[split] I need to rant to other atheists.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-06-2014, 07:46 AM
RE: [split] I need to rant to other atheists.
(15-06-2014 07:38 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  And I claim that they are best explained by Monkeys Flying Out Of My Butt.

In the absence of some sort of supporting argument for this assertion, it is simply a bare assertion and what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Thanks Chris!



(15-06-2014 07:38 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Your claim is based on equivocation of the word "law". This has been explained to you many times before.

I used the word "law" one time in the statement in which it was found. Thus, the charge of "equivocating" is misguided.

(15-06-2014 07:38 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Ad Populum Fallacy.

How so?




(15-06-2014 07:38 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  I don't have to. My argument is not based on fallacious equivocation of the word "law". Yours is. Oh, and arguments aren't evidence, asshole. You have been told this dozens, maybe hundreds of times here.

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Thanks Chris!

(15-06-2014 07:38 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Precisely like YOU did. You have no right at all to accuse ANYONE of making a bare, unsupported assertion. Hypocrite, They Name is Jermy.

Actually there are several reasons to think premise one of the moral argument is more plausible than its negation. I can provide them if you would like.


(15-06-2014 07:38 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Ad Poopulum Fallacy again. My Reductio Ad Absurdum stands. Monkeys Flying Out Of My Butt is precisely as plausible as your mythical fairy tale monster.

I think you mean "Populum".

Your Reductio Ad Absurdum would stand if you could demonstrate how said monkeys could actually be the grounds for objective moral values and duties. Thus far, you have not done this.



(15-06-2014 07:38 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Yes, ruin away again, just like you always do when your bullshit is refuted.

I think you mean "run". And no. I am still here.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2014, 08:29 AM
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.

No Jeremy, things are not objective because they are independent of the consciousness of Human beings, they are only objective if they are independent of the consciousness of any being. You have misstated what I said.

So tell me Jeremy, what is the relationship between the subject of your god's consciousness and its objects?

I have not only defined what makes a fact objective but I have also shown you why if your god exists then there can be no such thing as any objective morals. Iv'e refuted your first premise of your argument therefore it fails.

I'm going to copy and paste what I wrote to you on the "consolations of Atheism" thread When you asked me to support my position that you chose not to respond to. At the end I have laid out the summary of the argument from the PoE. I'd like you now to attempt to refute it.

That's fair. I'll be glad to support it.

Let's start at the beginning, with existence. existence is the widest possible concept which subsumes everything That exists. The first thing to say about it is that it exists. It exists independently from consciousness as the object of consciousness not the subject. It is an axiomatic concept. It can not be reduced to any antecedent concepts. Existence does not need to be proven or explained. It is what we use to prove and explain. It is perceptually self evident.

Grasping the fact that existence exists implies a second axiomatic concept: Consciousness. It also is a broad concept subsuming all forms of consciousness. Consciousness is the faculty that perceives that which exists, therefor it presupposes existence. A consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. Consciousness is directly observable by introspection. It is perceptually self evident.

These two axioms imply a third: Identity. To exist is to be something. Consciousness is perception of some thing separate from consciousness. Consciousness is consciousness of some object Every object or entity is itself and nothing else. It is what it is. Every entity exists with a finite set of attributes. It possesses a specific nature. A is A. This too is perceptually self evident.

A corollary to these three axioms is the primacy of existence. To be conscious is to be conscious of some thing. There is a necessary relationship between the subject of consciousness and its object. The relationship is uni-directional and contextually fixed. Consciousness conforms to its objects, its objects don't conform to it. Things are what they are. They possess finite and fixed identities. They exist as absolutes independently from the subject of consciousness. The objects of consciousness hold metaphysical primacy over the subject of consciousness. A is A regardless of anyone's wishes, likes, dislikes, hopes, faith, needs or tantrums. Wishing won't make it so.

The primacy of existence is also an axiomatic concept. It is implicit in any knowledge claim. It too is perceptually self evident. You can test it anytime and anywhere. Anyone can. The opposite of this is the primacy of consciousness over existence. This is the idea that the objects of consciousness conform to the subject of consciousness. Things are not what they are independent of consciousness. A is non A. It makes no difference what consciousness has primacy over existence if any consciousness does then consciousness holds metaphysical primacy over existence which means A is not A. Wishing makes it so.

This relationship between the subject of consciousness and its objects is where we get the concepts "objective" and "subjective". Things which exists independently from consciousness are objective. They are facts of reality. Things which are not independent from the subject of consciousness are subjective. They don't exist in reality but only in the mind. Therefor to gain knowledge of reality one must look outward at reality not inward to the subject of consciousness.

For anything to be objective it must be independent of consciousness. Existence must hold primacy. If consciousness holds primacy then there are no objects of consciousness and therefor no such thing as objectivity.

The Christian claim that a consciousness created everything in existence and maintains everything that exists and can if it wishes change anything in existence through an act of conscious will affirms the primacy of consciousness over existence.
It directly contradicts the primacy of the objects of consciousness over the subject of consciousness which the concept "objective" presupposes. The concept "objective moral values" presupposes the primacy of existence.

To claim that the Christian God exists as a fact of reality is to say that A is A and at the same time A is not A.

I realize I am just giving you the bare bones summary here so if you would like me to expand on any of this I will be glad to.

Here is the summary of the argument from the primacy of existence:

1. If existence holds metaphysical primacy over consciousness then the Christian God can not exist since it is a direct contradiction of the primacy of existence.

2. Existence holds metaphysical primacy over consciousness.

3. Therefor the Christian God does 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
15-06-2014, 08:41 AM
RE: [split] I need to rant to other atheists.
You asked: Why do moral values need to be objective?


Because A is A. Because man possesses a specific nature and the universe places certain demands on him if he wants to live. Man needs an objective (true) code of values to guide his actions if he is to live and live as a man and not a brute animal.

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
15-06-2014, 08:51 AM
RE: [split] I need to rant to other atheists.
(15-06-2014 05:30 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(14-06-2014 09:35 PM)pablo628 Wrote:  Why do moral values need to be objective?

i am not arguing that they "need" to be objective but that they "are".

Mine are not, your statement is false.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2014, 09:08 AM
RE: [split] I need to rant to other atheists.
Jeremy,

I think I have answered every question you have posed to me directly and in detail. If I failed to respond to one of them I will be glad to do so if you will point it out to me. I can't stand people who dodge questions that if answered honestly would undermine their position. The purpose of any debate or discussion is to get to the objective truth as far as I am concerned.

There are several questions which I have posed to you which you have not answered. I'd like your direct answer to them.

1. Does your god exist as a fact of reality, independently from anyone's desires, likes, dislikes, hopes, fears, wishes, preferences, faith or tantrums or is its existent dependent upon anyone's desires, likes, dislikes, hopes, fears, wishes, preferences, faith or tantrums?

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

3. You haven't had a chance to answer these yet but I am going to go ahead and include them. Did your god create everything distinct from itself by an act of conscious will? Does your god maintain everything in existence by an act of conscious will? Can your god change anything that exists by an act of conscious will?

And here is the summary of the argument from the primacy of existence. I'd like you to refute it if you can.

1. If existence holds metaphysical primacy over consciousness then the Christian God can not exist since it is a direct contradiction of the primacy of existence.

2. Existence holds metaphysical primacy over consciousness.

3. Therefor the Christian God does 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
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
15-06-2014, 09:44 AM
RE: [split] I need to rant to other atheists.
(15-06-2014 08:41 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  You asked: Why do moral values need to be objective?


Because A is A. Because man possesses a specific nature and the universe places certain demands on him if he wants to live. Man needs an objective (true) code of values to guide his actions if he is to live and live as a man and not a brute animal.

Pablo628 asked that. Not me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2014, 10:01 AM
RE: [split] I need to rant to other atheists.
(15-06-2014 09:44 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(15-06-2014 08:41 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  You asked: Why do moral values need to be objective?


Because A is A. Because man possesses a specific nature and the universe places certain demands on him if he wants to live. Man needs an objective (true) code of values to guide his actions if he is to live and live as a man and not a brute animal.

Pablo628 asked that. Not me.

I thought I was responding to his statement not yours. I may have hit the wrong reply button.

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
15-06-2014, 10:21 AM
RE: [split] I need to rant to other atheists.
(15-06-2014 08:29 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  they are only objective if they are independent of the consciousness of any being.

I do not use the term "objective" in that sense when saying that moral values and duties are objective.

So your objection is an objection aimed at a strawman.

(15-06-2014 08:29 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  So tell me Jeremy, what is the relationship between the subject of your god's consciousness and its objects?

This is a red herring for I do not have to answer that question to show that premise one is more plausible than its negation. All I have to do is show why it is more plausible that if God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.

(15-06-2014 08:29 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Here is the summary of the argument from the primacy of existence:

1. If existence holds metaphysical primacy over consciousness then the Christian God can not exist since it is a direct contradiction of the primacy of existence.

2. Existence holds metaphysical primacy over consciousness.

3. Therefor the Christian God does not exist.
[/i]

None of this addresses premise one of the moral argument which states that if God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.

All you have to do to defeat this premise is to give a refutatory defeater either in the form of a rebutting defeater which aims to show that the relevant premise is false or an undercutting defeater which aims to show that the relevant premise has not been proved to be true.

Have you shown premise one to be false? All you have done is formulate an argument against the existence of the Christian God which is a red herring and complete waste of your time, for premise one does not even assert that the Christian God exists! Unsure

Have you demonstrated that I have not shown premise one to be true? I do not even know how you could do this for I have not even given any reasons as to why premise one is true. Up till now, I have been asking you to explain how you can ground objective moral values and duties without appealing to God which is something you claimed could be done several days ago.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2014, 10:39 AM (This post was last modified: 15-06-2014 10:50 AM by Jeremy E Walker.)
RE: [split] I need to rant to other atheists.
(15-06-2014 09:08 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  1. Does your god exist ..... independently from anyone's desires, likes, dislikes, hopes, fears, wishes, preferences, faith or tantrums or is its existent dependent upon anyone's desires, likes, dislikes, hopes, fears, wishes, preferences, faith or tantrums?

The word "anyone" includes God and so your answer is no. God cannot exist independently of Himself. He is self-existent and exists independently of anything outside of Himself but not independently of Himself. Thus He is not contingent or dependent upon anyone or anything outside of Himself for His existence. God exists in and of Himself and is the only Being in existence which can rightly be said to be self-existent or aseitic.

(15-06-2014 09:08 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  2. Is the Bible true regardless of anyone's desires, likes, dislikes, hopes, fears, wishes, preferences, faith or tantrums or is its truth dependent on anyone's desires, likes, dislikes, hopes, fears, wishes, preferences, faith or tantrums?

The Bible is true because it was inspired by God. God inspiring the authors to write what they did means that every word is true for God cannot lie. The Bible is not true independently of God but true because it is of God.

(15-06-2014 09:08 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Did your god create everything distinct from itself by an act of conscious will?

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.


(15-06-2014 09:08 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Does your god maintain everything in existence by an act of conscious will?

He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of His nature, and He upholds the universe by the word of His power.

For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

(15-06-2014 09:08 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Can your god change anything that exists by an act of conscious will?

Our God is in the heavens; He does all that He pleases.


(15-06-2014 09:08 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  And here is the summary of the argument from the primacy of existence. I'd like you to refute it if you can.

1. If existence holds metaphysical primacy over consciousness then the Christian God can not exist since it is a direct contradiction of the primacy of existence.

2. Existence holds metaphysical primacy over consciousness.

3. Therefor the Christian God does not exist.

You have the responsibility of giving reasons to think one and two are true. What are they?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2014, 10:52 AM
RE: [split] I need to rant to other atheists.
(15-06-2014 05:27 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(14-06-2014 09:33 PM)Bible Belt Brawler Wrote:  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.

what you say is true. no apologist would argue against this. this is termed "descriptive moral relativism".

it essentially states that there are in fact moral disagreements. westerns believe it is immoral to fly planes into buildings to kill people who do not believe what they believe. Some Islamists believe it moral to do so. so there is a disagreement here.

but does the mere fact that there are disagreements about what is moral mean that there is no true/right answer to the question?

well I say no. just because people disagree on the above, it does not follow that there is no true and right answer anymore than the fact that people disagree on whether men ever actually landed on the moon means that there is no true/right answer to the question: did men land on the moon?

so saying that descriptive moral relativism is true does not necessarily mean that meta-ethical moral relativism is true.

How might morality be measured and tested? Feeding the poor and healing the sick is right because it is something everybody wants done to them and their loved ones. I just treat others in a way I would like to be treated, and that simple approach appears to generate positive results. I cannot say WHY it works, but that appears a fairly reliable way of finding morality that has been embraced by many self-improvement groups for thousands of years.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: