Author Topic: Rapists doing god's work according to Santorum?  (Read 7601 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2241
  • Darwins +74/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: Rapists doing god's work according to Santorum?
« Reply #116 on: February 08, 2012, 07:46:20 AM »
What makes you say that 12 Monkees.

What makes you think killing is bad and why should we both want to reject a morality that says it's good?
I did not say it is bad or good,I said you abandon the orders of your God when you stopped,you stopped because it was wrong? Your God commands otherwise and you disobey,why?

I stopped doing what? Killing?

Because I don't want to get the electric chair!

Which would indicate that you disobey your god's word for fear of reprisals in this reality. Which would lead people to believe that you dont think the bible is the inerrant word of god.  ;)
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4657
  • Darwins +106/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Rapists doing god's work according to Santorum?
« Reply #117 on: February 08, 2012, 10:24:07 AM »
What makes you say that 12 Monkees.

What makes you think killing is bad and why should we both want to reject a morality that says it's good?
I did not say it is bad or good,I said you abandon the orders of your God when you stopped,you stopped because it was wrong? Your God commands otherwise and you disobey,why?

I stopped doing what? Killing?

Because I don't want to get the electric chair!
the electric chair is of no consequence to a true believer,the kingdom of heaven awaits. What exactly are you afraid of?
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12447
  • Darwins +293/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Rapists doing god's work according to Santorum?
« Reply #118 on: February 08, 2012, 01:53:53 PM »
What a fascinating concept.

I had honestly never considered the possibility that metaphorical language might be an indicator of falsehood.

It's not exactly an indicator of falsehood.  The inability to state what one means non-metaphorically, however, does raise red flags.

And yeah...I just used a metaphor here.   :)  It's a good counter-example, because I can state what "red flags" means in non-metaphorical terms if I so choose.  Before realizing that it was a good counter-example, I opted for the "red flags" metaphor because it was a concise means of communicating what I meant, and I figured you were familiar with the meaning.  But if all we had to go on was "red flags" without a pre-existing understanding of what it's supposed to mean, then it'd be reasonable for you to challenge me on it and ask what I meant.  If I couldn't explain it outside of the metaphor, then you'd be justified in suggesting that I don't know what I'm talking about.

I an a deep lover of myth and poetry. I have taken many metaphors as central truths in my life. It's hard to conceive of doing anything else.

Metaphors are useful tools of understanding.  They can sometimes convey meaning much more effectively than literal speech could - both to other people, and to ourselves.  But the meaning has to come before the metaphor, in order for the metaphor to be meaningful.

I'd also never considered "objective value" incoherent.

It's one of those things we tend to take for granted until it's broken down and analyzed.

Perhaps, but that's equally true of subjective morality

Not so.  Because while objective values[1] may or may not exist, subjective values definitely do exist.  That's what humans hold to.  We have subjective moral opinions.  The existence of objective values would not mean that subjective values don't exist.  It would only mean that subjective values could be verified as true or false.[2]

the condition of morality mirrors (shows likeness to) the condition of the self.

 You and I are ignorant of final objective morals, so I assume that means something about me, while you assume that means something about all of morality

No.  I conclude it based on the fact that "final objective morals" is an incoherent idea.  Even if it weren't, though, what I would conclude about something that we are inescapably ignorant of, is that it is irrelevant to our existence.  In this case, there is no reason to believe that such "final objective morals" have anything to do with what we humans generally understand as "morality".

So then what is the purpose of this argument against the bible that was being spun ont he early pages of this board?

If it's nonsense to make moral judgments relatave to no held values, than to what are you appealing when you tell a christian their Gos is immoral?

To held values, obviously.  Held by the writer, and ideally by the one being written to.  Try to make a moral argument to someone by appealing to values they don't hold.  It's not at all effective, is it?

I would think my personal feelings are more analogous to my judgement of a persons race based on the sense data I receive from my eyes. Rather than that data itself

Then going with the analogy, what is analogous to "the data itself", in terms of moral values?  Is there even anything that fits, in your analogy - other than your personal feelings?

I may be around this board for some time. Are you prepared to have this quoted back to you?

Now that I read what I said, it did sound pretty rude, didn't it?  Sorry about that.  But to answer your question:  Yes, absolutely, if it's applicable.  See my first quote-reply of this post - if all we have is a metaphor, then we probably don't really know what we're talking about.  If I really do seem to be using a metaphor whose meaning I don't understand myself, then by all means call me on it.  I'm not always right, eh?   ;)

Unless of course you are attempting to forward an argument that objectivity is incoherent. In which case I'm all ears

Nah.  I never said that objectivity is incoherent in general.  In fact, I may have overstated my case, because objective values are not incoherent in every sense, either.  All possible valuations can be said to exist objectively in the Platonic sense, just like every math equation in every system of mathematics can be said to exist objectively, in the Platonic sense.  And a subjective valuation by a human being does exist objectively, because the human's brain that's engaged in the valuation exists objectively.  But that's not what you mean by "objective value", is it?  You meant specific valuations being objectively true while others are false, right?

The problem with that, is that valuations don't resolve as true or false in the first place.  We can ask things about a value - for example, is human survival valued positively in value-set X? - and that will return a true or false value.  But the valuation itself is an action, not an assertion.  Human survival is valued positively.  Other than how and whether they're happening, actions cannot be true or false.  That would be a category error, and yield an incoherent statement.

Ahh... yes that's true.

Granted

So...that's a problem, though, isn't it?   ;)  Because if your values might just as well not have anything to do with "objective morality", and my values might just as well not have anything to do with "objective morality", then what does "objective morality" have to do with what we consider to be morality in the first place?
 1. Again, assuming the phrase was coherent.
 2. Whatever "true" and "false" are supposed mean when applied to something that makes no assertions of truth in the first place.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline Lorax

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
  • Darwins +4/-7
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Rapists doing god's work according to Santorum?
« Reply #119 on: February 12, 2012, 02:44:28 AM »
Which would indicate that you disobey your god's word for fear of reprisals in this reality. Which would lead people to believe that you dont think the bible is the inerrant word of god.  ;)
...granted

Offline Lorax

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
  • Darwins +4/-7
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Rapists doing god's work according to Santorum?
« Reply #120 on: February 12, 2012, 03:46:18 AM »
Azgardi, there's a lot of text there, and most of it doesn't need a direct response so I'll reduce it down.

The two things I see which do seem to need a direct response entail the correlation between my beliefs and reality.

And the bottom line is that I cannot answer at least not in a logically provable, scientific fashion. It's deeply tied to the central commitment i have to metaphor and narrative. The "sense data" you asked about would be analogous to something I cannot describe scientifically. indeed the best I could do is to offer a metaphor to describe something that I suspect is another metaphor in itself.

I hear a story, or a myth and it either fails to connect, or it relates deeply with "me" and by "me" I mean the central part of my identity. My "soul" the me which is not by body, but which has my body. and often that creates a tension with some things I currently believe. The degree to which that tension lessons as I alter my morality is analogous to the sense data.

And again, I understand that that means my capacity to make moral decisions is indistinguishable from yours. I make no claim otherwise.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12447
  • Darwins +293/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Rapists doing god's work according to Santorum?
« Reply #121 on: February 12, 2012, 04:09:43 PM »
And the bottom line is that I cannot answer at least not in a logically provable, scientific fashion. It's deeply tied to the central commitment i have to metaphor and narrative. The "sense data" you asked about would be analogous to something I cannot describe scientifically. indeed the best I could do is to offer a metaphor to describe something that I suspect is another metaphor in itself.

This suggests to me that you do not actually understand what you are talking about, then, when you use such metaphors.

I hear a story, or a myth and it either fails to connect, or it relates deeply with "me" and by "me" I mean the central part of my identity. My "soul" the me which is not by body, but which has my body. and often that creates a tension with some things I currently believe. The degree to which that tension lessons as I alter my morality is analogous to the sense data.

And again, I understand that that means my capacity to make moral decisions is indistinguishable from yours. I make no claim otherwise.

You have coherently and accurately described subjectivity here.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline Lorax

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
  • Darwins +4/-7
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Rapists doing god's work according to Santorum?
« Reply #122 on: February 12, 2012, 05:20:53 PM »
^^^ Yes.

I have said it several times but I still don't feel like I've been heard when I say that my claim is not that my personal moral system is not subjective. Only that there exists a moral reality which is objective. You seem to be taking shots at my own opinions as if they somehow reflect on the final truth. which is begging the question.

you've made the argument twice now that that means there is no difference between our moral systems in practice, and I've granted it twice.

Online JeffPT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2096
  • Darwins +238/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a lead farmer mutha fucka
Re: Rapists doing god's work according to Santorum?
« Reply #123 on: February 12, 2012, 05:34:22 PM »
I have said it several times but I still don't feel like I've been heard when I say that my claim is not that my personal moral system is not subjective. Only that there exists a moral reality which is objective.

This is like saying that everyone has a different favorite color, but there exists a color that actually IS the best color.  If you do not feel this is a good analogy, please tell me where it breaks down. 

Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12447
  • Darwins +293/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Rapists doing god's work according to Santorum?
« Reply #124 on: February 12, 2012, 06:02:18 PM »
I have said it several times but I still don't feel like I've been heard when I say that my claim is not that my personal moral system is not subjective. Only that there exists a moral reality which is objective. You seem to be taking shots at my own opinions as if they somehow reflect on the final truth. which is begging the question.

So you believe in subjective morality.  Good.  Originally you had argued as though subjective morality was on equal evidential footing with objective morality.  This is of course not the case, as we can observe subjective morality in action.

you've made the argument twice now that that means there is no difference between our moral systems in practice, and I've granted it twice.

No, I've made the argument that there is no difference between your moral system and a subjective moral system, and you've granted it.  But it's an important point, since it means you have zero reason to even think about an objective moral system.  It doesn't make a whole lot of sense, from any angle.

I've yet to see you describe coherently what "objective morality" even is.  You've basically acknowledged that you can't describe it - is that a correct assessment?  If so, then your belief is meaningless.  It's akin to someone saying they believe in square circles, that their belief does make sense in a way they just can't describe, and that since we can't disprove the existence of square circles on evidential grounds (have you checked everywhere?), that it's reasonable to believe in square circles.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline Lorax

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
  • Darwins +4/-7
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Rapists doing god's work according to Santorum?
« Reply #125 on: February 13, 2012, 02:43:43 AM »
I have said it several times but I still don't feel like I've been heard when I say that my claim is not that my personal moral system is not subjective. Only that there exists a moral reality which is objective.

This is like saying that everyone has a different favorite color, but there exists a color that actually IS the best color.  If you do not feel this is a good analogy, please tell me where it breaks down.

No that's a fair enough analogy.

There appears to exist imbedded within it some sort of pathetic (pathos oriented) argument. that objective morality is false because the existence of a best color is false (or is commonly believed to be false)

You didn't make that argument yet, so i won't hold it against you, but if you did it would be silly.

I could offer another analogy, equally sound but with opposite pathos. Such as football teams. At the beginning of the season every college football fan has a different opinion of who the best team is, but despite this, there is in fact only one best team each year.

Then (if I were unfair) I could taunt you and say that your logic would suggest that evenyone's opinions mean that there is no such thing as a national champion football team. Then i could rhetorically point and laugh at you.

but I will have won a shallow victory because in reality that's not what your logic says at all, in fact I have sidestepped the very question. The question is not "are colors subjective or objective" or "are football champions subjective or objective" but rather "are morals more like colors or more like football champions"

Sorry that was a long answer. Yes the analogy works. Proceed.

Offline Lorax

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
  • Darwins +4/-7
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Rapists doing god's work according to Santorum?
« Reply #126 on: February 13, 2012, 02:52:48 AM »
Azgardi. I've been unclear with my verbiage again. Allow me to reign myself in.

I do believe in "subjective morality" in the sense that i believe humans make subjective moral judgements.

I also believe in the "death penalty" in the sense that I believe it happens.

I do not believe in the "death penalty" in the sense that i think it is a good thing for governments to do. and neither do i believe in "subjective morality"in the sense that I think that is the final word on the subject.

I should have used the word "subjectivism" particularly moral subjectivism. I disagree with the reductionist subjective moral philosophy system. Not subjectivity itself when applied to an individuals morals.

Does that make more sense.

Moral subjectivism is on equal footing with moral objectivism. Technically speaking objective morality is unverified while subjectivity pertaining to morality is verified, but neither subjectivism nor objectivism are verifiable.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11136
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Rapists doing god's work according to Santorum?
« Reply #127 on: February 13, 2012, 02:55:04 AM »
I could offer another analogy, equally sound but with opposite pathos. Such as football teams. At the beginning of the season every college football fan has a different opinion of who the best team is, but despite this, there is in fact only one best team each year.

False analogy. The best team is the winner. It depends on various circumstances, but it is them. That can be demonstrated through a series of events, known as "games". Objective morality cannot.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12447
  • Darwins +293/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Rapists doing god's work according to Santorum?
« Reply #128 on: February 13, 2012, 08:24:52 AM »
Azgardi. I've been unclear with my verbiage again. Allow me to reign myself in.

I do believe in "subjective morality" in the sense that i believe humans make subjective moral judgements.

I also believe in the "death penalty" in the sense that I believe it happens.

In that you believe in the existence of both.  Sensible so far.

I do not believe in the "death penalty" in the sense that i think it is a good thing for governments to do. and neither do i believe in "subjective morality"in the sense that I think that is the final word on the subject.

You are using "believe" in two incompatible senses of the word, here.  In the first case, you are saying (roughly) that you do not agree with the morality of the death penalty.  In the second care, you are saying that you are unsure whether purely subjective morality is factual.

So, the two cases are not at all analogous.

I should have used the word "subjectivism" particularly moral subjectivism. I disagree with the reductionist subjective moral philosophy system. Not subjectivity itself when applied to an individuals morals.

Does that make more sense.

So, you disagree with the morality of moral subjectivism?  You're entitled to your subjective opinion on the topic, but since when do our opinions get to dictate reality, let alone our moral opinions?  I mean, I disagree with the morality of the Holocaust, but I'm not about to become a Holocaust-denier as a result.

Moral subjectivism is on equal footing with moral objectivism. Technically speaking objective morality is unverified while subjectivity pertaining to morality is verified, but neither subjectivism nor objectivism are verifiable.

See my analogy re: square circles.  Believe in them if you wish, but the belief is meaningless and incoherent.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline atheola

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1308
  • Darwins +28/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • Hospitals suck past an hour.
Re: Rapists doing god's work according to Santorum?
« Reply #129 on: February 13, 2012, 10:45:35 AM »
The very same leap of moronicness can be made to say jailhouse rapists do society some great big fucking favor by putting smaller inmates in their places when they 'drop the soap'. :?
You better believe it's not butter or you'll burn in hell forever and EVER!
Get on your knees right now and thank GOD for not being real!

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12447
  • Darwins +293/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Rapists doing god's work according to Santorum?
« Reply #130 on: February 13, 2012, 10:56:43 AM »
By the way, regarding your response to ParkingPlace's analogy - your football-team analogy to it misses its point.  What does "best colour" mean in the first place?  Best at what?

If we ask, "which colour is best at appealing to X demographic of the population in Y context", then that question has an objective answer.  If we ask, "which colour is best at promoting red text-visibility as a background on a PowerPoint presentation, then that question also has an objective answer.

Similarly, if we ask "which football team is best at winning", then that question has an objective answer, too.

All of the pieces of text in italics describe goals.  Goals are either held, or they are not.  To say that one goal is "objectively true" is a nonsense-statement.  This is why the concept of "objective morality" is incoherent:  It asserts that one goal is true, and the other goals are false.  Yet goals have no "true or false" component to them.

Care to address that directly at some point, Lorax?
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline changeling

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 663
  • Darwins +15/-0
Re: Rapists doing god's work according to Santorum?
« Reply #131 on: February 13, 2012, 01:38:40 PM »
Santorum is absolutely correct.
Rapists are doing God's work.
Just ask Mary.

Without the Holy Ghost rapist, we wouldn't have Jesus.
The level of dumb they have to sell, is only made remotely possible by the level of flocking their sheep are willing to do in the name of rewards for no thought. quote: Kin Hell

"Faith is the enemy of evidence, for when we know the truth, no faith is required." Graybeard

Offline DavidQ

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 23
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Question authority!
Re: Rapists doing god's work according to Santorum?
« Reply #132 on: February 13, 2012, 01:41:57 PM »
I come late to this party (rumble?), and I'm so delighted that I made it by stumbling upon this forum when I googled "complacently stupid" to remind me of the word fatuous.

I'm a spiritual non-theist. That's not agnostic. I feel certain of an ineffable magic in the universe that is beyond my knowing and which fills me with wonder. Likewise, I feel certain that no religion I know of can improve my understanding.

Dogma of any form, religious or non-religious, turns me off. I'm a 60s "Question Authority" kind of person. So that's part of why I'm so delighted to discover here people such as magicmiles. Such an amusing and imminently reasonable person. Not trying to convince anyone of anything, but rather just trying to improve everyone's understanding. That's a truly delightful quality to find in these days of rabid polarization.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11136
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Rapists doing god's work according to Santorum?
« Reply #133 on: February 13, 2012, 01:46:41 PM »
I'm a spiritual non-theist. That's not agnostic. I feel certain of an ineffable magic in the universe that is beyond my knowing and which fills me with wonder. Likewise, I feel certain that no religion I know of can improve my understanding.

So you're either a deist or a pantheist, not a non-theist. Non-theist means one without a theistic belief (atheists). Your belief is based on the supernatural and it has a direct link to the nature of the universe (false as it may be, it's still something that pretends to explain the nature of the universe, even if only to claim that nobody can understand it).
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline DavidQ

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 23
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Question authority!
No birth control pills for you, my child.
« Reply #134 on: February 13, 2012, 01:53:34 PM »
Today's paper says U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell intends to seek legislation blocking President Obama's order that health insurance companies provide free birth control pills. He doesn't characterize this as an economic issue but rather as meddling in religious affairs, because, apparently, not only do Catholic controllers want to avoid anything to do with providing birth control, they also want to deny it to their employees regardless of the source.

(Yes, if insurance companies are providing it "for free", then all members, including religious ones, are carrying some part of that burden in their premiums. So I realize this is just putting a different face on the same thing.)

This tells me that the Catholic Church and the Republican hierarchy, while professing to hate abortions of any kind, want to deny women the means to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Force women to be asexual breeders.

I think changeling's post of God as rapist of Mary is right on the nose.

Offline DavidQ

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 23
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Question authority!
Your dogma is hassling my karma.
« Reply #135 on: February 13, 2012, 02:02:25 PM »
Yes, Lucifer, that's a good example of what I was talking about ... someone telling me what I believe or how to believe.  ;)

Non-theist to me means non-belief in a god of any sort. No god created the universe, and the universe is not a god.

Spirituality refers to the ineffable non-corporeal, -chemical, -electrical, -physical part of me that I think I feel. Or not.

Offline atheola

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1308
  • Darwins +28/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • Hospitals suck past an hour.
Re: Rapists doing god's work according to Santorum?
« Reply #136 on: February 13, 2012, 02:06:46 PM »
Perhaps Mitch's and Tricky Ricky's daughters ought to submit to senatorial rape first...on Cspan no less.
You better believe it's not butter or you'll burn in hell forever and EVER!
Get on your knees right now and thank GOD for not being real!

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11136
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Rapists doing god's work according to Santorum?
« Reply #137 on: February 13, 2012, 02:07:29 PM »
Yes, Lucifer, that's a good example of what I was talking about ... someone telling me what I believe or how to believe.  ;)

You said what you believed in. I classified it. Huge difference.

Non-theist to me means non-belief in a god of any sort. No god created the universe, and the universe is not a god.

But the universe is "magical". It may not be a god, per se, but it's still inherently supernatural. It amounts to the same.

Spirituality refers to the ineffable non-corporeal, non chemical, electrical, physical part of me that I think I feel. Or not.

I'll assume you skipped the "non" for the electrical and physical bits. Otherwise this part is just nonsense.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline DavidQ

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 23
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Question authority!
Re: Rapists doing god's work according to Santorum?
« Reply #138 on: February 13, 2012, 02:24:26 PM »

You said what you believed in. I classified it. Huge difference.
...
But the universe is "magical". It may not be a god, per se, but it's still inherently supernatural. It amounts to the same.
...

I'll assume you skipped the "non" for the electrical and physical bits. Otherwise this part is just nonsense.

universe is "magical" -- I'm just classifying it.
Yes, I didn't keep repeating "non" for brevity's sake, but I see that I've blown that now.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12447
  • Darwins +293/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Rapists doing god's work according to Santorum?
« Reply #139 on: February 13, 2012, 02:25:23 PM »
Yes, Lucifer, that's a good example of what I was talking about ... someone telling me what I believe or how to believe.  ;)

Do you think feel that way about calling someone who claims to know that YHWH/Jesus is real, a "gnostic monotheist"?

Do you understand the difference between description and prescription?  Because this post of yours suggests that you do not.

EDIT:  Removed silly thread-name-change
« Last Edit: February 13, 2012, 02:30:43 PM by Azdgari »
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11136
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Rapists doing god's work according to Santorum?
« Reply #140 on: February 13, 2012, 02:32:22 PM »
universe is "magical" -- I'm just classifying it.

That's what you said. I classified what that belief is. I don't see the problem.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12573
  • Darwins +703/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Rapists doing god's work according to Santorum?
« Reply #141 on: February 13, 2012, 04:00:17 PM »
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Rapists doing god's work according to Santorum?
« Reply #142 on: February 13, 2012, 04:16:05 PM »
^^^^^no suprise there at all.
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Rapists doing god's work according to Santorum?
« Reply #143 on: February 14, 2012, 12:44:11 PM »
I come late to this party (rumble?), and I'm so delighted that I made it by stumbling upon this forum when I googled "complacently stupid" to remind me of the word fatuous.

I'm a spiritual non-theist. That's not agnostic. I feel certain of an ineffable magic in the universe that is beyond my knowing and which fills me with wonder. Likewise, I feel certain that no religion I know of can improve my understanding.
So you've created your own "faith" in the universe is something supernatural, without evidence of course..  It's a pretty typical thing, many people like ot assume that they somehow know something special about the universe. 


"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Lorax

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
  • Darwins +4/-7
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Rapists doing god's work according to Santorum?
« Reply #144 on: February 15, 2012, 05:02:10 AM »
I do not believe in the "death penalty" in the sense that i think it is a good thing for governments to do. and neither do i believe in "subjective morality"in the sense that I think that is the final word on the subject.

You are using "believe" in two incompatible senses of the word, here.  In the first case, you are saying (roughly) that you do not agree with the morality of the death penalty.  In the second care, you are saying that you are unsure whether purely subjective morality is factual.

So, the two cases are not at all analogous.

You are begging the question.

If objectivity is true (as I believe it does) then the two are analogous
It's only if you are right, that the analogy breaks down.

You need to prove you're right first before you can use the fact that you are right to dismantle my analogy.
Quote
I should have used the word "subjectivism" particularly moral subjectivism. I disagree with the reductionist subjective moral philosophy system. Not subjectivity itself when applied to an individuals morals.

Does that make more sense.

So, you disagree with the morality of moral subjectivism?
No I deny the objective truth of moral subjectivism

Quote
See my analogy re: square circles.  Believe in them if you wish, but the belief is meaningless and incoherent.
prove it