Author Topic: Present Evidence Here II  (Read 119767 times)

Offline Baruch

Re: Present Evidence Here II
« Reply #705 on: August 28, 2019, 03:46:14 AM »
I think it was about 1/4 to 1/3 the way through...

You made me temporarily suspend the Brandenberg Concertos, monster!

So … in the presentation, a narrator description of Kant's POV on religion vs ethics.  And that we can replace the Golden Rule with a secular version, the Categorical Imperative.  Whose best description is that people aren't means, but ends in themselves.  I see no problem with this.  The Categorical Imperative stands against totalitarianism.  But then Kant goes onto say, liberty is about humans only doing what is best, not what they want.  That is neo-Liberalism.  Not OK.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ ła’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Offline Cavebear

Re: Present Evidence Here II
« Reply #706 on: August 28, 2019, 04:06:22 AM »
You made me temporarily suspend the Brandenberg Concertos, monster!

So … in the presentation, a narrator description of Kant's POV on religion vs ethics.  And that we can replace the Golden Rule with a secular version, the Categorical Imperative.  Whose best description is that people aren't means, but ends in themselves.  I see no problem with this.  The Categorical Imperative stands against totalitarianism.  But then Kant goes onto say, liberty is about humans only doing what is best, not what they want.  That is neo-Liberalism.  Not OK.

Might explain why I am a Progressive and secular.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Offline Baruch

Re: Present Evidence Here II
« Reply #707 on: August 28, 2019, 04:10:57 AM »
Might explain why I am a Progressive and secular.


The video wasn't pushing religion, and neither was Kant.  So you were just tiggered.  Did Roy Rodgers use to ride you?
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ ła’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Offline Cavebear

Re: Present Evidence Here II
« Reply #708 on: August 28, 2019, 04:23:03 AM »

The video wasn't pushing religion, and neither was Kant.  So you were just tiggered.  Did Roy Rodgers use to ride you?

Partly, it was the refutation of religion as the basis of ethics.  But when I took the survey that suggested I was Kantish, I didn't know that.

Had you typed "triggerred" the Roy Rodgers thing would have made more sense.  On the other hand "tiggered" is more catish in a Pooh sense.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Offline Baruch

Re: Present Evidence Here II
« Reply #709 on: August 29, 2019, 09:51:58 AM »
Haha …. at least you aren't a Snowflake ;-)
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ ła’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Re: Present Evidence Here II
« Reply #710 on: August 29, 2019, 01:25:44 PM »
No 2 snowflakes are alike, so anyone could be a snowflake.

:-P
God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman

Re: Present Evidence Here II
« Reply #711 on: August 30, 2019, 02:25:37 PM »
Do animals get their morality from God? Of course not, and neither do humans.


God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman

Offline Baruch

Re: Present Evidence Here II
« Reply #712 on: August 30, 2019, 03:57:48 PM »
Neither.  There is no morality.  Virtue signaling humans projecting onto other species.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ ła’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Offline Cavebear

Re: Present Evidence Here II
« Reply #713 on: August 31, 2019, 02:25:17 AM »
Neither.  There is no morality.  Virtue signaling humans projecting onto other species.

There is indeed no "morality".  Morality is a set of religious rules created by humans and assigned to non-human reasons.  There are human ethics though.  We created them too and they apply to us better.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Offline Baruch

Re: Present Evidence Here II
« Reply #714 on: August 31, 2019, 09:55:58 AM »
There is indeed no "morality".  Morality is a set of religious rules created by humans and assigned to non-human reasons.  There are human ethics though.  We created them too and they apply to us better.

Correct.  We don't have morality or ethics.  We do have laws.  As established by political process.  Not that is wonderful, because … politicians.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ ła’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Offline Cavebear

Re: Present Evidence Here II
« Reply #715 on: August 31, 2019, 11:42:11 AM »
Correct.  We don't have morality or ethics.  We do have laws.  As established by political process.  Not that is wonderful, because … politicians.

The slipperiest way to make an argument is to not "quite" finish the last sentence, as you did.  One could almost suggest...
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Offline Baruch

Re: Present Evidence Here II
« Reply #716 on: August 31, 2019, 04:21:02 PM »
Exactly ...
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ ła’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Offline Cavebear

Re: Present Evidence Here II
« Reply #717 on: August 31, 2019, 08:06:49 PM »
Exactly ...

One might almost think...
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Re: Present Evidence Here II
« Reply #718 on: November 02, 2019, 03:04:53 PM »
Didn't see a better place for this, so here it is:

Quote from: Genetically Modified Skeptic
What is the best argument for god's existence? Although I haven't yet found any which are without error, some arguments are better, or more convincing, than others. Apologetics can appear dry on the surface, but they're fascinating upon closer inspection. These arguments often sneak in false premises and tricky debate tactics which many don't catch. Here, though, I've analyzed some of the most popular arguments for god, charted their stats, examined their special abilities, and ranked them accordingly. The arguments discussed here are, in no particular order: The Ontological Argument, The Argument from Personal Experience, The Kalam Cosmological Argument, the Teleological Argument, Paschal's Wager, and the Moral Argument.

Want to know how to prove that god exists, or how to convince an atheist of god's existence? This tier list may shed light on the difficulties in doing that, and the tools at your disposal.



God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman

Offline Baruch

Re: Present Evidence Here II
« Reply #719 on: November 02, 2019, 06:41:57 PM »
If one has had direct experience, no convincing is necessary.  Most religious people have only had indirect experience.  An atheist may have had indirect experience in the past.  The primary question is evidence more than clever argument.  Someone who has indirect experience may or may not be able to articulate that experience.  Someone with direct experience has encountered the ineffable.  It can't be properly spoken of.  In so far as someone with indirect experience is able to articulate that experience, they are articulating an effect not a cause.  The "Cause of all things", is necessarily ineffable, because articulation, is in the domain of effect.  An atheist only accepts the domain of effect.  For him nothing in ineffable.  There can be no "Cause of all things".

People who argue that G-d exists or does not exist ... do not properly understand what the word "exists" means.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2019, 06:48:58 PM by Baruch »
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ ła’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.