|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Conversations with God | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Really? Because a moral fact is the same thing as a moral truth and you certainly denied that.
quote: No, it isn’t. If you want to communicate you really shouldn’t make up your own meanings.
quote: Obviously it does. Whether or not Texans believe that Oklahomans don’t wash on Sundays has a truth value. Whether or not Oklahomans don’t wash on Sundays has a truth value. Whether Oklahomans are smelly dirty critters has a truth value. Whichever you meant you are not only wrong to call it a moral fact you are also wrong to say it doesn’t have a truth value. But they aren’t moral facts since none of them has any moral component. They are just putative facts.
quote: That would be another case of you inventing your own terminology and causing confusion. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Except you say that it doesn’t exist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
If there aren’t any moral truths, that’s nihilism, not relativism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Relativism is the idea that the truth-value of moral statements is relative. The idea that moral statements have no truth-value is nihilism. You’ve explicitly claimed the latter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Again the problem is that you say things you don’t mean.
quote: My definition of a moral truth is simple. It is a moral claim that is true. If it’s just a subjective opinion that would be doubtful. Is it your assertion that - in the case of morality - subjective opinions are always true?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: That is an irrelevance if the claim is actually true.
quote: Shall we sort out your position before we get on to the more complex and nuanced subject of mine. In your first post to this subthread you asserted:
Where does this eminent philosopher get off on calling differing opinions on morality differing truths?
Now it seems that not only did you misread the essay, you actually agree with the position you falsely attributed to him. The position you angrily reject in the quote above.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Is this an example of a changed heart?
Long has been described as a quiet, religious person who loved guns and hunting. And he murdered 8 people last night.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: So you obviously refuse to consider the possibility that you might be wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
A moderately clever deceit. You ask if dwise1 will c9 sided the possibiiity that he is wrong. But whether he answers “yes”or “no” you will argue that he has faith.
However, the two answers are not at all equivalent. Having the honesty to admit the possibility of error is not at all like religious faith. Not at all like your dismissal of doubt as “the lies of the Enemy”. It certainly does not justify any claim that atheism is a religion - if it did you could characterise almost any belief about the universe as a religion. Even the belief that the sun will rise tomorrow. So I don’t see your answer as honest. It’s the rhetoric of the apologist.
quote: I have certainly seen people try this falsehood. But surely an unquestioning dogmatism is more indicative of “faith” in the religious sense. So how can a degree of tentativity - a characteristic of science - be taken as proving that atheism “is faith based at its core”. That would make science even more based in “faith”. Which is hardly how the term is usually used,
quote: Nobody has said that atheism is above reproach or should not be scrutinised. Indeed, learning about atheism as dwise1 suggested would be an essential part of any honest scrutiny.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: There’s a lot of falsehood there. I gave up on Christianity for a number of reasons - but the big one was reading the Bible. Naturalism wasn’t an issue. I very much doubt that naturalism is taught in “most of the private Christian schools”. Or really even in public schools. You don’t say what you mean (although I can guess). There is a significant distinction between teaching science over sectarian dogma and teaching naturalism.
quote: Don’t go blaming other people. The truth can be found but you have to work at it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: I am not trying to humiliate, mock or harass you. I am pointing out what you are doing. Your refusal to engage in honest discussion only supports my points. And making false accusations is hardly compatible with”Love and forgiveness”.
quote: Of course listening does not mean automatic agreement. I listened. You didn’t like it because I dared to point out what I heard.
quote: In other words you won’t even explain what you mean by “naturalism” being taught in many private Christian schools. How convenient that we must wait for God to do that. It’s also hardly compatible with subjecting atheism to actual scrutiny (but then grossly stretching the definition of “faith” to try to label atheism a religion is hardly scrutiny, is it?)
quote: What you are doing doesn’t seem to be very nice.
quote: It doesn’t look like that. It looks more like you running away - and making false accusations - because your claims are untrue and you know it.
quote: I believe that your are showing the core of your faith, but it is neither love, nor forgiveness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: That “faith” and “religion” should be interpreted in broad ways just so that you can label atheism a religion? That Christian schools are somehow teaching naturalism but you refuse to say what you mean by that? An odd message and incomplete message, and not one you should expect to be unquestionably believed.
quote: That isn’t true, though is it? I am willing to listen to your words in good faith, yet you refuse to engage.
quote: I do not believe that Jesus intended that the disciples should expected to be believed in absolutely every claim that they made - no matter whether it is part of Jesus’ message or not. And yet that seems to be your interpretation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: If you were right about the forum’s purpose and if I had introduced these topics that would be a quite proper response. But since you are wrong about the purpose and you introduced both topics yourself it looks more like an excuse to run away from a discussion that isn’t going your way. (The sample question for the forum is “Is God an objective reality or a subjective concept?” - that hardly conveys the idea that it is solely for believers to share their beliefs)
quote: My objective here is quite otherwise. You will note that neither point is an attempt to stamp on your faith. It is not crucial to Christianity to label atheism a religion, nor to accuse other Christians of denying God. Nor are there any traps in my writing.
quote: Had you stuck to sharing your experiences of faith I would not have responded. But you did not. And I very much doubt that God has an interest in promulgating your personal opinions. This board is dedicated to discussion. It is not one where you can expect to get away with making false claims unchallenged. You do not get to dictate the purpose of this board or demand that members who have been here for 18 years should bow to your wishes.
quote: If you can’t stop telling falsehoods and try to paint yourself as being persecuted just because you get caught telling falsehoods maybe you should do some internal reflection. And think about whose side YOU are on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Even if that was entirely true, it wouldn’t mean that you don’t have something to learn. You are not Lennox, for a start. Indeed the fact that you are running away because you can’t defend your assertions indicates that you do have a lot to learn. (For a start, critically examine your own arguments to see how they stand up - or in your case, don’t). That you compound the defeat with further laughable falsehoods is another error. In fact I very much doubt that Lennox won his debates by pretending that he hadn’t been making an argument, only “sharing his faith” or claiming that his opponent was persecuting him and should leave. So maybe you shouldn’t be implying that you are anywhere near his equal.
quote: There are no traps. Only the truth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: Presumably you gave up when you found that your assertions were indefensible.
quote: And yet the points I took issue with were not about either, were they? What you came here to do matters much less than what you actually do.
quote: You may indeed be a lost cause, mired in dishonesty and delusion - and I don’t refer to Christianity. But even that doesn’t mean that I am wasting my time by correcting your falsehoods. The truth is important, whatever you may think.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024