Morality without God?

[JDaniel]

And no, I am not a Scientologist. Come on now

Nep:

I meant no disrespect.

Your answers appear to be very postulative. That is, they seem to imply a certain, um, I hate to use this word, well, here goes, “pomposity”. As though you “create” God and not the other way around.

Can you imagine the world population requiring God to define Himself to everyone, but, then, His answers not being sufficient to EVERYONE, He must then answer each of their newer questions, then those not being sufficient, etc., etc., ad infinitum? Perhaps “arrogance” is the better word.

Again, with all due respect, we all tend to become arrogant at times in our lives. In most cases it’s a forgiveable venial sin. But, not all arrogances and pomposities are venial.

We have considered joining the Society of Friends since theism is not a prerequisite, and it would be nice to have a community of kind, thoughtful individuals just to hang out with – but that’s about as close to religion as you’re likely to find us

Not a bad idea.I will ask God to always include you and your partner in my prayers.

JD

 

[JDaniel]

Alas, back to the unanswered question - why didn’t the first atheist murder the second?

Because God was smart enough to keep them far apart?

JD

 

[warpspeedpetey]

What is the direct argument that I didn’t address?

Leela,

i had considered you an intelligent if ignobly motivated opponent, i respected your ability to use socratic method, to turn the argument back upon your unsuspecting opponent.

that said obviously i am referring to the argument that i quoted in the post you are quoting, that is the argument you failed to address, it is so obvious that i must believe you are being deliberately obtuse to avoid the argument, once again you offer diversion, not persuasion.

i carefully read your posting in the ‘Letter to a Christian Nation’ thread, you did not choose to pose those arguments to me, though i requested them, i am only left to ask why?

as to the arguments themselves, they were only smoke and mirrors, having no grounding in the observable universe, they were simply word games and nothing more, which explains why you chose not to post those arguments to me, the practicalist (made up word as far as i know)

i assert that your posted arguments are spurious and not in accordance with the observable universe, that they are sophist word games and you have no arguments of your own to offer, in the face of the physical universe.

i had considered you an intelligent if ignobly motivated opponent, i respected your ability to use socratic method, to turn the argument back upon your unsuspecting opponent.

however, upon reading, and verifying the statements in post #142 on the ‘Letter to a Christian Nation’ thread, i believe that you are a plagiarist. quote marks are insufficient attribution, you presented those arguments in the implication that they were your own, nor do i believe that this the first time you posted them in this manner. that is a lie by omission, it is considered unethical in any intellectual community. shame on you:blush:

in post #158 of the same thread, you are shown to take both the position that ‘infinities exist’ and the position that ‘infinities dont exist’

do you take a position simply to achieve some intellectual expediancy? do you intend to honestly, and fairly debate the point of contention?

based on the demonstrated disingenuity, i assert that you, in fact, have no such intentions, and as such all your arguments have been spurious and dishonest in nature, you have no desire to find truth through debate, rather you look to fulfill some personal vendetta against Mother Church or organized religion in general.

if you can offer no cogent defense of your actions i will query the community to no longer interact with you based on these behaviors

 

[warpspeedpetey]

leela,

i have further evidence of this same plagiarism at post #54 on the the same thread. that is two instances of outright, undeniable plagiarism from this source.

nytimes.com/2008/01/22/books/22kaku.html

seventh paragraph down from the top.

this is an unacceptable ethical lapse

what do you have to say for yourself?

 

[Fran65]

Knowing whether or not there is a God is not anywhere near the most important thing in my life.

Given the amount of time you spend here ‘discussing’ it, I find that surprising.

 

[Nepenthe]

Ah, JD, I certainly did not intend to come across as ‘pompous’ at all. I know I can sometimes have a somewhat intellectually ‘prissy’ tone, and as I come from an academic family and upbringing, so that ‘declaiming’ style just feels relaxed and natural to me - indeed, I try to be gently self-mocking about it! And as for postulating, well, from my point of view, anytime people begin discussing ideas like ‘God’, we’re already in the realm of the speculative. After all, what can we say that is actually meaningful about a possible, nonspatiotemporal entity?

Speaking of speculating…hm, well, the idea what we are actually in the process of ‘creating’ God in a sort of parallel process with being created by such an entity is a somewhat interesting one, but such thinking was nowhere near my mind during these posts. Perhaps I do come off as arrogant, but please try to be kindly and give me the benefit of the doubt - ‘inquisitive’ and ‘curious’ are really more my style, and if that wasn’t clear, I hope to communicate that better! But I cannot exercise those capacities without treading a few toes now and then, with no ill intent.

 

[Leela]

that said obviously i am referring to the argument that i quoted in the post you are quoting, that is the argument you failed to address, it is so obvious that i must believe you are being deliberately obtuse to avoid the argument, once again you offer diversion, not persuasion.

I still have no idea what you are talking about. Can’t you just tell me?

i carefully read your posting in the ‘Letter to a Christian Nation’ thread, you did not choose to pose those arguments to me, though i requested them, i am only left to ask why?

as to the arguments themselves, they were only smoke and mirrors, having no grounding in the observable universe, they were simply word games and nothing more, which explains why you chose not to post those arguments to me, the practicalist (made up word as far as i know)

I didn’t expect that you would actually engage the arguments I made.

however, upon reading, and verifying the statements in post #142 on the ‘Letter to a Christian Nation’ thread, i believe that you are a plagiarist. quote marks are insufficient attribution, you presented those arguments in the implication that they were your own, nor do i believe that this the first time you posted them in this manner. that is a lie by omission, it is considered unethical in any intellectual community. shame on you:blush:

Unless your name really is warpspeedpetey, they you are guilty of the flip side of plagiarism which is forgery–attributing your work to someone else. Don’t be too concerned, it’s done a lot around here.

I don’t have time to reinvent the wheel. I don’t intend to publish or gain any notoriety for these posts. I just want to discuss the issues on rational terms. If the fact that parts of my posts use words published elsewhere compells you to not engage with the arguments put forth, then please do not engage them.

in post #158 of the same thread, you are shown to take both the position that ‘infinities exist’ and the position that ‘infinities dont exist’

If you read carefully you will see that in post #158 I never said that infinities do not exist. I just chose not to argue that that do because whether or not they exist the First Cause argument is easily refuted.

based on the demonstrated disingenuity, i assert that you, in fact, have no such intentions, and as such all your arguments have been spurious and dishonest in nature, you have no desire to find truth through debate, rather you look to fulfill some personal vendetta against Mother Church or organized religion in general.

I have no personal vendetta against the Catholic Church or any other particular religion.

if you can offer no cogent defense of your actions i will query the community to no longer interact with you based on these behaviors

Please please PLEASE don’t just be saying that. I sincerely hope that you will choose to no longer interact with me so that I won’t have to respond to your posts in the future.

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

Hi Reggie,

Atheistic materialism is a very commonly known philosophical position. It’s not merely the negation of God. It’s the affirmation that only material causes exist.

I don’t subscribe to the philosophy of materialism. I do subscribe to pragmatism and empiricism.

I will start a new thread on this issue.

Your assertion that only natural causes exist (if that is your affirmation) is the philosophy of naturalism. There is nothing “above nature” in your view – thus, you positively affirm that all that exists is natural.

You therefore also believe that thoughts are “natural”. Since science is the study of nature, then do you believe that thoughts can be measured and evaluated through natural science?

As above, you believe that everything that exists is “natural”. What do you mean by the term natural?

By saying that all that exists is natural I don’t mean to define or limit what exists but to define the word “natural.” If something can be said to exist I would call it natural. But if what you mean by natural is physical, then the unnatural certainly exists.

Best,
Leela

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I still have no idea what you are talking about. Can’t you just tell me?
warpspeedpetey;4411432:

i carefully read your posting in the ‘Letter to a Christian Nation’ thread, you did not choose to pose those arguments to me, though i requested them, i am only left to ask why?

1. once again you feign ignorance, i simply no longer believe you. its always convenient for you when you claim to be confused. so in reply, no , i will not tell you again, you can read the same posts that i can.
2. you made no arguments, you plagiarized others in an attempted to refute 1holycatholic, cranster, and fran65.
3. they also argued differently than i would. i smell blood in the water, i asked the for the same discussion and didn’t receive a reply, therefore i assert that you are scared to debate me on this issue, because you know i won’t tolerate your sophist arguments, i won’t argue on your terms.
4. as to me being guilty of forgery, because i work under the moniker of ‘warpspeedpetey’. i can only say that i will not let you distract the community from you actions with throwing blame around, your assertion is ridiculous on its face, more disenginuity
   more dishonesty.
5. you may not have time to reinvent the wheel, that does not excuse plagiarism, you had time to attribute the work to the correct person, and not to yourself, this is the absolute heart of intellectual dishonesty. Academics are blacklisted for this same behavior.
6. as to post 158, 1holycatholic shows different evidence, you no longer have any credibility, you admit to plagiarism. show proof
7. you assert no personal vendetta but your actions speak much louder than your words.
8. therefore based on the demonstrated disingenuity, i assert that you, in fact, have no such intentions, and as such all your arguments have been spurious and dishonest in nature, you have no desire to find truth through debate, rather you look to fulfill some personal vendetta against Mother Church or organized religion in general.
9. you have admitted to multiple instances of plagiarism, you do not make serious arguments, you steal them, that is unethical, as a moral realist, i think, you cannot claim you didn’t know it was wrong. this time ignorance is no defense.
10. i am not saying that i will not interact with you, i said i will ask the community to not interact with you, i will ask them to ‘run you out of here on a rail’ you are influencing others, with your dishonest scholarship.
11. this issue will not go away

 

[reggieM]

I don’t subscribe to the philosophy of materialism. I do subscribe to pragmatism and empiricism.

I will start a new thread on this issue.

Thanks, Leela – that will be interesting.

By saying that all that exists is natural I don’t mean to define or limit what exists but to define the word “natural.” If something can be said to exist I would call it natural. But if what you mean by natural is physical, then the unnatural certainly exists.

Ok, either way we have “all that exists” which is either natural only or natural and unnatural.

You’ve asserted that “thoughts exist” and I find that very interesting also.

Thoughts are invisible. They have no shape or size or other dimensions like weight, height. They cannot be sensed by smell, touch or physical hearing. The “effects” of thoughts can be seen, but not the thoughts themselves.

What evidence do you have that convinces you that thoughts exist?

 

[JDaniel]

Ah, JD, I certainly did not intend to come across as ‘pompous’ at all. I know I can sometimes have a somewhat intellectually ‘prissy’ tone, and as I come from an academic family and upbringing, so that ‘declaiming’ style just feels relaxed and natural to me - indeed, I try to be gently self-mocking about it!

Oh goodness, Nep, I said that wrong! I didn’t mean to imply that YOU were pompous.

Statements can can possess essences, of a sort, as well. I meant that the MADE statement bordered (or, went beyond the border of) on pomposity. I didn’t mean that the statement MAKER was pompous, although it might appear that way to some.

And as for postulating, well, from my point of view, anytime people begin discussing ideas like ‘God’, we’re already in the realm of the speculative. After all, what can we say that is actually meaningful about a possible, nonspatiotemporal entity?

But, then, that leaves us back with the ultimate atheist argument: I can’t possibly know - therefore - you can’t possibly know. But, I know this to be an incorrect conclusion. I CAN know, from a preponderance of evidence from the universe plus a full understanding of all of the “terms” of the Thomistic arguments, plus Faith. This is a triad. Separated, they may not stand, notice I said"may" not stand. But, together, they are invincible.

The epistemic argument might be a little problematic as it seems to require thinking humans apriori to God who is apriori to us. So, we’ll leave this alone, for now.

Speaking of speculating…hm, well, the idea what we are actually in the process of ‘creating’ God in a sort of parallel process with being created by such an entity is a somewhat interesting one, but such thinking was nowhere near my mind during these posts.

To me, "speculating is: building a house without a house-plan, or, dabbling in the gold, or stock, markets, or speculating with a friend as to whether or not a particular girl might like me. Thinking of God, is not speculating. There is nothing in nature from which we could extract an “idea” of God. (I know the contra-arguments, but, they are no more than uncategorical assertions. You refute uncategorical assertions with uncategorical denials. Both have zero weight.) And, we know that all of our knowledge and computations concerning nature and the universe come directly from our observations of nature and the universe.

Further, the I can’t possibly know - therefore - you can’t possibly know argument is specious. We have all of the tools we need and a universe we can observe. We can know with the scientific precision of the methodology for asserting the “big bang”.

Perhaps I do come off as arrogant, but please try to be kindly and give me the benefit of the doubt - ‘inquisitive’ and ‘curious’ are really more my style, and if that wasn’t clear, I hope to communicate that better!

No worries, mate! As i said, the communication error was on MY part.

But I cannot exercise those capacities without treading a few toes now and then, with no ill intent.

Well, my toes are just fine

Respectfully,
JD

 

[Leela]

What evidence do you have that convinces you that thoughts exist?

Thoughts and values are as empirically verified as the evidence for rocks and trees. Perhaps more so. What is more directly experienced?

Best,
Leela

 

[JDaniel]

Leela;4412082:

I still have no idea what you are talking about. Can’t you just tell me?

1. once again you feign ignorance, i simply no longer believe you. its always convenient for you when you claim to be confused. so in reply, no , i will not tell you again, you can read the same posts that i can.
2. you made no arguments, you plagiarized others in an attempted to refute 1holycatholic, cranster, and fran65.
3. they also argued differently than i would. i smell blood in the water, i asked the for the same discussion and didn’t receive a reply, therefore i assert that you are scared to debate me on this issue, because you know i won’t tolerate your sophist arguments, i won’t argue on your terms.
4. as to me being guilty of forgery, because i work under the moniker of ‘warpspeedpetey’. i can only say that i will not let you distract the community from you actions with throwing blame around, your assertion is ridiculous on its face, more disenginuity
   more dishonesty.
5. you may not have time to reinvent the wheel, that does not excuse plagiarism, you had time to attribute the work to the correct person, and not to yourself, this is the absolute heart of intellectual dishonesty. Academics are blacklisted for this same behavior.
6. as to post 158, 1holycatholic shows different evidence, you no longer have any credibility, you admit to plagiarism. show proof
7. you assert no personal vendetta but your actions speak much louder than your words.
8. therefore based on the demonstrated disingenuity, i assert that you, in fact, have no such intentions, and as such all your arguments have been spurious and dishonest in nature, you have no desire to find truth through debate, rather you look to fulfill some personal vendetta against Mother Church or organized religion in general.
9. you have admitted to multiple instances of plagiarism, you do not make serious arguments, you steal them, that is unethical, as a moral realist, i think, you cannot claim you didn’t know it was wrong. this time ignorance is no defense.
10. i am not saying that i will not interact with you, i said i will ask the community to not interact with you, i will ask them to ‘run you out of here on a rail’ you are influencing others, with your dishonest scholarship.
11. this issue will not go away

warp:

I have many times thought about this. I have wondered why Leela posits certain arguments but then is unable to defend them - except, occasionally with assertions and/or feigned misunderstanding. The plagiarized argument, to which you refer, is one of these.

The plagiarized argument is easily refutable, but, due to it being plagiarized, there is no one left to refute it to. The response from Leela is to add muddyness and confusion.

Leela has so much as said that she is on this forum to “help her with her personal journey” (paraphrased). To where? There are no tracks from her that can be demonstrated to be any part of a personal journey towards finding the Lord.

I believe her personal distaste for religion (Catholicism in particular) betrays her agenda. She has brought (and wants to bring more) war (as in “God Wars”) to the CAF. If this was not her agenda, she would have posed charitably arranged questions, not, this continuous rift of snide comments broken by moments of, “I’m so sorry, I didn’t understand”.

As far as the plagiarism charge, is it improper, on this fora, to plagiarize? I don’t remember how the FAQ’s address something like this.

Respectfully,

JD

 

[Fran65]

As you assert that thoughts, values and by implication, conscious experience are empirically verified, then I have empirical evidence of the existence of God.

I experience God and His love, compassion and wisdom. Absoutely no doubt.

Thank you for finally accepting evidence of the existence of God.

God bless you.

 

[Leela]

As you assert that thoughts, values and by implication, conscious experience are empirically verified, then I have empirical evidence of the existence of God.

I experience God and His love, compassion and wisdom. Absoutely no doubt.

Thank you for finally accepting evidence of the existence of God.

God bless you.

Hi Fran,

Absolutely. I would never claim that you have or don’t have an experience. Only you are in a position to judge that for yourself. If you personally experience God, then you should certainly believe in God. But I can’t accept YOUR claim of experience on its face as evidence to justify MY belief.

(Then there is the issue of all the other claims about reality that go along with Catholicism that I assume you haven’t empiricaly verified…)

Best,
Leela

 

[buffalo]

Hi Fran,

Absolutely. I would never claim that you have or don’t have an experience. Only you are in a position to judge that for yourself. If you personally experience God, then you should certainly believe in God. But I can’t accept YOUR claim of experience on its face as evidence to justify MY belief.

(Then there is the issue of all the other claims about reality that go along with Catholicism that I assume you haven’t empiricaly verified…)

Best,
Leela

A blind man cannot see light. Should he not believe me when I try to convey how I expereince light? He should obstinately doubt me?

 

[Fran65]

(Then there is the issue of all the other claims about reality that go along with Catholicism that I assume you haven’t empiricaly verified…)

Aha.

I know what works, I have seen the consequences and experienced them through the sacraments.

My experience. Clearly not yours.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

warpspeedpetey;4412317:

warp:

I have many times thought about this. I have wondered why Leela posits certain arguments but then is unable to defend them - except, occasionally with assertions and/or feigned misunderstanding. The plagiarized argument, to which you refer, is one of these.

The plagiarized argument is easily refutable, but, due to it being plagiarized, there is no one left to refute it to. The response from Leela is to add muddyness and confusion.

Leela has so much as said that she is on this forum to “help her with her personal journey” (paraphrased). To where? There are no tracks from her that can be demonstrated to be any part of a personal journey towards finding the Lord.

I believe her personal distaste for religion (Catholicism in particular) betrays her agenda. She has brought (and wants to bring more) war

(as in “God Wars”) to the CAF. If this was not her agenda, she would have posed charitably arranged questions, not, this continuous rift of snide comments broken by moments of, “I’m so sorry, I didn’t understand”.

As far as the plagiarism charge, is it improper, on this fora, to plagiarize? I don’t remember how the FAQ’s address something like this.

Respectfully,

JD

well in academia this behavior generally invokes denial, or forfeiture of tenure. let us find out how one is to deal with dishonesty in this forum

if there are no official sanctions i am sure that we can develop the popular support to have her shunned as the amish do.

i will find out first.