Thank you Valkyre and Boru.

(November 20, 2017 at 7:26 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(November 20, 2017 at 6:37 pm)Bow Before Zeus Wrote: I prefer to be locked in a room with Person C who is incapable of having any violent thoughts. That way I am guaranteed that he will not act in a violent manner.

That's cheating. The purpose of the thought experiment was to gauge the ethical relevance of thoughts vs actions. C'mon A or B. Which is it?

But your person A/B experiment is not a fair experiment. Clearly B is the preference because he follows his unethical thinking with ethical thinking. So ethical thoughts win out again. I'm still choosing the person that has more ethical thinking processes.

The point I was trying to make is that the person with the most ethical thought processes (ie has 100% ethical thoughts and 0% unethical thoughts) is the best preference as he is uncapable of any unwholesome words/actions. Purely because of his different thought processes - ie ethical only thought processes.

Neo-Scholastic<snipped for focus>

Quote:I agree completely. Dawkins has a very good reputation as a biologist but he is a very poor theologian and/or philosopher.

Biologists generally aren’t inclined to study theology. The reasons why should be pretty obvious.

Quote:...Alvin Plantinga...

Is this the argument from sophisticated theology I smell?

Do this: Knowledge of God
Download and open it in whatever PDF reader you use. Now with the sidebar open, scroll up and down till you get fed up, then click a random page.
Do you understand it, can you even read it?
Do it again, scroll up or down and click a page.
Do you understand it, can you even read it?

Welcome to the seriously fucked up world of theology, sophisticated or otherwise.
<Snip>

Quote:So one way to argue that proper function can be accommodated by
naturalism is to give an analysis of proper function in terms of properties that
are naturalistically acceptable. To give an analysis of a concept or property
(or relation), furthermore, is at least to give necessary and sufficient conditions
for it. 26 Suppose P is the property in question: to give an analysis of P is first of
all to suggest some other (possibly complex) property Q, such that it is neces-
sary in the broadly logical sense that a thing has that property P if it has the
property Q, and necessary that it has P only if it has Q. That is, the analyzans
(the analysis) must be necessary and sufficient for the analyzandum (the prop-
erty or relation to be analyzed). Consider, for example, the traditional analysis
of knowledge as justified true belief:

I swear on my eyes I chose that page at random.
Now tell me, how many Christians 'are' Christians due to reading Alvin Plantinga? As opposed to being Christians via having the silver chain yoked around their necks at four years old?

Analyzandum? Jesus glue sniffing Christ.

(November 20, 2017 at 11:37 pm)Succubus Wrote: Neo-Scholastic<snipped for focus>

Quote:I agree completely. Dawkins has a very good reputation as a biologist but he is a very poor theologian and/or philosopher.

Biologists generally aren’t inclined to study theology. The reasons why should be pretty obvious.

Quote:...Alvin Plantinga...

Is this the argument from sophisticated theology I smell?

Do this: Knowledge of God
Download and open it in whatever PDF reader you use. Now with the sidebar open, scroll up and down till you get fed up, then click a random page.
Do you understand it, can you even read it?
Do it again, scroll up or down and click a page.
Do you understand it, can you even read it?

Welcome to the seriously fucked up world of theology, sophisticated or otherwise.
<Snip>

Quote:So one way to argue that proper function can be accommodated by
naturalism is to give an analysis of proper function in terms of properties that
are naturalistically acceptable. To give an analysis of a concept or property
(or relation), furthermore, is at least to give necessary and sufficient conditions
for it. 26 Suppose P is the property in question: to give an analysis of P is first of
all to suggest some other (possibly complex) property Q, such that it is neces-
sary in the broadly logical sense that a thing has that property P if it has the
property Q, and necessary that it has P only if it has Q. That is, the analyzans
(the analysis) must be necessary and sufficient for the analyzandum (the prop-
erty or relation to be analyzed). Consider, for example, the traditional analysis
of knowledge as justified true belief:

I swear on my eyes I chose that page at random.
Now tell me, how many Christians 'are' Christians due to reading Alvin Plantinga? As opposed to being Christians via having the silver chain yoked around their necks at four years old?

Analyzandum? Jesus glue sniffing Christ.

So I think that paragraph is saying that an analysis has to be as complex as its subject. Which is kind of obvious and I have no idea why it's phrased like this aside from trying to lose readers so that it can claim anyone who doesn't agree is just to stupid to understand.

(November 20, 2017 at 8:43 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Thank you Valkyre and Boru.

De nada, ducks. You're a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You're clearly among the faithful and (I assume) had a religious upbringing, and seem to be no more maladjusted than the rest of us. 

Except for the poo fixation, of course. 

Boru

(November 19, 2017 at 8:40 am)Bow Before Zeus Wrote: I have a personal story about this. My oldest daughter went to a catholic primary school for the first 2 years of her schooling. The intention was to enrol my younger daughter in the catholic school as well when she was old enough. One day my older daughter came home from school and started talking to me about the 14 stations of the cross. Anyone know what that is? I didn't at the time so I googled it. What I found shook me to the core. These intellectually handicapped adults were brainwashing my child to become as intellectually handicapped as them - in short, child abuse!

From another thread:

Quote:But seriously, both my daughters went to Anglican-based very expensive private schools. Ok, don't ask questions it just happened, ok? There were secular options but I blame myself for not enrolling them there. It is what it is.

So you knowingly abused your own children by enrolling them in another Christian school, after having the first epiphany...

Like i said. I'm pretty sure this person is a troll and just pulling obnoxious BS out of his ass.

The crazy thing is the handful of posters who are actually taking him seriously and agreeing with him, kudosing his posts, etc.

(November 20, 2017 at 7:21 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: But look at the people you meet every day - the bus driver, the girl who hands you the fizzy drink and the burger through the little window, the neighbor who works two jobs to feed her three kids, your doctor, your solicitor, the bloke who walks dogs for a living, that cop who gave you the ticket.

Well I used to think that. If we're talking about personal experience then the thing that actually prompt me to be more active as an atheist is when I saw all those people you mention standing up against gay marriage with no other reason but because they heard it from their priests. Not just that but vile fairy tale stories about how wicked homosexuals are. It scared me, to be frank, because who knows who is next. Jews? I tell you I became aware that there is something more disturbing in them under the surface.

(November 21, 2017 at 12:00 am)shadow Wrote: Is this the argument from sophisticated theology I smell?

Do this: Knowledge of God
Download and open it in whatever PDF reader you use. Now with the sidebar open, scroll up and down till you get fed up, then click a random page.
Do you understand it, can you even read it?
Do it again, scroll up or down and click a page.
Do you understand it, can you even read it?

Welcome to the seriously fucked up world of theology, sophisticated or otherwise.

The proper way to read a scholarly work is from beginning to end, taking notes, and occasionally consulting references. Scanning for content is a poor way to read anything serious, even on the internet. You might want to consider that your study habits are insufficient for educating yourself beyond the most shallow understanding.

(November 21, 2017 at 12:00 am)shadow Wrote: Now tell me, how many Christians 'are' Christians due to reading Alvin Plantinga? As opposed to being Christians via having the silver chain yoked around their necks at four years old?

While that may not be the most common path to conversion, it does happen. At the same time there is nothing wrong with being born into a tradition, exploring it deeply, and weighting it on its merits. People like that, the kind who don't just scan for content that confirms what they already believe, are not the kind who just accept what has been presented to them. YMMV

(November 21, 2017 at 9:22 am)Fake Messiah Wrote:

(November 20, 2017 at 7:21 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: But look at the people you meet every day - the bus driver, the girl who hands you the fizzy drink and the burger through the little window, the neighbor who works two jobs to feed her three kids, your doctor, your solicitor, the bloke who walks dogs for a living, that cop who gave you the ticket.

Well I used to think that. If we're talking about personal experience then the thing that actually prompt me to be more active as an atheist is when I saw all those people you mention standing up against gay marriage with no other reason but because they heard it from their priests. Not just that but vile fairy tale stories about how wicked homosexuals are. It scared me, to be frank, because who knows who is next. Jews? I tell you I became aware that there is something more disturbing in them under the surface.

What's your point? You may not agree with some theists' views on legalizing gay marriage (considering not all of us are against it), but that doesn't mean those individuals are abused, maladjusted people who can't make their way in the world.