RE: Atheism and morality
July 8, 2013 at 10:32 pm
(This post was last modified: July 8, 2013 at 10:38 pm by Inigo.)
(July 8, 2013 at 9:52 pm)Creed of Heresy Wrote:(July 8, 2013 at 5:16 pm)Inigo Wrote: I'm not even going to read a quote from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is written by people like you. YOu might as well quote your diary at me or show me the picture you made at school with a potato and some crayons.
You're right, it IS written by people like me; it's written by people who must cite sources that must be peer-reviewed and considered valid by the community of thought associated with it. The fact you have a problem with it is already a clear indicator of just how likely you are to change your mind from your stubborn, unfounded stance.
Quote:But I can tell already that the quote above is referring to the development of moral phenomena, not morality itself and so is completely beside the point.
You're arguing that morality must have a basis in some goddess of some kind or another, yet when I cite a source that itself cites sources from numerous biological scientists who state that the cause of evolution is actually an evolutionary reaction to our being a socially-dependent species, which is something that fits with observations of other such species in nature, you immediately dismiss it and say that it's beside the point. ...OK. Yeah. I can see where the fuck this is going.
Quote:Anyway, you admitted that you had trouble understanding my arguments and wondered whether the problem was with you or me. It's you.
Interesting that you seem so very, very certain of this. Your post reeks of someone who just immediately assumes they must be right because they feel it in their gut without going back and thinking about whether or not they've fucked up. I have my answer on that, now. That was a test to see if you'd review yourself to determine the validity of your argument, and you failed miserably. That alone is enough to convince me this is not a "debate" as you claim but just you taking a stance and refusing to budge no matter how much it fails against every definition of logical discourse. This is just you having a mental jerkoff session in public, little else, it's not a debate, don't besmirch the name of debate with this fallacious garbage, that's just insulting to everyone who actually enjoys taking part in genuine debate and intellectual discourse.
Quote:If you found those arguments difficult to follow then I'm afraid you fall below the threshold level of intelligence needed to engage in profitable debate and you should resign from this discussion at once.
Ad hominem fallacy. Fallacy, fallacy, fallacy, your entire thought process is one big giant fucking fallacy of logic. There is no "debate" with you, just you running around in circles trying to square them and refusing to hear any points that aren't compatible with your narrow interpretations while you desperately try to convince everyone that your logic is totally valid even though it runs contrary to the very definition of logic and is wholly incompatible with actual debate, and is instead defined more as pointless, baseless argument, which I'm sorry but I'm just not interested in partaking. I'm going to resign myself from the discussion, alright, but not because I "fall below the threshold of intelligence" [and do tell me, what WAS this imaginary threshold, exactly? Or is it just something fictitious you invented to make you feel better about yourself, ya smug fuck?], but rather because screaming at a brick wall doesn't do anything, I've found.
(July 8, 2013 at 6:24 pm)Inigo Wrote: I am not a theist. I use the term 'theist' to refer to someone who believes in the existence of a creator god who is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly morally good. THe god I believe in is NONE of those things.
What fucking dictionary are YOU using?! Oh, right, the dictionary of whatever the fuck you feel, not a dictionary based in reality. Kind of like your entire fucking argument
Quote:the·ism
[thee-iz-uhm]
noun
1.
the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism ).
2.
belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism ).
You believe in a god? You're a theist. Deal with it. You clearly have no fucking clue what the fuck you are talking about. EVERYTHING you say reeks of someone just speaking from their gut with no basis for it whatsoever.
Yeah, fuck this, y'all have fun with this guy, I just can't take him seriously.
How can you show my argument to be faulty by citing a 'source' on something unrelated? It doesn't make sense. You might as well cite a 'source' saying that Apple pies contain apples. Yes, that may well be the case, but how's that relevant to my case?
I explained that all you are doing is talking about the development of our moral sensations and beliefs. I'm not challenging that. All of that is entirely consistent with everything I'm arguing.
one can cite similar sources on the development of our sense of religion too. Would that show god to exist? Of course not.
Basically, you're not even addressing the arguments I have given.
Re theism - I am not a theist because I do not believe in a creator god who is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good. And that is what I understand the word 'theist' to mean. If you do not, bully for you. I don't care. Put whatever label on me you want, but I don't put that label on me.
Oh, if you crave authorities telling you about what terms means (which is quite beyond me - once someone has told you what they mean by a term that's really all you need to know, the rest is just semantics) here's Robin LePoidevin in is book 'Arguing for Atheism': Theism: "In its most minimal form, the hypothesis that there is a creator of the universe. Tradiitonal forms of theism have also ascribed omnipotence, omniscience, perfect goodness and benevolence to the creator. Theistic discourse consists of statements which assumre, or appear to assume the truth of theism".
THe god I am arguing morality presupposes is not the creator of the universe, not omniscient, not omnipotent, not perfectly good. OR at least, I see no reason to accord her such features. I am therefore NOT a theist on this usage. Like I say, describe me differently if you wish, the label doesn't matter. But I use the term 'theism' in its traditional sense. Okay!!
(July 8, 2013 at 9:52 pm)Creed of Heresy Wrote: Ad hominem fallacy. Fallacy, fallacy, fallacy, your entire thought process is one big giant fucking fallacy of logic. There is no "debate" with you, just you running around in circles trying to square them and refusing to hear any points that aren't compatible with your narrow interpretations while you desperately try to convince everyone that your logic is totally valid even though it runs contrary to the very definition of logic and is wholly incompatible with actual debate, and is instead defined more as pointless, baseless argument, which I'm sorry but I'm just not interested in partaking.
One does not commit the ad hominem fallacy merely by insulting someone. I can insult you all day, I won't be guilty of committing the fallacy. I will be guilty of committing the fallacy if I infer that a conclusion of some argument you've offered is faulty due to some feature of you, rather than some feature of the argument. I haven't done that. I've just insulted you. That makes me rude. It doesn't make my arguments fallacious.
