Origin of God's Morality.

[Archaeopteryx]

Stop with the make believe already, your tired analogy has run its course....and fallen short of the goal line.....

Obviously you can't, which supports Davian's broader point.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I don't believe that explains why, though. It is true, but doesn't explain why.

It does, if you care about living in a functional society where you can maximise your well-being and the well-being of those you care about.

If you don't care about well-being, you're probably not going to care about morality either.

 

[DogmaHunter]

See, you guys like to put people in categories, or their arguments, or whatever.

Errr... Actually, this is just about rational discourse. Argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy. Maybe you just don't care about being rational in your thought process and / or argumentation?

If someone points out a fallacy in my reasoning, I thank them.

As if you know what the argument really is.

There's not much to know about it... I mean, you were pretty clear in that post....
You literally suggested to inject god in places where ignorance reigns.

You might know it intellectually, but I can tell you don't know it in your heart.

Errrrrr.... okay.
Reality doesn't care about my metaphorical heart though. "metaphorical", because my physical heart is just a blood pump, off course. It's my brain that does the thinking and emotion generation.

I used to be that sort of man, myself-had it all in my head. A know-it-all, like you. I know better now.

"know-it-all"? Because I point out a blatant logical fallacy?

Owkay then.

ps: emotional appeal is a fallacy too. ;-)

 

[DogmaHunter]

Do you consider ancient Rome to be one of them 'cooperative society's?

Off course.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I wouldn't call that gaps. But you would. Whatever. What I was saying is that, when you study the cause of something, you get to another thing, which requires a cause as well. And so on and so on. When you get to a point where there is no known cause, it's God. There is no known cause of the universe.

Dude...... that's literally a god-of-the-gaps argument. Literally.

How about this, for a change: "...when you get to a point where there is no known cause... you say I don't know." and leave it at that?

ps: everything known today was unkown at some point....

The cause of desease.
The cause of lightning.
The cause of tides.
The cause of volcano eruptions.
The cause of storms.
...

And the only reason why these things are today known, is because scientists of the past took no satisfaction with the non-answer of "god(s)-dun-it".

 

[Davian]

I posted 229 and your claim....not gonna do it again....

If you are going to make an accusation of lying, be clear about it, or retract it.

 

[Davian]

I believe I made it clear that I make the choice, not something or someone else, as to what I believe; I chose.

I do not disagree with that.

If not, it should be clear now....

What is clear is your evasion of my point that it is not a conscious choice, as apparent as when you were asked to demonstrate that you could (or could not) choose to believe something different.

I guess that is one way of escaping responsibility for choices..."It wasn't me, it was my subconcious.

That would be misrepresenting what I said. I do not separate myself from my subconscious, I am merely stating that I am not in control of my subconscious (if I were, it would not be "subconscious")

I can't control it and therefore I can't be held responsible for my choices."

Of course I can be [held responsible for what I believe], but that would be morally bankrupt.

 

[civilwarbuff]

If you are going to make an accusation of lying, be clear about it, or retract it.

Was already clear about, if you won't make the effort to read it your problem....

 

[civilwarbuff]

Of course I can be [held responsible for what I believe], but that would be morally bankrupt.

That has to be one of the funniest statements I have read here; It is morally bankrupt to be responsible for what you believe. What a screwed up philosophy......

 

[anonymous person]

Errr... Actually, this is just about rational discourse. Argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy. Maybe you just don't care about being rational in your thought process and / or argumentation?

If someone points out a fallacy in my reasoning, I thank them.



There's not much to know about it... I mean, you were pretty clear in that post....
You literally suggested to inject god in places where ignorance reigns.



Errrrrr.... okay.
Reality doesn't care about my metaphorical heart though. "metaphorical", because my physical heart is just a blood pump, off course. It's my brain that does the thinking and emotion generation.



"know-it-all"? Because I point out a blatant logical fallacy?

Owkay then.

ps: emotional appeal is a fallacy too. ;-)

It seems to me that you place value in reasoning correctly.

Am I right?

The reason I'm asking is because you made mention several times of fallacies. You pointed out what you thought were fallacies or errors in reasoning.

Errors in reasoning can only exist if there is a right way to reason, right?

My question for you is, why do you think that whatever it is you consider to be "right reason" is right?

 

[Davian]

Was already clear about, if you won't make the effort to read it your problem....

Unable to substantiate your accusation, and too proud to admit it? Is that what is happening here?

 

[Davian]

That has to be one of the funniest statements I have read here; It is morally bankrupt to be responsible for what you believe. What a screwed up philosophy......

That would be a misrepresentation of what I said, which I do find to be intellectually dishonest.

I said, it is morally bankrupt to be held responsible for what you cannot control, such as belief.

Do you concede the balance of that post?

 

[civilwarbuff]

Unable to substantiate your accusation, and too proud to admit it? Is that what is happening here?

No, just not going to do your work for you....typical atheistic tactic......

 

[Davian]

It seems to me that you place value in reasoning correctly.

Am I right?

The reason I'm asking is because you made mention several times of fallacies. You pointed out what you thought were fallacies or errors in reasoning.

Errors in reasoning can only exist if there is a right way to reason, right?

My question for you is, why do you think that whatever it is you consider to be "right reason" is right?

Are you in some way trying to excuse your use of fallacies?

 

[civilwarbuff]

said, it is morally bankrupt to be held responsible for what you cannot control, such as belief.

So, Nazi's should not be held responsible for their beliefs? Wanna try something else?

 

[Davian]

No, just not going to do your work for you....typical atheistic tactic......

Substantiating your accusations is now my work?

Hilarious.

 

[Davian]

So, Nazi's

Godwin's law (or Godwin's rule of Nazi analogies)[1][2] is an Internet adage asserting that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1"[2][3]—that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism. The first utterance of such comparison is called the Godwin point of the discussion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

should not be held responsible for their beliefs?

Where did I say that?

Wanna try something else?

Sure. Why don't you take a crack at the OP?

 

[civilwarbuff]

I said, it is morally bankrupt to be held responsible for what you cannot control, such as belief.

That is not what you said

Substantiating your accusations is now my work?

Hilarious.

No, but reading posts is your work.....

 

[civilwarbuff]

I said, it is morally bankrupt to be held responsible for what you cannot control, such as belief.

No, here is what you really said:

Of course I can be [held responsible for what I believe], but that would be morally bankrupt.

Wanna go back and try to wiggle out of your "dishonesty" (being polite in using this term) or do you just want to continue to be "dishonest" (polite word again).

 

[Davian]

That is not what you said

Quote me, if you like.

No, but reading posts is your work.....

When you get around to posting a substantiation of your accusations, I will then read them.