tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post8099340808443320437..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Loftus on the skidsRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger23125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-61007866019004981252008-03-25T16:19:00.000-04:002008-03-25T16:19:00.000-04:00Hi John,In my world I invent new rules for basebal...Hi John,<BR/><BR/>In my world I invent new rules for baseball. This includes, but is not limited to, this rule: R = two strikes and you're out."<BR/><BR/>So, since you've whiffed hard twice now, and blew the toupee's off the men in the first three rows, I'll have to call you out.<BR/><BR/>You said,<BR/><BR/><I>John W. Loftus said: <BR/>Paul, all human beings want to be happy. It motivates us all. To ask why we should want happiness is like asking why we want to stay alive...we just do"</I><BR/><BR/>This demonstrates, twice now, that you have not grasped what I was asking you. I even *granted* you this point.<BR/><BR/>I even *granted* that you were appealing to norms. Indeed, that was rather my *point*. <BR/><BR/>Dodging questions isn't veyr intellectually virtuous.<BR/><BR/>I tried with you, John. No name calling, or anything. It's apparent that it is not because of "name calling" that you can't, or refuse to, answer the questions put to you here. Thanks for reminding me why I placed you on "ignore."Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-26569655002677370592008-03-25T11:23:00.000-04:002008-03-25T11:23:00.000-04:00JWL: "Paul, all human beings want to be happy."a) ...JWL: "Paul, all human beings want to be happy."<BR/><BR/>a) Impossible to demonstrate;<BR/><BR/>b) Open to serious question: some people very strongly appear NOT to want to be happy (of course, we could redefine happiness to make it fit them, but that leads even more clearly to (c);<BR/><BR/>c) "Happy" is an ambiguous term.<BR/><BR/>JWL: "It motivates us all."<BR/><BR/>Same defects as above.<BR/><BR/>JWL: "To ask why we should want happiness is like asking why we want to stay alive...we just do."<BR/><BR/>a) It's unclear whether JWL actually read the question. To ask why DO want happiness may be like asking why we DO want to stay alive. But the question is not why we DO want happiness, but why we SHOULD want happiness.<BR/><BR/>b) The "we just do" explanation is the explanation that one gives to a four year old, when he asks "why" too many times. It's not a serious answer to the question among rational adults. "We just do" doesn't satisfy the scientific mind.<BR/><BR/>c) Underlying JWL's failure to justify his moral norm of "happiness," is an apparent (and unsupported) view that what is, is best. The fact that "we just do" is not a reason why that is best, or even why that is good.<BR/><BR/>JWL: "Granted, some people have a major Freudian death wish. How do we convince them not to have it? It requires counseling. We think such people need it."<BR/><BR/>"Need" is a moral judgment, and is not supported by JWL's belief system.<BR/><BR/>JWL: "This is our purpose, our "ends," to be happy, holistically."<BR/><BR/>a) Actually, our chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever.<BR/><BR/>b) The idea that humans have a purpose itself requires a purpose-giver. JWL's belief system does not accomodate such a purpose-giver, and consequently is self-contradictory.<BR/><BR/>JWL: "It’s the reason we do everything we do, and as such it’s normative."<BR/><BR/>This is the same "what is, should be" confusion. The fact that something is presently the case does not (on its own) suggest that it ought to be the case. In fact, JWL seems (inconsistently, of course) to recognize this when suggesting counselling.<BR/><BR/>JWL: "We should all strive to be happy, for it is what makes life worth living."<BR/><BR/>a) More moral judgments.<BR/><BR/>b) Incorrect moral judgments, for we should all strive to love God and our neighbor.<BR/><BR/>c) "Worth living" is a standard that cannot possibly be based consistently in JWL's belief system.<BR/><BR/>JWL: "If you read my links you see how I defend this from certain dilemmas you might throw at me."<BR/><BR/>And if you read these five books, you'll see why the content of your links is incorrect.<BR/><BR/>JWL: "It also accounts for virtue, for it is the only kind of virtue available to us."<BR/><BR/>a) Not true.<BR/><BR/>b) Impossible to prove consistent with JWL's belief system.<BR/><BR/>JWL: "A virtuous person is a holistically happy person."<BR/><BR/>a) No, a virtuous person is one who obeys God.<BR/><BR/>b) "Holistically happy" is vague as to be worthless.<BR/><BR/>JWL: "Such a person has character."<BR/><BR/>a) Value judgment that presupposes the unbased value system already rebutted above.<BR/><BR/>b) Except as to the fact that everyone has <B>a</B> character, whether good or bad.<BR/><BR/>JWL: "Such a person promotes human flourishing."<BR/><BR/>a) There is no real connection between happiness and human flourishing that has been established.<BR/><BR/>b) Theoretically, one could simply define things to make such a connection.<BR/><BR/>c) But, then again, the value of "human flourishing" is simply another unsupported value, so what would be the point of (b).<BR/><BR/>JWL: "These norms are not superior to the theist’s norms, they are the same norms."<BR/><BR/>a) No. They are partially borrowed norms.<BR/><BR/>b) They are inferior.<BR/><BR/>c) More importantly, the norms themselves are inconsistent with the remainder of the atheist's worldview.<BR/><BR/>JWL: "Yes, there is debate about what these norms should be, but that debate has always taken place and the main reason why our norms have progressed up until now, and keep getting better and better."<BR/><BR/>a) "Getting better"/"progessed" is a meta-value judgment, and is doubly unsupported by JWL's belief system.<BR/><BR/>b) Since JWL thinks that theists and athiests have the same norms, its hard to see how JWL can reasonably argue that there has been any change ("progress" without the value judgment) in norms.<BR/><BR/>-TurretinFanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-75586470032520018822008-03-25T09:04:00.000-04:002008-03-25T09:04:00.000-04:00Here's my translation of Loftus' last comment:Paul...Here's my translation of Loftus' last comment:<BR/><BR/><BR/>Paul, all human beings want to be happy. It motivates us all. To ask why we should want happiness is like asking why we want to stay alive...we just do. Granted, this begs the question. How could I be convinced not to beg the question over and over? It requires counseling. I think I may need it.<BR/><BR/>Look, I *need* to beg the question on issues like this. It makes me happy. If you don't like it, you're a meanie. How do I know? B/c I'm way better at begging the question than you.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-40660448089827951582008-03-25T07:15:00.000-04:002008-03-25T07:15:00.000-04:00Paul, all human beings want to be happy. It motiva...Paul, all human beings want to be happy. It motivates us all. To ask why we should want happiness is like asking why we want to stay alive...we just do. Granted, some people have a major Freudian death wish. How do we convince them not to have it? It requires counseling. We think such people need it.<BR/><BR/>This is our purpose, our "ends," to be happy, holistically. It’s the reason we do everything we do, and as such it’s normative. We should all strive to be happy, for it is what makes life worth living. If you read my links you see how I defend this from certain dilemmas you might throw at me. It also accounts for virtue, for it is the only kind of virtue available to us. A virtuous person is a holistically happy person. Such a person has character. Such a person promotes human flourishing. These norms are not superior to the theist’s norms, they are the same norms. Yes, there is debate about what these norms should be, but that debate has always taken place and the main reason why our norms have progressed up until now, and keep getting better and better.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-927127296728270482008-03-24T22:18:00.000-04:002008-03-24T22:18:00.000-04:00John Loftus said..."Because it promotes happiness,...John Loftus said...<BR/><BR/><I>"Because it promotes happiness, and happiness (eudomia, holistic happiness) is an end in and of itself, as Aristotle argued (Manata, are you listening?)."</I><BR/><BR/>John, I am at a loss as to what I am supposed to be listening for. I never asked you "what's right about human flourishing," or, "why care about human flourishing." So you answer had *nothing* to do with the comment I made. <BR/><BR/>So, despite your missing my point (to which I wanted to ask, "Loftus, were you reading?"), I can invoke the name of that contemporary Aristotelian, Alasdair MacIntyre, and put a spin on which of his book titles: "Whose Happiness, Which Rationality?"<BR/><BR/>Also, look who is invoking *ends.* The *naturalist!* My question comes right back, then. How can the evolutionary naturalist make sense of *purpose*, of *telos*, of *ends*?<BR/><BR/>Aristotelian Natural Law ethics is loaded with noramitivity and moral proper fucntion. As with epistemology, this notions fits right in with a Christain worldview. It's dubious to think it fits in with John's.<BR/><BR/>Also, for Aristotle, virtues are those strengths of character that promote human flourishing. Can John's naturalism make sense of virtues? Of character?<BR/><BR/>And, exactly what is human flourishing? Who decides that? John? As Macintyre says, "Whose happiness?" John's? Can John give any examples of someone who is clearly not flourishing? Are there any difficulties in knowing whether someone is flourishing? Are there many different legitimate conceptions of human flourishing? If so, how would John demarcate all of them?<BR/> And what standard does he use when doing so?<BR/><BR/>Human flourishing is also about what a human being *ought* to be. Again, we have *norms.* Again, John needs to show how this is even *possible* given his worldview. How his account fo norms is superior to the theists account.<BR/><BR/>Questions like these are why Naturalist Michael Perry says that appeals to "human flourishing" cannot be justified.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, there are various versions of eudaimonistic ethics. Who does Loftus side with? A Perry, or a Finnis?<BR/><BR/>Does Loftus base what happiness is off the consequences? Or is there some standard floating around that eh uses? or is it based on the culture? What.<BR/><BR/>Loftus hasn't even began to answer my question, and his little snooty quip showed he either didn't understand the issue I was raising, or he's so ignorant about ethical issues that he thought he answerd it; when, in reality, I don't know of one ethicist who would say he even scratched the surface of an "answer."<BR/><BR/>Is Loftus happy based on the fading treasures of this world? Friednship with people who die? Money that leaves (at some point). Health that fades? The Christian has no opposition to happiness. But since God kmade us, he knows what is best for us. He knows how we can be truly happy. In God, we have all those benefits and riches, but they will never fade away. As Augustine said, "Our heart is restless until we find our rest in Thee."Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-23697911771253366922008-03-24T21:58:00.000-04:002008-03-24T21:58:00.000-04:00Loftus comes in waving his wiffle bat yet again. ...Loftus comes in waving his wiffle bat yet again. It's impossible for me to believe he actually teaches ethics anywhere.<BR/><BR/>Suppose that happiness is it's own end. Whose happiness matters?<BR/><BR/>Suppose I love Jill. But Jill loves Frank. Jill and Frank get married and they are happy, but I am not happy because I do not get Jill. Furthermore, I know ten other men who would love to marry Jill. But Jill only wants to marry Frank.<BR/><BR/>Therefore, Jill & Frank are happy (2 individuals). Myself and ten other guys are not happy (11 individuals).<BR/><BR/>More people will be happy if Jill and Frank do NOT marry than if they do marry. Therefore, it is immoral for them to marry.<BR/><BR/>But why not continue. Bob is a sadist. Mary is a massochist. Bob says to Mary: "I'm going to torture you."<BR/><BR/>Mary says, "Yes! Yes!"<BR/><BR/>Bob says: "I'm just kidding."<BR/><BR/>Mary says: "Yes! Yes!"<BR/><BR/>Bob realizes that he cannot inflict pain upon Mary for the infliction of it will be painful, and his refraining of giving her pain is itself painful for she misses the pain she would have experienced.<BR/><BR/>So Bob tortures Alice, who is normal, instead. Alice doesn't like pain. Bob does. Furthermore, Mary gets pain because she is deprived of what she wants. Bob + Mary > happiness than Alice.<BR/><BR/>Hey, this is so simple wouldn't you think like...oh, I don't know, a FIRST YEAR PHILOSOPHY STUDENT WOULD KNOW THESE EXAMPLES?Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-79408763592552035392008-03-24T19:06:00.000-04:002008-03-24T19:06:00.000-04:00"FYI I have read Kuhn. He makes a lot of great poi..."FYI I have read Kuhn. He makes a lot of great points which I agree with. I think I can harmonize what he and Popper have both argued for too."<BR/><BR/>Kuhn was a complete refutation of the "progressing knowledge" model of science.<BR/><BR/>Scientific knowledge oscillates back and forth and that without a reference point. Theories can provide us with precious little knowledge in terms of the universals of the cosmos much less an entire worldview.<BR/><BR/>"And so did the Crusades and the Inquisition by forcing people to believe. No one could stop the church. Might makes right. Pax Roman Catholic."<BR/><BR/>Notice how Loftus completely dodged the counter-argument. My point was that secular ethics fail when one is selfish and has ultimate power. So, the Medieval Popes would simply reinforce my point.<BR/><BR/>"And I see moral nihilism in the Bible, so what's your moral high ground?"<BR/><BR/>Do you even know what that term means?<BR/><BR/>"No wonder you believe, Steve! With non sequiturs like that I see it must be easy for you."<BR/><BR/>Well, based on the (il)logical track-record of Loftus...Saint and Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14166699860672840738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-85108105098328855462008-03-24T18:48:00.000-04:002008-03-24T18:48:00.000-04:00In answer to the question, "why care about human f...In answer to the question, "why care about human flourishing?"<BR/><BR/>JWL replied: <I>Because it promotes happiness, and happiness (eudomia, holistic happiness) is an end in and of itself, as Aristotle argued (Manata, are you listening?).</I><BR/><BR/>a) Again, though, this assertion that it promotes happiness is unfounded.<BR/><BR/>b) Likewise, the assertion that "happiness is an end in and of itself" is unfounded and wrong. <BR/><BR/>c) Attaching Aristotle's name to the assertion is unimpressive. Modern physical scientists don't accept his assertions on physical science, why should modern philosophers accept his opinions on metaphysics?<BR/><BR/>d) Happiness does not have separate physical existence. It is something experienced by subjects. Thus, the question arises, "Happiness of whom?" No matter what the answer, why is that person/group/subject's happiness important?<BR/><BR/>e) How can one meaningfully establish (without revelation) that the relevant happiness of whatever person/group/subject is not better established by the disciplined, atrocious (and sinful) violence discussed in the initial question?<BR/><BR/>-TurretinFanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-27184717960597967812008-03-24T18:40:00.000-04:002008-03-24T18:40:00.000-04:00JWL wrote: ...because doing so is counter-producti...JWL wrote: <I>...because doing so is counter-productive to a free, peaceful and democratic society. Violence breeds violence, and if he does this to others they will do it to him and his girls. there will be more violence. Peaceful co-existence is better for all.</I><BR/><BR/>a) "Better" is a moral judgment. You don't have a rational ground for it.<BR/><BR/>b) "All" is ambiguous. Is it meant expansively, <I>i.e.</I> for the population as a whole, or extensively, <I>i.e.</I> for each member of the population? Either way it is open to rebuttal:<BR/><BR/>(i) It's practically impossible to establish that peaceful co-existence is beneficial to the collective; <BR/><BR/>(ii) It's even harder to establish that peaceful co-existence is beneficial to every last person of the collective.<BR/><BR/>c) There's an implicit statement that a "free, peaceful and democratic society," is the best society in some morally absolute way. This not only is not true, you don't have a rational basis for asserting moral absolutes.<BR/><BR/>JWL continued: <I>Now let's say he rejects my argument. I can do nothing more, and neither can you. In fact, those are the kinds of arguments that eventually won the day and the reason why we live in a better, peacful society, rather than the barbaric societies in the past.</I><BR/><BR/>a) Yes, we can do more. We can appeal to the divinely inspired and handwritten decalogue. We can tell the man of the serious eternal consequences of his actions. And we can offer the man a meaningful alternative that has moral authority.<BR/><BR/>b) And, actually, you could do more too. You could use violence to suppress violence. Your theory that "violence breeds violence" is more of a mantra than anything else. It's so vague and equivocal as to be meaningless. Furthermore, it harkens back to your apparently baseless presupposition that non-violence is better than violence.<BR/><BR/>c) Or you could use money/beads to defeat violence. The mantra "everyone has a price," is at least as credible as the mantra, "violence begets violence."<BR/><BR/>d) Or you could embrace violence and even violence in the particularly heinous and atrocious (and sinful) form described. Why couldn't you? I don't see any particular reason that you could appeal to that would be rationally consistent with your worldview.<BR/><BR/>e) The statement: "In fact, those are the kinds of arguments that eventually won the day and the reason why we live in a better, peacful society, rather than the barbaric societies in the past," is unsupported.<BR/><BR/>(i) We certainly don't live in a violence-free society.<BR/><BR/>(ii) Two major influences in reducing the violence of Europe were its Christianization and later the reformation of that Christianity.<BR/><BR/>(iii) Generic arguments that non-violence is better than violence were not widely used or widely accepted.<BR/><BR/>(iv) Roughly the same thing could be said of the Americas.<BR/><BR/>JWL continued: <I>Now don't go saying I have no reason to want a peacful society over a violent society. I sure do and there is every reason why, since it promotes human flourishing.</I><BR/><BR/>a) Don't tell me what to say.<BR/><BR/>b) Your claim that it "promotes human flourishing," <BR/><BR/>(i) is unsupported, and <BR/>(ii) simply leads to the next question, "What's your reason for wanting 'human flourishing'?" If you have any basis for that.<BR/><BR/>JWL: <I>Thanks for asking, but the fact that you asked means you have never seriouisly considered what I would say in response, and I find that strange.</I><BR/><BR/>a) I don't pretend to speak for the person who asked the question; but<BR/><BR/>b) Your answer was fairly predictable: you appealed to at least one moral standard.<BR/><BR/>JWL: <I>If you want to argue against me you should at least know in advance what I would say so that you can respond to what I would say before I even say it. That's the best place where we should begin in the first place.</I><BR/><BR/>Sounds a bit presumptive, doesn't it?<BR/><BR/>-TurretinFanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-33155217569562954372008-03-24T18:00:00.000-04:002008-03-24T18:00:00.000-04:00Pike said...Christianity is not immoral given the ...<I>Pike said...Christianity is not immoral given the moral framework of Christian principals.<BR/><BR/>Oh really? Then neither is eternal damnation immoral given the doctrine of eternal damnation.<BR/><BR/>I get it now. Thanks!</I><BR/><BR/>Is that an internal critique or an external critique?<BR/><BR/>a. If internal, then what's the problem?<BR/><BR/>b. If external, then why should we accept your standards?<BR/><BR/><I><BR/>Because it promotes happiness, and happiness (eudomia, holistic happiness) is an end in and of itself, as Aristotle argued (Manata, are you listening?).</I><BR/><BR/>Why should we accept this standard?<BR/><BR/><I>And so did the Crusades and the Inquisition by forcing people to believe. No one could stop the church. Might makes right. Pax Roman Catholic.</I><BR/><BR/>1. Forcing people to believe and forcing them to claim they believe aren't convertible principles. <BR/> <BR/>2. To borrow from your own words, "Take a history course." Did the Inquisition really succeed? The Reformation did stop Roman Catholicism. It also began the end of the Medieval political ideal. The Inquisition is still with us. It's hardly won the day in the face of secularism in Europe and abroad. If you think otherwise, dare we say you have a skewed view of history.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-15399972997267121812008-03-24T17:34:00.000-04:002008-03-24T17:34:00.000-04:00FYI I have read Kuhn. He makes a lot of great poin...FYI I have read Kuhn. He makes a lot of great points which I agree with. I think I can harmonize what he and Popper have both argued for too.<BR/><BR/>Rhology said...<I>WHY promote human flourishing? WHY promote peace? These are serious questions - is your answer just "B/c human flourishing and peace are good!"? Where does that get the discussion?</I><BR/><BR/>Because it promotes happiness, and happiness (eudomia, holistic happiness) is an end in and of itself, as Aristotle argued (Manata, are you listening?).<BR/><BR/>Saint and Sinner said...<I>Actually, Rome triumphed over "barbaric societies of the past" by being vicious, cruel, and even more barbaric. No one could stop them. Might makes right. Pax Romana.</I><BR/><BR/>And so did the Crusades and the Inquisition by forcing people to believe. No one could stop the church. Might makes right. Pax Roman Catholic.<BR/><BR/>Steve said...<I>Loftus’ case for atheism comes down to a choice between a cul-de-sac, a dead-end, and a blind alley.</I><BR/><BR/>And I see moral nihilism in the Bible, so what's your moral high ground? <BR/><BR/>Steve said...<I>No, he changes the subject. That’s what people do when they lost the argument.</I><BR/><BR/>No wonder you believe, Steve! With <I>non sequiturs</I> like that I see it must be easy for you. All you need are a few of them and you can make your case. But it just seems odd that you base your case on the grounds for logic and at the same time fail to even know what a <I>non sequitur</I> is. What's with that, my friend?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-20540501914253366092008-03-24T16:42:00.000-04:002008-03-24T16:42:00.000-04:00JOHN W. LOFTUS SAID:“For anyone who wants easy acc...JOHN W. LOFTUS SAID:<BR/><BR/>“For anyone who wants easy access to what I wrote you can click here. __I have commented further by articulating a consistent ethic. I find it strange that Steve wants to talk about the ethics of his God when his God is a sadistic egotistical monster.”<BR/><BR/>Notice that Loftus is changing the subject. He initially referred me to his latest defense of secular ethics. But when I respond to his argument, does he address my counterargument? Does he show where my critique was defective? <BR/><BR/>No, he changes the subject. That’s what people do when they lost the argument. <BR/><BR/>So his fallback position is to punt the issue to the Christians. But tearing down Christian ethics, even if that exercise were successful, does nothing to build up secular ethics. He isn’t making a positive case for secular ethics.<BR/><BR/>Secular ethics is not the logical alternative to Christian ethics. Even if Christian ethics was false, that wouldn’t validate secular ethics. For the secular alternative to Christian ethics might just as well be moral nihilism. Indeed, a number of atheistic philosophers admit as much. <BR/><BR/>And I’ve already refuted his argument that God was wrong to make the world. <BR/><BR/>Loftus’ case for atheism comes down to a choice between a cul-de-sac, a dead-end, and a blind alley.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-89463421398160802422008-03-24T16:05:00.000-04:002008-03-24T16:05:00.000-04:00John say the promotion of human flourishing is a *...John say the promotion of human flourishing is a *reason* to want a peaceful over a violent society. But 'human flourishing' is a *normative* <I>desiderata</I>, and if John can't make sense of *norms*, given his evolutionary and naturalistic outlook, then his broader worldview cannot make sense of his "reason."Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-45130884690171257182008-03-24T15:33:00.000-04:002008-03-24T15:33:00.000-04:00"Now let's say he rejects my argument. I can do no..."Now let's say he rejects my argument. I can do nothing more, and neither can you. In fact, those are the kinds of arguments that eventually won the day and the reason why we live in a better, peacful society, rather than the barbaric societies in the past."<BR/><BR/>Actually, Rome triumphed over "barbaric societies of the past" by being vicious, cruel, and even more barbaric. No one could stop them. Might makes right. Pax Romana.Saint and Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14166699860672840738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-18840408936828119932008-03-24T15:32:00.000-04:002008-03-24T15:32:00.000-04:00But John, Tkalim *LIKES* that kind of violence. I...But John, Tkalim *LIKES* that kind of violence. Is it still wrong for him? He doesn't agree that peaceful co-existence is better for all; it's only better if people don't bother HIM, but his whole society believes that they MUST bother others.<BR/><BR/>I don't care if he rejects your argument - you reject rationality all the time. The point is that his existence and moral standards militate against yours. Every question-begging "It's just better if..." you bring fwd is counterexemplified by Tkalim.<BR/>WHY promote human flourishing? WHY promote peace? These are serious questions - is your answer just "B/c human flourishing and peace are good!"? Where does that get the discussion?<BR/><BR/>Oh, I've considered what you'd say and <A HREF="http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/2007/12/scenario.html" REL="nofollow">I've asked</A> this question on my blog just 3 months ago and got the same responses. Flushing poop arguments out of the grass is useful for most everyone.<BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/>RhologyRhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-2706935651750971202008-03-24T15:31:00.000-04:002008-03-24T15:31:00.000-04:00"Rhology, because doing so is counter-productive t..."Rhology, because doing so is counter-productive to a free, peaceful and democratic society. Violence breeds violence, and if he does this to others they will do it to him and his girls. there will be more violence. Peaceful co-existence is better for all."<BR/><BR/>This begs-the-question: why is collectivism better than individualism?<BR/><BR/>In that particular case that Rhology cited, the guy who did that may get the favor returned upon him.<BR/><BR/>But for an individual like Genghis Kahn who wielded supreme power over the entirety of the Eastern world and no one could stop him, he got away with it.<BR/><BR/>Others can be cited: Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, etc.<BR/><BR/>Under atheistic presuppositions, as long as you can get away with it, then why not? No heaven to gain and no hell to shun.Saint and Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14166699860672840738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-85649039933271552122008-03-24T15:14:00.000-04:002008-03-24T15:14:00.000-04:00“One last illustration. Karl Popper argues that sc...“One last illustration. Karl Popper argues that scientific knowledge progresses by conjectures (or guesses) which are in turn refuted for better conjectures (or guesses)."<BR/><BR/>Loftus needs to read Thomas Kuhn.Saint and Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14166699860672840738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-79361371942370259242008-03-24T14:45:00.000-04:002008-03-24T14:45:00.000-04:00Rhology, because doing so is counter-productive to...Rhology, because doing so is counter-productive to a free, peaceful and democratic society. Violence breeds violence, and if he does this to others they will do it to him and his girls. there will be more violence. Peaceful co-existence is better for all.<BR/><BR/>Now let's say he rejects my argument. I can do nothing more, and neither can you. In fact, those are the kinds of arguments that eventually won the day and the reason why we live in a better, peacful society, rather than the barbaric societies in the past. <BR/><BR/>Now don't go saying I have no reason to want a peacful society over a violent society. I sure do and there is every reason why, since it promotes human flourishing.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for asking, but the fact that you asked means you have never seriouisly considered what I would say in response, and I find that strange. If you want to argue against me you should at least know in advance what I would say so that you can respond to what I would say before I even say it. That's the best place where we should begin in the first place.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-45070489018167787992008-03-24T14:36:00.000-04:002008-03-24T14:36:00.000-04:00Loftus said:People whom I consider non-rational ar...Loftus <A HREF="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2007/06/atheistic-ethic-what-do-human-beings.html" REL="nofollow">said</A>:<BR/><BR/><I>People whom I consider non-rational are, roughly speaking, people who do not want these things.</I><BR/><BR/>That's funny. I've met some people who don't want those things. They told me that YOU were immoral for wanting them. <BR/>Tell you what, John...<BR/><BR/>Situation: You are traveling in a foreign land and go to an out-of-the-way picturesque temple. There you meet a native, there to offer religious piety. He finishes lighting his candle and then greets you, speaking serviceable English. He introduces himself as Tkalim.<BR/><BR/>He offers to tell you a little about his religion. You, being the courteous gentleman/lady you are, invite him to proceed. He tells you that he and his whole society worship 5 gods of the fish, air, earth, fire, and tree. He then tells you that part of his worship devotion is to go with all the men of his society to steal girls between the ages of 3-8 years from their families in the nearby large city, take them into the jungle, and rape them.<BR/>Once raped, the tribesmen leave the girls in the jungle as an offering to the tree god. He says he knows of no girl that has ever returned to the city to her family.<BR/>Once he finishes his story with calm voice and clear eyes, he falls silent.<BR/>I have something to say to him about this practice. What would YOU say? How would you try to explain that what he is doing is wrong? *Is* what he is doing wrong? On what basis?Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-75613896838800860072008-03-24T14:29:00.000-04:002008-03-24T14:29:00.000-04:00Pike said...Christianity is not immoral given the ...Pike said...<I>Christianity is not immoral given the moral framework of Christian principals.</I><BR/><BR/>Oh really? Then neither is eternal damnation immoral given the doctrine of eternal damnation.<BR/><BR/>I get it now. Thanks!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-30905667525957287292008-03-24T14:25:00.000-04:002008-03-24T14:25:00.000-04:00For anyone who wants easy access to what I wrote y...For anyone who wants easy access to what I wrote you can <A HREF="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2008/01/nonbelievers-have-no-objective-basis.html" REL="nofollow">click here</A>.<BR/><BR/>I have commented further by articulating a consistent <A HREF="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2007/06/atheistic-ethic_13.html" REL="nofollow">atheistic ethic</A>.<BR/><BR/>I find it strange that Steve wants to talk about the ethics of his God when his God is a <A HREF="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2008/02/god-is-sadistic-egotistical-monster-and.html" REL="nofollow">sadistic egotistical monster</A>.<BR/><BR/>I'll forgive anyone who doesn't have the time to read through these links. But if you really want to debate with people like me who disagree you should. Then you can criticize what we say and it won't be a strawman argument.<BR/><BR/>But hey, what do I know?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-30357293670460587132008-03-24T14:07:00.000-04:002008-03-24T14:07:00.000-04:00Lyosha07 commits the same fallacies that Loftus do...Lyosha07 commits the same fallacies that Loftus does. If you are going to claim that Christianity is a "moral monstrosity" then you have to establish the basis by which you have morality.<BR/><BR/>Christianity is not immoral given the moral framework of Christian principals. It is self-consistent.<BR/><BR/>Therefore, Lyosha's comment is simply that <I>according to her</I> moral view, Christianity is immoral.<BR/><BR/>But that is only relevant if Lyosha's moral view <I>is actually true</I>. Thus, Lyosha needs to prove her moral position right before she can claim that Christianity is a "moral monstrosity" in any meaningful way.<BR/><BR/>Lacking that, we only have Lyosha's opinion, which is no different than me saying, "Snow peas are a moral monstrosity."Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-58078485256026994442008-03-24T13:49:00.000-04:002008-03-24T13:49:00.000-04:00"Not at all. God preserves a remnant of common dec..."Not at all. God preserves a remnant of common decency among the reprobate for the sake of the elect."<BR/><BR/>This is in essence what you get when you try to systematically analyse the Judeo-Christian God, I suppose. A moral monstrosity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com