Atheism & Intelligence

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by garbonzo, May 21, 2013.

  1. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    Two points:

    1. You certainly have made the claim that it is not specious

    2. I have supported the claim that it is specious (and, as yet, you have not adequately addressed that support)


    then feel free to explain how atheists being facetious (ie pretending to be theists) is not a "wrong" world view (in lieu of atheism of course)
    :shrug:


    I don't think you understand.

    I am saying it is false to draw the FSM as a "world view" (which is, of course, what you require since you are trying to tie it in as a parallel to other pre-existing world views ... a relationship you try to bond through mere imitation of social conventions I might add).

    The reason for this is that the FSM is a specious argument (ie it never finds representation outside of atheism, who by their very nature - aka world view - don't adopt a belief in god).
    IOW its not a case of atheists being the majority, it is the case of atheists being the exclusive, absolute, one-and-only type of persons who supports the FSM

    Its kind of like arguing that men should have the right to get pregnant and give birth to babies on the strength of dressing up in drag or something (since its not the case that women are the ones who give birth in a majority of all cases, but rather, that women are the exclusive, absolute, one-and-only type of persons who give birth to babies).

    IOW its an idea that no one really supports since the nature of the dilemma (ie how a man give birth or how an atheist can believe in god) defies logical formulation.
    In the complete and utter absence of any logical formulation for these points, all and any subsequent discussion is unavoidably specious.

    IOW the whole issue, from head to tail, reeks to high heaven of false equivalence

    To your credit, you say that the FSM is not an inherently specious argument.
    To do this you would have to :

    1. Indicate how its logically tenable for an atheist to adopt belief in god (or, as I put it earlier, provide a suave argument for atheism and theism being non-different)
    2. Indicate an atheist who is obedient to this as yet logically untenable position.

    What won't help your argument are simple blunt statements of confidence totally bereft of any supporting body . Eg: "No, it is not a specious argument. You are mistaken" etc etc

    :shrug:

    AT one stage in your post you acknowledge that the FSM cannot be effectively entertained as a world view : "You can not believe in a god AND be an atheist."

    At this point, that renders any attempt to resurrect your argument intractable, leaving you with these two faults at the core of your discussions:

    1. You think its sufficient to play the FSM as a world view while simultaneously admitting it is completely bereft of precisely what a world view requires (namely an individual who takes the said precept on board as a means of seeing/acting/behaving in the world).

    2. You can't (for the sake of drawing parallels to other religious world views) take the FSM beyond the realm of the specious since it never leaves the parameters of the atheist world view.
     
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2013
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    On the contrary (since you opened with "your first mistake" and then elegantly proceed to make one) FSM is a product of the atheist perspective.
    It was created by an atheist.
    It is supported by atheists.

    If you want to pretend that it is actually a consequence of secularism, you would have to explain why the FSM alienates the wider audience that secularism incorporates (an explanation you fail to give, hence the suggestion of you "pretending")

    I agree.

    Secularism can be shared by almost anyone, unlike the FSM.
    The issue (or rather, obvious fact) is that the FSM is exclusively shared by atheists, so clearly there is a problem (your first one for the post, I might add) with your suggestion that the FSM is a consequence of secularism.




    On the contrary (again, since you open with the statement "not even close" and then attempt an explanation that is not even close), ideas of god's existence are at the core of the FSM.

    Even you, who are trying to argue that the FSM finds no expression beyond the secular, cannot refrain from using it in an attempt to undermine the claims of others religions at the end of this post.

    So yeah, "not even close"
    :shrug:



    trying to pretend that the FSM finds no expression beyond secularism in order to attempt to bypass its obvious atheistic ramifications is deflection



    Given the abundance of them and their forthrightness about their views (as exemplified by your inability in this post to even use the FSM and restrict yourself to the discussion of secularism) , I think its you who has to provide something to suggest that they are not.

    :shrug:



    ditto above

    :shrug:




    But it is already.
    The problem is that it is the world view of atheism

    Your ideas on what constitutes evidence aside (which, as a detail, are a sub-genre of the atheist world view), if you are trying to take it beyond being a specious claim (since it inevitably only finds support amongst the facetious) ......

    ......and avoid the subsequent (your above mentioned) pitfalls of a false equivalence, it requires a lot more than mere imitation of social convention

    :shrug:
     
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2013
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    So scifes needs some external controlling force to stop him from killing babies and raping women.

    That doesn't say much about scifes.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    I never said it wasn't. I said your mistake was in assuming that it must arise from an atheistic perspective. There's nothing about FSM, in other words, that relies upon an atheistic perspective. (But you must have already known this, otherwise you'd have been able to explain what exactly is atheistic about it)

    FSM is a lampoon of Intelligent Design. You're going to need to explain how that fringe minority is somehow a larger segment of the religious population than secularism incorporates.

    I agree.

    Sure it can. Pastafarianism is a parody born from secular ideals. Unless you think only atheists value the teaching of proper science.

    The issue, or rather, obvious fact, is that you keep balking when asked to explain exactly how you know they're atheists. This behavior indicates that you're keenly aware of this weakness in your position. I can see, and so can everyone else, so you might as well own up.

    You definitely don't understand what "on the contrary means." I'm actually embarrassed for you.

    It really isn't. As I said before, and as was made plain in the excellent letter to the Kansas School Board, the genesis (no pun intended) of the FSM was a disagreement with the teaching of ID in public schools, and the methods being used by its proponents. That's what's at the core of it, not the actual existence of god. And the link you share doesn't do anything to help the argument, since all it's doing is lampooning those who believe they have the right to tell others how to live. They're not making fun of Muslims for believing in Allah, they're making fun of them for being dicks about it.

    All I said was that the ideals behind the FSM are secular in nature rather than atheistic--no one even seems to know what "atheist ideals" are, and you balk at every opportunity to elaborate--and I have no clue how that contradicts anything else I've said in this thread. And I didn't undermine anything; I pointed out to you that when playing by your own rules, any claim is valid.

    :shrug:

    I honestly don't know what you mean by "FSM finds no expression beyond secularism." You said it relies on atheistic ideology, I rebutted you by explaining how its ideologies are secular. Your response is to deflect because you've been bested.

    :shrug:

    Where are these Pastafarians claiming to be atheists?

    And since we're using the first-hand accounts of members of the church, can I also cite non-believing yet self-identifying Catholics as evidence against the legitimacy of the Catholic Church?

    What?

    Any argument that relies on an absence of evidence is weak at best, political at worst.. --Shruggy McShrugg

    :shrug:

    In other words, you can't say without invoking evidence that can also be used to discredit any other religion. So, for example, if we're taking the word of unbelieving Pastafarians (the streets will run red with their lifesauce!) then we can likewise take the word of unbelieving Catholics, right?

    :shrug:

    Feel free to explain how. First, you're going to have to get past that tricky business about how it's actually a secular worldview, rather than an atheist one.

    That's one hell of a detail, DJ Showlda Shruhg. You're going to have to qualify that one for me.

    All it requires is for you to be unable to debunk the truth claims of the CFSM without relying on evidence that also debunks the truth claims of other religions. And since you can't, then my argument is sound.

    But again, feel free to surprise me and actually make your argument without relying on the testimony of heretics and ex-Pastafarians.
     
  8. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,226
    1. Indeed I have.
    2. No you have not supported it.
    At least not validly.
    And yes, I have addressed that supposed support, by showing how it is invalided since you can not prove that the argument is wrong, which is a requisite of it being specious.
    It is merely an opinion you have based on the same logical fallacy of appeal to (un)popularity that I'd have hoped you would address.
    And again, despite my pointing it out to you time and time again, you continue to confuse the issue of the FSM's existence with additional claims about the FSM, including the religion/worldview that might spring from it.
    They are separate issues.
    You are conflating the two.
    It is a red herring to do so.
    This has been pointed out to you.
    Yet you continue to do it.
    I understand full well.
    And it is you who is conflating issues.
    And we can stop right there since the FSM is not a world view but a supposed deity.
    End of.
    The issue is whether one believes in the existence of the FSM or not.
    It is not a matter of any world view beyond that point.
    This is what you don't understand, or are unwilling to accept.
    Anything past this single issue is a red herring.
    A strawman.
    And again you show you don't understand.
    Atheists DO NOT believe in the FSM.
    If one truly believes in the FSM they are no longer atheist, regardless of what you might like to think.
    And again you are appealing to popularity of a claim in the absence of any other evidence.
    Despite me and others pointing out this fallacy that you continue with.
    And again, to claim the argument as specious you need to show it is false.
    You haven't done.
    You can't do.
    All you have is reliance on and an appeal to its unpopularity.
    But that speaks nothing of the actual existence or otherwise of the FSM.
    If you want to claim the argument specious then prove the FSM does not exist.
    Or stfu.

    Your analogy is flawed, as there is no hindrance whatsoever to the FSM appealing to atheists or theists alike.
    So I won't delve further into it.
    Since you are still demonstrating here your opinion that an atheist can hold a genuine belief in a deity, there really is not much more to add.
    You fail to understand the points being made.
    Or at worse you deliberately misunderstand to evade.
    You made the claim of being specious, yet all you have is an appeal to (un)popularity.
    Mixed with a complete failure to understand the issue.
    As demonstrated by your continued insistence that an atheist can have a belief in a deity.
    No, you misunderstand again.
    The FSM is not a world view.
    It is a deity.
    Simple as that.
    And no, an atheist can not truly believe in the FSM and be an atheist.
    Just like an atheist can not believe in the Abrahamic God and be an atheist.
    Pastafarianism offers the worldview but that is a separate matter to the issue of the FSM itself.
    Even if you consider the FSM a worldview, you still jump to conclusions about what I said.
    Just because an atheist can not believe in the FSM does not mean that the FSM cannot be effectively entertained as a world view.
    It can be.
    By a theist that believes in the FSM.
    The fact that probably no one actually does is an appeal to (un)popularity and a flawed argument.
    Given your misunderstandings identified and explained above, I wonder if it is any worth proceeding...
    But what heck...
    A world view does not need someone to take it on board from a practical point of view.
    It can remain a theoretical / conceptual world view.
    So your argument here is flawed.
    Since you have not and can not show how the FSM does not exist, you are in no position, as explained many times already, to determine anything specious in that regard.
    All you have ever had is an appeal to unpopularity.
    And continued unsubstantiated claims of it being specious.


    If you have nothing more, then move along, this is not the discussion you're looking for.
     
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2013
  9. scifes In withdrawal. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,573
    Insults, insults. you're good at handing out insults. Give the kid a sticker.


    Um, where's the chemical imbalance in their brain part?
    Atheist integrity on display huh?


    Not really, I show that the logical purview of life is Black. Your counter point is how strange it is that atheists' purview of life isn't black.
    You're taking it as a given that atheists are logical, you honestly believe it with all your being. That even though you can't show it, you're using it to disprove a logical argument that yields a result different than your unfounded belief.
    Is it funny that a theist has a stronger command of logic than an atheist? No, not really.

    Perhaps. But there's plenty you understand that we can work with here.


    Waste of my time reading it and another waster replying to it, try to minimize this meaninglessness in the future.


    I have several times, you have never refuted it, you just repeat your questions hoping a different answer will show up.
    Let's try this again. the things you speak of;
    They are temporary.
    But their value, their benefit, goes beyond their own duration.
    their benefit "stays with us". It is compounded into our lives and experience.
    IF we take our lives as infinite, for the sake of illustration, also for the sake of practicality, since that is how most people illogically think of their lives. Then those temporary things will have everlasting value as well, since their effect for good or bad will be affecting the world through us forever.
    So these things have a life duration, but their effect extends BEYOND their life duration. Hence they have value.

    Now take something which it's effect doesn't extend beyond its duration, like booze or drugs, while they exist their effect is good, but after they're over their "everlasting" effect is bad. As opposed to food, is the value of food based on your experience of it while eating it? or does its real value benefit your body AFTER the meal has finished and the eating stopped?
    I've explained all this better previously, but it was sidestepped by everyone.
    The death of you, to be point-blank clear, doesn't mean your life's value is temporary. it means your life's value is NULL.
    I lived 100 years, a flower made me happy for 5 seconds, hey, it's still worth something.
    But I help humanity for a 100 years, then I die. "Did I help humanity at all?". Can I even ASK that question? Can I hear the answer if it was screamed on my grave?

    Atheists are taking refuge in the tricks the human mind creates against logical thoughts. I'm removing those tricks and showing you the sad truth about life, and the sad truth that you're not logical.


    An illogical thing. Where's the logic behind it?
    Only the weak need to benefit the herd to benefit from the herd. How will you reason with the strong who don't NEED empathy? or decide they don't care for it because it's illogical for them?
    And empathy, or the golden rule, are mirroring tricks the brain plays on us, by putting us in the shoes of others and making us feel what they're feeling, and so we try to make others feel good so we feel good. but once you understand that what you feel is coming from your nerves to your brain only, you can't care anymore about what your brain is projecting into your senses because you know your brain is projecting it, it's fake.
    How do you reply to that?


    ...AGAIN:
    Just because atheists aren't doing it doesn't mean that they logically shouldn't/can't be doing it. It simply means they're not logical.

    I said heaven and hell isn't subject to personal taste, double check what I wrote.
    I said god is absolute and inescapable. whatever moral code is attached to god, you are compelled to follow it because you can't overpower it or escape it.



    Please show me how "subjective" to each his own, and "arbitrary" are not practically the same? Playing on semantics now?

    I didn't. You're lying, or poorly lack in reading comprehension, or hoping everybody is(lacking in reading comprehension).


    So it isn't?
    ..., of course,....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. scifes In withdrawal. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,573
    Strawman; It's easier to twist my words to make your point than to use my words eh?

    Says much about AlexG?
     
  11. scifes In withdrawal. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,573
    The force is strong with this one.

    You also get a vote from me. Good manners and levelheadedness are scarce these days.
     
  12. scifes In withdrawal. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,573
    If life's a drink, can you say one who chooses cheap rum wrong, and one who gets herbal tea right?
     
  13. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    You're good at earning them. Give the kid a hockey helmet.

    I went back to check the post I quoted of yours, and discovered that you had, for no good reason at all, divided your replies to me into two segments. I had simply done the cutoff at your reply to quinnsong, not noticing that you had buried another response to me above it.

    As to that:

    I'm sorry, I don't know why I expected you to know anything about, well, anything. Here, have a read.

    You aren't making a logical argument. There is no logical reason an atheist must have a bleak outlook on life. As I've said here countless times before, there absolutely is value to be had in life without reference to the context of eternal or temporary life. And, as I said in another conversation with another poster, there is meaning and beauty exclusive to the impermanent, the fleeting. Maybe not everyone sees it, but it's certainly available.

    And you know this, which is why you dodge every question regarding the value you attribute to temporary things. You know full well that life isn't meaningless in an impermanent context, but your fragile ego won't allow you to admit it.

    Theoretically? No, not at all. But you're certainly no example of that.

    Irony.

    I'm repeating my questions because you've either failed to answer them, or failed to answer them correctly.

    All you have of these things are memories. A relationship, a toy, a pet; they aren't lasting in any form other than your ability to look back on them. Some things change your perspective, but mostly things just become memories. Those things have value to you even though their function is gone. And even if you can't remember something--which happens plenty--the thing still had value to you at the time. The fact that it no longer has value doesn't mean it never did. That's where your logic runs off the rails.

    Convenient that you only chose items with a net negative impact. Also, these aren't items that have no effect beyond their "duration." Drugs and alcohol stay with you in the form of damage done to organs.

    Right, so the only explanation we all notice is the poor one? How convenient.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    No, it doesn't. There's no logical argument that can support that.

    You're only now assessing your life's value to you, after you're dead. Obviously, after you're dead, your life now has no more value to you. That doesn't mean it has no more value to anyone--if you have children, then everyone born in that line owes their existence to you--and it doesn't mean it never had any value at all. It just means that it no longer has value to you.

    No, you're just building up ego defenses so you don't have to face reality, which you obviously don't have the emotional maturity or intellectual integrity to face. You clearly know you're wrong about this, otherwise you wouldn't cling so tenaciously to ideas you can't even be bothered to support, but it's not something you're ready to deal with.

    While empathy is an emotional response rather than a rational one, there is logic behind its implementation; empathy allows us to work together effectively, to live in communities and build societies. Without it, we wouldn't be here.

    What the hell does that even mean?

    Empathy isn't a choice. How you react to it is, but it's something most people have to varying degrees, and is the basis for morality.

    As to how you reason with people who don't feel empathy, it would entirely depend on the situation. You have to remember that you're dealing with a sociopath, of course.

    Of course, if what you're really trying to ask is how you reason with someone without an objective moral measure, the answer is to look at modern society. That's what we do today. Secular society doesn't rely on religious morals, it relies on an appreciation for basic human values--things like racial and gender equality, and helping citizens in distress. None of this requires any reference to God or to scripture or to eternal risk-reward dilemmas.

    The feeling certainly isn't fake. And while it's possible to act in spite of it, most people can't bring themselves to after a point. And most people don't have any good reason to try.

    This is called the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

    There is no logical basis for assuming everyone by rights should be lawless and depressed without some belief in the divine. Even if your assertion that life has no value because it is temporary--a point which is demonstrably false--there's no logical reason why anyone has to be bothered by it. No doubt some people are, but that's not a default position by any means.

    You said heaven and hell "are also," implying that the traits to follow were shared by the other items listed. But fine, your point is still wrong, since heaven and hell exist in mythology in various forms--in other words, they change given personal taste.

    I don't know what you mean by this. It's obviously not true that people are compelled to follow the moral code of God, because there are people blatantly living outside of these moral codes--yourself included. And then there's the matter of which moral code is correct, but we don't even need to get into that. I don't see anything inescapable or absolute about God at all, given how many different iterations there are of it.

    No, just using the English language correctly. Arbitrary implies there being no sound reason or cause for an action. Subjective does not carry this implication.

    Yes you did. To wit:

    You explicitly stated you would be in the latter group--the ones who abduct women and rape babies.

    But let's delve into this more, since you apparently didn't think your position through enough: If you wouldn't rape babies and abduct women as an atheist, what would keep you from doing so?

    I didn't say that it isn't. I believe it is. But that isn't something we were discussing here, so your claim that removing the third word from that passage "made perfect sense" is wrong.
     
  14. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Atheists are individuals of the species Homo sapiens like everybody else. Humans are a pack-social species, like wolves, elephants, hyenas, dolphins, and many others. As obligate carnivores with no fangs or claws, our ancestors had no choice but to live in cooperative groups, in which each individual depended on and cared for every other individual.

    We no longer hunt mastodons for dinner, but deep down inside, we're still Paleolithic hunter-gatherers. There's a caveman inside each of us, and a few hundred generations of building civilization is not nearly long enough for our DNA to evolve post-caveman instincts.

    It is an instinct for us to cooperate, to care for each other, to depend on each other. The size of our "packs" has increased tremendously so of course this puts some pressure on the simple caveman who, for sheer survival, had to regard everyone he didn't know personally as a hated and feared competitor for scarce resources. But fortunately we have an enormous forebrain (something like three times as large as a chimpanzee, the runner-up), and this allows us to override instinctive behavior--although only to a certain degree--with reasoned and learned behavior.

    We know that living in harmony and cooperation with strangers, even with strangers on the other side of the planet who are nothing more than abstractions, makes us all happier and more prosperous. We ply our inner cavemen with cold beer, hot pizza, football on TV, motorcycles, soft furniture, and a domesticated wolf at his feet who thinks he's God. So most of the time he's content to be nice to the people who live in the other caves, since they're nice to him and besides that unmarried sister-in-law of theirs is pretty cute. (We also have an instinct to be sexually attracted to people who look much different from ourselves, this stirs the gene pool and keeps it clean and healthy.)

    Sure, occasionally he goes all Stone Age on us and does something that's not socially acceptable in the Post-Industrial Era. But usually he doesn't do any serious harm and after a few apologies, and maybe some beer and pizza, life goes back to normal.

    Some people, some times, go beyond this and cause serious grief. But this is hardly the atheist demographic! Take a look at any newspaper and you'll find that people who believe in God are just as likely not to "decide to live peacefully" as we are.

    And we have the same strong "rationale against those who choose not to" live in peace as you do. Civilization works only because we cooperate. In fact the first rule that makes civilization possible at all is:
    You must never kill another human being, except in self-defense against an immediate threat of death or serious harm from someone else; in other words somebody who broke the rule first, thereby identifying himself as uncivilized. The reason for this is that if we all had to devote a significant portion of our time, energy and other resources to protecting ourselves from each other, the surplus productivity that drives the engine of civilization would be dissipated and we'd still be in the Stone Age.​

    Atheists are not exempt from this rule. No one is! Even the Bible says, "Thou shalt not kill." Unfortunately they think that doesn't apply to Muslims, Jews, Communists, Afro-Americans, LGBT, and about 3/4 of the human race. But we atheists know that it applies to everybody. Even the Westboro Baptists.
     
  15. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,522
    Then it's a good thing that you believe in god... Some of us need an authority figure to keep us from being assholes. (Problem is that their a-holiness tends to shine through anyway.)
     
  16. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    Sorry I got it backwards.

    You've said that without god, what's to stop the atheist from abducting women and raping babies. This would imply that the only thing governing your behavior is a fear of punishment from the big magician in the sky.

    Doesn't say much about scifes.
     
  17. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”

    Aristotle
     
  18. scifes In withdrawal. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,573
    Admit you didn't understand what I said after reading it twice, or that you are insisting on misusing it intentionally.
    This is your last chance, after which I will report your trolling ass to the mods.
    Here is the whole part I posted, perhaps you care to explain to everyone why you segmented it into two, feigning continuity;
    You liar, "Abducting women and raping babies? why not?" was given as an example, and was clearly after me saying that the choice on what to spend life on is absolutely arbitrary.
    A paragraph followed.
    Then I mentioned two groups, "some...choose to live peacfully,...those who choose not to", then IN THE SAME SENTENCE!, I said I would be the latter if I were an atheist.
    You "made a mistake" when skimming my post and associated the two together, fine.
    I show you your mishap, and you not only insist, but FU**ING FABRICATE your evidence to support your libel? What scum.
    Your Dishonesty and lowly debating tactics should get you banned for three days to learn a lesson, and others learn from you as well.
    If I haven't already written in the beginning of this post that I'm giving you a last chance, I would've reported you right after posting this, but I'll stick to my graceful chance.
    Debating with idiots who don't know and think they know is one thing, debating with those who intentionally don't know and set out to mislead is something else.
     
  19. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,226
    No offence, scifes, but in this regard you don't have a leg to stand on.
    Your implication was quite clear, even if unintended.
    You may not see a link between the two sections but there is: your stated view of atheists.

    Your first explicit statement was that an atheist's choice of what to spend their life on was absolutely arbitrary.
    And you offered two abhorrent acts as an example and said "why not?".
    These last two words imply that they are as likely to do these as anything else you care to mention: walk a dog, or a bank, eat a steak etc.

    Your second explicit statement in this regard was that, as an atheist, you would choose to go out with a bang.

    Now presumably you don't think those abhorrent acts are the purview of a peaceful atheist.
    So they would fall under the possible arbitrary actions of an atheist who chooses to go out with a bang.
    I.e. you.

    Would you choose to?
    As you so aptly put it: "why not?"

    The implication, intended or otherwise, is clear that you would think it not unreasonable if you, as an atheist, decided to perform those abhorrent acts.

    So please don't take offence when I say that, in my opinion, your complaints in this regard would get you nowhere.
     
  20. scifes In withdrawal. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,573
    Baldeee people either say things or don't, mistakes do happen when reading long pieces of text I understand that.
    But after double checking and quoting someone, you don't really have much of an excuse.
    If you can't see that then no problem, it's not your judgment I'm appealing to.
     
  21. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,226
    First, you did imply it.
    I spotted it, as others have done.
    Did you intend to imply it?
    I would hope not, and your reaction suggests not.
    But that does not alter the fact that the implication is there.
    I have tried to be fair in my explanation of how it is implied.
    Mistakes do happen, indeed, and yours seems to be one such mistake.

    Secondly, when you write on a forum such as this it is everyone's judgement that you appeal to.
    They are the people you are conveying your intended message to.
    If you only want the judgement of one person then PM them.

    My judgement is that there was such an implication as explained.
    Others have reached the same conclusion.

    Be that as it may, I actually found your post insulting not for the implication being discussed but for your explicit comment that you actually consider atheists illogical if they don't arbitrarily commit abhorrent acts, just as simply as arbitrarily as they might brush their teeth.
     
  22. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,902
    While I agree that our ethical intuitions of right and wrong most likely are generated by our human social instincts, I'm not convinced that kind of theory solves all our problems.

    Suppose that somebody were to decide that it's in his/her interest to torment somebody else. And suppose that the tormentor knows all about human social instincts, but feels that transcending the animal instincts that ruled our ancestors is a good thing.

    How would we go about arguing that what the tormenter is doing is wrong? (Would there even be any objective sense is saying that it is?)

    We can explain why onlookers such as ourselves would judge that it's wrong, but that's just an explanation of why the rest of us think as we do. Our tormenter thinks differently and actually believes that he/she is superior in no longer being a slave to animal instinct. We can explain why the individual being tormented doesn't like it, but why should the tormenter be concerned about that?

    So one can still argue that belief in some kind of moral realism might have some pragmatic value, since believing that objective moral rules exist independently of what any of us happens to think might be a disincentive to those who would otherwise find it profitable to ignore their own instinctive consciences whenever they think that they won't get caught.
     
  23. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,522
    Yup, the fear of God/Hellfire does indeed help keep some people from making a nuisance of themselves.
     

Share This Page