Page 96 of 126
Re: Mr Can doesn't understand.
Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 11:27 pm
by vegetariantaxidermy
Lacewing wrote:thedoc wrote: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.
"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.
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?
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.
Re: Mr Can doesn't understand.
Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 11:28 pm
by Ginkgo
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.
Of course they can. For example, Kantian ethics.
Re: Mr Can doesn't understand.
Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 11:31 pm
by Lacewing
Immanuel Can wrote:Lacewing wrote:
Did it ever occur to either of you that theists and non-theists are on completely different channels and speaking different languages?
What language are you speaking right now? Are you expecting me to understand what you say?
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: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?
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.
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?
Re: Mr Can doesn't understand.
Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 11:41 pm
by Harbal
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: IC sincerely believes that he's correct and completely rational. No one but himself can ever change that.
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.
Re: Mr Can doesn't understand.
Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 11:48 pm
by vegetariantaxidermy
Harbal wrote:vegetariantaxidermy wrote: IC sincerely believes that he's correct and completely rational. No one but himself can ever change that.
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.
You could be right. He does have a kauri stump on his shoulder.
Re: Mr Can doesn't understand.
Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 11:50 pm
by Lacewing
Harbal wrote:vegetariantaxidermy wrote: IC sincerely believes that he's correct and completely rational. No one but himself can ever change that.
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.
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.
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.
Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2016 12:01 am
by Dubious
Harbal wrote:vegetariantaxidermy wrote: IC sincerely believes that he's correct and completely rational. No one but himself can ever change that.
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.
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.
Re: Mr Can doesn't understand.
Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2016 12:18 am
by Harbal
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.
That sounds rational to me, Dubious.
Re: Mr Can doesn't understand.
Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2016 12:23 am
by Necromancer
Ginkgo wrote: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.
Of course they can. For example, Kantian ethics.
Wouldn't they then be (Kantian) Humanists?
Re: Mr Can doesn't understand.
Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2016 12:28 am
by Harbal
Necromancer wrote:
Wouldn't they then be (Kantian) Humanists?
No. They would be Human Kantians.
Re: Mr Can doesn't understand.
Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2016 12:29 am
by Necromancer
Re: Mr Can doesn't understand.
Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2016 12:48 am
by Ginkgo
Yes, you could say that. Kantian ethics is both humanist and rationalist
Re: Mr Can doesn't understand.
Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2016 2:16 am
by Immanuel Can
Ginkgo wrote:Of course they can. For example, Kantian ethics.
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.
Re: Mr Can doesn't understand.
Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2016 2:18 am
by Immanuel Can
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.
It's so eeeeeasy to prove me wrong. Just name one moral value that Atheism rationalizes. Just one. Any one.
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.
Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2016 3:14 am
by Lacewing
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.
