Have we past the piont of no return?

Kant


Garbage on CARM. 12/16/10

I laid out a nice little overview of some major reason for belief, in answer to another thread that was too long. Three categories, origins, ethics, and existentialism. Cosmological argument, the need to ground axioms in something not relative and the need for meaning. These are the kind inane mock carp the ignorant denizens of the hate group spit back. These answers really demonstrate the bankruptcy of atheism, out education system, and the barbarism tat is overtaking civilization.

Ben The Biased.

don't agree that it actually means anything to "ground moral axioms," or that the categories of "necessary" and "contingent" are meaningful in any way, or that "self actualization" is a meaningful or measurable quality, so I don't find any of your arguments or challenges meaningful or useful in any way.

This is just extremely stupid stuff. Grounding ethics axioms means nothing more or less than showing the reasons why the axioms chosen are valid. Axioms can be grounded in logic, or tradition, or science (empirical data) or almost anything. One could ground them in supersition. It's really just another way of say "show a reason." To say they don't need to be grounded is to say we don't reasons for doing things. Ethical axioms stem form values of cousre. Values are not easily pinned down. Yet most would agree that we chose our ethical values for more important reasons than mere taste or out of anger or for reason more valid than mere bigotry. So what he's actually saying is we don't need ethics. We don't' need to worry about being ethical. Either or that or he's saying valuing a choice based upon hatred, bigorty, superstion, stupidity, or indifference is just as good as having a valid reason.

Atheist usually ground their ethical axioms in one of three things (or all three):

(1) feelings

(2) genetics

(3) social constract

These are the three reasons usually given for an action to be ethical according to most atheists. Atheists tend to use teleological reasoning, so they think it's the out come that makes it ethical. Outcome, however, requires a value to choose the outcome that suits us. That is not an excuse to get away from grounding. These three aspects are problematic:

(1) feelings:

Not that they aren't valid but they don't furnish a grounding. They work better as indications of some deeper justification such as innate ideas, divine origin, or genetics some such idea. The reason is because feelings change, there are competing feelings, people who don't have the feelings, and if you are a materialist you can't really demonstrable why feelings matter. These guys are willing to throw away a thousand year long tradition in ethical theory and just we don't need reasons.

(2) genetics

Genes can't be moral. The moral dimension is decision making, it requires free will. So we can't have a situation where what one should do is based upon genetic structure, because that's not Dennison making. This is a violation of what is called "Hume's fork." Hume said you can't derive an out from an is. Just saying there's a genetic tendency doesn't tell us why it's moral. If we discord the moral category we are just throwing away a rational harmonious peaceful society and clearing the way for might makes right.

(3) social contract

That was great as a counter to divine right of kings. What do you when the society is racist? Or what do you are in Nazi German or some such place where the social contract requires doing thing that in other contexts are extremely unethical? What seems liberating in one context can be oppressive in another. That's the flaw of relativism.

More wisdom from Ben the idiot:

However, let's assume that you are entirely correct on all three of these points. The question then would be, what difference does it make? What is all of this supposed to convince me of? None of it works in any way as evidence that God exists.

Of cousre it does, he's just ignoring how it works. I did say at the outset, as I always do, that I'm not offer proof (in fact the original thread didn't ask for proof but for 'reasons to believe') I am presenting rational warrant for belief.

That people find God best "grounds" their moral axioms doesn't mean he exists.

It's a good reason to assume so. There's also more to it than that. There's a dilemma. We feel deeply about certain actions that they are right or wrong, laudable or outrages against humanity, but there's no way to ground the choice in the feeling. The feeling works better as an indication of a higher truth. That higher truth points to the divine.

That he is the only explanation their limited minds can imagine for the origin of the universe doesn't mean he exists. That belief in him makes them "self-actualized" doesn't mean he exists.

It's a good reason t think he does since it's the content of the experience and it's Demosthenes emphatically in the outcome. That he is the only expatiation is a fine reason to believe. What kind of statement is that? that shows me that he doesn't care what's true and what is not. He's not searching for reasons he's just stuck on refusing. He wants to ask "why do people believe"then when you tell him the can't stand the fact that we do have reasons. If the explanation, God being the only one that works, is not a good enough reason then why have scinece? That's the basis of scientific belief isn't it?

I challenged them in my post to provide an alternative and they didn't brother. They just assert that they have one, but what is it? Then he's asserting that I'm stupid because I don't automatically assume that there is alternative but showing me one is his job, because that was my challenge.

So...what exactly are these arguments accomplishing? Is it just to say that I'd have a more coherent belief system and better well-being if I believed in God?

They are answering the original thread.

Even if I agreed with that (which I don't), I can't just choose to believe in God. I don't find the evidence of God's existence remotely persuasive, so I can't choose to believe in him any more than I could choose to believe that I have a million dollars in my bank account. I must be persuaded to believe. I can't make it happen. No matter how much you say my life would be better if I believed there was a million dollars in my bank account, I just can't believe it. Same goes for God.

what has he actually said here? he's actuality agreed with an observation I made once about the demand of atheist to be conquered. They don't' rational thinking, they don't want to deliberate, they are lazy. they want to be forced. that's a pretty unfair burden. They don't up in any effort to disprove God all they do is make people feel insutled and ridiculed for believing. They never actually try. Well some do there are argumetns against God but they are usualy piss poor. I've seen one that's any good except as a reason move on form fundamentalism to liberal theology.

What he's really saying is "I refuse to reason." What I have said on this blog before about the only argument atheists have? when you boil it down all they really have is the refusal to believe. What he's saying is no matter how good a reason to believe he will not give it any credence until it produce absolute proof that he can't argue with. He said :" No matter how much you say my life would be better if I believed there was a million dollars in my bank account, I just can't believe it. Same goes for God. " Translation: I refuse to believe so that proves it's not true. That is what I have called their one and only argument. After all if there's no valid origin we have to one or we wouldn't be here, if God is the only one that's a fine reason to think there's a God. A fine reason is not good enough for him. That would be ok with me if he was willing to just let those who accept it be. He is not. He is one of the cruelest mocking ridicule artists on CARM> so he's really saying Unless you have absolute proof you are an idiot to believe something. Of course he has no absolute proof. He has nothing more than refusal.

Here's what more of them said.

Bust Na

I am interested in this one:

Originally Posted by Metacrock

B. infinite causal regress this is a problem in logic becuase it's basically circular reasoning. Another problem with it fits into the next argument.

It's not circular, it's clearly linear and un-bounded.

challenge: the atheist cant' produce a suitable origin theory that is not based upon arbitrary necessity.

What's wrong with just saying origin is based upon contingencies?

What he' saying here is so stupid it could be a feature attraction on a hypothetical tv show called "stupid atheist tricks." He is confussing the nature of the chian of cause and effect in the ICR (infinite causal regress) with the logic that is used to support it. Just the concept of the ICR is that of a linear prgression of cause and effect doesn' mean the logic used to put it over is linear. I contend it's put in place by circular reasoning becuase you just attempt to explain each couplet of c=>e with itself as the basis for the next one. With no beginning there's never a point where you have a cause for the causes. I also argue that this is arbitrary necessity it's just putting a string of contingencies in place of necessity for no other reason than to avoid a God argument. That's what really get's me about it. there is no good reason for assuming ICR other than that one doesn't want to believe in final cause, since final cause = God. It's like cheating. It's saying "I refuse to believe so that proves it's not true, and if it is true I will still pretend it's not." see my arguments against ICR.

Super Genyus says:Frankly, I'm sick of hearing about mystical experiences from you, so I didn't continue. I think we've exhausted that debate. I'm just going to say that they are completely compatible with a naturalistic framework. And, before you comment on that, look up the definition of compatible.

This guy is usually one of the brightest of the carm atheist. He's probably is just sick of me always talking about 200 studies and mystical experiencing. It's the answer it proves it. I really should start using Lofuts' approach and just say "read my book." I have to get the book out there first. This is as very alarming thing to see becasue one of the bright actually refusing to look at the evidence. That just reinforces the whole notion of dumder heads refusing to think, I wont look through the telescope becuase it's a trick and so on.

This next guy is not one of the bright ones:

Originally Posted by Magritte

His categorical imperative is categorically retarded. Who can come up with a practical moral system? Immanuel can't.\

Brilliant hu? He's putting down Kant to slap me in the face. Not a helpful attitude to discussion. That's the point. The atheists aer really through with the time for intellectual discussion. They not past the point where they are wiling to consider ideas. They lost every time they tired. They are hyped on hate and ready to hurt Christians and so they are not going to try to reason anymore.

Originally Posted by Magritte

Then no amount of screeching and obfuscation will change the fact that we are ultimately responsible for choosing, preferring, judging. We cannot shrug off responsibility onto God, or Nature, or "a system". We have to man up and face the fact that we are the creators of our tables of values.

He's willing sweep aside one of the most brilliant minds in human history. He's clearly no student of ethics to believe it's impossible to make an ethical system, so he's probably never even read Kant.. What about the fact that they say that? Because they can't make it work without God it's impossible to make it work at all! That's a new one. It's very dangerous beause it's just saying "let's give up on morality.

Look at his little childish "man up" crap. First of all his argument is insane because to pretend that belief in God is putting responsibility on God for morality is stupid. Nothing could be more idiotic. Its' putting responsibility on us. God is not the moral actor we are! God requires the responsibility of us. Without no God we have no reason to act responsibly. He's really making the ultimate excuse to not have to be moral.

It appears we have passed the point of no return Atheists are no longer willing to reason or discussion in a civilized manner. They couldn't care less about truth, they refuse to believe that's all there is. They are also wiling to mock and ridicule anyone who disagrees with their arbitrarily predilections and they going to continue to undermine the social fabric. I am hoping this only applies to an extreme end, maybe the Dawkamentalists. I can't imagine hermit saying he's done with trying to be moral.

BTW my brother and I thought "Kant can't" was cleaver in seventh grade.I remember Madyline Murry O'airhead syaing that Kant was the best proof of atheism.

Atheists Tend to have Poor Understanding of Ethics: Another Example of Science and Circular Reasoning

Atheists tend not to understand ethical theory. They are trying to make ethical judgments but by imposing their own ethical theories and then back reading those same theories into Christian ethics. Here is a discussion on a message board with an atheist:





 scottsaddiscionboard on Christiansrus

Of course, there seem to be many acts that appear to be selfless, but modern scientists have good explanations for why this is only appearance.  They replace the word individual with gene pool and what Darwin said is still relevant.  If there is no such thing as altruism, I would think this would strongly effect the moral realm.  In fact, I think it would completely nullify our ideas of morality.

Scott wrote:

---

Metacrock wrote:

---

Darwin has no impending presence in the moral realm. To conclude that moral thinking is somehow invalid because of evolution or that evolution is all it needs is fallacious either way.

Darwin wrote:

---

If ever it could be shown that individuals repeatedly and reliably sacrifice their own fitness to increase the fitness of others, the theory of natural selection would be refuted.

Of course, there seem to be many acts that appear to be selfless, but modern scientists have good explanations for why this is only appearance.  They replace the word individual with gene pool and what Darwin said is still relevant.  If there is no such thing as altruism, I would think this would strongly effect the moral realm.  In fact, I think it would completely nullify our ideas of morality. 


  

the majority of science does not accept any of that as fact. Dawkins is not a major scientist he is not received by the scientific world as a major guy with major discoveries. The attempt to take over ethics with biology is laughed at by ethicist. The majority of science does not go along with Dawkins.

Forgive me for being skeptical; it's just that I prefer to take the word of Ivy League professors over some guy on the internet.  The fact that I have seen you make outrageous claims, like being able to prove God exists, doesn't really inspire trust either.  Claiming to know everything makes me wonder if you know anything. 

first you missed the point of my response. the guy could be right in what he says and that does not disprove my argument. Because I said there's a different between saying that selfishness is a behavior that is genetically based, and saying that selfishness is or is not moral.

Trying to deduce morality based upon nature is a fallacy. It's "Hume's fork," the fallacy of deriving an ought from an is. You can't establish morality, or take it away, just by showing a behavior is genetic.

    I did prove God exists. sorry you can't follow the lgoic of a good argument, but ti's there. I've proved it and you cant' disprove it. you can't destroy my augmenter. just beaus you think it says something you don't like doesn't make it false. Most atheists argue from a principle of "incredulity." you say "I don't believe that therefore it's false." then you hear that enough so you become convinced that as long as you disbelieve it's the same disproof. It is not! That's just your little opinion! not proof and you can't stand up to the logic of my arguments! Calling arguments names does not disprove them. Go get one of those arguments from futher down on the board and put it up and I'll show you can't stand before it.

You say you prefer to believe an Ivy League professor, well my ethics professor was Ivy league and he's a hell of a lot more respected and more famous than that guy, why doesn't that make him right? do you not realize that across the board in all disciplines the proportion of God believing processors is the sam as the general population. Means 90% of professors believe in God. What you are saying is truly an argument from unnecessary authority, that's a fallacy.



exchange with "Dr. Pepper" on carm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metacrock no we do not act like biological organisms. you have defined what you think that means and you impose it over the way we act, you ignore what you don't want to be part of endemic human activity and ignore it as unimportant. belief in God is something we do that a mere organism doesn't do. Having higher ideals, morality, art. you but decide those are unimportant because you don't' value them. those are just as much a part of who and what we are as the things that you think define us, but you decide they don't matter and ignore them. I ignore the other.

 Pepper

You are talking about what we think. I am talking about what we do. We eat, sleep, excrete, and reproduce. As far as what we believe that varies from person to person. If you think we are unique. All species are. You do not know what my dog thinks. You may think so but then that's what you as an individual thinks. You do not define humans either. My opinion is equal to yours. In my opinion. I bet you think yous is better. Is that an indication you are not a biological organism. I do not think so.

__________________

Unfortunately I lost the URL for that one. The point is in addressing the issue of moral thinking atheists don't understand the basics of what makes for ethical theory, thus they attribute morality to some form of behavior or to feelings. I said first of all that he is just looking selectively at aspect of humanity that fits his theory and then ignoring other things. He says "it's not about what we think but what we do." Well what is that but ignoring what we think to focus on what we do, that's an example of the selective nature of how they define human being.


What he seems to think is that morality is just a matter of behavior and we don't the basis in thought of various organisms but we can see what they do. But morality is not just a matter of behavior, it's a matter of logic and of values. just focusing on behavior cannot ever produce morality. Morality is not merely feelings and its not merely what you do. It's how society understands values and how those values interact when they compete.


The first guy doesn't seem to undersatnd that ethics is not science it's its' won theory. He wants to take scientists has authority figures and reduce ethics out of existence and just pretend it doesn't exist. Of course the obvious counter would be "but I believe in being ethical" he would say "your feelings are not important, all that matters is that we have no proof from biology that genetics give us ethics so it can't be real." So that's just the reductionist trick of losing phenomena.


They define the phenomena in some way other than moral philosophy does then demand that it be proved by their own standards, if not then the phenomena becomes unimportant and get's written out of the process then the argument is made that there's no proof for it becuase we dismissed it form reality becuase it doesn't fit our aims.



This all goes back to the atheist trick of circular reasoning that is the contradiction at the heart of atheism. This is just another version of it. This is the circular reasoning trick that enables them to deny proof of miracles. There are no miracles because there's no proof, and no proof because any alleged has to be dismissed out hand since there can't be proof. there can't be proof because there is none and there is becasue we wont let it be accepted.


This trick works like this, ethics is not a matter of nature but of values. It doesn't matter if behaviors are genetics, they are not vested with moral virtue until they are values in value system. The naturalistic reductions only values what he can reduce nature too that supports his ideology, so he just refuses to accept that values as important part of the equation even though the whole equation, so he reduces ethics to behavior and then says it's genetic.