Philosophy Now Forum

Arising_uk wrote:

attofishpi wrote:Apart from the '10' commandments and the word of Christ, the rest is man's own bollocks to satisfy man.

This just sounds like a man picking and choosing his own bollocks.

No, just the pertinent points as issued direct from the source.

attofishpi wrote:No, just the pertinent points as issued direct from the source.

I thought you had an intermediary 'sage'?

sthitapragya wrote:I have explained ad nauseum why atheists would disagree with things like bride burning.

This you have not done. You have waffled between, "Well, society won't like it, so they'll punish people for doing it," and then dodged the corollary problem, which is "What if society approves?"

You've got no grounded rationale that proves that anyone who thinks bride-burning is okay can be said to be "wrong." If morals are subjective, then nothing is ever "wrong." It's merely that a few things are "inconvenient." But when they become convenient, then they're as "right" as anything can be.

That's why Atheism can allow some evil men to rationalize atrocities. It actually knows no moral limits at all. Stalin. Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il...all more ardent Atheists than you will probably ever want to be. And look at what they did?

148 million dead.

..you obviously want to believe that all atheists are immoral.

Categorically untrue. I've repeatedly denied this, so there's no point to repeat my reasons.

But Atheism is amoral. That, indeed I have also repeatedly said. However, I've every time also said that Atheists are sometimes nice people. But they have no reason why they HAVE to be, since Atheism has no moral information in it.

I see why you're determined to continue to blend the ideas. Maybe it's just easier to dismiss me as a "bigot" as you say than to address the very real and substantial argument I'm making there. However, remember what an "ad hominem" fallacy is: yet means thinking that you can escape a person's argument my insulting the quality of their character. And the basic rules of logic say you cannot do that. Even if I were a total monster, that would not tell you whether or not this particular argument were any good. It might be anyway.

You've got to face the argument, not the speaker.

You cannot seem to realize that you yourself prove that all morality is subjective by pointing out the subjective moral choice of theists from their own objective morals.

This remains your second philosophical confusion. As I said, you are certainly having difficulty in distinguishing between an ideology (Atheism) and the people who happen to say they believe it (Atheists). But secondly, you haven't yet figured out the difference between subjectivity-of-decision and subjectivity-of-object. You don't yet see that the question of whether or not morals are objective remains completely untouched by whether or not people believe in them. It's just irrelevant, logically speaking.

And I'm not sure I can help you sort it out more simply than that. But you won't figure out what I'm really saying until you do.

Immanuel Can wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:I have explained ad nauseum why atheists would disagree with things like bride burning.

This you have not done. You have waffled between, "Well, society won't like it, so they'll punish people for doing it," and then dodged the corollary problem, which is "What if society approves?"

You've got no grounded rationale that proves that anyone who thinks bride-burning is okay can be said to be "wrong." If morals are subjective, then nothing is ever "wrong." It's merely that a few things are "inconvenient." But when they become convenient, then they're as "right" as anything can be.

That's why Atheism can allow some evil men to rationalize atrocities. It actually knows no moral limits at all. Stalin. Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il...all more ardent Atheists than you will probably ever want to be. And look at what they did?

148 million dead.

..you obviously want to believe that all atheists are immoral.

Categorically untrue. I've repeatedly denied this, so there's no point to repeat my reasons.

But Atheism is amoral. That, indeed I have also repeatedly said. However, I've every time also said that Atheists are sometimes nice people. But they have no reason why they HAVE to be, since Atheism has no moral information in it.

I see why you're determined to continue to blend the ideas. Maybe it's just easier to dismiss me as a "bigot" as you say than to address the very real and substantial argument I'm making there. However, remember what an "ad hominem" fallacy is: yet means thinking that you can escape a person's argument my insulting the quality of their character. And the basic rules of logic say you cannot do that. Even if I were a total monster, that would not tell you whether or not this particular argument were any good. It might be anyway.

You've got to face the argument, not the speaker.

You cannot seem to realize that you yourself prove that all morality is subjective by pointing out the subjective moral choice of theists from their own objective morals.

This remains your second philosophical confusion. As I said, you are certainly having difficulty in distinguishing between an ideology (Atheism) and the people who happen to say they believe it (Atheists). But secondly, you haven't yet figured out the difference between subjectivity-of-decision and subjectivity-of-object. You don't yet see that the question of whether or not morals are objective remains completely untouched by whether or not people believe in them. It's just irrelevant, logically speaking.

And I'm not sure I can help you sort it out more simply than that. But you won't figure out what I'm really saying until you do.

Don't pick and choose parts of my reply. Try again.

sthitapragya wrote: Don't pick and choose parts of my reply. Try again.

The full text of your message is above, as you surely know. It does not need to be repeated every time. That just makes messages unnecessarily long and unwieldy.

Pick out the part you think was important, and I'll address it. No problem.

Immanuel Can wrote:

sthitapragya wrote: Don't pick and choose parts of my reply. Try again.

The full text of your message is above, as you surely know. It does not need to be repeated every time. That just makes messages unnecessarily long and unwieldy.

Pick out the part you think was important, and I'll address it. No problem.

All of it.

sthitapragya wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:Pick out the part you think was important, and I'll address it. No problem.

All of it.

Some of it was redundant. You don't need me to address the same question twice in the same message. And a bit of it was actually not sensible...particularly the part about blobbing Theists together, since it makes it look like you might not know the difference between a Mormon, a Muslim and a Moonie, or between a Theosophist a theologian and a Thuggee...

Are you saying that is actually so? And if it is, did you really want me to point it out?

Immanuel Can wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:Pick out the part you think was important, and I'll address it. No problem.

All of it.

Some of it was redundant. You don't need me to address the same question twice in the same message. And a bit of it was actually not sensible...particularly the part about blobbing Theists together, since it makes it look like you might not know the difference between a Mormon, a Muslim and a Moonie, or between a Theosophist a theologian and a Thuggee...

Are you saying that is actually so? And if it is, did you really want me to point it out?

You are not the judge. I didn't appoint you one. Try again.

sthitapragya wrote:You are not the judge. I didn't appoint you one. Try again.

You asked me to deal with everything you say as you say it. So I will.

Okay...never called myself "judge," and to my knowledge, you have no power of "appointing" anything.

And "try again" is mere rhetoric, and is irrelevant and unresponsive.

Immanuel Can wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:You are not the judge. I didn't appoint you one. Try again.

You asked me to deal with everything you say as you say it. So I will.

Okay...never called myself "judge," and to my knowledge, you have no power of "appointing" anything.

And "try again" is mere rhetoric, and is irrelevant and unresponsive.

Try using my whole reply and reply to that again. Oh and a Christian named Phil X seems to think that the Sabbath rule applies to Christians. So maybe you can discuss how you subjectively decided that it does not apply to you. Refer to the thread, " are all believers in God automatically Idol worshippers?"

Immanuel Can wrote:theism is amoral. That, indeed I have also repeatedly said. However, I've every time also said that theists are sometimes nice people. But they have no reason why they HAVE to be, since theism has no moral information in it.

Thank you. that is what I have been saying all along too. IT can work both ways. i chose the parts I thought were important and deleted the parts that were redundant to me. If you feel some parts were important, point them out. I will be happy to reply. After all, you can't seriously suggest that everything you said was pure gold.

sthitapragya wrote:Thank you. that is what I have been saying all along too. IT can work both ways. i chose the parts I thought were important and deleted the parts that were redundant to me. If you feel some parts were important, point them out. I will be happy to reply.

No you didn't, actually. You deliberately reversed the meaning. But you knew that.

I'm still waiting to hear what part of the excised material you regarded as important-but-missed. You were never able to identify even one thing. So go ahead, if you can, and I'll deal with it now.

Immanuel Can wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:Thank you. that is what I have been saying all along too. IT can work both ways. i chose the parts I thought were important and deleted the parts that were redundant to me. If you feel some parts were important, point them out. I will be happy to reply.

No you didn't, actually. You deliberately reversed the meaning. But you knew that.

I'm still waiting to hear what part of the excised material you regarded as important-but-missed. You were never able to identify even one thing. So go ahead, if you can, and I'll deal with it now.

So did you.

sthitapragya wrote:So did you.

Show how.

Immanuel Can wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:So did you.

Show how.

Not your servant just because you are a white Christian and I am an Indian barbarian. Go back to the post, copy and paste everything I said, and reply to it. Otherwise, fuck you.