Pissing match!
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!
Current time: December 26, 2024, 12:56 pm
Thread Rating:
Litmus test
|
(December 3, 2012 at 10:20 am)DoktorZ Wrote: Scumbags find me everywhere I go. I'm like a bloody magnet to them. Then don't play the guitar http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rozGElzqD1M (December 3, 2012 at 9:57 am)jonb Wrote: @ worldslaziestbusker From what I gathered so far, he is trying to impose his system of logic onto all atheists mainly because he agrees with Kant's concept of categorical imperative. That is the litmus test he is speaking of. Laziestbusker outlined it here, but I think he should have mentioned this concept in the OP as well. A short description: Quote:Since by nature (according to Kant) the moral law is universal and impartial and rational, the categorical is a way of formulating the criteria by which any action can pass the test of universality, impartiality, and rationality. That is its only function. http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/p...rative.htm (December 3, 2012 at 11:12 am)jonb Wrote:(December 3, 2012 at 10:20 am)DoktorZ Wrote: Scumbags find me everywhere I go. I'm like a bloody magnet to them. Rumbled!
I'm always in search for faith-free spaces. Let's make them, enlarge them, and enjoy them!
Bertrand Russell quotes! Americans United for the Separation of Church and State -- if you haven't joined their Facebook page, do so by all means. RE: Litmus test
December 3, 2012 at 11:31 am
(This post was last modified: December 3, 2012 at 11:34 am by jonb.)
Rayaan, I know what he is trying to cage me into, but Kant's and his definition of what maybe rational does not fit my own. Further it seems that he is insisting his definition is universal, and therefore all the rest of us should have no voice. In my book that is just moving from one church to another.
Yeah, he tends to be insisting that his definition is universal and that everyone should follow that (which falls in line with Kant's philosophy).
Then again, it would be unwise of me criticize that since I'm a religious person myself. I don't want to be hypocritical here. (December 3, 2012 at 11:47 am)Rayaan Wrote: Yeah, he tends to be insisting that his definition is universal and that everyone should follow that (which falls in line with Kant's philosophy). Precisely, so to enforce one system of logic from one viewpoint would bias the interaction. As such we have to accept a level of incoherence, if we are to meet equally, and are reliant on good staff to administer the problems of that incoherence. And I think it is being done well. Have I sucked up to the staff enough now? (December 3, 2012 at 12:19 pm)Rayaan Wrote:(December 3, 2012 at 12:01 pm)jonb Wrote: Have I sucked up to the staff enough now? So you were just using me? I feel so cheep. (December 3, 2012 at 12:38 pm)jonb Wrote: So you were just using me? No, don't feel that way jonb. I was simply replying to you, nothing else. You made a compliment about the staff and that was good. Thanks. Your "Have I sucked up to the staff enough now" question - was a humorous question - so I thought it would be funny to ignore that. Maybe you didn't get the same impression, though. Sorry. Also, my internet connection was having a weak signal for like the last 45 minutes. My brother was lagging my connection by playing Counter Strike on a different computer; hence I wasn't able to post this response either. |
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Possibly Related Threads... | |||||
Thread | Author | Replies | Views | Last Post | |
Theist Litmus Test | eric209 | 0 | 1026 |
June 13, 2011 at 7:39 pm Last Post: eric209 |
Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)