Posted on December 11 at 4 p.m.Suggest removal

LOL, you think that Mr. Carter dodged a legitimate claim by Mr. Clark?

First of all, you mentioned only one possible dodge by Mr. Carter not many as you claim. You want Mr. Carter to prove to you that the scientific method is the superior form of epistemology. So you want somebody to prove a value judgment to you? That seems absurd. Mr. Carter argued that the scientific method is more "accurate and reliable" than any other method of truth, not what you should value.

I'm not so inclined to put words into the mouth of Mr. Carter like you and Mr. Clark, but I think he answered why he likes science better. It seems Mr. Carter values truth, reliability, and accuracy in his beliefs. If he does then it is no surprise he likes the most "accurate and reliable" method we know of.

I think you need to read the previous columns a little more in depth. If anybody was dodging legitimate challenge it was Mr. Clark. I thought his article was so bad I didn't even respond to it. But since Mr. Carter has brought the issue back up, I couldn't resist.

On

Posted on December 11 at 12:42 a.m.Suggest removal

Nice article and way to get in just one more word edge wise on the faith crowd. Mr. Carter, I think you are probably coming to realize that logic doesn't matter in this discussion. Just look at the emotional attacks leveled against people who try to talk about this issue rationally. I like your thinking but I believe you are up against a deeply emotional belief and a different tool besides logic is needed in order to solve this problem. However, you are dead on in your analysis when you discuss the subjectivity of faith and the lack of sufficient evidence for a belief in gods.

As a side note, I like it when the Daily goes a little more in depth on an issue with some back and forth between columnists instead of just random topics. Maybe we will see some more point/counter-point articles next semester.

On

Posted on November 5 at 1:17 p.m.Suggest removal

I'm always on the look out for chicks "in dire need of a good orgasm". Well said.

On

Posted on October 2 at 10:39 a.m.Suggest removal

Very good article. You brought up some things that people would rather ignore. I just don't think the Obama administration is going to be much better on this issue, but time will tell.

On

Posted on October 1 at 10:03 p.m.Suggest removal

There are so many typos in the first post I am going to repost the last two paragraphs:

Again one does not have to be a “one-man moral Pope” in order to shows logical flaws and fallacies in an argument. I have made no argument for any type of morality. The only thing I have implied is that morality and logic have to be consistent or we are simply talking about opinion.

I urge you grab a dictionary and look up the word hypocrisy. You will notice that there is no loop hole called justification that somehow doesn’t make you a hypocrite. Now, you can argue that somebody’s specific action (like killing a conceived person) is justified, but justification and hypocrisy are two different categories. Somebody could be justified in taking an action but still be a hypocrite. The concept of justification does not interfere with the concept of hypocrisy in any way. So try again with a different rationalization.

On

Posted on October 1 at 3:38 p.m.Suggest removal

I mean are you going to honestly believe that God can possess characteristics of A (being pro-life) and characteristics of not A (not being pro-life) at the same time? Do you realize this state of affairs is logically impossible? Do you believe God has to obey to the rules of logic? For example, can God make square circles? Can God be both good and evil? In essence what you are telling me to believe is that God can be both A and not A at the same time when you say he is pro-life. It doesn’t matter one bit logically if his position on A or not A is justified, it is still logically impossible. The only way justification matters is in your own rationalizations inside your own head, but it has no bearing logically.

I will say it again: the whole problem with your reasoning is you commit a special pleading fallacy when you try to save God from logical problems. Ignore this massive logical error all you want, but that is your problem. How the hell am I supposed to be convinced by you when you are silent on this problem? I am actually open to changing my mind if the evidence and logic is there. That is why I have been using the term rational beings so much throughout my comments. I need not commit a special pleading fallacy in my moral beliefs because certain things apply to all rational beings, where as in your ethical code you relish the special pleading fallacy.

Since you want to play word games substitute the word “sin” for “something you don’t like” and let me know what your answer is to the hypothetical. And please don’t fallaciously misquote me. I said “you don’t like” not God doesn’t like. If it is that hard to understand I will spell it out for you. In the hypothetical you are a god-like figure.

On

Posted on October 1 at 3:35 p.m.Suggest removal

Just so you know assertions can be a two-way street. Asserting things like a creator/creature distinction or I need a biblical case for my position doesn’t make it true. I was making a deconstructive argument in response to Jared Haines which require no assertions. You do realize that by using basic logic you can show a person’s argument false without have to establish positive claims? The only thing I have unconsciously asserted is the basic rules of logic and reason (which I think is assumed in any discussion these days). You are the one who is asserting all these special pleadings and distinctions that must be made, not me.

Again one does not have to be a “one-man moral Pope” in order to shows logical flaws and fallacies in an argument. I have made to argument for any type of morality. The only thing I have implied is that morality and logic have to be consistent or we are simply talking about opinion.

I urge you grab a dictionary and look up the word hypocrisy. You will notice that there is no loop hole called justification that somehow doesn’t make you a hypocrite. Now, you can argue that somebody’s specific action (like called killing a conceived person) is justified, but justification and hypocrisy are two different categories. Somebody could be a justified to act but still be a hypocrite. The concept of justification does not interfere with the concept of hypocrisy in any way. So try again with a different rationalization.

On

Posted on September 30 at 6:37 p.m.Suggest removal

I’m not sure I should waste my time responding because by the things you have said in your comment it is clear you have a warped sense of reality. Why is God justified in killing whoever he feels like? Because he can because passes judgment and says so?

The question was not about justified or not. It was about why an action is wrong. You even admitted that abortion is wrong because it is murdering a baby. Again you make a restrictive application of the concept of murder in order to weasel your way around God’s responsibility. The concept must apply to all rational beings or we are just make special pleading for people that are not humans. Why must your definitions only apply to humans and not other beings that are rational?

“God’s position is this: don’t murder”. You just like many others fail to make the distinction. He judges others who murder yet does not judge himself. This type of god is a HYPOCRITE. He says one thing and does another. How can any rational being be considered to have an attribute (pro-life) when he actively does the opposite of that attribute (“intentionally kills all conceived individuals” to use your own words)? This claim cannot be logically true. One cannot say one thing and yet do another and still be considered to have that attribute.

You need to read my statements and Jared Haines in regards to human experience. He said we cannot judge God’s moral attributes by looking at things in human experience. This statement cannot be true if we are to know anything about God’s nature. Last time a check reading was a common human experience so your comment adds nothing here.

Anyway the main problem with your reasoning is that you comment a special pleading fallacy when talking about God. You are saying that nobody can judge God’s actions because he is above all standards except his own. Funny thing is God fails his on prescribed standards (like don’t murder).

I got a hypothetical for you: Let’s say that you are some all-powerful being and happen to create a race of beings on another planet. You write a book and detail the activity that you don’t like. Are you justified in killing the beings you created just because they did something you didn’t like? Or are you justified in condemning and murdering the entire race because of the actions of a few? If you answer yes to any of the questions than you are an immoral ass.

On

Posted on September 30 at 2:15 p.m.Suggest removal

Oops, I meant to write "because" instead of "unless" in the first post at the beginning of the last paragraph.

On

Posted on September 30 at 1:04 p.m.Suggest removal

At the end you finally get to your real objection: people cannot judge God’s moral attributes by looking at human experience. So if we cannot use our human experiences how are we to discern his will or what he thinks is good? Magic? A sixth sense?

“But the evil in the human experience like miscarriages, according to the God of the Bible, has resulted from human rebellion against God in the Garden of Eden.” So now you say that miscarriage is an evil and God punishes the whole human race for the actions of some retards thousands of years ago. But you seem to be conceding to what Mr. Carter was alluding to. God clearly doesn’t mind the deaths of some conceived individuals. As you are arguing miscarriages are there to prove a point to humanity. So any rational being that has the power to choose whatever actions they want and then chooses to have some people aborted or miscarried cannot be considered pro-life. Or if you want to take the ultra exclusive route you took in your previous definition, then God or any other non-human rational being has to be agnostic on the issue because they are not human and the pro-life position is a strictly human position.

All in all, your assumptions about God and your super exclusive definition of abortion are preventing you from looking at the situation objectively which lead to a seriously flawed argument that needs to be thought through some more.

On