So, in order, we have:
He commented on my "Rape Commanded?" post.
I responded.
He responded.
I responded.
And here we are with his response.
Before we begin, let's remember from my last post that he'd said (emph. original):
You are correct. My morality is subjective. Everyone's morality is subjective, to be technical about it, but let's stick to atheism. Yes, subjectivity, relativity, all true. Your critiques are true. I have no objective standard by which to demonstrate that my morality is such.I spent a great deal of my last post diving deep into the absurdity and unliveability of such a position, and how he proves it throughout his position. Let's see if he has changed anything since then.
ME: "Quite simply, it leaves him stuck in the middle of nowhere. Have you ever tried to convince someone who preferred pizza with pineapples and Canadian bacon that pizza with pineapples and Canadian bacon is, in fact, revolting? How far did you get?"
HIM: This, and where you go with it, seems to me like a false equivocation. Taste in pizza toppings is purely subjective, as is my morality, as I agreed. Okay, so far so good. Problem is, taste in pizza toppings and feelings on say child rape, are not equally subjective.
But he said "NO objective standard". Why is he backtracking now and trying to mix some objectivity into the mix?
I know why - he's realised the horror of his proposition and is trying to move the goalposts later. I commend him for this, b/c of course his position IS horrible and disgusting, but I will not accept this sort of tapdancing. He needs to wholly retract it.
There are degrees to which something is subjective. There are external factors (ie, evidence) which one can point to in order to try and substantiate his or her subjective opinion.
Really? He's both falling into the "brain scan" problem I posed to him in my last post, and committing Hume's naturalistic fallacy - making an IS into an OUGHT. What magx01 needs to do here is correct Hume and show us precisely the reasoning involved in getting from "Evidence X exists" to "I should do something different".
There are real world implications that in and of themselves, are objective/can be objectively assessed.
I don't think anyone would dispute this. The question is: If atheism is true, why should anyone care? And it appears that magx01 gets that, for he says:
Of course, your response to this will likely just be “so what?” You're taking the subjectivity/relativity thing too far.
Well, we'll see if he can substantiate that accusation.
Just because we have not been prescribed the notion that an action that does harm is bad by some objective, outside source, does not preclude us from coming to that consensus ourselves and working on avoiding such effects by limiting behaviour.
Does magx01 think I'd object to this? Of course! But the question has never been: "Do people prefer petting dogs on the head to torturing them?", but "Is it morally right for me to pat the dog on the head rather than torturing it?" Merely telling me how people feel about a given question tells me nothing about the moral value of it, short of an argument that makes the connection. It's simply a repeat of the naturalistic fallacy.
What it comes down to is limiting harm and maximizing benefit/pleasure/survivability/health, etc. I can immediately foresee you making the obvious objection: But HOW did you come to those as criteria if you have no objective basis by which to select criteria? This is the part you keep getting stuck on, and the answer to it is the part you seem to be missing: Experience, our nature/biological/social drives, discussion, and usually, majority rule.
This seems to be the crux of magx01's argument, and I've seen it all too many times before. But does magx01 give me a reason to think it's morally right to accept his moral framework? And what happened to his previous contention that "I have no objective standard by which to demonstrate that my morality is such"? Easily discarded when it became inconvenient and too painful to hold, as I expected.
The other thing that magx01 has not considered when making man the measure of his morality is that man has also experienced what he'd consider evil. Who exactly does magx01 think commits crimes? Rapes children? Commits genocide? Blows up school buses? Why, humans, of course. magx01 is simply committing special pleading in this, as he refuses to take into account the obvious fact that not everyone throughout human history, nor even in modern times, has held the same moral values that he does, as I pointed out before.
Majority rule = might makes right. A regime could come into power that passes a law condemning all atheists who like video games to lives of hard labor in a gulag; I presume magx01 could express no moral objection to this, especially if the regime in question were to remind him that "our experience leads us to believe that you're unpleasant people, and we prefer you be out of our sight, turning big rocks into littler rocks with hammers." And how much more if they threw in: "We're also biologically driven to do so. It gives us a thrill, a pleasurable rush of hormones, and relief to the headache that you give us. Besides, we're biological determinists and clearly don't have any choice in the matter."
While we have no objective standard to say that the benefit to the person performing behaviour A
magx01 needs to realise that if no objective standard exists for morality, then even using the word "benefit" is question-begging. How does he know that it's an objective benefit for me to live a pain-free life, free of people torturing me? He doesn't; he's just guessing b/c it's what he thinks he'd like. But is he everyone? Does he have access to the moral opinions of even a fraction of what all people think?
Susan (who was raped) is harmed in that the rape does her physical damage,
Begging the question again. "Damage" in a universe without a grand design, goal, or purpose is irrelevant. Besides, both Susan and John her rapist are going to end up in the same place - the great infinite unconscious rot of decomposition. So what?
People in the community are harmed in that they now must deal with fear and paranoia as there is a rapist at large, and whatever other effects there would be that I cannot even conceive of at the moment, and are not really worth me trying to rack my exhausted brain to try and fuss out.
No argument as to how he measured John's benefit vs the "harm" done to the community and family. How did he perform that assessment? What are the rules? Since they're not objective, why should anyone think they are worth anything?
My poor brain is being taxed trying to defend/explain the entire moral system of secular humanity
He's actually doing a very good job; the problem is that the worldview being defended is so ridiculously empty, it's impossible to defend.
A rape does no good for the society at large.
1) How could he possibly know that?
2) Even if he could, John the rapist is part of the society. So are other rapists. Unless magx01 wants to commit more special pleading and a priori exclude them from his definition of "society".
Do you honestly think that it's monumentally difficult for a group of people over time, witnessing this, to say, “hey, you know what? John and his ilk should not be allowed to go around raping people anymore. No more rape. The harm is does far outweighs what good there may be, and said good is both selfish AND comes at the expense of others, so no more rape!”
No, but not because atheism is true. They think that way b/c God has put eternity in their hearts and written His law on their hearts.
Even if they did think that way, and even if atheism were true, to think that way would be to think inconsistently with their worldview, outside of a substantiating argument from magx01.
I don't see what the purpose of you pointing out the subjective nature of “atheistic morality” is when its subjective nature does not preclude it from producing tangible positive effects.
This is what atheism does to people - it blinds them from the obvious in many areas to the degree that they can say "I have no objective standard by which to demonstrate that my morality is such" one moment and the next turn 180ยบ around and say stuff like this. How does magx01 know that these effects are positive? And how does he know that one should seek positive effects?
Speaking of slavery, you will say that the bible (aka god) does not condone slavery
No, I would not say that, and I reserve the right to qualify my statement with specific explanations.
Who was a huge part of the contingent that wanted to maintain the slave trade, while secular morality was in the process of moving us away from said action, and what did they use as support for their arguments? CHRISTIANS, using THE BIBLE!!
1) magx01 simplistically equates "slavery" with "The African slave trade of the 17th-19th centuries".
2) No recognition that Christians also were the driving force behind abolition.
3) Is this more of his not-objective yes-objective waffling?
4) Perhaps magx01 could give us an argument that takes us from "People used Document X to lend Behavior Y moral credence" to "Document X actually teaches that one should engage in Behavior Y". Where is his exegesis of the relevant passages and historical context? Nowhere - he simply assumes it, probably b/c he was told to by some amateur like the Skeptic's Annotated Bible or Dick Dawk.
5) Such behavior is actually predicted by the Bible - misuse of God's words for sinful men's own ends. magx01 joins the long line of atheists who never take the Fall of Man into account when evaluating the Christian worldview. They must think that God promised all daisies and roses in this life.
magx01: "I don't see you offering a justification for your assertion that god's laws are moral at all."
ME: “Should I? Why?”
And this is the first time I feel like being blatantly rude to you. Are you ----- kidding me? You spend an inordinate amount of cognitive energy on trying to demonstrate to me that your morality is objective, and therefore superior to mine, which is subjective. I ask you to demonstrate this to me (aka validate/backup/provide evidence for, your claim) and your response is “why should I?”
Notice how magx01 never answers the questions. I guess I'll have to repeat the question. Why should I provide any rational justification for my view? Is there some objective obligation upon me to do so? magx01 already laid out how we can know how stuff is moral - Experience, our nature/biological/social drives, discussion, and usually, majority rule.
Well, experience tells me that he won't answer my own request for clarification, so I don't feel like answering.
My natural, biological drive is toward laziness, so why should I expend the energy to think about and type up a reply?
And this is my blog - I'm the only majority who matters here. Since might makes right, I am exercising what magx01 said I get to exercise in making my own rules.
It's also a terrible debate tactic.
1) Where does magz01 get the objective definition of good and bad debate tactics? How does he know what is the "best" way to defend a viewpoint?
2) So what if it's terrible? Is magx01 the Pope of Morality, defining for the rest of us that we should debate well rather than terribly?
3) Since magx01 keeps begging the question over and over again, it's actually a pretty good debate tactic, incidentally.
you are making the mistake of conflating rules of logic, reason and debate with morality.
magx01 just said "rules". A Freudian slip, to be sure.
I have not once felt as though I am wasting my time here, and I am trying hard to make sure you feel likewise
Well, on a personal note, I definitely do not think this is a waste of time. The fact that magx01 doesn't think that EVERYthing is a waste of time, however, demonstrates that he can't live consistently with his atheism.
magx01: You contradicted yourself.
Me: "So what? Is there something wrong with self-contradiction? If he says it is irrational, again, so what? Is there some reason I shouldn't be irrational, on his worldview? What if my morality says it's morally obligatory to be irrational?"
Come on man, first see above. Second, you're just being disingenuous now. This is you blatantly running from a legitimate criticism on my end.
Note the lack of a substantive response. Imagine if it had gone like this:
Me: God exists.
magx01: No, there's no evidence for that. Further, lines of evidence A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H all militate against it.
Me: Come on man. Of course He exists.
Would magx01 consider that a substantive reply? Not if it's not him receiving the benefit.
DOES your christian worldview prescribe irrationality and inconsistency to you by divine command? No, and you know it. The answer to your question is this: BECAUSE YOU SAID IT IS BETTER. If it is not better, YOU HAVE NO POINT and no legitimate CONTENTION with ATHEISM.
magx01 still seems not to get my point here. Of course I think it's better, but on atheism I am asking him to give me a reason to think it's better. His continuing failure to give us a reason to think so is proof enough of the absurdity of the atheistic worldview. These are fundamental questions I'm asking, and if he can't give us a reason to think it's a good idea or obligatory to make moral judgments and think rationally, then there's no reason for him to talk to anyone, ever.
How does the subjective nature of my morality stop me from wondering if you are personally bothered with what you claim to be an objective fact?
It doesn't. It's when magx01 starts acting like his personal subjective morality has any normative bearing on anyone else that the problems begin.
Me: “Hmm, this brings up a good point, which can serve as a clarification for our further discussion. I shamelessly ripped that line off of William Lane Craig, but I forgot to tweak it for my own use. I mean it is a moral system that is prescriptive and that is true whether or not any human believes it.
So hopefully that will help.”
magx01: Oh, it helps all right. It helps YOU. You just changed the definition of objectivity in order to suit your purpose.
Well, pardon me. magx01 needs to know that retractions and corrections, if admitted candidly, are perfectly acceptable on this blog. Nobody's perfect, least of all me, and so if I need to tweak the expressions of my view so as to better represent what I actually believe, I'll apologise for the poor previous explanation and move on. I am sorry that I got it wrong before, and this is the fix. Hopefully magx01 will be gracious enough not to carry on about such a thing.
This gives you the perfect out, as it neatly sidesteps the issue of objectivity going out the window if morality is contingent upon god's mind.
Well, yes, quite so. I couldn't have said it better myself - my position does indeed match reality. That's why I continue to hold to it despite putting it to the test time and again.
You conveniently change an established definition to mean only HUMAN minds as opposed to any
Sorry about that, but let's try to deal with my actual position, K?
SPECIAL PLEADING 101.
I'm very sorry to inform magx01 of this, but if this is the big 'special pleading' he's going on and on about, he's going to end up looking foolish. It's not special pleading to correct a bad expression of one's own position. Does he even know what special pleading is? It's unlikely, given the numerous times he himself has committed it in the course of our convo.
you can;t and won't just come out and admit that your so called objective morality was created by a mind
Speaking of fallacies, strawmen are fallacious.
your belief is irrational and predicated upon faith, which we both know means a lack of evidence.
magx01 needs to do some elementary reading before spouting nonsense like this.
Your belief is not based on rationality and reason.
magx01 is forcing me to be a bit of a broken record here, but one more time -
Why should I provide any rational justification for my view? Is there some objective obligation upon me to do so? magx01 already laid out how we can know how stuff is moral - Experience, our nature/biological/social drives, discussion, and usually, majority rule.
Well, experience tells me that he won't answer my own request for clarification, so I don't feel like answering.My natural, biological drive is toward laziness, so why should I expend the energy to think about and type up a reply?
And this is my blog - I'm the only majority who matters here. Since might makes right, I am exercising what magx01 said I get to exercise in making my own rules.
So your answer to the euthyphro dilemma is to say “Not a, but not not a?”
magx01 shows little recognition of what the Euthyphro "dilemma" is in reality. And there is a very easy solution, as I deal with here and which TrueFreethinker does here.
magx01: “If they did come from god, well there goes your claim of objectivity, since they are not independent of a mind.”
Me: “ The mind in question is a transcendent mind, of the Ultimate Lawgiver.”
magx01: Uh huh.....any evidence of this?
Sure, lots of evidence, but we're not discussing that right now. Feel free to peruse my blog - it's easily found. What concerns us here is a comparison of worldviews and specifically how atheism deals with moral claims. So far, not well, and bunny trails don't help.
Besides, what if I were to ask magx01 for evidence of his own worldview? I'm sure that'd go over well.
It looks like your objective morality is not superior to my subjective morality in the slightest
And yet how could we possibly know this? What does "superior" even mean?
And (William Lane Craig) is supposed to be the be all end all of christian rationality.
He's not, just FYI. He's quite smart and very good at what he does well, but he doesn't do everything well. How about asking me what I believe?
Valid points were made, but they were made in the pursuit of disingenuously attacking me for things that you yourself share with me, but care not to realize....or admit.
I'd be happy to discuss them if magx01 could point some out.
Of course, why not be disingenuous? Where has magx01 given us any reason to think that it's better not to be disingenuous than otherwise?
Where have I attacked him?
And even if I have, what's wrong with that? Why discard his own moral criteria, as he told us above, when convenient for him? That is special pleading.
67 comments:
But he said "NO objective standard". Why is he backtracking now and trying to mix some objectivity into the mix?
He isn't. His statement is clearly a relative one - that relative to each other, taste in pizza and taste in child rape are not equivalent.
By the way, Tkalim just raped a young girl. I thought you claimed that your "objective morality" would be able to persuade him not to?
I thought you claimed that your "objective morality" would be able to persuade him not to?
I did? When?
I have something to say to him about this practice. What would YOU say? How would you try to explain that what he is doing is wrong? *Is* what he is doing wrong? On what basis?
I assumed that what you would say to him would actually have an impact on his practices. If your claim is in fact that what you would say to him would have no impact on his practices, then it was a fairly pointless thought experiment.
I know what I would say to him. I'm just waiting to hear what you would say to him, because so far it's pretty weak tea. What is your claim, exactly?
I have zero power over him or his conscience. I proclaim the Gospel and, where I encounter resistance, break down the competing worldview.
Whether that changes his mind is irrelevant. Proof != persuasion.
The point I intend to show with the Tkalim example is that I have an objective standard by which to judge his actions as objectively morally wrong. On atheism, no such means exists.
I proclaim the Gospel and, where I encounter resistance, break down the competing worldview.
Then let's keep going with the dialogue then. As I said, I promise to play fair in playing Tkalim.
The point I intend to show with the Tkalim example is that I have an objective standard by which to judge his actions as objectively morally wrong. On atheism, no such means exists.
I'm sorry, you've lost me. Even if your “objective standard” exists, how does the Tkalim example show it?
It occurs to me that I don't even know what you mean by an “objective standard”. Could you explain it to me, and explain to Tkalim why he needs it?
I've already explained what I mean by "objective".
What I mean when I say "an objective morality" is this: a moral system that is prescriptive and that is true whether or not anyone believes it or not.
Since I'm a moral skeptic, I disagree that such a morality is even possible, and that Tkalim has any need of it. How would you propose to prove to me (not persuade me, since it seems you lack confidence that your proof would be in any way persuasive) that such an “objective morality” exists?
Too many "or not"s in that sentence. Oh, for an editor!
The proof is in the argumentation I've been making with magx01 here. The alternative is utter absurdity, and none of you can live consistently with your professed positions on the nature of morality.
The fact that the alternative is absurd would not constitute proof of your position.
And I don't see any positive arguments for an objective morality in your post above, nor do I recall one in the previous posts.
The fact that the alternative is absurd would not constitute proof of your position.
Oooh, the bag of protoplasm can bang on a keyboard, thinking that his expressions are supposed to communicate something!
Oooh, the bag of protoplasm can bang on a keyboard, thinking that his expressions are supposed to communicate something!
There is evidence that the bag of protoplasm is entirely correct, since you can understand
Look, I know this might be difficult for you, but could you try to follow a line of discussion through? It just feels like as soon as you don't have an argument, you resort to childish ridicule as a way of covering it up.
It's okay to say, "I don't know." It's okay to say, "can you explain that a bit more." It's okay to say, "you might have a point, let's discuss it some more". I'm not expecting you to agree with me, but I am expecting you to respond like an adult.
p.s. The protoplasm appears to be correct in his thinking, since his expressions appear to be well understood by everybody else. This is of course coherent with his beliefs.
Rho,
Does the thought that you might be nothing more than a bag of protoplasm bother you?
Rhology,
It is possible to have a reasonable debate about what is true and false even if we have no basis for thinking that truth is something one should value. There may be no good motivation, but on atheism there is nothing to prevent us from going through the possibly pointless exercise of seeking the truth.
I declare that I would like to discuss what is true with you. To disregard everything else I have to say simply because I have an irrational desire to discuss the truth would be committing the ad hominem fallacy. Now there may be nothing wrong with committing a fallacy, but it would take us away from the truth and therefore I would no longer desire to continue a discussion based not on the truth.
So do you have a desire to play along and talk about the truth or not?
Rho:
What I mean when I say "an objective morality" is this: a moral system that is prescriptive and that is true whether or not anyone believes it or not.
Since your basis for "objective morality" is God, and you presuppose God, don't you also presuppose the trueness of your "objective morality"?
I wonder if magx01 would feel the same way about lack of social benefit forcable rape if he discovered that he owed his own existence to the forcable rape of his mother, which thing she kept secret from him?
Or if his mother or father, grandmother or grandfather, or great-grandmother or great-grandfather or anyone else "up the line" were the product of such an act?
And of course this says nothing of the unavoidable fact that from within his worldview the biologically determined rapists and murderers and other types of "anti-social" and "immoral" behaviorists seem to have "evolved" right alongside the "good" and "moral" behaviorists which thing a) makes natural selection look like a pretty sorry mechanism for producing fitness within the species, or b) makes magx01 look like a hypocrite for complaining about people doing what they are compelled to do by their biologically determined natures.
Perhaps forced rapes are the first twinklings of an intermediary evolutionary step between homo sapiens and our yet future genus?
Why would magx01 want to impede or otherwise interfere with the glorious progress of "the blind watchmaker"?
Just sayin'
In Him,
CD
Whereas, rapists being made in the "image of God" is a much better explanation.
Oh wait! Whenever humans do something that is moral, they're made in the "image of God". Whenever they do something immoral, they're sinners. My bad.
...And NAL runs away screaming from Coram Deo's question.
As if it should bother the Christian that someone might commit sin. Like I always say, atheists never want to take the Fall of Man into account. Must bother them to consider that sin might actually exist.
Whenever humans do something that is moral, they're made in the "image of God". Whenever they do something immoral, they're sinners.
And that makes zero sense. Show me anywhere where I or CD have ever said anything resembling something close to that.
People are BOTH made in the image of God AND sinners.
How about a little game of micro/macro?
Would magx01 or NAL say that a rape/murder combo were immoral if both parties to the act were willing, consenting adults?
Why or why not, and by what standard?
What if eugenics were "scientifically verified" to produce a higher quality human speciation for the advancement and betterment of society at large with dramatically reduced disease, genetic defects, infant mortality, and war [i.e. the greatest good for the greatest number], would it be immoral to engage in the science and begin cleansing the gene pool, or alternatively would it be immoral to ignore the science and allow society to continue to degenerate?
Why or why not, and by what standard?
Inquiring minds want to know!
In Him,
CD
I wonder if magx01 would feel the same way about lack of social benefit forcable rape if he discovered that he owed his own existence to the forcable rape of his mother, which thing she kept secret from him?
I'm not magx01, but from my perspective: yes, I would feel exactly the same way about the social benefit of forcible rape. “My benefit” does not equal “social benefit”.
Would magx01 or NAL say that a rape/murder combo were immoral if both parties to the act were willing, consenting adults?
I'm neither of them, but hopefully you won't mind. By definition, if both parties to the act are willing, consenting adults, then it isn't rape. Murder is slightly more difficult, since in our legal system murder has to do with justification rather than consent – consent to murder doesn't justify the murder. However that's a legal rather than a moral question – I can see cases where most people would think that it wasn't immoral, but then they probably wouldn't categorize it as murder either (“mercy killings”, for example).
What if eugenics were "scientifically verified" to produce a higher quality human speciation [etc]
That depends on what your starting point is. For most people, moral questions aren't a question of calculus – even utilitarians have to start with certain assumptions. Naturally your assumptions will be different from mine, which is why moral judgements differ from person to person and culture to culture. This is of course exactly what we would expect to find if morality were an ongoing process of negotiation between individuals and groups, rather than a set of laws handed down from on high.
allow society to continue to degenerate?
That, for example, is one of your assumptions.
Paul C,
The fact that the alternative is absurd would not constitute proof of your position.
AlternativeS. Plural. Show me an alternative that isn't absurd and we can talk.
There is evidence that the bag of protoplasm is entirely correct, since you can understand
Ooh, the bag of protoplasm thinks he can think rational thoughts that comport with the world he thinks is externally extant. How quaint.
It just feels like as soon as you don't have an argument, you resort to childish ridicule as a way of covering it up.
I'm sorry you're unable to recognise argumenta ad absurdum when you see them. And where have I ridiculed YOU? Seems to me I'm ridiculing your POSITION.
It's okay to say, "I don't know."
How do you know that?
I am expecting you to respond like an adult.
I have to admit that it does make me a little sad for you when you say things like this. You don't even see what's happening to your position when you fail again and again to respond to my challenges.
The protoplasm appears to be correct in his thinking, since his expressions appear to be well understood by everybody else.
Your assumptions apparently know no bounds.
David,
Does the thought that you might be nothing more than a bag of protoplasm bother you?
Yes, but that's hardly the reason why I bring it up.
What's scary is that it apparently doesn't bother YOU.
Sanscredo,
It is possible to have a reasonable debate about what is true and false even if we have no basis for thinking that truth is something one should value
Says who? Why should anyone believe you?
There may be no good motivation, but on atheism there is nothing to prevent us from going through the possibly pointless exercise of seeking the truth.
It says a lot that you have to allow for the distinct possibility that, on atheism, the truth doesn't matter.
Now there may be nothing wrong with committing a fallacy, but it would take us away from the truth and therefore I would no longer desire to continue a discussion based not on the truth.
Then let me cut all this short by taking on a character and making clear that seeking truth doesn't interest me. You said yourself that its pursuit is pointless. I'd prefer to build a fantasyland in which my life has meaning.
Yes, pointless, but of course, since truth doesn't matter and we can't be sure we know it anyway, nor that we're correctly pursuing it, it doesn't matter that it's pointless. And of course, pointing out that it's pointless, or that it doesn't matter that it's pointless, is pointless.
do you have a desire to play along and talk about the truth or not?
Before we discuss truth, I want to hear from you why it matters at all whether truth can be pursued or not.
AlternativeS. Plural. Show me an alternative that isn't absurd and we can talk.
Well, no. Even if every alternative that I could come up with was absurd, that would not constitute proof of your position.
There is also the slight problem that you haven't shown that the alternative(s) are absurd. You have asserted that they are absurd, and told us that it bothers you – but that is not proof.
To be honest, I'm struggling to see exactly what you think is absurd, let along why you think it's absurd. For example:
"Damage" in a universe without a grand design, goal, or purpose is irrelevant. Besides, both Susan and John her rapist are going to end up in the same place - the great infinite unconscious rot of decomposition.
These are assertions. You haven't proved that either statement is true, you're just expressing your opinion. Until you actually give us some explanation, there's no reason that we should accept them.
I'm sorry you're unable to recognise argumenta ad absurdum when you see them. And where have I ridiculed YOU? Seems to me I'm ridiculing your POSITION.
Peoples' beliefs are important to them, the foundation of their identity. To ridicule them, whether religious or secular – well, that's just not the sort of person I want to be. Obviously you disagree.
You don't even see what's happening to your position when you fail again and again to respond to my challenges.
And finally: that's because you don't present any challenges, only assertions (topped with ridicule). Let me make it simple: I challenge you to demonstrate that nothing has value if atheism is true.
Keep it simple. I'm a bit slow.
Sorry, that should read, "I challenge you to demonstrate why nothing has value if atheism is true".
"Yes, but that's hardly the reason why I bring it up."
Ok, then why bring it up?
It seems to me that if you fear the thought that you might be nothing more than a bag of protoplasm, then you might create a fantasy in order to quell your fears. After all, this is one way in which humans cope with fear.
Paul C,
"Damage" in a universe without a grand design, goal, or purpose is irrelevant. Besides, both Susan and John her rapist are going to end up in the same place - the great infinite unconscious rot of decomposition.
These are assertions. You haven't proved that either statement is true, you're just expressing your opinion.
Oh, OK. So, where are they going to end up? Why don't you tell me?
Peoples' beliefs are important to them, the foundation of their identity.
Do you show the same care and pity for amoebae? Why not?
To ridicule them, whether religious or secular – well, that's just not the sort of person I want to be. Obviously you disagree.
These are assertions. You haven't proved that either statement is true, you're just expressing your opinion.
David,
Ironic that you said:
It seems to me that if you fear the thought that you might be nothing more than a bag of protoplasm, then you might create a fantasy in order to quell your fears
It seems to me that if you fear the thought that your life might have no meaning, then you might create a fantasy meaning inside yourself in order to quell your fears.
Oh, OK. So, where are they going to end up? Why don't you tell me?
It's not relevant what I think. The point is that you haven't proved that either statement is true. If you want to make an argument for either of those assertions, go right ahead.
Do you show the same care and pity for amoebae?
Yes, I do. If you ever catch me ridiculing the beliefs of amoebae, feel free to point it out.
These are assertions. You haven't proved that either statement is true, you're just expressing your opinion.
Just so.
I note that you are avoiding my argument that even if every argument I come up with was absurd, it would not constitute proof of your position.
I further note that you are also avoiding my request that you demonstrate that nothing has value if atheism is true, rather than just asserting it.
Why would that be?
Paul: I think I can answer your last question for Rho. Rho, let me know if I'm off base.
Nothing has value if atheism is true, because there is no objective way to assign value to anything: any "value" atheists might put on anything is just personal opinion, like a preference for a flavor of ice cream, and just as subjective and irrational. Moreover, if atheism is true, then anything at all that we do in this life is meaningless, because when we die that's it. Life is just a short meaningless interval in an uncaring universe- where's the value in that?
How'd I do?
cheers from rather valuable Vienna, zilch
Zilch - perhaps, although I'd prefer it if Rhology answered. Your reply does illuminate the many problems in that move:
Nothing has value if atheism is true, because there is no objective way to assign value to anything
The proposition that if atheism is true there can be no objective value has not been proven; the assumption that only objective way to assign value exists has not been proven; the assumption that only an objective way can assign value has not been proven.
any "value" atheists might put on anything is just personal opinion, like a preference for a flavor of ice cream, and just as subjective and irrational.
The assumption that subjective views are all equivalent has not been proven. The proposition that subjective views are irrational has not been proven.
Moreover, if atheism is true, then anything at all that we do in this life is meaningless, because when we die that's it.
The assumption that because something is not eternal, it has no meaning, has not been proven.
Rho Channeler:
... any "value" atheists might put on anything is just personal opinion, like a preference for a flavor of ice cream, and just as subjective and irrational.
Any "value" you put on anything is based on a presupposition. A presupposition is a personal choice, and hence, subjective.
Well said, zilch. At least you're paying attention! :-)
Peoples' beliefs are important to them, the foundation of their identity
Do you show the same care and pity for amoebae?
Yes, I do. If you ever catch me ridiculing the beliefs of amoebae, feel free to point it out.
So your reaction to spraying Lysol on a toilet seat to clean it is the same as your reaction to Dachau, if you're to be consistent?
So your reaction to spraying Lysol on a toilet seat to clean it is the same as your reaction to Dachau, if you're to be consistent?
We were talking about how I feel about ridiculing the beliefs of others, not about genocide. As I said, if you ever catch me ridiculing the beliefs of amoebae, feel free to point it out.
Also: feel free to pick up on irrelevant and incidental points. If you spin them out as much as possible, people will probably forget that you are avoiding my arguments.
Do amoebae believe that they'd prefer to live? Like Jews in Dachau?
And your arguments amount to asking me to prove a negative and defending your personal fantasies, rather than actually giving us some reason to think you have sthg to offer. No one's missing out on much if I don't "respond to your arguments".
NAL,
So to value a human life is subjective, no?
Since your presupposition is a product of you mind, your basis for valuing human life is subjective, by definition.
NAL,
Actually Rho's beliefs in the intrinsic value of human life are objective, not subjective, because his morality is informed by the One true and living God, the infinite Creator and Judge of the universe.
The One true and living God has set forth His wisdom in a book known as the Holy Bible, from which Rho, like all other believers, receives moral and ethical instruction as his spirit is illumined by the Spirit of the One true and living God, and he is conformed into the image of Jesus Christ, the King of kings and Lord of lords, the Savior.
Rho has a book. He can show you his book. Do you have a book?
In Christ,
CD
And your arguments amount to asking me to prove a negative and defending your personal fantasies, rather than actually giving us some reason to think you have sthg to offer.
My two key arguments here are
1. Even if every argument I come up with was absurd, it would not constitute proof of your position. You may well demolish my position (although you haven't so far) but you also need to make an actual argument for your position (which you also haven't done so far).
2. I requested that you demonstrate that nothing has value if atheism is true. You keep asserting it, so I assume that you have a well-reasoned argument behind that assertion. If you don't, why do you keep asserting it?
Neither of these is asking you to prove a negative or defend my personal fantasies. So please, go ahead and make your arguments.
Rho,
How do you think Paul C. accounts for something being "true"?
Those kinds of questions from atheists always strike me as rather ironic.
What is truth from an atheistic worldview?
In Christ,
CD
I bet Paul C. can't account for accounting either.
Accounting only works in the kind of universe God created, NAL.
Methinks you wrongly assume too much about why you think can trust your noetic equipment, while simultaneously thinking too little about said assumption.
In Him,
CD
Coram Deo - how I account for the basis of my beliefs is irrelevant to whether Rhology is able to make an argument for his beliefs. Let him make his argument.
Paul C.
Why should he? Isn't that irrelevant, too?
He can be right, and you can be right, and we can all just walk away feeling satisfied that we each have our own fully true beliefs, simply because they're what we believe.
After all, if there's no objective standard or ultimate authority to which we may appeal, shouldn't we just agree? Or else disagree, but not care since no one has a monopoly on "the truth" anyway?
Why do you care?
In Christ,
CD
Why should he? Isn't that irrelevant, too?
Ah, of course. The standard-issue presuppositionalist response when they don't have an argument.
If he doesn't want to make an argument, fine; but then he shouldn't pretend that he has an argument.
My prediction: Rhology will pick up on your "why should no objective blah" and try to sidetrack the discussion.
It's pretty simple. Rhology asserts that nothing has value if atheism is true. Does he have an argument or not?
Rhology asserts that nothing has value if atheism is true.
No, Rhology asserts that any assignment of value to anything is a personal fantasy if atheism is true.
Absence of evidence and all that.
Show me evidence that there is value. See how the atheist and the Christian swap places in this circumstance? The irony is delicious.
NAL said...
I bet Paul C. can't account for accounting either.
You said that in jest, but I've yet to see a good rebuttal to the problems of EAAN, solipsism, and induction, given atheism. It's a measure of how seriously you take the question and of how intellectually equipped you are to deal with these kinds of issues that you joke about it.
No, Rhology asserts that any assignment of value to anything is a personal fantasy if atheism is true.
Okay, good. Some clarity. What's your argument for that assertion?
Rho says:
[...] I've yet to see a good rebuttal to the problems of EAAN, solipsism, and induction, given atheism. It's a measure of how seriously you take the question and of how intellectually equipped you are to deal with these kinds of issues that you joke about it.
Why shouldn't we joke about these kinds of issues? At least two of the three are funny. And you forget that we atheists don't have someone who might toss us into hell for having a little fun: it has nothing to do with "intellectual equipment".
So here are the answers to your problems, given atheism:
EAAN: the solution to this problem is the same as the solution to the problem of ships falling off the edge of the Earth.
Solipsism: It's not a problem for me, just for everyone else. C'mon, seriously?
Induction: this is only a problem if you're the kind of guy who needs an airtight logical argument that explains everything. Bertrand Russell was one such person: he said
It has been argued that we have reason to know that the future will resemble the past, because what was the future has constantly become the past, and has always been found to resemble the past, so that we really have experience of the future, namely of times which were formerly future, which we may call past futures. But such an argument really begs the very question at issue. We have experience of past futures, but not of future futures, and the question is: Will future futures resemble past futures? This question is not to be answered by an argument, which starts from past futures alone. We have therefore still to seek for some principle which shall enable us to know that the future will follow the same laws as the past.
Well, people have been seeking such a principle for a long time; many imagine that they've found this principle in God. In fact, I suspect that this is a powerful reason for belief in intellectually well-equipped people who are in love with words and logic: God is the source of all logic, Who doesn't need a logical explanation Himself.
Well, it might be a belief devoutly to be desired, to Russell and many theists, to have that final feeling of certainty: but that desire has no power to puff someone or something into existence. And I don't have that desire myself: I get along fine without knowing if the Sun will rise tomorrow "for absolutely certain", but just "I would be very very surprised if it didn't" certain.
The same goes for my slippery slope subjective morals: somehow, even if I can't say what's "objectively" right and wrong, I don't knock down old ladies in the street. That's good enough for me.
I can live without ultimate certainty, so induction is not a problem for me. The only time it becomes problematic is when it's used as an argument by theists (usually Calvinists) for my sorry state: I cannot have value, morals, or joy in life, because I don't have the certainty enjoyed by theists. Listening to them imagining my pitiful condition almost makes me sorry for them, feeling so bad for my sake. But I don't let it spoil my day.
cheers from drizzly Vienna, zilch
The same as when you argue that for God. Doesn't exist out there, so if it exists only for you, that's called a personal fantasy. Which you're welcome to, but don't tell anyone else about it, don't talk about it in the public square, etc.
I'm sorry, please disregard my last comment. I've just noticed that when I state that
Rhology asserts that nothing has value if atheism is true.
you replied
No
This indicates that you assert the opposite - that things can have value if atheism is true. Thanks for conceding the argument - now we can move on to identifying that value more clearly!
Rho- huh? Can you repeat your last comment with a bit more perspicuity for us mere mortals? I can't make heads or tails of it.
Btw- although I was paying attention to you, my diatribe on the emptiness of atheism was copied word for word from Atheism for Dummies, Calvinist Edition.
Before I respond, I want you to clarify:
I challenged you to explain how the morality prescribed to you in the bible is objective.
Could you please explain this in simple terms?
Tx.
Oh, one thing I can quickly respond to here is this:
I'm very sorry to inform magx01 of this, but if this is the big 'special pleading' he's going on and on about, he's going to end up looking foolish. It's not special pleading to correct a bad expression of one's own position. Does he even know what special pleading is? It's unlikely, given the numerous times he himself has committed it in the course of our convo.
I know exactly what special pleading is, and you commit it when you state that one of the necessities of objectivity is that the idea/truth/principle/etc in question not be contigent upon any mind to exist, but then later change this definition to state that they are not contigent upon any human mind to exist.
You took an existing concept (objectivity) and used it, but then changed the definition of it to suit your own needs by exempting god from the definition when there is no reason to do so. You set up a set of rules but then exempted your god from said rules, sort of like the whole "all life must be created.....except god" thing.
That's special pleading. Setting up a rule set then not applying said rules to a certain thing you are arguing for with no good reason to do so other than a presupposed belief.
"All life must be created."
"Then who created god?"
"No one. He always existed."
"For an idea to be objective they must not be contingent upon any minds."
"But god's morality is contigent upon god's mind."
"I meant not contingent upon any HUMAN minds."
"...." *checks definition of contigent to make sure he's not crazy* "...."
I'm sorry you have difficulty accepting it when someone defines a term and then later discovers that his definition wasn't as specific as it needed it to be. I'm sure you ALWAYS get it right the first time, but others of us sometimes need to back up and say "oops".
And no, that's not special pleading. It's called "correction". You risk looking foolish if you continue in this trajectory.
Setting up a rule set then not applying said rules to a certain thing you are arguing for with no good reason to do so other than a presupposed belief.
Which is why I apologised for my goof and clarified my position.
Here's an idea - how about you deal with my ACTUAL position, rather than what you wish it were?
zilch,
Let's say a mainline Christian who doesn't know or care about apologetics says to you:
MC: God exists.
zilch: Where's the evidence?
MC: Um, I don't know. Actually, I know He exists b/c He exists in my heart.
zilch: So you mean He exists in you. Just not outside you, right? B/c if He did, you'd have some evidence, right?
MC: [flabbergasted] Yeah.
zilch: You'll surely pardon me for not participating in your fantasy.
OK, so here we're just reversing roles.
zilch: Meaning exists.
Me: Where's the evidence?
zilch: Um, I don't know. Actually, I know it exists b/c it exists in my heart.
Me: So you mean it exists in you. Just not outside you, right? B/c if it did, you'd have some evidence, right?
zilch: [flabbergasted] Yeah.
Me: You'll surely pardon me for not participating in your fantasy.
zilch: Meaning exists.
Me: Where's the evidence?
zilch: Um, I don't know. Actually, I know it exists b/c it exists in my heart.
Me: So you mean it exists in you. Just not outside you, right? B/c if it did, you'd have some evidence, right?
zilch: [flabbergasted] Yeah.
Me: You'll surely pardon me for not participating in your fantasy.
Cute, but not really isomorphic. The difference is that the Christian claims that God exists outside of people who believe in Him, but I don't claim that meaning exists outside of people who hold meanings. Thus, your analogy limps.
cheers from cool Vienna, zilch
So what precisely is your objection to my labeling your "meaning" as personal fantasy?
So what precisely is your objection to my labeling your "meaning" as personal fantasy?
I don't think any of us object to it - it's just a rhetorical tactic on your part. The problem is that it has no force as an argument, yet you keep acting as if it does.
p.s. Have you told your wife that your love for her is just a personal fantasy yet?
Is it, on my worldview? Have you still not grasped the difference between an internal and an external critique?
Is it, on my worldview?
Yes. You defined "personal fantasy" as "a belief that exists only in your mind and does not reflect any external reality". Your love for your wife exists only in your mind and does not reflect any external reality whether you are a Christian or an atheist.
False - it also exists outside of us and glorifies God, and will glorify Him forever. It is part of the corpus of stuff for which we'll praise Him forever.
In what way does your love of your wife exist outside of you?
"In what way does your love of your wife exist outside of you?"
Huh, he ignored this question for almost a month....wonder why?
Oh ya, because he HAS NO ANSWER.
You run from the truth, Rho, and that's despicable.
Not saying any more is not the same as not answering. Paul's question didn't address my argument, so I decided a few tries on my part was sufficient.
For the more thickheaded, that's unfortunately not the case. But never fear, Anonymous, he and I are once again talking about it, and Paul is doing just as badly.
Rho,
I won't point out the various instances of insanity, immaturity, or imbecility because you've demonstrated you have no interest in intellectually honest debate. I will not ask it of you.
I know you're insecure, that your fragile psyche needs to be vigilantly protected. This is why you resort to denial of all perceived threats. Your also in need of constant positive reinforcement to maintain your delusions. Tell me, what bothers you more: Questioning the validity of your religious convictions? Or having your intelligence called into question?
Tell me, what bothers you more: Questioning the validity of your religious convictions? Or having your intelligence called into question?
I don't know. I've done each so many times, it's hard to say.
you've demonstrated you have no interest in intellectually honest debate
What gave you that impression?
Post a Comment