Total posts: 1,732
-->
@fauxlaw
All taken from your post. If you don't know, then I can't help you. ;-)
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
If a individual is an internal user, using for non-possessive reasons, or because 'its natural' - use of another person's body without consent is acceptable? The first two options could feasibly justify actions which undermine rights. The last option is simply fallacious.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
You are not addressing my argument at all.
Let me ask you, can someone use the body of another without consent? If not, then it doesn't matter if the person is 80 years or 8 seconds old - the answer is still the same: no.
Also, I do not accept human bodies are the product of design. That premise is dubious and much too unstable to build an argument on.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
It is convoluted logic. Legally, it seems to be sound, but only because a person is not a person until born alive, according to 1 US Code, §8, specifically, and the Roe v. Wade decision by unwritten interpretation. But, what of the also legal Victims of Unborn Violence Act?
I think you are making it much more complicated than it needs to be. Whether the unborn (zygote, embryo, fetus) is a person or not, there is no "right" to use the body of another against their will.
Keeping that in mind, its not difficult to see there is no conflict between Victims of unborn violence and Roe V. Wade - both address different aspects of consent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Haha! Nah, that's not it. If he is not trying to sway others, then what is his burden of proof?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Do you have no desire to sway others to believe in your god? If so, then you will eventually need to establish the source of your definition as authoritative, right?
If you have no desire to sway others, then it doesn't matter and I thank you for your input.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
DebateArt: the authoritative source for Hitler *debate*.
I mean...its in the name of the site!! Lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
It is the doctrine of the the Church of Jesis Christ of Latter-day Saints, of which I am a member, and as taught in the scriptures, but not just the Holy Bible, but also the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine & Covenants, and the pearl of Great Price.
Why should any of that be thought authoritative?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
What is your logical process for your definition?
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Reddit: the authoritative source for Hitler gossip. ;-)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
How did you come to this definition? Do you hope to sway other people to believe as you do?
three separate individual gods
And, not necessarily related to the Op, but do you consider yourself to be a polytheist?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Not the Christian Lord. What he said and did were two different things. Anyone can profess Jesus Christ as Lord. By reading his literature, it is obvious he did not follow the Christ of Scripture but his own made-up version that could justify him dehumanizing, discriminating against, and killing millions of people.
Hitler didn't live up to your expectations of a Christian. Okay - I'm glad for that. But he did claim to be Christian.
Hitler was a humanist? What definition of humanism are you using?a person having a strong interest in or concern for human welfare, values, and dignity.
Hitler was not a humanist....and he never claimed to be so far as I can tell.
If you're going to try to shame by association, you should probably make sure your own group wasn't the ones associated....or avoid fallacies altogether.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
[a] You are trying to create the script of narrative you want me to run to, Skep.
If you say so! ;-)
[b] When you base morality on what is the case, rather than what you make it (preference), it is. When you make it (preference), many others want to make it the exact opposite. It brings up the question of who is actually right regarding the good or right. You lose the identity of the right if it is not fixed and unchanging. I pointed out to you that this is what you witness in cultures when God is jettisoned. I pointed out to someone here that up until 1973, abortion was considered wrong, in most cases, a moral evil. Now, in most cases, it is considered the right. What changed? How can it be both right and wrong? Which is its true identity (A=A)?
First, abortion was not considered (exclusively) wrong before 1973. In fact, In American history abortion has been legal for longer than it has been illegal. Secondly, law is not the same thing as morals. Finally, for it to be a violation of the Law of identity it would need to be right AND wrong at the same time and context. That is not the case.
[c] Yes, it is. Who are you to tell others it is not required. Who made you God? You are not God. You are just like me, a limited, frail, relative human being who can't point to what SHOULD be once you kill the fixed, unchanging necessary standard.
I guess you don't see the irony in rejecting a 'requirement' because I'm "not God" while asserting your own requirements... even though you're not god either!
Besides that, I've required nothing of you or anyone else. I've highlighted parts of reality which demonstrate a fixed, unchangeable standard is unnecessary. Divinity is not required for observation.
[d] Magnetic north is not true north, although it points in that direction and helps us find it.
"True North" is an arbitrary standard also. Magnetic north guides us in the general direction of something we decided was important. This isn't helping your case.
[e] The rules of chess apply to that game. If you don't follow them, you are not playing chess.
Morality is applicable to human well being. If human well-being isn't a consideration, then you're not talking about morality.
[f] [...] Quantitative values have a fixed standard. We know one foot is not one foot one inch. We can measure off a measurement of a foot because we have a standard.
...another arbitrary standard. We have many many units for length - currently and throughout history. Again, this isn't helping your case.
[g] I can. I can't show that to your satisfaction. That is the nature of a skeptic. You never get to the finish point or make up your finish point, which does not necessarily coincide with mine.
You can't show a fixed, unchanging reference point is necessary ...to a reasonable standard OR to my satisfaction.
[h] He does not change.
If you say so! ;-)
[I] God never condoned the slavery practiced in Eygpt. I have gone over your tired point plenty of times.
Egypt is a red herring. Per the Bible, slavery is codified (as condoned by Yahweh) and in practice before the Hebrews entered Egypt.
[j] It can, just never, never to your satisfaction. [...]
It is not about establishing god 'to my satisfaction'. It's about establishing god to a reasonable standard of proof - and no one, including the great PGA 2.0, has been able to do that.
[k] Again, I don't trust your silly beliefs.
The feeling is mutual. ;-)
[l] I can justify my interpretations based on the written word.
You can justify your interpretations based on your interpretations of the Bible? That sounds like a *well-rounded* (pun intended) methodology.
[m] The Bible is fixed. We have a text from early Christianity that is translated from koine Greek to different languages. Greek to Latin; Greek to Italian; Greek to English.
You have no idea how closely the books of the Bible match the original text - there are no original texts. At best, you can say the Bible is approximate...like magnetic north. :-O
[n] The same old narrative from you. You never sufficiently addressed them.
If you say so! ;-)
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Hitler was a humanist. He did not look to the Christian God but fashioned God in his own likeness by borrowing what he wanted to from the Christian religion.
"I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord’s work.”
Mein Kampf - Adolf Hitler
Hitler was a humanist? What definition of humanism are you using?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Hmmm, I'd say the Kalam and the teleological argument on the belief side and the problem of evil and the argument from divine hiddeness on the non-belief side.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
The Bible is a literary rorschach. It can be used to support most anything desired...and no proof can sway the dogmatist to believe their interpretation is wrong.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Peter, you are running to the script again, but it does no good. It has already been shown that:
1. A fixed, unchanging reference point is not required to navigate through the world. Magnetic north is not fixed; the rules of chess are arbitrary - yet we can determine a good direction or a good move. The moral landscape is no different.
2. You yourself cannot show you have a fixed, unchanging reference point:
- If the god of the Bible were real, he would not be unchanging (unless he still condoned slavery, genocide, and a world absent rainbows). Plus, even if the god of the Bible were immutable, his existence can't be established.
- If the god of the Bible were not real (which I believe to be the case), you are relying on your own interpretation of the words of bronze-age humans - definitely unfixed and subject to change.
Your position crumbled at least 600 posts ago. Running back to the same beaten arguments/script won't resuscitate it.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
If a person, such as Skep, is a proponent of objective morality, he needs to explain what it entails and how he reaches such conclusions.
It is time you update your description of my views to match my actual views. This is part of the mischaracterization I mentioned above.
Hint: I am not a proponent of objective morality.
[Link]
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
BS. These are arguments you failed to give a satisfactory answer to, so I continue to rehash them, hoping someone will tackle them.
Fortunately for me, you are not the arbiter of 'satisfactory answers'. I revisited the thread and perused my answer/arguments. They are clear enough to sway any who is reasonable.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Great examples of mischaracterization and recycled arguments.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
I've answered all relevant questions. I can't help if you don't like the answers.
As for Amoranemix, he has much more patience than I do. He is a better person than me in that way. :-)
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Wow! More assertations with little substance. Not a question tackled. Typical.18 words compared to 125 of yours.
Short and sweet - love it!
We've already been through your script earlier in the thread. No need to travel those paths again.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Wow! 682 words in response to a few words of mine!
Listen - once you've been told by people that your description of their position is innacurate, it becomes dishonest to continue using that description. You've got a script where atheists are always the bad guys. You ignore refutation and recycle beaten arguments. Its all about the performance rather than the substance.
At this point, its pure dishonesty. Of course, I'm sure lying for god isn't really "lying" through some sketchy justification you use to rationalize it... (but it is!).
The fact that this thread is still alive 1200 posts later is because you cannot admit error - it would undermine your pretense at absolute (and unreasonable) certainty and hurt your outsized pride.
I wish better for you, my friend.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
1200 posts and still mischaracterizing atheists and atheism? Tsk, tsk...
You know, there is a commandment in your holy book against bearing false witness. So much for the superiority of that 'absolute, fixed reference point'! :-)
Rather than pitting one group against another, I think a thread on the nature of morality would be much more productive. I think you'll find atheists (if you allow yourself to be informed by something outside your own head) are not a moral monolith, and I'm certain that is true of theists.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Honor your father and your mother. Punishment is up to 3 lashings if the parents desire this.
Some parents deserve no respect.
You shall not murder. Punishment is life imprisonment.
Leaves no room for rehabilitation.
You shall not rape. Punishment is life imprisonment.
Definite improvement over the original. But, again, no room is left for rehabilitation.
You shall not commit adultery unless both partners consent. Punishment is mandatory counseling to prevent further adultury.
Is it really adultery when both partners consent? Besides that, I'm not sure why government has a legitimate interest in personal relationships.
You shall not steal. Punishment is 2 weeks in jail doing community service for every $1000 worth of stuff stolen. Sentence can be reduced by 2 weeks per $1000 that is returned. After the sentence (since you stole due to lack of money), the state offers you a job doing productive work, and this gets you out of poverty so you don't have to steal again.
There should be an age limit, and ...can someone steal $999 without consequence? I would also be against indentured servitude...it seems like we should be beyond that in this day and age.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. Punishment is the punishment your neighbor would have received.
I'm not in favor of this. Would it be a crime to tell a white lie or protect someone with a lie? I have a hard time seeing how punishment for either circumstance would be reasonable. Suffice to say, the original commandment 'not to lie' leaves no exception and this suffers the same problem.
I don't understand the proposed punishment.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
What burdens do atheists have regarding "miracles"? Are atheists claiming miracles?!
I think not...
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
@n8nrgmi
Why would any atheists need to meet a burden of proof if you are the one claiming there are miracles?
This.
Created:
-->
@ronjs
'If the evidence is insufficient...it *must* be the skeptics fault.'
Created:
-->
@Soluminsanis
Seems to me you are arbitrarily counting the misses as human and the hits as 'of God'. By the same reasoning you could reverse it and count the hits as of humanity and the misses to 'God', yes?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Thats like asking if wind is more powerful than observation ...of wind. Lol!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
You jump to so many conclusions.I never said any of those things. I rejected your argument that knowledge is only knowledge if it is verified - and obviously that requires some kind of objective process.
Of course you didn't, and I never suggested axioms don't exist or that they should be verified. That is you jumping to conclusions - we weren't talking about axioms...unless, of course, you think Theism/god/spirituality is axiomatic. Do you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
That's why I said it's not useful for you, because of how you will expect or presume "verification".
It is a simple and reasonable request simply to understand from whence your answers come. I have my answer - again, thank you for the time you've invested.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Verify that reason and logic is correct without resorting to axiomatic thinking and circular reasoning. It can't be. Therefore - by your own admission you can't reasonably believe it is knowledge.
So, by your view logic and reason can't be verified thus 'verifiable' is not a reasonable request of anything? Stop with the absurdity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I appreciate the effort you put into your answers, but "how do you know" is the most important part to me. I can't reasonably consider something 'knowledge' if it can't be verified.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I'm going to answer the questions how you ask them but "how I know" won't be of much value to you, so you will have to be content with my answers and we can build from there. I know why you are asking how do I know, but how I know will be more of a distraction to what could be useful for you. It will also contribute in adding way more content than I'm willing to commit to in a single post, so for efficiency I'll simply answer the questions.
Ask me anything except "How do you know?", eh?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
What is the basis of morality for "God"? How do you know?
How long has "God" existed? How do you know?
Why did "God" create existence? How do you know?
How did "God" create? How do you know?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Materialism starts with the assumptions that reality exists and we can learn from it.[...] Materialism doesn't just start with the assumption reality exists, it starts with the assumption that matter is the fundamental substance of existence...of that reality. That puts a stamp on your quest for truth, and if that satisfies your intellectual needs that's your choice.
Ok. Just so you know, I don't personally identify as a materialist. I just see Materialism as more parsimonious.
I don't know what a "super-reality" is supposed to be
By "super-reality", I mean something above and beyond the reality that can be observed and/or demonstrated. It's reality+.
This is not a God of the Gaps argument [...] if God fits in any gaps it's because it works, it's missing pieces to the puzzle.
Make up your mind, eh?
It's a legit question 100%! Why would processes begin to just occur all by themselves and start to produce things
Why would processes not occur naturally - other than you can't believe it's possible?
Occam favors the former.Sure pal. I'll remind you again....Materialism doesn't get a free card because it skips out on important questions making you believe you've made less assumptions lol...that's really hilarious. Theism fits in perfectly with Occam's Razor as there are absolutely no unnecessary premises being offered and zero assumptions being made that are not of importance.
I'm not sure how you think Materialism is getting a free pass. When Occam's razor is applied to a comparison between Theism and Materialism, the latter is favored because it does not unnecessarily multiply entities. Theism assumes a reality beyond the natural world that cannot be detected or demonstrated whereas Materialism accepts reality as we see it. It's not that complicated, buddy. If a super-reality could be established, then Theism would be favored.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
It's important to clearly distinguish QUANTA from QUALIA.
I've never understood that terminology.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Go ahead. Being married doesn't mean you love your spouse. Having kids doesn't mean you love them, ask DHHR.
No, you're right. One of these alone doesn't necessarily mean love, but all the evidence together does strongly point to it. I don't know DHHR.
Again you cannot monitor with evidence internal emotions.
You can - just not directly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Faith is one pathway to self knowledge. Not sure what verifiable evidence that produces. Almost any relationship is based on faith, love and other emotions. No evidence of those either. We take people's words they are experiencing those emotions.
No, I disagree with that. There is generally evidence for the emotions others feel for us (sharing resources, bodies, lives, having children, generally considering us in their day to day decisions, etc.). On the other hand, faith might have us *know* (read 'fool ourselves') the fidelity of a cheating spouse is true.
I think there is a bit of equivocation here too. Faith without verifiable evidence does not lead to knowledge, whereas trust (faith) built on evidence can.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMelioist
Thank you for sharing your journey. I know it is not easy to have such a drastic change in your understanding of the world. Kudos.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I was a Christian for ~35 years. Exactly how much patience do you think is necessary? I stopped believing because (just like you) I could not substantiate my belief with verifiable evidence. Its not my (or anyone else's) fault theism has to be taken on faith - which isn't a pathway to knowledge. Theism is simply a weakly evidenced position propped up by a tradition of emotionality.
Name any position which can't be held "on faith" - there isn't one. Absolutely anything can be believed if 'faith' is the only prerequisite. You'll need to do better than that if you mean to sway others with rational argumentation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
That's no standard at all, buddy. People 'go to god' and come away with different and contradictory answers. Surely, even as a believer, you've noticed this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMelioist
What made you change your views?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
No, the non-belief is a self-imposed limitation; the worst kind.
My non-belief is merely the result of insufficient evidence - our beliefs should be apportioned to the evidence.
No favors are being done for theism by berating skeptics (for having an evidentiary standard) rather than...you know..providing verifiable evidence for belief.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Its important to note, being unable to provide verifiable evidence for a belief does not constitute a "limitation" of non-believers.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
There is adequate proof. Christianity is reasonable to believe. Its foundation is firm.
Assertions.
You just deny it, so that lets you off the hook of accountability. Your skeptical foundation is not firm. It crumbles away when investigated. [Etc., etc., etc.]
Ahh, so its my fault your claims cannot be substantiated with anything approaching verifiable evidence. Ok. 😄
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Amoranemix: There appears to be another inconsistency in your worldview. You claim that skeptic's views are merely preferences because not based on some ultimate, absolute, fixed standard and yet you keep asking skeptics for their views, as if their preferences matter. [a] What relevance do their preferences have?No, what I do is invite them to prove me wrong, that your preference does matter in determining what is moral.
There is no need to disprove that which has not been proven.
Created: