Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Homophobic Trump...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    Well - stay with one argument at a time and we probably won't go there. Pick a direction. But if a single post contains multiple threads/concepts - I'll respond accordingly. I do try to make sure I respond to the points made. I leave it to you to decide what you want to spend time reading. However, I suggest you don't try to tell me I haven't made Argument X when the reality is that you never bothered to read Argument X.
    I'll let you pick the first topic, let's try and keep the answers and responses short and on point
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

    Comment


    • Originally posted by seer View Post
      I'll let you pick the first topic, let's try and keep the answers and responses short and on point
      I'll take one of your claims: that you have 100% moral certainty. I think it is an indefensible position. Explain what it means, and defend the claim, if you wish to.
      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

      Comment


      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
        I'll take one of your claims: that you have 100% moral certainty. I think it is an indefensible position. Explain what it means, and defend the claim, if you wish to.
        I do not have moral certainty on every possible moral question, but let me give an example on something we discussed. I am 100% certain that randomly murdering people is universally wrong. Or I am 100% certain that torturing children for fun is immoral. So on some moral questions I believe I can be 100% certain. Do you disagree?
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • Originally posted by seer View Post
          I do not have moral certainty on every possible moral question, but let me give an example on something we discussed.
          That is not what you originally claimed. Do you have 100% moral certainty, or not?

          Originally posted by seer View Post
          I am 100% certain that randomly murdering people is universally wrong. Or I am 100% certain that torturing children for fun is immoral. So on some moral questions I believe I can be 100% certain. Do you disagree?
          I believe you are assuming an absolute/objective moral framework you cannot substantiate.

          What I can say is, in my moral framework, randomly killing people or torturing children is morally wrong for all people in all places and all times - assuming an independent action with no other mitigating circumstances. But I cannot even prove my grasp of reality can be 100% trusted, so who am I to claim perfect certainty about anything?

          Last I checked, you were also human. So who are you to claim perfect certainty about anything, or that there is no circumstance in which this might be the "least onerous available option?"

          We're back to: substantiate that you have 100% moral certainty.
          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

          Comment


          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
            That is not what you originally claimed. Do you have 100% moral certainty, or not?



            I believe you are assuming an absolute/objective moral framework you cannot substantiate.

            What I can say is, in my moral framework, randomly killing people or torturing children is morally wrong for all people in all places and all times - assuming an independent action with no other mitigating circumstances. But I cannot even prove my grasp of reality can be 100% trusted, so who am I to claim perfect certainty about anything?

            Last I checked, you were also human. So who are you to claim perfect certainty about anything, or that there is no circumstance in which this might be the "least onerous available option?"

            We're back to: substantiate that you have 100% moral certainty.
            Buried therein is a claim of perfect cerainty
            1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
            .
            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
            Scripture before Tradition:
            but that won't prevent others from
            taking it upon themselves to deprive you
            of the right to call yourself Christian.

            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

            Comment


            • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
              That is not what you originally claimed. Do you have 100% moral certainty, or not?
              Either I misspoke or you misunderstood. Since I believe that universal moral truths exist that fact can create moral certitude. I was not claiming that for every possible moral question, and I was not claiming that there weren't gray areas, that is not what I believe. But in some areas yes, we can have certitude.

              I believe you are assuming an absolute/objective moral framework you cannot substantiate.
              And you can not disprove a universal moral framework.

              What I can say is, in my moral framework, randomly killing people or torturing children is morally wrong for all people in all places and all times - assuming an independent action with no other mitigating circumstances. But I cannot even prove my grasp of reality can be 100% trusted, so who am I to claim perfect certainty about anything?

              Last I checked, you were also human. So who are you to claim perfect certainty about anything, or that there is no circumstance in which this might be the "least onerous available option?"
              So in your view it is possible that random killing or the that torturing children for fun could be moral. And are you 100% certain that we can't be 100% certain about anything?
              Last edited by seer; 03-23-2019, 05:39 AM.
              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

              Comment


              • Originally posted by seer View Post
                Either I misspoke or you misunderstood.
                SPARKO: Where have I or Seer ever made claims to moral certainty?
                SEER: I did say that and I believe it, via God's law...

                The claim sees pretty clear to me, and was repeated in multiple places. So I'm assuming you misspoke and this is NOT what you believe?

                Originally posted by seer View Post
                Since I believe that universal moral truths exist that fact can create moral certitude. I was not claiming that for every possible moral question, and I was not claiming that there weren't gray areas, that is not what I believe. But in some areas yes, we can have certitude.
                So how is it possible for a fallible, limited, human being to claim "certitude" about anything?

                Originally posted by seer View Post
                And you can not disprove a universal moral framework.
                You just added a second concept - so I'm going to respond. I'll try to keep it short. I don't have to. You are the one making a positive claim and, in this case, one that you apparently wish to make the case is "binding on everyone." It is therefore incumbent on you to make the case. Until you do, I'm going to reject your claim, especially since it does not conform to what I see around me. The available evidence tells me your moral framework is as relative/subjective as the rest of ours.

                Originally posted by seer View Post
                So in your view it is possible that random killing or the that torturing children for fun could be moral.
                I note that I missed the "for fun" part of your original post. Sloppy reading on my part. In my world view, I note that some people can (and have) come to that moral conclusion. I cannot conceive of a situation in which I would come to that moral conclusion. Since our moral frameworks are the metric by which we judge actions, I will judge anyone who acts in one of those two ways as immoral. Since I believe my moral framework is "the best" at this time (if I could conceive of a better moral conclusion, by definition I would immediately adopt it), I believe the world would be a better place if everyone valued and morally concluded as I do - so I will work very hard to convince others to "see things my way." When I fail, I will either ignore the other person (minor issues), isolate/separate them (more serious and affecting issues) and/or contend with them (most serious issues).

                Originally posted by seer View Post
                And are you 100% certain that we can't be 100% certain about anything?
                You keep adding concepts/questions. Remember, I will respond to what you ask/say. I cannot claim 100% certainty about anything I can conceive of. I cannot conceive of how anyone could make a case for 100% certainty. You are welcome to try.
                Last edited by carpedm9587; 03-23-2019, 08:05 AM.
                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                Comment


                • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                  Buried therein is a claim of perfect cerainty
                  Seer implied the same thing. I don't think you can show that, but you can attempt to show it if you believe it is there. You might want to read my response to Seer, first.
                  The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                  I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                    Seer implied the same thing. I don't think you can show that, but you can attempt to show it if you believe it is there. You might want to read my response to Seer, first.
                    As I said - BURIED within. You claim (with certitude) that it is wrong to claim certitude without being able to provide the evidence to support that claim. Given that this is a philosophical matter - any evidence which might be advanced, including satisfactory evidence that God exists, would still leave open (philosophically) the question of whether the existence of God would be satisfactory evidence of an empirical morality - it isn't. Even the inescapable evidence that God exists doesn't answer the question of whether he establishes a moral paradigm which is exemplary, let alone perfect ... that comes down to a matter, finally, of belief.
                    1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                    .
                    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                    Scripture before Tradition:
                    but that won't prevent others from
                    taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                    of the right to call yourself Christian.

                    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                      As I said - BURIED within. You claim (with certitude) that it is wrong to claim certitude without being able to provide the evidence to support that claim.
                      I think if you read what I actually said - you have added the "certitude." I am reasonably confident I am correct, or I would say "I don't know." I have not claimed certitude about anything.

                      Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                      Given that this is a philosophical matter - any evidence which might be advanced, including satisfactory evidence that God exists, would still leave open (philosophically) the question of whether the existence of God would be satisfactory evidence of an empirical morality - it isn't. Even the inescapable evidence that God exists doesn't answer the question of whether he establishes a moral paradigm which is exemplary, let alone perfect ... that comes down to a matter, finally, of belief.
                      So first, I accept your statement that there is "inescapable evidence" that god exists. I find the preponderance of the evidence suggests that the notion of god (and gods) is actually a construct of the human mind. And I concur that all statements about this are statements of belief. Ultimately, even our scientific conclusions require a degree of faith, much as that might offend many of my atheist/humanist counterparts.

                      I am not one who sees "faith" as a bad thing. Perhaps its a vestige of my Christian roots. However, I believe "blind faith" is not a good thing. Faith should be, IMO, be reasoned and supported by evidence.
                      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                        SPARKO: Where have I or Seer ever made claims to moral certainty?
                        SEER: I did say that and I believe it, via God's law...

                        The claim sees pretty clear to me, and was repeated in multiple places. So I'm assuming you misspoke and this is NOT what you believe?
                        That still does not mean that I'm claiming moral certainty on every possible moral question. I gave two obvious examples, that I thought you would agree with. And the fact that universal moral truths makes moral certitude possible.


                        So how is it possible for a fallible, limited, human being to claim "certitude" about anything?
                        Carp I am 100% certain that I love my son and grandchildren, there is no question in my mind.

                        You just added a second concept - so I'm going to respond. I'll try to keep it short. I don't have to. You are the one making a positive claim and, in this case, one that you apparently wish to make the case is "binding on everyone." It is therefore incumbent on you to make the case. Until you do, I'm going to reject your claim, especially since it does not conform to what I see around me. The available evidence tells me your moral framework is as relative/subjective as the rest of ours.
                        So you agree that you can't disprove universal moral truths, good, that is a start. And my belief logically flows from my first presupposition that the Bible is inspired. Nothing more to prove because until we the same share that same assumption we can't go anywhere.

                        I note that I missed the "for fun" part of your original post. Sloppy reading on my part. In my world view, I note that some people can (and have) come to that moral conclusion. I cannot conceive of a situation in which I would come to that moral conclusion. Since our moral frameworks are the metric by which we judge actions, I will judge anyone who acts in one of those two ways as immoral. Since I believe my moral framework is "the best" at this time (if I could conceive of a better moral conclusion, by definition I would immediately adopt it), I believe the world would be a better place if everyone valued and morally concluded as I do - so I will work very hard to convince others to "see things my way." When I fail, I will either ignore the other person (minor issues), isolate/separate them (more serious and affecting issues) and/or contend with them (most serious issues).
                        Except your belief system allows for moral skepticism, mine does not. Now I admit that my leaning towards certainty my be a personality trait, but the only thing left is uncertainty right down the line.


                        You keep adding concepts/questions. Remember, I will respond to what you ask/say. I cannot claim 100% certainty about anything I can conceive of. I cannot conceive of how anyone could make a case for 100% certainty. You are welcome to try.
                        So you can not claim 100% certainty about your uncertainty? See Carp, in all my studies, as limited as they are, the only perfectly logical or justifiable theory of knowledge I know of is solipsism. I think your skepticism opens the door for that. But let me ask, are you 100% certain that your mind exists?
                        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by seer View Post
                          That still does not mean that I'm claiming moral certainty on every possible moral question. I gave two obvious examples, that I thought you would agree with. And the fact that universal moral truths makes moral certitude possible.

                          Carp I am 100% certain that I love my son and grandchildren, there is no question in my mind.
                          How do you defend the claim that you have achieved 100% certitude when you cannot even prove that you aren't simply an AI construct in an advanced simulation? Or a brain in a vat? Or under the control of a mind-altering substance. Indeed, you can't even definitively prove that you HAVE grandchildren, Seer. We all start from the same place: faith. Hopefully, it is not a blind one.

                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          So you agree that you can't disprove universal moral truths, good, that is a start. And my belief logically flows from my first presupposition that the Bible is inspired. Nothing more to prove because until we the same share that same assumption we can't go anywhere.
                          I reject your presupposition because it is irrational (or at least non-rational) - you cannot defend or support it. Ergo conclusions based on it are likewise indefensible. You have simply assumed your way to a desired belief.

                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          Except your belief system allows for moral skepticism, mine does not.
                          Correction - yours irrationally (or at best, non-rationally) does not. It is essentially what I have been saying from the outset, Seer: conclusions with no demonstrable rational basis cannot be rationally discussed or debated.

                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          Now I admit that my leaning towards certainty my be a personality trait, but the only thing left is uncertainty right down the line.
                          The only thing we HAVE is uncertainty right down the line. We all have to make leaps of faith to get to any conclusion whatsoever. The question is, what are those leaps, and can we reasonably justify them. I make leaps like, "my mind is a reasoning engine that, while, not immune to error, I can basically trust." Another is "the information gathered by my senses about the universe in which I live, while not free of potential error, I can reasonably trust." These are universal starting places for the human person, without which we are left drooling in the corner.

                          "That book is the inerrant word of god" is not such a basic presupposition. It is not a necessary premise. It is not a premise that can be supported without getting caught, unnecessarily, in circularity. And it is a premise about an objective reality (the book - and its claims). If you cannot show it to be true, and there is good cause to believe it is not, then your conclusion will collapse along with the premise.

                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          So you can not claim 100% certainty about your uncertainty?
                          I cannot defend any claim I can conceive of to 100% certainty. I do not think you can do so either - but you are welcome to try.

                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          See Carp, in all my studies, as limited as they are, the only perfectly logical or justifiable theory of knowledge I know of is solipsism. I think your skepticism opens the door for that. But let me ask, are you 100% certain that your mind exists?
                          I experience mind. I experience "something." I have no way to prove the nature of what I experience. Is it an emergent property of the complexity of my brain? That is what I suspect is true. Is it an advanced algorithm running on an advanced quantum computer? I could not disprove that assertion with 100% certainty. I make what I believe to be a reasonable assumption that it is not, but there are frankly some very compelling arguments from philosophy and the computer sciences that make it a distinct possibility.

                          However, I accept the evidence of my senses and my reasons as a starting point for moving forward. I do so on faith, recognizing I cannot make certain claims about any of these things. But, as with most humans, I don't spend a lot of time speculating about it day-to-day. Certain basics are accepted as a starting point or we end up sitting in a catatonic state gazing vacantly into the (supposed) distance.
                          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                            How do you defend the claim that you have achieved 100% certitude when you cannot even prove that you aren't simply an AI construct in an advanced simulation? Or a brain in a vat? Or under the control of a mind-altering substance. Indeed, you can't even definitively prove that you HAVE grandchildren, Seer. We all start from the same place: faith. Hopefully, it is not a blind one.

                            I reject your presupposition because it is irrational (or at least non-rational) - you cannot defend or support it. Ergo conclusions based on it are likewise indefensible. You have simply assumed your way to a desired belief.

                            I experience mind. I experience "something." I have no way to prove the nature of what I experience. Is it an emergent property of the complexity of my brain? That is what I suspect is true. Is it an advanced algorithm running on an advanced quantum computer? I could not disprove that assertion with 100% certainty. I make what I believe to be a reasonable assumption that it is not, but there are frankly some very compelling arguments from philosophy and the computer sciences that make it a distinct possibility.

                            However, I accept the evidence of my senses and my reasons as a starting point for moving forward. I do so on faith, recognizing I cannot make certain claims about any of these things. But, as with most humans, I don't spend a lot of time speculating about it day-to-day. Certain basics are accepted as a starting point or we end up sitting in a catatonic state gazing vacantly into the (supposed) distance.

                            So the bottom line is that you question my presupposition concerning Scripture while you approach all of reality through a non-rational assumption? So you agree that you can know things, true things, without rational justification.
                            Last edited by seer; 03-23-2019, 12:32 PM.
                            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                            Comment


                            • Seer - I responded...but I've decided continually hijacking threads with our tangents and favorite topics is probably old for everyone. So I answered you here.
                              Last edited by carpedm9587; 03-23-2019, 01:21 PM.
                              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                                I think if you read what I actually said - you have added the "certitude." I am reasonably confident I am correct, or I would say "I don't know." I have not claimed certitude about anything.



                                So first, I accept your statement that there is "inescapable evidence" that god exists. I find the preponderance of the evidence suggests that the notion of god (and gods) is actually a construct of the human mind. And I concur that all statements about this are statements of belief. Ultimately, even our scientific conclusions require a degree of faith, much as that might offend many of my atheist/humanist counterparts.

                                I am not one who sees "faith" as a bad thing. Perhaps its a vestige of my Christian roots. However, I believe "blind faith" is not a good thing. Faith should be, IMO, be reasoned and supported by evidence.
                                I see your point, so I will amend
                                'Even (if/when a person is in possession of) the inescapable evidence that God exists, (that evidence) doesn't answer the question of ...'
                                1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                                .
                                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                                Scripture before Tradition:
                                but that won't prevent others from
                                taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                                of the right to call yourself Christian.

                                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, Today, 09:58 AM
                                11 responses
                                92 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Stoic
                                by Stoic
                                 
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                34 responses
                                249 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seanD
                                by seanD
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                79 responses
                                471 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sam
                                by Sam
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                115 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Working...
                                X