[Message Deleted]
-
I said “sophistry” (of which C S Lewis was a master), not “fallacy” but never mind… it is based on a fallacy – the fallacy that there is a God. Come on now, you have to accept that the whole basis of religion is faith, not reason. If you’re going to start arguing otherwise then I’m going home. At least have the good grace to stick to your beliefs. Logic and reason alone simply do not lead inexorably towards a belief in God. End of argument. You asked me where my sense of morality came from. Where do you think your belief, or faith comes from? Don’t you think it strange that the vast majority of Muslims live in Islamic countries, and vast majority of Christians live in Christian ones? And Polynesian head-hunters live in Polynesia… gosh, I wonder… And yes, I do think the morals in the Western secular world of today are better (not perfect, but better) than at any time in our past. One day we’ll even stop exploiting animals. But that’s another argument….
Fred_Smith wrote:
I said “sophistry” (of which C S Lewis was a master), not “fallacy”
Yes, sophistry is making a fallacy seem like it's not a fallacy by means of trickery.
Fred_Smith wrote:
the fallacy that there is a God
How is it a fallacy? You may not believe it, but that does not make it a fallacy. Which logical fallacy does it fall under?
Fred_Smith wrote:
that the whole basis of religion is faith, not reason
If you are trying to say that reason has no place in religious beliefs, then no, I don't accept that.
Fred_Smith wrote:
And yes, I do think the morals in the Western secular world of today are better
In what way are they better? You're appealing to some standard. What is this standard and where does it come from? (I don't think we're getting anywhere with this one, so you don't need to reply to it if you don't want to. Also, I'm not trying to suggest that this "standard" is the invention of the Christian church.)
Ian
-
ibowler wrote:
That is precisely my point. String likes to suggest that belief in God is stupid. My point is that people smarter than all of us can be found on both sides of this issue and therefore belief in God is not a matter of intelligence.
Agreed. I suppose I was merely supporting your statement :doh:
ibowler wrote:
but his existence is logically supportable.
His non-existence is equally logically supportable, and nobody comes out ahead. This is the fundamental reason why using logical reasoning to prove God's existence is futile.
ibowler wrote:
Read by C.S. Lewis. He takes a reasoned approach to his belief in God).
I have read his works, and honestly I was not impressed. Any first year philosophy student could pick apart his arguments. The problem is, C.S. Lewis was an armchair philosopher, and didn't fully understand how to make completely solid arguments.
ibowler wrote:
What is your purpose for you belief that 2+2=4? It's not commonality. You believe it because you believe it. Purpose has nothing to do with it.
That's an interesting example, and I'll smash it although it doesn't change your argument, merely one counter-example: I do not believe that 2 + 2 = 4, I accept it. It is a purely subjective way to express a mathematical concept, one which is based wholly in how we perceive the world (that is, I can imagine a worldview that does not perceive things in so digital a way as to allow the concept of addition of single objects. Perhaps on some alien world, all math is expressed as convolutions). I could equally decide that "~ $ XX -- Blark", but that of course is meaningless to us, since we have chosen to express the concept that particular way. It has EVERYTHING to do with purpose - we have to have fundamental agreement on syntax and concept expression in order to build more complex concepts. I accept the meaning of the expression because it allows us to work together to produce science, engineering, etc. Its fundamental basis is in mathematical concepts that may or may not be at all meaningful to any race except us. This is the idea that the way our brains perceive the world is the fundamental source of how we interact with it - Kantian, I suppose, although many philosophers have treated the subject, and why it was o
Patrick Sears wrote:
His non-existence is equally logically supportable, and nobody comes out ahead. This is the fundamental reason why using logical reasoning to prove God's existence is futile.
I could have misworded a previous post, but I never intended to argue that reason and logic can prove God's existence. Rather, the idea of God is supportable by reason and logic: i.e. you cannot disprove God with reason and logic.
Patrick Sears wrote:
Any first year philosophy student could pick apart his arguments
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. :) I think Lewis was one of the greatest thinkers of our time.
Patrick Sears wrote:
It has EVERYTHING to do with purpose - we have to have fundamental agreement on syntax and concept expression in order to build more complex concepts
I'll have to disagree with you here. The question of why you agree to a particular syntax and why you believe a particular statement being expressed with that syntax are wholly different.
Patrick Sears wrote:
The problem is, one explanation is provable through what we call science
Evolution is a theory. It has not been proven. An honest scientist will admit this. (But I don't want to start an evolution debate).
Ian
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
Trouble is, after a while I just get frustrated at the mind-boggling sophistry you religious lot employ
You are obligated to back up a statement like this. Point out to me the fallacy of Christianity.
Fred_Smith wrote:
your whole belief system is not based on reason
C.S. Lewis was a logician. He was also an athiest. His reasoning eventually led him to believe in God. Don't assume that all who believe in God have accepted it on blind faith and have abandoned reason. This is simply not the case.
Fred_Smith wrote:
a changing secular morality is better
Only if it is making progress towards a better morality though, right? And what is this standard of morality towards which we are moving?
Ian
ibowler wrote:
C.S. Lewis was a logician. He was also an athiest. His reasoning eventually led him to believe in God.
Here's the basic reason I wasn't impressed by his reasoning: He bases most of his argument on similarities in morality between very very disparate human cultures, including ones never exposed to Christianity. He then concludes in some "mother" morality, that had to come from SOMEWHERE, and that God is an easy way to explain it. Unfortunately, there is a wide gaping hole in that argument: pre-conventional morality leads you to the same set of moral beliefs that we find so common between cultures. For people very close to one another as people are in tribes, you're very aware of the consequences of your actions. You're not likely to engage in killing, theft, dishonesty, or sleeping with another man's wife lightly, because you're likely to suffer very real, very painful consequences for doing so. Over time, such a point of view is very easily enshrined in basic "rules" or unwritten "laws" that the elders enforce, through the need to maintain order and cohesion in the tribe. Imagine 200,000 years of that sort of morality existing in every culture that sprouts off from early man, and then it's easy to explain how in the world every culture we find seems to have the same basic rules. There is a very small set of common beliefs and common physical and emotional needs that every human has, as part of the very nature of being part of the human species. Of course we're going to see those things in common. Interestingly, there are a few abberations in human cultures that do not have that sort of value system, and those are the really interesting ones, because we simply don't understand how they could reasonably choose something like cannibalism as a way of life.
Cheers,
Patrick
I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
His non-existence is equally logically supportable, and nobody comes out ahead. This is the fundamental reason why using logical reasoning to prove God's existence is futile.
I could have misworded a previous post, but I never intended to argue that reason and logic can prove God's existence. Rather, the idea of God is supportable by reason and logic: i.e. you cannot disprove God with reason and logic.
Patrick Sears wrote:
Any first year philosophy student could pick apart his arguments
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. :) I think Lewis was one of the greatest thinkers of our time.
Patrick Sears wrote:
It has EVERYTHING to do with purpose - we have to have fundamental agreement on syntax and concept expression in order to build more complex concepts
I'll have to disagree with you here. The question of why you agree to a particular syntax and why you believe a particular statement being expressed with that syntax are wholly different.
Patrick Sears wrote:
The problem is, one explanation is provable through what we call science
Evolution is a theory. It has not been proven. An honest scientist will admit this. (But I don't want to start an evolution debate).
Ian
ibowler wrote:
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. :) I think Lewis was one of the greatest thinkers of our time.
I'm willing to do that. I did address why I found his arguments to be poor in a post further down the page, if you're interested.
ibowler wrote:
I'll have to disagree with you here. The question of why you agree to a particular syntax and why you believe a particular statement being expressed with that syntax are wholly different.
Agreed - I left something out because I wasn't sure I'd have to explain it. I suggested but did not outright say that the mathematical concepts we accept may not actually be true. But we accept them to be true because from our point of view, they're provable - that is, by using them as a fundamental basis, we're able to create things that seem to work the the way we expect them to and that seem to reflect the observations we make about the world. In some sense that is 'belief' but it has a practical purpose. We'd be completely unable to interact with our world if we did not have some fundamental beliefs about it, even though we can't prove them. The mind invents the minimal proofs it needs to be able to function in the world, and it does that by assuming that the information we glean through our senses is correct, even if it may not actually be (Kant goes on for about 300 pages about this). Everything beyond that is open to logic, reason, and massive amounts of interpretation.
ibowler wrote:
Evolution is a theory. It has not been proven. An honest scientist will admit this.
I'll admit it, although I should note that any scientific concept which requires extrapolation to conclude will ALWAYS be a theory. It's one of those things that relies on our basic tenets being right, the ones we used to interact with the world.
Cheers,
Patrick
I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss
-
Quote: Secondly, please give me a link to where I have refuted someone without giving an explanation. Here: http://www.codeproject.com/script/comments/forums.asp?msg=2044016&forumid=2605&mode=all&userid=3928482#xx2044016xx Vikram disagreed with you, and you responded by repeating the statement he disagreed with. Quote: Finally, the reason all my comments tend to sound the same to you, is that so many of your posts are an attempt to use fringe examples to make Christians appear stupid. It is not just me. You reply others here that way as well.
Think for yourself, free from his lies, trample the cross and smash Jesus Christ. - Deicide
Actually, my first statement was: You do realize that nobody doubts the existence of Jesus, right? To which he responded bullshit. I recognized that my first statement could be misunderstood to mean that nobody doubted Jesus' deity, so I attempted to clear up the possible confusion by restating it: As a historical figure (not as the Christ) he is almost universally accepted. So, I was just clearing up what I assumed was a misunderstanding. I assumed Vikram thought I was talking about Jesus as the Christ, and not simply Jesus as the historical figure. Quote: It is not just me. You reply others here that way as well. What's your point? If I said 2+2=4 100 times, would that become bullshit too? How ever many times I make the same point has no bearing on the validity of that point. It may make me more annoying, but that's not the same as being full of shit, is it?
Ian
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
I said “sophistry” (of which C S Lewis was a master), not “fallacy”
Yes, sophistry is making a fallacy seem like it's not a fallacy by means of trickery.
Fred_Smith wrote:
the fallacy that there is a God
How is it a fallacy? You may not believe it, but that does not make it a fallacy. Which logical fallacy does it fall under?
Fred_Smith wrote:
that the whole basis of religion is faith, not reason
If you are trying to say that reason has no place in religious beliefs, then no, I don't accept that.
Fred_Smith wrote:
And yes, I do think the morals in the Western secular world of today are better
In what way are they better? You're appealing to some standard. What is this standard and where does it come from? (I don't think we're getting anywhere with this one, so you don't need to reply to it if you don't want to. Also, I'm not trying to suggest that this "standard" is the invention of the Christian church.)
Ian
Well I would but it's Saturday night here and my better half has plans... ..besides, as you say, we aren't really getting anywhere. Trouble is, I don't see any place for logic or reason in an argument about religion - which is faith-based. You can try and be as logical and as reasonable as you like, but bottom line is everything you say is based on an act of faith, and a belief that I cannot accept. It is your axioms, if you like, that we disagree on; where you go from there may be logical but if the axioms are "wrong" then so is everyhting that follows, no matter how reasonable.
-
I said “sophistry” (of which C S Lewis was a master), not “fallacy” but never mind… it is based on a fallacy – the fallacy that there is a God. Come on now, you have to accept that the whole basis of religion is faith, not reason. If you’re going to start arguing otherwise then I’m going home. At least have the good grace to stick to your beliefs. Logic and reason alone simply do not lead inexorably towards a belief in God. End of argument. You asked me where my sense of morality came from. Where do you think your belief, or faith comes from? Don’t you think it strange that the vast majority of Muslims live in Islamic countries, and vast majority of Christians live in Christian ones? And Polynesian head-hunters live in Polynesia… gosh, I wonder… And yes, I do think the morals in the Western secular world of today are better (not perfect, but better) than at any time in our past. One day we’ll even stop exploiting animals. But that’s another argument….
Fred_Smith wrote:
Come on now, you have to accept that the whole basis of religion is faith, not reason
First I respect your thoughts even though I don't agree with them. Why do you consider faith to be antonym to reason? I believe in God, I know God exists. Proof? A Bible, witnesses of miracles, historical events. Can you prove that God does not exist?
Fred_Smith wrote:
Don’t you think it strange that the vast majority of Muslims live in Islamic countries, and vast majority of Christians live in Christian ones? And Polynesian head-hunters live in Polynesia… gosh, I wonder…
Christianity originated from the Middle East yet today Christians are minority in the region. Christianity is so diverse that it expands to all cultures, colors and regions. Do you need proof of that?
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
Come on now, you have to accept that the whole basis of religion is faith, not reason
First I respect your thoughts even though I don't agree with them. Why do you consider faith to be antonym to reason? I believe in God, I know God exists. Proof? A Bible, witnesses of miracles, historical events. Can you prove that God does not exist?
Fred_Smith wrote:
Don’t you think it strange that the vast majority of Muslims live in Islamic countries, and vast majority of Christians live in Christian ones? And Polynesian head-hunters live in Polynesia… gosh, I wonder…
Christianity originated from the Middle East yet today Christians are minority in the region. Christianity is so diverse that it expands to all cultures, colors and regions. Do you need proof of that?
Bassam Saoud wrote:
Proof? A Bible
haha
Bassam Saoud wrote:
witnesses of miracles
oh very funny
Bassam Saoud wrote:
historical events
yeah, right - people rarely agree on what happened yesterday let alone 2,000+ years ago.
Bassam Saoud wrote:
Can you prove that God does not exist?
Of course not - but I don't need to. And can you prove the earth isn't a lab experiment by a race of 4-dimensional white mice trying to find out the answer to life, the universe and everything? As for the last point - you've missed it. Never mind - I've got to go. Maybe later..
-
Actually, my first statement was: You do realize that nobody doubts the existence of Jesus, right? To which he responded bullshit. I recognized that my first statement could be misunderstood to mean that nobody doubted Jesus' deity, so I attempted to clear up the possible confusion by restating it: As a historical figure (not as the Christ) he is almost universally accepted. So, I was just clearing up what I assumed was a misunderstanding. I assumed Vikram thought I was talking about Jesus as the Christ, and not simply Jesus as the historical figure. Quote: It is not just me. You reply others here that way as well. What's your point? If I said 2+2=4 100 times, would that become bullshit too? How ever many times I make the same point has no bearing on the validity of that point. It may make me more annoying, but that's not the same as being full of shit, is it?
Ian
Quote: What's your point? If I said 2+2=4 100 times, would that become bullsh*t too? How ever many times I make the same point has no bearing on the validity of that point. It may make me more annoying, but that's not the same as being full of sh*t, is it? Now you are basing that on the false premise that you are right. And you are correct, it does make you more annoying. You are almost as bad as Red Stateler, except he is a little better at arguing.
Think for yourself, free from his lies, trample the cross and smash Jesus Christ. - Deicide
-
ibowler wrote:
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. :) I think Lewis was one of the greatest thinkers of our time.
I'm willing to do that. I did address why I found his arguments to be poor in a post further down the page, if you're interested.
ibowler wrote:
I'll have to disagree with you here. The question of why you agree to a particular syntax and why you believe a particular statement being expressed with that syntax are wholly different.
Agreed - I left something out because I wasn't sure I'd have to explain it. I suggested but did not outright say that the mathematical concepts we accept may not actually be true. But we accept them to be true because from our point of view, they're provable - that is, by using them as a fundamental basis, we're able to create things that seem to work the the way we expect them to and that seem to reflect the observations we make about the world. In some sense that is 'belief' but it has a practical purpose. We'd be completely unable to interact with our world if we did not have some fundamental beliefs about it, even though we can't prove them. The mind invents the minimal proofs it needs to be able to function in the world, and it does that by assuming that the information we glean through our senses is correct, even if it may not actually be (Kant goes on for about 300 pages about this). Everything beyond that is open to logic, reason, and massive amounts of interpretation.
ibowler wrote:
Evolution is a theory. It has not been proven. An honest scientist will admit this.
I'll admit it, although I should note that any scientific concept which requires extrapolation to conclude will ALWAYS be a theory. It's one of those things that relies on our basic tenets being right, the ones we used to interact with the world.
Cheers,
Patrick
I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss
Patrick Sears wrote:
I did address why I found his arguments to be poor in a post further down the page, if you're interested.
I'll go look for it.
Patrick Sears wrote:
I suggested but did not outright say that the mathematical concepts we accept may not actually be true
Not for something as simple as 2+2=4. If you combine two quantities, you end up with the union of those quantities. Here I'm assuming that our existence in the empirical world is as it appears (we're not hooked up to a matrix or being tormented by demons). You may be getting too philisophycal for me (You're a philosophy major, aren't you? :)).
Patrick Sears wrote:
In some sense that is 'belief' but it has a practical purpose
Earlier you suggested that a sense of commonality is the purpose for a belief in God. In that sense, the word purpose denotes motive. In the above sense, I agree that a belief in basic mathematics serves a purpose, but that does not speak to the motive of a child who believes 2+2=4 when they're in kindergarten. They know how many 2 is, and how many 4 is, and they can see that taking 2 blocks, and adding 2 more blocks gives them 4 blocks. I guess my point is that we're both saying "purpose" but we aren't quite speaking the same language (correct me if I'm wrong :)).
Ian
-
Quote: What's your point? If I said 2+2=4 100 times, would that become bullsh*t too? How ever many times I make the same point has no bearing on the validity of that point. It may make me more annoying, but that's not the same as being full of sh*t, is it? Now you are basing that on the false premise that you are right. And you are correct, it does make you more annoying. You are almost as bad as Red Stateler, except he is a little better at arguing.
Think for yourself, free from his lies, trample the cross and smash Jesus Christ. - Deicide
quote: Now you are basing that on the false premise that you are right No... I am pointing out your fallacy. You said I was full of shit because I kept making the same points. The point I made above is that the frequency of which I make a point has no bearing on the validity of that point. quote: he is a little better at arguing That certainly may be true, but I don't think I'll worry too much about how well you think I argue when you can't seem to understand a very simple fallacy.
Ian
-
Bassam Saoud wrote:
Proof? A Bible
haha
Bassam Saoud wrote:
witnesses of miracles
oh very funny
Bassam Saoud wrote:
historical events
yeah, right - people rarely agree on what happened yesterday let alone 2,000+ years ago.
Bassam Saoud wrote:
Can you prove that God does not exist?
Of course not - but I don't need to. And can you prove the earth isn't a lab experiment by a race of 4-dimensional white mice trying to find out the answer to life, the universe and everything? As for the last point - you've missed it. Never mind - I've got to go. Maybe later..
well, what did you expect as proof? a mathematical equation?
Fred_Smith wrote:
As for the last point - you've missed it. Never mind - I've got to go. Maybe later..
later man
-
quote: Now you are basing that on the false premise that you are right No... I am pointing out your fallacy. You said I was full of shit because I kept making the same points. The point I made above is that the frequency of which I make a point has no bearing on the validity of that point. quote: he is a little better at arguing That certainly may be true, but I don't think I'll worry too much about how well you think I argue when you can't seem to understand a very simple fallacy.
Ian
Quote: No... I am pointing out your fallacy. You said I was full of sh*t because I kept making the same points. The point I made above is that the frequency of which I make a point has no bearing on the validity of that point. You are useless to argue with. I said you were full of shit because all of your posts sound identical. It is like you copy and paste your replies. Making the same point over and over again is one thing, but using the exact same wording gets boring.
Think for yourself, free from his lies, trample the cross and smash Jesus Christ. - Deicide
-
Quote: No... I am pointing out your fallacy. You said I was full of sh*t because I kept making the same points. The point I made above is that the frequency of which I make a point has no bearing on the validity of that point. You are useless to argue with. I said you were full of shit because all of your posts sound identical. It is like you copy and paste your replies. Making the same point over and over again is one thing, but using the exact same wording gets boring.
Think for yourself, free from his lies, trample the cross and smash Jesus Christ. - Deicide
quote: I said you were full of sh*t because all of your posts sound identical I assumed you meant full of shit in the common sense, i.e. you're wrong. If that's the case, you made a logical blunder. If it's not the case, how exactly am I supposed to know you meant something other than the common meaning? quote: You are useless to argue with Sorry, you're the one breaking the rules. Not me.
Ian
-
quote: I said you were full of sh*t because all of your posts sound identical I assumed you meant full of shit in the common sense, i.e. you're wrong. If that's the case, you made a logical blunder. If it's not the case, how exactly am I supposed to know you meant something other than the common meaning? quote: You are useless to argue with Sorry, you're the one breaking the rules. Not me.
Ian
How is that a logical blunder? Continually saying the same exact thing in the same exact wording, and simply repeating it when someone disagrees with you is being full of shit. Also, you love finding one little aspect of what someone says, and hammering away on that so you can make it look like you win, don't you? Is that how they teach you to argue with heretics in sunday school?
Think for yourself, free from his lies, trample the cross and smash Jesus Christ. - Deicide
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
I did address why I found his arguments to be poor in a post further down the page, if you're interested.
I'll go look for it.
Patrick Sears wrote:
I suggested but did not outright say that the mathematical concepts we accept may not actually be true
Not for something as simple as 2+2=4. If you combine two quantities, you end up with the union of those quantities. Here I'm assuming that our existence in the empirical world is as it appears (we're not hooked up to a matrix or being tormented by demons). You may be getting too philisophycal for me (You're a philosophy major, aren't you? :)).
Patrick Sears wrote:
In some sense that is 'belief' but it has a practical purpose
Earlier you suggested that a sense of commonality is the purpose for a belief in God. In that sense, the word purpose denotes motive. In the above sense, I agree that a belief in basic mathematics serves a purpose, but that does not speak to the motive of a child who believes 2+2=4 when they're in kindergarten. They know how many 2 is, and how many 4 is, and they can see that taking 2 blocks, and adding 2 more blocks gives them 4 blocks. I guess my point is that we're both saying "purpose" but we aren't quite speaking the same language (correct me if I'm wrong :)).
Ian
ibowler wrote:
You may be getting too philisophycal for me (You're a philosophy major, aren't you? :)).
Hehe actually my degree is in Engineering but I've always been concerned with philosophy. Action without purpose seems meaningless to me. I like engineering because I like to solve problems; so I tend to approach philosophy the same way :)
ibowler wrote:
They know how many 2 is, and how many 4 is, and they can see that taking 2 blocks, and adding 2 more blocks gives them 4 blocks.
I guess my basic point was that we understand 2 and 2 and 4 as the *union* of 2 and 2 as a consequence of how our brains conceptualize the world. If I were to hold up a glass in front of you, half full of water, you'd probably understand I was trying to express either "a glass" or "liquid." In some other worldview, I might be expressing "sharing" or "round." That sort of idea never occurred to me until I saw an episode of Star Trek: TNG about a culture that expressed every single concept through a story about some historical figure. Their basic method of conceptualizing the universe was completely alien. Trite it may seem that I got that idea from Star Trek, but I'm like that.. I like to get good ideas from wherever they come from.
ibowler wrote:
I guess my point is that we're both saying "purpose" but we aren't quite speaking the same language (correct me if I'm wrong :) ).
That is possible :) Motive seems like a good way to describe it actually. How do you apply that to your religious belief?
Cheers,
Patrick
I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
-
ibowler wrote:
C.S. Lewis was a logician. He was also an athiest. His reasoning eventually led him to believe in God.
Here's the basic reason I wasn't impressed by his reasoning: He bases most of his argument on similarities in morality between very very disparate human cultures, including ones never exposed to Christianity. He then concludes in some "mother" morality, that had to come from SOMEWHERE, and that God is an easy way to explain it. Unfortunately, there is a wide gaping hole in that argument: pre-conventional morality leads you to the same set of moral beliefs that we find so common between cultures. For people very close to one another as people are in tribes, you're very aware of the consequences of your actions. You're not likely to engage in killing, theft, dishonesty, or sleeping with another man's wife lightly, because you're likely to suffer very real, very painful consequences for doing so. Over time, such a point of view is very easily enshrined in basic "rules" or unwritten "laws" that the elders enforce, through the need to maintain order and cohesion in the tribe. Imagine 200,000 years of that sort of morality existing in every culture that sprouts off from early man, and then it's easy to explain how in the world every culture we find seems to have the same basic rules. There is a very small set of common beliefs and common physical and emotional needs that every human has, as part of the very nature of being part of the human species. Of course we're going to see those things in common. Interestingly, there are a few abberations in human cultures that do not have that sort of value system, and those are the really interesting ones, because we simply don't understand how they could reasonably choose something like cannibalism as a way of life.
Cheers,
Patrick
I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Patrick Sears wrote:
Unfortunately, there is a wide gaping hole in that argument: pre-conventional morality leads you to the same set of moral beliefs that we find so common between cultures. For people very close to one another as people are in tribes, you're very aware of the consequences of your actions. You're not likely to engage in killing, theft, dishonesty, or sleeping with another man's wife lightly, because you're likely to suffer very real, very painful consequences for doing so. Over time, such a point of view is very easily enshrined in basic "rules" or unwritten "laws" that the elders enforce, through the need to maintain order and cohesion in the tribe.
I think you are oversimplifying Lewis's argument (though I'm sure it's unintentional). Again, I'm sure I wouldn't be able to do it justice, but he responds to the "herd instinct" objection - he doesn't avoid it.
Ian
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
Unfortunately, there is a wide gaping hole in that argument: pre-conventional morality leads you to the same set of moral beliefs that we find so common between cultures. For people very close to one another as people are in tribes, you're very aware of the consequences of your actions. You're not likely to engage in killing, theft, dishonesty, or sleeping with another man's wife lightly, because you're likely to suffer very real, very painful consequences for doing so. Over time, such a point of view is very easily enshrined in basic "rules" or unwritten "laws" that the elders enforce, through the need to maintain order and cohesion in the tribe.
I think you are oversimplifying Lewis's argument (though I'm sure it's unintentional). Again, I'm sure I wouldn't be able to do it justice, but he responds to the "herd instinct" objection - he doesn't avoid it.
Ian
ibowler wrote:
I think you are oversimplifying Lewis's argument (though I'm sure it's unintentional). Again, I'm sure I wouldn't be able to do it justice, but he responds to the "herd instinct" objection - he doesn't avoid it.
It has been awhile since I read it, and yes I'm oversimplifying. This is an online forum after all :) I have a copy of the book here; maybe I'll read it again to refresh my memory..
Cheers,
Patrick
I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
-
How is that a logical blunder? Continually saying the same exact thing in the same exact wording, and simply repeating it when someone disagrees with you is being full of shit. Also, you love finding one little aspect of what someone says, and hammering away on that so you can make it look like you win, don't you? Is that how they teach you to argue with heretics in sunday school?
Think for yourself, free from his lies, trample the cross and smash Jesus Christ. - Deicide
What if I change the wording slightly, like this: quote: Continually saying the same exact thing in the same exact wording, and simply repeating it when someone disagrees with you is being full of sh*t. quote: I said you were full of sh*t because all of your posts sound identical. It is like you copy and paste your replies. quote: All your comments sound the same :rolleyes: As far as your logical blunder, again, it depends on what you mean when you say I am full of shit. The common meaning is basically, you are wrong. So, if you're using the common meaning, and saying that I am wrong, then this is your logical blunder: you are wrong because you keep saying the same thing If this were not a fallacy, then the truth of 2+2=4 would depend on how many times it was repeated. I'm certain now that you understand what I'm refering to when I say you've made a logical blunder - the frequency at which a statement is made has no bearing on the validity of the statement. Now, if you meant something other than you are wrong when you said I was full of shit, then that changes everything doesn't it? You have not yet informed me that you weren't using the standard meaning of full of shit so at this point I can only assume that you were. -- modified at 17:55 Saturday 19th May, 2007
Ian
-
What if I change the wording slightly, like this: quote: Continually saying the same exact thing in the same exact wording, and simply repeating it when someone disagrees with you is being full of sh*t. quote: I said you were full of sh*t because all of your posts sound identical. It is like you copy and paste your replies. quote: All your comments sound the same :rolleyes: As far as your logical blunder, again, it depends on what you mean when you say I am full of shit. The common meaning is basically, you are wrong. So, if you're using the common meaning, and saying that I am wrong, then this is your logical blunder: you are wrong because you keep saying the same thing If this were not a fallacy, then the truth of 2+2=4 would depend on how many times it was repeated. I'm certain now that you understand what I'm refering to when I say you've made a logical blunder - the frequency at which a statement is made has no bearing on the validity of the statement. Now, if you meant something other than you are wrong when you said I was full of shit, then that changes everything doesn't it? You have not yet informed me that you weren't using the standard meaning of full of shit so at this point I can only assume that you were. -- modified at 17:55 Saturday 19th May, 2007
Ian
Ok, maybe next time I should pick my swear word a little more carefully. Maybe I should said a piece of shit, or a fucking idiot. :rolleyes: You still didnt answer my other question though...
Think for yourself, free from his lies, trample the cross and smash Jesus Christ. - Deicide