Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(December 21, 2015 at 2:05 pm)Delicate Wrote: It's in Dawkins' quote. He's working under the assumption that people have to take responsibility for their actions. Actions which, in the context of "belief in a sacrifice", clearly refer to moral actions.
Now if you reject this requirement, you reject Dawkins' point. Which I do too. Just for slightly different reasons.
Another fine demonstration of you either not getting the point or being intentionally obtuse. Dawkins suggests that people take responsibility for their actions, hardly much to argue with there. But, this doesn't stop you from swooping in with this moral edict that all moral transgressions be rectified 100%, something Dawkins never claims.
Since I'm forced to address your inanity again, you fail to provide meaning for what you mean by 'rectify'. Any normal meaning of the words can't possibly apply to the Christian moral system since the victim is left out of the exchange. There's no rectification for wrongs in Christian morality, only vicarious atonement; they're entirely different.
In your rush to defend Dawkins and rain thunder from the angry atheist pulpit, you clearly haven't properly thought-through your view.
If we care about justice, we ought to prefer perfect justice to imperfect.
Imperfect justice is in some ways no justice at all. If someone steals a thousand dollars from you, and only pays back 500, you can rightly say you haven't been made whole.
If that's the kind of justice you advocate, it's not justice. It's just a lesser form of injustice.
(December 21, 2015 at 1:50 pm)Delicate Wrote: Here he's wrong because he's ignorant of WHY "belief in a sacrifice" is said to be necessary by Christianity.
Taking responsibility for one's own actions entails almost-guaranteed ethical failure, because nobody, including atheists, can take full ethical responsibility for their actions such that they either make no ethical missteps, or correct every ethical misstep appropriately.
And the proof of this is in your own life. Think of how many times you've done wrong and haven't rectified it. How you've gone easy on yourself. Allowed yourself to do things that you know, on another level, you shouldn't do.
Do you think any atheist is capable of living a life free of unrectified moral failings?
Reality says it's impossible. Thus reality says Dawkins' point is impossible.
What we have here is an informal fallacy called the "99%= 0% fallacy." What you're essentially arguing is that, since I can't rectify my wrongdoings or live without them one hundred percent of the time, the idea that I should strive to do so, even if it ends up being imperfectly, is wrong. This is, quite clearly, absurd.
Leaving aside that Dawkins' point wasn't demanding perfection, we must also acknowledge that, in purely human terms, there's no requirement that we get it absolutely perfect, because there's no externally imposed points system by which we are to be judged. There's no metric, and no reward to strive for; there's no demand that we keep our moral books totally balanced to get into heaven, and thus no need for a magic sacrifice to cover the gap. You just do the best you can because it makes a better world, all the while acknowledging that you are human, you are fallible, and occasionally you'll slip up. When you reach the end, there won't be some cosmically imposed adjudicator sneering down at the discrepancy between the rectification you were able to provide and the immorality you caused, tutting that "it's not perfect, so I guess that whole 'making up for your own failings' thing you were going for is pointless and impossible, eh?"
It's not impossible. It's just unlikely to be pulled off flawlessly. Lots of things are like that. The entire framing of your argument is wrong.
Where did I say the idea that you should strive to do so is wrong? Can you point it out in my post?
Don't bother to pull out your magnifying glass. I never said that.
Rather, I think justice is one of those concepts that are all-or-nothing. Just like the relation of "being identical to" is all or nothing, or "being equal to" is all or nothing.
99 just isn't equal to 100. That's not a fallacy. That's a fact.
Set aside all the atheist apologetics here and ask yourself this: If someone took $100 from you, and you need to be restituted, what do you deserve? Do you deserve only $99? Or do you deserve the full $100? If someone only gives you $99, do you get what you deserve?
The very idea of justice itself has this self-evident all-or-nothing quality to it.
(December 21, 2015 at 2:25 pm)Delicate Wrote: In your rush to defend Dawkins and rain thunder from the angry atheist pulpit, you clearly haven't properly thought-through your view.
If we care about justice, we ought to prefer perfect justice to imperfect.
Imperfect justice is in some ways no justice at all. If someone steals a thousand dollars from you, and only pays back 500, you can rightly say you haven't been made whole.
If that's the kind of justice you advocate, it's not justice. It's just a lesser form of injustice.
That was easy, it's not often people voluntarily place their neck in the lunette of Hume's guillotine.
(December 21, 2015 at 2:32 pm)Delicate Wrote: Where did I say the idea that you should strive to do so is wrong? Can you point it out in my post?
Your entire post was about how Dawkins' idea of taking responsibility for your own wrongdoings is, and I quote, "impossible," on the basis that we cannot perfectly pull it off. I'm not going to play semantic games with you there: if you think a thing is impossible, why would you attempt it?
Quote:Rather, I think justice is one of those concepts that are all-or-nothing. Just like the relation of "being identical to" is all or nothing, or "being equal to" is all or nothing.
And you're wrong. The entire justice system that we have is predicated on you being wrong. When we lock up a criminal for murder, justice isn't perfectly done, the wrongdoing is not repaired on a one-to-one basis because the victim is still gone, and the family does not have them returned. But we do it anyway because we recognize that some justice has merit, even if it's not all the justice that is required.
You can do something. The fact that you might not be able to do everything is not an argument against Dawkins' point, even though you presented it as though it were.
Quote:99 just isn't equal to 100. That's not a fallacy. That's a fact.
Set aside all the atheist apologetics here and ask yourself this: If someone took $100 from you, and you need to be restituted, what do you deserve? Do you deserve only $99? Or do you deserve the full $100? If someone only gives you $99, do you get what you deserve?
The very idea of justice itself has this self-evident all-or-nothing quality to it.
If someone took $100 from me I would still take the $99 back. Hell, I'd take no money back, if it turned out the thief had spent it all and had no means to pay it back. I'd still expect him to face the law for it, though. Life's not perfect; how is that an argument against Dawkins' point? You think it is: how is that?
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
(December 21, 2015 at 2:25 pm)Delicate Wrote: In your rush to defend Dawkins and rain thunder from the angry atheist pulpit, you clearly haven't properly thought-through your view.
If we care about justice, we ought to prefer perfect justice to imperfect.
Imperfect justice is in some ways no justice at all. If someone steals a thousand dollars from you, and only pays back 500, you can rightly say you haven't been made whole.
If that's the kind of justice you advocate, it's not justice. It's just a lesser form of injustice.
That was easy, it's not often people voluntarily place their neck in the lunette of Hume's guillotine.
Fascinating, isn't it, Cato: how someone who is self-identified as "Forum Logician and Philosophy Enthusiast" will type out a textbook swing-and-a-miss of Hume's Principle?
I have a list of forum members who might be fabulous spokespeople for atheism, and Delicate, as the most insulting, offensive, judgmental, nose-in-the-air "all atheists are morons" poster of ridiculous dreck is definitely in the top five.
"The family that prays together...is brainwashing their children."- Albert Einstein
(December 21, 2015 at 2:32 pm)Delicate Wrote: Where did I say the idea that you should strive to do so is wrong? Can you point it out in my post?
Your entire post was about how Dawkins' idea of taking responsibility for your own wrongdoings is, and I quote, "impossible," on the basis that we cannot perfectly pull it off. I'm not going to play semantic games with you there: if you think a thing is impossible, why would you attempt it?
Quote:Rather, I think justice is one of those concepts that are all-or-nothing. Just like the relation of "being identical to" is all or nothing, or "being equal to" is all or nothing.
And you're wrong. The entire justice system that we have is predicated on you being wrong. When we lock up a criminal for murder, justice isn't perfectly done, the wrongdoing is not repaired on a one-to-one basis because the victim is still gone, and the family does not have them returned. But we do it anyway because we recognize that some justice has merit, even if it's not all the justice that is required.
You can do something. The fact that you might not be able to do everything is not an argument against Dawkins' point, even though you presented it as though it were.
Quote:99 just isn't equal to 100. That's not a fallacy. That's a fact.
Set aside all the atheist apologetics here and ask yourself this: If someone took $100 from you, and you need to be restituted, what do you deserve? Do you deserve only $99? Or do you deserve the full $100? If someone only gives you $99, do you get what you deserve?
The very idea of justice itself has this self-evident all-or-nothing quality to it.
If someone took $100 from me I would still take the $99 back. Hell, I'd take no money back, if it turned out the thief had spent it all and had no means to pay it back. I'd still expect him to face the law for it, though. Life's not perfect; how is that an argument against Dawkins' point? You think it is: how is that?
At least we can lay out where we agree before arguing over where we disagree.
If the standard of justice is as I say it is (99 is not equal to 100), then I'm right, it is practically impossible, isn't it? And whether or not you would accept $99 back or not, it's still true that you deserve $100, and anything less would not make you whole, correct?
You seem to raise three different issues in your post:
1) Why attempt justice if it's impossible, you ask.
For one, we all implicitly assent to perfect justice- whether or not it's achievable, we all believe this is what people deserve and ought to receive. This is a standard we ought to strive to conform to. Second, there are some exceedingly rare individual cases where we can, in fact achieve perfect justice. And third, while perfect justice cannot be achieved, approximate justice allows victims and sufferers to better cope with the injustice, by reducing the extent of the injustice they bear.
2) You say the justice system is predicated on me being wrong. However, the above is perfectly compatible with our justice system. Even when we cannot achieve perfect justice, we try to approximate it for the above reasons. If it's not, where does it contradict the justice system?
3) The argument against Dawkins is like the following:
a) True justice is an all-or-nothing affair (see the reasons I provided above)
b) Simply taking responsibility never achieves true justice
c) Therefore Dawkins leaves us with a hollow, dissatisfying, conception of justice, a poor knock-off of a complete notion of justice whose existence as an ideal we not only affirm, but we desire, and we strive for. But we have no hope of achieving.
Taking responsibility is a poor knock-off.
(December 21, 2015 at 2:39 pm)Cato Wrote:
(December 21, 2015 at 2:25 pm)Delicate Wrote: In your rush to defend Dawkins and rain thunder from the angry atheist pulpit, you clearly haven't properly thought-through your view.
If we care about justice, we ought to prefer perfect justice to imperfect.
Imperfect justice is in some ways no justice at all. If someone steals a thousand dollars from you, and only pays back 500, you can rightly say you haven't been made whole.
If that's the kind of justice you advocate, it's not justice. It's just a lesser form of injustice.
That was easy, it's not often people voluntarily place their neck in the lunette of Hume's guillotine.
Your starry-eyed "Hume works in mysterious ways" is not a refutation of my view.
Perhaps I'm right about justice, and you're not up to the task of admitting that this darned dirty theist has a point?
December 21, 2015 at 3:32 pm (This post was last modified: December 21, 2015 at 3:33 pm by drfuzzy.)
(December 21, 2015 at 3:19 pm)Delicate Wrote:
(December 21, 2015 at 2:40 pm)Esquilax Wrote:
Your entire post was about how Dawkins' idea of taking responsibility for your own wrongdoings is, and I quote, "impossible," on the basis that we cannot perfectly pull it off. I'm not going to play semantic games with you there: if you think a thing is impossible, why would you attempt it?
And you're wrong. The entire justice system that we have is predicated on you being wrong. When we lock up a criminal for murder, justice isn't perfectly done, the wrongdoing is not repaired on a one-to-one basis because the victim is still gone, and the family does not have them returned. But we do it anyway because we recognize that some justice has merit, even if it's not all the justice that is required.
You can do something. The fact that you might not be able to do everything is not an argument against Dawkins' point, even though you presented it as though it were.
If someone took $100 from me I would still take the $99 back. Hell, I'd take no money back, if it turned out the thief had spent it all and had no means to pay it back. I'd still expect him to face the law for it, though. Life's not perfect; how is that an argument against Dawkins' point? You think it is: how is that?
At least we can lay out where we agree before arguing over where we disagree.
If the standard of justice is as I say it is (99 is not equal to 100), then I'm right, it is practically impossible, isn't it? And whether or not you would accept $99 back or not, it's still true that you deserve $100, and anything less would not make you whole, correct?
You seem to raise three different issues in your post:
1) Why attempt justice if it's impossible, you ask.
For one, we all implicitly assent to perfect justice- whether or not it's achievable, we all believe this is what people deserve and ought to receive. This is a standard we ought to strive to conform to. Second, there are some exceedingly rare individual cases where we can, in fact achieve perfect justice. And third, while perfect justice cannot be achieved, approximate justice allows victims and sufferers to better cope with the injustice, by reducing the extent of the injustice they bear.
2) You say the justice system is predicated on me being wrong. However, the above is perfectly compatible with our justice system. Even when we cannot achieve perfect justice, we try to approximate it for the above reasons. If it's not, where does it contradict the justice system?
3) The argument against Dawkins is like the following:
a) True justice is an all-or-nothing affair (see the reasons I provided above)
b) Simply taking responsibility never achieves true justice
c) Therefore Dawkins leaves us with a hollow, dissatisfying, conception of justice, a poor knock-off of a complete notion of justice whose existence as an ideal we not only affirm, but we desire, and we strive for. But we have no hope of achieving.
Taking responsibility is a poor knock-off.
(December 21, 2015 at 2:39 pm)Cato Wrote: That was easy, it's not often people voluntarily place their neck in the lunette of Hume's guillotine.
Your starry-eyed "Hume works in mysterious ways" is not a refutation of my view.
Perhaps I'm right about justice, and you're not up to the task of admitting that this darned dirty theist has a point?
Are you capable of explaining Hume's principle, or are you just going to mock it with a non-sequitur butchered god reference, in hopes that we'll accept your ad hominem that Cato (!!) is not up to the task of presenting a cogent argument?
"The family that prays together...is brainwashing their children."- Albert Einstein
December 21, 2015 at 3:34 pm (This post was last modified: December 21, 2015 at 3:42 pm by God of Mr. Hanky.)
(December 21, 2015 at 3:19 pm)Delicate Wrote:
(December 21, 2015 at 2:40 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Your entire post was about how Dawkins' idea of taking responsibility for your own wrongdoings is, and I quote, "impossible," on the basis that we cannot perfectly pull it off. I'm not going to play semantic games with you there: if you think a thing is impossible, why would you attempt it?
And you're wrong. The entire justice system that we have is predicated on you being wrong. When we lock up a criminal for murder, justice isn't perfectly done, the wrongdoing is not repaired on a one-to-one basis because the victim is still gone, and the family does not have them returned. But we do it anyway because we recognize that some justice has merit, even if it's not all the justice that is required.
You can do something. The fact that you might not be able to do everything is not an argument against Dawkins' point, even though you presented it as though it were.
If someone took $100 from me I would still take the $99 back. Hell, I'd take no money back, if it turned out the thief had spent it all and had no means to pay it back. I'd still expect him to face the law for it, though. Life's not perfect; how is that an argument against Dawkins' point? You think it is: how is that?
At least we can lay out where we agree before arguing over where we disagree.
If the standard of justice is as I say it is (99 is not equal to 100), then I'm right, it is practically impossible, isn't it? And whether or not you would accept $99 back or not, it's still true that you deserve $100, and anything less would not make you whole, correct?
You seem to raise three different issues in your post:
1) Why attempt justice if it's impossible, you ask.
For one, we all implicitly assent to perfect justice- whether or not it's achievable, we all believe this is what people deserve and ought to receive. This is a standard we ought to strive to conform to. Second, there are some exceedingly rare individual cases where we can, in fact achieve perfect justice. And third, while perfect justice cannot be achieved, approximate justice allows victims and sufferers to better cope with the injustice, by reducing the extent of the injustice they bear.
2) You say the justice system is predicated on me being wrong. However, the above is perfectly compatible with our justice system. Even when we cannot achieve perfect justice, we try to approximate it for the above reasons. If it's not, where does it contradict the justice system?
3) The argument against Dawkins is like the following:
a) True justice is an all-or-nothing affair (see the reasons I provided above)
b) Simply taking responsibility never achieves true justice
c) Therefore Dawkins leaves us with a hollow, dissatisfying, conception of justice, a poor knock-off of a complete notion of justice whose existence as an ideal we not only affirm, but we desire, and we strive for. But we have no hope of achieving.
Taking responsibility is a poor knock-off.
(December 21, 2015 at 2:39 pm)Cato Wrote: That was easy, it's not often people voluntarily place their neck in the lunette of Hume's guillotine.
Your starry-eyed "Hume works in mysterious ways" is not a refutation of my view.
Perhaps I'm right about justice, and you're not up to the task of admitting that this darned dirty theist has a point?
Once again ignorance is strength, and George Orwell loves you!
You know you cannot disprove the fact that Orwell really is the Second Reincarnation (sniggers on "Cumming") of your god's son. He returned and wrote his profound books, but when he understood just how violent and stupid humanity had persisted on remaining since the time of Jesus, he just had to say the hell with it all and cancel his previous plans to do what evangelicals were promising he would do without even consulting him first. He still loves you, but he looks down on you with disgust, undecided how he will deal with you and the rest of all the Jesus people for now.
At least we can lay out where we agree before arguing over where we disagree.
If the standard of justice is as I say it is (99 is not equal to 100), then I'm right, it is practically impossible, isn't it? And whether or not you would accept $99 back or not, it's still true that you deserve $100, and anything less would not make you whole, correct?
You seem to raise three different issues in your post:
1) Why attempt justice if it's impossible, you ask.
For one, we all implicitly assent to perfect justice- whether or not it's achievable, we all believe this is what people deserve and ought to receive. This is a standard we ought to strive to conform to. Second, there are some exceedingly rare individual cases where we can, in fact achieve perfect justice. And third, while perfect justice cannot be achieved, approximate justice allows victims and sufferers to better cope with the injustice, by reducing the extent of the injustice they bear.
2) You say the justice system is predicated on me being wrong. However, the above is perfectly compatible with our justice system. Even when we cannot achieve perfect justice, we try to approximate it for the above reasons. If it's not, where does it contradict the justice system?
3) The argument against Dawkins is like the following:
a) True justice is an all-or-nothing affair (see the reasons I provided above)
b) Simply taking responsibility never achieves true justice
c) Therefore Dawkins leaves us with a hollow, dissatisfying, conception of justice, a poor knock-off of a complete notion of justice whose existence as an ideal we not only affirm, but we desire, and we strive for. But we have no hope of achieving.
Taking responsibility is a poor knock-off.
Your starry-eyed "Hume works in mysterious ways" is not a refutation of my view.
Perhaps I'm right about justice, and you're not up to the task of admitting that this darned dirty theist has a point?
Are you capable of explaining Hume's principle, or are you just going to mock it with a non-sequitur butchered god reference, in hopes that we'll accept your ad hominem that Cato (!!) is not up to the task of presenting a cogent argument?
I don't think you're following the line of argument.
What's as yet unexplained is what problem Cato has with my argument, given that he can't express an objection.
