Comments by
Page 1 of 10 | Next
Posted on November 9 at 3:45 a.m.Suggest removal
Just to clarify, Jaco99's comment wasn't visible when I wrote mine - the "thank you" is directed toward Jason Lee Byas.
But... now that his comment *is* visible... he concludes, "In short, philosophy has failed to keep pace with physics and is pretty much irrelevant (says Hawking)." So, philosophy fell behind physics, which "can theoretically explain traditional philosophical questions", erasing the need for "pre-modern philosophical claptrap." In other words, physics explains things now, and philosophy doesn't... because it couldn't keep up with science. So, how is Byas wrong when he says that Hawking "basically believes this [that philosophy is dead] because it isn’t science"?
And, cacremin, you seem awfully quick to strip ontology out of philosophy. But I really find it curious that you label perception as a subjective matter, while implying that the explaination of the universe's existence is objective... have you read Hawking? His idea of model-dependant realism is a philosophy of perception.
And I wonder how much force ethics will hold, or how able ethics can be evaluated once it is necessarily regulated to the realm of the subjective. Then again, I'm not one to argue against the impossibility of objective ethics in a naturalistic universe.
Anyway, keep me updated, cacremin, on what philosophical questions I can and can't ask! I have long been informed that theology is a science-stopper (which shocked me, since many scientists early on were theologically motivated), but it prepared me for the news that 'science' is a philosophy-stopper.
Posted on November 8 at 3:48 a.m.Suggest removal
This article only amplifies my cynicism towards this movement. What exactly is it trying to accomplsih again? You laud the diverse, and even contradictory and competing political positions to be found in the group, such as libertarianism and socialism. Surely they can agree that something is wrong. Naturally they propose opposing ways to fix it. But would they not also have different idea concerning *what* is wrong? Obviously, you could say something unhelpfully broad like, "the economy." But wouldn't those two philosophies disagree on what is wrong with the economy?
So, you've got people with fundamental differences protesting... something... with no solution... and no clear cut statements about what's wrong... Maybe you could say "corporate greed" is wrong. Fine. Why is it wrong? Just as important, what should be done about it? Is it something the state should fix, or is it a non-criminal, but nonetheless ethical problem?
I wouldn't let a carpent walk into my house with a bunch of tools, without having some idea of what he's endeavoring to do, let alone without knowing that *he* knows what he's endeavoring to do. But it is far from clear what this movement is aimed at, which makes one wonder why there is a movement at all.
Posted on April 7 at 10:54 a.m.Suggest removal
Dio, when did I use any ad hominem? Regarding cosmological theories, I was not trying to misrepresent your position, which is why I said "possibly" and included a question mark. But, I do have a question for you. You told Janna that "there is no start"... and then tell me that the theory starts in Planck time... do you mean that the theory says there is no start to the universe, do you mean that the theory doesn't address it, do you mean there is no zero, or something else altogether?
Now, as far as diseases go, you made it sound as if Christians presume that all of them are punishments, which is far from the case. And I am not going to argue (nor have I) that you ought to believe a thing b/c lots of people now and in the past have believed it. On the other hand, I don't think you can use this argument as an example of an absurdity without begging the question.
As far as the iPad goes, you still have not supported the analogy. I think it is rather obvious that the existence of the God of the Bible is categorically different than the existence of an iPad, yet you still insist on the analogy. I would be willing to trade emails with you over to discuss proof of the existence of God (rather than having long posts in the archives here). My email is Puritan1689 [at] gmail (dot) com. Or we could discuss it in some other venue if you like.
Posted on April 1 at 5:53 a.m.Suggest removal
IronyFTW, lol, "rational atheists"!
I see a lot of bald assertions, OUDad ignoring the is/ought gap, Dio putting a retarded twist on a tired analogy, and Dio possibly believing in an eternally expanding and collapsing universe(?).
Dio, when did people think the earth was flat? Also, what do you think of John 9:1-12? Or the book of Job? Does the Bible teach ALL diseases, etc. are divine judgement?
Also, belief in God and belief in an iPad orbiting Saturn are not analogous.
The existence of one is a matter of the number of objects in the universe, the other is a matter of the very nature and purpose of the world we live in. Because of this fundamental difference (i.e. God's aseity), one would expect them to be known in the same epistemically.
Posted on March 25 at 7:18 a.m.Suggest removal
Jelani,
"Just because a person has a license to carry a gun doesn’t mean they won’t abuse their privileges."
1. Carrying a gun is not a privilege, but a right... and, non, I don't think that's stretching the second amendment.
2. Just because a person is told not to bring a gun to campus doesn't mean they won't.
"It is illogical, almost insensitive, to allow handguns on campuses considering the various shootings that have happened on college and high school campuses in the past."
1. That's a bald assertion that the pro-gun side is illogical.
or
2. You assume that allowing guns on campus would further school shootings, rather than prevent them. In that case you're just begging the question.
And, in light of other recent debates about people taking lives; I'd like to ask why you are so anti-choice? If you are against guns then don't get a gun!
Posted on March 12 at 8:14 a.m.Suggest removal
You tell 'em, bruenig! Life, liberty, and property? Bah, nonsense! What was Locke thinking? You do have the right to life... after whatever stage of development the State deems worthy. You do have liberty - you can believe and say whatever you want... so long as you keep your theology and all that religious crap out of the public square. And you can own property... unless the State needs or wants it.
But seriously, do you think it's a good idea to think of private money as just a resource for the state to tap when it wants money?
Posted on December 10 at 8:44 p.m.Suggest removal
@korkio
--Not one single religion can be proven 100% true.
Why not?
--Most of them can't even be proven 50% true. That is why it is called faith.
Wait... is it called faith because it is unproven, or proven wrong? And, if that is all faith means, why not just use the words 'unproven' or 'wrong'?
--If there was a religion that had a monopoly on truth then it wouldn't be called religion and there would only be one of them because everyone would follow it.
No, if Christianity is true then many won't believe because they suppress the truth in unrighteousness because of their sin; the noetic effects of sin, etc.
--I have never in my life met someone that would admit that they don't agree with the golden rule. From Christians, to Athiests, to Buddhists and everyone in between.
I think the interaction between bruenig and radiant_enigma shows that this rule has an ethical context. Given that, Christians, Atheists, Buddhists, etc. may all agree with a sentence, but the actual application is different because they all have radically different systems of ethics. The "golden rule" is hardly some sort of common ground between religions.
Posted on December 10 at 8:17 p.m.Suggest removal
@DancingTableLeg
--I never said Galileo proved the world was round or that the church opposed the idea.
Then what did this mean:
--"1000 years ago science "knew" the earth was flat and revolved around the sun"
--Guess what that was? A church teaching
Also, you forgot the part of the Galileo story where the Church AND the secular authorities attacked him for challenging the popular Aristotilean dogma. And how Galileo had written a book mocking the Pope (when the Pope was only a Cardinal).
@korkio
--It is a proven fact that the Adam and Eve story is not historically accurate. It is a proven fact that the Earth has been around for more than 3,000 years. A thousand years ago it was not a proven fact that the Earth was flat and that the sun revolved around it, it was just a belief of the people.
1. In what way is the story of Adam and Eve inaccurate, and how do you know?
2. I don't know of any creationists going around saying the earth is only 3,000 years old...
3. Who believed the earth was flat 1,000 years ago?
You also said (about AIG):
-- They explain that humans killed off the dinosaurs and burried their bones deep in the ground to simulate fossils.
--They practice hate towards anyone that doesn't conform to their beliefs.
--They blame the evil in the world on anyone that belives in evolution.
Show me an example of any of these claims. They don't believe the fossils are simulated - they do actually believe the fossils are that: fossils.
When you say they "practice hate", what do you mean? Do you mean that they debate them, that they say they're wrong? If you mean that they actually beat up people or slander them, etc. then produce some evidence. If you just mean that they say other people are wrong, then why is it okay for you to "practice hate", but not them?
They do not blame all the evil on the world on people believing in evolution - they don't believe the world was perfect until the 19th century. They blame evil on sin - on man's rebellion against God.
Page 1 of 10 | Next
Posted on November 9 at 4:35 a.m.Suggest removal
"If you hold to Christian belief, you have to accept that your God inflicts children with unbearable circumstances on purpose. If there is a creator doing this, it is evil incarnate."
You're missing many premises necessary to your argument. For example, I wouldn't be good if I just went around, sticking needles in babies, injecting them with viruses or bacteria. On the other hand, if I were giving them a vaccination or some necessary medical treatment, you wouldn't object. Why? Because even if the child feels pain, you know that there is a ethically sufficient reason for allowing the child pain in order to accomplish a good end. You in no way even addressed what motives God might have for ordaining the pain and suffering that comes to pass.
Concerning the abortion debate:
1. Abortions don't occur because some Christians don't use birth control.
2. Not all Christians argue on the basis of personhood. Abolishionists make their case based on the image of God.
3. Cases of rape and incest are tragic, but it doesn't change the issue. Abortion isn't wrong because a woman wanted to have sex, so it isn't suddenly right because she didn't want to.
Do you really think the issue is the number of cells?
How do you determine quality of life, and how do you argue that if it drops below a certain quality, we ought to be deprived of it altogether?
You confuse ethics with law, and individuals with the state. Sins and crimes are not the same thing. Saying that a child should have healthcare and saying that the state should provide a child healthcare are not synonymous.
Not everyone on the right follows Ayn Rand!
On