RE: Russia embraces religious intolerance with draconian blasphemy and anti-gay laws
July 10, 2013 at 11:21 pm
I've just had an epiphany. It always seemed to me like Presuppositionalism was dancing on the edge of solipsism. I now realize my perception was wrong. Presuppositionalism *IS* solipsism with an absurd twist.
They begin with solipsism as the basis for their "philosophy" but then carve out a special exception for themselves. This special exception is based upon the bare assertion that their god bails them out, using a contrived definition of their god as the being that bails them out, thus enabling them to arrive at their desired conclusion that their god exists.
In sum, it's solipsism but with a bunch of logical fallacies piled on top.
But then, isn't this the essence of religion?
Step 1: Create a problem that doesn't exist.
Step 2: Posit your god as the solution for said problem.
But then, I'm probably "whining" about religion again. I'm not sure how my criticism constitutes "whining" exactly, but since he feels he's entitled to redefine "objective" to suit his needs, he can be expected to redefine other words as well.
Generating new clients IS generating sales. However, a salesman who could not gain new clients might still claim to be a "good salesman" if he can show an increase in sales for his efforts. For example, he could recover lost accounts or cross-sell to existing accounts. All of this is would provide objective data to support his subjective evaluation that he is a "good" salesman.
The point of this analogy, which seems utterly lost on you, is that (let me put this in bold for your benefit)...
not all subjective opinions are equal.
Some subjective opinions are supported by rational argument and objective data. Others are not. In my analogy, the salesman has nothing to show for his efforts and so my assessment that he's a bad salesman, though a subjective assessment, is on stronger grounds than his assertion to the contrary, which has nothing to support it aside from his bare assertions.
Now you continue to argue that the hypothetical salesman's subjective assessment of himself is just as valid as contrary opinions despite the fact that objective data supports one opinion and not the other. This only serves to underscore the problems with discussing philosophy with a solipsist. The problems with discussing philosophy with a presuppositionalist is a variation on that theme. Where the solipsist will respond to all your arguments with "nuh-uh", the presuppositionalist will respond to all your arguments with "nuh-uh, unless you believe in my favorite sky-daddy".
When have I said that?
I've already stated the reasons I believe in moral subjectivism is because morality can't be represented in numbers or plugged into a spreadsheet. You can't measure morality the same way you can measure temperature, mass or velocity. Discussions about whether an action was moral or immoral require judgment, not measurement.
That said, not all subjective evaluations are equal. The entire point of my salesman analogy is that some evaluations are supported by reason and objective data where others are not. This is a point completely lost on you because you're a solipsist with a twist.
This is, by the way, the second time you've employed this strawman and the second time I've corrected you. I trust there won't be a third?
Climbed, flagged, point hopelessly lost on you and we're moving on.
Infants do evidently think and feel.
One thing does allow me to break the circle: the argument you offer is also hypocritical. It involves a double-standard that is not justified.
You still haven't justified your double-standard. The burden of proof is on you to do so. If you can't, my single-standard is less complex and therefore a more solid and defensible evaluation. Remember how not all subjective evaluations are equal?
It is my opinion that the current outdoor temperature in the town in which I live is 74 degrees Fahrenheit. My objective opinion happens to be correct.
And naturally your interpretation is the correct one and everyone else is getting it wrong.
You have no "proof", unless you've redefined this word as well.
What you have are bare assertions and contrived definitions that you utilize to work backwards toward your desired conclusion. The very fact that you rely heavily upon hack philosophy underscores how you have jack to offer as proof.
Christianity has no storehouse of magical artifacts like Paul's magic handkerchiefs. It can't offer any repeatable demonstrations like healing the sick or casting out demons. It can't produce either booming voices from the sky or angels visiting humans. All of these things exist in the holy book you claim represents reality (and the being that created it) and yet all of these things are conspicuously missing now that we have the technology to both record and broadcast them all over the world.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence but you offer no evidence of any kind, much less proof. All you offer is hack philosophy and so you fail to meet your burden of proof before anyone even responds.
They begin with solipsism as the basis for their "philosophy" but then carve out a special exception for themselves. This special exception is based upon the bare assertion that their god bails them out, using a contrived definition of their god as the being that bails them out, thus enabling them to arrive at their desired conclusion that their god exists.
In sum, it's solipsism but with a bunch of logical fallacies piled on top.
But then, isn't this the essence of religion?
Step 1: Create a problem that doesn't exist.
Step 2: Posit your god as the solution for said problem.
But then, I'm probably "whining" about religion again. I'm not sure how my criticism constitutes "whining" exactly, but since he feels he's entitled to redefine "objective" to suit his needs, he can be expected to redefine other words as well.
(July 10, 2013 at 5:23 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: It’s interesting that you have now changed the definition of a good salesman from one who generates new clients to one that generates sales; it’s amusing that you cannot keep your own analogous proof straight.
Generating new clients IS generating sales. However, a salesman who could not gain new clients might still claim to be a "good salesman" if he can show an increase in sales for his efforts. For example, he could recover lost accounts or cross-sell to existing accounts. All of this is would provide objective data to support his subjective evaluation that he is a "good" salesman.
The point of this analogy, which seems utterly lost on you, is that (let me put this in bold for your benefit)...
not all subjective opinions are equal.
Some subjective opinions are supported by rational argument and objective data. Others are not. In my analogy, the salesman has nothing to show for his efforts and so my assessment that he's a bad salesman, though a subjective assessment, is on stronger grounds than his assertion to the contrary, which has nothing to support it aside from his bare assertions.
Now you continue to argue that the hypothetical salesman's subjective assessment of himself is just as valid as contrary opinions despite the fact that objective data supports one opinion and not the other. This only serves to underscore the problems with discussing philosophy with a solipsist. The problems with discussing philosophy with a presuppositionalist is a variation on that theme. Where the solipsist will respond to all your arguments with "nuh-uh", the presuppositionalist will respond to all your arguments with "nuh-uh, unless you believe in my favorite sky-daddy".
Quote:you must first demonstrate that humans have a specific and intrinsic purpose and duty in life.Why?
Quote:Yet, the only reason you seem to ascribe to moral subjectivism is because several philosophers you’ve clearly never read also do.
When have I said that?
I've already stated the reasons I believe in moral subjectivism is because morality can't be represented in numbers or plugged into a spreadsheet. You can't measure morality the same way you can measure temperature, mass or velocity. Discussions about whether an action was moral or immoral require judgment, not measurement.
That said, not all subjective evaluations are equal. The entire point of my salesman analogy is that some evaluations are supported by reason and objective data where others are not. This is a point completely lost on you because you're a solipsist with a twist.
This is, by the way, the second time you've employed this strawman and the second time I've corrected you. I trust there won't be a third?
Quote:Contracts are only binding if all parties know what is in them, has the ability to agree to them or opt out of them; so where is this social contract? How does one agree to it? If any such contract did exist (which you have not proven one does) it still does not demonstrate that we ought to treat others as we want to be treated. You’ve got quite the hill to climb.
Climbed, flagged, point hopelessly lost on you and we're moving on.
Quote:I thought we were supposed to treat others how we want to be treated?I've never asked for undeserved respect. I do not expect it from others. I thus feel quite comfortable in mocking positions which earn no respect.
Quote:You’ve given me plenty of arbitrary reasons or opinions, but arbitrary reasons and opinions are meaningless. Morality deriving from God is not only meaningful and useful, but as you have helped to demonstrate it’s the only definition of morality that is logically defensible.We've already been all over why GodWillsIt is neither meaningful nor useful, points have been lost on you and we're moving on.
Quote:How do you know that’s the criteria? Did you just make that up? People are not self-aware until around two years old; do infants therefore not have existential rights?
Infants do evidently think and feel.
Quote:Because it is generally harmful to others and typically not how we wish to be treated by one another.
Quote:Nice circular rationalization! For being the boy who cried circularity on this forum you sure don’t seem to avoid it in your own reasoning.
- It’s morally wrong to treat others how we do not want to be treated
- Why?
- Because that makes you a hypocrite
- Why is being a hypocrite wrong?
- Because it’s being dishonest
- Why is being dishonest wrong?
- Because it’s treating others how we do not want to be treated
- Why is treating others differently than you want to be treated morally wrong? (Return to the Top)
One thing does allow me to break the circle: the argument you offer is also hypocritical. It involves a double-standard that is not justified.
Quote:Quote:Double standards like the kind you hypothetically suggest require justification. Why is it OK for you to persecute atheists but not for atheists to persecute you?
That’s not a principle of reasoning. If I want to better my life by treating others differently than I want to be treated, why is that morally wrong? Where does this moral obligation for sacrificing my greater good for the good of others come from?
You still haven't justified your double-standard. The burden of proof is on you to do so. If you can't, my single-standard is less complex and therefore a more solid and defensible evaluation. Remember how not all subjective evaluations are equal?
Quote:Not only this, but couldn’t god change the distance between two objects if He wanted to?Then the objective measure would change as reality changes. That would not make the measure of distance subjective.
Quote:Let’s look at the definition you keep using…
4. Not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion. (Webster’s)
Did you catch it? The example? An objective OPINION? Given your bizarre usage of the word, how could an opinion ever be objective since opinions derive from the mind?
It is my opinion that the current outdoor temperature in the town in which I live is 74 degrees Fahrenheit. My objective opinion happens to be correct.
Quote:The negation of that premise leads to the impossibility of all knowledge.So you "know" it's true that your god is the standard because if you didn't assert that your god is the standard you couldn't know anything? And that's how you "prove" that your god is the standard because if you didn't make that bare assertion, you make the bare assertion that you couldn't know anything?
Quote:We know of Yahweh through the things that are made and His revealed word, anything conceptualized beyond that is irrelevant.
And naturally your interpretation is the correct one and everyone else is getting it wrong.
Quote:I do not need evidence when I have proof.
You have no "proof", unless you've redefined this word as well.
What you have are bare assertions and contrived definitions that you utilize to work backwards toward your desired conclusion. The very fact that you rely heavily upon hack philosophy underscores how you have jack to offer as proof.
Christianity has no storehouse of magical artifacts like Paul's magic handkerchiefs. It can't offer any repeatable demonstrations like healing the sick or casting out demons. It can't produce either booming voices from the sky or angels visiting humans. All of these things exist in the holy book you claim represents reality (and the being that created it) and yet all of these things are conspicuously missing now that we have the technology to both record and broadcast them all over the world.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence but you offer no evidence of any kind, much less proof. All you offer is hack philosophy and so you fail to meet your burden of proof before anyone even responds.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
