Quote:Not having an answer that you would accept is not the same as having no answer.

No it's the fact you have no answer at all .

(October 19, 2017 at 11:53 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(October 19, 2017 at 10:23 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: My guess is that you screwed up the quote tags and fumbled the ball while trying to be clever.  That was Hammy that said that, not Whateverist.

My apologies to Whateverist. I guess no one else ever makes editting mistakes.

I see you're back into disingenuous cunt mode again.

(October 19, 2017 at 4:38 pm)Hammy Wrote:

(October 19, 2017 at 1:28 am)Whateverist Wrote: We disagree and it isn't because I think the stupid shit that fundies believe is worth discussing.  It is because I'm interested to hear why intelligent people who disagree with me think what they do.  Just because so many fundies are idiots doesn't mean everyone who disagrees with us is an idiot.

I don't think all theists are idiots but I do think all theism is idiotic. And hence not worth taking seriously.

My opinion is that you are misrepresenting what we actually disagree about. And you actually agree with me that theism is ridiculous and I am only suggesting we stop giving theism the benefit of the doubt. Hence why I see no problems with debating with theists when the subject isn't theism. When the subject is theism it's like debating whether Elvis is still alive: A total waste of time and energy. Humoring the belief that Elvis is still alive by addressing that belief as if it's a belief worth debating... is what I am suggesting we stop doing. And my point is that humoring theism is the equivalent of that.

Probably.  I know I don't want to talk to fundies.  If that's all they've got then, yeah, pretty much a waste of time.

(October 19, 2017 at 8:04 pm)Whateverist Wrote:

(October 19, 2017 at 4:38 pm)Hammy Wrote: I don't think all theists are idiots but I do think all theism is idiotic. And hence not worth taking seriously.

My opinion is that you are misrepresenting what we actually disagree about. And you actually agree with me that theism is ridiculous and I am only suggesting we stop giving theism the benefit of the doubt. Hence why I see no problems with debating with theists when the subject isn't theism. When the subject is theism it's like debating whether Elvis is still alive: A total waste of time and energy. Humoring the belief that Elvis is still alive by addressing that belief as if it's a belief worth debating... is what I am suggesting we stop doing. And my point is that humoring theism is the equivalent of that.

Probably.  I know I don't want to talk to fundies.  If that's all they've got then, yeah, pretty much a waste of time.

But fundies are only more absurd pragmatically and morally. In logical terms of what they actually believe and the unreality of the truth-claims that they are incorrect to accept because those truth-claims are not true... the difference between a fundie's God and a moderate's God is like the difference between George Bush believing God speaks to him through a hairdryer and George Bush believing God speaks to him. Something being more cartoony doesn't in itself make it any more improbable or absurd.



So basically... we are wasting just as much time talking to moderates because they still believe in something as irrational as believing that Elvis is still alive. The only difference is that moderates are less bigoted and less literal about the Bible (or Koran, or whatever). And they are more likely to accept evolution, etc. They still have a ridiculously absurd core belief: What they believe in is still an imaginary friend that created the universe. Which is as absurd (perhaps more absurd) than believing that Elvis is still alive.

In fact... in some ways we're wasting our time MORE by talking to moderates. Because IF we DO have any chance of deconverting theists to atheism... it's the fundies that need to be deconverted the most as they tend to be more bigoted and harmful in their beliefs . . .

But that makes it sound as if every belief we hold is purely a cerebral matter. Not true in my experience. I'm still uninterested in converting theists to atheists. Humanity can often be disappointing but I insist on treating them as peers regardless.

I'm just explaining that even the most moderate theists believe in something as absurd (or even more absurd) as believing that Elvis is still alive. And we wouldn't waste our time debating that.

I'm fine with debating theists. But I want to remind myself not to debate theists about theism anymore.

(October 19, 2017 at 12:13 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(October 19, 2017 at 10:05 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: If I'm being charitable, the best I can interpret your answer is that you believe in a metaphysics in which things just "are" intrinsically good or bad.  That things are motivated to becoming by "essences" and "natures".  That God's "goodness" somehow communicates itself to the human intellect by "supernatural means".  It's an incoherent mess of medieval ideas that make no sense in light of our modern understanding of cause and effect, and natural law.  It's a throwback to a time when we were ignorant of the nature of things.  When instead of attributing a nut growing into an oak because of DNA and physics and chemistry, we postulated mysterious "essences of oak" that caused it to develop into an oak tree.

My general purpose is to recover necessary concepts that have been lost because of radical skepticism of the sort you peddle. You are not the only one that seems incapable of purging herself of the language of teleology and essential properties. Are you really going to try to tell me that an electron doesn't have a nature? Or that the form of an amino acid isn't just as important as it's chemical composition? Or that various composites do not have have unique dispositions? Without the connection between quantitative and qualitative properties there is no coherent way to understand anything because you've basically undermined the very notion that there actually are things, objects capable of existing independent of a knowing subject's interpretation. And yes it means something to be an oak as opposed to something else, just like it means something to be human, or an electron, or a star, or any other thing that is a thing.

Physical properties aren't analogous to moral properties. So you've just made a bunch of false analogies.

(October 19, 2017 at 10:27 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(October 19, 2017 at 12:13 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: My general purpose is to recover necessary concepts that have been lost because of radical skepticism of the sort you peddle. You are not the only one that seems incapable of purging herself of the language of teleology and essential properties. Are you really going to try to tell me that an electron doesn't have a nature? Or that the form of an amino acid isn't just as important as it's chemical composition? Or that various composites do not have have unique dispositions? Without the connection between quantitative and qualitative properties there is no coherent way to understand anything because you've basically undermined the very notion that there actually are things, objects capable of existing independent of a knowing subject's interpretation. And yes it means something to be an oak as opposed to something else, just like it means something to be human, or an electron, or a star, or any other thing that is a thing.

Physical properties aren't analogous to moral properties.  So you've just made a bunch of false analogies.

Most people are able to tell whether or not an object is a good example of its kind.

Is there a "good kind" of which god is a good example, or..is the good kind god?

Yup no matter what gods nature or descions can never be a basis for morality . This road is a dead end