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, 08:11 PM
RE: We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
(21-04-2016 10:59 AM)kyrocketman Wrote:  Hello I have been a Rocket Scientist (aerospace engineer) for 30 years.
I have a pod-cast call God-Talk.com that I host with a medical doctor/theologian.
Dr. Andy was in a rock band and an emergency room doctor for many years as an atheist. He is now teaching medicine and is my pastor. We have plenty of atheist friends and listeners from all over the world.

We humbly request that one or more representatives of The Thinking Atheist come on our show to discuss different topics from your perspective.
We will give you 30 uninterrupted minutes on air to make your point, but you must be respectful (no bad language), and send us a simple outline of the point you wish to make (just so we can prepare for the show).
That is all, I truly hope I haven't offended anyone and I truly hope to hear from you.
Kindest Regards,
KYrocketman

No thanks, too busy in real life. Here though is my last interview by a religious studies major from Saint Leo University.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid839798

This is the interview that was conducted with me by a fellow student at Saint Leo University for her World Religions class. The Questions are from her, and the Answers are from me.

World Religions: A Different Perspective
##### ##########
Professor J######
World Religions: East and West
July 31, 2015

World Religions: A Different Perspective (Interview Transcript)
Introduction to Interviewee: 46 yr. [old] active duty military officer, married with 4 children. Holds a bachelor’s degree in Criminal Justice with spec in Homeland Security and a minor in Religious Studies. Identifies as an atheist.

Q1: What religious/nonreligious group or theology do you identify with?

A1: “I identify with Atheism. My epistemological journey to truth started as a Christian. I was debating some atheists, and they brought up some points that got me to thinking, so I did research and sought academic education in religion in order to be able to defend my faith, and strengthen it through knowledge. The opposite happened, the more I learned, the less I believed. Then I went to "more spiritual then religious", then agnostic, and finally atheism...it is an informed choice. All gods of religion can be traced back to their creator; man. It is a complete fabrication, and this is why it requires faith. Faith is the belief in something without any evidence. If it had evidence, it wouldn't require faith, it would simply be fact. Faith and belief in the transcendental world, magic, and miraculous events even in the face of superior evidence to the contrary, is the definition of delusion. As an intelligent, educated adult, I do not believe in magic, universe creating super deities, or a magical transcendental world. I find that all religion's creation stories are equally ridiculous, and yet.... billions of people purport to believe.

So after a long contemplative and introspective analysis of world history, archaeological evidence and biblical historicity, I have come to the conclusion it is false, and since no evidence of deities exist, and the known universe is the opposite of what one would surmise would exist if an intelligent designer created it, then one must accept no gods exist.”

Q2: You say there is no evidence, historical or otherwise, to support the existence of God or Gods. Yet, the cosmological argument/theory uses science/physics to support the argument that there is a God/Self-Being. Do you believe this argument is flawed? If so, why?

A2: "First let’s look at the Cosmological argument:
Incorporating Aristotle's notion of a "prime mover" into Summa Theological and elsewhere, Thomas Aquinas famously formulated his version of the cosmological or "first cause" argument. According to this argument, the things which we see around us now are the products of a series of previous causes. But that series cannot go back in time forever. Thus there must be some first cause which was not itself caused by anything else. And that first uncaused cause is God.

The argument can be put more formally as follows:

1. Every thing has either been caused to exist by something else or else exists uncaused.
2. Not every thing has been caused to exist by something else.
3. Therefore, at least one thing is itself uncaused.

There are several problems with this argument. The most crucial objection to the argument itself is that unless we know that premise 2 is true, the argument fails. If the universe is infinitely old, for instance, everything could indeed be caused by something else before it; the series of causes could go back forever. But perhaps more importantly, one could hold that the argument succeeds without believing that God exists. There could be multiple uncaused causes—multiple gods, say—or the uncaused cause could be an unintelligent, impersonal force. Finally, the argument holds that God is required to explain the existence of the universe, but offers no explanation for why God exists. If you invoke God to answer the question "Why is there a universe rather than nothing?" you raise the further question "Why is there a God rather than nothing?" The fundamental question—"Why is there something rather than nothing?"—remains unanswered either way; so why invoke a potentially nonexistent God to explain a universe which we know exists? This is the epitome of god-of-the-gaps argument. We don’t know…so….god.

One cannot state with any degree of validity that the first causal theory doesn't apply to the mythical egocentric Abrahamic god because one has the unique opinion he is the "eternal god", thus wasn't "caused". How does one arrive at that thought? How does one ascertain ones version of "god" is eternal? Which god by the way? There are so many, yet each fan club thinks their god is the only god, the true god and the only true religion. The irony of that kills me. 4500 different religions, all of which claim their god is the one, the truth and the light. Christianity alone has over 40,000 strains of their delusion, and each declares all others are not "true Christians".

The major premise of the argument, ""everything had a cause," is contradicted by the conclusion that "god did not have a cause." You can't have it both ways. If everything had to have had a cause, then there could not be a first cause. If it is possible to think of a god as uncaused, then it is possible to think the same of the universe.

Some theists, observing that all "effects" need a cause, assert that god is a cause but not an effect. But no one has ever observed an uncaused cause and simply inventing one merely assumes what the argument wishes to prove. If a god can be thought eternal, then so can the universe. The word "cause" is a transitive verb. Causality requires temporality. If god exists outside of time, he cannot cause anything.

The latest spin on this position by Christian philosophers like William Lane Craig is that:

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

This may be seductive to those who already believe in a god. To me, it seems awfully suspicious. The clause "Everything that begins to exist" sounds artificial. It is not a phrase we hear outside the context of theistic philosophy. It appears to be an Ad Hoc construction designed to smooth over earlier apologetic efforts.”

Q3: If the arguments for our existence are flawed, what is the purpose of life?

A3: “What makes you think there is a purpose to life? What reasoning do you utilize in your observation of the real world around us that suggests life has a purpose? Purpose suggests a plan, a plan suggests concepts like fate, fate suggests preplanned destiny, which suggests a planner, which points to an intelligent designer. But nothing I have observed suggests our lives have a purpose. For example; What is the purpose for a mosquito…that is life, what is its purpose? What is the purpose for millions of babies born with terminal diseases? Neither reflects purpose, but they both point to the wonders of random mathematics, the roll of the dice, the chance and circumstance that leads to a short, painful life, or a long, healthy life.

As I stated above, purpose implies a plan, which implies a planner….and we know that is a fallacy, as nothing points to a planner. From the perspective of someone observing the finished product around us (well, it isn’t finished, as everything is in some slow state of evolution, but you understand what I mean) it is easy to say, “wow, there is no way all of this could have just…happened”…but actually when you dig into the world at the DNA level, at the molecular level, at the sub-dermal level we see exactly what we would expect to see from an evolving world. In the human body the vast majority of genes are dormant, recessive and no longer used, as we evolved through time, things shut off with non-use, occasionally one of those genes becomes dominant, and we have a baby human born with a coccyx tail for example..our bodies contain vestigial organs and bone formations, which show our evolution from an earlier, different form…if we were created in our current form, we wouldn’t have those things..

We view things that are complex like say….the eye, and exclaim “that just had to have been the work of a god”…no actually, it is anything but a perfect design, it is just the opposite. The anatomy of the human eye, in fact, shows anything but "intelligence" in its design. It is built upside down and backwards, requiring photons of light to travel through the cornea, lens, acquaeous fluid, blood vessels, ganglion cells, amacrine cells, horizontal cells, and bipolar cells before they reach the light sensitive rods and cones that transduce the light signal into neural impulses....which are then sent to the visual cortex at the back of the brain for processing into meaningful patterns. For optimal vision, why would an intelligent designer have built an eye upside down and backwards?

So in summary, no evidence of a planner, means no plan, no plan means no purpose.”

Q4: Do you believe that the discovery of Earth 2.0 supports your views?

*A4: “Yes. However, the discovery of Earth 2.0 should surprise no one. As I have asserted before, it all comes down to numbers. The Hubble telescope can see over 400+ billion stars and planets. A thinking person would surmise that beyond the range and capability of the Hubble telescope, are billions and maybe trillions of stars and planets that are beyond our view. So it would make sense that the perfect conditions to support life, whatever form of life that is, has been achieved elsewhere simply based on the numbers.

Now, if there were only the Earth, the moon, and the sun then perhaps the anthropocentric, Abrahamic faith-based belief in God, as per the fictional document called the Bible, would require closer scrutiny. Oh yeah, and throw a few stars in the heavens to provide light of course. But that isn’t the case is it? We know that there are at least 400+ billion stars and planets. Is one truly to believe that God created at least 400+ billion planets until he got at least one just right, and then grabbing a handful of dirt, blew into it, creating man? Not only is that preposterous, and lacking any supportive evidence, but it doesn’t pass the logic test either.

So yes, I do believe that the discovery of Earth 2.0 supports my views; that the universe is vast, does not indicate an intelligent designer or Creator, and that statistically, life could and most likely has been achieved on another planet. Interesting question. I have never been asked that question before.”

Q5: Is it safe to say Morality and Religion have always been closely entwined? Religion provides a How to be a Decent Person guideline and society enforces it. Yet our world is corrupt and broken. What do you believe is wrong with the human condition?

A5: “Well, we know from Anthropology 101 where human customs come from, and in general why they arise. One of the fallacies religionists claim is that without their deity, morality would not exist. The fact is that EVERY SINGLE commandment, injunction and law in the Bible existed already in ancient Near Eastern culture and was imported into the Bible. Religion took their laws from existing culture, not vice versa.

Religious people and popular culture likes to draw a correlation between morality and religion, but upon close inspection, one has nothing to do with the other. One is not needed for the other.

Lets go back to hunter-gatherer time....it didn't take long to figure out that ones odds for survival were greatly increased if we stick together in groups, hunt in packs, protect each other....it also doesn't take a genius to figure out that as we started to build bigger tribes, groups, villages, towns, etc...that the basis of self-preservation and safety is a tier one concern. It would be frowned upon to put it lightly, if you stole my food, raped my wife or children, or killed one of my family....these type of actions would be considered against everyone's self-preservation and safety...thus banned...thus SOCIETY dictates what is acceptable behavior, and this evolves with time. No,, made up god/s needed at all. No BS "ten commandments" which are so obviously written by a group of empowered, ignorant patriarchal men.....thou shalt not rape? ....nope, not on there, thou shalt not enslave other humans? ...nope, not on there, and surely the all knowing god knew that would be a problem...but no...the MEN that created the ten commandments were more concerned with pressing matters like thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife.

Religion’s basis is their holy books, and their holy books are filled with horrific threats and deeds. Hardly the go-to reference for how to conduct oneself. The well-known passage from Dostoyevsky's The Brothers Karamazov, "If God is dead, all is permitted," suggests that non-believers would not hold moral lives without the possibility of punishment by a God. This perspective is absurd as all one has to do is look at Denmark or Sweden to see that these largely atheist areas enjoy being at the top tier of civilization. This is broken down in great detail in a book by Phil Zuckerman, "Society without God".

Phil Zuckerman, associate professor of sociology at Pitzer College in California, in his article, "Is Faith Good For Us" states the following: "A comparison of highly irreligious countries with highly religious countries, however, reveals a very different state of affairs. In reality, the most secular countries (those with the highest proportion of atheists and agnostics) are among the most stable, peaceful, free, wealthy, and healthy societies. And the most religious nations-wherein worship of God is in abundance are among the most unstable, violent, oppressive, poor, and destitute."

A study by Gregory S. Paul, entitled "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look," was done and the study's conclusion was that there was an inverse relationship between religion and poor societal health rates. What that means is that the higher the level of religious belief in a country, the lower the level of societal health (more violent crimes, suicides, teen pregnancies, etc.).

So it seems that a plethora of evidence exists to show that not only do we not need religion in our lives to be good humans but that having it in our lives can be counter-productive and unhealthy. Our world IS corrupt and broken, but only parts of it. Guess what correlation exists in those broken areas? High levels of religious belief. Even within the US, there are a plethora of studies and statistics that show the Bible belt has the lowest average IQ, highest poverty levels, lowest average education levels, poor health, and….you guessed it…high levels of religious beliefs. The areas of the world that have a zealous belief in religion are usually the most violent, and enjoy being at the bottom tier of civilization ranking for quality of life.

Creationists have long been of the opinion that atheists are evil and corrupt. Well, lets take a peek at US prison statistics. US population of Christians is about 70%...and that number is reflected with entrance statistics for US prisons IAW the FBI database for religiosity and prison population. About 70% of US prisoners are of some flavor of Christian delusion. Guess what percentage are non-religious? .07%.....Contemplate on that for a moment.

One would surmise to make the world unbroken and less corrupt, a step in the right direction would be to remove religion from it. The only thing wrong with the human condition is the embracement of religion. People like to say, "why take away faith if it helps people get through the day"...I've never really understood how removing a bad way to reason will make it difficult to get through the day. If anything, it would seem that correcting someone's reasoning would significantly increase their chances of getting through their day.

With reliable forms of reasoning comes the capability of crafting conditions that enable people to navigate life's obstacles. By using a more reliable form of reasoning, people are more capable of bringing about conditions that enable them to flourish.

To argue that people need faith is to abandon hope, and to condescend and accuse the faithful of being incapable of understanding the importance of reason and rationality. There are better and worse ways to come to terms with death, to find strength during times of personal crisis, to make meaning and purpose in our lives, to interpret our sense of awe and wonder, and to contribute to human well-being...and the faithful are completely capable of understanding and achieving this..if they would only try.

Asking “If there is no god, what is the purpose of life?” is like asking, “If there is no master, whose slave will I be?””

Q6: How happy are you? How does your outlook on religion impact your life?

A6: I am extremely happy, and confident on my worldview. It is good to be in a place where I do not have to consider fabricated religion as a crutch to lean on to get through life. What annoys me is the negative impact that religion has on my life, and all American's lives. We aren’t trying to sell anyone anything, we have a close personal relationship with reality, not jesus, or any other mythical religious figure. Religion is the ultimate scam and while some of it is benign in nature, it is the radical "my view of my god is right and all of you heathens who believe otherwise better get on board" mentality that bothers me. It is the sneaky little financing of a politician who they support to get him/her in office so that their crazy agendas can be quietly slid into laws that guide this country.

The aggressive attempts to get pseudo-science creationism into public schools under the guise of "intelligent design", the obsession with who people love, who they marry, and how they have sex, the blocking of vital stem cell research that can save lives, the belief they know what is best for an impregnated rape victim based on biblical interpretation...these are the things that go on daily under the guise of religious freedom...Those are the people I fight. If someone wants to whip a rubber chicken around their head while dancing in a counter clock wise circle quacking like a duck makes them feel closer to their mythical god, then by all means, knock yourself out...in the privacy of their own home or in a private venue with like-minded individuals. Don’t manipulate politicians to modify laws that affect us all, based on their religious views. That is the negative impact on my life religion has.

---------------------
Enjoy.

Come on back when you can prove the Exodus, resurrection and global flood occurred as per the bible, and that moses existed.

Parting gift: Not a single person in history who ever wrote of jesus, knew him. Fact.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
01-05-2016, 10:55 PM (This post was last modified: 02-05-2016 04:53 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
(01-05-2016 08:36 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  No I don’t think you understand what I’ve trying to repeat to you. But I’ll state it simply.

[Image: Hahaha-No-Tumblr-15.gif]


(01-05-2016 08:36 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

Fuck, do you even read what you've written before you post it?

You can't seem to keep 'objective' and 'subjective' straight in your head, and it spills out once again into your post. Also, if you cannot demonstrate something to an outsider, isn't that the end of the conversation? I mean, I'm not asking you to demonstrate anything that requires outside resources or tools. I'm asking you to justify your claim to possessing an 'objective' morality, the things you do in your head to determine right from wrong on an everyday basis. You mean to tell me you can't muster up what's required to defend your ethics?

Why are you even here, wasting our time?


(01-05-2016 08:36 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  To me this argument would be not much different than having to arguing with a solipsist that minds exists outside of their own.

We've had that argument already, solipsism falls apart very easily when it comes into contact with reality.


(01-05-2016 08:36 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Or arguing with those that believe truth is subjective, that it’s not.

That depends on the nature of truth and how you define it, something philosophers have been auguring over for thousands of years.


(01-05-2016 08:36 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

Once again, for the record, I'm in the camp that thinks morality is a subjective human construct. You are the one making claims to some 'objective' morality that exists outside of humanity.


(01-05-2016 08:36 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

Yeah, no surprise here, because you can't. And now that you've been cornered and your bullshit can't dig you out of this predicament, now you're a feigning lack of interest. You certainly had enough interest before when you thought you could skate on assertions alone. Drinking Beverage


(01-05-2016 08:36 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  You already have trouble acknowledging that moral language, moral disputes are entrenched in beliefs that morality is objective.

I have trouble 'acknowledging' it, because you've done fuck all to support those claims. If you want to claim they're grounded in objectivity, then show the fucking work. But yeah I'm not just taking your assertions at face value, and if that's a deal breaker, that's a 'you' problem.


(01-05-2016 08:36 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  You also have trouble acknowledging that moral statements of people holding to objective morality, don’t become subjective statements, if objective morality is false.

You've demonstrated thoroughly that you don't even know what those words mean, and thus this statement is nonsensical.


(01-05-2016 08:36 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

Yes, I don't take your assertions at face value without evidence. Sorry for being a good skeptic, you lazy tosspot.


(01-05-2016 08:36 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

At this point, all you have are presuppositions, of which you've done nothing to justify. I can give you a rundown of the very subjective basis of my ethics, and I can defend it with well thought out and reasoned justifications. I'm asking you to show the same work, and all you do is hem and haw. You spend more time complaining and deflecting that it would actually have taken to show your work already. Presumably because you cannot, or it would lay your 'objective' morality bare for the subjective human assertions that lie at it's core.

Because if your morality is truly objective, and you can show it, why haven't you? Why not take the easy win here? Either you're a coward, or a liar; and I'm betting on the later.


(01-05-2016 08:36 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

Oh really? That's rich, coming from the person that can't answer straightforward questions.

So I take it we're about to go down a tangent of deflection?


(01-05-2016 08:36 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

I don't? You've already mismatched them twice in your own post! Hobo


(01-05-2016 08:36 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

Personal taste? You do know that isn't the only take on subjective morality, right?

No, of course you don't... Facepalm


(01-05-2016 08:36 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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?

No, and therein lies the flaw of your presupposition.

But objective morality exits outside of humans, immutable to change and the whims of humanity; like gravity or the strong nuclear force. An objective morality would have to be a force of nature itself, independent of humanity and objectively measurable. Countless religions have made claims to possessing such knowledge, claiming that their god is the arbiter and the measuring stick they use.

I see no measuring stick, you claim to have one. I want to see it, and you refuse to show it. This is why we all think you're full of shit.


(01-05-2016 08:36 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

Well, a conversation is involved, sure. Morality may be personal, but getting individuals to work together? That requires some degree of cooperation and agreement, shared rules of behavior, and penalties for a breech of that agreement. This is why the law isn't built upon the subjective morality of any one individual, but rather ideally should reflect the greater shared consensus of the group. Of course there will be outliers, that is human nature, we're not all identical clones. Eventually some of these minority opinions might become more widespread, and become the new consensus (such as recognizing that the LGBT community are people too, a novel concept I know Rolleyes ).

That's because morality is subjective precisely because it is a human construct, and as our knowledge and awareness expands, so too should our ethics and morality change to reflect that.


(01-05-2016 08:36 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
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?

[Image: tumblr_inline_mm3bqpMsEV1qz4rgp-300x300.jpg]

Sure, but you're missing the point. Taste is subjective, but we can objectively measure a food's calories. So you can look at two different cookies, and compare their amount of calories objectively. Now with this knowledge, which one is better? Well, that depends on the individual's needs. If they're a starving homeless person, the one with more calories is probably the better one. If however you ask the same of an obese diabetic, the one with less calories is probably the better one. At least, from the perspective of trying to remain healthy. But which one is 'better' depends on the context, it is subject to humans and built upon certain assumptions (such as wanting to be healthy, instead of dying). Which would be better to share with a dog? Whichever one doesn't have chocolate, presupposing you don't want to harm the dog. Context is always crucial.

So which food is 'better', is subjective; and it has a whole hell of a lot more to do with than just taste. Drinking Beverage


(01-05-2016 08:36 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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).


Hey, I can pull shit off of Wikipedia too!

Wikipedia Wrote:Moral realism (also ethical realism or moral Platonism) is the position that ethical sentences express propositions that refer to objective features of the world (that is, features independent of subjective opinion), some of which may be true to the extent that they report those features accurately.

How about Philosophy Basics?

http://www.philosophybasics.com Wrote:Moral Realism (or Moral Objectivism) is the meta-ethical view (see the section on Ethics) that there exist such things as moral facts and moral values, and that these are objective and independent of our perception of them or our beliefs, feelings or other attitudes towards them. Therefore, moral judgments describe moral facts, which are as certain in their own way as mathematical facts.


This is what Same Harris means by an 'objective morality', in that you can objectively measure certain facts in principle even if not always in practice. Given a choice, which option will cause the least harm and suffering, which one will promote the most happiness? That should be objectively measurable in principle. But even that is built upon subjective valuations, such as that happiness is better than sadness or that suffering and harm are things to be mitigated. It's using a yardstick to measure objective differences in outcomes, but picking which yardstick to use is still a subjective valuation. Those baseline assumptions, valuing happiness over suffering, are built upon subjective human valuation. There is simply nothing objective about those valuations, there is no way to measure from the outside that happiness is a quantifiable amount better than suffering, or by how much. We cannot place a unit of 'happiness' on a scale to see if it weighs more or less than a unit of 'suffering', or whether that would in and of itself be good or bad. As a general rule, humans seem to prefer happiness over suffering, but that is by no means universal; and thus, clearly not objective.

So I want to know how your supposed 'objective' morality works, I want to see the actual mechanism you use, to see if it truly is objective (independent of context and humanity) or if you're just blowing a whole lot of smoke up your own ass. If you do have access to such objective truths or facts that are wholly independent of subjective presuppositions, then lay them out and justify them. But you're not going to do that, are you? Chicken shit.


(01-05-2016 08:36 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

The truth is not a popularity contest. Nice try.

Actually, it wasn't. Argumentum ad populum is fucking bush league son.


(01-05-2016 08:36 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  That humanities predominant moral tendency, is to see what they see as wrong, as objectively wrong. Do you acknowledge this as well?

They can see it as objective, but that doesn't make it so. They could also see the world as objectively flat, but that didn't make it so either. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like EvolutionKills's post
01-05-2016, 11:35 PM
RE: We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
(01-05-2016 10:55 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  [quote='Tomasia' pid='988141' dateline='1462113368']
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.

Quote:Fuck, do you even read what you've written before you post it?

When I first read what he had written, I like Facepalm
Did he even read this shit ?

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
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
02-05-2016, 02:12 AM
RE: We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
So, I got this message today.

Quote:Title:Please appear on our show
To: Shadow Fox
You seem like a civil person.
I would like for you to come on the show.
I will not be returning to TTA after Monday; so please reply soon.

We just want a civil conversation; we will send questions ahead of time via email.
The only rules:
You can't mention TTA,
You must use FCC acceptable language,
You should remain civil during the recording.
We've had plenty of people on the show that we didn't agree with, but they would never know it, because we remained civil and courteous.
Thank you.
Not sure what to think of this just yet. Drinking Beverage

Does seem to fall a bit outside of my comfort zone, but I think I might give it a go.
Might being an operative word. What do you guys think? Also, why the no mentioning of the TTA? Must not like you guys or something.


My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2016, 02:21 AM
RE: We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
(02-05-2016 02:12 AM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  So, I got this message today.

Quote:Title:Please appear on our show
To: Shadow Fox
You seem like a civil person.
I would like for you to come on the show.
I will not be returning to TTA after Monday; so please reply soon.

We just want a civil conversation; we will send questions ahead of time via email.
The only rules:
You can't mention TTA,
You must use FCC acceptable language,
You should remain civil during the recording.
We've had plenty of people on the show that we didn't agree with, but they would never know it, because we remained civil and courteous.
Thank you.
Not sure what to think of this just yet. Drinking Beverage

Does seem to fall a bit outside of my comfort zone, but I think I might give it a go.
Might being an operative word. What do you guys think? Also, why the no mentioning of the TTA? Must not like you guys or something.

What do they consider "civil"? It seems they dislike scripture that shows their religion for what it is. Xenophobic, hateful and anti life.

Were I you, I'd be highly suspicious.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Banjo's post
02-05-2016, 02:41 AM (This post was last modified: 02-05-2016 02:44 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
(02-05-2016 02:12 AM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  So, I got this message today.

Quote:Title:Please appear on our show
To: Shadow Fox
You seem like a civil person.
I would like for you to come on the show.
I will not be returning to TTA after Monday; so please reply soon.

We just want a civil conversation; we will send questions ahead of time via email.
The only rules:
You can't mention TTA,
You must use FCC acceptable language,
You should remain civil during the recording.
We've had plenty of people on the show that we didn't agree with, but they would never know it, because we remained civil and courteous.
Thank you.
Not sure what to think of this just yet. Drinking Beverage

Does seem to fall a bit outside of my comfort zone, but I think I might give it a go.
Might being an operative word. What do you guys think? Also, why the no mentioning of the TTA? Must not like you guys or something.

No mention of TTA?

Oh, so we're good enough to trawl for material, but we don't rate a mention? You know, in case someone agrees with us and would like to learn more? Dodgy

If someone invited Neil deGrasse Tyson on their show, and requested that he didn't mention the Hayden Planetarium or the Cosmos TV series, that would be a bit fishy, no?

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
02-05-2016, 04:48 AM (This post was last modified: 02-05-2016 04:51 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
(02-05-2016 02:41 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(02-05-2016 02:12 AM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  So, I got this message today.

Not sure what to think of this just yet. Drinking Beverage

Does seem to fall a bit outside of my comfort zone, but I think I might give it a go.
Might being an operative word. What do you guys think? Also, why the no mentioning of the TTA? Must not like you guys or something.

No mention of TTA?

Oh, so we're good enough to trawl for material, but we don't rate a mention? You know, in case someone agrees with us and would like to learn more? Dodgy

If someone invited Neil deGrasse Tyson on their show, and requested that he didn't mention the Hayden Planetarium or the Cosmos TV series, that would be a bit fishy, no?

Yeah. It's totally dishonest. He came here to find "targets" to smack down on the air, and in turn GOT totally smacked down. If I were them, I wouldn't want the site where they were exposed as utter charlatans and frauds mentioned either. His doctor partner had his license taken away, and he kept making dishonest claims of all his "theologians" (who in fact were just garden variety preachers), and who never replied to the questions asked of them, which he said he get from them. It's typical Christian media dishonest set up. Jebus no likey this shit.

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
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
02-05-2016, 05:31 AM
RE: We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
(02-05-2016 04:48 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(02-05-2016 02:41 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  No mention of TTA?

Oh, so we're good enough to trawl for material, but we don't rate a mention? You know, in case someone agrees with us and would like to learn more? Dodgy

If someone invited Neil deGrasse Tyson on their show, and requested that he didn't mention the Hayden Planetarium or the Cosmos TV series, that would be a bit fishy, no?

Yeah. It's totally dishonest. He came here to find "targets" to smack down on the air, and in turn GOT totally smacked down. If I were them, I wouldn't want the site where they were exposed as utter charlatans and frauds mentioned either. His doctor partner had his license taken away, and he kept making dishonest claims of all his "theologians" (who in fact were just garden variety preachers), and who never replied to the questions asked of them, which he said he get from them. It's typical Christian media dishonest set up. Jebus no likey this shit.

I wonder why they haven't invited Seth onto their show? Consider

Not really. It is obvious why not.

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
02-05-2016, 06:44 AM
RE: We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
(01-05-2016 10:55 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You can't seem to keep 'objective' and 'subjective' straight in your head, and it spills out once again into your post. Also, if you cannot demonstrate something to an outsider, isn't that the end of the conversation? I mean,

Quote:We've had that argument already, solipsism falls apart very easily when it comes into contact with reality.

No it doesn’t fall apart for a solipsist, or for a person that holds that truth is subjective. As I recall Girlyman doesn’t believe in Objective Truths, I doubt any of you will get him to believe otherwise.

You won’t believe in Objective morality, because that would involve too much of a reconsideration of a variety of your positions to support. Perhaps you believe otherwise, but from experience, even when dealing with points that don’t require this, this is just a fools errand. I’m interested in aspects that there’s at least a slight possibility that we can agree on. Perhaps from there we can entertain the validity of objective morality a bit more. But we’re far from that.

I’m only interested in aspects that we can agree on, but currently don’t, that don’t involve a dramatic rethinking of our most firmly held convictions, that don’t require you to rethink your atheism.

Quote:This is what Same Harris means by an 'objective morality', in that you can objectively measure certain facts in principle even if not always in practice.[/quote[

Sam Harris position is that of some sort of objective consequentialism. I’m not a consequentialist, perhaps your requests for measures, and scales are better directed at them. I subscribe to virtue ethics, a view of morality built on a human telos, than human beings have an inherit purpose. This is position that involves ontological views, so it’s not established by measures, or scales.

[quote]Sure, but you're missing the point. Taste is subjective, but we can objectively measure a food's calories. So you can look at two different cookies, and compare their amount of calories objectively. Now with this knowledge, which one is better? Well, that depends on the individual's needs. If they're a starving homeless person, the one with more calories is probably the better one. If however you ask the same of an obese diabetic, the one with less calories is probably the better one. At least, from the perspective of trying to remain healthy. But which one is 'better' depends on the context,

Which food tastes better is subjective. The claim that which food has the lower calorie intake is not. That if “better” here is being used synonymously as which food is best for some one striving to lose weight, that the answer for this is objective, in the given context.

An example in regards to morality would be, is one where the context is defined already, such it’s wrong to torture babies just for fun of it. Is it subjectively wrong to you? That there are no right or wrong answers to this? That at the end of the day it’s a matter of personal taste?

Quote:The truth is not a popularity contest. Nice try.

Actually, it wasn't. Argumentum ad populum is fucking bush league son.



No that if you believe objective morality is not real, the prevalence of this belief is supportive of the position that it’s an illusion. And negates morality being subjective. Because objective beliefs, don’t become subjective beliefs, when objectivity is false.


Quote:They can see it as objective, but that doesn't make it so. They could also see the world as objectively flat, but that didn't make it so either.

They predominately see it as objective, while this wouldn’t mean that objective morality is true, it does mean that the position that morality is subjective is false.

Or in other words if as you hold, objective morality doesn’t exist, our predominant moral views don’t become subjective, they become false. I’m more interested in you acknowledging points like this, then acknowledging that objective morality exists. Perhaps if you acknowledged these points you might get closer to acknowledging objective morality, or perhaps not, but you won’t get any closer to accepting objective morality without acknowledging these aspects.

"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
02-05-2016, 06:50 AM
RE: We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
(01-05-2016 10:55 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(01-05-2016 08:36 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

Fuck, do you even read what you've written before you post it?

Sorry, that should have been
...who belongs to the small fraction of individuals in the world that morality is subjective...."

"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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: