Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / NewStats: 3,152,788 members, 7,817,267 topics. Date: Saturday, 04 May 2024 at 09:07 AM |
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Logicboy Meets Anony Again! Philosophy Vs Naturalism (13596 Views)
Logicboy's Successes And Failures On Nairaland! / Logicboy Meets Anony (epic) / In Defence Of Logicboy (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) ... (16) (Reply) (Go Down)
Re: Logicboy Meets Anony Again! Philosophy Vs Naturalism by Kay17: 11:05pm On Jan 01, 2013 |
Uyi Iredia: If God is the moral giver, then he isn't necessarily bound by his moral Rules, hence free to commit/perpetuate the most appalling immoral atrocities. So God cannot be morally good because that would imply some adherence to his own rules/commands |
Re: Logicboy Meets Anony Again! Philosophy Vs Naturalism by MrAnony1(m): 3:53am On Jan 02, 2013 |
Kay 17:Wrong turn my friend. God is not bound by any rules towards man or anyone else. God has a character and that character is the basis for morality i.e. God's nature is good. Good is not something separate from God to which He must strive to attain. . . . . .good itself is based on God's nature. |
Re: Logicboy Meets Anony Again! Philosophy Vs Naturalism by MrAnony1(m): 3:57am On Jan 02, 2013 |
Uyi Iredia: I don't even see why this argument should be. David Hume's quote sums it up quite nicely: 'You can't get an ought from an is.' Matter on its own lacks the intelligence (which is an abstract thing). So we take the other possibility that an intelligent being endowed man with his known capacity for ascribing morality to various instances.Beautiful, just beautiful......but as usual, our resident atheist apologist missed it. |
Re: Logicboy Meets Anony Again! Philosophy Vs Naturalism by Kay17: 8:49am On Jan 02, 2013 |
Mr_Anony: However God is free-willed and omnipotent, and therefore has the capacity for evil. Except we label all that he does as good. |
Re: Logicboy Meets Anony Again! Philosophy Vs Naturalism by MrAnony1(m): 9:41am On Jan 02, 2013 |
Kay 17:Interesting........let me put it to you like this: If you were the only being in the universe, can your actions be classified as good or evil? |
Re: Logicboy Meets Anony Again! Philosophy Vs Naturalism by Kay17: 11:19am On Jan 02, 2013 |
^^^ Without any reference to some moral code? Nope. |
Re: Logicboy Meets Anony Again! Philosophy Vs Naturalism by UyiIredia(m): 11:28am On Jan 02, 2013 |
Logicboy03: As usual you have nothing tangible to offer. |
Re: Logicboy Meets Anony Again! Philosophy Vs Naturalism by UyiIredia(m): 11:29am On Jan 02, 2013 |
Mr_Anony: I have come to expect that from them. |
Re: Logicboy Meets Anony Again! Philosophy Vs Naturalism by Nobody: 11:39am On Jan 02, 2013 |
Uyi Iredia: I don't even see why this argument should be. David Hume's quote sums it up quite nicely: 'You can't get an ought from an is.' Matter on its own lacks the intelligence (which is an abstract thing). So we take the other possibility that an intelligent being endowed man with his known capacity for ascribing morality to various instances. Mr_Anony: Uyi Iredia: Typical of apologist christians. They copy arguments that they think destroys the atheist position. You people dont understand Hume. [size=14pt]Misconception The is-ought distinction is sometimes misconstrued to mean that facts are totally disconnected from ethical statements, or that there is no relationship at all between is and ought. As can be seen, Hume does not argue this position, but states that a factual statement (or "is" needs to be combined with an ethical principle or assumption before an ethical statement (or "ought" can be derived[/size] Who has been using facts to explain morality here? The person who says that we as humans develop certain instincts for survival which become a basic guide for morality or the person that uses a hypothesis (presupposition of God) to argue that morality comes from God? |
Re: Logicboy Meets Anony Again! Philosophy Vs Naturalism by Kay17: 11:45am On Jan 02, 2013 |
Logicboy03: In other words, morality is an empirical fact?! |
Re: Logicboy Meets Anony Again! Philosophy Vs Naturalism by Nobody: 12:35pm On Jan 02, 2013 |
Kay 17: The evolution of certain ethical behaviours is fact. Morality is a different thing |
Re: Logicboy Meets Anony Again! Philosophy Vs Naturalism by MrAnony1(m): 2:27pm On Jan 02, 2013 |
Logicboy03:Logicboy is really amusing... Observe........... The Christian theist argument: IS - Objective moral values exist. Ethical principle - The nature/character of God manifest in the life of Jesus Christ. OUGHT - We ought to live like Christ Compare with the argument Logicboy is trying to make: IS - Objective moral values exist IS - Moral values evolved OUGHT- Therefore we are supposed to act a certain way What are the ethical principles of evolution? how do you jump from the fact that moral values evolved to we ought to adhere to.....WHAT? Kay 17 asks him a beautiful question Kay 17: To which he replies: Logicboy03:Showing clearly that he doesn't have any ethical principle/assumption that can help him link his "is" to his "ought". But he is happy to criticize another for presupposing God. My dear confused boy, you have just succeeded in shooting yourself in the foot. SMH. |
Re: Logicboy Meets Anony Again! Philosophy Vs Naturalism by Nobody: 2:47pm On Jan 02, 2013 |
Mr_Anony: See the lies Anony has to tell to hold on to his delusions of grandeur? Who told you that I agree with your definition of "objective moral values"? The only moral values we have can only be objective from a human point of view. Anony's argument does not even follow. First of all, following christ is an ought not an ethical principle. It is a meaningless term. Hitler followed christ and so does Pat Robertson. Ive never given a prescritive ethics from evolution, rather a descrioptive evolutionary ethics. You claim to have studied ehtics and yet you can not tell the difference between the two. To apply some ought to my arguments on the evolutionary basis of morality is daft. I have principles and not religious codes unlike you. |
Re: Logicboy Meets Anony Again! Philosophy Vs Naturalism by MrAnony1(m): 3:06pm On Jan 02, 2013 |
Logicboy03:But humans do not have an objective view of reality. Our views are always subjective so how can your statement be true? I am quite sure that I made it clear that Christ's character is the principle while following Him is the ought. The second part of your statement is a lie and you know it. It is not worthy of a response Ive never given a prescritive ethics from evolution, rather a descrioptive evolutionary ethics.If it is not prescriptive, it is therefore not an ought and as a result it is not binding on anyone and hence cannot in anyway be regarded as an ethical principle You claim to have studied ehtics and yet you can not tell the difference between the two. To apply some ought to my arguments on the evolutionary basis of morality is daft.Precisely. If it is not an ought, then no one is morally obliged to adhere - it is neither good nor bad if the ethics are flouted - and therefore, the morality you describe has no basis. I have principles and not religious codes unlike you.What principles? |
Re: Logicboy Meets Anony Again! Philosophy Vs Naturalism by Kay17: 3:43pm On Jan 02, 2013 |
The mistake you are making here Anony is: you are not capturing morality as empirical data, rather describing an ideal preference: Jesus. Logicboy is insisting that the facilitator for morality is our biological makeup and very complex brain, which is common in every human on the planet. While you think its Jesus, who was unknown and was central to most cultures at all, and yet had morality. So definitely and as an empirical fact, Jesus isn't the cause of morality. |
Re: Logicboy Meets Anony Again! Philosophy Vs Naturalism by MrAnony1(m): 3:57pm On Jan 02, 2013 |
Kay 17: The mistake you are making here Anony is: you are not capturing morality as empirical data, rather describing an ideal preference: Jesus.You have misrepresented my argument. I do not argue that Jesus is the cause of morality, I argue that the character of Jesus is the basis for morality. i.e. the definition of good character is the character of Christ. Please get me right. |
Re: Logicboy Meets Anony Again! Philosophy Vs Naturalism by Nobody: 4:22pm On Jan 02, 2013 |
Mr_Anony: Isnt your bold the point of my statement? Objectivity is a scale on a continuum and not a black and white case. Facts or truth as we know it are true for only humans. Mr_Anony: Christ character is meaningless. Is christ God or man? I am not going to debate yo on some faulty premise or foundation on the character of Christ on which there is no consensus. Mr_Anony: Did I say that evolution is an ethical principle? All I have been doing is explaining some ethical behaviours with evolution. Descriptive and not prescriptive. I am only prescriptive when I talk about secular humanistic principles which I did not do. Mr_Anony: Yawn. Did I give instructions for people to follow from evolution? Did I say anything is binding? What does binding have to do with the description of the basis of some ethical behaviours? Unless I am prescribing a principle to follow (eg secular humanism) then you can talk about "morally obliged" You love straw men Mr_Anony: Humanistic ones which I didnt talk about |
Re: Logicboy Meets Anony Again! Philosophy Vs Naturalism by Nobody: 4:24pm On Jan 02, 2013 |
Mr_Anony: So would you destroy the tables of merchants at a church? There are merchants at many churches I have been to in Nigeria. That is the character of christ. |
Re: Logicboy Meets Anony Again! Philosophy Vs Naturalism by Kay17: 4:42pm On Jan 02, 2013 |
Sorry Anony! Basis rather. |
Re: Logicboy Meets Anony Again! Philosophy Vs Naturalism by UyiIredia(m): 6:32pm On Jan 02, 2013 |
Kay 17: Clearly none of what you stated has anything to do with what I said. I simply noted that matter lacks morality. |
Re: Logicboy Meets Anony Again! Philosophy Vs Naturalism by Nobody: 6:33pm On Jan 02, 2013 |
Uyi Iredia: And how does that destroy the atheist argument? |
Re: Logicboy Meets Anony Again! Philosophy Vs Naturalism by UyiIredia(m): 6:38pm On Jan 02, 2013 |
Logicboy03: Which shows facts (or phenomena) in themselves lack morality unless a being making moral choices ascribes ethical values to them. By saying humans develop certain instincts for survival which become a basic guide for morality you have already ascribed an ethical value to those instincts. You have assumed an ought from an is. I on the other hand clearly note that intelligence is required to make ethical values (ought) and note that facts in and of themselves lack intelligence and therefore infer that an intelligent being endowed humans with the capacity to make ethical values. What's most pitiable in your post is that you twisted my position. 1 Like |
Re: Logicboy Meets Anony Again! Philosophy Vs Naturalism by UyiIredia(m): 6:40pm On Jan 02, 2013 |
Logicboy03: Because you are left without an explanation for how morality could have arisen. |
Re: Logicboy Meets Anony Again! Philosophy Vs Naturalism by UyiIredia(m): 6:41pm On Jan 02, 2013 |
Logicboy, please state how survival instincts are a basic guide for morality. Also, do you agree that by saying that survival insticts are a basic guide for morality you have attached morality to them ? |
Re: Logicboy Meets Anony Again! Philosophy Vs Naturalism by Nobody: 6:44pm On Jan 02, 2013 |
Uyi Iredia: Wrong.....your comment only makes sense if humans are only matter |
Re: Logicboy Meets Anony Again! Philosophy Vs Naturalism by Nobody: 6:45pm On Jan 02, 2013 |
Uyi Iredia: Logicboy, please state how survival instincts are a basic guide for morality. Also, do you agree that by saying that survival insticts are a basic guide for morality you have attached morality to them ? Isnt it clear? You have to behave somehow to survive, otherwise, it is suicide by natural selection |
Re: Logicboy Meets Anony Again! Philosophy Vs Naturalism by UyiIredia(m): 6:47pm On Jan 02, 2013 |
Logicboy03: So do you believe humans are endowed with an intangible mind ? 1 Like |
Re: Logicboy Meets Anony Again! Philosophy Vs Naturalism by MrAnony1(m): 6:50pm On Jan 02, 2013 |
Uyi Iredia:Perfect question |
Re: Logicboy Meets Anony Again! Philosophy Vs Naturalism by UyiIredia(m): 6:54pm On Jan 02, 2013 |
Logicboy03: Actually there are no guidelines for behavior to survive. It's either you survive or you don't. It's mainly left to chance. You are yet to show how survival instincts breed morality. 1 Like |
Re: Logicboy Meets Anony Again! Philosophy Vs Naturalism by Nobody: 7:05pm On Jan 02, 2013 |
Uyi Iredia: How did you arrive at that from my comment? this is why I dont like arguing with you. You hardly make sense. |
Re: Logicboy Meets Anony Again! Philosophy Vs Naturalism by Nobody: 7:13pm On Jan 02, 2013 |
Uyi Iredia: It wuld serve you well to stop repeating ignorant questions and start reading what others write. Who said that there are guidelines for behaviour to survive? Read the comment again Logicboy03: Those behaviours are survival instincts that form a basic, animalistic morality. You protect young ones so that your genes and and family survive.You avoid predators. You avoid things that are harmful to survival. |
Re: Logicboy Meets Anony Again! Philosophy Vs Naturalism by MrAnony1(m): 7:15pm On Jan 02, 2013 |
Logicboy03: Seriously? Hae you so quickly forgotten this? Logicboy03: |
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) ... (16) (Reply)
D / Ghanaian Pastors Are Proving Worse Than Nigeria’s / Must Read: Olodumare (GOD) In Yoruba Ifa And Orisha Is Monotheistic
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 68 |