Author Topic: Rapists doing god's work according to Santorum?  (Read 7710 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Lorax

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
  • Darwins +4/-7
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Rapists doing god's work according to Santorum?
« Reply #145 on: February 15, 2012, 05:06:45 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.

At the beginning of the season the games have not yet taken place and the results of them cannot be determined until they are played. Yet still at the beginning of the year there exists a team,with a roster of players, the same team which will be vindicated at the end of the season as "best".

..or is there?... perhaps there is no such team at the beginning of the season and they only become the best when the games are played and the singularity is collapsed. I suppose you could believe that. then again I could also believe in an objectively best color. i would just have to do so against my immediate bias.

Offline Lorax

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
  • Darwins +4/-7
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Rapists doing god's work according to Santorum?
« Reply #146 on: February 15, 2012, 05:18:19 AM »
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?
All I can do to address that is to nod and say "yes I see that you believe that"

You haven't made an argument for it. You have just told me that is the case. i respectfully disagree. I believe in "objectively true" or "objectively right" goals. I believe in them concerning morality, and i believe in them in other contexts. In an archery context there are lots of targets around, there are lots of eyes. But only one true bullseye. If i hit that bullseye I win. if I hit someone else's bullseye I lose, and if i hit someone else's eye eye. I go to jail. Your argument that all goals are subjective is not going to fly.

I also disagree that it is nonsense to believe in a best color. I rather understand what a best color would be and think a possible world exists where there is one. I just don't happen to think that proposition is true in this world. Colors are not entirely up to personal opinion. there are some objectively awful colors. One or two people might like the color of a cesspool, and they have a right to enjoy it..but they're wrong. Other colors are objectively pretty nice. But is there a nicest? I'm disinclined to think so.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11142
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Rapists doing god's work according to Santorum?
« Reply #147 on: February 15, 2012, 07:35:41 AM »
At the beginning of the season the games have not yet taken place and the results of them cannot be determined until they are played. Yet still at the beginning of the year there exists a team,with a roster of players, the same team which will be vindicated at the end of the season as "best".

..or is there?... perhaps there is no such team at the beginning of the season and they only become the best when the games are played and the singularity is collapsed. I suppose you could believe that. then again I could also believe in an objectively best color. i would just have to do so against my immediate bias.

What's your point? The first hypothesis ignores my "false analogy" explanation, which is that objective morality cannot be tested for. The second is nonsense, since it means that something doesn't exist until proven.
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 Lorax

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
  • Darwins +4/-7
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Rapists doing god's work according to Santorum?
« Reply #148 on: February 15, 2012, 09:36:47 AM »
At the beginning of the season the games have not yet taken place and the results of them cannot be determined until they are played. Yet still at the beginning of the year there exists a team,with a roster of players, the same team which will be vindicated at the end of the season as "best".

..or is there?... perhaps there is no such team at the beginning of the season and they only become the best when the games are played and the singularity is collapsed. I suppose you could believe that. then again I could also believe in an objectively best color. i would just have to do so against my immediate bias.

What's your point? The first hypothesis ignores my "false analogy" explanation, which is that objective morality cannot be tested for. The second is nonsense, since it means that something doesn't exist until proven.

I was not attempting to forward two hypotheses. Only a single hypothesis which might be disagreed with in a manner analogous to the argument.

It's true that practically speaking objective morality cannot be experimentally tested for. Neither can football teams at the beginning of the season. (you cannot run them all through a scrimmage yourself pre-season and have it count)

But I see your point. that only remains true so long as the teams remain temporally locked in October, when in point of fact they are not temporally locked, and time marches on. Objective morality is not decided for us every January.

What I do not understand is how that matters.

How is that a flaw in the analogy rather than just a difference between the items being compared?

Do you see me naming all the differences between colors and morals?

Would you like me to?
 -Colors have no real world implications
 -Best colors are not prescribed in any religious system
 -Most of the world is in agreement about the main moral tenets, not so with colors
 -Morals benefit from harmony, Colors benefit from contrast so the concept of a single best color is counter intuitive
 -There is no way to determine why one color should be worse than another other than "I don't like it" while there are numerous persuasive ways to argue that some acts are less moral than others
 -Ethics, is a field devoted to understanding variances in human understandings of the good, no such field is devoted to colors, but there is one, concerning feminine beauty for instance, meaning that's a much better analogy

And so on and so on...

We could talk about differences between X and Y all day. because that's how analogies work. They don't claim "X is the same as Y". they claim "X is analogous to Y in this relevant way" and both analogies work for this

Imagine hypothetically a temporally locked football roster for the purposes of the analogy if it bothers you that much.


Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11142
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Rapists doing god's work according to Santorum?
« Reply #149 on: February 15, 2012, 09:46:12 AM »
How is that a flaw in the analogy rather than just a difference between the items being compared?

It's called a "false analogy", as I have said twice now. It means that they are not analogous to one another in a manner relevant to the discussion, as I have also explained twice now.

Now you see why I say your reading skills suck. Because they do. Either that or you erase your memory every time you post.
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.

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12469
  • Darwins +295/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Rapists doing god's work according to Santorum?
« Reply #150 on: February 15, 2012, 10:59:58 AM »
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.

Not so.  "I believe in the existence of X" and "I believe in the moral correctness of X" are entirely different statements, even within your beliefs.

Take the "death penalty" part.  I do believe in the death penalty, in the sense that I believe it happens.  I don't believe in the death penalty, in the sense that I hold it to be morally wrong.  Similarly, I believe in the Holocaust, in the sense that I believe it happened.  I don't believe in the Holocaust, in that I don't agree with it.

You seem to be saying that under your beliefs, these are identical statements.  Care to clarify?

And regardless - it's your analogy, so that makes you the one who is begging the question by using it in the first place.  By your own admission.

You need to prove you're right first before you can use the fact that you are right to dismantle my analogy.

Or you could say precisely what it is that you mean without an analogy.  I have no need to dismantle your own circular reasoning.  I have other objections to your position that are far stronger.

No I deny the objective truth of moral subjectivism

Which, in your worldview, amounts to the same thing.  Except that that view is nonsensical, and you are resisting efforts to analyze it more closely.

prove it

I already provided such reasoning.  You have failed to address it.  I can only assume, by now, that you are unwilling to do so.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2012, 11:58:39 AM by Azdgari »
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12469
  • Darwins +295/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Rapists doing god's work according to Santorum?
« Reply #151 on: February 15, 2012, 11:08:59 AM »
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?

All I can do to address that is to nod and say "yes I see that you believe that"

If I am wrong, then what is the "true or false" component to a goal?

You haven't made an argument for it. You have just told me that is the case. i respectfully disagree. I believe in "objectively true" or "objectively right" goals.

Which is as nonsensical as believing in square circles, since goals have no true or false component to their meaning.  A goal can be expressed in the form of "to do X".  "...to do X" makes no claims about reality, moral or otherwise.  It stands alone.  You are claiming that it can be objectively true or false, yet that claim does not make any evident sense in light of what goals actually do.

I believe in them concerning morality, and i believe in them in other contexts. In an archery context there are lots of targets around, there are lots of eyes. But only one true bullseye. If i hit that bullseye I win. if I hit someone else's bullseye I lose, and if i hit someone else's eye eye. I go to jail. Your argument that all goals are subjective is not going to fly.

"In order to win the game" is objectively true?  How the hell does that make any sense?  Hitting the bullseye is the correct course of action in order to win the game (as the game's been defined).  What makes "in order to win the game" objectively true?  It's your analogy.  And it's utter nonsense.  Just like your entire set of beliefs on this topic.

I also disagree that it is nonsense to believe in a best color. I rather understand what a best color would be and think a possible world exists where there is one. I just don't happen to think that proposition is true in this world. Colors are not entirely up to personal opinion. there are some objectively awful colors. One or two people might like the color of a cesspool, and they have a right to enjoy it..but they're wrong. Other colors are objectively pretty nice. But is there a nicest? I'm disinclined to think so.

Best colour at doing what?  As I acknowledged in my other post, there are colours that are the best at achieving specific goals.  What is the objective goal for a colour to achieve?  That is the question to which you claim an answer exists.  Spill it.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline DavidQ

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 23
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Question authority!
Like a Religionista, you presume to tell me what I (should) believe
« Reply #152 on: February 15, 2012, 11:14:05 AM »
... I feel certain of an ineffable magic in the universe that is beyond my knowing [emphasis added] 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 [emphasis added].

Even though I sometimes find myself guilty of the same thing, I surely do hate it when someone presumes to tell me what I am thinking or what I should be thinking. It strikes me that the Atheista can be just as obnoxious as the Religionista. How you arrived at your conclusions from what I said is another one of those things in the universe beyond my understanding.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11142
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Rapists doing god's work according to Santorum?
« Reply #153 on: February 15, 2012, 11:26:13 AM »
How you arrived at your conclusions from what I said is another one of those things in the universe beyond my understanding.

You say the universe is magical in ways that can't be detected. But you know about it.

That is why we assume your faith is entirely based on arrogance and magical thinking. Because it is.
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 velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Like a Religionista, you presume to tell me what I (should) believe
« Reply #154 on: February 15, 2012, 11:39:40 AM »
... I feel certain of an ineffable magic in the universe that is beyond my knowing [emphasis added] 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 [emphasis added].

Even though I sometimes find myself guilty of the same thing, I surely do hate it when someone presumes to tell me what I am thinking or what I should be thinking. It strikes me that the Atheista can be just as obnoxious as the Religionista. How you arrived at your conclusions from what I said is another one of those things in the universe beyond my understanding.
I'm not telling you what you are thinking.  You have decided that your feeling is accurate, yes?  That you understand that it comes from some "ineffable magic" aka something supernaturalWiki ?  that seems to be at odds with your claim "beyond your knowing".  It seems that you want to claim you know about this force, that you are sure its there.  Is this correct?  But at the same time you don't want to give it any attributes. IS this also correct?

I have seen theists do the same things, David.  They decide that their feelings are evidence of their version of ineffable magic, aka their gods.  I see no difference.  Perhaps you can clarify what you meant.   I've also seen theists who want their god to be very knowable when convneient but when it comes down to pinning the existence of this god down, it becomes very conveniently vague e.g. ineffable.

I'm sorry if you find my post obnoxious. It wasn't meant to be.  It was meant to show how you do not seem very unique.   
« Last Edit: February 15, 2012, 11:45:00 AM by velkyn »
"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 DavidQ

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 23
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Question authority!
Re: Like a Religionista, you presume to tell me what I (should) believe
« Reply #155 on: February 15, 2012, 12:55:00 PM »
... That is why we assume your faith is entirely based on arrogance and magical thinking.

... It was meant to show how you do not seem very unique.

Holy cow! (So to speak.) How rude. What a way to greet a new visitor. I sought to compliment magicmiles for his thoughtful responses that seemed to seek understanding instead of controversy. Perhaps because magicmiles is a religious person (I'm guessing), then I am "tarred with the same brush."

I claimed to be a member of the atheist clan and then am told, "Oh no you're not, poseur; you formulated your claim badly. You have no idea what you are. [Which, amusingly, was precisely my point.]"

Let's just say I consider myself a Rational Person who knows very little about anything, and I'm not even sure of what little I think I know.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11142
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Rapists doing god's work according to Santorum?
« Reply #156 on: February 15, 2012, 01:03:18 PM »
Holy cow! (So to speak.) How rude. What a way to greet a new visitor.

It's called "honesty", with a hint of emotion. I don't sugarcoat things, and I'm pretty sure velkyn doesn't either.
If you don't like to be called on your BS, don't post BS.

I claimed to be a member of the atheist clan and then am told, "Oh no you're not, poseur; you formulated your claim badly. You have no idea what you are. [Which, amusingly, was precisely my point.]"

Let's just say I consider myself a Rational Person who knows very little about anything, and I'm not even sure of what little I think I know.

You can consider yourself whatever you like. To assume something based on magical thinking, arrogance and with a complete lack of evidence is irrational. Not surprisingly, it is also the basis of virtually every form of theism.
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!
Arguing for argument's sake
« Reply #157 on: February 15, 2012, 02:16:21 PM »
"I know the truth, and I shall beat you about the head with it until you know it, too." Sound familiar, in this and other contexts?

If the point of an argument is to win at all costs, then it can't really be considered an argument, can it? "[Argumentation] is concerned with communication that seeks to persuade others through reasoned judgment." --Professor David Zarefsky, Northwestern University.

If one MUST win in order to be satisfied, then why even have the other points of view? Just eliminate them. Ah, but then, what would be the satisfaction in that? One really wants the other to bow down and acknowledge that they have been bested by superior cunning or strength or whatever. (Maybe this is why God doesn't simply smite all the non-believers. It would all be over, with no fun of the contest of wills.)

My hope when entering an argument (or a discussion, where I have no expectation of a particular outcome), is that whether or not I or the other parties become convinced of some points of view, that at least I will have come away from the encounter with some interesting or useful knowledge or understanding.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12585
  • Darwins +704/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Rapists doing god's work according to Santorum?
« Reply #158 on: February 15, 2012, 02:39:31 PM »
Let's see if I can get things back on track.

DavidQ opened with this:

I'm a spiritual non-theist.

I took "non-theist" to mean that he does not believe in gods. 

I took "spiritual" to mean his sense of awe at the grandeur of the universe.  There really isn't a good word that works for atheists when describing this feeling and spiritual covers it for a lot of people.  I try not to use it.  I find it ill defined and confusing.

So, I can see where that word could trip up others.  It is often used by theists to mean "supernatural" and imply spirits, souls, ghosts and other goblins.  It is a word with baggage.  We should understand it is vague and ambiguous and seek to clarify what is meant before jumping on it.

That's not agnostic.

Given the non-theist statement above, I took this as DQ saying he definitely was not on the fence about gods - he's not having any of them.

I feel certain of an ineffable magic in the universe that is beyond my knowing and which fills me with wonder.

I related this to his "spiritual" statement and took "magic" to be metaphorical, not literal.  Please, correct me if I'm wrong, DavidQ.

I can see where this might sound like he's waxing new agey religious and where others might say "hey man, you do have religious beliefs.  En garde!"

Likewise, I feel certain that no religion I know of can improve my understanding.

Not just atheist, but also rejects religion.  For the record, I find some value in buddhism and taoism.

If someone is already on the wrong track at this point it would sound like DQ is making up his own religion.

So that's part of why I'm so delighted to discover here people such as magicmiles.

I'm not sure what's delightful about magicmiles.  I find him to be a cotton-headed ninny-muggins.  But hey, not everyone likes chocolate.  Whatever.

Such an amusing and imminently reasonable person.

Hm.  Maybe mm isn't delightful.  Maybe that was sarcasm?  Because reasonable does not come to my mind at the mention of magicmiles.  Again, please, correct me if I'm wrong, DavidQ.

Does this sound about right?

 
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

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

Offline DavidQ

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 23
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Question authority!
Shedding light instead of ....ing
« Reply #159 on: February 15, 2012, 03:41:37 PM »
That's a perfect summary, Screwtape. Thanks so much for helping out.

All I know about magicmiles is what I've read in this thread, and in my mind those posts [and I haven't read the entire thread] seemed more reasonable than much else that I read. He wasn't stating positions but rather setting out possible clarifying interpretations, much as you've done with this helpful post.

Though I reject all religions as imperfect attempts to make meaning out of what seems like our amazing existence in an amazing reality (or maybe it's all a dream), I can find something of value in almost anything, and perhaps even more so with buddhism and taoism from the tiny bit I know of them.

I find the principle of the lever magical. DNA even more magical for its even greater implications. Does that make me guilty of magical thinking. Jeez! There's no god in the DNA, and god didn't make it, unless you want to believe that, so long as you don't expect me to have any truck with it.

...
I took "non-theist" to mean that he does not believe in gods. 

I took "spiritual" to mean his sense of awe at the grandeur of the universe.  There really isn't a good word that works for atheists when describing this feeling and spiritual covers it for a lot of people.  I try not to use it.  I find it ill defined and confusing.

[In a situation like that a reasonable person might ask, "What kind of spiritual is that spiritual?" instead of leaping feet first into it.]

...
[not agnostic.]
I took this as DQ saying he definitely was not on the fence about gods - he's not having any of them.

...
[magic in the universe]
I ... took "magic" to be metaphorical, not literal.

[feel that no religion I know of can improve my understanding.]
Not just atheist, but also rejects religion.  For the record, I find some value in buddhism and taoism.

Does this sound about right?

Yep! And to those who couldn't give the benefit of the doubt or postpone judgement or ask, well excuse me for not being hardcore and direct enough for you.

Offline Lorax

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
  • Darwins +4/-7
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Rapists doing god's work according to Santorum?
« Reply #160 on: February 15, 2012, 11:30:23 PM »
How is that a flaw in the analogy rather than just a difference between the items being compared?
It's called a "false analogy", as I have said twice now. It means that they are not analogous to one another in a manner relevant to the discussion, as I have also explained twice now.

What other than insistence and bold faced type is supposed to convince me that that is the case?

Offline Lorax

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
  • Darwins +4/-7
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Rapists doing god's work according to Santorum?
« Reply #161 on: February 15, 2012, 11:43:57 PM »
You are begging the question.

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

Not so.  "I believe in the existence of X" and "I believe in the moral correctness of X" are entirely different statements, even within your beliefs.
Only semantically. I believe it is true that X exists, or that X is morally correct
Quote

Take the "death penalty" part.  I do believe in the death penalty, in the sense that I believe it happens.  I don't believe in the death penalty, in the sense that I hold it to be morally wrong.  Similarly, I believe in the Holocaust, in the sense that I believe it happened.  I don't believe in the Holocaust, in that I don't agree with it.

You seem to be saying that under your beliefs, these are identical statements.  Care to clarify?
I see the confusion.

For once I will learn my lesson and attempt to explain to you plainly without another analogy to explain this analogy

They are not identical statements, but they are the same kind of statement, or the same order of statement. Both refer to Beliefs which are either true or false, they simply concern different aspects of the subject in question which in this case is the holocaust.
Quote
And regardless - it's your analogy, so that makes you the one who is begging the question by using it in the first place.  By your own admission.
Generaly what youare going to want to do is grant, and then turn. If you argue against anargument and then tell me it helps you it starts to look desperate.

Regardless. No, within the context of the discussion I was explaining why my perspective was not inherently flawed and meaningless. Explaining how it worked, not insisting that it was true. It is entirely appropriate within that context that I speak matter of factly about the way things are in my belief system (since it is my belief system, and not the condition of reality, about which we are speaking)

When you object to this explanation by offering a contradiction with the real world it's important that the part of the real world you reference as contradicting it is not the very thing which is under scrutiny. Yet that's just what you did
Quote
You need to prove you're right first before you can use the fact that you are right to dismantle my analogy.

Or you could say precisely what it is that you mean without an analogy.  I have no need to dismantle your own circular reasoning.  I have other objections to your position that are far stronger.
Working on it.

This is a real challenge for me
Quote
No I deny the objective truth of moral subjectivism

Which, in your worldview, amounts to the same thing.  Except that that view is nonsensical, and you are resisting efforts to analyze it more closely.
Prove it
Quote
prove it

I already provided such reasoning.  You have failed to address it.  I can only assume, by now, that you are unwilling to do so.

Maybe I'm thick.
Maybe I missed it
Maybe you are just tired of talking

If you want to call it, I won't fault you.

But if you want to keep going, I'm going to have to ask you to provide a quote of the part where you offered an argument I missed.

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12469
  • Darwins +295/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Rapists doing god's work according to Santorum?
« Reply #162 on: February 16, 2012, 12:34:05 AM »
I see the confusion.

For once I will learn my lesson and attempt to explain to you plainly without another analogy to explain this analogy

They are not identical statements, but they are the same kind of statement, or the same order of statement. Both refer to Beliefs which are either true or false, they simply concern different aspects of the subject in question which in this case is the holocaust.

That much makes sense.  You do acknowledge that "I belive X exists" and "I believe that X is good" talk about two different aspects of X, though, right?  Let's refer back to the original point of confusion:

Quote
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.

It is not clear, in the bolded text, which sense of "believe in X" it is that you're using.  If you are saying that you don't believe subjective morality to be morally right, then I'm not sure what you mean; you'd have to elaborate.  If you are saying that you don't belive morality to be subjective, then I know that already.  You could mean both of them, but you weren't clearly saying one or the other, and the former requires additional explanation.

Does that make sense?

Generaly what youare going to want to do is grant, and then turn. If you argue against anargument and then tell me it helps you it starts to look desperate.

If that was what I was doing, then sure.  What I was actually trying to do is to show you that your accusation of circular reasoning is disingenuous, considering that your analogy engaged in it from the outset.  I just didn't confront it until after your accusation.

And, separately - if it is your desire to view me as desperate, then that is your perogative.  You can even view me as being morally deserving of eternal torture, if that's your thing.  Your view, your responsibility.

Regardless. No, within the context of the discussion I was explaining why my perspective was not inherently flawed and meaningless. Explaining how it worked, not insisting that it was true. It is entirely appropriate within that context that I speak matter of factly about the way things are in my belief system (since it is my belief system, and not the condition of reality, about which we are speaking)

When you object to this explanation by offering a contradiction with the real world it's important that the part of the real world you reference as contradicting it is not the very thing which is under scrutiny. Yet that's just what you did

See above.  There was confusion regarding your meaning from the outset, due to how you were (or seemed to be) using the word "believe".  I was working from the understanding that "I believe X exists" and "I believe that X, if it exists, is morally right" meant two different things.  I was under the impression we shared that understanding.

Working on it.

This is a real challenge for me

Well you do have the unfair handicap of being wrong.  ;)

Prove it

Your retreat into analogies and refusal to address the specific logical content of "ought" statements despite my bringing up the subject multiple times speaks for itself.

Maybe I'm thick.
Maybe I missed it
Maybe you are just tired of talking

If you want to call it, I won't fault you.

But if you want to keep going, I'm going to have to ask you to provide a quote of the part where you offered an argument I missed.

Well, there was the whole first part of this post:

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?

Other than to hand-wave the entire thing away as a product of my belief system, you addressed none of the reasoning in the post leading up to the last paragraph where I talked about goals directly.  That was the important part, though, Lorax.  "Red is the best colour" is an incomplete thought.  Best at what?  It's not the best at everything.  And that brings us to goals like "at putting people at ease" or whatever other example, and the fact that that text makes no claims, other than that "putting people at ease" is something that can in principle be done.  It's simply not a part of the logic communicated by the text.  It doesn't just not make assertions about physical reality (which would be a circular objection, as you've noted).  It doesn't make any kind of assertion about anything else, either.

It doesn't even make a moral assertion.  "X is good for achieving Y goal" is an assertion, for sure, but "for achieving Y goal" on its own is not.
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: 11142
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Rapists doing god's work according to Santorum?
« Reply #163 on: February 16, 2012, 02:24:51 AM »
What other than insistence and bold faced type is supposed to convince me that that is the case?

Hm... If only I had explained it twice... Oh, wait, I did!

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 screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12585
  • Darwins +704/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Shedding light instead of ....ing
« Reply #164 on: February 16, 2012, 08:15:38 AM »
All I know about magicmiles is...

No need to defend your opinion of him to me.  I have an opinion of him based on my experience.  You've not had my experience and I'm not trying to shove my opinion down anyone's thraot.  Maybe in time you'll see him as I do, or vice versa.  Or we'll both see him differently than we do now.  Probably that. 
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: Like a Religionista, you presume to tell me what I (should) believe
« Reply #165 on: February 16, 2012, 11:00:28 AM »
Holy cow! (So to speak.) How rude. What a way to greet a new visitor. I sought to compliment magicmiles for his thoughtful responses that seemed to seek understanding instead of controversy. Perhaps because magicmiles is a religious person (I'm guessing), then I am "tarred with the same brush."

I claimed to be a member of the atheist clan and then am told, "Oh no you're not, poseur; you formulated your claim badly. You have no idea what you are. [Which, amusingly, was precisely my point.]"

Let's just say I consider myself a Rational Person who knows very little about anything, and I'm not even sure of what little I think I know.

Rude?  I find using words in a ridiculous confusing manner rude and getting all upset when you are questioned about those words and still being ignorant enough to use them, to be rude.  Let me ask you one more time, do you or do you not assign a supernatural influence to the universe?  this is what I see when you use the word "magical".  You might wish to use a less confusing term.   

I'm sorry that you aren't sure of much of anything.  I am sure of quite a lot, based on experience (including education) and evidence.   Your arguments seem little better than MM's, but you are more than welcome to clarify. For instance the below quote.  To me, this reads as a very common claim by many theists that “religion” isn’t what they follow, when they try to get away from the bad things associated with that word.  This is usually followed by a claim that their “faith” is somehow the only valid explanation for “our amazing existence in an amazing reality”. (and a dream, that certainly does sound like solipisism, another place theists generally end up). 

Quote
Though I reject all religions as imperfect attempts to make meaning out of what seems like our amazing existence in an amazing reality (or maybe it's all a dream), I can find something of value in almost anything, and perhaps even more so with buddhism and taoism from the tiny bit I know of them.
 

And again, you return to using the word “magical”. 
Quote
I find the principle of the lever magical. DNA even more magical for its even greater implications. Does that make me guilty of magical thinking. Jeez! There's no god in the DNA, and god didn't make it, unless you want to believe that, so long as you don't expect me to have any truck with it.
You are using a word confusingly.  There is nothing “magical” about a lever.  If I read this and go with the common definition of “magical”, it does indeed read that you do have magical thinking.   If I may, Jeez, &) can’t you use another word on a forum that has people who do have magical thinking?

Now, as you have clarified, I understand that you are an atheist.  I hope you do understand why I thought otherwise.
"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 #166 on: February 18, 2012, 08:38:53 AM »
What other than insistence and bold faced type is supposed to convince me that that is the case?

Hm... If only I had explained it twice... Oh, wait, I did!

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.

And I responded to that. Perhaps you misunderstood, but I suspect that you just didn't like it.

Within the terms of the analogy, the teams exist "at the beginning of the season" at that moment, there is no winner. the winner will not come into existence until the end of the season, yet the best team (the team that will win) already exists.

For the purpose of the hypothetical, these teams are bounded in time, they are, always and forever locked in the beginning of the season within the little world I have created for them out of rhetoric.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11142
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Rapists doing god's work according to Santorum?
« Reply #167 on: February 18, 2012, 08:58:58 AM »
And I responded to that. Perhaps you misunderstood, but I suspect that you just didn't like it.

Correction: you avoided the issue, which was the fact that objective morality cannot be demonstrated. That's why your analogy does not hold.

That's four times now.
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 Lorax

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
  • Darwins +4/-7
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Rapists doing god's work according to Santorum?
« Reply #168 on: February 18, 2012, 09:05:16 AM »
That much makes sense.  You do acknowledge that "I belive X exists" and "I believe that X is good" talk about two different aspects of X, though, right? 
i do
Quote

Let's refer back to the original point of confusion:

Quote
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.

It is not clear, in the bolded text, which sense of "believe in X" it is that you're using.  If you are saying that you don't believe subjective morality to be morally right, then I'm not sure what you mean; you'd have to elaborate.  If you are saying that you don't belive morality to be subjective, then I know that already.  You could mean both of them, but you weren't clearly saying one or the other, and the former requires additional explanation.

Does that make sense?

It certainty does. I explained it in the following paragraph.

I am not saying that i don't believe subjective morality to be morally right, nor am I am saying that individuals do not have subjective opinions about morality. I'm saying that I don't believe "subjective morality" to be a truthful philosophical viewpoint.

In the next paragraph I began using the clearer word "moral subjectivism" rather than "Subjective morality" to refer to the philosophical system of beliefs that entails the idea that there exists no standard for morality which is not subjective.

That philosophy, in my opinion, is incorrect

Quote
Working on it.

This is a real challenge for me

Well you do have the unfair handicap of being wrong.  ;)
Thanks for maintaining a sense of humor about it
Quote

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?

Other than to hand-wave the entire thing away as a product of my belief system, you addressed none of the reasoning in the post leading up to the last paragraph where I talked about goals directly.  That was the important part, though, Lorax.  "Red is the best colour" is an incomplete thought.  Best at what?  It's not the best at everything. 

I disagree that "red is the best color" is necessarily an incomplete thought. I believe it is an incorrect thought (The best color is not actually red IMO) but I think it's a perfectly coherent false idea, and nothing you have said has inclined me to think otherwise.

Something does not have to be best at everything to be best. Micheal Phelps is the best swimmer in the world. He is not the best at breaststroke
Quote

And that brings us to goals like "at putting people at ease" or whatever other example, and the fact that that text makes no claims, other than that "putting people at ease" is something that can in principle be done.  It's simply not a part of the logic communicated by the text.  It doesn't just not make assertions about physical reality (which would be a circular objection, as you've noted).  It doesn't make any kind of assertion about anything else, either.

It doesn't even make a moral assertion.  "X is good for achieving Y goal" is an assertion, for sure, but "for achieving Y goal" on its own is not.

I understand that you feel this is the important part, and it is not my desire to dismiss it flippantly, but I simply disagree and see no reason here why i should come to agree. As the Dude said  "That's just..like... Your opinion man"

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2250
  • Darwins +76/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: Rapists doing god's work according to Santorum?
« Reply #169 on: February 18, 2012, 09:22:28 AM »
Something does not have to be best at everything to be best.

But it does have to be the best at something, right? Whatever that something is, is the goal.

Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline Lorax

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
  • Darwins +4/-7
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Rapists doing god's work according to Santorum?
« Reply #170 on: February 18, 2012, 10:07:29 AM »
And I responded to that. Perhaps you misunderstood, but I suspect that you just didn't like it.

Correction: you avoided the issue, which was the fact that objective morality cannot be demonstrated. That's why your analogy does not hold.

That's four times now.

I've granted 12 times now that moral objectivitivism cannot be demonstrated. I'm not avoiding anything

Neither can football teams at the beginning of the season. Only at the end of the season can you collapse that singularity and crown a champion.

As philosophy goes, this thought experiment ain't exactly Derrida. If it helps you. Imagine a season that was cut short due to a strike or a massive national disaster. Now the best team still exists (the team that would have won the championship) but the reality of which team it is is never discovered because the championship game is never played.

Speaking of avoiding. In order to get that count right I went back and looked at our history together. You had avoided a page of arguments from me and I was happy to let you because you promised to go away. Now that you're back (and I was dumb enough to reply to you) kindly go back and address my arguments.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11142
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Rapists doing god's work according to Santorum?
« Reply #171 on: February 18, 2012, 10:10:42 AM »
I've granted 12 times not that moral objectivitivism cannot be demonstrated. I'm not avoiding anything

Neither can football teams at the beginning of the season.

Bold for emphasis.
Moral objectivism cannot be demonstrated period. Football teams can. See the difference? That's why your analogy does not hold.

Speaking of avoiding. In order to get that count right I went back and looked at our history together. You had avoided a page of arguments from me and I was happy to let you because you promised to go away. Now that you're back (and I was dumb enough to reply to you) kindly go back and address my arguments.

Re-read my last replies of that page and you'll see why I stopped replying. You did the same thing you're doing now - displaying your poor reading skills. Every question I did not answer was already answered and/or made irrelevant in the reply you were quoting.
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 Lorax

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
  • Darwins +4/-7
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Rapists doing god's work according to Santorum?
« Reply #172 on: February 18, 2012, 10:17:32 AM »
Something does not have to be best at everything to be best.

But it does have to be the best at something, right? Whatever that something is, is the goal.
...no analogy... no analogy... I can do this

I think in the case of the best color it is the best color the something is something like "being a color" or "coloring" or "being a good color"

The best swimmer is best at swimming

The best football team is best at football

Offline Lorax

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
  • Darwins +4/-7
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Rapists doing god's work according to Santorum?
« Reply #173 on: February 18, 2012, 10:21:22 AM »
I've granted 12 times not that moral objectivitivism cannot be demonstrated. I'm not avoiding anything

Neither can football teams at the beginning of the season.

Bold for emphasis.
Moral objectivism cannot be demonstrated period. Football teams can. See the difference? That's why your analogy does not hold.

My analogy is not that objectivity is like the best football team. My analogy is that moral objectivity is like the best football team at the beginning of the season

The beginning of the season thing is part of the analogous item
Quote

Speaking of avoiding. In order to get that count right I went back and looked at our history together. You had avoided a page of arguments from me and I was happy to let you because you promised to go away. Now that you're back (and I was dumb enough to reply to you) kindly go back and address my arguments.

Re-read my last replies of that page and you'll see why I stopped replying. You did the same thing you're doing now - displaying your poor reading skills. Every question I did not answer was already answered and/or made irrelevant in the reply you were quoting.

There are rules on this forum.

I've asked you nicely. Respond to the arguments you ignored or face the consequences