Healthy skepticism of ALL worldviews is good. Skeptical of non-belief like found in Atheism? Post your challenging questions. Responses are encouraged.
jlay wrote:Same goes for Hitler, Pol Pot, etc. If they are just products of their material world, then you can't say that they were 'wrong.'
Sorry, no real time to get back to a reply to this...other than,
GODWIN !
End of posting.
That figures. Didn't expect any less to be perfectly candid. You can't even defend your worldview. The fact that Hitler is a known example does not make an analogy invalid. In fact, I would say that the use of Godwin is in fact becoming its own example of fallacious reasoning. So, take your ball and go home. You know that what was addressed in my last post totally pulls the rug out from under your shaky worldview. You also know there is plenty in my post that you conveniently skipped over that has no reference to Hitler. Repent. That is ADMIT, your thinking doesn't hold up under careful scrutiny. It's so much more beneficial than patting yourself on the back, when you've in fact done nothing. Drops mic, walks off stage.
-“The Bible treated allegorically becomes putty in the hands of the exegete.” John Walvoord
"I'm not saying scientists don't overstate their results. They do. And it's understandable, too...If you spend years working toward a certain goal and make no progress, of course you are going to spin your results in a positive light." Ivellious
Kurieuo wrote:Many Atheists believe morality is simply something to be shaken off by those who know better.
Um...no...many atheists don't believe such.
Kurieuo wrote:If you don't mind answering, I'd be interested in your response to the following questions which are similar in form:
If you don't mind, I';ll also have a go.
Kurieuo wrote:Q: Is it "right" or "wrong" to kill off the weak and helpless? Emotions aside, why or why not?
It is wrong and a bad thing. For lots of social, ethical and other reasons.
Kurieuo wrote:Q: Is it "right" or "wrong" for man to rape women? Emotions aside, why or why not?
It is wrong and a bad thing. For lots of social, ethical, psychological, physiological and other reasons.
Kurieuo wrote:Q: Is it "right" or "wrong" to kill off infants? Emotions aside, why or why not?
A very loaded question. Th 'basic' reply is "It is wrong and a bad thing. For lots of social, ethical, psychological, physiological and other reasons."
Now...I am going to be very intrigued by the response to my response about this second last question.
Kurieuo wrote:Finally, do you believe we are free to make choices and act them out, or is "who we are" purely determined by our physiological make-up?
Um...what? We are who we are mentally and hence psychologically. Our past memories , experiences, education (In all its shapes and forms) The cultural norms around us. The years we live and experience etc.
I'm actually a little puzzled by this last question... Sorry.
Much cheers to all.
SS, I'd be interested in your own responses still.
Thad, saying "for lots of social, ethical, psychological, physiological and other reasons." You may as well be saying because 1+1 = 2. This isn't really detailing why. You're essentially saying what you believe is right or wrong is true because you strongly intuit it to be so. And ultimately, this is an emotional reaction because you intuitive feel some things I mention to be wrong. But on what logical basis are your moral intuitions correct?
Re: the last question. Have a listen to the following (it's only 18 minutes):
jlay wrote:Same goes for Hitler, Pol Pot, etc. If they are just products of their material world, then you can't say that they were 'wrong.'
Sorry, no real time to get back to a reply to this...other than,
GODWIN !
End of posting.
Right, that's the ticket. State the most obvious prediction anyone's ever made without bothering an attempt to engage the subject matter.
But then again, JOHNNY. (that's my prediction that any time an atheist is cornered with a Nazi reference wrt objective morality will hide behind Godwin's prediction). End of subject.
Wait...How was I cornered with a reference to Hitler? That's got me confused.
jlay wrote:That figures. Didn't expect any less to be perfectly candid. You can't even defend your worldview. The fact that Hitler is a known example does not make an analogy invalid. In fact, I would say that the use of Godwin is in fact becoming its own example of fallacious reasoning. So, take your ball and go home. You know that what was addressed in my last post totally pulls the rug out from under your shaky worldview. You also know there is plenty in my post that you conveniently skipped over that has no reference to Hitler. Repent. That is ADMIT, your thinking doesn't hold up under careful scrutiny. It's so much more beneficial than patting yourself on the back, when you've in fact done nothing. Drops mic, walks off stage.
I did indeed skip over it as I'd just finished over a week of twelve hour shifts and was on my way to the land of Nod. But you referencing Hitler was a tad too much for my fatigued addled brain to ignore.
Kurieuo wrote:SS, I'd be interested in your own responses still.
*Nods* Yup, as would I.
Kurieuo wrote:Thad, saying "for lots of social, ethical, psychological, physiological and other reasons." You may as well be saying because 1+1 = 2. This isn't really detailing why. You're essentially saying what you believe is right or wrong is true because you strongly intuit it to be so. And ultimately, this is an emotional reaction because you intuitive feel some things I mention to be wrong. But on what logical basis are your moral intuitions correct?
Um...no, it's not. I'm pretty sure maths works a tad differently than how our social, physiological, ethical etc things work. Which is not to say that either or neither are logical or illogical. Some aspects of the social things can be seeming both at the same time.
I was adding a quick post after much time at work. Am now putting up a quick post after waking up.
Also, am reading the transcript of the whole interview, thanks.
Re: your reasoning for why you believe some of those things were wrong, I can understand your time restrictions.
Just I was more expecting actual logical reasons rather than broad stroking. There are many assumptions in each of the areas that you presented for your "why" and I see that before they could be accepted as rationally logical reasons, you'd need to define what you mean by them and reason how each follows to justify your responses. Otherwise they don't really matter just like my 1 + 1 = 2.
I'll provide some responses for you after I hear back from SS, or I'll just wrap this part of the discussion in a week or so.
Otherwise, I hope you enjoy your first introduction (if it is) to philosophical discussions on "free will" vs determinism".
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
Thadeyus wrote:Wait...How was I cornered with a reference to Hitler? That's got me confused.
Because you didn't (don't) bother to address it, you think it's enough to offer a snarky one-word prediction as if it means something. If that's not the case, my apologies. I'll be waiting for a response though. On your version of morality, why was Pol Pot, or the inquisition for that matter, wrong? (notice, Godwin's prediction is not applicable ).
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.
Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.
Thadeyus wrote:Wait...How was I cornered with a reference to Hitler? That's got me confused.
Because you didn't (don't) bother to address it, you think it's enough to offer a snarky one-word prediction as if it means something. If that's not the case, my apologies. I'll be waiting for a response though. On your version of morality, why was Pol Pot, or the inquisition for that matter, wrong? (notice, Godwin's prediction is not applicable ).
Oh..okay...yeah..Hitler was a horrible Christian. So was Pol pot and their regime a horrible person (I think dying of Alzheimers in a shack in the jungle is not such a fitting punishment for such a person) and the Roman Catholic Church's instigation of the Inquisition. (Yay Napoleon for bringing its reign to an end.)
They were bad because all the things that I have learned from my long life within my secular society shows me ample examples/lessons/information/education/etc as of why they were bad.
Thadeyus wrote:Wait...How was I cornered with a reference to Hitler? That's got me confused.
Because you didn't (don't) bother to address it, you think it's enough to offer a snarky one-word prediction as if it means something. If that's not the case, my apologies. I'll be waiting for a response though. On your version of morality, why was Pol Pot, or the inquisition for that matter, wrong? (notice, Godwin's prediction is not applicable ).
Oh..okay...yeah..Hitler was a horrible Christian. So was Pol pot and their regime a horrible person (I think dying of Alzheimers in a shack in the jungle is not such a fitting punishment for such a person) and the Roman Catholic Church's instigation of the Inquisition. (Yay Napoleon for bringing its reign to an end.)
They were bad because all the things that I have learned from my long life within my secular society shows me ample examples/lessons/information/education/etc as of why they were bad.
Much cheers to all.
Well okey dokey then. A perfectly fitting answer as anyone could expect. Thanks for sharing.
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.
Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.
Thadeyus wrote:Oh..okay...yeah..Hitler was a horrible Christian.
Seriously? Maybe a "horrible anti-Christ"... look into reputable biographers outside your Atheistic sources.
Um...so you're saying that there was no involvement religion wise with the fellow, then? (Note that, as always seems to happen hence my 'Godwin' comment, is that mentioning Hitler seems to thence derail threads)
Maybe the threads get derailed because the foolishness of many non-believers is put on display when they counter that Hitler was a Christian. Maybe if such absurdities weren't put forward, the thread wouldn't derail. But then you would be required to deal with the actual substance of what was said rather than your derailment, so the distraction works in your favor.
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.
Jac3510 wrote:Maybe the threads get derailed because the foolishness of many non-believers is put on display when they counter that Hitler was a Christian. Maybe if such absurdities weren't put forward, the thread wouldn't derail. But then you would be required to deal with the actual substance of what was said rather than your derailment, so the distraction works in your favor.
? Um...but I didn't mention Hitler... ?
Also..I have yet to find any information stating that Hitler might have been a Buddhist..or Hindu or an Atheist, for that matter. Lots of other quotes and information, though...
Seriously...*Points* => It was jlay who brought up the fellow.....
Yes, jlay raised Hitler to prove a point. Rather than responding to the substance of his point, you derailed the thread first by objecting to the reference itself and then by offering the tired argument that Hitler was a Christian anyway. Then, after all that, you try to argue that references to Hitler derail threads, when, in fact, it was you who derailed it because you were either unwilling or unable to respond to the substantive point being made. It's all very typical of how you people tend to operate, though, which was the point I was making, and the theme of this particular forum, anyway. So color me unsurprised that you continue to follow the script.
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.
).