[split] I need to rant to other atheists.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-06-2014, 12:57 PM
RE: [split] I need to rant to other atheists.
(15-06-2014 12:44 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(15-06-2014 12:30 PM)pablo628 Wrote:  I have moral values, they are mine, I decide how and when they will be applied. Big Spooky (if there was one) has nothing to do with it.

theists and non-theists alike conduct their lives however consistently or inconsistently according to their own particular set of values. this is not in dispute.



(15-06-2014 12:30 PM)pablo628 Wrote:  I'm fairly sure the child being molested by a priest doesn't like it. Therefore I decide that this act is morally/ethically wrong and act accordingly, why does this confuse you so?

Trust me, I am not confused at all. I agree with you. I think I have made it very clear that molesting children is wrong.

I disagree with you however, when you say that the priest has done nothing objectively wrong.

You see, in your world where moral statements are just referring to the opinions of people, there is no standard to compare your morality and the morality of the rapist to to say that yours more closely adheres to the standard.

It is like artists simultaneously claiming that there never existed a Leonardo da Vinci or an original Mona Lisa, and claiming at the same time that each one of their works is more like the Mona Lisa than everyone else's.

That is absurd. You cannot say that there is no original Mona Lisa (the standard) to which your work aims to conform to and then at the same time say that your painting is a "better" painting than everyone else's because it more closely conforms to the Mona Lisa!

The Mona Lisa does not exist!


You are the same way if you ever try to argue that your view is to be preferred over the view of the rapist. You deny the existence of the standard by which your set of moral values and the set of moral values of the rapist is compared to.

People do not say that a portrait is a "better" or "worse" likeness of someone unless they know what the person actually looks like (the standard).

Take the standard away, and all you are left with is people painting what they think is worth painting. The paintings can neither be said to better or worse than any other for there is nothing that the painters were aiming to paint that existed outside of their own imagination (the standard).

Well that's a horrible analogy. I think the Mona Lisa is shit. Drinking Beverage

What was that about standards? Methinks you're trying too hard. Morality is objectively subjective.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes evenheathen's post
15-06-2014, 01:08 PM
RE: [split] I need to rant to other atheists.
(15-06-2014 12:57 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  I think the Mona Lisa is shit. Drinking Beverage

I would not use those exact words, but I am sympathetic to you. Yes

(15-06-2014 12:57 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  Morality is objectively subjective.

Hmm....now tell me, what exactly does that mean?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2014, 01:16 PM
RE: [split] I need to rant to other atheists.
It means that there is no way that morality is anything other than subjective. That is an objective truth. There are those who would argue otherwise, but I don't find those arguments compelling in the least.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2014, 01:18 PM
RE: [split] I need to rant to other atheists.
(15-06-2014 01:16 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  there is no way that morality is anything other than subjective. That is an objective truth.

Why?

Without some sort of evidence for that truth-claim, then Christopher would enjoin us to dismiss it without even requiring us to give evidence for why we dismiss it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2014, 01:19 PM
RE: [split] I need to rant to other atheists.
(15-06-2014 01:18 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(15-06-2014 01:16 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  there is no way that morality is anything other than subjective. That is an objective truth.

Why?

Why not?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Leo's post
15-06-2014, 01:22 PM
RE: [split] I need to rant to other atheists.
(15-06-2014 01:19 PM)Leo Wrote:  
(15-06-2014 01:18 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Why?

Why not?

Exactly. Because that's what the evidence points to in my opinion. Jeremy, you haven't made an argument yet that makes me think otherwise. So.... Hitchens right back at ya. Rolleyes

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes evenheathen's post
15-06-2014, 05:37 PM
[split] I need to rant to other atheists.
(15-06-2014 11:52 AM)Leo Wrote:  Yeah . Jeremy Walker is a clown.

[Image: unu7user.jpg]

β€œIt 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
15-06-2014, 06:12 PM
RE: [split] I need to rant to other atheists.
Jeremy E Walker Wrote:
Quote:I disagree with you however, when you say that the priest has done nothing objectively wrong.

I never said this and you know it.

Quote:You see, in your world where moral statements are just referring to the opinions of people, there is no standard to compare your morality and the morality of the rapist to to say that yours more closely adheres to the standard.

The combined subjective morality of the majority of people is the standard. I'm also not a rapist so there's that.

Quote:It is like artists simultaneously claiming that there never existed a Leonardo da Vinci or an original Mona Lisa, and claiming at the same time that each one of their works is more like the Mona Lisa than everyone else's.

It's not like that at all, for one thing Leo and Mona actually existed. Like other subjective morals exist within other people. God doesn't exist so nothing to compare to.

Quote:You are the same way if you ever try to argue that your view is to be preferred over the view of the rapist. You deny the existence of the standard by which your set of moral values and the set of moral values of the rapist is compared to.

Again, I'm not a rapist so I have that to compare to. I set my own standard based on whether I think that raping is something I want to do.
I am not being compelled to rape or not rape by any outside supernatural force.

Quote:People do not say that a portrait is a "better" or "worse" likeness of someone unless they know what the person actually looks like (the standard).

I say my standard is better than one that doesn't exist. ( Big Spooky again)

Quote:Take the standard away, and all you are left with is people painting what they think is worth painting. The paintings can neither be said to better or worse than any other for there is nothing that the painters were aiming to paint that existed outside of their own imagination (the standard).

Spooky's standard does not exist. Are you really trying to say that if it weren't for Spooky we would all be rapists and murderers because we couldn't figure out for ourselves that those are bad things to do even by simple observations?

I find it sad that you and your kind feel the need to insert a fairy-tale into your lives to make it have some sort of meaning to you Jer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes pablo's post
15-06-2014, 09:06 PM
RE: [split] I need to rant to other atheists.
(15-06-2014 07:46 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(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.



EXACTLY. And you have PRECISELY NO EVIDENCE for your assertion of your gawd-monster. Without EVIDENCE for your fucking gawd-monster, YOUR assertion can be dismissed without evidence, precisely like my Monkeys Flying Out Of My Butt.

Checkmate, asshole.


BUT WAIT! -- Look at you trying to play sleight of hand between "arguments" and "evidence. Arguments aren't evidence, asshole. And YOU have no EVIDENCE.


Quote:Thanks Chris!

Who the fuck is that.

Quote:
(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.

Not a bit. You attempted to equivocate between definitions of the words. I caught you red-handed. It doesn't matter how many fucking times you try it. Once is enough to expose your dishonesty.


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

How so?

Your claimed criterion to attempt to dismiss Reductio Ad Absurdum was "no one thinks it", moron.


Quote:
(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!

Tu Quoque, asshole.

[Image: 1336189391425.gif]

Your fucking assertion of a deity is without a single shred of fucking evidence. Way to shoot yourself in the fucking face and save me the fucking bullet.

Quote:
(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.

Your burden of proof is FAR higher than just "more plausible than it's negation. You and "Larry" Fucking Craig can stuff your moving goalposts up each others' fucking asses.

Quote:
(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".

It was a slam on your idiotic constant use of the fallacy. Figures you're too fucking stupid to get it.


Quote: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.

You fucking dumbass, your assertion of a fairy tale monster is precisely as non-sequitur to any claim of an objective morality (thus the RAS, moron) as my assertion of Monkeys Flying Out Of My Butt. And again, that was the last, most sarcastic item in a very short list (karma, Allah, Zeus, etc), which could be expanded to thousands of imaginary figures, any one of which carries precisely as much weight as your fairy tale monster.



Quote:
(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.

Yeah, after you said you weren't going to argue with me. So you lied. Again. Real fucking shocker there, I tell you.

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
15-06-2014, 09:14 PM
RE: [split] I need to rant to other atheists.
(15-06-2014 10:21 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(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.


You are DISHONESTLY EQUIVOCATING the definition of "objective". TS' objection stands.


Quote:
(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.

You bear a MUCH higher burden of proof than just "more plausible than its negation. You have been advised of this many times. You and "Larry" Craig can stuff your moving goalposts up each others' asses.



Quote:
(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.


You would switch your "gawd"-monster with ANYTHING and the statement would be no less absurd than your claim.

Quote: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.

Already done. Reductio Ad Absurdum. Zeus, karma, unicorns, Monkeys Flying Out Of My Butt.

Checkmate.


Quote: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

We have ALL shown your premise to be false, moron.

[Image: black-knight-fight-o.gif]

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: