Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8870 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-18-2018 5:38 AM
306 online now:
CosmicChimp, frako, PaulK (3 members, 303 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Upcoming Birthdays: Astrophile
Post Volume:
Total: 840,392 Year: 15,215/29,783 Month: 1,159/1,502 Week: 157/492 Day: 0/31 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
8910
11
1213Next
Author Topic:   Hitch is dead
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 194 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 151 of 190 (645455)
12-27-2011 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by Dr Adequate
12-27-2011 1:34 AM


Re: Afterlife Surprises
This is, of course, nonsense --- in the most literal sense, i.e. it consists of words combined in such a way that the resulting phrases have no meaning.

Again, no argument offered in response to a very well set out proposition. Surely you can represent your position better than that DA

This is DA's way of saying he doenst and cant provide an actual argument. He surely would have, if he actually could

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-27-2011 1:34 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 194 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 152 of 190 (645456)
12-27-2011 2:02 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by Dr Adequate
12-27-2011 1:34 AM


Re: Afterlife Surprises
This is, of course, nonsense --- in the most literal sense, i.e. it consists of words combined in such a way that the resulting phrases have no meaning.

lets see if DA has an explanation as to why a person that adopts and believes the law of the fittest and outright atheism, can explain why God is evil. Where did you get your standard of morality, that your buddy Hitchens claims you have?

My bet is that DA has nothing valid to offer

You see Agent you jumped ship to quickly. If you are looking for answers from these fellas you wont find any

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-27-2011 1:34 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-27-2011 4:02 AM Dawn Bertot has responded
 Message 156 by jar, posted 12-27-2011 10:30 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16035
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


(4)
Message 153 of 190 (645459)
12-27-2011 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Dawn Bertot
12-27-2011 2:02 AM


Re: Afterlife Surprises
lets see if DA has an explanation as to why a person that adopts and believes the law of the fittest and outright atheism, can explain why God is evil.

It is for people who think God exists to explain why he's evil. Asking me that is like asking me to explain why Santa is fat.

Where did you get your standard of morality, that your buddy Hitchens claims you have?

I guess I was well brought up.

You see Agent you jumped ship to quickly. If you are looking for answers from these fellas you wont find any

Perhaps you should address your remarks to people actually participating on this thread. Of course, that would involve you doing something that isn't totally stupid.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-27-2011 2:02 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-28-2011 12:20 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6180
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.0


(2)
Message 154 of 190 (645461)
12-27-2011 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Dawn Bertot
12-27-2011 1:07 AM


Re: Afterlife Surprises
Dawn Bertot writes:

Since the unbeliever has no absolute standard of what moral is or is not and involves himself in a logical contradiction by claiming anything as immoral, as he follows a survival of the fittest standard, the believer can perform not only one thing the unbeliver cannot, but the only thing that matters, objectivity in a moral standard without fear of blatant contradiction

This is an incomprehensible mess, but I think you're trying to make two common errors.

1. That believers (in Christianity) have knowledge of something that they call an absolute morality.
2. That atheists don't have this 'standard' because they only follow the rules of personal survival.

Is this what you're trying to say?

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.


Life, don't talk to me about life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-27-2011 1:07 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5777
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 155 of 190 (645475)
12-27-2011 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Dawn Bertot
12-27-2011 1:07 AM


Re: Afterlife Surprises
Can you please try to put this response into intelligible English. I have read it 4 times and still am very confused about what you are trying to say.

Well thats easy. Since the unbeliever has no absolute standard of what moral is or is not and involves himself in a logical contradiction by claiming anything as immoral, as he follows a survival of the fittest standard, the believer can perform not only one thing the unbeliver cannot, but the only thing that matters, objectivity in a moral standard without fear of blatant contradiction

In English separate ideas tend to be separated by something called a period. Commas are used to separate clauses that are still related to the original sentence.

If you are trying sound intelligent you are failing. This guy is easier to understand than you.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-27-2011 1:07 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30920
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 156 of 190 (645478)
12-27-2011 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Dawn Bertot
12-27-2011 2:02 AM


Re: Afterlife Surprises
Perhaps you can provide some example of someone who believes in the "Law of the Fittest" (whatever that is) other than a member of the CCoI?

Maybe you can give us an example of some "Absolute Moral" that we can examine?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-27-2011 2:02 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 25 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 157 of 190 (645498)
12-27-2011 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Dawn Bertot
12-27-2011 1:07 AM


objectivity
Well thats easy. Since the unbeliever has no absolute standard of what moral is or is not and involves himself in a logical contradiction by claiming anything as immoral, as he follows a survival of the fittest standard, the believer can perform not only one thing the unbeliver cannot, but the only thing that matters, objectivity in a moral standard without fear of blatant contradiction

Then you simply have to provide an argument that supports the notion that having 'objectivity in a moral standard without fear of blatant contradiction' is a moral action. I don't believe Hitchens would have viewed a moral dictatorship as a good state of affairs, nor would he view believing in one is a moral action. Losing all fear of contradiction, means losing our protection against making contradictions (which we will do, being fallible) and is not to be admired either.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-27-2011 1:07 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-29-2011 1:04 AM Modulous has responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 194 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 158 of 190 (645561)
12-28-2011 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Dr Adequate
12-27-2011 4:02 AM


Re: Afterlife Surprises
It is for people who think God exists to explain why he's evil. Asking me that is like asking me to explain why Santa is fat.

Ok great, so we dont have to worry about God being evil. So the next time somone like Hitchens makes that allegation that God is evil or he is not good, it doesnt matter, because the allegationis irrelevant. Great

Where did you get your standard of morality, that your buddy Hitchens claims you have?

DA writes

I guess I was well brought up.

What I meant is, can we be assured of its objectivity enough to know that claims concerning anyone elses behavior can be judged by it, your moral standard that is. If so why?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-27-2011 4:02 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-28-2011 1:37 AM Dawn Bertot has responded
 Message 160 by Rrhain, posted 12-28-2011 1:42 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16035
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 159 of 190 (645564)
12-28-2011 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by Dawn Bertot
12-28-2011 12:20 AM


Re: Afterlife Surprises
Ok great, so we dont have to worry about God being evil. So the next time somone like Hitchens makes that allegation that God is evil or he is not good, it doesnt matter, because the allegationis irrelevant. Great

What Hitchens actually wrote was "God is not great". This would seem to follow from his nonexistence, since it is hard to attain greatness without actually existing.

As this is both true and reasonable I can see why you'd have ignored it.

What I meant is, can we be assured of its objectivity enough to know that claims concerning anyone elses behavior can be judged by it, your moral standard that is. If so why?

I presume you intended that paragraph to make some sort of sense. If so, your ambition has exceeded your abilities.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-28-2011 12:20 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-28-2011 2:09 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 160 of 190 (645565)
12-28-2011 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by Dawn Bertot
12-28-2011 12:20 AM


Dawn Bertot writes:

quote:
What I meant is, can we be assured of its objectivity enough to know that claims concerning anyone elses behavior can be judged by it, your moral standard that is. If so why?

Of course not: No human is completely objective. And since all human actions are based upon human motivations, we are stuck with ourselves to be our own judges.

You seem to have confused a pithy cliche that has been attached to evolutionary theory with a philosophical path.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-28-2011 12:20 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-28-2011 1:57 AM Rrhain has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 194 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 161 of 190 (645567)
12-28-2011 1:57 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by Rrhain
12-28-2011 1:42 AM


Of course not: No human is completely objective. And since all human actions are based upon human motivations, we are stuck with ourselves to be our own judges.

You seem to have confused a pithy cliche that has been attached to evolutionary theory with a philosophical path.

As beautiful as this sounds, it actually has no real meaning, since all judgments and philosophical paths are but a myth, if its just matter in motion, correct

Even you observations above will serve no useful purpose when one person decides that another person is bad, wrong, immoral, etc

IOWs it cant be considered serious as an argument, to establish that God is not great, or anybody is anything for that matter

Since you mentioned it, tell me what a philosophical path is, that will matter past our own species

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Rrhain, posted 12-28-2011 1:42 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Rrhain, posted 12-28-2011 2:18 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 194 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 162 of 190 (645568)
12-28-2011 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by Dr Adequate
12-28-2011 1:37 AM


Re: Afterlife Surprises
What Hitchens actually wrote was "God is not great". This would seem to follow from his nonexistence, since it is hard to attain greatness without actually existing.

As this is both true and reasonable I can see why you'd have ignored it.

Hitchens intimations about the possible existence or non-existence of God, have nothing or very little to do with Hitchens inability to formulate a platform for morality, seeing he has no way to establish a standard of morality, believing everything is just matter in motion

Gods existence or non-existence have nothing to do with Hitchens inabiltiy to form a logical proposition concerning morality

Therefore Hitchens making any comment about Gods, nature or stature is equally non-sensical and irrelevant

Ill repeat the question. Is the best attempt at an argument he could put forward, to explain why religious people were insane or should be killed

If you see your above statement as true and reasonable, I can see why you use jokes a nd sarcams instead of actually formulating an argument

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-28-2011 1:37 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Rrhain, posted 12-28-2011 2:19 AM Dawn Bertot has responded
 Message 165 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-28-2011 11:00 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded
 Message 166 by hooah212002, posted 12-28-2011 7:17 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 163 of 190 (645569)
12-28-2011 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by Dawn Bertot
12-28-2011 1:57 AM


Dawn Bertot responds to me:

quote:
As beautiful as this sounds, it actually has no real meaning, since all judgments and philosophical paths are but a myth

And yet, people keep making them and following them, so they are necessarily real.

quote:
Even you observations above will serve no useful purpose when one person decides that another person is bad, wrong, immoral, etc

Except I can oppose them should my observations be at odds with their conclusions. Thus, they're quite real.

quote:
Since you mentioned it, tell me what a philosophical path is, that will matter past our own species

Why is that important? Is our own species insufficient? Last time I checked we aren't other species.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-28-2011 1:57 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-29-2011 12:32 AM Rrhain has responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 164 of 190 (645570)
12-28-2011 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by Dawn Bertot
12-28-2011 2:09 AM


Dawn Bertot writes:

quote:
Hitchens intimations about the possible existence or non-existence of God, have nothing or very little to do with Hitchens inability to formulate a platform for morality, seeing he has no way to establish a standard of morality, believing everything is just matter in motion

Why is that a problem? After all, that's what everybody does. All moral standards were created by humans.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-28-2011 2:09 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-29-2011 12:52 AM Rrhain has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16035
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


(6)
Message 165 of 190 (645602)
12-28-2011 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by Dawn Bertot
12-28-2011 2:09 AM


Re: Afterlife Surprises
Hitchens intimations about the possible existence or non-existence of God, have nothing or very little to do with Hitchens inability to formulate a platform for morality, seeing he has no way to establish a standard of morality, believing everything is just matter in motion

Gods existence or non-existence have nothing to do with Hitchens inabiltiy to form a logical proposition concerning morality

Therefore Hitchens making any comment about Gods, nature or stature is equally non-sensical and irrelevant

Ill repeat the question. Is the best attempt at an argument he could put forward, to explain why religious people were insane or should be killed

If you see your above statement as true and reasonable, I can see why you use jokes a nd sarcams instead of actually formulating an argument

You appear to have gone mad.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-28-2011 2:09 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by subbie, posted 12-30-2011 1:04 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
8910
11
1213Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018