Anti-religious bigots are a dime a dozen. I am happy to oppose them on occasion. Your whole approach here is, "Religious faith is irrational. Prove me...
Well, no. For example, pointing out that your bigotry flies in the face of human psychology is both an insult and an argument. It shows that you are n...
This is ironic, Tom. "Conviction" is here translating elenchos, which in many translations is rendered as 'evidence.' For example, the King James Vers...
To do you a favor. :lol: Faithath is a bad pathway to truth. The point is that if you can't stop appealing faithath then you're just begging the quest...
The fact of the matter is that when you pretend to use a word, but you have no idea what you mean by that word, you are engaged in a form of sophistry...
- I am just appalled at your bigotry; at your unwillingness to openly consider the idea that 2.4 billion people might not be foundationally irrational...
Sure. Yes, that's basically right. But the key is that what is chosen is in fact a good, albeit a lesser good. It is not evil simpliciter. There are v...
When you define religious faith as belief without evidence, you are saying that it is a form of irrationality. When you say that religious faith is a ...
When your first move is to just to assume that 2.4 billion people are irrational, you've obviously implied that 2.4 billion people are not rational hu...
I don't think that engaging in self-defense or opposing violence is incompatible with censorship. I mean, if there is a violent group and you impede t...
Yep. From earlier: - It happens too often on TPF. This road has been traveled in the past and @"J" doesn't seem to have an answer. Michael certainly r...
I think of Bertrand Russell as an anti-Christian polemicist who would not be considered an objective source in these discussions. Only the key element...
- Sure, but the point is that "intolerant philosophies" = anti-Rationalism. I should have included more context to the quote, but I am trying to illus...
My point was that when Popper says that, "we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies," by "intolerant philosophies" what he me...
Sorry, I forgot about this reply. For my part, I am not convinced that speech is an inconsequential act. This is why free speech always becomes a diff...
It is, factually, a pejorative. It is the usage of the word in a negative or disapproving way. Pejoratives are useful in echo chambers, but to use the...
Yeah, I think that's in alignment with what Popper is saying. Involved in the paradox is the idea that we should use censorship to censor censors, so ...
Not at all. Cancel culture fits Popper's description of, "incitement to intolerance and persecution." What he is saying is that we should claim the ri...
Do you see that this is also pejorative? Russell strikes me as an anti-Christian polemicist, not in the sense that that was his sole gig, but in the s...
I don't see that you have. P2 is merely an assertion. There has been no argument to "establish" it. In fact we've already seen Aquinas rebut the idea ...
But you are doubtless unable to answer the question, "What is an absurd definition?" You keep making claims that you are unable to explain, and using ...
Okay, agreed. Well then let me explain why I think your contention undermines moral culpability and the possibility of moral evil. You give a threefol...
You're welcome. If you are referring to the thread on a different forum, beware that it may be a bit hard to follow. I was tailoring it to individuals...
Okay, but it looks like you have two different categories. The first category has to do with commonalities and excludes people who are into sport, fas...
Someone like @"J" or Michael will distinguish the moral ought from the non-moral ought, and when you press them on what is meant by "the moral ought" ...
Thanks. I think that's helpful, even though I realize there isn't a great rhetorical substitute for the word "theodicy." Nevertheless, "Indictment" is...
I think you definitely need them, given that people use "love" to justify anything and everything. For example, I know Christian consequentialists who...
To his great credit, @"Bob Ross" attempted exactly that, and he is right that a substantial rebuttal of his explanation is lacking. In fact I don't kn...
@"J" is not altogether wrong here, @"Wayfarer". First, it's very confusing that the word "theodicy" is being used in this thread to mean "anti-theodic...
The word "even" makes me think that such an appeal is not necessary, which makes me think that there are suitable reasons which do not specifically le...
No worries. And my point is that if you don't pick one of them then you simply don't have an argument at all. It's like if I said, "If one wanted to a...
The "hotel manager framing" speaks as if God's only purpose is to prevent suffering, and as you say, this sole-purpose-god can be invoked to remove an...
This seems like a central argument to your post: But isn't this tantamount to the denial of (moral) evil? Flannery rightly points out that arguments a...
Argumentum ad populum? Here we go: 4. "There are many parallel, non-interacting worlds." "4. would be falsified if definitive proof or evidence that t...
Yes, and I am still waiting for you to do that. So what is the claim that you purport to be unfalsifiable? Give me an actual assertion/claim. I am try...
Here's the sober truth: You are not a moral realist. Here is SEP: Wake up, dude. Time to stop asserting things you know to be false. The reason you ar...
This is the sort of thing you do, and it has nothing to do with argumentation or philosophy. These are not arguments. You need to learn to give argume...
Ergo: (Michael consistently does this same thing. He argues against morality, but when you ask him what he means by "morality" he admits that he has n...
Do you think there is such a thing as an unfalsifiable claim? If so, try to show me one, and I will show you why my quote holds. I think you have used...
Good OP. I agree. We see this sort of thing constantly. Exactly right. Such critiques seem to be wholly ignorant of actual religious beliefs and tradi...
with the way I described a moral judgment, namely: I elaborated on this idea <here>. So let me quote the whole context of what you responded to when y...
Okay, great. I don't think that really matters. Let's suppose that when one enters into a marriage one believes that one will not be able to be faithf...
So even though people call food good without any explicit qualification, you are reinterpreting everyone to be saying something else, namely that "foo...
Yes, the same old disingenuous answer, "It would be falsified if it were falsified."* Your intellectual honesty dried up many posts ago. I guess we're...
Isn't it just false? Because it seems to me to be the last point in the conversation when you were clearly on topic, namely the topic of falsifiabilit...
Okay. So you are claiming that things which enable us to survive, such as food, are not generally considered to be good? When I say that people call f...
Comments