Posts: 7568
Threads: 20
Joined: July 26, 2013
Reputation:
54
RE: Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?
May 21, 2015 at 5:20 pm
(May 21, 2015 at 5:16 pm)Anima Wrote: (May 21, 2015 at 5:05 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Good god you're either bring willfully dishonest or you're more dense than a diamond up Superman's ass.
Ha ha. Clearly you recognize the humor in the use of good god.
So...Why don't you believe in God? We hope for a better answer than because.
(yes I lay a trap for you. Please proceed governor.)
*Bolding mine*
It's like Wile E. Coyote just showed up to pitch the virtues of ACME products and his own superior bird catching skills.
Posts: 443
Threads: 3
Joined: May 21, 2015
Reputation:
6
RE: Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?
May 21, 2015 at 5:23 pm
(May 21, 2015 at 5:15 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: (May 21, 2015 at 4:56 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: If this is a subject you wish to pursue, you should start a thread in a more appropriate place: Atheism, Religion, or Philosophy. This is the introductions place, and the rules governing this part of the forum prevent me from fully expressing how utterly moronic your so-called line of reasoning is.  Okay first off. What about having an imaginary friend prevents moral utilitarianism? Also your example is wrong, under moral utilitarianism that is wrong because of the effect the society as a whole, the greatest number of people, as you would have to allow so that many can be skinned including people that enjoy it, so therefore since no one wants to be skinned it creates misery.
Having an imaginary friends allows for appeal to that friend as a trusted source of right and wrong that may contradict the argumentum ad numerum (argument to numbers) which utilitarianism relies.
Using the skinning example. So long as the total pleasure derived (pleasure per person)(number of persons) exceeds the suffering derived (suffering per person)(number of persons) the act may be termed pleasure/good and should be done.
It then follows that my "person" (which is fictitious) does not find this answer pleasing even though this answer is pleasing to the most people. As such we now pit aurgument ad numerum against argumentum ad autocratic (argument to authortiy) where the authority (in the atheist case) is the fictitious "person".
Naturally when what we BELIEVE is pitted against what we do not we tend to side with our own belief. Ergo, we will choose to follow our own authority rather than utility.
Posts: 23218
Threads: 26
Joined: February 2, 2010
Reputation:
106
RE: Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?
May 21, 2015 at 5:23 pm
(May 21, 2015 at 3:50 pm)Anima Wrote: Hello everyone;
I am interested in setting up a debate with someone regarding the need of an imaginary friend for morality. Please let me know if anyone is interested in participating in this debate in accordance with the rules specified. Thank you.
Shit, I was hoping we could debate the best string-gauge for a Gibson SG.
Posts: 443
Threads: 3
Joined: May 21, 2015
Reputation:
6
RE: Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?
May 21, 2015 at 5:26 pm
(May 21, 2015 at 5:20 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: (May 21, 2015 at 5:16 pm)Anima Wrote: Ha ha. Clearly you recognize the humor in the use of good god.
So...Why don't you believe in God? We hope for a better answer than because.
(yes I lay a trap for you. Please proceed governor.)
*Bolding mine*
It's like Wile E. Coyote just showed up to pitch the virtues of ACME products and his own superior bird catching skills.
Indeed. He states Atheism is simply to not believe in god. Nothing more. So if asked why he may not give a reason.
If he gives a reason than that reason comprises part of his atheism; which now is more than simply to not believe in god.
Thus his disbelief has no reason, or his reason is part of his disbelief and his definition of atheism is not simply disbelief.
Posts: 7568
Threads: 20
Joined: July 26, 2013
Reputation:
54
RE: Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?
May 21, 2015 at 5:28 pm
(This post was last modified: May 21, 2015 at 5:29 pm by Crossless2.0.)
Sure he (and the rest of us) have a reason. It's that religious people have never -- not once -- given a good reason, empirical or philosophical, to believe their claims. We think you're full of shit. Is that simple enough for you?
Do you understand how the burden of proof/evidence works? Hint: It has something to do with making a claim.
Posts: 7045
Threads: 20
Joined: June 17, 2014
Reputation:
55
RE: Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?
May 21, 2015 at 5:33 pm
(This post was last modified: May 21, 2015 at 5:33 pm by FatAndFaithless.)
The reasons one might have for not believing in god is utterly irrelevant to the state of not believing in god.
Atheism is not believing in god. Thats it.
In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.
- Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 443
Threads: 3
Joined: May 21, 2015
Reputation:
6
RE: Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?
May 21, 2015 at 5:36 pm
(May 21, 2015 at 5:28 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: Sure he (and the rest of us) have a reason. It's that religious people have never -- not once -- given a good reason, empirical or philosophical, to believe their claims. We think you're full of shit. Is that simple enough for you?
Do you understand how the burden of proof/evidence works? Hint: It has something to do with making a claim.
I understand. Which is why, by mean of philosophy, I have stated that adopting the position of disbelief without empirical evidence negates the existence of one's own "person". Rendering each of us as meat automaton which simply responds to stimuli and may only engage in conduct in accordance with reaction at worst or utility at best.
Should any of us then hold that we will not engage in action based on utility, but rather upon the belief of our "person" we are forced two accept two things.
1) We recognize the existence of metaphysical things without empirical evidence; in which case atheism is unfounded.
2) We accept that our moral conduct overrides our ethical conduct by means of an appeal to a metaphysical thing where:
A) Atheists hold the metaphysical thing as their person
B) Theists hold the metaphysical thing as something beyond their person.
Hence, our morality (Atheist and Theist) requires an appeal to a metaphysical (fictitious/imaginary) thing.
Posts: 7568
Threads: 20
Joined: July 26, 2013
Reputation:
54
RE: Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?
May 21, 2015 at 5:38 pm
Fuck it, I'm bored now. Have fun with that.
Posts: 443
Threads: 3
Joined: May 21, 2015
Reputation:
6
RE: Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?
May 21, 2015 at 5:40 pm
(May 21, 2015 at 5:33 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: The reasons one might have for not believing in god is utterly irrelevant to the state of not believing in god.
Atheism is not believing in god. Thats it.
Oh? If this is the case, which I suspect you expect others to respect without criticism, than to paraphrase what you have stated:
"The reasons one might have for believing in god is utterly irrelevant to the state of believing in god."
I expect you to have the utmost respect without criticism for this statement as well as your own.
Posts: 18510
Threads: 129
Joined: January 19, 2014
Reputation:
91
RE: Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?
May 21, 2015 at 5:43 pm
Mhm.
Hmmmmm.
Mhm mhm.
Hm...
Mhm.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition
|
