RE: Science and religion
March 26, 2013 at 4:39 pm
(This post was last modified: March 26, 2013 at 4:39 pm by jstrodel.)
No, it is true. You will find the moral argument to be a more serious problem if you care about the nature of objective morality. If you don't care about whether objective morality is true, the argument will have no force.
Ad hominem is only fallacious if it is irrelevant. it is certainly relevant how much atheists care about morality to the veracity of theistic claims. If people don't care whether they should be living a different way, they won't act.
Define propaganda. What makes propaganda different from other things?
What makes you so sure that peoples habbit of living has no effect on the way that they perceive God to be evident or probable from the arguments? Do you think it has any bearing what so ever, for instance, if someone has spent an hour or two every single day of his life trying to understand God, whereas, someone else has spent maybe 100 hours in their whole life thinking about ethical issues?
I think that statements describing the flying spaggetti monster and things like this typically come from people who have spent less amount of time thinking about morality and the problems and ways in which people deal with this, which would cause them to come into appreciation of different ways in which people have done this. I think it is certainly relevant.
Do you think that all arguments should follow the form of appearing to come out of a "critical thinker"? What if that form was itself a kind of propaganda, obviously it is, aren't all words aimed at persuading?
Ad hominem is only fallacious if it is irrelevant. it is certainly relevant how much atheists care about morality to the veracity of theistic claims. If people don't care whether they should be living a different way, they won't act.
Define propaganda. What makes propaganda different from other things?
What makes you so sure that peoples habbit of living has no effect on the way that they perceive God to be evident or probable from the arguments? Do you think it has any bearing what so ever, for instance, if someone has spent an hour or two every single day of his life trying to understand God, whereas, someone else has spent maybe 100 hours in their whole life thinking about ethical issues?
I think that statements describing the flying spaggetti monster and things like this typically come from people who have spent less amount of time thinking about morality and the problems and ways in which people deal with this, which would cause them to come into appreciation of different ways in which people have done this. I think it is certainly relevant.
Do you think that all arguments should follow the form of appearing to come out of a "critical thinker"? What if that form was itself a kind of propaganda, obviously it is, aren't all words aimed at persuading?
