Absolutely correct, which is why these discussions are pointless and never-ending. IC sincerely believes that he's correct and completely rational. No one but himself can ever change that.Lacewing wrote:Did it ever occur to either of you that theists and non-theists are on completely different channels and speaking different languages? Do you assume that the entire world must "rightly" revolve around your view of what is and what should be? It doesn't. There are many ways in which your view makes no sense at all to another perspective. It's just babble. So why do you think it's an issue of non-theists "not facing the real issue"? When it's actually that your issue is simply NOT REAL to non-theists?thedoc wrote:"Talking past each other" can be intentional or unintentional, in that the other party knows what is being said or not. In this case I agree with you, but I believe the atheists just don't want to face the real issue and give a straight answer, so we have the exchange that has been going on for many pages.Immanuel Can wrote: We haven't been "talking past" each other at all...they know darn well what I mean. They're not illiterate, nor incapable of basic deductions. They just don't want to go where there reason will take them. So the Atheist set has been skating away from the real question like mad.
A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists
- vegetariantaxidermy
- Posts: 13975
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
- Location: Narniabiznus
Re: Mr Can doesn't understand.
Re: Mr Can doesn't understand.
Of course they can. For example, Kantian ethics.Immanuel Can wrote:
I didn't say you couldn't be irrational. I merely pointed out that there's no rational way for an Atheist to believe in moral properties.
Re: Mr Can doesn't understand.
The language of a non-theist. Based on experience of you, no I don't really expect you to understand, but sometimes I still feel compelled to try.Immanuel Can wrote:What language are you speaking right now? Are you expecting me to understand what you say?Lacewing wrote: Did it ever occur to either of you that theists and non-theists are on completely different channels and speaking different languages?
See, you're not hearing/understanding me right now. Your funky ideas are not shared by a lot of non-theists. So why would they even need to fake or avoid something that MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE to them? It simply makes no sense. There's nothing to "avoid". It's meaningless. Get it?Immanuel Can wrote:I thought I made that clear. They're faking it. They know darn well what the problem with morality and Atheism is. They just don't want to face it.Lacewing wrote:So why do you think it's an issue of non-theists "not facing the real issue"? When it's actually that your issue is simply NOT REAL to non-theists?
Re: Mr Can doesn't understand.
Or it could be that he just has a chip on his shoulder about atheists and will say anything to try and wind them up, regardless of what he believes. You could be right though, maybe he really is stupid enough to believe what he's saying.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: IC sincerely believes that he's correct and completely rational. No one but himself can ever change that.
- vegetariantaxidermy
- Posts: 13975
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
- Location: Narniabiznus
Re: Mr Can doesn't understand.
You could be right. He does have a kauri stump on his shoulder.Harbal wrote:Or it could be that he just has a chip on his shoulder about atheists and will say anything to try and wind them up, regardless of what he believes. You could be right though, maybe he really is stupid enough to believe what he's saying.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: IC sincerely believes that he's correct and completely rational. No one but himself can ever change that.
Re: Mr Can doesn't understand.
I think it's both! He just has a chip on his shoulder about atheists and will say anything to try and wind them up, regardless of what he believes AND he really is stupid enough to believe what he's saying.Harbal wrote:Or it could be that he just has a chip on his shoulder about atheists and will say anything to try and wind them up, regardless of what he believes. You could be right though, maybe he really is stupid enough to believe what he's saying.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: IC sincerely believes that he's correct and completely rational. No one but himself can ever change that.
May seem impossible to do both, but that's what a lot of theists are "all about", you know... doing and believing the impossible.
Re: Mr Can doesn't understand.
It's less about him being stupid and more about being perverse since all his irrational claims about non-theistic morality not being rational can be rationally applied to theism. Change the target and all his statements begin to make sense.Harbal wrote:Or it could be that he just has a chip on his shoulder about atheists and will say anything to try and wind them up, regardless of what he believes. You could be right though, maybe he really is stupid enough to believe what he's saying.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: IC sincerely believes that he's correct and completely rational. No one but himself can ever change that.
Re: Mr Can doesn't understand.
That sounds rational to me, Dubious.Dubious wrote: It's less about him being stupid and more about being perverse since all his irrational claims about non-theistic morality not being rational can be rationally applied to theism. Change the target and all his statements begin to make sense.
- Necromancer
- Posts: 405
- Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:30 am
- Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
- Contact:
Re: Mr Can doesn't understand.
Wouldn't they then be (Kantian) Humanists?Ginkgo wrote:Of course they can. For example, Kantian ethics.Immanuel Can wrote:
I didn't say you couldn't be irrational. I merely pointed out that there's no rational way for an Atheist to believe in moral properties.
Re: Mr Can doesn't understand.
No. They would be Human Kantians.Necromancer wrote: Wouldn't they then be (Kantian) Humanists?
- Necromancer
- Posts: 405
- Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:30 am
- Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
- Contact:
Re: Mr Can doesn't understand.
Harbal wrote:No. They would be Human Kantians.Necromancer wrote: Wouldn't they then be (Kantian) Humanists?
Re: Mr Can doesn't understand.
Yes, you could say that. Kantian ethics is both humanist and rationalistNecromancer wrote:Harbal wrote:No. They would be Human Kantians.Necromancer wrote: Wouldn't they then be (Kantian) Humanists?![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 27628
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Mr Can doesn't understand.
Kantianism is not grounded either. Take a look at Joel Marks' two articles on that subject in PN, if you want more details. He's right about that.Ginkgo wrote:Of course they can. For example, Kantian ethics.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 27628
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Mr Can doesn't understand.
It's so eeeeeasy to prove me wrong. Just name one moral value that Atheism rationalizes. Just one. Any one.Dubious wrote:It's less about him being stupid and more about being perverse since all his irrational claims about non-theistic morality not being rational can be rationally applied to theism. Change the target and all his statements begin to make sense.
And if you can't, then the conclusion is obvious: the fault is not with me. It's with Atheism.
Re: Mr Can doesn't understand.
There's something very demented about a theist who keeps forcing his language and beliefs on non-theists who have made it clear that their perspectives are different.