Theist Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-08-2014, 03:53 PM
RE: Theist Morality
(31-08-2014 02:51 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(31-08-2014 02:25 PM)Thinkerbelle Wrote:  Diagnosis: schizophasia.

It seems that schizophasia is a symptom rather than a diagnosis. Consider

But don't you have to diagnose the symptoms before you can diagnose the disease?

OK, you got me. It's a freakin' symptom.

We have enough youth. How about looking for the Fountain of Smart?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thinkerbelle's post
31-08-2014, 04:21 PM
RE: Theist Morality
(31-08-2014 03:45 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  
(31-08-2014 02:03 PM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  Unsubstantiated assertion


I applaud you for actually attempting to back up a statement for once, but unfortunately it's another unsubstantiated assertion.


And since it was an unsubstantiated assertion, this is no longer a valid statement.

Unsubstantiated assertion, even if premise 1 and 2 were correct.

Unsubstantiated assertion, even if the previous three premises were correct.


Unsupported conclusion that has no legs to stand on.

You seem to understand the idea of a premise, but it's quite apparent that the concept of supporting evidence is lost on you.

Your idea that everything must be substantiated by evidence is self contradictory. Where's your evidence that things require evidence?

It is the basis for justified belief, which is necessary for knowledge.

" In the philosophy of science, evidence is taken to be what confirms or refutes scientific theories, and thereby constitutes our grounds for rationally deciding between competing pictures of the world. In view of this, an understanding of evidence would be indispensable for comprehending the proper functioning of the scientific enterprise.
For these reasons and others, a philosophical appreciation of evidence becomes pressing." -Encyclopedia of Philosophy

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
31-08-2014, 04:26 PM
RE: Theist Morality
(31-08-2014 03:45 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  Your idea that everything must be substantiated by evidence is self contradictory. Where's your evidence that things require evidence?

The reason why is because things with evidence tend to be true 95% of the time. However the fact you are trying to avoid evidence shows how it is easy to accept your god is fake.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2014, 04:31 PM
RE: Theist Morality
(31-08-2014 04:26 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(31-08-2014 03:45 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  Your idea that everything must be substantiated by evidence is self contradictory. Where's your evidence that things require evidence?

The reason why is because things with evidence tend to be true 95% of the time. However the fact you are trying to avoid evidence shows how it is easy to accept your god is fake.

How do you know that they're true? Drinking Beverage

Truth seeker.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2014, 04:47 PM
RE: Theist Morality
(31-08-2014 04:31 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  
(31-08-2014 04:26 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  The reason why is because things with evidence tend to be true 95% of the time. However the fact you are trying to avoid evidence shows how it is easy to accept your god is fake.

How do you know that they're true? Drinking Beverage

Because they can with stand rigorous test by people who want nothing but to prove you are wrong. If I say X makes orange soda, people will try to disprove me by showing X does not make orange soda. However when they all realize X makes orange soda then the evidence shows X makes orange soda.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2014, 04:49 PM
RE: Theist Morality
(31-08-2014 04:31 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  
(31-08-2014 04:26 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  The reason why is because things with evidence tend to be true 95% of the time. However the fact you are trying to avoid evidence shows how it is easy to accept your god is fake.

How do you know that they're true? Drinking Beverage

Cos SCIENCE, bitches!

We could go back to a non-evidence-based approach to discovering how the world works.

We'd get as far banging rocks together to break your nuts.

Big Grin

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like DLJ's post
31-08-2014, 04:56 PM
RE: Theist Morality
(31-08-2014 04:49 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(31-08-2014 04:31 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  How do you know that they're true? Drinking Beverage

Cos SCIENCE, bitches!

We could go back to a non-evidence-based approach to discovering how the world works.

We'd get as far banging rocks together to break your nuts.

Big Grin

Good idea, we don't want it breeding.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Metazoa Zeke's post
31-08-2014, 09:44 PM
RE: Theist Morality
(31-08-2014 01:51 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  
(31-08-2014 12:45 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I've literally pointed that out a dozen times, it's the one sentence refutation of all of SeyTen's bullshit. It's all built upon the unprovable, unverifiable, unwarranted assumption that their god isn't lying to them. It's all just a fucking house of cards, but they're too stupid to see it for what it is. Too focused on debating the merits of the frame of the mirror in the bathroom, that they fail to see the foundation of the house itself crumbling and sinking into the quicksand beneath.

That would be a good argument... If you weren't incapable of knowing anything.

Premise 1 - People who act like cunts, are cunts.

Premise 2 - diddo97 acts like a cunt.

Conclusion - Therefore diddo97 is a cunt.

Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
01-09-2014, 12:23 AM
RE: Theist Morality
(31-08-2014 11:15 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  Atheism cannot account for knowledge.

What do you mean by that? Is it the entire concept of knowledge that you require Atheism account for?

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness.

-Karl Marx
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2014, 08:10 AM (This post was last modified: 01-09-2014 08:13 AM by Hafnof.)
RE: Theist Morality
(31-08-2014 03:45 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  Your idea that everything must be substantiated by evidence is self contradictory. Where's your evidence that things require evidence?

I am someone who values truth. As such I seek to find the most reliable methods I can find to distinguish true claims from false claims. By applying the most reliable methods I hope to accept true claims and reject false claims with a fair degree of reliability and repeatability.

So first let me explain what I mean by truth.

A true claim is one that makes unerring predictions about reality within a particular scope or context. For example, we might investigate a claim that the sky is blue. Without a specific context I might look up at night and find that the sky is not blue but black, or look up in the day and find the sky white or grey. With context we might be able to narrow down to a more specific claim that the wavelengths of light from a clear sky will fall within a given range according to the relative angle of the sun in the sky given the Sun's current distance and intensity and current atmospheric composition. That claim would be true if its prediction is unerring within the intended scope. The claim would be false if its prediction failed even once within the intended scope.

Identifying true claims is complicated by the fact that for even truth claim that unerringly predicts the data we have in our current data set and the output of any experiments we might perform or observations we might make there is an infinite number of alternative claims that make the same set of predictions. Nevertheless we can in very many cases differentiate between possibly true claims and certainly false claims. Those that we can call false are the claims that have many any false prediction within their intended scope.

The most reliable path we have to truth at this time is the scientific method. This method states that we must produce testable hypotheses, perform experiments to differentiate possibly true claims from certainly false claims, and use heuristics to identify the most useful claims within the set of possibly true claims. This method has been sufficient to feed the world and build space stations. So far no other method presented has proven sufficient to feed the world and build space stations, so the evidence falls strongly in favour of this model as our best available model for accessing truth and discarding falsehood.

But feel free to propose a method that is a more reliable pathway to truth:
* Perhaps you will propose that thinking really hard is a more reliable path?
* Perhaps you will propose that telepathic communication with a creature from another realm is a more reliable path?
* Perhaps you will propose that reading Old Book as a means of communicating with Creature From Another Realm is a more reliable path?
* Perhaps you will even propose that reading Old Book as a means of communicating telepathically with Creature From Another Realm Who Really Knows What's Really Real and Really Really Can't Ever Never Tell a Lie is a more reliable path?

If so, can you tell me why so many people who make use of these paths to truth and paths to knowledge come to different conclusions about what is true? Have you noticed that even best bros like Sye Ten and Eric Hovind pretty much can't agree on any significant theological point other than there definitely really really is a god who really really can tell them exactly what is true about some things but for some reason not anything useful or anything that would settle important theological disputes. Did you know those two can't even agree on what is required to get into heaven?

Don't you think that just perhaps if there is a reliable pathway to be found following these men that they would agree on what is actually true beyond the barest and broadest theological points? It seems like some Muslims would be closer to Sye's position or to Eric's position than Sye and Eric themselves are to each other's positions. And the Muslims are wrong, right? Hrrm... but they're trying to access truth in exactly the same way you are. I... I guess they must be right after all. Hrrm. Oh, no. I see that the Buddhists have been at this way longer and have been seeking truth using this reliable path of guessing and telepathy and old book. They probably have a better starting point to work from than Sye or Eric. You know I think you really have a point here. Guessing and telepathy and old book really are a reliable path to truth. If creature from another realm didn't want those other religions to thrive it wouldn't have given them such important divine revelations now would it? If creature from another realm really is in control of things then of course all of those religions are certainly right, as they have all been seeking his truth so fervently and for so long that they couldn't possibly be wrong or disagree about anything.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Hafnof's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: