Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

A Fine Example of Theocracy Indeed

1…89101214

Comments

  • #332
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Also, you have still yet to answer me about what exactly God did for morality since you acknowledge it would be exactly the same had he done nothing.

    A very complex question. Was it Sartre who said "If God is dead, everything is permited" and he was an existentialist and atheist.

    So atheists look for an external source for morality and ethics.

    I can only answer for me and where I derive mine from - not being a philosopher ya know.


  • #333
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    CDfm wrote: »
    A very complex question. Was it Sartre who said "If God is dead, everything is permited" and he was an existentialist and atheist.

    So atheists look for an external source for morality and ethics.

    One atheist did. Atheism is not a doctrine and I don't have to accept what he said just because neither of us believe in God. He had no faith in humanity, just like Hurin, so in fact he has more in common Hurin than myself

    edit: and that's not actually an answer to my question. What did he do? Are you saying he gives it authority? Basically confirming what I said on the previous page that god is the ultimate argument from authority fallacy for those who don't think people will do good without the threat of punishment?


  • #334
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Yes, I know he did and he was wrong to do so because scripture is not proof. You will also acknowledge this because if it was then God's existence would be proven and we all know it isn't.

    Therefore he was wrong to say that the idea cannot be applied to scripture but the idea itself is still sound, although not perfect, as I have pointed out several times

    A bit of cherrypicking there Sam. You want to pare down the philosophy of Occam for your own ends. Many scholars actually learn classical medieval latin and analyse his nuances before that. He himself challenged Aristotle so I expect a footnote in your Opus.


  • #335
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    CDfm wrote: »
    A bit of cherrypicking there Sam. You want to pare down the philosophy of Occam for your own ends. Many scholars actually learn classical medieval latin and analyse his nuances before that. He himself challenged Aristotle so I expect a footnote in your Opus.

    I want to take Occam's razor. As I have already said, that does not mean I have to take his every belief and prejudice. Just because he had one good idea doesn't automatically mean everything he said is right....unless you're using an argument from authority, which I'm not

    I have shown his reason for why it can't be applied to scripture to be invalid so I am under no obligation to accept that particular theory, which is separate to Occam's razor


  • #336
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    One atheist did. Atheism is not a doctrine

    A docterine would require an organisation and maybe even formal classes like a school or a summer camp.

    That would never do

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/5674934/Richard-Dawkins-launches-childrens-summer-camp-for-atheists.html

    :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • #337
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    CDfm wrote: »
    A docterine would require an organisation and maybe even formal classes like a school or a summer camp.

    That would never do

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/5674934/Richard-Dawkins-launches-childrens-summer-camp-for-atheists.html

    :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

    Do you understand what a doctrine is? Dawkins is explaining the massive flaws in your doctrine. If you explain the flaws in someone else's doctrine, that does not mean you have a doctrine. Also, you are free to accept or reject any of Dawkins' ideas in isolation without accepting or rejecting the whole...because it's not a doctrine. It's just a collection of ideas


  • #338
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I want to take Occam's razor. As I have already said, that does not mean I have to take his every belief and prejudice. Just because he had one good idea doesn't automatically mean everything he said is right....unless you're using an argument from authority, which I'm not

    But you are using it in a philosophical context which means you have to accept it as it is or disregard it. If you disregard it you then accept belief or unbelief on their own terms.

    Use Occam if you want but if you use it in a philosophical context you have to accept that your use and the logic of your argument will get challenged.


  • #339
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Do you understand what a doctrine is?

    A belief system ?


    Dawkins is explaining the massive flaws in your doctrine.

    A teacher ?
    It's just a collection of ideas

    Teachings?


  • #340
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    CDfm wrote: »
    But you are using it in a philosophical context which means you have to accept it as it is or disregard it. If you disregard it you then accept belief or unbelief on their own terms.

    Use Occam if you want but if you use it in a philosophical context you have to accept that your use and the logic of your argument will get challenged.

    Jesus tap dancing christ man I am using it as it is. His flawed reasoning for why the idea cannot be applied to scripture is not a part of the idea.

    And even if I wasn't using it as it was, that doesn't fooking matter because what a franciscan monk a few hundred years ago thought does not matter. I am using the logical concept that "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily" in isolation and the religious beliefs of the first guy to string those words together makes no difference whatsoever. I can use the idea in whatever way I see fit as long as it's logically sound, which it is. He was using it in a non logically sound way but that does not mean everyone else after him has to.


  • #341
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    CDfm wrote: »



    A belief system ?





    A teacher ?



    Teachings?

    Do you call the teaching of, say, evolution a doctrine? Have you actually read what Dawkins has written?


  • Advertisement
  • #342
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Do you call the teaching of, say, evolution a doctrine? Have you actually read what Dawkins has written?

    Not a Guru -a Cult of Personality then.


  • #343
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    CDfm wrote: »
    Not a Guru -a Cult of Personality then.

    I accept some of Dawkins ideas because some of them have merit. I do not accept them because Dawkins says them and he would be disgusted at anyone that did. It would go against everything he ever said.


    Btw, atheism is not a belief system


  • #344
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Jesus tap dancing christ man I am using it as it is. His flawed reasoning for why the idea cannot be applied to scripture is not a part of the idea.

    And even if I wasn't using it as it was, that doesn't fooking matter because what a franciscan monk a few hundred years ago thought does not matter. I am using the logical concept that "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily" in isolation and the religious beliefs of the first guy to string those words together makes no difference whatsoever. I can use the idea in whatever way I see fit as long as it's logically sound, which it is. He was using it in a non logically sound way but that does not mean everyone else after him has to.

    But Sam - you go into the metaphysical realm and quote and attack one of the Giants.

    If I questioned Einstein and then didnt accept his logic I would expect the same.


  • #345
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    CDfm wrote: »
    But Sam - you go into the metaphysical realm and quote and attack one of the Giants.

    If I questioned Einstein and then didnt accept his logic I would expect the same.

    Now that's an argument from authority if ever I've seen one. Occam said that something can be "proven by Sacred Scripture". I don't give a crap who he is, that's a load of bullsh!t. Do you disagree with me on this?


  • #346
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Now that's an argument from authority if ever I've seen one. Occam said that something can be "proven by Sacred Scripture". I don't give a crap who he is, that's a load of bullsh!t. Do you disagree with me on this?

    You dragged William of Ockam into the argument not me and when I pointed out that using that as a model you had to accept it if a Creationist bypassed evolution and said why do you need evolution when God could create it and you want to go and change the model.

    Well I never.


  • #347
    Húrin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Do you have anything to support that assertion?
    Yes. Dismissing morality as something that exists without purpose, that arose due to accidents of history, leaves me at a loss to see it as prescriptive for the future. Such an explanation of morality is descriptive.
    What's your point?
    You only addressed not doing harm as if it covered actively doing good that religions typically exalt.
    In a world where god's existence cannot be proven the only thing you can rationally appeal to is the inherent good in your fellow man

    It has been shown throughout human history that people will do good even if they're not going to get anything out of it, there's plenty of evidence, but it has never been shown that god exists, so no, appealing to faith in one's fellow man is not as irrational as faith in god
    I agree. It has been shown that humans are capable of altruism. What has certainly not been shown throughout history is that humans are inclined to do selfless good more often than they do nothing, or indeed actively do evil.

    Many of the people of history that you may vilify have believed themselves to be as moral as you believe yourself to be. No matter what oh-so-moral system people have come up with - religion, communism, humanism - it has been messed up by human nature. None of them have managed to change that. It's a road to nothing but judgementalism, divisiveness and conflict.

    Further evidence can be seen in the history of technology. With every technological advance, it is put to both good and evil use. Industry in general gave us the gifts to increase our health, leisure time and lifespans; it also gave us the power to kill each other very efficiently.

    I see no reason to put faith in human goodness. You will be disappointed.
    If you're appealing to selfishness, how is it morality exactly?
    It's not immoral to wish to serve one's own needs. Both religion and science exist to serve human needs. It's immoral to wish to serve one's own needs and damn everyone else. But that is not relevant here because religion does not appeal to that mentality.


  • #348
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    CDfm wrote: »
    You dragged William of Ockam into the argument not me and when I pointed out that using that as a model you had to accept it if a Creationist bypassed evolution and said why do you need evolution when God could create it and you want to go and change the model.

    Well I never.

    I dragged in the idea that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily into the debate. I don't give a monkey's about William of Ockam.

    And you didn't point out anything. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the idea because you think it's inextricably linked with scripture when the only guy who ever mentioned scripture in relation to the idea said that one can have nothing to do with the other.


  • #349
    Húrin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    MrPudding wrote: »
    I see humans doing good all around me. It is not such a leap of faith. Certainly not as much as the one you have had to made to believe the tripe you do.
    Can you not address me with some degree of politeness? So much for your morality.
    Whatever you think. Like I say, sad that people have so low an opinion of their fellow man. There is plently of evidence that mankind is generally good, perhaps that is the problem? Can you only believe in something when there is no evidence?
    Show me evidence that humans are not selfish and violent, that outweighs the overwhelming evidence that they are. It doesn't matter if you think it's sad, if it is true. In fact to me it implies that you have faith because you want to believe it rather than having looked at the cold hard facts of things.

    I don't see why you must pretend to have an objective view of all the evidence available to attempt to speak for me, and say that I believe things that have no evidence.
    Wow. Being called self righteous by a christian, nice. Particularly when bringing up people in the third world and people that do not have lives as comfortable as us.
    Did you attempt to understand my argument? We all have it in us to be killers, cheaters and rapists. We just live in circumstances that don't demand it.
    Do you not feel in the least but hypocritical about calling me self righteous when you believe that you will spend an eternity in heaven, through an accident of geography, whilst the fate of these people is unknown, but probably not very pleasent?
    What people are these you speak of? I do not feel hypocritical because I am not claiming to be better than anyone else.

    btw. I'm not a Christian. I just have a view of them that I think is a little more informed, and a lot more balanced and basically lacking in hatred than yours.


  • #350
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    One atheist did.

    Not just any atheist Jean-Paul Sartre French philosopher and writer was a Nobel Laureate.

    Fairly bright guy.

    You are quite the Giant Killer today.


  • #351
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I dragged in the idea that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily into the debate. I don't give a monkey's about William of Ockam.

    And you didn't point out anything. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the idea because you think it's inextricably linked with scripture when the only guy who ever mentioned scripture in relation to the idea said that one can have nothing to do with the other.

    Dont jump on me because I pointed out faults to your model of choice.


  • Advertisement
  • #352
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Húrin wrote: »
    Yes. Dismissing morality as something that exists without purpose, that arose due to accidents of history, leaves me at a loss to see it as prescriptive for the future. Such an explanation of morality is descriptive.
    No one's dismissing morality as something without purpose or something that arose through accidents but I can accept it's not prescriptive. What's your point?
    Húrin wrote: »
    You only addressed not doing harm as if it covered actively doing good that religions typically exalt.
    Fair enough. I don't see how that's relevant to the point I was making.
    Húrin wrote: »
    I agree. It has been shown that humans are capable of altruism. What has certainly not been shown throughout history is that humans are inclined to do selfless good more often than they do nothing, or indeed actively do evil.

    Many of the people of history that you may vilify have believed themselves to be as moral as you believe yourself to be. No matter what oh-so-moral system people have come up with - religion, communism, humanism - it has been messed up by human nature. None of them have managed to change that. It's a road to nothing but judgementalism, divisiveness and conflict.

    Further evidence can be seen in the history of technology. With every technological advance, it is put to both good and evil use. Industry in general gave us the gifts to increase our health, leisure time and lifespans; it also gave us the power to kill each other very efficiently.

    I see no reason to put faith in human goodness. You will be disappointed.
    I know I'll be disappointed sometimes because people aren't perfect but I know that human goodness exists so it's got one over God already. And the motivation of God has never been shown to be a whole lot of a better motivation anyway tbh
    Húrin wrote: »
    It's not immoral to wish to serve one's own needs. Both religion and science exist to serve human needs. It's immoral to wish to serve one's own needs and damn everyone else. But that is not relevant here because religion does not appeal to that mentality.
    It's immoral if you're only doing good to serve your own needs. Your whole point here is that we cannot rely on human goodness and we need the carrot and stick idea of reward for good and punishment for bad. By your own argument, people require a selfish motivation to do good and if I'm only doing good to get something out of it, that is not morality, it's selfishness and fear.


  • #353
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    CDfm wrote: »
    Not just any atheist Jean-Paul Sartre French philosopher and writer was a Nobel Laureate.

    Fairly bright guy.

    You are quite the Giant Killer today.

    Another argument from authority.
    CDfm wrote: »
    Dont jump on me because I pointed out faults to your model of choice.

    You pointed out nothing other than your own massive lack of understanding of Occam's razor, your tendency to use arguments from authority and your tendency to accuse others of doing it when they're not mate. Also, I'm not jumping on you, I'm jumping on your flawed ideas


  • #354
    Húrin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    As evidenced by the fact that Sweden, a country where the majority do not believe in God*, is probably one of the best countries in the world to live in (although I'm a bit biased because I lived there and loved it :P). If Hurin was right you'd expect them to be at each other's throats the whole time

    Yes. Sweden is peaceful, prosperous, and works well because its people are mostly atheists. Classic rubbish atheist argument. It is rubbish because it betrays a complete ignorance of history and culture.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    None of that should matter if Húrin is right in saying that appealing to a man's better nature rather than religious morality is irrational because "he might not have one". If Húrin is right then having a lot of wealthy people should only increase the incidence of theft.

    Humans are good at creating replacements for religion if it disappears. That's why I'm sceptical of all these atheists who dream of some sort of utopia once religion is exterminated.

    Sweden has the rule of law. It has peer pressure and social conventions into which its people are indoctrinated, as every culture does. But the fact remains that the morality of the Swedish people remains untested. Their wealth means that there is no need to steal or kill in order feel secure. Is it really morality if there is no challenge to it? Besides, like us, Sweden has the EU and NATO to steal (wealth from Africans) and kill (people in the Middle East) for them.


  • #355
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Also Hurin, even if you could show that humans are not good and that the world would be a terrible place if no one believed in God, that does not indicate in any way whether or not god exists. You can't just make something up to scare people because you don't think they'll behave without it


  • #356
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Another argument from authority.

    A quote from someone who knew more than I do.

    You pointed out nothing other than your own massive lack of understanding of Occam's razor, your tendency to use arguments from authority and your tendency to accuse others of doing it when they're not mate. Also, I'm not jumping on you, I'm jumping on your flawed ideas

    I pointed out that Occams razor did not always give the correct answer and smugly pointed out that with correctly applying gives the Creationist argument validity at the expense of evolution.

    So you want to change the model because you dont like the result.


  • #357
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Húrin wrote: »
    Yes. Sweden is peaceful, prosperous, and works well because its people are mostly atheists. Classic rubbish atheist argument. It is rubbish because it betrays a complete ignorance of history and culture.
    That's not actually what I said. I said they behave well despite being atheists, which goes heavily against what you're suggesting.
    Húrin wrote: »
    Humans are good at creating replacements for religion if it disappears. That's why I'm sceptical of all these atheists who dream of some sort of utopia once religion is exterminated.

    Sweden has the rule of law. It has peer pressure and social conventions into which its people are indoctrinated, as every culture does. But the fact remains that the morality of the Swedish people remains untested. Their wealth means that there is no need to steal or kill in order feel secure. Is it really morality if there is no challenge to it? Besides, like us, Sweden has the EU and NATO to steal (wealth from Africans) and kill (people in the Middle East) for them.
    I don't dream of a utopia without religion. I know people will find other reasons to kill each other but having irrational beliefs doesn't help.


    Your point is that people need religious morality, the promise of heaven and the threat of hell to do good. If that was true then their personal circumstances wouldn't make any difference, they would still behave immorally. They shouldn't need to be forced into it by circumstances. You are actually destroying your whole point here because you're showing how they get their morality from all these other places and it works fine until they find themselves in dire circumstances. But then religious people have never shown themselves to be much better in in dire circumstances either


  • #358
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    CDfm wrote: »
    A quote from someone who knew more than I do.
    the definition of an argument from authority

    CDfm wrote: »
    I pointed out that Occams razor did not always give the correct answer
    Which I accepted the multiple times you said it
    CDfm wrote: »
    and smugly pointed out that with incorrectly applying gives the Creationist argument validity at the expense of evolution.

    So you want to change the model because you dont like the result.

    FYP. No matter how many times you say that, it will not become any more correct. I cannot explain this any clearer than I have done up to now so I will simply say: you are wrong. You do not understand Occam's razor or, it seems, how to apply logical principles. Look it up and get back to me


  • #359
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    the definition of an argument from authority
    the general point being that in terms of ethics you need an external source and I am inclined towards that view.





    Which I accepted the multiple times you said it

    and then i demonstrated it

    FYP. No matter how many times you say that, it will not become any more correct. I cannot explain this any clearer than I have done up to now so I will simply say: you are wrong in this case. You do not understand Occam's razor

    Ah Sam - dont be like that.


  • #360
    Húrin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    @CDfm: using Occam's Razor is not an appeal to his authority. The philosophical guideline could have easily be called something else. It is in continued use because it has been found to be useful.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    No one's dismissing morality as something without purpose or something that arose through accidents but I can accept it's not prescriptive. What's your point?
    As an atheist you surely should think that evolution has no purpose, and that it is not predetermined, and thus successful mutations are accidental.

    Morality being descriptive and not also prescriptive is a problem if you expect anyone to follow it. How do we know that our moral conscience ought to be obeyed if it is just another instinct?
    I know I'll be disappointed sometimes because people aren't perfect but I know that human goodness exists so it's got one over God already. And the motivation of God has never been shown to be a whole lot of a better motivation anyway tbh
    I'm not saying that nobody ever does anything good ever. I'm just saying that it's not as predominant as you think. People aren't just "not perfect" - we're so far short of perfect that it would be funny if the consequences weren't so tragic. If pure goodness was as predominant as you claim, then the world would not be a place where half the people are starving, and in constant warfare. The fact that you haven't addressed the evidence that I presented weakens your argument.
    It's immoral if you're only doing good to serve your own needs.
    Correct. And this is the basis of capitalism, and most of the good deeds that happen. I think it's silly to go as far as saying that what appears to externally be a good deed is in fact an evil deed if the motivation is not perfect.
    Your whole point here is that we cannot rely on human goodness and we need the carrot and stick idea of reward for good and punishment for bad. By your own argument, people require a selfish motivation to do good and if I'm only doing good to get something out of it, that is not morality, it's selfishness and fear.
    To be clear: by "get something out of it" I'm not just thinking of material gain. I also include the happiness that one gets from doing good (this is the main carrot at play in religion; fear is not very relevant to this discussion), any gratitude recieved from the beneficiaries of goodness. Dispassionately obeying the moral law because it is the moral law is very good, but very rare in humans.


  • Advertisement
  • #361
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Húrin wrote: »
    @CDfm: using Occam's Razor is not an appeal to his authority. The philosophical guideline could have easily be called something else. It is in continued use because it has been found to be useful.

    You dont need Occam to tell you that if you dont believe you are an unbeliever or atheist.Even Occam was against overuse of Metaphysics.

    If you use Occam in the Natural Sciences to eliminate options thats fairly cool and very useful because of its inherent logic. Its only a Guide not an end in itself.But if you transport the same theory back and conveniently leave some behind you loose a lot of its qualities.


Advertisement