(July 10, 2013 at 1:12 pm)Inigo Wrote: I think I'm the only one here who genuinely doesn't give a toss what you want to call stuff. Call yourself whatever you want, all I'm interested in is what evidence you can provide to support your beliefs.

Call yourself a theist. Or a deist. Or an atheist. Or anything. it doesn't matter. What matters is whether there is any evidence supporting your belief. it doesn't matter what you label the belief. That won't alter the credibility of your evidence.

Of course, it matters for the purposes of communication that we are clear how we are using labels. But once someone has told you how they are using a label you know what you need to know on that front.

I agree. You are the only one here who doesn't care about calling things what they are. Others set greater stock in using the correct labels for appropriate concepts.

(July 10, 2013 at 1:09 pm)genkaus Wrote:

(July 10, 2013 at 1:05 pm)Inigo Wrote: I didn't define it as 'presupposing god'. I defined it as 'instructions and favourings that have inescapable rational authority'. Idiot.

And given that you refer to that external inescapable rational authority as god - I guess you are presupposing it.

No, I refer to instructions that have inescapable rational authority as 'moral' instructions. I have argued that only the instructions of a god would have those features and therefore that morality presupposes a god.
You must either show me to be mistaken about that or else make sure that you never use the term 'morality' to refer to instructions that have inescapable rational authority. Nothing stops you doing that and I don't mind in the least if you do.

I have a sneaking suspicion the Indigo is trying to "win" this argument by simply having the last word. A tactic favoured by my dad who, in his mind, has never lost an argument by the filibustering technique of speaking louder and longer than anyone else

If Indigo had had a strong case then we would have seen some movement by now, but his argument is laughably pathetic and was destroyed in the first few responses.

(July 10, 2013 at 1:19 pm)Inigo Wrote: No, I refer to instructions that have inescapable rational authority as 'moral' instructions.

And where precisely are these instructions that have (external) inescapable rational authority that you claim exist, and that your argument hinges upon?

Your argument fails upon that point if you can't demonstrate that it is so. As far as I can tell, it ain't so.

(July 10, 2013 at 1:19 pm)Inigo Wrote: No, I refer to instructions that have inescapable rational authority as 'moral' instructions. I have argued that only the instructions of a god would have those features and therefore that morality presupposes a god.
You must either show me to be mistaken about that or else make sure that you never use the term 'morality' to refer to instructions that have inescapable rational authority. Nothing stops you doing that and I don't mind in the least if you do.

No one "must" do any such thing. Do your own work. It's already been pointed out to you all the ways one might contest any premise or assertion in your argument, or how one could accept a premise and still not end up with a god multiple times. That's what you'll have to acknowledge and deal with to keep this a two way convo. Otherwise you're just repeating yourself, talking -at- people and not -with- them. If we could force something to be so by brute force of droning the world might be a very different place.

To recap, just in case.

You've been unable to attach any measure of truth or accuracy to the premise or assertions of the first argument. It seems to be an attempt at argument by definition. Not that this matters, as one can accept the premise and god does not follow. Your second argument hinges upon all of the blunders and incompetence in the first, as such it's transparent as a means to sweep your inability to to form this "powerful" moral argument under the rug.

(July 10, 2013 at 1:12 pm)Inigo Wrote: So you accept that gmorality presupposes a god? I assume the answer is 'yes'

Yes.

(July 10, 2013 at 1:12 pm)Inigo Wrote: and that you think that by re-labelling you can somehow undermine my case.

No. I know that by relabeling it I show that your intended case - that atheism is incompatible with morality - doesn't exist.

(July 10, 2013 at 1:12 pm)Inigo Wrote: No, because the label doesn't matter.

Unless you are posting the definition in each and every post so as not to accidentally deceive someone who hasn't waded through 48 pages to look for your redefinition - it matters very much.

(July 10, 2013 at 1:12 pm)Inigo Wrote: I've shown that instructions and favourings that possess inescapable rational authority require a god.

Don't forget external. Remember, you can't presuppose god without an external agent.

(July 10, 2013 at 1:12 pm)Inigo Wrote: Now, so long as you really do use the term 'morality' to refer to something other than instructions and favourings that possess inescapable rational authority, then you can safely say that I have not shown you that what YOU label 'morality' presupposes a god.

And given that nobody other than you uses the term to mean "external instructions possessing inescapable rational authority" you have not shown anyone what everyone labels as 'morality' presupposes a god.

(July 10, 2013 at 1:12 pm)Inigo Wrote: But that doesn't matter because I'm interested in analysing what Kant, Socrates, Plato and others were talking about. And that WAS instructions and favourings that possess inescapable rational authority.

Wrong. Nobody defines morality like that. None of them define morality as "external instructions possessing inescapable rational authority". The closest would be Kant - who did argue for inescapable rational authority - but his moral instructions were internally formulated.

---

(July 10, 2013 at 1:19 pm)Inigo Wrote: No, I refer to instructions that have inescapable rational authority as 'moral' instructions. I have argued that only the instructions of a god would have those features and therefore that morality presupposes a god.

That's precisely what I said you did. You start by defining it with a feature that could only come from an agent who you'd call god and then go on to show that it presupposes god. That's called begging the question.

(July 10, 2013 at 1:12 pm)Inigo Wrote: I think I'm the only one here who genuinely doesn't give a toss what you want to call stuff. Call yourself whatever you want, all I'm interested in is what evidence you can provide to support your beliefs.

Why should someone that doesn't believe in a god have to give evidence for that denial of belief? If you tell me there's an invisible unicorn behind you, I'm not going to give you evidence as to why I don't take you at your word.

(July 10, 2013 at 1:12 pm)Inigo Wrote:

(July 10, 2013 at 12:14 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: It matters that we're all talking about the same thing. I doubt anyone really gives a toss what you want to call stuff.

I think I'm the only one here who genuinely doesn't give a toss what you want to call stuff. Call yourself whatever you want, all I'm interested in is what evidence you can provide to support your beliefs.

Call yourself a theist. Or a deist. Or an atheist. Or anything. it doesn't matter. What matters is whether there is any evidence supporting your belief. it doesn't matter what you label the belief. That won't alter the credibility of your evidence.

Of course, it matters for the purposes of communication that we are clear how we are using labels. But once someone has told you how they are using a label you know what you need to know on that front.

The root of your evidence is based upon an assumption. One which I can concur holds true for me too. I believe mine to be a solid presupposition producing the only viable outcome which describes this reality. From that position I conclude that atheism is false.

it'd be nice to be anonymous, but then that leaves us in the theoretical. Our beliefs impact on our daily lives and so are more important to us than that.

I agree that you have pretty much thoroughly defined your meanings now and we should move on.

How's about you compose a belief statement for your profile so that we can appreciate your position fully?

(July 10, 2013 at 3:24 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: How's about you compose a belief statement for your profile so that we can appreciate your position fully?

This. And also, believing in god is synonymous with having faith in him, so your current title is an oxymoron, Inigo.

Think he means faith in the specific, as in, doesn't have a (christian/muslim/hindu/breakfast pastries) faith.