tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post5741731433475970972..comments2024-03-04T05:55:35.225-05:00Comments on Vital Remnants: Wrong Answer: Is this more Darwinist hyperbole?Martin Cothranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comBlogger23125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-31966601323317333082008-05-09T09:37:00.000-04:002008-05-09T09:37:00.000-04:00Anonymous,I answered your first question on my pos...Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>I answered your first question on my post today. I'll try to answer the other this weekend.Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-41131513074434897732008-05-08T14:19:00.000-04:002008-05-08T14:19:00.000-04:00A couple questions, Martin:1) You say that there a...A couple questions, Martin:<BR/><BR/>1) You say that there are good arguments for theism, and you list those who you think made good arguments. For the sake of those of us who haven't read these people, why don't you give us what you see as the strongest argument for theism.<BR/><BR/>2) I see you saying that if there is no transcendent morality, there is no morality at all. This is a conditional Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-80372824033955377562008-05-07T22:21:00.000-04:002008-05-07T22:21:00.000-04:00> The exception being when I represented your ques...> The exception being when I represented your questions regarding my reasons for morality and action as an argument for the existence of God - which is what I had honestly interpreted your underlying intention to be. <BR/> <BR/>Absolutely not a problem, frame. That was indeed where I was heading -- I just hadn't gotten to the point where I had actually put forth an argument, at least I thought Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-48407135981221279852008-05-07T22:10:00.000-04:002008-05-07T22:10:00.000-04:00Frame,You wrote, "Firstly, it's not about people d...Frame,<BR/><BR/>You wrote, "Firstly, it's not about people disagreeing with me that leads me to cast stones. It's people stubbornly holding beliefs without good reason and nevertheless demanding respect for their unsubstantiated beliefs and whining about persecution when they don't get this undeserved intellectual respect."<BR/><BR/>Well, now I think at least we're getting to the heart of the Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-54912772333423664052008-05-07T15:33:00.000-04:002008-05-07T15:33:00.000-04:00Correction: I meant to say in the first paragraph ...Correction: I meant to say in the first paragraph that I admit that there is no evidence for an objective undeniable moral standard.<BR/><BR/>Lee: As I mentioned in a comment in another thread, I have decided to no longer comment in this blog because the host has shown a systematic lack of integrity and honesty. He has continued to misrepresent my positions, to ignore my arguments which refute Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-21211264550465529512008-05-07T15:19:00.000-04:002008-05-07T15:19:00.000-04:00Martin:I can't believe I have to explain this agai...Martin:<BR/><BR/>I can't believe I have to explain this again - and this, by the way - will be my very last post on your dishonestly run blog. I admit there is no evidence for an objective morality quite clearly. I admit that there is objective undeniable standard which one can refer to and say "you shouldn't do X because". I admit all of this.<BR/><BR/>In my position, I explain why humans Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-58303322270034468682008-05-07T12:12:00.000-04:002008-05-07T12:12:00.000-04:00Frame,You start your last post admitting that no o...Frame,<BR/><BR/>You start your last post admitting that no objective or absolute universal standards of morality exist and then you end it appealing to universal moral standards. Lee keeps asking you how you can justify doing it and your only response is to keep doing it.<BR/><BR/>This is just the kind of reasoning that Nietzsche, a consistent atheist, despised, and he despised it precisely Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-20650613012697040862008-05-07T10:13:00.000-04:002008-05-07T10:13:00.000-04:00Lee:Firstly, it's not about people disagreeing wit...Lee:<BR/><BR/>Firstly, it's not about people disagreeing with me that leads me to cast stones. It's people stubbornly holding beliefs without good reason and nevertheless demanding respect for their unsubstantiated beliefs and whining about persecution when they don't get this undeserved intellectual respect.<BR/><BR/>Next, statements like the "fall to the reasoning of a 5 year old" and "lowest Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-86074571345496454432008-05-06T23:59:00.000-04:002008-05-06T23:59:00.000-04:00Motheral,Any argument is a rational case. You may ...Motheral,<BR/><BR/>Any argument is a rational case. You may question whether the logic is valid or the premises are true, but is "rational" in the broad sense nonetheless. It is a rational claim. Any of the classical arguments for the existence of God would fit in that category. <BR/><BR/>I was simply trying to clarify what frame's claim was. <BR/><BR/>You also asserted that "Not all Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-69598849975111598762008-05-06T19:10:00.000-04:002008-05-06T19:10:00.000-04:00Yes, frame, I agree that truth claims are differen...Yes, frame, I agree that truth claims are different than morality. But you do more than claim truth, or so I judge. You cannot seem to resist casting stones of opprobrium at someone when they disagree with you. Assuming that what I am detecting is real, that can only come from someone who feels as if he is grabbing the high moral ground. A computer can tell you it's right or wrong, and that'sLeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-66966263450200651032008-05-06T18:50:00.000-04:002008-05-06T18:50:00.000-04:00Brief addition:Regarding my comments on safety and...Brief addition:<BR/><BR/>Regarding my comments on safety and stability:<BR/><BR/>* When I said safety and stability for ourselves and others, the others I was referring to is not simply *everybody equally*. We surely care more about some people than others. This desire can be based on selfishness (wanting ourselves and those who are in our lives to be safe for our own sakes) and based on empathy Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-13868309596271130112008-05-06T18:29:00.000-04:002008-05-06T18:29:00.000-04:00Lee:Firstly, morality is separate from truth claim...Lee:<BR/><BR/>Firstly, morality is separate from truth claims. Whether or not there is an objective morality, and whether or not I can give you a compelling reason to be moral as I or anyone else would conceive of it, either you present rational evidentially-based arguments for your belief or you don't. My construal of rationality, by the way, is to have beliefs and confidence in one's beliefs Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-85229806718935068652008-05-06T16:47:00.000-04:002008-05-06T16:47:00.000-04:00Frame, before saying I am arguing from ignorance o...Frame, before saying I am arguing from ignorance or from convenience, it might help if you wait until I have made an argument. So far, I have been trying to get your views on the nature of morality. <BR/><BR/>Because, you see, if ultimately you do not believe there is a transcendant morality, then it follows that some of your statements should not pack quite the punch you may have intended.<BR/Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-46493377439259017022008-05-06T16:21:00.000-04:002008-05-06T16:21:00.000-04:00Lee:Your points about the apparent need for a tran...Lee:<BR/><BR/>Your points about the apparent need for a transcendent morality is what I have termed an "argument from convenience", and it really does not work. I call it an argument from convenience because it is basically arguing for God on the grounds that it would be convenient if not necessary for humans to have a morality greater than them in the interest of a stable society and one in Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-10321664864688428422008-05-06T14:41:00.000-04:002008-05-06T14:41:00.000-04:00Sorry, I garbled this:> "When the "evolved" morali...Sorry, I garbled this:<BR/><BR/>> "When the "evolved" morality, which does not transcend humans, it, like humans, is merely a product of pointless particle collisions."<BR/><BR/>Amend to: If morality "evolved" like humans, then it does not transcend humans, as it too is merely a product of pointless particle collisions.<BR/><BR/>That's not the only syntactical/grammatical error I made, it's justLeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-20264315051996622162008-05-06T14:35:00.000-04:002008-05-06T14:35:00.000-04:00Frankly, frame, I don't understand what all that t...Frankly, frame, I don't understand what all that talk of natives and demon had to do with the questions I asked. I asked if believe in moral standards, and if so where they come from, and if not, why behave as if there are any?<BR/><BR/>And the question goes further than explaining how morality could have "evolved". That's fine, I get it. The real question is, why does such a morality hold anyLeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-49363054407747248812008-05-06T11:05:00.000-04:002008-05-06T11:05:00.000-04:00Lee:I will also add that one does not need a God t...Lee:<BR/><BR/>I will also add that one does not need a God to tell them what is right and wrong in order for one to perceive certain things as being right or wrong, to be strongly motivated to defend their morality, to be disgusted by transgressions, and for there to be overlap among people with regard to moral sensibilities.<BR/><BR/>Few of us want to be hurt, want to be lied to, want to be Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-16853215353722143402008-05-06T10:53:00.000-04:002008-05-06T10:53:00.000-04:00First, thanks to Motheral for understanding my mes...First, thanks to Motheral for understanding my message as intended.<BR/><BR/>I'll respond first to Lee:<BR/><BR/>Your argument is an argument from ignorance. You're hoping that I will not be able to provide definitive answers to your questions, and therefore you have successfully argued for God. In order to allow to understand what it is like for me to read what you just wrote, allow me to make aAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-29588756417486864882008-05-06T07:06:00.000-04:002008-05-06T07:06:00.000-04:00Same questions to you, motheral. Do you believe i...Same questions to you, motheral. Do you believe in a moral code that transcends humanity? If so, how did it become transcendent when it, like man himself, is the product of random particle collisions with no meaning and purpose?<BR/><BR/>If you don't, if morality is a mere conceit, then why the tone of moral indignation? There would be no such thing as an objective right and wrong. There are Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-73324374444164394462008-05-06T00:00:00.000-04:002008-05-06T00:00:00.000-04:00Does he mean that in the last couple of thousands ...<I>Does he mean that in the last couple of thousands of years, there has never been a rational case made for religious belief? That, of course, is a historical claim that is demonstrably false.</I><BR/><BR/>Really? So why don't you demonstrate it already? What specific arguments are you referring to?<BR/><BR/><I>There have been plenty of arguments made for religious belief, and arguments, in Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-26448482535920863362008-05-05T11:06:00.000-04:002008-05-05T11:06:00.000-04:00Well, the first thing to note is that you have bac...Well, the first thing to note is that you have backtracked from your original assertion. You said before that a religion "cannot be defended rationally". That is a very different thing than saying that argument is not "good" (although I'm still not clear on what you mean by "good" in the context of argument). It is also different from saying that it defenses of a religion fall into pits.<BR/>Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-40040814628599226452008-05-05T10:57:00.000-04:002008-05-05T10:57:00.000-04:00Mr. Frame: A simple question. Do you have moral ...Mr. Frame: A simple question. Do you have moral standards? Apparently you do, because you pass moral judgments -- "sensible person", "intellectually vacuous". I'm presuming of course that you believe there is something morally objectionable to not being a sensible person, or being someone who is intellectually vacuous. If the presumption is wrong, please enlighten me.<BR/><BR/>But if you do Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-48471147710669936442008-05-05T01:40:00.000-04:002008-05-05T01:40:00.000-04:00My stance: A good argument for theism has NEVER be...My stance: A good argument for theism has NEVER been made. In all of these thousands of years it's been nothing but weak fall-at-the-reasoning-of-a-five-year-old argumentation that would leave any sensible person remarkably unsatisfied in any domain other than religion - a branch of consideration that our society has marked off as "special", not because there is a good reason to think it is, but Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com