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

Appeals to authority and disagreement are a bad idea

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

  • Appeals to authority and disagreement are a bad idea

    It makes no sense to object to a position by pointing out that someone disagrees with it. But apparently this is taken as an OK objection to moral realism.

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    I have been reading the last couple of days about moral error theory and moral nihilism, especially Alex Rosenberg's take on moral nihilism. He would not agree that moral realism is true. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...d/#more-157596
    But suppose one accepts that fallacious line of reasoning. Then by that logic, one should reject theism, since most philosophers reject theism.

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Originally posted by Jichard View Post
    So congratulations on finding someone who thinks moral nihilism [is true. So what? You do realize Rosenberg accepts atheism, right, along with naturalism? Are you going to agree with him on that to, or does you intellectual consistency not go that far?
    So you agree that not all atheists who understand this issue agree with moral realism - correct?
    Now some might try to evade this point by acting as if the majority of philosophers hold views that they don't actually hold.

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Originally posted by Jichard View Post
    So you agree that the majority of philosophers who understand this issue reject theism - correct?
    No, in case it escaped you, they reject moral realism - but not on religious grounds like you accused me. So men of good will can reject moral realism without religious motives.
    But, of course, this won't work, since the majority of philosophers reject theism and accept moral realism:
    http://philpapers.org/surveys/result...1&grain=coarse


    So why does it make sense for some theists to object to moral realism by saying that not all atheist philosophers accept it, when those same theists don't have a problem with atheist philosophers not accepting theism?

    And why do some theists cite disagreement when it suits their purposes, but discard it when it doesn't, for no apparent reason other than ideological convenience? Isn't that special pleading?
    "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

  • #2
    Originally posted by Jichard View Post
    So why does it make sense for some theists to object to moral realism by saying that not all atheist philosophers accept it, when those same theists don't have a problem with atheist philosophers not accepting theism?

    And why do some theists cite disagreement when it suits their purposes, but discard it when it doesn't, for no apparent reason other than ideological convenience? Isn't that special pleading?
    Jichard, are you and your position so insecure that you need to start a new thread? And yes, look at what I was actually getting at:

    No, in case it escaped you, they reject moral realism - but not on religious grounds like you accused me. So men of good will can reject moral realism without religious motives.

    So one does not have to be motivated by religious motives to objective to moral realism.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by seer View Post
      Jichard, are you and your position so insecure that you need to start a new thread?
      Are you claiming to be insecure, since you started this new thread?:
      Originally posted by seer View Post
      Recently a new member here at TWEB attack biblical ethics as being subjective, subjective to God. Which makes sense, but God's law would still be objective to mankind. He suggested or inferred that moral realism was preferable because it posed that objective moral facts actually exist;

      Here is a definition that I think is correct:



      The questions are, where do these moral facts exist? And how are we obligated to them if they do exist?
      Nice double-standards you have there.

      Originally posted by seer
      And yes, look at what I was actually getting at:

      No, in case it escaped you, they reject moral realism - but not on religious grounds like you accused me. So men of good will can reject moral realism without religious motives.

      So one does not have to be motivated by religious motives to objective to moral realism.
      You're not telling the truth.

      First, quote or cite where I said that in order to reject moral realism, one needed to do so on religious grounds. You won't be able to, since I didn't say that. You simply made that up.

      Second, you didn't tell the truth when you claimed the majority of philosophers reject moral realism.
      Originally posted by seer View Post
      Originally posted by Jichard View Post
      So you agree that the majority of philosophers who understand this issue reject theism - correct?
      No, in case it escaped you, they reject moral realism - but not on religious grounds like you accused me. So men of good will can reject moral realism without religious motives.
      Feel free to retract these false claims. There's no need to lie.


      Anyway, you didn't address the OP's questions:
      So why does it make sense for some theists to object to moral realism by saying that not all atheist philosophers accept it, when those same theists don't have a problem with atheist philosophers not accepting theism?

      And why do some theists cite disagreement when it suits their purposes, but discard it when it doesn't, for no apparent reason other than ideological convenience? Isn't that special pleading?
      Last edited by Jichard; 07-24-2015, 09:51 PM.
      "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Jichard View Post

        Second, you didn't tell the truth when you claimed the majority of philosophers reject moral realism.
        Where did I say that the majority of philosophers reject moral realism? That is a falsehood.


        First, quote or cite where I said that in order to reject moral realism, one needed to do so on religious grounds. You won't be able to, since I didn't say that. You simply made that up.
        I didn't say you said that about moral realism per se, but you have accused me of religious motives a number of times in our discussion. And I was just making the point that atheists too can reject moral realism.
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by seer View Post
          Where did I say that the majority of philosophers reject moral realism? That is a falsehood.
          It's not a good idea for you to repeat a falsehood, when it's already been exposed.
          Originally posted by seer View Post
          Originally posted by Jichard View Post
          So you agree that the majority of philosophers who understand this issue reject theism - correct?
          No, in case it escaped you, they reject moral realism - but not on religious grounds like you accused me. So men of good will can reject moral realism without religious motives.
          No need to continue the lie.

          I didn't say you said that about moral realism per se, but you have accused me of religious motives a number of times in our discussion.
          Becuase you have religious motives

          And I was just making the point that atheists too can reject moral realism.
          Which is irrelevant special pleading on your part, as you owuld know if you answered the OP's questions, as opposed to dodging them like you're currently doing:
          So why does it make sense for some theists to object to moral realism by saying that not all atheist philosophers accept it, when those same theists don't have a problem with atheist philosophers not accepting theism?

          And why do some theists cite disagreement when it suits their purposes, but discard it when it doesn't, for no apparent reason other than ideological convenience? Isn't that special pleading?

          Tell me when you're intellectually honest enough to answer the questions, as opposed to cutting them out of your posts in the hopes of pretending they aren't there.
          "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by seer View Post
            Where did I say that the majority of philosophers reject moral realism? That is a falsehood.




            I didn't say you said that about moral realism per se, but you have accused me of religious motives a number of times in our discussion. And I was just making the point that atheists too can reject moral realism.
            Why are you still resorting to silly, fallacious arguments from disagreement on topics you don't really understand (even as you misrepresent sources you don't understand)?
            Is that what an honest person does?

            Originally posted by seer View Post
            I would remind you that you never closed the circle - why do obligations necessarily rise from reasons? And I will also remind you that in your original link there were just as many arguments against externalism and for internalism. So it is still a completely open question.
            Last edited by Jichard; 07-31-2015, 03:54 PM.
            "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

            Comment

            Related Threads

            Collapse

            Topics Statistics Last Post
            Started by lee_merrill, 10-30-2020, 09:01 PM
            28 responses
            115 views
            2 likes
            Last Post thormas
            by thormas
             
            Started by lee_merrill, 10-24-2020, 07:58 PM
            13 responses
            62 views
            0 likes
            Last Post Gondwanaland  
            Started by Whateverman, 07-26-2020, 11:01 AM
            330 responses
            6,601 views
            0 likes
            Last Post Electric Skeptic  
            Started by shunyadragon, 09-09-2016, 03:27 PM
            1,238 responses
            54,947 views
            0 likes
            Last Post thormas
            by thormas
             
            Working...
            X