaints of you instead of talking to your imagined point. Not sure how you can even justify it's an illusion when you calling it an illusion, is literally repeating the complaint.

But the other clear recent example was when I responding to your, said Sure even if that was the case, it doesn't matter. You could of gone on about why you think it would matter... No, instead you just continued to bicker about terms of opinion and post your scrambled eggs example. Just ignore your silly need to have some feeling of vindication in the terms you use and make a point, or come out that your argument doesn't even go anywhere.

"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
17-12-2014, 02:34 PM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(17-12-2014 01:30 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Multiple times I said, fine go on and just get to your point (this is again YOU NOT DOING THAT)

The point was made 20 pages ago, from pretty much the first post.

But here it is repeated by me for perhaps the 10,000th time, with minor change in word choices.

A statement, that a teapot orbits the sun, is a truth claim.

A statement, that I like scrambled eggs, is not, it's merely a statement of taste.

That's the only point I've made. Now do you agree with it?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2014, 03:06 PM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(17-12-2014 02:34 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(17-12-2014 01:30 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Multiple times I said, fine go on and just get to your point (this is again YOU NOT DOING THAT)

The point was made 20 pages ago, from pretty much the first post.

But here it is repeated by me for perhaps the 10,000th time, with minor change in word choices.

A statement, that a teapot orbits the sun, is a truth claim.

A statement, that I like scrambled eggs, is not, it's merely a statement of taste.

That's the only point I've made. Now do you agree with it?

It doesn't matter if it's agreed to or not. WE are more intelligent enough to understand a point without agreed upon principals. Just move on to your point!

I'll say Yes, does that make it easier for you?

"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
17-12-2014, 03:13 PM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(17-12-2014 03:06 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  It doesn't matter if it's agreed to or not. WE are more intelligent enough to understand a point without agreed upon principals. Just move on to your point!

I'll say Yes, does that make it easier for you?

No, that was the whole point. You can substitute the orbiting teapot, for moral statements that appeal to some sort of moral arc of the universe, some cosmic order, etc.... which are as a result, truth claims.

And you can substitute the eggs, for moral statements, that are in essence just statements of taste.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2014, 03:19 PM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(17-12-2014 03:13 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(17-12-2014 03:06 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  It doesn't matter if it's agreed to or not. WE are more intelligent enough to understand a point without agreed upon principals. Just move on to your point!

I'll say Yes, does that make it easier for you?

No, that was the whole the point, you can substitute the orbiting teapot, for moral statements that appeal to some sort of moral arc of the universe, some cosmic order, etc.... Which are as a result, truth claims.

And you can substitute the eggs, for moral statements, that are in essence just statements of taste.

I know what you are getting at. It's a problem of what I thought, you really aren't going to any further step. It's a false situation you think you are trying to make; the problem is there is no definitive reason to accept the 1st element is anything that exists.

I've stated it before. The idea that there is an appeal to a moral arc of the universe isn't anything certainly being made even if a person is making a purposed claim.

"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
17-12-2014, 04:10 PM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(17-12-2014 03:19 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I know what you are getting at. It's a problem of what I thought, you really aren't going to any further step. It's a false situation you think you are trying to make; the problem is there is no definitive reason to accept the 1st element is anything that exists.

You don't know what I am getting it. And that's the problem with you. Is that you bring whatever sort of baggage you have with other theists, and tend to associate it with every theists you see. This tends to obscure your "mind reading".

I was never interested in arguing the validity of these supposed truth claims. And the only thing I was arguing is that, they are in fact truth claims.

The larger operative of this discussion was merely to point out, that your typical secular moral claims, are not truth claims, but rather in essence statements of taste.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: