[split] I need to rant to other atheists.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-06-2014, 09:52 PM
RE: [split] I need to rant to other atheists.
(12-06-2014 09:44 PM)kim Wrote:  
(12-06-2014 04:29 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Neither is true. Try again.

So then the book of John is incorrect in saying that god sacrificed his only son to absolve all mankind. Sacrifice pretty explicitly means kill. Shy

Shy
[Image: readacted-bible2.jpg]

Big Grin
[Image: ceb0f4feb67e4d0802593fa5621f3dd1.jpg]

Tongue

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheGulegon's post
12-06-2014, 09:56 PM
RE: [split] I need to rant to other atheists.
(12-06-2014 07:22 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
(12-06-2014 07:16 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  If he is a physicist, I sure can't tell.

That's because you wouldn't know physics or science if it bent you over and fucked you in the ass with a fucking porcupine.


Quote:Physicists usually have better arguments than: "The universe is exempt from the causal principle because it is not applicable to the universe."

As if fucking "LOL Gawd" were any kind of fucking argument at all. Facepalm

LMAO. O M G

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WitchSabrina's post
13-06-2014, 03:03 PM
RE: [split] I need to rant to other atheists.
(12-06-2014 12:11 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(11-06-2014 02:48 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Indeed. I ignore posts that are unworthy of a response.

The most enjoyable bit of humor is that the dolt has neither the moral fiber nor the intellectual fortitude to make these kinds of judgements as to what is worthy or unworthy of a response.

He just continues the confirmation bias, fallacious assertions, bald faced lies and infantile delusions in an endless repetition. Over and over and over. It's quite droll really. Boring boring boring, the chief "sin" any man or troll can have is to be boring.

Boring boring boring.Drinking Beverage



I like you So ...so much !!!


Bowing

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WitchSabrina's post
13-06-2014, 03:16 PM
RE: [split] I need to rant to other atheists.
(12-06-2014 05:17 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(12-06-2014 04:07 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  how is the law of identity the grounds for objective moral values and duties?

Incidentally, it seems you affirm premise two of the moral argument and thus, if this is true, you have to show how objective moral values and duties are more plausibly grounded in the law of identity.

I will be waiting.

Because the concept of 'objectivity" depends on and presupposes the law of Identity. It depends on the fact that things (the objects of consciousness) are independent of any consciousness. Violate the law of identity and the primacy of existence which is a corollary to the law of identity and there is no such thing as objectivity.

The Law of Identity simply states that each thing is the same with itself and different from another. This can be symbolized by writing:

A is A (courtesy of Leibniz who incidentally came up with the Cosmological argument for God that bears his name)

So it is simply a description of how we identify a particular subject.

The question of what grounds objective moral values and duties is an ontological question. It is a meta-ethical issue about moral ontology, not about Moral Linguistics or Epistemology. It is fundamentally a claim about the objective status of moral properties and what MAKES them objective i.e. independent of subjective human opinion.

Non-theistic ethicists never claim that objective moral values and duties are grounded in the law of identity. They either espouse some sort of moral platonism or seek to argue that our sense of morality is a biological adaptation. As the philosopher of science Michael Ruse reports,

“The position of the modern evolutionist … is that humans have an awareness of morality … because such an awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. … Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says, ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. … Nevertheless, … such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, … and any deeper meaning is illusory.” -Michael Ruse, “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” in The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), 262,268,289.




Now, if you would like some links to peruse some of their writings on the subject, I can provide them. As it stands, you have yet to give either an undercutting defeater or a rebutting defeater to premise one of the moral argument. Thus, God exists.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2014, 04:21 PM
RE: [split] I need to rant to other atheists.
(11-06-2014 05:57 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  
(11-06-2014 05:11 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  reference please

Quote:Luke 19:17
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
After Jesus had said this, he went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem.

Right before he has several of his followers steal some horses.

You really should read the bible, or at least the gospels if you're going to be preaching the gospel.

That Jesus sure was bad-ass!

Just because YOU believe in fairies doesn't mean anybody else should.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2014, 04:30 PM (This post was last modified: 13-06-2014 04:38 PM by rampant.a.i..)
[split] I need to rant to other atheists.
(13-06-2014 03:16 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(12-06-2014 05:17 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  Because the concept of 'objectivity" depends on and presupposes the law of Identity. It depends on the fact that things (the objects of consciousness) are independent of any consciousness. Violate the law of identity and the primacy of existence which is a corollary to the law of identity and there is no such thing as objectivity.

The Law of Identity simply states that each thing is the same with itself and different from another. This can be symbolized by writing:

A is A (courtesy of Leibniz who incidentally came up with the Cosmological argument for God that bears his name)

So it is simply a description of how we identify a particular subject.

The question of what grounds objective moral values and duties is an ontological question. It is a meta-ethical issue about moral ontology, not about Moral Linguistics or Epistemology. It is fundamentally a claim about the objective status of moral properties and what MAKES them objective i.e. independent of subjective human opinion.

Non-theistic ethicists never claim that objective moral values and duties are grounded in the law of identity. They either espouse some sort of moral platonism or seek to argue that our sense of morality is a biological adaptation. As the philosopher of science Michael Ruse reports,

“The position of the modern evolutionist … is that humans have an awareness of morality … because such an awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. … Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says, ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. … Nevertheless, … such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, … and any deeper meaning is illusory.” -Michael Ruse, “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” in The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), 262,268,289.




Now, if you would like some links to peruse some of their writings on the subject, I can provide them. As it stands, you have yet to give either an undercutting defeater or a rebutting defeater to premise one of the moral argument. Thus, God exists.

[Image: hujy7uqa.jpg]

This argument has been defeated. Don't bore us with it further, thanks.

Quote:Argument is self-refuting
One can argue that if God does not exist, an objectively provable existence of objective morality does not exist, and an objective need for objective morality to exist does not exist. Hence, the atheistic situation is no longer problematic.[hide]
The argument boils down to "objective morals exist, therefore god exists". Thus, the proposed definition of "moral" must simultaneously OMIT god (so the argument isn't circular, god being the conclusion) and REQUIRE god (in order to reach the conclusion at all). This is logically impossible.
Another way to look at it is, regardless of whether or not the premises have/require god or omit god, the argument is doomed to fail. If the premises have god in the sense of a being then the argument is circular, [/hide]if the premises have god as a concept or omit god then the argument is invalid:
If the premises have god (the being) then the argument becomes circular because god the being, what the argument is trying to prove, is assumed as a premise.
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?t...l_argument

Next time you think you have a compelling argument, do us a favor and look it up on iron chariots before making yourself look even more foolish. Kay? Kay, good talk.

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2014, 04:32 PM
RE: [split] I need to rant to other atheists.
(13-06-2014 04:30 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  
(13-06-2014 03:16 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The Law of Identity simply states that each thing is the same with itself and different from another. This can be symbolized by writing:

A is A (courtesy of Leibniz who incidentally came up with the Cosmological argument for God that bears his name)

So it is simply a description of how we identify a particular subject.

The question of what grounds objective moral values and duties is an ontological question. It is a meta-ethical issue about moral ontology, not about Moral Linguistics or Epistemology. It is fundamentally a claim about the objective status of moral properties and what MAKES them objective i.e. independent of subjective human opinion.

Non-theistic ethicists never claim that objective moral values and duties are grounded in the law of identity. They either espouse some sort of moral platonism or seek to argue that our sense of morality is a biological adaptation. As the philosopher of science Michael Ruse reports,

“The position of the modern evolutionist … is that humans have an awareness of morality … because such an awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. … Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says, ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. … Nevertheless, … such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, … and any deeper meaning is illusory.” -Michael Ruse, “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” in The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), 262,268,289.




Now, if you would like some links to peruse some of their writings on the subject, I can provide them. As it stands, you have yet to give either an undercutting defeater or a rebutting defeater to premise one of the moral argument. Thus, God exists.

[Image: hujy7uqa.jpg]

This argument has been defeated. Don't bore us with it further, thanks.

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?t...l_argument

That is not an argument I am familiar with and is definitely not the argument I am referencing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2014, 04:51 PM
RE: [split] I need to rant to other atheists.
(12-06-2014 06:23 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(12-06-2014 06:10 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Even if Christ's death had been specifically for the restoration of man to "paradise", it does not follow that all would be restored to paradise.

The fuck it don't. It entails it. You don't know dick about Barth or Universalism do you? You diminish the sacrifice of The Christ by imposing artificial preconditions on it. Who are you to limit the scope of the sacrifice of The Christ?

(12-06-2014 09:44 PM)kim Wrote:  So then the book of John is incorrect in saying that god sacrificed his only son to absolve all mankind.

The sacrifice of The Christ absolved all mankind of all sin. Past, present and future. To think that what you do or believe or think has any effect at all on the scope of that sacrifice is the height of arrogance. Who was the fuckhead who got kicked out of heaven and condemned to rule the earth because of his arrogance? Oh yeah, Lucifer. You Christians are the true minions of Satan. All arrogant and shit like your worthless ass can tell God what to do.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like GirlyMan's post
13-06-2014, 05:03 PM
RE: [split] I need to rant to other atheists.
(13-06-2014 04:51 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(12-06-2014 06:23 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  The fuck it don't. It entails it. You don't know dick about Barth or Universalism do you? You diminish the sacrifice of The Christ by imposing artificial preconditions on it. Who are you to limit the scope of the sacrifice of The Christ?

(12-06-2014 09:44 PM)kim Wrote:  So then the book of John is incorrect in saying that god sacrificed his only son to absolve all mankind.

The sacrifice of The Christ absolved all mankind of all sin. Past, present and future. To think that what you do or believe or think has any effect at all on the scope of that sacrifice is the height of arrogance. Who was the fuckhead who got kicked out of heaven and condemned to rule the earth because of his arrogance? Oh yeah, Lucifer. You Christians are the true minions of Satan. All arrogant and shit like your worthless ass can tell God what to do.

It is not arrogant to simply relay to you what the Bible says. Numerous passages convey the idea that Christ's atoning work is efficacious only for those who believe in and trust Christ for the remission of their sins. For those that reject it they remain condemned.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2014, 05:08 PM
RE: [split] I need to rant to other atheists.
(13-06-2014 03:16 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(12-06-2014 05:17 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  Because the concept of 'objectivity" depends on and presupposes the law of Identity. It depends on the fact that things (the objects of consciousness) are independent of any consciousness. Violate the law of identity and the primacy of existence which is a corollary to the law of identity and there is no such thing as objectivity.

The Law of Identity simply states that each thing is the same with itself and different from another. This can be symbolized by writing:

A is A (courtesy of Leibniz who incidentally came up with the Cosmological argument for God that bears his name)

So it is simply a description of how we identify a particular subject.

The question of what grounds objective moral values and duties is an ontological question. It is a meta-ethical issue about moral ontology, not about Moral Linguistics or Epistemology. It is fundamentally a claim about the objective status of moral properties and what MAKES them objective i.e. independent of subjective human opinion.

Non-theistic ethicists never claim that objective moral values and duties are grounded in the law of identity. They either espouse some sort of moral platonism or seek to argue that our sense of morality is a biological adaptation. As the philosopher of science Michael Ruse reports,

“The position of the modern evolutionist … is that humans have an awareness of morality … because such an awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. … Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says, ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. … Nevertheless, … such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, … and any deeper meaning is illusory.” -Michael Ruse, “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” in The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), 262,268,289.




Now, if you would like some links to peruse some of their writings on the subject, I can provide them. As it stands, you have yet to give either an undercutting defeater or a rebutting defeater to premise one of the moral argument. Thus, God exists.

We were discussing objectivity and what principles it rests upon and you are changing that to what others have to say about the grounds for objective morality. Evolution has nothing to do with this discussion. I'd like to bring the discussion back to the principle which you are evading, the metaphysical primacy of existence. The law of identity says that A is A. The primacy of existence says that A is A independently of anyone's consciousness, that A is an entity, that it is the object of consciousness not the subject. That means it is an absolute and not the subject of any consciousness including an all powerful god's. You are failing to integrate the two principles.

A is A alone does not form the basis of objective morality. When combined with the primacy of existence it does. These principles form the basis of any rational epistemology which is the tool for discovering any objective fact.

The issue of metaphysical primacy is not some side discussion that you can ignore. It is fundamental to the concept "objectivity". It is the giant pink with polka dots elephant in the room when discussing objective truth.

You continue to evade addressing this principle and the contradiction of it that your claim of an all powerful god represents.

It is very simple, without the primacy of existence there is no such thing as objects of consciousness and therefore no such thing as objective truth. If a moral principle is objectively true it is true independent of anyone's wishes, likes, preferences, opinion, feelings, faith, hopes or tantrums.

Now what does the Christian world view have to say about the issue of metaphysical primacy. It holds that god's consciousness holds primacy over existence. This is the primacy of consciousness over existence which directly contradicts the primacy of existence and therefore the law of identity. If God's consciousness holds primacy then A can be non A.

Therefore the Christian God can not be the source of objective moral principles since it contradicts the metaphysical principles that objectivity presupposes.

Your claims of an all powerful god negates the principle of objectivity and therefore objective moral values. If objective moral principles exist then your god can not exist.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like true scotsman's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: