|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Hitch is dead | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9142 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
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 writesI 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes:
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Dawn Bertot responds to me:
quote: And yet, people keep making them and following them, so they are necessarily real.
quote: Except I can oppose them should my observations be at odds with their conclusions. Thus, they're quite real.
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes:
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024