Hired Gun

It's 'Kierkegaard'. Also, in a prior post, someone misspelled Sartres as Sarte.

livius drusus

That would be Sartre, actually.

Silent Dave

I have two responses that I can make to that post, A.S.A. -- one which is appropriate to my own preffered level of discussion, and one which is appropriate to what is apparently yours. I can't decide which one to post, so I'll post them both.


RESPONSE APPROPRIATE TO SILENT DAVE'S PREFERRED LEVEL OF DISCUSSION

It seems that you may have been trying to make a point against presuming things about other people with that response. I am, of course, presuming to some extent when I say that you were never an atheist, but I think to a reasonable one. My belief comes not from stereotypes of Christians -- which I probably have like everyone else, but which I try to be wary of, -- and from your less-than-saintly behavior -- which, sadly, is common among many atheists. Rather it comes from several different, mostly little things -- observations on your use of arguments, your stance on morality, and so forth.

It is, of course, possible that you were once an atheist. And I'll admit something: if my life's savings were substantially more than what it currently is (certainly more than $42.50 in a checking account, but not posh), then I may have hesitated before making the statement that I did. But with circumstances being what they are, and with the evidence I have, I felt comfortable making the statement. I still feel comfortable making it. It may not be a rational, verifiable statement, given the impracticality of demanding things such as sworn affidavits and polygraphs, and so I would be in no position to argue it in a rational debate. But this is an informal discussion, and I simply wanted to venture an opinion. If anything, what you have written above makes me more comfortable in my statement.


RESPONSE APPROPRIATE TO HIRED GUN'S APPARENT PREFERRED LEVEL OF DISCUSSION

Yeah, well, at least other human beings want to have sex with me.


Dave

Hired Gun

Actually, you are correct. I don't know when I started adding the rogue 's' to his name.

A.S.A. Jones

BrotherMan

I apologize for the 'off your rocker' insult and amend the offending sentence as follows:

To which you've already replied in the affirmative.

Yes, that's a fair approximation. Is my reasoning perfect? Probably not, but I am only human after all.

That's cute, but not accurate. The moral components to the hand holding rule or staying up past 10pm dictate are not the same as murder. In order for such rules to be objective they must apply to everyone equally. As they do not, by your own admission, they are subjective.

Perhaps I don't have a complete understanding, in order for a moral construct to be objective then it compels every being, including creator, to follow it. That's not to say that every being will, thus we have the word "immoral."

ex-xian

Hired Gun - I really must say that you the most arrogant person that I've ever met on any message board, be they atheist or theist. To critizise someone over their spelling is ridiculous.
If you mention Socrates, you might have well as mentioned Plato. Or didn't you know that?
Kant was agnostic in his epistemology, but not in his moral philosophy.

If you've actually read Aristotle, you wouldn't make that type of ridiculous claim. IMO, this is just another example of how you misrepresent anything that conflicts with you pre-established beliefs.

[/b]
Why do refuse to tell me any modern philosophers that you've read that disagree with your opinion? Is it because you don't have any? Come on, just one serious philosopher whose opinion is diametrically opposed to yours. I don't know about you, but in my search for truth, I read more of those who disagree than those who do agree with me.

[b]
I was the other person who misspelled Sartre, in addition to yourself. I missed the Kierkegaard reference before--consequence of fast reading. Kierkegaard was a devout xian. His whole philosophy was one of trying to convince people to return to orthodox xianity. So why did you list him among your list of "atheist" authors?


I've stopped being amazed at the intelligence of theists. I must admit, there are a few honest intellectuals in the xian faith, but you're not one of them.

You've made several statements similiar to this; it seems that you're the one with the preconcievd ideas about those here. You claimed that debate was your only form of relaxation, yet you seem exceedingly soft-skinned for someone who has done this throughout your atheist and xian life.

Hired Gun

I didn't criticize anyone for their spelling. I simply attempted to correct the spelling. Do you always perceive correction as an attack? The fellow before this post corrected my spelling, yet I'm not getting all wedged up about it. I would rather have my spelling corrected than to continue looking like an illiterate.



Whaaa? You mean they are the same person??? *gasp*

I believe that's exactly what I said.



Thank you for your opinion. I'll file it away with all the other opinions that have been given to me.



When I was an atheist, I did read books written by those who disagreed with me. I thought that most of these books, written by Christian authors, were a bunch of baloney, with the exception of those written by William Lane Craig. I have kept my admiration for him. As a Christian, I have read books that present views contrary to my faith. The last ones I can recall are as follows: A book by Clarence Darrow which was the equivalent of Norman Geisler's "Why I am a Christian". I consider both as mediocre. Paul Davies, whom I enjoy very much as an author, but with whom I disagree. Paul Kurtz, who put me to sleep every night for 2 weeks as I tried to find motivation to complete reading his book. And the 3 stooges, whom I find completely lacking in any substance of profound thought, Michael Martin, Dan Barker and Carl Sagan. The one atheist philosopher whom I continue to admire is Nietzsche, although I have tremendous respect for Peter Singer.

Quote:

I was the other person who misspelled Sartre, in addition to yourself. I missed the Kierkegaard reference before--consequence of fast reading. Kierkegaard was a devout xian. His whole philosophy was one of trying to convince people to return to orthodox xianity. So why did you list him among your list of "atheist" authors?

I didn't list him with the intent to be sincere. I added the end of his name to Nietzsche's to be funny.

Quote:

I've stopped being amazed at the intelligence of theists. I must admit, there are a few honest intellectuals in the xian faith, but you're not one of them.

Awe, and here I thought that I was somehow going to win your respect and admiration. I'm so disappointed in myself!

Oh my yes, I'm emotionally devastated by your cutting remarks and criticisms. I'm really broken up about all of this! I want you all to know that I take great offense at everything negative that you have to say about me, my philosophy and my web site. I'm psychologically traumatized by this experience and I hope that I've learned my lesson and stay away from these forums from now on.

:chuckles: One man's aggravation is another man's relaxation. One man's enlightenment is another man's ignorance. You just can't seem to grasp this concept.

A.S.A. Jones

Defiant Heretic

Actually, I've been trying to develop a moral code that's fairly concrete, if not completely objective, and this statement plays a major part in it.

The current version of the code is as follows:
1) Everyone decides what they, personally, think is moral and immoral.
2) They must follow the code they develop in 1).
3) They cannot force this code upon another.

Now 3) is the important part, because not only does it mean that they can't force their opinion that something is immoral on someone else, but they also can't force their opinion that something isn't immoral on someone else. For example, murder is immoral because the murderer either thinks that killing the victim isn't immoral, in which case he or she is forcing this belief on the victim, and violating 3), or thinks it's immoral and is doing it anyway, in which case 2) has been violated.

I've actually put some thought into this argument before, and I came to the conclusion that if one type of being (human) cannot create an objective system of morality, then there is no reason to assume that another type (god) could. Could you please explain why you think this restriction only applies to humans, and not gods?

pariah

Wait wait...no one knows a modern atheist who thinks that man is no greater than a termite? someone said that earlier. wtf...why would he be?

Bill Snedden

Uhhh....no?

You're begging the question. Against what standard would such a determination be made? Indeed, there are some standards against which fungus would clearly be the winner (more prolific, more capable of survival in hostile environments, faster growth, etc.). However, just as surely there are standards against which the fungus will clearly fail (rational capability, ability to communicate propositionally, etc).

You assume that your moral system provides an objective answer to "of value to whom and for what purpose?", but unfortunately, such an answer would seem to be impossible by definition. Value presupposes a valuer...

I did find it interesting that you indicated you agreed with Peter Singer on some issues. Might infanticide be one of those? Clearly Singer and the Christian god are of the same mind on that one...

It's also pertinent to note that the analogical comparison of human parenting with the god/man relationship is clearly flawed. Children are not capable moral agents and therefore parents are justified in treating them differently than adults. This is not the case with adults...

Regards,

Bill Snedden