Spirituality
20 Dec 07
28 Dec 07
2 edits
Originally posted by bbarrTheist: "No, because the very definition of 'God' entails that there are no moral facts independent of God."
Right, that's the question-begging supplementary premise. I'll bold it in the mini-dialogue below:
Theist: "Atheism entail nihilism."
Atheist: "No, because even if God doesn't exist there may still be moral facts."
Theist: "No, because the very definition of 'God' entails that there are no moral facts independent of God ."
And, again, if think about reading some ethical theory.
Regarding Nietzsche: Citation please?[/b]
I don't know of a whole lot of theists who would subscribe to the view as you portray it here. In fact, what you describe doesn't make any sense, at all.
However, your original argument did contend that one would not find the contradiction...
"without importing an additional unjustified premise.
My correction to your statement is that no additional premise is required to expose the contradiction, that the nonsense of the first statement itself eliminated the need to go further.
Regarding Nietzsche: Citation please?
That's what I am asking of you. You claimed that I am alleging Freddy as having said something. I challenged you to quote where I have alleged anything that Freddy said.
28 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHLet's take this from the top. Here is your first premise:
[b]Theist: "No, because the very definition of 'God' entails that there are no moral facts independent of God."
I don't know of a whole lot of theists who would subscribe to the view as you portray it here. In fact, what you describe doesn't make any sense, at all.
However, your original argument did contend that one would not find the contradict id something. I challenged you to quote where I have alleged anything that Freddy said.[/b]
(1) God does not exist.
Now, you think that from this premise you can derive the conclusion:
(C) There are no moral facts (i.e., Nihilism is true).
Please provide the valid deduction of (C)...
Regarding Nietzsche: You claimed:
"his ethics were based upon some aribitrary rules each member of society was to follow. His ultimate standard? A person's ability to register as being in possession of "overflowing life." The greater your chi, the more appropriate your domination."
Please provide the citation...
28 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI love this, so I want to devote an individual post to it. I claimed the following:
I didn't? Must have been my lack of clarity that led you to such a boneheaded conclusion. Freddy's perspective on the perfect world necessarily relied on [b]his standards of 'oughts' without any objective standard--- unless, of course, you think that somehow a zest for life can be standardized to the point of universal agreement. Specifically bec sed nihilism... whether he was able to realize what he was doing or not is beside the point.[/b]
...you certainly were confusing nihilism with normative universality. Now you're just being disingenuous. For anybody who goes back and reads your original post it is clear that you really have no idea what nihilism means; you certainly didn't think it meant the absence of moral facts..
In response to which you claim the following:
Freddy's perspective on the perfect world necessarily relied on his standards of 'oughts' without any objective standard--- unless, of course, you think that somehow a zest for life can be standardized to the point of universal agreement. Specifically because he lacked anything remotely close to a universal rule leads me to the conclusion that he endorsed nihilism...
I italicized the part that is hilarious. You know, the part where you repeat the error that I pointed out originally. Priceless.
29 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrLet's take this from the top. Here is your first premise:
Let's take this from the top. Here is your first premise:
(1) God does not exist.
Now, you think that from this premise you can derive the conclusion:
(C) There are no moral facts (i.e., Nihilism is true).
[b]Please provide the valid deduction of (C)...
Regarding Nietzsche: You claimed:
"his ethics were based upon some aribitrary rul ...[text shortened]... ter your chi, the more appropriate your domination."
Please provide the citation...[/b]
(1) God does not exist.
You are seriously not getting it? I suppose in your high opinion of your own intellect you can't be bothered to actually entertain the thoughts from anyone who refuses to employ your approved list of words. That would explain why you ignore reading the words that have been clearly posted here.
I have already stated that your first position (not mine) is nonsense, unsupported by physical demonstration or verbal argument. Going further with any other premises is pointless.
Please provide the citation...
It's funny that you can read some of what I wrote, but not all of what I offered. Knowing how much of a stickler you are for informed (ha-ha!) opinions, I cited a source that repeatedly and pointedly supported what I have surmised here regarding Freddy's take on things.
29 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrI italicized the part that is hilarious. You know, the part where you repeat the error that I pointed out originally. Priceless.
I love this, so I want to devote an individual post to it. I claimed the following:
[b]...you certainly were confusing nihilism with normative universality. Now you're just being disingenuous. For anybody who goes back and reads your original post it is clear that you really have no idea what nihilism means; you certainly didn't think it meant the absence ...[text shortened]... You know, the part where you repeat the error that I pointed out originally. Priceless.[/b]
I'm glad that you're at least getting a chuckle out of your own obstinance. For some reason, it's hard for you to get your thoughts around the fact that--- absent a mooring foundation--- all "rules" drift off into the realm of suggestions. That Freddy simply came up with a different set of rules that were without any basis other than his own thinking simply underscores the theme.
29 Dec 07
Originally posted by FreakyKBHRight, so no argument then.
[b]Let's take this from the top. Here is your first premise:
(1) God does not exist.
You are seriously not getting it? I suppose in your high opinion of your own intellect you can't be bothered to actually entertain the thoughts from anyone who refuses to employ your approved list of words. That would explain why you ignore reading the words th ...[text shortened]... eatedly and pointedly supported what I have surmised here regarding Freddy's take on things.[/b]
29 Dec 07
Originally posted by FreakyKBHCitation please....
[b]I italicized the part that is hilarious. You know, the part where you repeat the error that I pointed out originally. Priceless.
I'm glad that you're at least getting a chuckle out of your own obstinance. For some reason, it's hard for you to get your thoughts around the fact that--- absent a mooring foundation--- all "rules" drift off into the ...[text shortened]... rules that were without any basis other than his own thinking simply underscores the theme.[/b]
29 Dec 07
Originally posted by rwingettIt was an enjoyable read, I like you agreed and disagreed with him.
A very interesting interview with theologian John Haught on evolution and other topics. Haught is among the seldom heard brand of theists who accept evolution. In fact, he goes so far as to say that Darwin is a "gift to theology." However, despite saying some things I agree with, Haught also says some things I disagree with. I'm sure the theists would proba ...[text shortened]... sts on Mr. Haught's position.
http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/12/18/john_haught/
I'd also be willing to bet where you agreed I more than likely didn't.
🙂
Kelly
29 Dec 07
Originally posted by rwingettAtheist and Theist have different foundations they use to look at
Those were some of the things that I had objected to as well. I see that you have honed in on them exclusively. The claim can easily be made that Haught does not understand atheism, humanism, or secularism, but I wonder if you'd care to comment on his claim that atheists do not understand the religious point of view. Is it the case that both camps are equal ...[text shortened]... onder if Haught's position is the best possible one that atheists could hope for from theists.
everything, I automatically have God in all I see as and Atheist
doesn’t so from the very beginning we have work towards getting
our thoughts clear to each other. In some cases it is easy in others
the differences are very subtle and cause us to talk past one another
to the point that we get very frustrated and if we are not careful
name calling and so on takes place. We have different ‘plum lines’
for truth as it were, so when I speak about truth and how things
relate to the reality; the way I see it isn’t always understood by
those that don’t share my point of view. At least this is how I see it
when it comes to our understanding one another, it isn’t a
character flaw as much as a foundational world view conflict working
its way through our conversations.
Kelly
29 Dec 07
Originally posted by bbarrJust so I know how you define it, what is a moral fact?
Right, that's the question-begging supplementary premise. I'll bold it in the mini-dialogue below:
Theist: "Atheism entail nihilism."
Atheist: "No, because even if God doesn't exist there may still be moral facts."
Theist: "No, [b]because the very definition of 'God' entails that there are no moral facts independent of God ."
And, again, if ...[text shortened]... think about reading some ethical theory.
Regarding Nietzsche: Citation please?[/b]
Kelly
30 Dec 07
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI have already stated that your first position (not mine) is nonsense, unsupported by physical demonstration or verbal argument.
[b]Let's take this from the top. Here is your first premise:
(1) God does not exist.
You are seriously not getting it? I suppose in your high opinion of your own intellect you can't be bothered to actually entertain the thoughts from anyone who refuses to employ your approved list of words. That would explain why you ignore reading the words th ...[text shortened]... eatedly and pointedly supported what I have surmised here regarding Freddy's take on things.[/b]
Okay, could start with “(1) God does not exist” and demonstrate a reductio ad adsurdum. Thus far, you have only stated an assertion, sans any argument.
30 Dec 07
Originally posted by KellyJayMoral facts are facts about how one ought to live, what type of person one should be, how one ought to act generally, what one ought to do in particular circumstances, etc. Relatedly, they are facts about what is ultimately (intrinsically or inherently) valuable, what considerations are reason-giving, etc. Note that the description of these facts uses evaluative or normative terminology.
Just so I know how you define it, what is a moral fact?
Kelly
30 Dec 07
Originally posted by bbarrWell I'm okay with that, but who gets to say what "should be" is?
Moral facts are facts about how one ought to live, what type of person one should be, how one ought to act generally, what one ought to do in particular circumstances, etc. Relatedly, they are facts about what is ultimately (intrinsically or inherently) valuable, what considerations are reason-giving, etc. Note that the description of these facts uses evaluative or normative terminology.
Kelly
30 Dec 07
Originally posted by KellyJayI don't understand that question. Suppose, hypothetically, it is a moral fact that we should not kill without good reason. This does not entail that the proposition "we should not kill without good reason" is true because somebody says so. Most secular ethical theories claim that moral facts are facts independently of anybody's actual beliefs. It is true, though, that whether anybody believes that we should not kill without good reason will depend upon the evidence they have, their evaluative framework, their experiences, reasons, and so forth.
Well I'm okay with that, but who gets to say what "should be" is?
Kelly
Compare: Who gets to say that 2+2=4? The truth of this claim is not dependent on anybody's beliefs. It would be true even if everybody thought otherwise. Of course, whether you believe that 2+2=4 will depend on whether you have sufficient reason to believe it.
