Well special pleading is only a concern if one person is trying to convince another of something. I haven't known CL to engage in proselytizing in her time here. Maybe I should reread the OP.

LadyForCamus Wrote:What would I possibly gain from bullying someone into agreeing with me?  Cyber, or otherwise.

That's a question I can't answer for you. You've gone way beyond anything I would do in an argument, and I don't understand it at all. And I don't consider myself particularly kind online. Sometimes the things I say are an abuse of sarcasm.

Perhaps I should pursue this until I get you to admit I'm right or give up on interacting with me?

Here it is:

Quote:Objective morality has been discussed many times on these forums, and many times by me. A lot of times I feel like I have a hard time trying to explain objective morality or why objective morality makes sense to me, which in turn helps make the existence of a god make sense to me. It isn't the only reason by far, but it is part of it. 

I saw this short video today and thought Kreeft summed up all my thoughts in a way that I never felt I could accurately do. 

I don't agree with the part where he says people "think they are atheists", but as for his explanation of morality, I couldn't have put it better myself. 

https://www.prageru.com/courses/religion...-evil-come

Whether you agree or not, it's still an interesting issue to discuss.

I read this as someone inviting people she trusts to discuss with her something she knows she is in the minority on where they are concerned.  She doesn't make any brash claims but neither does she disown what she in fact believes .. and perhaps is wrestling with.  I don't think special pleading applies here.

(March 9, 2016 at 11:57 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

LadyForCamus Wrote:What would I possibly gain from bullying someone into agreeing with me?  Cyber, or otherwise.

That's a question I can't answer for you. You've gone way beyond anything I would do in an argument, and I don't understand it at all. And I don't consider myself particularly kind online. Sometimes the things I say are an abuse of sarcasm.

Perhaps I should pursue this until I get you to admit I'm right or give up on interacting with me?

If you read my posts I actually did the exact opposite of giving up interacting with her. I extended an unconditional invitation for further discussion, in fact. Yes, a few of my posts were short and temperamental, but I slept on it and I like to think, did a better job of explaining myself this morning. No one is infallible. Least of all me.

I fail to see how what CL has said is an example of special pleading. The argument from evil basically states that God would not allow gratuitous evil, that is, evil that is not otherwise necessary. She has clearly elucidated the defense that she does not believe God has allowed unnecessary suffering, that he has a reason for its necessity which is consistent with a greater good. She has also said that she doesn't know what that reason is.

Nowhere in this do I see any special pleading. Could you be a little more precise in specifying your objection?

(March 9, 2016 at 11:34 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

LadyForCamus Wrote:Wow, well thanks for clarifying.  Glad I wasted my time.

Good on you for cyber-bullying her enough to get her to agree with anything you say rather than waste her time trying to defend herself. You're a credit to something, I'm sure.

It's easy to pass judgement when you were...well, where the fuck were you during this discussion?

I see a god who people believe in, he is said to be all-powerful, and he lets others do his work because he doesn't want to get his hands dirty.

I see a forum member who represents himself as a superhero, but never took a hard line on any issue, and he struts in to preen after others have gotten their hands dirty.

Sometimes justice really is more important than somebody's precious feelings, and arrogant special pleading should not be indefinitely overlooked just because the theist in question is cute and smooth. This means sometimes good people need to get their hands dirty.

(March 9, 2016 at 12:04 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: I fail to see how what CL has said is an example of special pleading. The argument from evil basically states that God would not allow gratuitous evil, that is, evil that is not otherwise necessary. She has clearly elucidated the defense that she does not believe God has allowed unnecessary suffering, that he has a reason for its necessity which is consistent with a greater good. She has also said that she doesn't know what that reason is.

Nowhere in this do I see any special pleading. Could you be a little more precise in specifying your objection?

Is it not special pleading in the context of an asserted objective morality? If we, as empathetic human beings (most of us) would not tolerate the allowance of harm against the innocent for a 'greater good' here on earth under any circumstances (and I think this would reflect what CL thinks God himself teaches us), but then make an excuse for God to do -just that- via some magical reason we can't think of, is that NOT special pleading? If I am wrong with regards to a logical fallacy I will humbly stand corrected.

(March 9, 2016 at 11:59 am)Whateverist the White Wrote: Here it is:

Quote:Objective morality has been discussed many times on these forums, and many times by me. A lot of times I feel like I have a hard time trying to explain objective morality or why objective morality makes sense to me, which in turn helps make the existence of a god make sense to me. It isn't the only reason by far, but it is part of it. 

I saw this short video today and thought Kreeft summed up all my thoughts in a way that I never felt I could accurately do. 

I don't agree with the part where he says people "think they are atheists", but as for his explanation of morality, I couldn't have put it better myself. 

https://www.prageru.com/courses/religion...-evil-come

Whether you agree or not, it's still an interesting issue to discuss.

I read this as someone inviting people she trusts to discuss with her something she knows she is in the minority on where they are concerned.  She doesn't make any brash claims but neither does she disown what she in fact believes .. and perhaps is wrestling with.  I don't think special pleading applies here.

That's fair. And to your point, I was very happy to respectfully disagree with her on the subject of her logic a few pages ago and not belabor the point, but she insisted that I, personally, accused her of believing rape is okay. Which I do not. I felt it was important for me to explain to her that I DO NOT think that. I don't know how to make that any more clear here.

I think her feelings were hurt that the people she thought of as friends would treat her so curtly. Part of what makes her so endearing is the vulnerability she displays. That requires risk. I think she got more than she bargained for. Hopefully she'll just heal and bounce back. Sure do enjoy having her around.

LadyForCamus Wrote:

Mister Agenda Wrote:That's a question I can't answer for you. You've gone way beyond anything I would do in an argument, and I don't understand it at all. And I don't consider myself particularly kind online. Sometimes the things I say are an abuse of sarcasm.

Perhaps I should pursue this until I get you to admit I'm right or give up on interacting with me?

If you read my posts I actually did the exact opposite of giving up interacting with her.  I extended an unconditional invitation for further discussion, in fact.  Yes, a few of my posts were short and temperamental, but I slept on it and I like to think, did a better job of explaining myself this morning.  No one is infallible.  Least of all me.

Seeing as that's kind of the opposite of what I was getting at: you kept at her until she gave up on interacting with you, maybe you shouldn't be so confident in your ability to interpret what other people believe based on what they say. My proposal was that I hound you about this until you give up on interacting with me. I was in no way accusing you of giving up on interacting with CL.

And assuming that I would not have the position I have unless I had not read the thread speaks to your style of assigning failures on the part of your interlocuters as the most likely explanation for them not sharing your point of view.

I'm sure there are lots of people more fallible than you, I may be among them. It's not like I looked at your posts to CL and thought   'there goes Lady of Camus again, harassing people'. I wouldn't take the time for someone who hadn't given me reason to expect better.