So Easy To Be An Atheist!

[carpedm9587]

Right, in your world it is not a perversion of use.

By the first definition. You cannot have "perversion of use" when there is no "design" or "intent" or "purpose" for a thing. If a blob of "sticky stuff" washes up on the beach, and someone decides it would make a great art piece, there is no "perversion" because there is no purpose/design/intent for the "blob of sticky stuff."

I was looking for a logical argument, not bare assertion or opinion, and not an argument from the majority. If there is a design or purpose then logically there can be a perversion of use.

You don't have a logical argument, so why would you be looking for a logical refutation? You're asserting "design" or "purpose" and then trying to make an argument. You have not even shown that "design" or "purpose" exists because you have not shown that your "creator god" exists. Going back on previous discussions, your "logical argument" appears to be "it makes more sense to you that this god exists than that it doesn't." That's an argument from feeling - not an argument from logic.

[seer]

By the first definition. You cannot have "perversion of use" when there is no "design" or "intent" or "purpose" for a thing. If a blob of "sticky stuff" washes up on the beach, and someone decides it would make a great art piece, there is no "perversion" because there is no purpose/design/intent for the "blob of sticky stuff."

Not the point Carp, I was clearly using perversion in the context of design and purpose, when I suggested that you did not see child rape as a perversion you balked. Then you went searching for a definition, one that had nothing to do with the context we were discussing.

You don't have a logical argument, so why would you be looking for a logical refutation? You're asserting "design" or "purpose" and then trying to make an argument. You have not even shown that "design" or "purpose" exists because you have not shown that your "creator god" exists. Going back on previous discussions, your "logical argument" appears to be "it makes more sense to you that this god exists than that it doesn't." That's an argument from feeling - not an argument from logic.

And you haven't shown that the God is Scripture, or His Christ, don't exist. But from the argument of design I certainly can make a deductive argument to the perversion of use. You have no logical argument leading to child rape being a perversion. What you have is assertion and opinion.

[carpedm9587]

[QUOTE=seer;575769]Not the point Carp, I was clearly using perversion in the context of design and purpose, when I suggested that you did not see child rape as a perversion you balked. Then you went searching for a definition, one that had nothing to do with the context we were discussing.

You cannot show perversion of design or purpose unless you can show there was actually design or purpose

And you haven't shown that the God is Scripture, or His Christ, don't exist.

I don't need to. You're claiming "perversion of purpose or design." Unless you can show there is actually a purpose or design, you cannot make your case.

But from the argument of design I certainly can make a deductive argument to the perversion of use. You have no logical argument leading to child rape being a perversion. What you have is assertion and opinion.

Child rape is a perversion by the second definition. It cannot be by the first unless you can show design/purpose.

[Tassman]

Not the point Carp, I was clearly using perversion in the context of design and purpose,

You are assuming without substantive evidence that "design and purpose" exist. Your argument is based upon wish-fulfilment not fact.

when I suggested that you did not see child rape as a perversion you balked.

Child rape is a "perversion" according to current social values, which include respect for other individuals in our community and informed consent re sexual activities.

And you haven't shown that the God is Scripture, or His Christ, don't exist.

It is you claiming these things exist, the burden of proof is yours.

But from the argument of design I certainly can make a deductive argument to the perversion of use.

...only by assuming without substantive evidence that a purposeful creator exists.

You have no logical argument leading to child rape being a perversion. What you have is assertion and opinion.

What we have are community values. What YOU have is unevidenced bald assertion

[seer]

You cannot show perversion of design or purpose unless you can show there was actually design or purpose

It is a philosophical argument Carp. Worldview A leads to B, worldview C leads to D.

I don't need to. You're claiming "perversion of purpose or design." Unless you can show there is actually a purpose or design, you cannot make your case.

Of course you do, and what does your unbelief have to do with God's existence? Nothing, it is meaningless, except when it comes to the fate of your own soul.

Child rape is a perversion by the second definition. It cannot be by the first unless you can show design/purpose.

But I have, God's revealed purpose for human sexuality. Never mind our moral intuitions. I mean even you, a card carrying relativist, often thinks in universal terms. You have told me in the past that child molesting should be universally wrong. You are one small step away from saying that child molesting is universally wrong.

[carpedm9587]

It is a philosophical argument Carp. Worldview A leads to B, worldview C leads to D.

I'm aware of this. Logically - you cannot show "perversion" of intent/design if you cannot show actual intent/design. I'm not sure what else you want me to say...

Of course you do, and what does your unbelief have to do with God's existence? Nothing, it is meaningless, except when it comes to the fate of your own soul.

My belief (or yours) does nothing to change reality. If god does not exist - my belief is correct and yours is wrong. If god does exist - my belief is wrong and yours is correct (assuming that the god that exists is the one you believe in). I don't believe I've said anything contrary to that, or suggested that my beliefs change reality in any way. Neither do yours.

But I have, God's revealed purpose for human sexuality. Never mind our moral intuitions.

Seer - you cannot even show that this god actually exists. If you cannot even do that, you cannot show/prove intent, design, or purpose. It is the sine qua non of your argument. The best you can say is "if my belief is right, then child rape is a perversion according to both definitions."

I mean even you, a card carrying relativist, often thinks in universal terms. You have told me in the past that child molesting should be universally wrong. You are one small step away from saying that child molesting is universally wrong.

In my moral framework, child molestation/rape is always an in every circumstance wrong. I've never said otherwise. In my moral framework, random killing of humans is always and in every circumstance wrong. At least, I cannot think of a scenario that would render either of these acts morally acceptable...in my moral framework. I've never said otherwise or implied otherwise.

[Tassman]

It is a philosophical argument Carp. Worldview A leads to B, worldview C leads to D.

A deductive philosophical argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. You cannot show that your bald assertion of a purposeful creator existing is true, therefore your argument is not a sound argument.

Of course you do, and what does your unbelief have to do with God's existence? Nothing, it is meaningless, except when it comes to the fate of your own soul.

What does your belief have to do with God's existence? Nothing, it is meaningless. What do “souls” have to do with anything?

But I have, God's revealed purpose for human sexuality.

No you have NOT got “God's revealed purpose for human sexuality”, you only think you have. Why should anyone believe you?

Never mind our moral intuitions. I mean even you, a card carrying relativist, often thinks in universal terms. You have told me in the past that child molesting should be universally wrong. You are one small step away from saying that child molesting is universally wrong.

Child molesting is wrong according to the values of our community. That’s all one can say. What we have are community values. All YOU have is unevidenced bald assertion

[seer]

I'm aware of this. Logically - you cannot show "perversion" of intent/design if you cannot show actual intent/design. I'm not sure what else you want me to say...

Except you can not demonstrate the opposite. So we are in the realm of metaphysics.

My belief (or yours) does nothing to change reality. If god does not exist - my belief is correct and yours is wrong. If god does exist - my belief is wrong and yours is correct (assuming that the god that exists is the one you believe in). I don't believe I've said anything contrary to that, or suggested that my beliefs change reality in any way. Neither do yours.

Right, so we are both launching from the same ground. So again your unprovable worldview leads to this, and my unprovable worldview leads to that.

Seer - you cannot even show that this god actually exists. If you cannot even do that, you cannot show/prove intent, design, or purpose. It is the sine qua non of your argument. The best you can say is "if my belief is right, then child rape is a perversion according to both definitions."

And you can not prove that this universe is the result of blind natural forces. Which would be necessary for your objection.

In my moral framework, child molestation/rape is always an in every circumstance wrong. I've never said otherwise. In my moral framework, random killing of humans is always and in every circumstance wrong. At least, I cannot think of a scenario that would render either of these acts morally acceptable...in my moral framework. I've never said otherwise or implied otherwise.

Right like I said, even you, a card carrying relativist, reasons in universal moral terms. You say child rape should be universally wrong, I say child rape is universally wrong. Two little words of separation...

[carpedm9587]

Except you can not demonstrate the opposite. So we are in the realm of metaphysics.

There is a difference between these statements:

1) Without a creator/intender/purposer, you cannot show design/intent/purpose so you cannot show perversion by the first definition.
2) There is no creator, so there is no purpose, design, intent, and so there is no perversion by the first definition.

Hopefully, I have been careful enough with my language that I have been saying the first. The second I believe to be true - but I likewise cannot "prove" there is no god. Ergo, the only "perversion" I can speak to (related to child rape) is the type that has to do with social norms. The same is true for you, frankly.

Right, so we are both launching from the same ground. So again your unprovable worldview leads to this, and my unprovable worldview leads to that.

Correct.

And you can not prove that this universe is the result of blind natural forces. Which would be necessary for your objection.

My "objection" is that you cannot show "perversion" according to the first definition without showing that god exists. That is an accurate statement without proving that god does NOT exist.

Right like I said, even you, a card carrying relativist, reasons in universal moral terms. You say child rape should be universally wrong, I say child rape is universally wrong. Two little words of separation...

I say "child molestation/rape is universally wrong in my moral framework." You say, "child molestation/rape is universally wrong in my interpretation of the the Christian moral framework, which I have adopted as my own."

I don't see a lot of difference, except that I have not "slaved" my moral framework to a single external source, and especially not one so poorly and inconsistently defined.

[seer]

There is a difference between these statements:

1) Without a creator/intender/purposer, you cannot show design/intent/purpose so you cannot show perversion by the first definition.
2) There is no creator, so there is no purpose, design, intent, and so there is no perversion by the first definition.

Hopefully, I have been careful enough with my language that I have been saying the first. The second I believe to be true - but I likewise cannot "prove" there is no god. Ergo, the only "perversion" I can speak to (related to child rape) is the type that has to do with social norms. The same is true for you, frankly.

Of course it is not the same for me, in my world child rape is universally wrong, even if some men think it is morally acceptable.

My "objection" is that you cannot show "perversion" according to the first definition without showing that god exists. That is an accurate statement without proving that god does NOT exist.

Again, that statement is meaningless. What does your unbelief logically have to do with anything? It would be like a man born blind arguing that the color red does not exist.

I say "child molestation/rape is universally wrong in my moral framework." You say, "child molestation/rape is universally wrong in my interpretation of the the Christian moral framework, which I have adopted as my own."

I don't see a lot of difference, except that I have not "slaved" my moral framework to a single external source, and especially not one so poorly and inconsistently defined.

Except in your world someone who believes that child rape is acceptable is not wrong, he may be wrong to you, but that opinion has no logical weight. And I have no problem being a slave to the person and teachings of Christ since He holds supremacy on all questions theological and ethical.

[carpedm9587]

Of course it is not the same for me, in my world child rape is universally wrong, even if some men think it is morally acceptable.

I understand it's what you think, Seer. You just cannot show it to be true because you cannot demonstrate the existence of moral absolutes or objective moral codes (beyond the observation that your moral code is objective to me and vice versa).

Again, that statement is meaningless. What does your unbelief logically have to do with anything? It would be like a man born blind arguing that the color red does not exist.

No. It wouldn't. The "color red" has a measurable objective reality. It is electromagnetic energy within a particular range of frequencies. It can be seen, measured, tested, and demonstrated to exist (even if the blind man cannot see it). Your god is not subject to any of these things. You are comparing apples to oranges. And I have already noted that no one's beliefs about what is real changes what is real (well, modern physics and Heisenberg set aside).

Except in your world someone who believes that child rape is acceptable is not wrong, he may be wrong to you, but that opinion has no logical weight.

Of course it has logical weight. It flows directly from reasoning on what I value and someone who values the same things can reason in the same way. You continue to speak as if reasoning requires absolute/objective truths - and it does not.

Premise 1: I want pizza for lunch
Premise 2: That restaurant has pizza for lunch
Conclusion: I should go to that restaurant for lunch

A perfectly valid argument that is sound if the two premises are true. Neither my desire nor the restaurant's menu need to be "absolute" and "objective" for the two premises to be true. I also don't have to be able to prove to you that they are true for them to be true.

And I have no problem being a slave to the person and teachings of Christ since He holds supremacy on all questions theological and ethical.

In your opinion - which has about as much weight as the arguments I've been making. Indeed, according to your suggestion that there is no logical argument to be made from opinions, you don't seem to have a leg to stand on either. You're argument shoots your own conclusions in the foot. After all, if Jesus of Nazareth is, as I believe, merely an itinerant preacher from 2,000 years ago who was crucified for the disruption he caused, then your attributing "supremacy" to him is merely a matter of historical misunderstanding.

[Tassman]

Of course it is not the same for me, in my world child rape is universally wrong, even if some men think it is morally acceptable.

“Your world” is grounded in the delusional belief of a god who reveals moral rules. Why should you get to impose YOUR rules on me else just because you imagine they come from a divine entity?

Again, that statement is meaningless. What does your unbelief logically have to do with anything?

What does your belief in god have to do with anything? It’s an empty assumption.

Except in your world someone who believes that child rape is acceptable is not wrong, he may be wrong to you, but that opinion has no logical weight. And I have no problem being a slave to the person and teachings of Christ since He holds supremacy on all questions theological and ethical.

Someone who believes that child rape is acceptable is wrong according to the values of our society and they are punished by our society if they rape a child. What WE have are community values. What YOU have are bald assertions.

[seer]

I understand it's what you think, Seer. You just cannot show it to be true because you cannot demonstrate the existence of moral absolutes or objective moral codes (beyond the observation that your moral code is objective to me and vice versa).

So in reality in your world there are no right moral answers, nor can there be.

No. It wouldn't. The "color red" has a measurable objective reality. It is electromagnetic energy within a particular range of frequencies. It can be seen, measured, tested, and demonstrated to exist (even if the blind man cannot see it). Your god is not subject to any of these things. You are comparing apples to oranges. And I have already noted that no one's beliefs about what is real changes what is real (well, modern physics and Heisenberg set aside).

No, those things are immaterial to the man born blind. The creation proves a Creator, the fact that your sin and an unhealthy need for personal autonomy blinds you to this fact does not change the reality of God. As Christ said, there are none so blind as those who will not see.

Of course it has logical weight. It flows directly from reasoning on what I value and someone who values the same things can reason in the same way. You continue to speak as if reasoning requires absolute/objective truths - and it does not.

Premise 1: I want pizza for lunch
Premise 2: That restaurant has pizza for lunch
Conclusion: I should go to that restaurant for lunch

A perfectly valid argument that is sound if the two premises are true. Neither my desire nor the restaurant's menu need to be "absolute" and "objective" for the two premises to be true. I also don't have to be able to prove to you that they are true for them to be true.

You are missing the point, in your world there is no logical way to judge between differing moral opinions. There is not even the possibility. Your view on child rape is no more valid or correct than the opposite view. It is not right or true just because you hold it. So no, your argument against child molesting has no logical weight.

In your opinion - which has about as much weight as the arguments I've been making. Indeed, according to your suggestion that there is no logical argument to be made from opinions, you don't seem to have a leg to stand on either. You're argument shoots your own conclusions in the foot. After all, if Jesus of Nazareth is, as I believe, merely an itinerant preacher from 2,000 years ago who was crucified for the disruption he caused, then your attributing "supremacy" to him is merely a matter of historical misunderstanding.

Just so happens that this itinerant preacher from the back water of Nazareth became the single most influential person of human history, confirming His supremacy in all matters theological and moral by rising from the grave.

[carpedm9587]

So in reality in your world there are no right moral answers, nor can there be.

You're back to Technique #1. There are no absolutely/objectively "right" moral answers. There are subjectively/relatively "right" moral answers. But that's because morality is relative/subjective. So all you're saying is "morality can't be subjective/relative because then it's not objective/absolute." That's not an argument (for the bazillionth time), it's a restatement of a definition.

No, those things are immaterial to the man born blind.

They cannot be perceived by the blind man using his eyes. That does not mean it is immaterial.

The creation proves a Creator,

No, unless (of course) you call it "creation" and assume your conclusion.

the fact that your sin and an unhealthy need for personal autonomy blinds you to this fact does not change the reality of God. As Christ said, there are none so blind as those who will not see.

The fact that your need for "absolute meaning" causes you to "see" things that do not exist does not change reality. As Saul Bellow said, "a great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

(do you really think this kind of argument/exchange is useful?

You are missing the point, in your world there is no logical way to judge between differing moral opinions.

I'm not missing it at all - I'm disagreeing. For the reasons cited.

There is not even the possibility. Your view on child rape is no more valid or correct than the opposite view. It is not right or true just because you hold it. So no, your argument against child molesting has no logical weight.

You're back to Technique #1 again.

Just so happens that this itinerant preacher from the back water of Nazareth became the single most influential person of human history, confirming His supremacy in all matters theological and moral by rising from the grave.

Being influential is not a measure of "truth," Seer. You should know that. And the claim that he "rose from the grave" is not one I find substantiated. You are welcome to the belief, of course, but it's not going to get you very far as the basis for an argument.

And we appear to be back at the same old same old, Seer. I don't see a lot of purpose to going back around the merry-go-round one more time. You have expressed your beliefs - and you are certainly welcome to them. I find them riddled with assumptions and misconceptions, so I am not likely to adopt them. Indeed, I long since moved AWAY from them. I understand you see me as a person whose "soul" is in dire straits. We will have to leave it at that.

[seer]

You're back to Technique #1. There are no absolutely/objectively "right" moral answers. There are subjectively/relatively "right" moral answers. But that's because morality is relative/subjective. So all you're saying is "morality can't be subjective/relative because then it's not objective/absolute." That's not an argument (for the bazillionth time), it's a restatement of a definition.

How can a fact be a mere technique? There are no morally correct or wrong answers in your world, nor can there be.

No, unless (of course) you call it "creation" and assume your conclusion.

And what does your opinion have to do with the fact of creation?

The fact that your need for "absolute meaning" causes you to "see" things that do not exist does not change reality. As Saul Bellow said, "a great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

(do you really think this kind of argument/exchange is useful?

I'm not sure what you mean by useful? Useful to whom for what? Unrepentant sinners are blind to the reality of God. And the fact that you reject that reality only confirms my worldview.

I'm not missing it at all - I'm disagreeing. For the reasons cited.

No, you have not made an argument, that is just false. You offered an opinion. Make a deductive case for why you are correct and the child molester is wrong.

You're back to Technique #1 again.

Then again, make a deductive case for why you are correct and the child molester is wrong.