We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-05-2016, 07:08 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.

I got the same copy pasta email. I'm going to do it. The way I figure is, as long as I control the flow of the conversation, I can easily get my point across.

[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
02-05-2016, 07:19 AM
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?

No mention of TTA likely is them complying with us - TTA is Seth's business brand. Only he can represent it. We can't go around and represent his brand - he may not agree with what we say. So, yes, no mention of TTA.

[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
[+] 3 users Like Dom's post
02-05-2016, 07:20 AM
RE: We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
(02-05-2016 07:19 AM)Dom Wrote:  No mention of TTA likely is them complying with us - TTA is Seth's business brand. Only he can represent it. We can't go around and represent his brand - he may not agree with what we say. So, yes, no mention of TTA.

I think it has more to do with them not wanting to advertise an atheist website on their show, than complying with Seth.

"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, 07:28 AM
RE: We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
(02-05-2016 06:44 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(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.


Translation: You won't believe what evidence I do have, so I'm not going to show it to you.


Oh, just fuck off and stop wasting our time then. Chicken shit. 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
02-05-2016, 07:36 AM (This post was last modified: 02-05-2016 07:43 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
(02-05-2016 07:28 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Translation: You won't believe what evidence I do have, so I'm not going to show it to you.


Oh, just fuck off and stop wasting our time then. Chicken shit. Drinking Beverage

My argument is the morality is not subjective, regardless if objective morality is false.

And I'm acknowledging that when it comes to prove to you that objective morality is true, that I'm not gonna be able to convince you of that. That there's no point in me having that particular argument with you, as a result.

"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, 08:00 AM
RE: We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
(02-05-2016 07:36 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(02-05-2016 07:28 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Translation: You won't believe what evidence I do have, so I'm not going to show it to you.


Oh, just fuck off and stop wasting our time then. Chicken shit. Drinking Beverage

My argument is the morality is not subjective, regardless if objective morality is false.

And I'm acknowledging that when it comes to prove to you that objective morality is true, that I'm not gonna be able to convince you of that. That there's no point in me having that particular argument with you, as a result.

Okay, then give ME the argument. If you don't think you can convince him, say it to convince someone else.

[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
[+] 3 users Like Atothetheist's post
02-05-2016, 08:14 AM (This post was last modified: 02-05-2016 08:26 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
(02-05-2016 08:00 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  Okay, then give ME the argument. If you don't think you can convince him, say it to convince someone else.

1. Subjective morality does not exist, even if objective morality is false.
2. Human perception of morality is predominately that it's objective.
3. If you believe objective morality does not exist, you would have to concede that illusion of objective morality exists.

The evidence for an illusion, and the evidence for objective morality being real, are parallel to each other. And depending on our presuppositional commitments, and primarily ontological ones, we will side with one over the other, in light of this.

I'll also add
4. All arguments that morality is not objective, would considerally parallel arguments that truth is not objective, such as appealing to cultural differences, competing views, context, etc...... One could use pretty much every argument used to deny objective morality exists, to argue that objective truth does not exist either.

"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, 08:26 AM
RE: We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
(02-05-2016 08:14 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(02-05-2016 08:00 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  Okay, then give ME the argument. If you don't think you can convince him, say it to convince someone else.

1. Subjective morality does not exist, even if objective morality is false.
2. Human perception of morality is predominately that it's objective.
3. If you believe objective morality does not exist, you would have to concede that illusion of objective morality exists.

The evidence for an illusion, and the evidence for objective morality being real, are parallel to each other. And depending on our presuppositional commitment we will side with one over the other, in lieu of all this.

For like the dozenth time. Your 2nd premise there isn't something demonstrated. I know you've tried but not with impressive human understanding.

You keep concluding in you view that this is unmistakable and definitive. It's just horrifying reasoning by such projection being put on the reasoning of human psychology. You don't gain to learn as much from humans when you ignore some significant nurture and culture elements.

"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
[+] 3 users Like ClydeLee's post
02-05-2016, 08:30 AM
RE: We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
(02-05-2016 08:26 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  For like the dozenth time. Your 2nd premise there isn't something demonstrated. I know you've tried but not with impressive human understanding.

That human moral views are primarily built on the belief that morality is objective? That views of human morality, are primarily built into a teleological view of the world?

That at least all the major religions of the world peddle some for of this basic view of morality?

What part of this do you deny? You could be entirely clueless here, and suggest that you lack a belief one way or the other, are unable to reach such a conclusion yourself, one way or the other.

"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, 08:32 AM
RE: We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
(02-05-2016 08:14 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(02-05-2016 08:00 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  Okay, then give ME the argument. If you don't think you can convince him, say it to convince someone else.

1. Subjective morality does not exist, even if objective morality is false.
Pretend I am stupid (not that hard to, tbh) and answer me this: what would be the alternative to objective morality if it's false. If something isn't objective... Isn't it subjective then?

Quote:2. Human perception of morality is predominately that it's objective.
Human perception isn't exactly always right. We "perceive" the world (on the whole) to be flat, only when we changed our perspective did we see the true answer.

Quote:3. If you believe objective morality does not exist, you would have to concede that illusion of objective morality exists.

Why?

Quote:The evidence for an illusion, and the evidence for objective morality being real, are parallel to each other. And depending on our presuppositional commitments, and primarily ontological ones, we will side with one over the other, in light of this.

I'll also add
4. All arguments that morality is not objective, would considerally parallel arguments that truth is not objective, such as appealing to cultural differences, competing views, context, etc...... One could use pretty much every argument used to deny objective morality exists, to argue that objective truth does not exist either.

And?

[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
[+] 3 users Like Atothetheist's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: