We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-05-2016, 07:03 AM
RE: We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
(28-04-2016 05:04 PM)unfogged Wrote:  I don't see how a scapegoat could be anything except a conscious choice. If you unknowingly place blame on the wrong target it isn't a scapegoat, it's just an error. The whole concept of scapegoating is intentionally blaming an innocent victim.

No, scapegoating as psychological phenomena, is a delusion. It involves the unconscious projections and displacement of a person's problems on a another. It's not error, as much it is a delusion.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2016, 07:08 AM
RE: We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
(28-04-2016 08:49 PM)Chas Wrote:  You obviously do not understand the meaning of 'scapegoating'. It is typically intentional.
The origin of it is the intentional laying of guilt on a goat.

The number of things you think you know that are completely wrong is legion.

No, I've studied scapegoating a great deal, and we're talking about the psychological phenomenon here. To intentionality would require you acknowledge the victim, such the jews were innocent, which is not how scapegoating works. The one scapegoating believes that individuals is guilty of all that which he is accused of.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2016, 08:12 AM
RE: We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
(01-05-2016 07:08 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(28-04-2016 08:49 PM)Chas Wrote:  You obviously do not understand the meaning of 'scapegoating'. It is typically intentional.
The origin of it is the intentional laying of guilt on a goat.

The number of things you think you know that are completely wrong is legion.

No, I've studied scapegoating a great deal, and we're talking about the psychological phenomenon here. To intentionality would require you acknowledge the victim, such the jews were innocent, which is not how scapegoating works. The one scapegoating believes that individuals is guilty of all that which he is accused of.

Kind of like your fool deity that needed a scapegoat to die, in order to save "his people". Facepalm

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
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
01-05-2016, 08:36 AM
RE: We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
(29-04-2016 04:00 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Now, how does the room feel? Is 72°F cool, cold, warm, or hot? That depends. To someone from the Yukon, Siberia, or coming back from a year long research trip to Antarctica, 72°F could be very warm to them. On the other hand, to someone who lives in sub-Saharan Africa or the deserts of the middle east? 72°F to them could be very cool, if not downright chilly. Their feeling and description of that same objective temperature is colored by their own background and experiences. What the room feels like to them is subjective, as are their description of it. Describing the room as either cool or warm would not be an objective valuation, but rather a subjective one. It's why you'll see people bundled up in sweats in Florida when it his 60°F, but people in Massachusetts will be out in tank-tops and shorts. This is what we mean by subjective.


Do you finally get it now? I doubt it, but nobody can say I didn't try. Drinking Beverage

I ask, because I don't think you've ever thought about this long or hard enough to actually justify your claim to 'objective' morality. So unless you can provided a basis and justification for your objective morality, then your standards look like just another set of subjective standards. The point being that while the rest of us are honest about it, you continue to hide behind 'objectivity' like it gives you the high ground.[/quote]

No I don’t think you understand what I’ve trying to repeat to you. But I’ll state it simply.

I can’t prove to person such as yourself, who belongs to the small fraction of individuals in the world that morality is objective, that morality is objective.
To me this argument would be not much different than having to arguing with a solipsist that minds exists outside of their own. Or arguing with those that believe truth is subjective, that it’s not. The presuppositions here in play make it a dead end. I don’t have to ask how you came to the believe that truth is objective, that’s likely a self-evident belief to you, as it is to me. I didn’t reason my way to that conclusion, or maybe you’re some weirdo who did.


I’m fine discussing about what we believe here, such as your views on moral subjectivism, but I have no interest in proving to you that objective morality is true. You already have trouble acknowledging that moral language, moral disputes are entrenched in beliefs that morality is objective.

You also have trouble acknowledging that moral statements of people holding to objective morality, don’t become subjective statements, if objective morality is false.

Just getting you to recognize these basic points, which atheists Philosophers like Michael Ruse, Alex Rosenberg already to some degree acknowledge, is already difficult for you. At best you’ll have to concede the illusion of moral objectivity, which I would claim is not an illusion but is real. But we’ll being reach a standstill at this point. We also have our deeply held presuppositions at the point that likely none of us are going to surrender at this point. But getting to this point which should be easy, tends to be hard in particular company in and of itself. I’m more interested in that task,

Moral language, and disputes are entirely built on these beliefs, whether true or not in the end. Something that you clearly haven’t thought much about.

Not to mention you don’t seem to have a very clear understanding of the terms objective morality and subjective morality, particularly when you believe that appealing to context negates objective morality. If morality is subjective as you state context doesn’t matter at all, it would just be matter of a personal taste, like one’s affinity to pizza, or as you put it how warm the room feels to me.

Would you claim that all moral statements made by you amount to you claiming that X is bad because you feel its bad? That at the end of the day, you’re just expressing to me your subjective feeling, such as it’s warm outside, this song sounds good to you? When you tell your child that stealing is wrong, that you’re basically just telling that it’s bad because it feels bad to you?

That when you make moral statements, this not much different that you making subjective statements, such as scrambled eggs taste better than over easy. That at the end of the day moral arguments, are like two individuals arguing about whether Bob Dylan was a better artist than Tupac.

Quote:This is measurable, demonstrable, and testable. That is what we mean by objective.

It’s true that, objective claims, such as there’s a teapot orbiting the sun, are not subjective, nor do they become subjective when shown to be false, The belief that the earth is flat, while false, is not a subjective belief. Subjective views are neither true nor false. Such as Italian food is better tasting than indian food. While it’s either true or false as to wether or not a teapot is orbiting the sun, regardless if we can currently measure this or not.

Do you acknowledge this?

It’s also true, the human history is plagued with a teleological view of morality, a belief in moral objectivism. In fact even though philosophers are predominantly Atheists, (72%), more than half of them subscribe to objective morality (Moral realism). And outside of this, you’d have to deal with the fact human history, past and present is predominantly religious, holding to predominantly objective view of morality. That moral subjectivism, is a view of a minority of people. Regardless of whether you think it’s true or not.

That humanities predominant moral tendency, is to see what they see as wrong, as objectively wrong. Do you acknowledge this as well?

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2016, 08:38 AM
RE: We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
(01-05-2016 08:12 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Kind of like your fool deity that needed a scapegoat to die, in order to save "his people". Facepalm

Kind-of, sort-of, not really, but that's fine.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2016, 05:06 PM
RE: We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
(01-05-2016 07:08 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(28-04-2016 08:49 PM)Chas Wrote:  You obviously do not understand the meaning of 'scapegoating'. It is typically intentional.
The origin of it is the intentional laying of guilt on a goat.

The number of things you think you know that are completely wrong is legion.

No, I've studied scapegoating a great deal, and we're talking about the psychological phenomenon here. To intentionality would require you acknowledge the victim, such the jews were innocent, which is not how scapegoating works. The one scapegoating believes that individuals is guilty of all that which he is accused of.

No, that's only one of its meanings. The origin and usage of that term is the placing of the person's or tribe's acknowledged guilt onto an innocent object, animal, or person.

You repeatedly display your narrow, ignorant opinions and it is tiresome. Drinking Beverage

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
01-05-2016, 06:50 PM
RE: We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
Well, got a PM from rocket man inviting me to speak on his show...

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2016, 06:52 PM
RE: We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
(01-05-2016 06:50 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  Well, got a PM from rocket man inviting me to speak on his show...

Just make sure they don't portray you as a rep for Seth or the TTA brand. Other than that, if you want to, you sure can.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2016, 06:53 PM
RE: We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
(01-05-2016 06:52 PM)Dom Wrote:  
(01-05-2016 06:50 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  Well, got a PM from rocket man inviting me to speak on his show...

Just make sure they don't portray you as a rep for Seth or the TTA brand. Other than that, if you want to, you sure can.

One of there rules was that I couldn't mention TTA, so I think we have it covered.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Atothetheist's post
01-05-2016, 06:55 PM
RE: We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
(01-05-2016 06:53 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  
(01-05-2016 06:52 PM)Dom Wrote:  Just make sure they don't portray you as a rep for Seth or the TTA brand. Other than that, if you want to, you sure can.

One of there rules was that I couldn't mention TTA, so I think we have it covered.

Interesting! It does solve the problem.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: