The issue is moral realism. I've aruged that the only valid moral realism (objectively true morality) is if it is backed by God. He argues that no official source of academic knowledge accetps that so it's a fallacy. i just "made it up."
Originally Posted by Royce
There is no peer-reviewed definition of "moral realism", or any definition from a real source that I know of (including Wikipedia) that says one needs to belief in God to be a moral realist. This includes the definition you gave from Wikipedia.
So you just made up the false claim that only belief God makes one a moral realist.
This is what I mean by "fabricate":
Since you just made up a claim that is not true, guess what you just did?
Meta:
that is so ridiculous. do ever think for yourself? you are just saying "I can't believe something unless an official group says it's ok to." this is proof positive that atheism is mind control.
you are trying to fit the mold of a thinking intellectual you can't even understand the concept of formulating your own idea with your own arguments without some "peer review" telling you what to think. ( you are not a peer of professors. no you are not. you are not my peer).
that's silly, it's silly.
the real kicker is you say I made it up and it's a false bleief! why is it false?Because I made it up and makes it false. It's not a deduced argument based upon reason it's "made up" as though thinking for yourself is a logical fallacy?
Orwellian atheism you don't dare think of soemthing the handlers didn't tell you to think.You are absolutely forbidden to come up with your own ideas!
to try to tag my attempts and interdependent though as "false" and some kind of fabrication like there's soemthing wrong with doing it just puerile.
That's the implication but what's going on closer to the surface is he's changed the meaning of what I said to the idea taht "you can't be a moral realist without god." I never any such thing. I said it's not grounded without God. It's not going to work as a valid moral position without God I didn't say you can't be a moral realist without God.
4 comments:
Trolls Royce? Hilarious.
And, I wonder who these "official" sources of knowledge are? Dawkins? other scientists? He's probably another person who has faith in science, and that it will be able to eventually explain everything.
That type of faith will eventually be seen as misplaced.
yes I'm sure. It's really sacry when you think about what he's really saying. and he does that all the time. If you disagree with him and try to say "here's the consequence of your argument" he goes "I didn't say that stop misrepresenting me."
Meta,
Requoting:
There is no peer-reviewed definition of "moral realism", or any definition from a real source that I know of (including Wikipedia) that says one needs to belief in God to be a moral realist.
This one of the most obtuse things I've ever seen, being written by an Atheist (a New Atheist, I presume).
What the hell is a "real source"?
Have he/she ever had to read what the concept of moral realism actually is?
(for the sake of making a rhetorical question)
In an unforgiving fashion, scientistic thought is its own logical positivist element. It is still well known what happens when we do not acknowledge the limitations of our own human endeavours, and focus on transcendence "in the way I like to" instead, with that cliched, arrogant and totalitarian tone.
That is something hardcore atheists, nihilistic agnostics, and religious fundamentalists may never recognize in their lifetimes.
God bless.
Kind Regards.
yes that guy claims to be a big moral realist. he claims to be very well read on it. I don't he's that well read. but he tries to put forth the image that hes' the genius of the ages.
Post a Comment