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

Moral Realism?

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

  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    Once again, multiverse theory has nothing to do with the the topic of this thread. I didn't introduce it, you did...presumably as a diversionary tactic.
    I introduced it Tass, because you accused me of believing something for which there is no evidence, well you are doing the same thing. You do believe that matter or energy are past eternal, you have to as an atheist - yet there is no evidence that that is so. Once again, the pot calling the kettle black.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tassman
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    No the point Tass is that you believe things that are not, or have not been shown, to be true. And I never cherry-picked Vilenkin - I linked his full video a number of times. Here it is again:

    Did the Universe have a Beginning? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXCQelhKJ7A

    But tell me Tass, be honest, do you have a little shrine in your basement where you worship the great god multiverse? Burn a few incense? Sacrifice a chicken or two?
    Once again, multiverse theory has nothing to do with the the topic of this thread. I didn't introduce it, you did...presumably as a diversionary tactic.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    You brought up the multiverse in this thread seer in #199, not I. You were diverting attention away from the failed god hypothesis by erroneously comparing it to your spectacular misunderstanding of multiverse theory as per your cherry-picked quotes of Vilenkin et al.
    No the point Tass is that you believe things that are not, or have not been shown, to be true. And I never cherry-picked Vilenkin - I linked his full video a number of times. Here it is again:

    Did the Universe have a Beginning? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXCQelhKJ7A

    But tell me Tass, be honest, do you have a little shrine in your basement where you worship the great god multiverse? Burn a few incense? Sacrifice a chicken or two?

    Leave a comment:


  • Tassman
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Give it up Tass, there are good reasons to believe that even if there was a multiverse that it could not be past eternal. We went over this ad nauseam. But the point is there is no credible, actual, physical evidence for said multiverse.




    But you already are committed to your god without sufficient evidence - that is why you keep bring him up...
    You brought up the multiverse in this thread seer in #199, not I. You were diverting attention away from the failed god hypothesis by erroneously comparing it to your spectacular misunderstanding of multiverse theory as per your cherry-picked quotes of Vilenkin et al.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    Come now, you’re in denial. As per the Higg’s Boson, which was predicted for 40 years before it was actually discovered, so multiverse theory remains viable in that a wide variety of different theories lend themselves to a multiverse explanation. They point in that direction. It might be wrong but it’s too soon for you to dismiss it altogether just because it’s inconvenient to your worldview.
    Give it up Tass, there are good reasons to believe that even if there was a multiverse that it could not be past eternal. We went over this ad nauseam. But the point is there is no credible, actual, physical evidence for said multiverse.


    Why would you think multiverse theory was my god, or even that I would be committed to it without sufficient evidence to support it…unlike you and your deity.
    But you already are committed to your god without sufficient evidence - that is why you keep bring him up...

    Leave a comment:


  • Tassman
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Yes Tass, you are entitled to your fantasy. And no Tass, we have been through this enough, there is no viable multiverse theory, one with actual evidence.
    Come now, you’re in denial. As per the Higg’s Boson, which was predicted for 40 years before it was actually discovered, so multiverse theory remains viable in that a wide variety of different theories lend themselves to a multiverse explanation. They point in that direction. It might be wrong but it’s too soon for you to dismiss it altogether just because it’s inconvenient to your worldview.

    And there is zero credible evidence for you god, multiverse, yet wonders of wonders, you still have faith!
    Why would you think multiverse theory was my god, or even that I would be committed to it without sufficient evidence to support it…unlike you and your deity.

    And you yours...
    So there!!! <seer stamps foot>

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    Here we go again.

    The multiverse remains a viable theory in physics inasmuch as a wide variety of different theories lend themselves to a multiverse explanation. Your sole argument against it has been based upon the ‘Incredulity’ fallacy; you can’t imagine how a multiverse could exist so voilà. it doesn’t exist.
    Yes Tass, you are entitled to your fantasy. And no Tass, we have been through this enough, there is no viable multiverse theory, one with actual evidence.



    Of course it is, it’s the most primitive of all hypotheses probably dating back to our caveman days. But, unlike multiverse theory, the ‘god-did-it’ hypothesis is not supported by any credible evidence whatsoever.
    And there is zero credible evidence for you god, multiverse, yet wonders of wonders, you still have faith!


    ]So you like to believe; you’re welcome to your delusion.
    And you yours...

    Leave a comment:


  • Tassman
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Failed hypothesis Tass? Like your multiverse theories that have no substantial evidence?
    Here we go again.

    The multiverse remains a viable theory in physics inasmuch as a wide variety of different theories lend themselves to a multiverse explanation. Your sole argument against it has been based upon the ‘Incredulity’ fallacy; you can’t imagine how a multiverse could exist so voilà. it doesn’t exist.

    Beside, God is not a hypothesis,
    Of course it is, it’s the most primitive of all hypotheses probably dating back to our caveman days. But, unlike multiverse theory, the ‘god-did-it’ hypothesis is not supported by any credible evidence whatsoever.

    He is a Person.
    So you like to believe; you’re welcome to your delusion.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jichard
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Well of course these questions are ultimately meaningless since we are ultimately meaningless.
    I didn't ask you what false claims you were fabricating about your strawman. So please stop pretending otherwise. It's not my fault that you think that questions are meaningless and humans are ultimately meaningless. That's your apparently your position, not mine.

    And you didn't address the question. Feel feel to try again, with honesty this time: Why did you quote a source on what meta-ethics and normative ethics mean, when you previously said they were meaningless? Isn't that a stupidly dishonest thing to do?

    No Jichard, this is on you because I have asked you a number of times why/how moral realism was actually useful
    You were answered, but you pretended that you weren't:
    Originally posted by Jichard View Post
    Same old mistakes you've been corrected on time and time again. Basically, you're committing the fallacy of appeal to consequences, and lying by pretending that moral realism does not answer meta-ethical questions. And you'll keep on dishonestly reapeating these no matter how many times it's pointed out, because you have no interest in engaging in serious discussion or sticking to true claims. Instead, you'll just repeat whatever false claims you deem necessary for your pet position.

    Anyway, once again:
    "You've repeatedly gone on about whether or not moral realism is useful, and I've repeatedly told you that that's a fallacious appeal to consequence, since moral realism doesn't need to be useful in order to be true. Furthermore, I explained to you how moral realism was useful, insofar as it answers meta-ethical questions."
    You've been told this at least 15 times. Yet you're such a blatantly dishonest person, that you think you can fool people by pretending that this hasn't been told to you.

    and how we actually decide what is right or wrong - whether you want appeal to moral realism or normative ethics you have time and time again deflected questions about specific moral questions.
    No, you simply repeat the falsehood that moral realism is supposed to address questions of normative ethics, no matter how many times you're corrected on that, as discussed in the post you were responding to.

    And you were already told how we determine what is right and wrong. For example: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...484#post182484
    It's just that you're such a willfully dishonest person, that you pretend otherwise. Again, sad.

    So anyway since I'm so dishonest I will end this painful discussion.
    Awesome. I'm glad you can recognize your own dishonesty. That way, you can avoid addressing anything that exposes how ridiculous your position is. Maybe you can move on and find people naive enough to fall for what you're doing. Feel free to keep running from questions we both know you're not honest enough to address, such as: Is moral realism a meta-ethical position, or is it a position in normative ethics?
    Last edited by Jichard; 08-02-2015, 01:37 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Jichard View Post
    That doesn't address the point, seer. So please stop being dishonest and address the point.

    Why did you quote a source on what meta-ethics and normative ethics mean, when you previously said they were meaningless? Isn't that a stupidly dishonest thing to do? Stop dishonestly avoiding that.
    Well of course these questions are ultimately meaningless since we are ultimately meaningless.


    Oh, stop being disingenuous. This has already been explained to you; no need to keep pretending otherwise. Once again:

    I've answered this question for you multiple times (ex: here). The answer is: moral realism is a position in meta-ethics, not normative ethics, and thus it's silly to ask it to address questions in normative ethics.

    I've told you this before. You even pretended to be aware of this. But here you are, dishonestly pretending that this hasn't been explained to you. And I'm tired of that dishonesty. That's why I'm asking you this question, a question you keep dishonestly dodging:
    Is moral realism a meta-ethical position, or is it a position in normative ethics?


    You've been told this no less than 6 times. Yet you keep avoiding addressing it.
    No Jichard, this is on you because I have asked you a number of times why/how moral realism was actually useful and how we actually decide what is right or wrong - whether you want appeal to moral realism or normative ethics you have time and time again deflected questions about specific moral questions. So anyway since I'm so dishonest I will end this painful discussion.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jichard
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Because I still don't have a clue what you are getting at. Tell me where I'm off.
    That doesn't address the point, seer. So please stop being dishonest and address the point.

    Why did you quote a source on what meta-ethics and normative ethics mean, when you previously said they were meaningless? Isn't that a stupidly dishonest thing to do? Stop dishonestly avoiding that.

    Moral realism claims that there are moral facts, but moral realism does tell us what these facts are. To actually know what these fact are or could be we have to look at something like Normative ethics - there we find the Holy Grail. With that we decide the behaviors that are actually right or wrong. Is that correct so far? Then the question becomes how do we actually know which of these behaviors are right or wrong? And how is the rightness or wrongness mind independent?
    Oh, stop being disingenuous. This has already been explained to you; no need to keep pretending otherwise. Once again:

    I've answered this question for you multiple times (ex: here). The answer is: moral realism is a position in meta-ethics, not normative ethics, and thus it's silly to ask it to address questions in normative ethics.

    I've told you this before. You even pretended to be aware of this. But here you are, dishonestly pretending that this hasn't been explained to you. And I'm tired of that dishonesty. That's why I'm asking you this question, a question you keep dishonestly dodging:
    Is moral realism a meta-ethical position, or is it a position in normative ethics?


    You've been told this no less than 6 times. Yet you keep avoiding addressing it.

    Leave a comment:


  • JimL
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    I'm not sure what you mean Jim. I agree that we have moral ideals, that is true, and that they are subjective.
    We live in a world and so have to find the patterns in that world that best suit a peaceful and joyous life, for all life. In that sense the morals we derive of the world are objective, but they are not something that exist independent of minds.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by JimL View Post
    Yes and no. Morals do not exist in themselves, but relative to minds they are factual truths.
    I'm not sure what you mean Jim. I agree that we have moral ideals, that is true, and that they are subjective.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Jichard View Post
    Then why did you quote a source on normative ethics and meta-ethics?
    Because I still don't have a clue what you are getting at. Tell me where I'm off.

    Moral realism claims that there are moral facts, but moral realism does tell us what these facts are. To actually know what these fact are or could be we have to look at something like Normative ethics - there we find the Holy Grail. With that we decide the behaviors that are actually right or wrong. Is that correct so far? Then the question becomes how do we actually know which of these behaviors are right or wrong? And how is the rightness or wrongness mind independent?
    Last edited by seer; 08-02-2015, 07:30 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jichard
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Originally posted by Jichard View Post
    Is moral realism a meta-ethical position, or is it a position in normative ethics?
    It doesn't matter since both are meaningless.
    Then why did you quote a source on normative ethics and meta-ethics?
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    But I did read this:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_ethics

    Normative ethics is the study of ethical action. It is the branch of philosophical ethics that investigates the set of questions that arise when considering how one ought to act, morally speaking. Normative ethics is distinct from meta-ethics because it examines standards for the rightness and wrongness of actions, while meta-ethics studies the meaning of moral language and the metaphysics of moral facts. Normative ethics is also distinct from descriptive ethics, as the latter is an empirical investigation of people’s moral beliefs. To put it another way, descriptive ethics would be concerned with determining what proportion of people believe that killing is always wrong, while normative ethics is concerned with whether it is correct to hold such a belief. Hence, normative ethics is sometimes called prescriptive, rather than descriptive. However, on certain versions of the meta-ethical view called moral realism, moral facts are both descriptive and prescriptive at the same time.
    So like normative ethics, moral realism deals with moral facts that are prescriptive.
    Do you bother to understand what you quote-mine before you misrepresent it, or do you lack the honesty to do even that?


    So instead of honestly answering my question, you claim that meta-ethics and normative ethics are meaningless... and then turn around and cite a source on what normative ethics and meta-ethics mean. Seriously, that is really stupid. There's no other word for it. Mind-numbingly stupid, intellectual dishonesty. At this point, I'm wondering if it's even worth my time to respond to your posts, given this and some of the other things you've posted.
    Last edited by Jichard; 08-01-2015, 11:20 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
39 responses
200 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
428 views
0 likes
Last Post tabibito  
Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
45 responses
305 views
1 like
Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
406 responses
2,518 views
2 likes
Last Post tabibito  
Working...
X