Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Philosophy / Re: Questions about Humanism
« Last post by Recusant on June 17, 2018, 11:52:20 PM »
Yes, you were right with your ref, Recusant - standard theist tactics are to throw several points at once, hop8ng to confuse - then reiterate those pionts in different orders over and over, hoping to trip the other up in inconsistencies. Do they all read the same instruction book - spart from their holy book that is? No, probably  part of human nature and, if the "prosecution" side, we probably do the same. Even kids will try several iterations to get what they want if denied at first - the repeated, "But, dad, what if . . ." pattern.

Ah, well it was Tank that referred to the Gish gallop. I don't think that is what drfreemlizard is doing here. He's keeping his arguments pretty well-organized and is sticking to a limited number of points. The Gish gallop is throwing up a very large number of points, references (often dishonestly sourced), and arguments in a fairly chaotic manner with the possibly unintentional result that the interlocutor has difficulty dealing with the mess in any comprehensive way. 
2
Philosophy / Re: Questions about Humanism
« Last post by Dave on June 17, 2018, 11:39:21 PM »
Yes, you were right with your ref, Recusant - standard theist tactics are to throw several points at once, hoping to confuse - then reiterate those pionts in different orders over and over, hoping to trip the other up in inconsistencies. Do they all read the same instruction book - spart from their holy book that is? No, probably  part of human nature and, if the "prosecution" side, we probably do the same. Even kids will try several iterations to get what they want if denied at first - the repeated, "But, dad, what if . . ." pattern.

[Since this cough does not abate until after 1am might as well keep my brain going hoping for sleep's sweet embrace at some time.]

[Hmm, maybe time for another debate on the positive correlation between national religiosity and violence. Of course, correlation does not imply causation but . . .]

3
Philosophy / Re: Questions about Humanism
« Last post by Recusant on June 17, 2018, 11:28:32 PM »
I am not arguing your right to atheism. I am challenging the attempts to mask or minimize its negative philosophical consequences.

You're applying your standards to arrive at your judgement that atheism results in "negative philosophical consequences." That's fine, but you cannot dictate the standards by which the whole world evaluates "philosophical consequences."

"Ultimate purpose" is unnecessary for hope, and death being a fact of life doesn't mean that hope is meaningless in the absence of a god, no matter how fervently you happen to believe that.

"Arbitrary" ≠ "Meaningless"

Can you address the fact that there are multiple versions of morality that lay claim to being universal, to having originated from a god or gods? It certainly looks like these various competing claims are evidence supporting the idea that none of them are what they present themselves as. That many of them coincide is attributable to the fact that our species evolved to be intelligent and social. There is no need for any supernatural contribution to explain how human societies arrive at moral values and arrange themselves.
4
Philosophy / Re: Questions about Humanism
« Last post by Dave on June 17, 2018, 11:07:09 PM »
It's fine if you want to accept having no ultimate purpose. But then don't tell me you believe in hope. Hope is for things with a future. What good are temporary hopes (the new car, the cure for cancer, the bowl of ice cream when you get home) if overshadowing it all is death and oblivion?

And don't tell me you believe in moral excellence. Morals either come from something higher than man, or they are arbitrary. They are arbitrary even in the normative behavior indicated in the original humanist statement of values in this thread, as normative behavior is cultural. As has been noted, in some cultures people love their neighbors, in others they eat them. So moral excellence really depends on the individual perspective.

I am not arguing your right to atheism. I am challenging the attempts to mask or minimize its negative philosophical consequences.

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk

You do not seem to get it about astheists 100%, Dfr.

* Why do I need an "ultimate pupose", I feel that I have mundane purpose, can purposely support my neighbour in his disability (though he is,19 years my junior), random people met who are in minor need,  charities etc.  Good enough for me!

* I have hopes by the bucketfull, but all within the scope of this world. I also hope, that by dint of medical science and practice, my own attempts to do sensible things and the seeming natural resilience of my body and psyche that I live long enough to do more "good deeds" and that my estate benefits those left when I finally peg it. My great "'fear" is that I will become so disabled that the greater part of my capital is consumed in paying for my final care and not benefitting others.

* Human morality spans from one end of the spectrum to another. Good and bad morals exist in every belief and faith group, as has been reiterated several times in this discussion - please do not regurgitate stuff already posed and answered. Terrible debating tactic that indicates you are running out of arguments - like most theists. What's worse is you have us doing it - oh for an AI discussion analysis app that detects and flags such reiterations!

* Getting too late for me:
Quote
I am challenging the attempts to mask or minimize its negative philosophical consequences.
Oh, dear, I may be asking you to reiterate here - please expand on these "negative philosophical consequences" so that we might answer with the mind dumbing/limiting consequences of religious belief. I will suggest that our psychology, which affects us directly every day, is more in danger from restriction than philosophy, which Joe Public only very rarely considers, is from freedom.
5
Philosophy / Re: Questions about Humanism
« Last post by Sandra Craft on June 17, 2018, 10:53:44 PM »
It's fine if you want to accept having no ultimate purpose. But then don't tell me you believe in hope. Hope is for things with a future. What good are temporary hopes (the new car, the cure for cancer, the bowl of ice cream when you get home) if overshadowing it all is death and oblivion?

You can have hope for a future that you're not going to be part of.  That's a commonplace and ordinary impulse, and no different than being concerned for people here and now that you'll never meet.  I've noticed theists, at least the Xtian ones I'm familiar with, have a horror of death, as if not being immortal is some kind of personal affront or insult.  Not everyone feels that way.  Just because I or ultimately the universe won't last forever doesn't make what there is unimportant or valueless.

Quote
And don't tell me you believe in moral excellence. Morals either come from something higher than man, or they are arbitrary. They are arbitrary even in the normative behavior indicated in the original humanist statement of values in this thread, as normative behavior is cultural. As has been noted, in some cultures people love their neighbors, in others they eat them. So moral excellence really depends on the individual perspective.

Of course it's arbitrary, and of course there are going to be differences of opinion about it.  That doesn't rule out striving for moral excellence, it just makes it harder because it eliminates the idea of a puppet master and takes power away from those using that idea to play puppeteer in its name.  Things are always harder when nobody is pulling the strings -- better, but harder.


6
Science / Re: Women in science and technology
« Last post by Dave on June 17, 2018, 10:36:34 PM »
Here is another ultra bright lady.  Is it OK to describe a PHD physicist as a bright lady. I suspect that she is more than that. https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-physics-of-glass-opens-a-window-into-biology-20180611/

Yes, clever but of association there, I love an open mind thst xan make lesps.

I will also offer Lisa Randall.

Quote
In 2004, Lisa was recognized as the most cited theoretical physicist in the world with about 10,000 citations on her work
https://www.aps.org/careers/physicists/profiles/lrandall.cfm


For some reason her name surfaced in my mind as I read the first article. She was being held back in her career because of her gender and despite her citations way back.
7
Philosophy / Re: Questions about Humanism
« Last post by drfreemlizard on June 17, 2018, 10:35:31 PM »
It's fine if you want to accept having no ultimate purpose. But then don't tell me you believe in hope. Hope is for things with a future. What good are temporary hopes (the new car, the cure for cancer, the bowl of ice cream when you get home) if overshadowing it all is death and oblivion?

And don't tell me you believe in moral excellence. Morals either come from something higher than man, or they are arbitrary. They are arbitrary even in the normative behavior indicated in the original humanist statement of values in this thread, as normative behavior is cultural. As has been noted, in some cultures people love their neighbors, in others they eat them. So moral excellence really depends on the individual perspective.

I am not arguing your right to atheism. I am challenging the attempts to mask or minimize its negative philosophical consequences.

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk

8
Philosophy / Re: Questions about Humanism
« Last post by Dave on June 17, 2018, 10:23:01 PM »
The inference being, actually, that an atheistic view robs humanity of any ultimate purpose. You can fill your life with activity and call it purpose, but it is only a bandaid on the gaping wound.

Not sure whether I have used the analogy here but I have often used "the god shaped hole" to desctibe what might be a genetic need for a deity of some variety, and the Abrahamic god is only one of many, probably thousands, mankind has "'employed" in its entire history. Not sure about the "God gene" hypothesis. I would love to find out if I have that gene because I have never felt that void within my psyche. Perhaps I blocked it up with curiosity before the vicars and teachers got a look in?

I was certainly always in bad odour for questioning the lessons and writings from the very start. And that was not learnt ftom my parents, they did not give a damn what I thought or did providing I did not annoy them in any way.

I may have reiterated a bit from previous posts there, pardon me if I did, put it down to my dotage and my being in post-bath + vino stage latish at night.
9
Science / Re: Women in science and technology
« Last post by Icarus on June 17, 2018, 10:18:38 PM »
Here is another ultra bright lady.  Is it OK to describe a PHD physicist as a bright lady. I suspect that she is more than that. https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-physics-of-glass-opens-a-window-into-biology-20180611/
10
Philosophy / Re: Questions about Humanism
« Last post by Velma on June 17, 2018, 09:08:11 PM »
The inference being, actually, that an atheistic view robs humanity of any ultimate purpose. You can fill your life with activity and call it purpose, but it is only a bandaid on the gaping wound.
There is no gaping wound caused by my atheism. Oddly enough, the gaping wound that I did have only started to heal once I became an atheist. I do not need some grand "ultimate purpose" force fed to me by some demented father figure.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10