Friday, July 01, 2011

Helping @dreamspeak with consistency - 2

So @dreamspeak decided to show up and talk after all.
I'm glad, honestly; Twitter is not a sufficient forum for discussing difficult topics with any depth.

Perhaps here I could refute your asinine claims more thoroughly than on Twitter

By which you no doubt mean "perhaps here I could start to refute your asinine claims". You didn't do any of that on Twitter.
Just a reminder.

you can declare unilateral victory in your little echo chamber without the benefit of an actual back-and-forth debate

Your amazing blindness to the irony of this statement is stunning.
Did I not invite you numerous times to comment here?  Don't be so melodramatic.

Empathy -noun: 1.
the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.

Yes, quite so.

Projection -noun (psychology)
a. the belief, esp in children, that others share one's subjective mental life

Yes, quite so.

Imagining what someone else's experiences might be and realizing that pain inflicted on others is a negative

Whoa whoa whoa, stop right there.
Here you've skipped right past the big question that I've been getting at.  You don't seem to get that I want an answer to this, so let me make it easily accessible to you: How do you know that pain inflicted on others is a negative?

is not the same thing as imagining that your desires are the same as everyone else's

How can I or anyone else know the feelings of another, except by comparing it to one's own feelings?
It's identification with the feelings of another.
Anyway, without your connecting the dots between "inflicted pain" and "negative"/"morally wrong", this goes nowhere for you.

It's the difference between seeing someone in pain and knowing what that feels like and wishing FOR THAT PERSON to feel no pain versus thinking everyone thinks the way you do and perceives the world the way you do.

The funny thing is, as I pointed out, you do the exact same thing in imagining that most ppl think about pain the way you do and therefore thinking that you know what's morally correct.

FURTHER; it is important to note that on many levels MOST humans experience the world similarly

You have no idea whether that's true. Where are your exhaustive study and survey results?

I can IDENTIFY in someone else a feeling that I MYSELF would not wish upon them

Hmm, sounds like you're "projecting", and therefore doing exactly what you're criticising in me.

HOWEVER I have never suggested that NO HUMANS EVER have aberrant or abnormal inner lives

Good, now take it to the next step. Deal with the fact that "abnormal" and "aberrant" are merely statistical terms, with no necessary bearing on morality. Connect the dots for us.
How do you know the "normal" is right and the "abnormal" is wrong? So far you've merely begged that question.

which is why I said that it is a COLLECTIVE result of society

You've asserted such, yes, but not given any reason to think it's true or meaningful.
Tkalim's society thinks it's morally obligatory to kidnap, rape, torture, and kill little girls from the nearby city. Presumably you can make no moral objection to that.  If you do forward an objection, how are you consistent with what you've just said?
I'd like to know how you know what the contract is; who signed it; if no one signed it, how you know who agreed to it; how one agrees to it; and what % of the population is required before it's a contract?  Thanks.

Also, it might do you some good to read this, so as to avoid stepping in even more old cowpies.

the levels of empathy that are required for EVERY level of moral or ethical behavior

Naked assertion. What's the argument?

This is why we condemn the Columbine shooters rather than excuse them.

They were scattering protoplasm. I see no reason to think there was anything wrong with what they did, if atheism is true.

We recognize their behavior as immoral because it causes pain in the victims and survivors that we wish on no one.

Don't say "we" w/o citing your sources.
Say "that *I* wish on no one".  But then you need to tell us why we should care what you think.

Neither I would ever suggest that we have a perfect solution

That's a start. The next step is realising you in fact have no solution at all unless you can answer my challenges.


dreamspeak said...

I like this. Demanding citations for studies proving my assertions. Making supernatural claims with no scientific evidence. Demanding I resolve logical fallacies. Commit obvious logical fallacies.

You're not interested in a debate. You are interested in creating the appearance of debate. This divide-and-conquer-out-of-context strategy is not unfamiliar to me. It is typical among apologists who see a sound and reasonable argument and in an effort to avoid dealing with it, parcel out sentences and phrases with which they feel they can refute, as if that somehow will diminish the whole, piece by piece.

Overall I have found your tone condescending from the start, your logic sloppy and inconsistent, your command of language poor, and your demands laughable at best, hypocritical at worst. In short, you are a poor debater and no one I consider worth further effort. I am certain you will proclaim a massive triumph as the atheist concedes via ad hominem, but do note that I will not use your ignorance, unwillingness to adhere to the demands you make, and overall lack of coherency in your approach to debate as proof that your position is wrong. What I will use those things for is to end this farcical debate.

Connect the dots for us: you have no cards on the table, all you have are big words that you know smart people use. When you learn to use them properly, get back to me.

Rhology said...

You're not interested in a debate. You are interested in creating the appearance of debate.

I see. That must be why I have a history of exchanging dozens of comments with people, an unmoderated combox, and specifically replied to your points.

This divide-and-conquer-out-of-context strategy is not unfamiliar to me.

Please show where I've quoted ANYthing out of context.
You know, that accusation is a bit weak since I linked to your full comments.

Overall I have found your tone condescending from the start

Self-examination is apparently not one of your strong suits.

Connect the dots for us: you have no cards on the table, all you have are big words that you know smart people use.

Alright, thanks for (not) playing!

bossmanham said...

Most 80's music makes me sick to my stomach and causes me discomfort. Therefore it's morally wrong FOR EVERYONE!!!!11!!11!!one!!!eleven!

Man, dreamspeak's reasonong abilities are teh bestest!!!

The Jolly Nihilist said...

I wish atheists would stop playing this game. It just goes to show that atheists in no way comprise a monolithic group. I am much more comfortable self-identifying as a nihilist so I can avoid what I consider to be the deep failings of humanism and other subsets within atheism.

Humanity is to the universe as a single grain of sand on a beach is to Earth; the entire species could go extinct in a nuclear blast tomorrow, and the universe would not take the slightest notice, or miss our kind. If humanity as a whole is of no cosmic significance, then it follows that no individual human possesses cosmic significance, either. And if no individual human possesses cosmic significance, then it certainly follows that no human action--whether it be deemed virtuous or wicked by those who would judge it--is ultimately significant, either.

The Milky Way's formation was not a significant moment in the universe's development; the Sun's birth was not a moment of importance in the Milky Way's history; humankind is not a significant branch on the Darwinian Tree of Life.

Importance we assign to ourselves and to our actions is subjective and comes from ourselves, not from objectively grounded cosmic significance that actually exists as a matter of fact.

Moral judgments are nothing but opinion.

bossmanham said...

Ah the wonderful world of Nihilism. Love to see it spelled out. No hope, no morality. Just meh.

bossmanham said...

But I salute you for being logically consistent.

David said...

Two thumbs up for Dreamspeak!

The Jolly Nihilist said...

That's what I'm selling, bossmanham.

I acknowledge that individual human beings are simply clumps of motile matter, albeit motile matter clumps that manifestly possess certain capabilities and functions that other motile matter clumps, such as dogs and leopards, manifestly do not possess.

Humankind collectively is insignificant. Ergo, each individual human is insignificant. Ergo, every individual human action is insignificant.

Most of us possess strong feelings, such as love, devotion, loyalty, hatred, etc. However, the aforereferenced feelings are trapped in the confines of an insignificant, meaningless motile matter clump. Most of us assign meaning and significance to things, such as family members, friends or, for instance, criminal acts committed against loved ones. However, subjective meaning and significance people attach to individuals and actions remain in the realm of a meaningless, insignificant clump of cells.

On the objective, cosmic level, nothing on the human scale matters a whit (nor even does anything on the solar system's scale, the galactic scale, etc.).