Conversation Between 90sAce and Yoda


Showing Comments 1 to 4 of 27
  1. 05-02-15
    Yeah, that's not a slippery slope argument, dude. A slippery slope argument is that if we do X, Y most inevitably follow, without proving the inevitability. Go ahead and show me the post where I suggested eugenics would follow from a secular worldview, as opposed to asking you why it wouldn't, for the purposes of defining the parameters of your moral standard. (This is to say nothing of the fact that you made the same argument in regards to God's edicts, so your choices here are between misunderstanding the fallacy and engaging in it yourself.)

    And no, I'm not equating "observations based on science to any opinion or whim." You know why? Because the things you're saying are not "observations based on science." We've been through this before, but it bears repeating: the speculation you engage in about scientific observations and their implications are not scientific themselves.

    Re: "a belief espoused by a lot of theists themselves." Leaving aside how convenient it is to say vague things like "a lot of theists," this is irrelevant, because you didn't criticize these nameless theists: you argued with the idea. You even said "all you're left with," which would make no sense if you were talking about some arbitary group of theists (which you never stated, anyway).

    Also, you didn't answer the question: which was it? Did you honestly not know The Bible said that, or did you just not care? Or, more likely: did you not care to know?
  2. 05-02-15
    Nope, I'm going directly by things you suggested - such as "what if" science decided that eugenics is beneficial. Or "what if" sociopathic behavior leads to evolutionary success (nevermind that I see very little evidence of sociopathic behavior leading to success or happiness beyond immediate gratification - and that quote I recall from you sounds almost verbatim to a quote one of the villains in "Man of Steel" used).

    And again you're also equating observations based on science to any opinion or whim that anyone has, since technically everyone's using "personal judgment" and taking a risk of being wrong - but that still doesn't mean that making judgments based on observable things is in the same league as making judgments that are completely unverifiable - such as someone deciding that surviving a car wreck is "proof that Jesus saved them".

    And if you dislike that I quote the belief that people can't be innately moral without religion or the Bible, it's a belief espoused by a lot of theists themselves.
  3. 05-02-15
    Oy, enough with "it sounds like this is based off..." or "it seems like you're saying..." followed by a giant paragraph responding to the thing you were guessing (usually incorrectly) was being argued.

    You're contradicting yourself, anyway, when you deride morality based on "your own feelings and personal judgments," as if this were somehow different than the evolutionary morality you trumpet. And if you reply with the same copypasta about observable positive benefits, I'll know you still don't understand the problem.

    More troubling, though, is that you still seem to have no idea what believers actually believe, or why. Which is kind of a problem given how much you like to contradict them. You do realize that The Bible says morality is, on some level, innate, right? It specifically contradicts the idea that morality is based purely on revelation. So the fact that you keep arguing with that idea demonstrates that you're either a) ignorant or b) willfully dishonest. Which is it?

    But hey, at least this time it only took a couple replies, rather than twenty, for you to reveal that part of the problem is sloppy terminology (a serious issue for anyone who likes to start philosophical arguments): apparently you think "theism" is a synonym for "organized religion."
  4. 05-02-15
    That belief isn't exclusive to theism - deism doesn't insist that truths must conflict with that which is observable. The single source of virtue and reality itself would be God - however the truths and virtues themselves are defined by the actual inner workings of nature itself.

    So yes, if theism ignores the observable - then actually forming specific virtues is simply based on people claiming to speak for god, and insisting blind trust in them regardless of all other evidence.

    Not to mention that classical philosophers were born centuries before any modern understanding of biology, neurology, etc.

    It sounds to me like too much of this is based off of slippery slope fears - such as science deciding that actions people consider wrong to be acceptable, but I see no evidence of this, and most science seems to back up the idea of universal right and wrong programmed into biology - and if actual observation of the world isn't the source for right and wrong, then what are you left with to form that knowledge? The only thing you're left with is blind trust in what others claim is right or wrong, despite not being able to prove it - or your own feelings and personal judgments (which is where the relativity of theism comes in - since a person claiming that Jesus is God, and one claiming that Allah is God have just as much evidence for their belief as the other)..

    Plus the slippery slope could easily go the other way - "What if Allah is God - and Allah wants you to kill infidels - is it right since Allah wants it, or is it still wrong"?