Pissing off the atheists/naturalists

[Skepdick]

Sorry, I haven't used the word "God" anywhere in my argument.

Why are you bringing this to the table?

Ha! So what is your definition of an atheist?

People who call themselves atheists.

You sem vested in my argument, so I am guessing you define yourself as an atheist?

[Gary Childress]

Yes. And it would exist. Because the creation is not the creator.

So. Do you believe the source of morality exists?

I don't know. I haven't encountered a source of morality. I only know what seems or else doesn't seem moral to me.

You are contradicting yourself. You just said that humans created it.

I didn't say humans created it. You didn't ask me if humans created morality or not. Had you asked me that question, my response would have been, I don't know. I thought you were asking for clarity in logic so I was trying to oblige.

[Skepdick]

I don't know. I haven't encountered a source of morality. I only know what seems or else doesn't seem moral to me.

You are contradicting yourself. You just said that humans created it.

I didn't say humans created it. You didn't ask me if humans created morality or not. Had you asked me that question, my response would have been, I don't know. I thought you were asking for clarity in logic so I was trying to oblige.

Gary... please pull the other one.

A source of morality exists that is made or caused by humans.

[Gary Childress]

You are contradicting yourself. You just said that humans created it.

I didn't say humans created it. You didn't ask me if humans created morality or not. Had you asked me that question, my response would have been, I don't know. I thought you were asking for clarity in logic so I was trying to oblige.

Garry... please pull the other one.

A source of morality exists that is made or caused by humans.

You told me to go by the Oxford definition of "nature" so I plugged it into the argument that YOU provided and showed you the answer to your argument. What more do you want from me? I can tell you how some valid logic works. I can't tell you whether or not a premise is true. Basically, I was going off what the premises you supplied stated. Are you "gaslighting" me now?

[Skepdick]

You told me to go by the Oxford definition of "nature" so I plugged it into the argument that YOU provided and showed you the answer to your argument. What more do you want from me? I can tell you how some valid logic works. I can't tell you whether or not a premise is true or not. Basically, I was going off what the premises you supplied stated. Are you "gaslighting" me now?

You did more than that though.

You plugged in a substitution. And THEN you provided an interpretation for that substitution (by applying the double negation elimination principle). You chose that principle (which is not universal) across all logics.

You reified the source of morality and claimed it exists.

[Gary Childress]

You told me to go by the Oxford definition of "nature" so I plugged it into the argument that YOU provided and showed you the answer to your argument. What more do you want from me? I can tell you how some valid logic works. I can't tell you whether or not a premise is true or not. Basically, I was going off what the premises you supplied stated. Are you "gaslighting" me now?

You did more than that though.

You plugged in a substitution. And THEN you provided an interpretation for that substitution (by applying the double negation elimination principle). You chose that principle (which is not universal) across all logics.

You reified the source of morality and claimed it exists.

Is the double negation principle not logical? It's the logic I learned. Did I learn the wrong logic? If something is not not what it is, then what is it according to this alternative logic?

[Skepdick]

Is the double negation principle not logical? It's the logic I learned. Did I learn the wrong logic? If something is not not what it is, then what is it according to this alternative logic?

It's subject to choice.

I don't know which logic is the "right" or "wrong" logic. That's a moral question.

All I am saying is that you conclusion is only justifiable IF you use the double negation elimination principle

[Gary Childress]

Is the double negation principle not logical? It's the logic I learned. Did I learn the wrong logic? If something is not not what it is, then what is it according to this alternative logic?

It's subject to choice.

I don't know which logic is the "right" or "wrong" logic.

All I am saying is that you conclusion is only justifiable IF you use the double negation elimination principle.

I see. Is there a reason why we shouldn't use the double negation elimination principle? Will it help us figure things out better if we don't use it? And if so, in what way does it help us figure things out better than the double negation elimination principle did?

[Skepdick]

I see. Is there a reason why we shouldn't use the double negation elimination principle? Will it help us figure things out better if we don't use it? And if so, in what way does it help us figure things out better than the double negation elimination principle did?

It goes back to that thing where negation is free for skeptics.

It carries no cost to negate a premise, and that's fine - because premises are mere axioms. If they aren't the product of prior reasoning then it's anybody's guess.

But then skeptics go toofar and it also carries no cost in negating a sound conclusion used as a premise for another argument.

Failing to prove A and concluding "probably not A" as assuming "probably not A" right from the start.

[Gary Childress]

I see. Is there a reason why we shouldn't use the double negation elimination principle? Will it help us figure things out better if we don't use it? And if so, in what way does it help us figure things out better than the double negation elimination principle did?

It goes back to that thing where negation is free for skeptics.

It carries no cost to negate a premise, and that's fine - because premises are mere axioms. If they aren't the product of prior reasoning then it's anybody's guess.

But then skeptics go toofar and it also carries no cost in negating a sound conclusion.

Failing to prove A and concluding "probably not A"
Is not the same thing as negating A right from the start.

A sound conclusion cannot be negated in classical logic. A "sound" argument is an argument that has both TRUE premises and a VALID structure by which to derive a "sound" conclusion from those premises. Why would you want to discard logic like that? How is that NOT going to confuse the shit out of everyone?

[Skepdick]

A sound conclusion cannot be negated in classical logic. A "sound" argument is an argument that has both TRUE premises and a VALID structure by which to derive a "sound" conclusion from those premises. Why would you want to discard logic like that? How is that NOT going to confuse the shit out of everyone?

I don't know! Ask the skeptics.

They are negating my P1 and P2.

They LOOK like premises (to them), but they are, in fact conclusions which have endured prolonged and intentional attempts to negate them.

And then comes the skeptic and says "NO!". No counter-example, no attempt. Just words.

[Gary Childress]

A sound conclusion cannot be negated in classical logic. A "sound" argument is an argument that has both TRUE premises and a VALID structure by which to derive a "sound" conclusion from those premises. Why would you want to discard logic like that? How is that NOT going to confuse the shit out of everyone?

I don't know! Ask the skeptics.

They are negating my P1 and P2.

They LOOK like premises (to them), but they are, in fact conclusions of prior reasoning.

You seem confused to me. Your P1 and P2 are NOT "facts". They are premises that require proof just as anything else requires proof. I think you're creating a lot more complications than need to be created. It sounds to me like you're trying to shoehorn your premises P1 and P2 in under the radar. Sorry, no deal. That which is not knowable is not knowable. I say the same to theists. Get used to it and become honest.

Or feel free to talk to yourself if you don't want to debate your points.

[Skepdick]

You seem confused to me. Your P1 and P2 are NOT "facts". They are premises that require proof just as anything else requires proof.

I think you're creating a lot more complications than need to be created. It sounds to me like you're trying to shoehorn your premises P1 and P2 in under the radar. Sorry, no deal. That which is not knowable is not knowable. I say the same to theists. Get used to it and become honest.

Or feel free to talk to yourself if you don't want to debate your points.

You seem even more confused to me.

P1 is scientifc fact. It is a statement which has endured any and ALL empirical attempts of negation. And then comes the skeptic and just negates it without a counter-example. Completely disregarding all the failed attempts of negation.

Do you not see the difference between empirical negation (a counter-example), and axiomatic negation (choice)?

One requires effort.
One doesn't.

P2 puts you at the decision of morality or nihilism. Your call.

[commonsense]

Never mentioned God, you said.

The title of this thread certainly is about God. What are atheists?

[Skepdick]

Never mentioned God, you said.

The title of this thread certainly is about God. What are atheists?

Ask them what they are. I don't know. All I know is that they are atheists.

Are you saying atheists don't exist? That would piss them off too...