Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rainbow walking · 06-25-2003, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus
This is really just a variant on the PoE argument and suffers from the same problems, i.e., there is no materialist/naturalist basis for speaking of moral qualities.
It is therefore, irrelevant.

rw: Hi Theopholis,
I disagree that there is no naturalistic basis for moral qualities. Virtues are expressed by man's actions and not assigned at all. One doesn't say a man is temporate, for instance, unless a man proves this virtue under fire. Unless you are asserting that the language man uses to classify normative values came from god, while all other language didn't, I fail to see any truth in your assertion.

theophilus · 06-26-2003, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rainbow walking
rw: Hi Theopholis,
I disagree that there is no naturalistic basis for moral qualities. Virtues are expressed by man's actions and not assigned at all. One doesn't say a man is temporate, for instance, unless a man proves this virtue under fire. Unless you are asserting that the language man uses to classify normative values came from god, while all other language didn't, I fail to see any truth in your assertion.

I didn't expect you to agree, but I do expect you not to beg the question in your arguments.

"Virtues are expressed, etc." What in the world are "virtues?"
Same with "normative values." You're just arguing in a circle. You can't justify one set of values by referring to another set of values, ad nausium.

I am asking you to explain the existence of ANY set of values, as abstract, immaterial entities (I ask again, have you ever "seen" virtue? - not "virtuous" behavior - the noun comes before the adjective).

theophilus · 06-26-2003, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Theli
So why repeat what he had already writen? The text already existed. I mean quotes are used to point out parts of a text.

It was for EFFECT.

How did you reach the conclution that things and beings that can be described as matter cannot have morality?
Wich aspect of matter makes morality impossible?

I didn't reach that conclusion and it's really frustrating that after all these posts you wouldn't get it.

Here it is one more time, though I'm sure this won't be the last:
Materialism AS A SYSTEM cannot account for the EXISTENCE of any values (or any concepts) as abstract, immaterial entities.

If you don't get it now, it won't be my fault.

theophilus · 06-26-2003, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Alix Nenuphar
Theophilus:

Now, now. rw is trying to say something. Mind you, I believe that most of his/her post represents an emotional attempt to deal his/her own mortality - since it appears both logically confused and lacking in information of other faiths than Christianity, but we needs must give him/her the benefit of the doubt.

I'm sorry, I missed your post until now.

At bottom, I think that he/she is attempting to say that religions encourage acceptance of death as the 'norm' - which prevents humanity from attempting to eliminate death; and ruins humanities faith in its ability to solve its own problems - by arrogating to itself (religion) all problem-solving ability.

Well, I can't speak for "religions," since I don't represent any. I represent a belief system based not on human conjecture about the nature of existence, but on the revealed knowledge provided by the creator of life.

The term "problems" is troubling, since there is no objective, materialist basis for describing any specific condition as "problem." It is just the use of such words as "wrongness" which make these arguments irrelevant as an attempt to prove anti-theism.

But we recognize that there are some "wrong" things in our experience. How then do we explain this recognition? It is because we bear the image of our creator whose very purpose in creation makes these things "wrong."

My apologies: that was wordy. Allow me to try again.

I believe that rw is arguing three points:

1) religion teaches man that he cannot solve his own problems, and

Well, again "religion;" Christianity "reveals" to man the nature and source of his "problems."

2) religion teaches man that death is 'right' (by which I think he means 'acceptable'), and

Christianity teaches man that death is NOT right; its intrusion into God's creation was the result of man's deliberate revolt against God's authority. Death is an insult to the entire creation.
The gospel does not teach men to accept death, but to turn from their rebellion so they may be delivered from the power and penalty of sin.

3) since death is not 'right', man should ignore what religion teaches and solve the problem of death.

There is no independent, materialist basis for evaluating death as right/wrong. Such values do not come from matter.

----------------------------------
By the way, is it considered 'sexist' in American message boards to use standard (i.e. old-fashioned) masculine pronouns when in doubt about another's gender?

rainbow walking · 06-26-2003, 06:09 PM

theo: I didn't expect you to agree, but I do expect you not to beg the question in your arguments.

rw: Then you�ll humor me and point out the question begging aspect of the argument�yes?

theo: "Virtues are expressed, etc." What in the world are "virtues?"

rw: Terms used to describe specific behavior patterns that emerge and are practiced by individuals under adverse conditions. Where did the terms originate? Humans invented them. Where did the associated behaviors originate? Humans expressed them under adverse situations where a person could have responded in any number of ways equivalent to the situation but rose above the situation and responded in a way that resolved the situation without compromising their integrity.

theo: Same with "normative values."

rw: Same what with normative values�you mean what are they?

theo: You're just arguing in a circle. You can't justify one set of values by referring to another set of values, ad nausium.

rw: I wasn�t aware I was justifying anything. What�s to justify? You don�t believe virtue and other normative values exist�shrug�or you don�t believe they exist independent of your theistic beliefs, again�shrug�you�re entitled to express your beliefs.

theo: I am asking you to explain the existence of ANY set of values, as abstract, immaterial entities (I ask again, have you ever "seen" virtue? - not "virtuous" behavior - the noun comes before the adjective).

rw: Abstract and immaterial entities? They are terms used to associate specific human behaviors to their relative value in relation to other humans. I have seen human behavior that represents the concept of a virtue associated with that behavior�why? Relevance? Are you arguing that these abstract concepts must be tangible?

rainbow walking · 06-26-2003, 07:22 PM

theo: Well, I can't speak for "religions," since I don't represent any. I represent a belief system based not on human conjecture about the nature of existence, but on the revealed knowledge provided by the creator of life.

rw: Which is another way of saying "primitive human's conjecture about the nature of existence".

theo: The term "problems" is troubling, since there is no objective, materialist basis for describing any specific condition as "problem." It is just the use of such words as "wrongness" which make these arguments irrelevant as an attempt to prove anti-theism.

rw: Humans are the object and the source. It comes from the very material of the brain. If these arguments were irrelevant why bother to respond?

theo: But we recognize that there are some "wrong" things in our experience. How then do we explain this recognition?

rw: On the basis of our desire to exist and those things which threaten or enhance our existence.

theo: It is because we bear the image of our creator whose very purpose in creation makes these things "wrong."

rw: Isn't your creator an immortal being? And you are not? So what exactly do you have in common with this being? He can't possibly know what it is to fight for existence. You can't possibly know what it is not to. Where do the twain meet?

theo: Well, again "religion;" Christianity "reveals" to man the nature and source of his "problems."

rw: Christianity creates for man a whole nuther set of psuedo-problems where none need exist.

theo: Christianity teaches man that death is NOT right; its intrusion into God's creation was the result of man's deliberate revolt against God's authority. Death is an insult to the entire creation.

rw: Christianity blames man for his mortality. Man's mortality is not his fault. Christianity lies to man.

theo: The gospel does not teach men to accept death, but to turn from their rebellion so they may be delivered from the power and penalty of sin.

rw: Luke 17:33 _Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.

theo: There is no independent, materialist basis for evaluating death as right/wrong. Such values do not come from matter.

rw: All values come from the grey matter between man's ears.

Alix Nenuphar · 06-27-2003, 01:41 PM

rw:

Quote:

rw: Christianity blames man for his mortality.

Agreed: the Bible clearly places the blame for man's mortality on the first ancestor.

Quote:

Man's mortality is not his fault.

What is your proof for this statement?

Quote:

Christianity lies to man.

What is your proof for this statement?

If I understand you correctly, your proposition requires that religion - all religion be false. Are you sure? What changes in your proposal if religion is not false?

rainbow walking · 06-29-2003, 02:08 PM

Agreed: the Bible clearly places the blame for man's mortality on the first ancestor.

rw:Man's mortality is not his fault.

Alix: What is your proof for this statement?

rw: Medicine, science and reality. What is your proof against this statement?

rw: Christianity lies to man.

alix: What is your proof for this statement?

rw: The bible

alix: If I understand you correctly, your proposition requires that religion - all religion be false.

rw: Yes.

alix: Are you sure?

rw: Yes.

alix: What changes in your proposal if religion is not false?

rw: Prove it is not false and then ask me again.

Alix Nenuphar · 06-29-2003, 06:16 PM

rw:

You are attempting to shift the burden of proof. You have made several strong assertions:

1) Man is not to blame for his own mortality.

2) Christianity lies to Man.

3) All religions are false.

You have not supported them, instead, you ask me to prove the negatives. This is a fairly common logical fallacy.

I suggest you read:
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting

mosaic · 06-29-2003, 08:39 PM

What proof would prove that man isnt responsible for his own mortality? Nonsensical question. Its quite obvious our existence is temporal. Unless, you've found some herbs that enhance mortality then the question is meaningless.

One only needs to check the historical record to invalidtae chrisanity. The bible claims a man walked on water and rose from the dead. Until it can prove these claims, it is highly improbable and if we're honest, false. Rainbow cant object to christianity being truth without christianity first declaring it is truth. The burden is still on the religion not rainbow, who I'm sure give good reasons to call it false.

Third question is the same. Rainbow cant declare relgions false without them first claiming to be true. Relgions have the burden. He merely has to give reasons why they cant be true which I'm sure he can effectively do. First issue is that, most of them are contradictory making it impossible for all of to be true. Secondly, you have no way of testing if anyone one is true. Metaphyscis cannot be invalidated.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-26-2003, 06:09 PM	#15
rainbow walking Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Erewhon Posts: 2,608	theo: I didn't expect you to agree, but I do expect you not to beg the question in your arguments. rw: Then you�ll humor me and point out the question begging aspect of the argument�yes? theo: "Virtues are expressed, etc." What in the world are "virtues?" rw: Terms used to describe specific behavior patterns that emerge and are practiced by individuals under adverse conditions. Where did the terms originate? Humans invented them. Where did the associated behaviors originate? Humans expressed them under adverse situations where a person could have responded in any number of ways equivalent to the situation but rose above the situation and responded in a way that resolved the situation without compromising their integrity. theo: Same with "normative values." rw: Same what with normative values�you mean what are they? theo: You're just arguing in a circle. You can't justify one set of values by referring to another set of values, ad nausium. rw: I wasn�t aware I was justifying anything. What�s to justify? You don�t believe virtue and other normative values exist�shrug�or you don�t believe they exist independent of your theistic beliefs, again�shrug�you�re entitled to express your beliefs. theo: I am asking you to explain the existence of ANY set of values, as abstract, immaterial entities (I ask again, have you ever "seen" virtue? - not "virtuous" behavior - the noun comes before the adjective). rw: Abstract and immaterial entities? They are terms used to associate specific human behaviors to their relative value in relation to other humans. I have seen human behavior that represents the concept of a virtue associated with that behavior�why? Relevance? Are you arguing that these abstract concepts must be tangible?

06-26-2003, 07:22 PM	#16
rainbow walking Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Erewhon Posts: 2,608	theo: Well, I can't speak for "religions," since I don't represent any. I represent a belief system based not on human conjecture about the nature of existence, but on the revealed knowledge provided by the creator of life. rw: Which is another way of saying "primitive human's conjecture about the nature of existence". theo: The term "problems" is troubling, since there is no objective, materialist basis for describing any specific condition as "problem." It is just the use of such words as "wrongness" which make these arguments irrelevant as an attempt to prove anti-theism. rw: Humans are the object and the source. It comes from the very material of the brain. If these arguments were irrelevant why bother to respond? theo: But we recognize that there are some "wrong" things in our experience. How then do we explain this recognition? rw: On the basis of our desire to exist and those things which threaten or enhance our existence. theo: It is because we bear the image of our creator whose very purpose in creation makes these things "wrong." rw: Isn't your creator an immortal being? And you are not? So what exactly do you have in common with this being? He can't possibly know what it is to fight for existence. You can't possibly know what it is not to. Where do the twain meet? theo: Well, again "religion;" Christianity "reveals" to man the nature and source of his "problems." rw: Christianity creates for man a whole nuther set of psuedo-problems where none need exist. theo: Christianity teaches man that death is NOT right; its intrusion into God's creation was the result of man's deliberate revolt against God's authority. Death is an insult to the entire creation. rw: Christianity blames man for his mortality. Man's mortality is not his fault. Christianity lies to man. theo: The gospel does not teach men to accept death, but to turn from their rebellion so they may be delivered from the power and penalty of sin. rw: Luke 17:33 _Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it. theo: There is no independent, materialist basis for evaluating death as right/wrong. Such values do not come from matter. rw: All values come from the grey matter between man's ears.

06-29-2003, 02:08 PM	#18
rainbow walking Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Erewhon Posts: 2,608	Agreed: the Bible clearly places the blame for man's mortality on the first ancestor. rw:Man's mortality is not his fault. Alix: What is your proof for this statement? rw: Medicine, science and reality. What is your proof against this statement? rw: Christianity lies to man. alix: What is your proof for this statement? rw: The bible alix: If I understand you correctly, your proposition requires that religion - all religion be false. rw: Yes. alix: Are you sure? rw: Yes. alix: What changes in your proposal if religion is not false? rw: Prove it is not false and then ask me again.

06-29-2003, 06:16 PM	#19
Alix Nenuphar Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Maryland Posts: 113	rw: You are attempting to shift the burden of proof. You have made several strong assertions: 1) Man is not to blame for his own mortality. 2) Christianity lies to Man. 3) All religions are false. You have not supported them, instead, you ask me to prove the negatives. This is a fairly common logical fallacy. I suggest you read: http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting

06-29-2003, 08:39 PM	#20
mosaic Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: anchorage Posts: 321	What proof would prove that man isnt responsible for his own mortality? Nonsensical question. Its quite obvious our existence is temporal. Unless, you've found some herbs that enhance mortality then the question is meaningless. One only needs to check the historical record to invalidtae chrisanity. The bible claims a man walked on water and rose from the dead. Until it can prove these claims, it is highly improbable and if we're honest, false. Rainbow cant object to christianity being truth without christianity first declaring it is truth. The burden is still on the religion not rainbow, who I'm sure give good reasons to call it false. Third question is the same. Rainbow cant declare relgions false without them first claiming to be true. Relgions have the burden. He merely has to give reasons why they cant be true which I'm sure he can effectively do. First issue is that, most of them are contradictory making it impossible for all of to be true. Secondly, you have no way of testing if anyone one is true. Metaphyscis cannot be invalidated.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.