[split] I need to rant to other atheists.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-06-2014, 06:25 PM
RE: [split] I need to rant to other atheists.
(14-06-2014 07:50 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(13-06-2014 07:37 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  Correct: if what you're arguing doesn't even qualify as knowledge, it's pointless to go through the ontology of finding it.

It's null and void ab initio, yet you still want to play word games about your invalid argument.

What argument do you posit that would demonstrate that what I am arguing does not qualify as knowledge?

Hey Jeremy walker how often do you crap and fart? I can bet you never crap and fart and that's why you are so full of shit.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Leo's post
14-06-2014, 08:21 PM
RE: [split] I need to rant to other atheists.
(14-06-2014 09:46 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(14-06-2014 08:06 AM)Chas Wrote:  Because belief is not knowledge. Drinking Beverage

What constitues knowledge is debated among philosophers.

And besides, we are talking about what makes moral values and duties objective. in doing so, we are providing arguments for our respective positions.

I have never argued that objective moral values and duties are grounded in God because it is my belief that they are.

it seems you are strawmanning here.

Personally, I believe morality comes from the collective subjective conscienceness-which is to say that morality is based on human consensus, rather than timeless absolutes. The CSC is ultimately based on society and thus is not truly objective.

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
14-06-2014, 08:24 PM (This post was last modified: 14-06-2014 08:53 PM by Taqiyya Mockingbird.)
RE: [split] I need to rant to other atheists.
(14-06-2014 09:46 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(14-06-2014 08:06 AM)Chas Wrote:  Because belief is not knowledge. Drinking Beverage

What constitues knowledge is debated among philosophers.

Fuck you and your faux-philosophy.

ProTip: Your hero Larry Craig is NOT a fucking philosopher.

Quote:And besides, we are talking about what makes moral values and duties objective.

They aren't.


Quote: in doing so, we are providing arguments for our respective positions.

Your bullshit "arguments' have been destroyed handily several times over, resulting in your constant retreats and reappearances trolling the same debunked bullshit in other threads.


Quote:I have never argued that objective moral values and duties are grounded in God because it is my belief that they are.

That's really all you've got.


Quote:it seems you are strawmanning here.

Says the asshole who strawmans everyone and everything.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2014, 09:20 PM (This post was last modified: 14-06-2014 09:24 PM by Jeremy E Walker.)
RE: [split] I need to rant to other atheists.
(14-06-2014 01:05 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  you wrote: The primacy of existence is a view that you must demonstrate to be true. You kind of just threw it out there like Ayn Rand and expect me to accept it.


You demonstrate it every time you make any truth claim. For instance does your God exist regardless of anyone's likes, dislikes, wishes, preferences or tantrums as a fact of reality or does his existence depend on your consciousness, your desires, your likes, your wishes, your subjective belief? If you answer the former, you affirm the primacy of existence.

You wrote: What reasons do we have to hold it to be true?

Because the concept "objective truth" presupposes and depends on it. If you can refute the primacy of existence I would like to see you do it.

You wrote: Obviously If God is the source of all reality outside himself, which scripture clearly states in numerous passages that He is i.e.:

John 1:1-3: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.”

Then there is nothing that exists "independently" of Him but rather everything that exists is dependent upon Him. So it is clear that your extrapolation of the concept of the primacy of existence to argue that some entities exist independently of God is misguided.

Thus, this would completely destroy the PoE and show that the PoC is more tenable.



If nothing exists independently of God's consciousness then there are no objects of God's consciousness and thus no basis for objective truth. This would mean that one side of the subject/object relationship, namely the object side, would be wiped out of existence and that would lead to the problem of divine loneliness. In other words it would lead to a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of, a contradiction. Consciousness presupposes existence.

I wrote: 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 wrote in response: But we are not discussing any of the above. We are discussing what makes certain moral statements statements of "fact".


I am discussing it. You are trying not to discuss it because you have no answer to it. any discussion of "facts" requires that we discuss the issue of metaphysical primacy. You can't escape it.

You wrote: I have addressed your need to provide a cogent argument for the veracity of a PoE view.

By the very act of asking me for a cogent argument you affirm the veracity of the primacy of existence. The concepts "argument" and "veracity" presuppose the primacy of existence.

You wrote: Once again, your whole argument assumes I agree with the PoE. I need you to demonstrate to me why the PoE is true.

Once again by the act of asking me to demonstrate that the PoE is true you have affirmed it. The concept "true" is dependent on it.

You wrote: The Christian worldview holds that God is the source of reality itself. That God creates reality by an exercise of His will and does so freely without constraint from any outside agency. So until you give me some reason to believe that the PoE is true, I will stick with what the Bible says.


Is the bible true regardless of anyone's wishes, preferences, likes, dislikes, hopes, fears, faith or tantrums or is the truth of the Bible dependent on your likes, dislikes, preferences, faith, wishes, fears or tantrums?

You wrote: This assumes the PoE is true which you have yet to demonstrate.

By the very act of asking me to demonstrate that the PoE is true, you affirm the primacy of existence. It is implied in any truth claim.

Jeremy, none of your objections refute the primacy of existence. I would like you to do that now.

All I have asked you to do is tell me what makes moral values and duties objective without appealing to God. We both agree they are.

Thus far all you have told me is that they are objective because they are independent of the subjective opinions of human beings. All you have done is define what objective means. You and I can agree on this for this is how the word "objective" is used in the particular version of the moral argument I am using.

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

As it stands, you have yet to undercut the warrant we have for holding one to be more plausible than its negation, nor have you provided a rebutting defeater for it. Until you do, then the premise stands.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2014, 09:33 PM
RE: [split] I need to rant to other atheists.
(14-06-2014 09:20 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(14-06-2014 01:05 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  you wrote: The primacy of existence is a view that you must demonstrate to be true. You kind of just threw it out there like Ayn Rand and expect me to accept it.


You demonstrate it every time you make any truth claim. For instance does your God exist regardless of anyone's likes, dislikes, wishes, preferences or tantrums as a fact of reality or does his existence depend on your consciousness, your desires, your likes, your wishes, your subjective belief? If you answer the former, you affirm the primacy of existence.

You wrote: What reasons do we have to hold it to be true?

Because the concept "objective truth" presupposes and depends on it. If you can refute the primacy of existence I would like to see you do it.

You wrote: Obviously If God is the source of all reality outside himself, which scripture clearly states in numerous passages that He is i.e.:

John 1:1-3: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.”

Then there is nothing that exists "independently" of Him but rather everything that exists is dependent upon Him. So it is clear that your extrapolation of the concept of the primacy of existence to argue that some entities exist independently of God is misguided.

Thus, this would completely destroy the PoE and show that the PoC is more tenable.



If nothing exists independently of God's consciousness then there are no objects of God's consciousness and thus no basis for objective truth. This would mean that one side of the subject/object relationship, namely the object side, would be wiped out of existence and that would lead to the problem of divine loneliness. In other words it would lead to a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of, a contradiction. Consciousness presupposes existence.

I wrote: 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 wrote in response: But we are not discussing any of the above. We are discussing what makes certain moral statements statements of "fact".


I am discussing it. You are trying not to discuss it because you have no answer to it. any discussion of "facts" requires that we discuss the issue of metaphysical primacy. You can't escape it.

You wrote: I have addressed your need to provide a cogent argument for the veracity of a PoE view.

By the very act of asking me for a cogent argument you affirm the veracity of the primacy of existence. The concepts "argument" and "veracity" presuppose the primacy of existence.

You wrote: Once again, your whole argument assumes I agree with the PoE. I need you to demonstrate to me why the PoE is true.

Once again by the act of asking me to demonstrate that the PoE is true you have affirmed it. The concept "true" is dependent on it.

You wrote: The Christian worldview holds that God is the source of reality itself. That God creates reality by an exercise of His will and does so freely without constraint from any outside agency. So until you give me some reason to believe that the PoE is true, I will stick with what the Bible says.


Is the bible true regardless of anyone's wishes, preferences, likes, dislikes, hopes, fears, faith or tantrums or is the truth of the Bible dependent on your likes, dislikes, preferences, faith, wishes, fears or tantrums?

You wrote: This assumes the PoE is true which you have yet to demonstrate.

By the very act of asking me to demonstrate that the PoE is true, you affirm the primacy of existence. It is implied in any truth claim.

Jeremy, none of your objections refute the primacy of existence. I would like you to do that now.

All I have asked you to do is tell me what makes moral values and duties objective without appealing to God. We both agree they are.

Thus far all you have told me is that they are objective because they are independent of the subjective opinions of human beings. All you have done is define what objective means. You and I can agree on this for this is how the word "objective" is used in the particular version of the moral argument I am using.

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

As it stands, you have yet to undercut the warrant we have for holding one to be more plausible than its negation, nor have you provided a rebutting defeater for it. Until you do, then the premise stands.

Morality is relative to human consensus. What one views as abhorrent, another could view as moral. Take 9/11 for example. That highlighted a clash between Western CSC and Islamic CSC.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Bible Belt Brawler's post
14-06-2014, 09:35 PM
RE: [split] I need to rant to other atheists.
(14-06-2014 09:20 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(14-06-2014 01:05 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  you wrote: The primacy of existence is a view that you must demonstrate to be true. You kind of just threw it out there like Ayn Rand and expect me to accept it.


You demonstrate it every time you make any truth claim. For instance does your God exist regardless of anyone's likes, dislikes, wishes, preferences or tantrums as a fact of reality or does his existence depend on your consciousness, your desires, your likes, your wishes, your subjective belief? If you answer the former, you affirm the primacy of existence.

You wrote: What reasons do we have to hold it to be true?

Because the concept "objective truth" presupposes and depends on it. If you can refute the primacy of existence I would like to see you do it.

You wrote: Obviously If God is the source of all reality outside himself, which scripture clearly states in numerous passages that He is i.e.:

John 1:1-3: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.”

Then there is nothing that exists "independently" of Him but rather everything that exists is dependent upon Him. So it is clear that your extrapolation of the concept of the primacy of existence to argue that some entities exist independently of God is misguided.

Thus, this would completely destroy the PoE and show that the PoC is more tenable.



If nothing exists independently of God's consciousness then there are no objects of God's consciousness and thus no basis for objective truth. This would mean that one side of the subject/object relationship, namely the object side, would be wiped out of existence and that would lead to the problem of divine loneliness. In other words it would lead to a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of, a contradiction. Consciousness presupposes existence.

I wrote: 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 wrote in response: But we are not discussing any of the above. We are discussing what makes certain moral statements statements of "fact".


I am discussing it. You are trying not to discuss it because you have no answer to it. any discussion of "facts" requires that we discuss the issue of metaphysical primacy. You can't escape it.

You wrote: I have addressed your need to provide a cogent argument for the veracity of a PoE view.

By the very act of asking me for a cogent argument you affirm the veracity of the primacy of existence. The concepts "argument" and "veracity" presuppose the primacy of existence.

You wrote: Once again, your whole argument assumes I agree with the PoE. I need you to demonstrate to me why the PoE is true.

Once again by the act of asking me to demonstrate that the PoE is true you have affirmed it. The concept "true" is dependent on it.

You wrote: The Christian worldview holds that God is the source of reality itself. That God creates reality by an exercise of His will and does so freely without constraint from any outside agency. So until you give me some reason to believe that the PoE is true, I will stick with what the Bible says.


Is the bible true regardless of anyone's wishes, preferences, likes, dislikes, hopes, fears, faith or tantrums or is the truth of the Bible dependent on your likes, dislikes, preferences, faith, wishes, fears or tantrums?

You wrote: This assumes the PoE is true which you have yet to demonstrate.

By the very act of asking me to demonstrate that the PoE is true, you affirm the primacy of existence. It is implied in any truth claim.

Jeremy, none of your objections refute the primacy of existence. I would like you to do that now.

All I have asked you to do is tell me what makes moral values and duties objective without appealing to God. We both agree they are.

Thus far all you have told me is that they are objective because they are independent of the subjective opinions of human beings. All you have done is define what objective means. You and I can agree on this for this is how the word "objective" is used in the particular version of the moral argument I am using.

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

As it stands, you have yet to undercut the warrant we have for holding one to be more plausible than its negation, nor have you provided a rebutting defeater for it. Until you do, then the premise stands.

Why do moral values need to be objective?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2014, 09:36 PM
RE: [split] I need to rant to other atheists.
(14-06-2014 09:20 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  All I have asked you to do is tell me what makes moral values and duties objective

Moral values and "duties" are not objective. This has been explained in detail to you.


Quote: without appealing to God.

One can appeal to karma, Allah, Zeus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Great JuJu of the Mountain, leprechauns, fairies, unicorns, etc.

All are equal to your fairy tale monster.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
14-06-2014, 09:40 PM
RE: [split] I need to rant to other atheists.
(14-06-2014 09:20 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.


2. If the Great JuJu of the Mountain does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

3. If the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

4. If Zeus does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

5. If Monkeys Flying Out Of My Butt do not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

....

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
14-06-2014, 09:42 PM
RE: [split] I need to rant to other atheists.
(14-06-2014 09:40 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
(14-06-2014 09:20 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.


2. If the Great JuJu of the Mountain does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

3. If the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

4. If Zeus does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

5. If Monkeys Flying Out Of My Butt do not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

....

Nooooooo! Not the monkeys! Gasp Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like pablo's post
15-06-2014, 04:58 AM
RE: [split] I need to rant to other atheists.
(14-06-2014 09:36 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
(14-06-2014 09:20 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  All I have asked you to do is tell me what makes moral values and duties objective

Moral values and "duties" are not objective. This has been explained in detail to you.


Quote: without appealing to God.

One can appeal to karma, Allah, Zeus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Great JuJu of the Mountain, leprechauns, fairies, unicorns, etc.

All are equal to your fairy tale monster.

true scotsman believes they are objective. that is why we are discussing what grounds them or what makes them objective.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Jeremy E Walker's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: