This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Objective Morality

#131black spiderPosted 5/24/2013 10:12:35 PM(edited)
Julian_Caesar posted...
From: black spider | #129
Seriously, we're 120 posts into this topic. It's high time you also offered your own position, instead of constantly hounding everybody else for what they think.


If you don't understand OW's purpose in making this topic (as suggested by asking him for "his position" and implying that he has demanded anyone else's "position" on the subject of God), then you need to go back and read the original responses and OW/kozlo's explanations.

CliffNotes would tell you that this topic was not about a specific belief of anyone, but rather this board's alarming tendency to ignore/deny/refuse logically correct statements simply because the statements invoke a particular emotional/personal response. Like the association of God/goodness/baby-killing.

The particulars are there for the reading.

Are you sure you're not mixing up two different topics? OW didn't make this topic and it's not about God, goodness or baby-killing. And in the other topic that OW did make, I haven't really challenged him to offer his position.

So all in all, I'd appreciate some clarification.

Edit: And why are you quoting something I said specifically to Dathrowed1 and then replying exclusively about OW?
---
You want to try your hand at proving why genocide is inherently bad? - OrangeWizard
#132Dathrowed1Posted 5/25/2013 6:55:15 AM(edited)
black spider posted...
Why? They seem quite arbitrary to me. They don't seem arbitrary to you?

And just to keep things clear, it's not really Gohan's laws but rather Gohan's interpretation of God's laws.


If they seemed arbitrary to me I would be with you and Jon arguing against OW, but instead I asked before I made a position. I looked in the bible and only two laws he mentioned are actually there and not an interpretation, the other's I don't know where he got from. So thanks for actually bringing that up. The scenario changes from:

H_G says that H_G's laws are arbitrary
to
H_G says that H_G's laws and God's laws are arbitrary

I will still ask why, but thanks to you he is now in a more difficult position. Also if you want you can correct me that since I have no idea where "H_G's laws" come from, but that puts him in an even more difficult position.

Where did I ever say that you've said you were going to do it? That's why I asked what you'd do in the purely hypothetical situation that you'd decide to have a go at it.

So in the hypothetical situation where you were going to make a case for why some of God's less sensible laws are in fact not arbitrary, what exactly would you go with?

The bold part is apart of a question, but not a question itself. Here is where you said I were doing that. Once again since you said God's laws are "less sensible" it the burden of proof lies on you.

If either meaning apply then the law is arbitrary. If the law has no purpose then what guides it? Lawgiver's discretion? That's essentially the first meaning of arbitrary. Therefore the use of arbitrary as a description of the law is valid. Therefore the law is arbitrary. QED.

And the point is, in my scenario I am asking the lawgiver why it's arbitrary. The lawgiver has not yet said it was because of his discretion in anyway. In your scenario, you just jumped to conclusions without the lawgiver's reasons. You put your own biases to fill in the gaps of evidence and assumed it was arbitrary by definition. You then reversed the burden of proof. The problem here is that you are the only audience member worth convincing. Your scenario goes like this

Black Spider demonstrates to Black Spider that God's laws are arbitrary
Now God has to prove to Black Spider that God's laws aren't arbitrary

Why are you the only audience member worth convincing?

Come on, man. Stop squirming already and offer a position, please. :-)

I am trying to gain a position, that's why I asked. It's not my fault you've asserted a position; in fact I invited you to not do that.

That would be #86 and #87.

We went over this, you didn't do that there.
---
sig
#133C_MatPosted 5/25/2013 9:47:14 AM
So JonWood007 makes a claim and just expects it to be true unless someone else can disprove it. (Isn't this what atheists accuse Christians of all the time?) And when you ask him to prove his claim, he ignores it and lashes out that your side isn't any better? And then when you point out that you haven't taken a side, you're just asking him to provide evidence of his stance, he ignores it and continues to say he's right. And then says that if he's not right, nobody else is either. Do I have all this correct?
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#134black spiderPosted 5/25/2013 10:36:36 AM
Dathrowed1, this conversation can continue in one of two ways. Either you stop pretending to be illiterate and answer me honestly, in which case the tone stays sober, or you keep playing stupid while intentionally building strawmen out of everything I write, in which case the tone will turn very hostile in no time. Your call.

I looked in the bible and only two laws he mentioned are actually there and not an interpretation, the other's I don't know where he got from.
So Gohan has an odd idea of what God's laws are. That's not really the problem here, is it? The problem is that those laws he mentioned would seem to be quite arbitrary. At least some of them come from the Bible. Does God make arbitrary laws? What's it going to be?

I will still ask why, but thanks to you he is now in a more difficult position.
Not really. Laws with no purpose are still laws with no purpose.

The bold part is apart of a question, but not a question itself. Here is where you said I were doing that.
The bold part was leading up to the question. It's what you might consider the context of the question. And since a sentence doesn't end with a comma, you'd have to be intentionally trying to misunderstand the sentence in order to come to the conclusion you just did.

Once again since you said God's laws are "less sensible" it the burden of proof lies on you.
I said no such thing. And you quoted the evidence that I didn't. "Some of X's less sensible z" is a far cry from "X's z are less sensible". Nice dodge, though.

And the point is, in my scenario I am asking the lawgiver why it's arbitrary. The lawgiver has not yet said it was because of his discretion in anyway.
So what has the lawgiver responded with? Nothing? And are you arguing that unless the lawgiver himself agrees that his law is arbitrary then we can't form any kind of conclusion? That seems like pointless complexity for no gain whatsoever, since there's a logical connection between the measure (law) and the goal (purpose).

In your scenario, you just jumped to conclusions without the lawgiver's reasons.
No, I simply looked at the available data and formed my conclusion off of that. If we ever get more data and it ends up supporting a different conclusion then at that time I'd have to revise my conclusion. But I can't draw conclusions based on data I don't have and taking a black/white view on conclusions seems rather dumb. Not having all the data doesn't mean you can't hold a position.

You put your own biases to fill in the gaps of evidence and assumed it was arbitrary by definition.
Except I didn't. I looked at the law, found that "arbitrary" currently is a valid description, and therefore I came to the conclusion that the law was arbitrary. And if you disagree with that conclusion then it's damned easy to disprove, isn't it? But once again, you're being spineless. You're trying to weasel out of the argument by making s*** up instead of confronting the issues.

I am trying to gain a position, that's why I asked.
A Christian who has no opinion as to whether the laws he follows are arbitrary or have a greater purpose? Does that even qualify as a Christian?

We went over this
Actually, in #103 you simply declined to refute. You said: "But I am speaking about Hunter_Gohan". Since HG and I were talking about the same thing, I was effectively also speaking about HG. You failed to comprehend that and then once more asked for what I already provided in #86 and #87.

you didn't do that there.
Yes, I actually did. And I did it again in #128. And it hasn't been contested at any point by anyone.
---
You want to try your hand at proving why genocide is inherently bad? - OrangeWizard
#135OrangeWizardPosted 5/25/2013 10:46:44 AM
From: black spider | #126
Either you stop pretending to be illiterate and answer me honestly, in which case the tone stays sober, or you keep playing stupid while intentionally building strawmen out of everything I write, in which case the tone will turn very hostile in no time. Your call.


"There's no problem with me! The problem is with you! I never do anything wrong!"
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive
#136black spiderPosted 5/25/2013 10:52:01 AM
OrangeWizard posted...
"There's no problem with me! The problem is with you! I never do anything wrong!"


On the contrary, OW, I do plenty of wrongs all the time. I'm not afraid to admit it. I also don't lie about it.
---
You want to try your hand at proving why genocide is inherently bad? - OrangeWizard
#137OrangeWizardPosted 5/25/2013 10:58:43 AM
From: black spider | #128
On the contrary, OW, I do plenty of wrongs all the time. I'm not afraid to admit it.


Oh, okay, well since you said it, it must be true.
Carry on, then.
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive
#138black spiderPosted 5/25/2013 11:01:04 AM
OrangeWizard posted...
From: black spider | #128
On the contrary, OW, I do plenty of wrongs all the time. I'm not afraid to admit it.


Oh, okay, well since you said it, it must be true.
Carry on, then.


Considering the amount of times I've admitted mistakes on this board, I dare say your accusation is unfounded. But it's not like you'd ever acknowledge as much, is it?
---
You want to try your hand at proving why genocide is inherently bad? - OrangeWizard
#139Dathrowed1Posted 5/25/2013 11:01:37 AM
black spider posted...
Either you stop pretending to be illiterate and answer me honestly, in which case the tone stays sober, or you keep playing stupid while intentionally building strawmen out of everything I write, in which case the tone will turn very hostile in no time. Your call.

It doesn't matter to me.

So Gohan has an odd idea of what God's laws are. That's not really the problem here, is it? The problem is that those laws he mentioned would seem to be quite arbitrary. At least some of them come from the Bible. Does God make arbitrary laws? What's it going to be?

Well that's what I am asking you guys, the burden of proof is still you since you've said yes.

Not really. Laws with no purpose are still laws with no purpose.

It's your burden to prove that these laws are without purpose.

The bold part was leading up to the question. It's what you might consider the context of the question. And since a sentence doesn't end with a comma, you'd have to be intentionally trying to misunderstand the sentence in order to come to the conclusion you just did.

Then I will just assume the question doesn't apply.

I said no such thing. And you quoted the evidence that I didn't. "Some of X's less sensible z" is a far cry from "X's z are less sensible". Nice dodge, though.

Either way it's still on you because you still have to prove that "Some of X's less sensible z" is true.

No, I simply looked at the available data and formed my conclusion off of that. If we ever get more data and it ends up supporting a different conclusion then at that time I'd have to revise my conclusion. But I can't draw conclusions based on data I don't have and taking a black/white view on conclusions seems rather dumb. Not having all the data doesn't mean you can't hold a position.

Me neither, that's why I asked for more data. It also doesn't mean that I need to hold a position at this time which is what you are insisting.

Except I didn't. I looked at the law, found that "arbitrary" currently is a valid description, and therefore I came to the conclusion that the law was arbitrary. And if you disagree with that conclusion then it's damned easy to disprove, isn't it? But once again, you're being spineless. You're trying to weasel out of the argument by making s*** up instead of confronting the issues.

And you have yet to demonstrate why this is a valid description to me. That's why I have continued to ask "why"?

Actually, in #103 you simply declined to refute. You said: "But I am speaking about Hunter_Gohan". Since HG and I were talking about the same thing, I was effectively also speaking about HG. You failed to comprehend that and then once more asked for what I already provided in #86 and #87.

So now you are saying I should replace H_G with you then? Well then the question remains, "why are your laws arbitrary?"

Yes, I actually did. And I did it again in #128. And it hasn't been contested at any point by anyone.

In those other posts, you never said you were going to take up H_G's position at that point. In #128 you've sent me an ad hom, demanded I do something I am not obligated to do, then told me to refer to other posts
---
sig
#140Moorish_IdolPosted 5/25/2013 11:04:32 AM
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]