Go Back   AFA Forums > Religion, Unreason and Similar Tropes > Belief Central

Belief Central A place for the discussion of belief or a colony for repeated logical fallacies or misrepresentations.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1201  
Old Yesterday, 08:18 AM
Loki's Avatar
Loki Loki is offline
I've calculated your chance of survival, but I don't think you'll like it.
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Up the creek
Posts: 10,615
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

__________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."Philip K. Dick

Reply With Quote
  #1202  
Old Yesterday, 08:29 AM
Loki's Avatar
Loki Loki is offline
I've calculated your chance of survival, but I don't think you'll like it.
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Up the creek
Posts: 10,615
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Waiting for ptutt to enlighten us on the function of pain and how it can achieve that function if somehow it occurs in an animal yet that animal if blissfully unaware it is happening.


And yes, I feel completely justified in discounting Kalamity Craig, the person who argued that the real victims in the Canaanite massacre were the poor soldiers who just had to slaughter all those innocent children, amongst many other stupidities. If you want to be taken seriously I'd suggest you actually consider the things your hero's say.

Quote:
Kalamity Craig said
So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgment. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalising effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing.
__________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."Philip K. Dick

Reply With Quote
  #1203  
Old Yesterday, 08:40 AM
Spearthrower's Avatar
Spearthrower Spearthrower is offline
Thrower of spears.
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร
Posts: 4,072
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
ptutt said View Post
Whether it is right or wrong doesn't really come into it. I don't think I would be capable passively allowing my child to suffer and die.
Whether it's right or wrong doesn't come into it? That's a moral judgment. I assume you've got a Biblical source for that moral judgment?


Quote:
ptutt said View Post
Emotions aside. Your question assumes that ones actions can change a known future. That would indicate that there may be a number of solutions available to achieve a more desirable outcome...improved parenting!, counselling, psychiatry, medication, restraint...
Of course it employs the impossible - but so does most of what you're arguing - the objective isn't to discuss what's plausible but to play the what if scenario, the one you've tried to apply before.

But you haven't responded to the what if - just refused the question on technical grounds.


Quote:
ptutt said View Post
Have you seen the movie "The Last Supper"? (It's not a religious movie by the way)
You can assume the answer is no any time you ask 'have you seen the movie ____?". I don't watch TV.


Quote:
ptutt said View Post
To me, there is something that is wrong with preempting a distant event. It's a bit like going to war with Iraq because they "possessed WMD's" (well supposedly anyway)...I'm still outraged and ashamed of that war.

A few years before that war, I was coincidentally asked by someone what would I do if I was the leader of a country and had intelligence of an imminent attack? Would I authorise a preemptive strike to protect/defend my people? I didn't have an answer.

On a smaller scale, I could see that in a hostage situation a police officer could be morally right to take the life of the perpetrator to protect the lives of the innocent...but it depends on the level of threat and the options available to the officer.

So, I think to answer the question, I believe it would be morally right to take the action to cause the least harm and protect the lives of the innocent and that preemptive measures should only be used when outcomes are certain.
Great, you answered. However, the very fact that you've found equivalence, found situational reasoning, found a perspective other than the initial simple idea shows that you also engage in moral relativism.

See, I don't think that most people even get what moral relativism means, but you've now made several statements that are intrinsically relative, not unarbitrarily defined. Any time you have such a scenario, it shows you that the Bible cannot be your source for your moral output. You're not relying on scripture to guide you, there is no scripture that says 'do 1 unless A then do 2 instead, or if B then either 3 or 4 is acceptable but never 5 unless C.

Morality isn't so simple - the world is not so simple, human interactions are not so simple. Good morality arises from engaging in complexity, acknowledging multiple frames of reference, and striving to see the whole picture - decrees and diktats can never be moral even if, for nothing else, they cannot be complete - they cannot have every single possible solution nor provide a coherent guiding principle. Sometimes even the worst possible crimes can be morally justified or justifiable according to a situation and binary morality handed down from our ancient forebears does not possess the compass, the map, or any sense of the terrain to guide you through that. That's your job as a human being.


Quote:
ptutt said View Post
So if it was certain that my child was going to torture and kill billions and taking their life was the only option to avoid such an outcome, I could see it as morally right to take their life but I would be incapable of doing so. In such a situation, I would not see this as murder, it would be similar to the police officer/hostage situation.
Of course it would be murder. Intentionally taking another person's life is murder. It might be legally justified, and we might then put another term on it rather than the emotive one, but only heartless bastards, psychopaths or the emotionally fatigued pull a trigger to kill someone and don't dwell on that moment for the rest of their lives. They don't need a book or a dictionary definition to know what happened and what it means, regardless of its capacity to be justified.
__________________
Religion = Monomania + Mass Stockholm Syndrome
Fuck you 2016!
Reply With Quote
  #1204  
Old Yesterday, 10:50 AM
Stubby's Avatar
Stubby Stubby is online now
Omu'sata
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 1,937
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
ptutt said View Post
Read the link then submit your objections.
Sound advice. How about you practice what you preach?
__________________
"Send me money, send me green, heaven you will meet. Make your contribution and you'll get a better seat" - Metallica, Leper Messiah
Reply With Quote
  #1205  
Old Yesterday, 11:55 AM
Darwinsbulldog's Avatar
Darwinsbulldog Darwinsbulldog is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Perth
Posts: 17,041
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
ptutt said View Post
I have stated all along that it is moral values that are objective ("...It explains why moral values are objective..."). Moral values being that which is considered to be good in a moral sense (such as kindness, love, generosity, patience, empathy). But you are linking moral actions to subjectivity, not moral values.

Now, I am aware a number of you disagree with this view and I would like to explore it further before I continue down that track.

What is it with you and kicking puppies in the head?

I did state that I heard of a study that suggested that animals may not be aware that they are in pain. I was incorrect, it was not a study. It was a philosophical argument to defend the problem of evil specifically in relation to animals. The problem of evil suggests that an all powerful/all loving God would prevent suffering (humans and animals). So the burden of proof is with the proponent of the argument to show that animals have awareness that they are in pain (not just that they have pain...but they are aware that they are in pain), because it requires awareness of pain to be considered suffering. According to the view presented the jury is still out on that.

You can view more details here:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/animal-pain-re-visited
William Lane Craig is a deluded fucking idiot. He knows nothing of biology or science in general. He has fucking theology degrees, which is probably why he is so abysmally piss-poor at any topic that includes science, reason, and evidence.

People read a fucking book of fiction which "informs" them that insects have four legs and then they go on to pontificate about shit they know nothing about, and even less how such information is obtained. He understands pain fucking less than an average ten-year-old, has no clue about mathematics, the power of evolution to produce form and function without mind. So of course he think a divine mind is necessary to see the phenomena he dimly sees and has no hope of understanding.

Shit this is like some kid reading a book on Harry Potter as the manual/instructions to build a space shuttle. A knowledge of magical broomsticks will not help him to understand the biology of pain.

The arrogance of such vacuous minds is breathtaking, and illustrates the power of religion to turn a human brain, one of the most advanced biological computers in the known universe into something with the intellectual capacity of mashed potato.
HTH.
__________________
Just stick to the idea that science tests falsifyable hypotheses to destruction.
Reply With Quote
Like Stubby, Sendraks, hackenslash liked this post
  #1206  
Old Yesterday, 12:22 PM
stevebrooks stevebrooks is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,374
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
ptutt said View Post
Most would recognise that when using the word animal it can exclude humans.
Assertion without evidence, I suggest most wouldn't, humans are animals, all you are doing now is trying to avoid admitting that you screwed up. You need to present evidence that most people don't think humans are animals or retract he claim. You made the clam, you have the onus of providing evidence now you have been challenged. recognise that one? you used it (incorrectly I might add) yourself a few posts back!

Quote:
Think animal rights as opposed to human rights for example.
Ask PETA about that one.

Quote:
Whilst I acknowledge humans are animals it was not my intent on using the word.
So you admit humans are animals because it would sound stupid not to, but you don't agree humans are animal because you don't want to use that word. What exactly is the problem here? Humans are animals, a type of ape actually, see I have no problem with that.

Quote:
If you read the link you would see it is talking specifically about animals lacking prefrontal cortex or more generally the ability of an animal to be conscious of pain...or feel pain which is different from being in pain. Read the link then submit your objections.
Most higher animals do in fact have pre-frontal cortex;

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...thing-special/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prefrontal_cortex

Quote:
In mammalian brain anatomy, the prefrontal cortex (PFC) is the cerebral cortex which covers the front part of the frontal lobe.
Note mammalian brain, not human brain.

So, where to from here? You need more biology lessons or just lessons on how to recognise bullshit?


Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]
__________________
From the mouth of a seven year old: "When you're you're dead, you don't go anywhere!"
Reply With Quote
  #1207  
Old Yesterday, 06:08 PM
yowie's Avatar
yowie yowie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Dun Manifestin
Posts: 193
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
stevebrooks said View Post
snip
... how to recognise bullshit?
http://callingbullshit.org/

Quote:
It's time to do something, and as educators, one constructive thing we know how to do is to teach people. So, the aim of this course is to help students navigate the bullshit-rich modern environment by identifying bullshit, seeing through it, and combating it with effective analysis and argument.
__________________
.....
Every class has a clown ... Carpe Jugulum
Reply With Quote
Like DanDare, Blue Lightning liked this post
Thank Blue Lightning thanked this post
  #1208  
Old Yesterday, 07:56 PM
DanDare's Avatar
DanDare DanDare is offline
Religion or Reality, choose...
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 7,126
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
Loki said View Post
Not only that but the brain cells are the same structure across all species. Neurons with axons and synapses. Glia and micro glia. etc etc. The behaviour and method of connecting while developing and learning is the same (which is why those animals can be trained).
__________________
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government".
-Thomas Jefferson

Burden of proof is the obligation on somebody presenting a claim to provide evidence to support its truth (a warrant). Once evidence has been presented, it is up to any opposing "side" to show the evidence presented is not adequate. If claims were accepted without warrants, then every claim could simultaneously be claimed to be true.

History isn't written by the victors. It's written by the people with the time machines.
Reply With Quote
Like Stubby, Sendraks liked this post
  #1209  
Old Yesterday, 08:23 PM
DanDare's Avatar
DanDare DanDare is offline
Religion or Reality, choose...
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 7,126
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Thanks for the link Yowie. Passing it around my network.
__________________
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government".
-Thomas Jefferson

Burden of proof is the obligation on somebody presenting a claim to provide evidence to support its truth (a warrant). Once evidence has been presented, it is up to any opposing "side" to show the evidence presented is not adequate. If claims were accepted without warrants, then every claim could simultaneously be claimed to be true.

History isn't written by the victors. It's written by the people with the time machines.
Reply With Quote
Like yowie liked this post
  #1210  
Old Yesterday, 08:39 PM
Darwinsbulldog's Avatar
Darwinsbulldog Darwinsbulldog is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Perth
Posts: 17,041
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
DanDare said View Post
Not only that but the brain cells are the same structure across all species. Neurons with axons and synapses. Glia and micro glia. etc etc. The behaviour and method of connecting while developing and learning is the same (which is why those animals can be trained).
Not only that, but many animals with smaller sized brains actually have greater densities of neurons and interconnections than some animals with very large brains. That is why some birds, such as corvids, parrots etc are very intelligent. In such birds intelligence was favoured by selection, but also had to work under the constraint of small brain mass because of flight requirements. The result was a great brain packed into a very small volume.

...and the literature states that crows etc have not only got excellent cognitive skills, but almost certainly a theory of mind, all packed into one neat little package!
__________________
Just stick to the idea that science tests falsifyable hypotheses to destruction.
Reply With Quote
Like DanDare, yowie, Blue Lightning, Stubby liked this post
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +11. The time now is 01:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.