| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
19 Apr 2005 11:52:17 AM |
| Object: |
His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI |
The Catholic Church, indeed the world, has been blessed with the
selection of Bishop Ratzinger as the new pontiff, Pope Benedict XVI.
May he be as wise a man, and as worthy a man, as Pope John Paul II.
.
|
|
| User: "Scott" |
|
| Title: Re: His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI |
28 Apr 2005 09:22:01 AM |
|
|
"Sanders Kaufman" <unsentt@kaufman.net> wrote in message
news:zgSbe.3363$461.1218@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
"Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:ScNbe.1599$gd5.1133@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
"Sanders Kaufman" <unsentt@kaufman.net> wrote in message
Man you are a screwball. Your translation may as well be "Thou shalt not
practice self-defense." Thou shalt not defend thy self against harm by
evil." "Thou must permit evil into one's life."
It's typical for Militants to think they can't defend themselves without
killing someone.
Your belief that you must kill people in order to live is quite insane -
and UnChristian as Hell.
Man, who is the sander cranck? My entry into this thread had not a damn
thing to to with politics of any sort.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI |
26 Apr 2005 08:37:13 PM |
|
|
Sanders Kaufman <unsentt@kaufman.net> wrote:
"Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:Mlybe.522$gd5.110@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
"Sanders Kaufman" <unsentt@kaufman.net> wrote in message
So THAT's what God meant when he said, "Thou shalt not kill".
It's a good thing we have Bush loyalists running around correcting God.
The actual hebrew is "Thou shalt not murder". "Kill" is in the translation
to English.
Cool - you write hebrew, without actually using hebrew words or letters.
God said don't kill.
Where?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI |
26 Apr 2005 09:22:42 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:d4mqc9$6cl$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Sanders Kaufman <unsentt@kaufman.net> wrote:
God said don't kill.
Where?
Syria?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Ferris" |
|
| Title: Re: His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI |
27 Apr 2005 07:29:10 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 21:26:04 GMT, "Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote:
"Sanders Kaufman" <unsentt@kaufman.net> wrote in message
news:ivwbe.829$m85.256@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
"Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:Wrsbe.424$gd5.119@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
Like all good shepards our Shepard's flock doesn't just include sheep it
also includes sheepdogs to deal with the wolves that might come around.
So THAT's what God meant when he said, "Thou shalt not kill".
It's a good thing we have Bush loyalists running around correcting God.
The actual hebrew is "Thou shalt not murder". "Kill" is in the translation
to English.
But Jesus then went and said you should not even think angry
thoughts...strange how the message gets distorted to peoples own ends.
--
Alan "Ferrit" Ferris
()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott" |
|
| Title: Re: His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI |
27 Apr 2005 09:23:06 AM |
|
|
"Alan Ferris" <alan@spamddandd.com> wrote in message
news:8c1v61p6t8so4qv9cn7sp1fen5782smvqn@4ax.com...
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 21:26:04 GMT, "Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote:
"Sanders Kaufman" <unsentt@kaufman.net> wrote in message
news:ivwbe.829$m85.256@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
"Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:Wrsbe.424$gd5.119@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
Like all good shepards our Shepard's flock doesn't just include sheep
it
also includes sheepdogs to deal with the wolves that might come around.
So THAT's what God meant when he said, "Thou shalt not kill".
It's a good thing we have Bush loyalists running around correcting God.
The actual hebrew is "Thou shalt not murder". "Kill" is in the translation
to English.
But Jesus then went and said you should not even think angry
thoughts...strange how the message gets distorted to peoples own ends.
I don't have to be angry (hell, I can be neutral) and kill you out of
self-defense, Alan.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Ferris" |
|
| Title: Re: His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI |
27 Apr 2005 10:40:27 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:23:06 GMT, "Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote:
"Alan Ferris" <alan@spamddandd.com> wrote in message
news:8c1v61p6t8so4qv9cn7sp1fen5782smvqn@4ax.com...
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 21:26:04 GMT, "Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote:
"Sanders Kaufman" <unsentt@kaufman.net> wrote in message
news:ivwbe.829$m85.256@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
"Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:Wrsbe.424$gd5.119@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
Like all good shepards our Shepard's flock doesn't just include sheep
it
also includes sheepdogs to deal with the wolves that might come around.
So THAT's what God meant when he said, "Thou shalt not kill".
It's a good thing we have Bush loyalists running around correcting God.
The actual hebrew is "Thou shalt not murder". "Kill" is in the translation
to English.
But Jesus then went and said you should not even think angry
thoughts...strange how the message gets distorted to peoples own ends.
I don't have to be angry (hell, I can be neutral) and kill you out of
self-defense, Alan.
I agree to self defence, but self defence falls down when you are in a
war. The first rule of self defence is to leave areas of risk.
--
Alan "Ferrit" Ferris
()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott" |
|
| Title: Re: His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI |
27 Apr 2005 01:13:34 PM |
|
|
"Alan Ferris" <alan@spamddandd.com> wrote in message
news:ticv61hdor37heq1qs94i59hkeefodd9nc@4ax.com...
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:23:06 GMT, "Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote:
"Alan Ferris" <alan@spamddandd.com> wrote in message
news:8c1v61p6t8so4qv9cn7sp1fen5782smvqn@4ax.com...
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 21:26:04 GMT, "Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote:
"Sanders Kaufman" <unsentt@kaufman.net> wrote in message
news:ivwbe.829$m85.256@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
"Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:Wrsbe.424$gd5.119@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
Like all good shepards our Shepard's flock doesn't just include sheep
it
also includes sheepdogs to deal with the wolves that might come
around.
So THAT's what God meant when he said, "Thou shalt not kill".
It's a good thing we have Bush loyalists running around correcting
God.
The actual hebrew is "Thou shalt not murder". "Kill" is in the
translation
to English.
But Jesus then went and said you should not even think angry
thoughts...strange how the message gets distorted to peoples own ends.
I don't have to be angry (hell, I can be neutral) and kill you out of
self-defense, Alan.
I agree to self defence, but self defence falls down when you are in a
war. The first rule of self defence is to leave areas of risk.
I didn't know you graduate from a war college.
self defense doesn't require me to have to wait for the other person to act
with physical intent. Reasonable perceived intent is enough. If the intent
is there it is better to take the first action. In reasonable situation an
offense can be the best defense. For example: 20 years ago, I was in an
airport to pickup a friend. He was suppose to come in on a 8 PM flight.
Instead he came in at 9:30 PM which was the last flight of the day. There
were no flights in or out between the 8 and 9:30 flight. All the stores and
bars closed at 8 so guess what I had to do with my time in the terminal?
Nothing, but hang around and wait...all by myself. Security at the port and
terminal was not in sight. The airport (Lovefield, Dallas) had a reputation
at that time of having muggings and so I dressed down and carried little
money. Now I'm not into PC so you damn right I profile based on stats. Two
black guys with their girlfriend dressed in running warm-ups whom I'd seen
early came down the terminal hall. It was obvious they were scoping me out.
While one of the guys hung about 25-30 feet away with the girl the other
came to within 3-4 feet of me. This is a wide terminal and he had no reason
to come that close to within my social space. I was into martial arts and at
that time benched over 300 lbs. I'm no a little guy. Now he was smaller then
but came close to getting his ***** clocked. If he'd been by himself, he
would've. When he turned around to his partner I heard him quietly say "I
don't think he's worth it". Worth what? This guy could've came at me for a
low tackle while the partner closed the gap so a preemptive attack by me was
an iffy call. If I had preemptively struck there would've been a fight.
Point is, had I hit him with a preemptive strike based on a perceived
criminal *intent* due to their behavior I would've been in my rights both
legally and morally.
In war? Same philosophy applies but on a larger scale. You don't have to
wait for the nukes to hit to initiate a just war.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI |
27 Apr 2005 03:05:57 PM |
|
|
"Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:iDQbe.1639$gd5.115@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
"Alan Ferris" <alan@spamddandd.com> wrote in message
is there it is better to take the first action. In reasonable situation an
offense can be the best defense. For example: 20 years ago, I was in an
While it is *sometimes* reasonable, it's always unChristian.
Jesus said to just turn the other cheek.
Point is, had I hit him with a preemptive strike based on a perceived
criminal *intent* due to their behavior I would've been in my rights both
legally and morally.
In war? Same philosophy applies but on a larger scale. You don't have to
wait for the nukes to hit to initiate a just war.
What nukes?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI |
27 Apr 2005 04:04:59 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 20:05:57 GMT in alt.atheism, Sanders Kaufman
("Sanders Kaufman" <unsentt@kaufman.net>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
"Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:iDQbe.1639$gd5.115@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
"Alan Ferris" <alan@spamddandd.com> wrote in message
is there it is better to take the first action. In reasonable situation an
offense can be the best defense. For example: 20 years ago, I was in an
While it is *sometimes* reasonable, it's always unChristian.
Jesus said to just turn the other cheek.
Point is, had I hit him with a preemptive strike based on a perceived
criminal *intent* due to their behavior I would've been in my rights both
legally and morally.
In war? Same philosophy applies but on a larger scale. You don't have to
wait for the nukes to hit to initiate a just war.
What nukes?
Raises an interesting question though. Suppose the then Soviet Union
had launched a surprise and total nuclear strike against the West.
Would total retaliation, possibly leading to the end of humanity, be
justified under the principles of the "Just War"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott" |
|
| Title: Re: His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI |
28 Apr 2005 11:22:47 AM |
|
|
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:kevv61961r9hh4vpob52t5h3g8nqeth6oi@4ax.com...
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 20:05:57 GMT in alt.atheism, Sanders Kaufman
("Sanders Kaufman" <unsentt@kaufman.net>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
"Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:iDQbe.1639$gd5.115@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
"Alan Ferris" <alan@spamddandd.com> wrote in message
is there it is better to take the first action. In reasonable situation
an
offense can be the best defense. For example: 20 years ago, I was in an
While it is *sometimes* reasonable, it's always unChristian.
Jesus said to just turn the other cheek.
Point is, had I hit him with a preemptive strike based on a perceived
criminal *intent* due to their behavior I would've been in my rights
both
legally and morally.
In war? Same philosophy applies but on a larger scale. You don't have to
wait for the nukes to hit to initiate a just war.
What nukes?
Raises an interesting question though. Suppose the then Soviet Union
had launched a surprise and total nuclear strike against the West.
Would total retaliation, possibly leading to the end of humanity, be
justified under the principles of the "Just War"?
<Where do you see the evil?>
Why do even bother to ask since there is no such thing as a Just or Unjust
War within your materialism? There is only homo behaviorism that includes
wars for whatever and is a part of homo's amoral naturalism.
The very foundation of your world view denies all moral truth/Truth aside
from the sociological description of morality merely being a given society's
code of social conduct..... *Its* social norms..... Moral Relativism and
Subjectivism is not what most of you believe it to be. You argue as though
there really *is* a right and wrong, a good and evil, a just and unjust war.
But moral relativism is NOT in principle relative to CIRCUMSTANCES, which is
actually Moral Objectivism. Morality in this naturalistic view is, however,
relative to some stated society's mores/norms. If you live in Iran and are
an atheist or a Bahai, you have zero rights
http://www.bahai-library.com/newspapers/042001-5.html. Your neighbor can
kill you without violating any moral code or law; it would not be an immoral
act since you are being unethical by Iranian-Islamic norms. From within
materialism/naturalism, the Nuremberg Trials, to use another example, was
based upon fairytale, fantasy, myth. Freedom, Liberty, Dignity are
dogmatisms. Nazi German set a social goal of implementing a society built on
eugenics and it's moral codes reflected that goal. Nothing more and nothing
less. The euthanization of -the aborting of - the Jewish pop from German
society was (although immoral by some other society's mores) quite moral
from *within* Nazi German society. Materialism/Naturalism is both a-theistic
and a-moral. Societies simply *rationalize* the reasons for whatever their
moral code/norms may be. There can be no right way nor wrong way of
doing/creating any societal norms.
When so many of you dumb shits say "I don't need a god or religion to know
right from wrong or evil when I see it" you naively and inadvertently are
rejecting what lay at the core of your claimed naturalism/materialism for a
belief in some transcendental knowledge - for a gnosis of an objective
morality, for a belief in a Moral Truth. You are witnesses to there being
something more about human *beings* that transcends homo behaviorism and
give this this *gnosis* name like "Humanism" or "Liberalism" or whatever.
That's *your* fucking dogma (Isn't it all just relative?). You live a lie.
And what's worse is so many in college try to indoctrinate their students to
that lie. The principles of Naturalism reject the very foundational
principles of Humanism. You think it makes you more tolerant....as if there
were such a thing as *more* tolerant in any *real* sense. More tolerant than
what? There is nothing there since no society's morality could be better or
more correct than any other's. There can be no right way nor wrong way of
doing/creating any societal norms.
As a Catholic, I believe in the very same material reality that you dumb
shits do - evolution and all. But I like so many other Catholics as myself
understand, for a humanism to have any chance of actually *being*...real
morality must transcend homo behaviorism leading to a rejection of
philosophical materialism. That requires a Faith in morality actually being
REAL, in ethics actually being objective, since the only arguments for such
an objectivism must rely upon negation arguments for Relativism.
http://www-phil.tamu.edu/~b-everman/victor/moral/Relativism_handout.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI |
27 Apr 2005 04:15:17 PM |
|
|
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:kevv61961r9hh4vpob52t5h3g8nqeth6oi@4ax.com...
What nukes?
Raises an interesting question though. Suppose the then Soviet Union
had launched a surprise and total nuclear strike against the West.
Would total retaliation, possibly leading to the end of humanity, be
justified under the principles of the "Just War"?
Lower case the "j" and your answer is "yes".
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Ferris" |
|
| Title: Re: His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI |
28 Apr 2005 11:51:02 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 18:13:34 GMT, "Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote:
In war? Same philosophy applies but on a larger scale. You don't have to
wait for the nukes to hit to initiate a just war.
No, but you should not lie about nukes existing to justify your war.
Spot the difference, you have to be actually at threat.
--
Alan "Ferrit" Ferris
()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott" |
|
| Title: Re: His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI |
28 Apr 2005 01:14:04 PM |
|
|
"Alan Ferris" <alan@spamddandd.com> wrote in message
news:c85271lq873o237kj5urerkb42ci0eggnh@4ax.com...
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 18:13:34 GMT, "Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote:
In war? Same philosophy applies but on a larger scale. You don't have to
wait for the nukes to hit to initiate a just war.
No, but you should not lie about nukes existing to justify your war.
Spot the difference, you have to be actually at threat.
My war??? Which war is that SINCE I was onlyh making a philosophical point?
Spot the difference? I gave a real example of an actual threat and related
it to a global situation. See the differrence?
Alan, you as an atheist, are stupid. In you world there is no such thing as
a just war.....or an UNjust war. NONE. There is only war. But you are too
stupid or bull headed to realize that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Ferris" |
|
| Title: Re: His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI |
29 Apr 2005 11:19:52 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 18:14:04 GMT, "Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote:
"Alan Ferris" <alan@spamddandd.com> wrote in message
news:c85271lq873o237kj5urerkb42ci0eggnh@4ax.com...
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 18:13:34 GMT, "Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote:
In war? Same philosophy applies but on a larger scale. You don't have to
wait for the nukes to hit to initiate a just war.
No, but you should not lie about nukes existing to justify your war.
Spot the difference, you have to be actually at threat.
My war??? Which war is that SINCE I was onlyh making a philosophical point?
Spot the difference? I gave a real example of an actual threat and related
it to a global situation. See the differrence?
Alan, you as an atheist, are stupid. In you world there is no such thing as
a just war.....or an UNjust war. NONE. There is only war. But you are too
stupid or bull headed to realize that.
Poor Scott, stuck with having to tell people what they think. You
haven't a clue to what I think or do
--
Alan "Ferrit" Ferris
()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott" |
|
| Title: Re: His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI |
30 Apr 2005 11:05:22 AM |
|
|
"Alan Ferris" <alan@spamddandd.com> wrote in message
news:pmn4715vbrmigs17oatgp0p2dmtdbo1dsa@4ax.com...
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 18:14:04 GMT, "Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote:
"Alan Ferris" <alan@spamddandd.com> wrote in message
news:c85271lq873o237kj5urerkb42ci0eggnh@4ax.com...
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 18:13:34 GMT, "Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote:
In war? Same philosophy applies but on a larger scale. You don't have to
wait for the nukes to hit to initiate a just war.
No, but you should not lie about nukes existing to justify your war.
Spot the difference, you have to be actually at threat.
My war??? Which war is that SINCE I was onlyh making a philosophical
point?
Spot the difference? I gave a real example of an actual threat and related
it to a global situation. See the differrence?
Alan, you as an atheist, are stupid. In you world there is no such thing
as
a just war.....or an UNjust war. NONE. There is only war. But you are too
stupid or bull headed to realize that.
Poor Scott, stuck with having to tell people what they think. You
haven't a clue to what I think or do
See Alan? I told you you were stupid. You can believe whatever you want. You
can believe there is no god. You can believe there is no pluralistic
reality - that only material nature is reality. BUT there *are* real
epistemic consequences to holding those philosophical positions. To say you
are a materialist and then say there is no god but you believe in a god is
what? Contradictory. The same holds within ethics. Similarly to an objective
god to explain creation, just and unjust wars (moral realism) requires and
objective morality. That is a Natural Law theory is a necessity with a set
of Objective Moral Principles. Materialism (your philosophical position)
denies the existence of objective moral principles.
That you can't comprehend what I just told you as a philosophical fact is
not necessarily my fault but you epidemiological ignorance. You're a
philosophically moral moron.
Scott
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Ferris" |
|
| Title: Re: His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI |
30 Apr 2005 12:53:33 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 16:05:22 GMT, "Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote:
To say you
are a materialist and then say there is no god but you believe in a god is
what? Contradictory.
I say nothing of the sort.....see that is your problem, you keep
trying to say what I believe and do not believe yet you haven't a
clue.
--
Alan "Ferrit" Ferris
()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott" |
|
| Title: Re: His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI |
30 Apr 2005 11:15:45 PM |
|
|
"Alan Ferris" <alan@spamddandd.com> wrote in message
news:lih771pp8thpikg43glpsu9f4dnnqs7pq5@4ax.com...
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 16:05:22 GMT, "Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote:
To say you
are a materialist and then say there is no god but you believe in a god is
what? Contradictory.
I say nothing of the sort.....see that is your problem, you keep
trying to say what I believe and do not believe yet you haven't a
clue.
Oh and ah for simplicity if you care to take my challenge try to keep the
answers short.
Scott
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Ferris" |
|
| Title: Re: His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI |
04 May 2005 02:51:39 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 23:15:45 -0500, "Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote:
"Alan Ferris" <alan@spamddandd.com> wrote in message
news:lih771pp8thpikg43glpsu9f4dnnqs7pq5@4ax.com...
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 16:05:22 GMT, "Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote:
To say you
are a materialist and then say there is no god but you believe in a god is
what? Contradictory.
I say nothing of the sort.....see that is your problem, you keep
trying to say what I believe and do not believe yet you haven't a
clue.
Oh and ah for simplicity if you care to take my challenge try to keep the
answers short.
What challenge?
--
Alan "Ferrit" Ferris
()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scott" |
|
| Title: Re: His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI |
03 May 2005 09:31:41 AM |
|
|
"Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:-fidnYP_3o7LyunfRVn-jg@wcc.net...
"Alan Ferris" <alan@spamddandd.com> wrote in message
news:lih771pp8thpikg43glpsu9f4dnnqs7pq5@4ax.com...
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 16:05:22 GMT, "Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote:
To say you
are a materialist and then say there is no god but you believe in a god
is
what? Contradictory.
I say nothing of the sort.....see that is your problem, you keep
trying to say what I believe and do not believe yet you haven't a
clue.
Yet again you don't get the epistemology, Alan. Just in case you don't
know the meaning of that word:
Main Entry: episˇteˇmolˇoˇgy Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: -j
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): -es
Etymology: epistemo- (from Greek epistm) + -logy
: the study of the method and grounds of knowledge especially with
reference to its limits and validity; broadly : the theory of knowledge.
You say I don't know what you think. I may not know exactly what you think
but that's not so much the issue. I *can* tell, however by what you say,
whether or not you are violating the limits of an epistemic.
Now I don't know if you are lying or not but you tell us you are an
atheist. Assuming that you are that automaticly tells me you aren't a
theist. Duh? IOW a main part of you self-identity (you like this term
better then personal philosophy? It makes no difference to me) is
atheisism. A person cannot hold to a belief in atheism and theism at the
same time without violating valid limits in methods or grounding in
knowledge.
Care for a little socratic game where I ask you some questions and you
answer them? I will attempt to lead you into a epistemic trap. It's up to
you. Yes or no?
No obligation but if you're up for it I'll start:
1. Why are you an atheist? That is, what leads you to believe in atheism?
Not up for it I guess, Alan.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Ferris" |
|
| Title: Re: His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI |
04 May 2005 02:53:42 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 03 May 2005 14:31:41 GMT, "Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote:
1. Why are you an atheist? That is, what leads you to believe in atheism?
Not up for it I guess, Alan.
Quite up to it. I am an atheist simply because their are no gods
except for those than man himself creates. I have not been led to
believe atheism, there is nothing in atheism to believe.
--
Alan "Ferrit" Ferris
()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
.
|
|
|
| User: "new.ntin.net" |
|
| Title: Re: His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI |
04 May 2005 03:06:43 PM |
|
|
"Alan Ferris" <alan@spamddandd.com> wrote in message
news:v40h719qruipila7kcvuqjaalt3l1l4to5@4ax.com...
On Tue, 03 May 2005 14:31:41 GMT, "Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote:
1. Why are you an atheist? That is, what leads you to believe in atheism?
Not up for it I guess, Alan.
Quite up to it. I am an atheist simply because their are no gods
except for those than man himself creates. I have not been led to
believe atheism, there is nothing in atheism to believe.
And that includes moral truth.
Your problem like so many atheists is that you *think* morals are
relative/subjective but you believe this to mean situational. The situation
dictates the rightness or wrongness. That isn't subjectivism/relativism but
actually moral realism/objectivism.
It means you believe in a Moral Truth. I know you don't grasp that or are
too bull headed to see but that is how it is.
The is no evidence for morality being stiuational. There is evidence however
that morality is socially normative. The norms of a society dictates the
right or wrongs of *its* behavior
Scott
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI |
04 May 2005 03:47:04 PM |
|
|
new.ntin.net <scott@nospam.net> wrote:
"Alan Ferris" <alan@spamddandd.com> wrote in message
Quite up to it. I am an atheist simply because their are no gods
except for those than man himself creates. I have not been led to
believe atheism, there is nothing in atheism to believe.
And that includes moral truth.
Your problem like so many atheists is that you *think* morals are
relative/subjective but you believe this to mean situational. The situation
dictates the rightness or wrongness. That isn't subjectivism/relativism but
actually moral realism/objectivism.
It means you believe in a Moral Truth.
Your argument is nonsense. Telling people what they believe doesn't
mean that they agree wiht you.
I know you don't grasp that or are
too bull headed to see but that is how it is.
Or you're too delusional to accept that your argument is nonsense.
The is no evidence for morality being stiuational.
Yes there is.
There is no evidence for any absolute moral truth.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott" |
|
| Title: Re: His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI |
04 May 2005 04:53:17 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:d5bcc7$e9n$1@bolt.sonic.net...
new.ntin.net <scott@nospam.net> wrote:
"Alan Ferris" <alan@spamddandd.com> wrote in message
Quite up to it. I am an atheist simply because their are no gods
except for those than man himself creates. I have not been led to
believe atheism, there is nothing in atheism to believe.
And that includes moral truth.
Your problem like so many atheists is that you *think* morals are
relative/subjective but you believe this to mean situational. The
situation
dictates the rightness or wrongness. That isn't subjectivism/relativism
but
actually moral realism/objectivism.
It means you believe in a Moral Truth.
Your argument is nonsense. Telling people what they believe doesn't
mean that they agree wiht you.
I know you don't grasp that or are
too bull headed to see but that is how it is.
Or you're too delusional to accept that your argument is nonsense.
The is no evidence for morality being stiuational.
Yes there is.
There is no evidence for any absolute moral truth.
LOL. It is amazing just how stupid you atheists are about moral theory.
Do You think morality is:
anti-realism: subjectivism, relativism?
or
realism: Objectivism, Absolutism?
You want me to tell you based on what you just wrote?
There is no evidence for morality being situational?
You said: "Yes there is." What is that? Where does this answer belong, in
subjectivism, relativism, objectivism, absolutism?
The correct answer is Objectivism. So where is you evidence that morality is
not dependent on individual/cultural subjective opinions/norms but on
independent situations.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI |
04 May 2005 06:35:02 PM |
|
|
Scott <scott@nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
new.ntin.net <scott@nospam.net> wrote:
"Alan Ferris" <alan@spamddandd.com> wrote in message
Quite up to it. I am an atheist simply because their are no gods
except for those than man himself creates. I have not been led to
believe atheism, there is nothing in atheism to believe.
And that includes moral truth.
Your problem like so many atheists is that you *think* morals are
relative/subjective but you believe this to mean situational. The
situation
dictates the rightness or wrongness. That isn't subjectivism/relativism
but
actually moral realism/objectivism.
It means you believe in a Moral Truth.
Your argument is nonsense. Telling people what they believe doesn't
mean that they agree wiht you.
I know you don't grasp that or are
too bull headed to see but that is how it is.
Or you're too delusional to accept that your argument is nonsense.
The is no evidence for morality being stiuational.
Yes there is.
There is no evidence for any absolute moral truth.
LOL. It is amazing just how stupid you atheists are about moral theory.
Where did I say I was an atheist?
Do You think morality is:
anti-realism: subjectivism, relativism?
or
realism: Objectivism, Absolutism?
Or: Made up.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott" |
|
| Title: Re: His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI |
04 May 2005 09:54:30 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:d5bm75$3r8$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scott <scott@nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
new.ntin.net <scott@nospam.net> wrote:
"Alan Ferris" <alan@spamddandd.com> wrote in message
Quite up to it. I am an atheist simply because their are no gods
except for those than man himself creates. I have not been led to
believe atheism, there is nothing in atheism to believe.
And that includes moral truth.
Your problem like so many atheists is that you *think* morals are
relative/subjective but you believe this to mean situational. The
situation
dictates the rightness or wrongness. That isn't subjectivism/relativism
but
actually moral realism/objectivism.
It means you believe in a Moral Truth.
Your argument is nonsense. Telling people what they believe doesn't
mean that they agree wiht you.
I know you don't grasp that or are
too bull headed to see but that is how it is.
Or you're too delusional to accept that your argument is nonsense.
The is no evidence for morality being stiuational.
Yes there is.
There is no evidence for any absolute moral truth.
LOL. It is amazing just how stupid you atheists are about moral theory.
Where did I say I was an atheist?
you're not an atheist? Oh so you are just stupid.
Do You think morality is:
anti-realism: subjectivism, relativism?
or
realism: Objectivism, Absolutism?
Or: Made up.
If it's made up then it's relative to subjective opinions and/or cultural
norms and NOT relative to OBJECTIVE situationS, Mr. stupid.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI |
04 May 2005 10:04:26 PM |
|
|
Scott <scott@nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:d5bm75$3r8$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scott <scott@nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
new.ntin.net <scott@nospam.net> wrote:
"Alan Ferris" <alan@spamddandd.com> wrote in message
Quite up to it. I am an atheist simply because their are no gods
except for those than man himself creates. I have not been led to
believe atheism, there is nothing in atheism to believe.
And that includes moral truth.
Your problem like so many atheists is that you *think* morals are
relative/subjective but you believe this to mean situational. The
situation
dictates the rightness or wrongness. That isn't subjectivism/relativism
but
actually moral realism/objectivism.
It means you believe in a Moral Truth.
Your argument is nonsense. Telling people what they believe doesn't
mean that they agree wiht you.
I know you don't grasp that or are
too bull headed to see but that is how it is.
Or you're too delusional to accept that your argument is nonsense.
The is no evidence for morality being stiuational.
Yes there is.
There is no evidence for any absolute moral truth.
LOL. It is amazing just how stupid you atheists are about moral theory.
Where did I say I was an atheist?
you're not an atheist? Oh so you are just stupid.
And you're an *****.
Do You think morality is:
anti-realism: subjectivism, relativism?
or
realism: Objectivism, Absolutism?
Or: Made up.
If it's made up then it's relative to subjective opinions and/or cultural
Make that: Stupid *****.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott" |
|
| Title: Re: His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI |
04 May 2005 11:14:54 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:d5c2fq$m6c$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scott <scott@nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:d5bm75$3r8$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scott <scott@nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
new.ntin.net <scott@nospam.net> wrote:
"Alan Ferris" <alan@spamddandd.com> wrote in message
Quite up to it. I am an atheist simply because their are no gods
except for those than man himself creates. I have not been led to
believe atheism, there is nothing in atheism to believe.
And that includes moral truth.
Your problem like so many atheists is that you *think* morals are
relative/subjective but you believe this to mean situational. The
situation
dictates the rightness or wrongness. That isn't
subjectivism/relativism
but
actually moral realism/objectivism.
It means you believe in a Moral Truth.
Your argument is nonsense. Telling people what they believe doesn't
mean that they agree wiht you.
I know you don't grasp that or are
too bull headed to see but that is how it is.
Or you're too delusional to accept that your argument is nonsense.
The is no evidence for morality being stiuational.
Yes there is.
There is no evidence for any absolute moral truth.
LOL. It is amazing just how stupid you atheists are about moral theory.
Where did I say I was an atheist?
you're not an atheist? Oh so you are just stupid.
And you're an *****.
and have admitted to that a number of times.
Do You think morality is:
anti-realism: subjectivism, relativism?
or
realism: Objectivism, Absolutism?
Or: Made up.
If it's made up then it's relative to subjective opinions and/or cultural
Make that: Stupid *****.
Now that may be true but you know what? I'm not nearly so stupid as you dumb
shits.
take LV: He thinks he can construct an objective sentence that looks
objective and presto moral philosophy is becomes factually object.....but
not real. He thinks "Ice cream is good" is objective and doesn't mean the
subjective "I like ice cream."
There just one problem which shoots his wad of crediblity. Moral objectivism
is defined as Realism.
http://encyclopedia.lockergnome.com/s/b/Moral_objectivism
"Moral objectivism is the position that certain acts are objectively right
or wrong, independent of human opinion. As such, it stands in contrast to
moral relativism, which holds that morals are solely a function of human
opinion and consensus, and do not derive from any external, abstract source.
Further, it is a subset of moral realism." Independent of human opinion! So
extraterestrials sould discover the same moral LAWS.
LV has said that MO is abstract like math and not real. He just got shot
down.
You dumb asses need a simpler version?
http://www.chsbs.cmich.edu/robert_noggle/Phl-397/Lecture%20notes/meta-ethics.htm
MORAL OBJECTIVISM
"Moral objectivism (also called moral realism) claims (approximately) that
there are (objective) moral facts and real moral properties. In other words,
it claims that actions or situations have real moral properties like
goodness or badness or rightness or wrongness, and that these properties are
not mere projections of our attitudes onto the world. Whether or not a given
action or situation has a moral property is supposed to be a matter of fact
not directly dependent on our attitudes toward the situation or action. Thus
moral properties are supposed to be genuine, real, mind-independent
properties of the actions or situations themselves. That is, moral
properties like goodness or badness are objective features of actions or
situations in something like the same way that roundness is an objective
feature of the earth or coldness is an objective property of snow. Moral
facts, then, are supposed to be facts about what situations or what actions
have which moral properties. This means that there is an objective truth
about what is moral, for there is an objective fact of the matter as to
which actions or situations have which moral properties."
It claims what? that actions or situations, alone, dictate the rightness or
wrongess. Most atheist, who claim to be Subjectivist/Relativist mistakenly
use this definition to themselves as moral subjectivist.
MORAL SUBJECTIVISM
Moral subjectivism (also called moral anti-realism or irrealism) claims that
there are no objective moral facts and no real, mind-independent moral
properties. Subjectivism/anti-realism claims that a moral property is in
fact not a "real" property at all, but rather a property that we project
onto the world. That is, moral properties exist only in the minds of humans;
they are merely products of our attitudes toward situations or actions. Thus
moral subjectivism/anti-realism denies that goodness or badness or rightness
or wrongness are real mind-independent features of actions or situations and
claims that they are merely features we project onto them; they do not exist
without us, because they exist only in our minds.
It claims what? that rightness or wrongness is projected onto a situation by
the individual (or culture if used as Cultural Relativism). If Nazis say
killing Jews is righteous then it is right. If the South said slavery was
moral then it was moral. If flying planes into buildings is righteous then
it is rights.....for that individual or culture. Similar to saying ice cream
is good.
I'm going to inject into this one with a few comments.
THE "PROBLEM WITH ETHICS"
Ethical discourse appears to be about moral facts and (objective) moral
properties, yet it is difficult to understand what a moral fact or
(objective) moral property could be. <Just like God is said to be> It is
nothing we can observe directly, <just like God> nor is it anything we can
measure with scientific instruments <just like God>, nor is it anything that
seems to make any detectable empirical difference to the world <Just like
God!>. If there are moral facts and objective moral properties, they seem to
be of a very different kind from ordinary facts <which is why materialism
leads away from such thinking and into the anti-realisms of Relativism just
like it does with gods>. So we think and talk of morality as though there
are moral facts <which, as I've noticed, is very much what so many
dumb-fucking-***** atheists do with their dogmatic liberalism and secular
humanism in religious and atheist ngs>; yet it is not clear that these
things really exist <it takes FAITH to believe in such *things* as God and
cognitive moral knowledge which begs the question about these *morally*
righteous atheists>, or what it would even mean to claim that such facts
"really" exist.< that reality would not be materialistism or monistic>
Scott
Scott
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Liberator Veritatis" |
|
| Title: Re: His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI |
02 May 2005 12:23:19 PM |
|
|
Scott wrote:
"Alan Ferris" <alan@spamddandd.com> wrote in message
news:pmn4715vbrmigs17oatgp0p2dmtdbo1dsa@4ax.com...
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 18:14:04 GMT, "Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote:
"Alan Ferris" <alan@spamddandd.com> wrote in message
news:c85271lq873o237kj5urerkb42ci0eggnh@4ax.com...
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 18:13:34 GMT, "Scott" <scott@nospam.net>
wrote:
In war? Same philosophy applies but on a larger scale. You don't
have to
wait for the nukes to hit to initiate a just war.
No, but you should not lie about nukes existing to justify your
war.
Spot the difference, you have to be actually at threat.
My war??? Which war is that SINCE I was onlyh making a
philosophical
point?
Spot the difference? I gave a real example of an actual threat and
related
it to a global situation. See the differrence?
Alan, you as an atheist, are stupid. In you world there is no such
thing
as
a just war.....or an UNjust war. NONE. There is only war. But you
are too
stupid or bull headed to realize that.
Poor Scott, stuck with having to tell people what they think. You
haven't a clue to what I think or do
See Alan? I told you you were stupid. You can believe whatever you
want. You
can believe there is no god. You can believe there is no pluralistic
reality - that only material nature is reality. BUT there *are* real
epistemic consequences to holding those philosophical positions. To
say you
are a materialist and then say there is no god but you believe in a
god is
what? Contradictory. The same holds within ethics. Similarly to an
objective
god to explain creation, just and unjust wars (moral realism)
requires and
objective morality. That is a Natural Law theory is a necessity with
a set
of Objective Moral Principles. Materialism (your philosophical
position)
denies the existence of objective moral principles.
That you can't comprehend what I just told you as a philosophical
fact is
not necessarily my fault but you epidemiological ignorance. You're a
philosophically moral moron.
Scott
As I have told you several times, it is most certainly not a
philosophical fact that the ONTOLOGICAL position of matermialism is
actually the ETHICAL/METAETHICAL position of moral relativism. In
fact, it is a philosophical fact that they are not the same and that
one cannot assume that one entails the other. Now please don't try to
start elaborately arguing that they do since that is just your
contentious view on the matter and not any kind of a philosophical FACT
unless you think you have some sort of an indisputable argument that
you can state in five lines or less.
Educate yourself, materialism does not automatically imply moral
relativism. And, just because there are a lot more secular humanists
and liberals out there that tend to be atheists than there are
atheists, that doesn't mean that atheism leads to secular humanism or
liberalism. In fact, it is the other way around.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott" |
|
| Title: Re: His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI |
03 May 2005 09:51:48 AM |
|
|
"Liberator Veritatis" <liberatorveritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1115054599.021707.319010@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Scott wrote:
"Alan Ferris" <alan@spamddandd.com> wrote in message
news:pmn4715vbrmigs17oatgp0p2dmtdbo1dsa@4ax.com...
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 18:14:04 GMT, "Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote:
"Alan Ferris" <alan@spamddandd.com> wrote in message
news:c85271lq873o237kj5urerkb42ci0eggnh@4ax.com...
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 18:13:34 GMT, "Scott" <scott@nospam.net>
wrote:
In war? Same philosophy applies but on a larger scale. You don't
have to
wait for the nukes to hit to initiate a just war.
No, but you should not lie about nukes existing to justify your
war.
Spot the difference, you have to be actually at threat.
My war??? Which war is that SINCE I was onlyh making a
philosophical
point?
Spot the difference? I gave a real example of an actual threat and
related
it to a global situation. See the differrence?
Alan, you as an atheist, are stupid. In you world there is no such
thing
as
a just war.....or an UNjust war. NONE. There is only war. But you
are too
stupid or bull headed to realize that.
Poor Scott, stuck with having to tell people what they think. You
haven't a clue to what I think or do
See Alan? I told you you were stupid. You can believe whatever you
want. You
can believe there is no god. You can believe there is no pluralistic
reality - that only material nature is reality. BUT there *are* real
epistemic consequences to holding those philosophical positions. To
say you
are a materialist and then say there is no god but you believe in a
god is
what? Contradictory. The same holds within ethics. Similarly to an
objective
god to explain creation, just and unjust wars (moral realism)
requires and
objective morality. That is a Natural Law theory is a necessity with
a set
of Objective Moral Principles. Materialism (your philosophical
position)
denies the existence of objective moral principles.
That you can't comprehend what I just told you as a philosophical
fact is
not necessarily my fault but you epidemiological ignorance. You're a
philosophically moral moron.
Scott
As I have told you several times, it is most certainly not a
philosophical fact that the ONTOLOGICAL position of matermialism is
actually the ETHICAL/METAETHICAL position of moral relativism. In
fact, it is a philosophical fact that they are not the same and that
one cannot assume that one entails the other. Now please don't try to
start elaborately arguing that they do since that is just your
contentious view on the matter and not any kind of a philosophical FACT
unless you think you have some sort of an indisputable argument that
you can state in five lines or less.
Educate yourself, materialism does not automatically imply moral
relativism. And, just because there are a lot more secular humanists
and liberals out there that tend to be atheists than there are
atheists, that doesn't mean that atheism leads to secular humanism or
liberalism. In fact, it is the other way around.
Yes I know. liberalism is the dogma for most atheists.
I've read some of your post with Jim in alt.philosophy. You couldn't make
your case with him either. So educate yourself. As the other guy said in
t.o., in you world humans are just "educated baboons who scratch themselves
and throw ***** on each other." If materialism is the true nature of reality
there is no such thing as a god or *righteous* ethics. Dogma? You simply
proclaim that moral objectivism is a priori and expect everyone (or anyone)
to accept that as a valid answer even though I can give (and did give) you
*evidence* to the contrary. I think you try to put too much into a priori.
That's a gnoseology and not an epistemology. As I've accused materialistic
atheists who somehow believe there *is* a right and wrong, good and evil,
and that those are based upon the circumstances and not something relative
social norms are actually practicing a non-theistic form of Gnosticism. And
their dogma is? A humanistic liberalism.
"Gnoseology should be considered-along with ontology and natural theology-as
one of the principle part of metaphysics. It is the metaphysical theory of
knowledge.
Gnoseology is the metaphysics of truth. Its study has theoretical importance
and vital relevance especially today because it warns us against fundamental
errors which are very common at the present time."
Since you didn't respond to it in t.o. here it is again:
E=mc^2 had no evidential support until the 1940's. Since anyone can plug in
a number *value* for "m" and get a known for "E" it is reason-able to assume
that other advanced extraterrestrials would discover the same equation. That
equation contains *absolutes*. Other equations even though containing know
absolutes give us probabilities or approximations, pi for example.Euclidean
geometry show itself in fractals. So its reasonable to assume these would
also be discovered by advanced extraterrestrials. The point is math, by and
large, lends itself to evidential support so we assume extraterrestrials
would discover the same *rules* and that these rules are universal
throughout
the Universe. When something new has been discovered in math the Universe
Changed (a la James Burke) and gave us new insight in the *materialistic*
universe - our knowledge of the universe progressed, advanced. Hence,
mathematics is compatible with philosophical materialism.
Although you say morality is similarly objective, I know of no such
equivalency testing for moral reasoning as that for mathematical reasoning.
You just said "Yes" extraterrestrials would discover the same moral
values/rules/laws as what we have discovered. (Never mind that we can't
agree to moral universality.) But! you have yet to lend any support for that
POV. E=mc^2 can be proven mathematically and has evidential support. What is
your proof and/or evidential support for an objective morality? Are there
any absolutes in moral reasoning that would allow us to discover (to moral
progress towards) a greater knowledge of undeniable, unalienable, imperative
Rights -- to advance towards moral truth? Unless you can do any of that
(proof, evidence) you are injecting a pluralism into materialism, into the
universe, that materialism has no reason to accept. Hence, until such proof
or evidence is forthcoming materialism rejects moral realism as it does
other objective *imaginings* such as gods, souls, ghost, pink unicorns, good
and evil, and right and wrong. Morality, then, is taken to be anti-realism,
subjective, and relative. Like gods, Natural Law, Natural Rights,
unalienable human rights, inherent human dignity are all the stuff of myth
makers.
As per materialism, the grounding for humanism is based upon myth.
Humanistic, atheistic, materialists are oxymoronic IMMFHO. ;)
As I've said, I, like you, believe in moral realism but I can't give
anything to support that belief form within a philosophy of reality based
upon materialism. So I can't call myself a materialist. But that's not to
say I don't believe in material reality. I accept most everything in the
natural sciences, evolution as an example of one. I don't know if we'll ever
know the truth of Super Strings. Like Father George Coyne
(http://clavius.as.arizona.edu/vo/R1024/VOFTalks.html) believes we don't
need God to explain what's happening with the Universe. But like him, and
unlike philosophical materialism, I don't believe the Universe - Reality -
is pointless. Science has not lead anyone to a belief in a god. Call it
intuitive reasoning, revelation, faith, or fantasy. I don't give a deadrat's
***** and can't care what others think of my personal philosophy. What is
important to me is that a person's argumentive philosophy is consistent.
< and unlike Alan>
If you, however, can inject into moral reasoning a moral objectivism that
isn't just a *competing* moral theory to that of moral relativism, James
Bruke will come knocking on your door STS. That is, if you can present a
proof or evidence that moral realism *is* the nature of morality and
demolish moral anti-realism, the Universe as we know it will have changed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liberator Veritatis" |
|
| Title: Re: His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI |
03 May 2005 12:24:24 PM |
|
|
Scott wrote:
"Liberator Veritatis" <liberatorveritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote in
message
news:1115054599.021707.319010@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Scott wrote:
"Alan Ferris" <alan@spamddandd.com> wrote in message
news:pmn4715vbrmigs17oatgp0p2dmtdbo1dsa@4ax.com...
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 18:14:04 GMT, "Scott" <scott@nospam.net>
wrote:
"Alan Ferris" <alan@spamddandd.com> wrote in message
news:c85271lq873o237kj5urerkb42ci0eggnh@4ax.com...
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 18:13:34 GMT, "Scott" <scott@nospam.net>
wrote:
In war? Same philosophy applies but on a larger scale. You
don't
have to
wait for the nukes to hit to initiate a just war.
No, but you should not lie about nukes existing to justify
your
war.
Spot the difference, you have to be actually at threat.
My war??? Which war is that SINCE I was onlyh making a
philosophical
point?
Spot the difference? I gave a real example of an actual threat
and
related
it to a global situation. See the differrence?
Alan, you as an atheist, are stupid. In you world there is no
such
thing
as
a just war.....or an UNjust war. NONE. There is only war. But
you
are too
stupid or bull headed to realize that.
Poor Scott, stuck with having to tell people what they think.
You
haven't a clue to what I think or do
See Alan? I told you you were stupid. You can believe whatever you
want. You
can believe there is no god. You can believe there is no
pluralistic
reality - that only material nature is reality. BUT there *are*
real
epistemic consequences to holding those philosophical positions.
To
say you
are a materialist and then say there is no god but you believe in
a
god is
what? Contradictory. The same holds within ethics. Similarly to an
objective
god to explain creation, just and unjust wars (moral realism)
requires and
objective morality. That is a Natural Law theory is a necessity
with
a set
of Objective Moral Principles. Materialism (your philosophical
position)
denies the existence of objective moral principles.
That you can't comprehend what I just told you as a philosophical
fact is
not necessarily my fault but you epidemiological ignorance. You're
a
philosophically moral moron.
Scott
As I have told you several times, it is most certainly not a
philosophical fact that the ONTOLOGICAL position of matermialism is
actually the ETHICAL/METAETHICAL position of moral relativism. In
fact, it is a philosophical fact that they are not the same and
that
one cannot assume that one entails the other. Now please don't try
to
start elaborately arguing that they do since that is just your
contentious view on the matter and not any kind of a philosophical
FACT
unless you think you have some sort of an indisputable argument
that
you can state in five lines or less.
Educate yourself, materialism does not automatically imply moral
relativism. And, just because there are a lot more secular
humanists
and liberals out there that tend to be atheists than there are
atheists, that doesn't mean that atheism leads to secular humanism
or
liberalism. In fact, it is the other way around.
Yes I know. liberalism is the dogma for most atheists.
I've read some of your post with Jim in alt.philosophy. You couldn't
make
your case with him either. So educate yourself.
You are the one with a case to make. Which exchange are you talking
about?
As the other guy said in
t.o., in you world humans are just "educated baboons who scratch
themselves
and throw ***** on each other." If materialism is the true nature of
reality
there is no such thing as a god or *righteous* ethics.
What are you talking about? "In my world"...? That was *his*
contention. My point is that just because he is a materialist (if he
even is) that doesn't mean that his particular moral opinions are those
of other materialists.
I take it, for instance, you are male. I am also male. Therefore, our
views of morality are the same? Cuz, ya know, like materialists, us
men are all alike.
Dogma? You simply
proclaim that moral objectivism is a priori and expect everyone (or
anyone)
to accept that as a valid answer even though I can give (and did
give) you
*evidence* to the contrary.
Well, *after you explain* the difference to your average person, if you
ask them, then, whether they think that moral philosophy is a priori or
empirical, you will get all sorts of replies. (The very fact that you
have to explain the difference should strongly indicate that such
varying responses is not terribly meaningful.) On the other hand,
people who do not have to have these things explained to them in the
first place will tend to say that moral philosophy is a priori and even
more will tend to say that metaethics is a priori.
So your contention that morality varies from culture to culturem, being
a metaethical assertion, is pretty uncontentiously a priori. It is not
the kind of assertion you can provide something like "evidence" for.
Instead, you must defend it philosophically. You certainly cannot just
observe that people from different cultures have different beliefs
about what is or isn't moral to show such an assertion. That same
argument applies to all of knowledge, for instance, but perhaps more
importantly it is a classic. It has been around for centuries and it
has NO mileage in any sophisticated philosophical discussion.
Something like this is right up there with using double meanings of
words to "prove" someone wrong.
I think you try to put too much into a priori.
That's a gnoseology and not an epistemology. As I've accused
materialistic
atheists who somehow believe there *is* a right and wrong, good and
evil,
and that those are based upon the circumstances and not something
relative
social norms are actually practicing a non-theistic form of
Gnosticism. And
their dogma is? A humanistic liberalism.
"Put to much into a priori"...? "A priori" is not a box you put stuff
into. It also isn't a dogma one "believes in". "A priori" is an
adjective describing a proposition which indicates that the proposition
is known to be true without making empirical observations about the
external world. Most people think that math, for instance, is a
priori. (In this case, "most people" would be virtually every single
last mathematician, almost every philosopher and most everyone else.)
You do not perform experiments to figure out the Pythagorean Theorem --
you use pure deductive reasoning. If you did a bunch of experiments,
perhaps measuring several triangles, to show it, most mathematicians
would laugh at you.
Similarly, this business of observing different practices from culture
to culture is about as sophisticated of a method of "proving" ethical
relativism. I know that they are PhD anthropologists doing this sort
of thing, so it seems really "legitimate" and all, but these people
though very well educated in their "field", are completely ignorant of
the History of Ideas. If they were educated very much at all in the
history of philosophy, they wouldn't even be approaching this issue in
the manner that they do.
So, I am understandably unimpressed with this social scientists'
armchair philosophy you present to "prove" moral relativism on
materialist grounds. It is crude and unsophisticated and full of
fallacies. Perhaps you can get some mileage out of it rhetorically,
but that is about it.
"Gnoseology should be considered-along with ontology and natural
theology-as
one of the principle part of metaphysics. It is the metaphysical
theory of
knowledge.
Gnoseology is the metaphysics of truth. Its study has theoretical
importance
and vital relevance especially today because it warns us against
fundamental
errors which are very common at the present time."
Since you didn't respond to it in t.o. here it is again:
In t.o....?
E=mc^2 had no evidential support until the 1940's. Since anyone can
plug in
a number *value* for "m" and get a known for "E" it is reason-able to
assume
that other advanced extraterrestrials would discover the same
equation. That
equation contains *absolutes*. Other equations even though containing
know
absolutes give us probabilities or approximations, pi for
example.Euclidean
geometry show itself in fractals. So its reasonable to assume these
would
also be discovered by advanced extraterrestrials. The point is math,
by and
large, lends itself to evidential support so we assume
extraterrestrials
would discover the same *rules* and that these rules are universal
throughout
the Universe. When something new has been discovered in math the
Universe
Changed (a la James Burke) and gave us new insight in the
*materialistic*
universe - our knowledge of the universe progressed, advanced. Hence,
mathematics is compatible with philosophical materialism.
Basically mathematics can be empirically demonstrated. That's just
ridiculous. Consult any mathematician if you disagree and ask them if
math is demonstrated *empirically* this way. It is not mathematics'
application to the physical world that makes math objective. If it
were, then Euclidean Geometry would actually be *false*. Again, ask
any mathematician whether that's true -- tell them that we know that
space and time are not Euclidean and see if that changes their opinion
on whether Euclidean Geometry is "false".
The reason extraterrestials can discover the same theorems of
mathematics is because math is objective. It is easily seen to be so
in this day and age because it is a formal enterprise of manipulating
symbols. Philosophy and moral philosophy, in particular, are informal
and discursive. So it is quite natural and common for people who are
not very exposed to the history of philosophy to think it isn't
"objective like mathematics". (Plus such a view coincides with a big
movement in the 20th century to try and make such an intuition into a
viable philosophical position. That movement was one of the shortest
doomed to failure projects in the history of philosophy, by the way.)
Indeed, if these extraterrestrials did not expeience the same kind of
physical reality that we do, they very well may never discover many of
the things we have and conversely discover many things we will never
dream up even given an infinite amount of time to do so.
Although you say morality is similarly objective, I know of no such
equivalency testing for moral reasoning as that for mathematical
reasoning.
Oh well! It failed the extgraterrestrials test! :-P
The test for objectivity normally is a test for propositional content.
We are trying to figure out if moral statements are objectively either
true or false. So, while the following test is not at all perfect (or
even some sort of iron clad philosophical approach), it certainly beats
your extraterrestrial test hands down:
Simply ask yourself if the following sentence makes sense "It is true
or false that <insert expression>." So does it even make sense, for
instance, to say "It is true or false that 'Don't do X'." No, it
doesn't, so the expression "Don't do X," has no propositional content
-- it is not either true or false. Does it make sense to say "It is
true or false that 'I like ice cream'." Yes it does -- it IS either
true or false that some particular person likes ice cream. Does it
make sense to say "It is true or false that 'X is wrong'." Yes it
does....
You just said "Yes" extraterrestrials would discover the same moral
values/rules/laws as what we have discovered. (Never mind that we
can't
agree to moral universality.)
Of course we can. Lots of things are agreed to and observed
universally across cultures. This is another myth. I don't think most
people in academia even think otherwise.
But! you have yet to lend any support for that
POV.
As is commonly known, for instance, by those that do not have to have
basic philosophical terminology explained to them, the moral
subjectivist must do the explaining. Even philsoophers that are moral
subjectivists know tha | | | | | | | | | | | |
