Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Weaknesses of atheism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by eschaton View Post
    I suppose Leonhard was responding to the video, but I never said anything about Aristotle assigning a purpose to people. Did the video use the word purpose? I thought it was about ethics. What is truly ethical is that which is based on imitating God. I'll watch it again.
    The 'utility monster' is from Robert Nozick's thought experiment concerning ethics, morality and purpose. This does not fit Aristotle. Eshaton actually admits part of the confusion in the above post. He felt it fit the 'imitating?' God.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 12-22-2014, 08:10 PM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      Ever notice how much time Shuny spends defending Atheism? Just a bit strange for someone who says they are a theist.
      No, it's not strange. It just means that shuny holds to a different form of theism than you do.

      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
      Please, let others speak for themselves. You, of course, can rely on your gang of four to agree with you as before.

      The atheists know full well my position and belief in God and my attitude toward their world view.
      Looks like your arguments are proving effective, shuny given the frustrated responses of those unable to rebut them.
      Last edited by Tassman; 12-22-2014, 11:37 PM.
      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        Been over this many many many times. I attack bad foolish arguments, and from this perspective they are out of date, childish ad foolish. I personally have debated atheists directly, and do not resort to this contrived dishonesty.

        I will continue to do this.
        You prefer other kinds of dishonesty, right?

        Like (supposedly) advancing a position you don't believe in as if you do so as to 'enhance debate'...
        ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by eschaton View Post
          What is truly ethical is that which is based on imitating God.
          Yes, but not quite: the telos is to be conformed to the image of His Son, that is, to become imago Dei.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
            Misrepresenting me again, bad habit. I responded to specific bad arguments, and please do not misrepresent me by looks like' remarks. In fact my challenges stand and they were not refuted.
            No you were defending the atheists. Just because you don't even understand what objective morality is, doesn't make it a "bad argument" -- but the fact that you decided you had to stick up for atheists shows that you identify with them more than you do with theists.

            Just keep denying it Shuny. Everyone can see right through that easily enough.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Tassman View Post
              No, it's not strange. It just means that shuny holds to a different form of theism than you do.



              Looks like your arguments are proving effective, shuny given the frustrated responses of those unable to rebut them.
              Well there you go Shuny. You have Tassman on your side. My case is proven.

              Comment


              • #52
                Why is a thread which is ostensibly directed towards atheists being turned into an Ad Hominem against Shunyadragon? Could we, perhaps, return to discussing the objections actually raised by atheists, including me, in this thread?
                "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
                --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                  Discussions of purported immorality in the Bible are intended to show inconsistencies in Christian ethics. If killing the innocent is always objectively wrong, as Christian ethicists generally contend, and if the Bible contains instances wherein God either commands or condones the murder of the innocent, then there is an inconsistency in Christian ethics which needs to be addressed.

                  I'll just pick up on this point...

                  There are lots of possible responses to your objection :

                  (1) Pointing at (possible) failures in Christian ethics does nothing to validate or ground an atheistic moral position.

                  (2) You appear to conflate absolute morality (Moral principle X is always true for everyone everywhere) with objective morality (Moral principle X is true no matter who believes it or not)

                  (3) People killing the innocent is not the same as God killing the innocent. It's not inconsistent for a Christian to claim (say) that it's wrong for people to do X , but not wrong for God to do X.

                  (4) Some Christians might respond that where the Bible shows God doing X (objectionable), or claims that God endorses X, it's just wrong - God doesn't do or endorse X, the writers of the Bible simply were wrong, or are using God to justify their own misdeeds.

                  (5) Some Christians might argue that your interpretation of the Bible is incorrect, where you think it shows God doing X, or condoning X, He doesn't in fact do so (this would depend on the specifics of what passages you're thinking of).
                  ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                    I'll just pick up on this point...
                    Thanks!

                    (1) Pointing at (possible) failures in Christian ethics does nothing to validate or ground an atheistic moral position.
                    I agree, but it's not really intended to do so. Showing inconsistencies within claims does not require that one supplants those claims with consistent ones. If we are discussing Christian claims for morality, it is entirely proper to discuss perceived faults in those claims. I would similarly say that if we are discussing Humanist claims for morality, a Christian need not support his own moral claims in order to point out inconsistencies in the Humanist claims.

                    (2) You appear to conflate absolute morality (Moral principle X is always true for everyone everywhere) with objective morality (Moral principle X is true no matter who believes it or not)
                    You are correct! I was conflating the two. I will adjust my discussion to account for the discrepancy.

                    (3) People killing the innocent is not the same as God killing the innocent. It's not inconsistent for a Christian to claim (say) that it's wrong for people to do X , but not wrong for God to do X.
                    Assuming the clarification that you meant it is wrong for human people to do X, but not for God to do X (as I am assuming that you support the idea that God is a person or persons), I'll say I agree with you.

                    (4) Some Christians might respond that where the Bible shows God doing X (objectionable), or claims that God endorses X, it's just wrong - God doesn't do or endorse X, the writers of the Bible simply were wrong, or are using God to justify their own misdeeds.
                    I've absolutely heard such objections before. Depending upon the claimant's view of inerrancy, such views could certainly be consistent.

                    (5) Some Christians might argue that your interpretation of the Bible is incorrect, where you think it shows God doing X, or condoning X, He doesn't in fact do so (this would depend on the specifics of what passages you're thinking of).
                    I also agree, here, depending upon the passage. Such cases would need to be examined on a case-by-case basis.


                    My intention was not to imply that all Christian ethical philosophies are inconsistent-- I would certainly cringe at hearing such an overbroad generalization. However, when offered specific ethical claims by a Christian, it is not inappropriate to question how he reconciles those claims with passages from his holy text which might seem to contradict the claim.
                    "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
                    --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                      You prefer other kinds of dishonesty, right?

                      Like (supposedly) advancing a position you don't believe in as if you do so as to 'enhance debate'...
                      If you were remotely familiar with debating classes, workshops and debating clubs on University campuses, you would realize this is a legitimate debating technique to practice debating and not dishonest. I have participated in debating clubs, classes and workshops while in college and it is often the case that you are assigned a topic and position you do not believe or care about, to practice your debating skills. I have done this in the past.
                      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                      go with the flow the river knows . . .

                      Frank

                      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        Well there you go Shuny. You have Tassman on your side. My case is proven.
                        Ad Hominem and dishonest misrepresentation big time!?!?!?!

                        It would help if you focused on the thread topic instead of personal attacks.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          If you were remotely familiar with debating classes, workshops and debating clubs on University campuses, you would realize this is a legitimate debating technique to practice debating and not dishonest. I have participated in debating clubs, classes and workshops while in college and it is often the case that you are assigned a topic and position you do not believe or care about, to practice your debating skills. I have done this in the past.
                          If this were a formal debate and you were assigned to argue the other side, that lame excuse might hold water. But here it doesn't. Why don't you practice your "debating skills" defending what you claim you actually believe?

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                            Ad Hominem and dishonest misrepresentation big time!?!?!?!
                            Simply repeating yourself over and over doesn't change anything. You are still identifying more with atheists than theists and seem to think atheists can't handle their own side of the argument.


                            ...well, with Tassman, that might be true. Hmmm.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              The 'utility monster' is from Robert Nozick's thought experiment concerning ethics, morality and purpose. This does not fit Aristotle. Eshaton actually admits part of the confusion in the above post. He felt it fit the 'imitating?' God.
                              Let me inform you on the meaning of philosophy.

                              Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language
                              The Capitol Insurrection And Religion

                              https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...t_bibl_vppi_i0

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by eschaton View Post
                                Let me inform you on the meaning of philosophy.

                                Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language
                                No need to inform. I full well know the meaning of philosophy. What's your beef?

                                The 'utility monster' is from Robert Nozick's thought experiment concerning ethics, morality and purpose. This does not fit Aristotle. Eshaton actually admits part of the confusion in the above post. He felt it fit the 'imitating?' God
                                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                                Frank

                                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                172 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                132 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                426 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                                406 responses
                                2,509 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X