God or Not?

For the Uninitiated

Posted on June 30th, 2008 by admin.
Categories: Ranting.

On Jun 30, 10:24 pm, Neil Kelsey wrote:
> On Jun 30, 7:12 pm, Walt wrote:
>
> > On Jun 30, 12:40 pm, rappoccio wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 29, 11:11 pm, Walt wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 29, 9:30 pm, rappoccio wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 29, 7:56 pm, Walt wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 29, 5:17 pm, rappoccio wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jun 29, 2:54 am, Walt wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Jun 28, 11:28 pm, rappoccio wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > It seems that Walt has a problem with two things:
>
> > > > > > > > > 1) Starting new threads for the same stupid analogies that aren’t any
> > > > > > > > > different than his previous stupid analogies.
>
> > > > > > > > > 2) That the anti-theist argument is not a slippery slope argument.
>
> > > > > > > > > Definition of the slippery slope argument from Wikipedia:
>
> > > > > > > > > “In debate or rhetoric, the slippery slope is one of the classical
> > > > > > > > > informal fallacies. It suggests that an action will initiate a chain
> > > > > > > > > of events culminating in an undesirable event later without
> > > > > > > > > establishing or quantifying the relevant contingencies. The argument
> > > > > > > > > is sometimes referred to as the thin end of the wedge or the camel’s
> > > > > > > > > nose. While the term sees a broader pragmatic usage, especially
> > > > > > > > > outside of the context of logic, rhetoric and philosophy, the term
> > > > > > > > > specifically refers to a fallacious argument. Arguments that provide a
> > > > > > > > > well-supported chain of contingencies are not slippery slope
> > > > > > > > > arguments. The term “slippery slope” is often used synonymically with
> > > > > > > > > continuum fallacy, in that it assumes there is no gray area and there
> > > > > > > > > must be a definite transition at a certain point from category A to
> > > > > > > > > category B.”
>
> > > > > > > > > Not a single anti-theist is making the argument that theism is a
> > > > > > > > > slippery slope down which eventual bad things will occur. They are
> > > > > > > > > claiming that it is a bad thing to begin with. No slippery slope. It’s
> > > > > > > > > already on the bottom.
>
> > > > > > > > > The argument, yet again, goes like this:
>
> > > > > > > > > Basing some decisions on “dogmatic religious faith” justifies basing
> > > > > > > > > ANY decision on “dogmatic religious faith”. Regardless of the outcome,
> > > > > > > > > the basis of decision on dogmatic religious faith is unfounded.
> > > > > > > > > Therefore bad actions from such bases are no worse justified than good
> > > > > > > > > actions from such bases.
>
> > > > > > > > > Now let’s see if Walt can get it right for once.
>
> > > > > > > > The article you quote indicates there is an
> > > > > > > > alternate meaning for slippery slope, which
> > > > > > > > they call “continuum fallacy”
>
> > > > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy
>
> > > > > > > > This is the meaning I am using.  Particular
> > > > > > > > theist beliefs are on a continuum from evil
> > > > > > > > to benign to good, as determined by secular
> > > > > > > > morality.  You correctly point out there is
> > > > > > > > nothing that prevents a theist belief from
> > > > > > > > being extremely evil.  You conclude that,
> > > > > > > > therefore, all religious beliefs must be
> > > > > > > > considered extremely evil.  That is
> > > > > > > > a continuum fallacy/slippery slope. I
> > > > > > > > personally don’t consider this type
> > > > > > > > to slippery slope to be a true fallacy,
> > > > > > > > just a very weak argument.
>
> > > > > > > > You anti-theists are at some level aware
> > > > > > > > you are only showing a very minimal level
> > > > > > > > of general riskiness to theist belief. So
> > > > > > > > you argue there is no reason to tolerate
> > > > > > > > any level of risk because all theist
> > > > > > > > belief is useless.  But as far as I
> > > > > > > > have seen, that tactic always leads
> > > > > > > > to the circular argument that I
> > > > > > > > refer to as the anti-theist merry-go-
> > > > > > > > round.
>
> > > > > > > There’s no continuum fallacy either. We think basing decisions on
> > > > > > > dogmatic assertions already, before doing anything, gives credence to
> > > > > > > immoral action and is in and of itself wrong.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > I disagree.
>
> > > > > The fact that you disagree doesn’t make your analogy or your statement
> > > > > that it’s a slippery slope argument correct. In fact, since it’s our
> > > > > argument to begin with, your disagreement is absolutely unimportant.
>
> > > > > > The concept of a theist belief does
> > > > > > not require any compliance of the thiest
> > > > > > belief to rational secular morality.
>
> > > > > Indeed it doesn’t. Yet all of them justify all of the others.
> > > > > Therefore the moderates give an umbrella to the lunatics.
>
> > > > > > This complete ambiguity allows for a
> > > > > > continuum of theist beliefs with
> > > > > > very good direct results
>
> > > > > You’re dense, Walt. Seriously. Brick-wall dense. Or totally dishonest.
> > > > > I can’t decide.
>
> > > > > We’ve stated A HUNDRED TIMES that it doesn’t matter what the outcome
> > > > > is. WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT SOMETIMES PEOPLE DO GOOD THINGS BECAUSE OF
> > > > > THEISM. That doesn’t make the stupid reasons less stupid or that we
> > > > > should challenge them less.
>
> > > > > You’re trying desperately to make an argument for us that we don’t
> > > > > agree with. This isn’t the “Continuum fallacy”. We are not talking
> > > > > about the outcomes. We’re talking about the justifications. In terms
> > > > > of the justifications, they are ALREADY BAD. No slippery slope. No
> > > > > judgment of degrees of badness. All equally bad. Why you can’t
> > > > > understand this is beyond me.
>
> > > > > Why is it that you can’t understand this?
>
> > > > > > (as evaluated
> > > > > > by rational secular morality) to those
> > > > > > with very evil direct results.  It is a
> > > > > > valid point to say that eliminating all
> > > > > > theist belief eliminates the evil
> > > > > > results.  It also eliminates the good
> > > > > > results.
>
> > > > > And yet, we aren’t bothered by this. Why? Because people can do good
> > > > > things for rational reasons as well as they can for irrational ones.
>
> > > > > >  You argue that the good
> > > > > > results can be obtained without
> > > > > > theism, but I don’t think we can be
> > > > > > sure of this.
>
> > > > > I don’t really care about your opinion on the matter.
>
> > > > > >  I think this weak
> > > > > > argument from ambiguity is not
> > > > > > reason enough to condemn a theist
> > > > > > belief system that:
>
> > > > > There is no argument from ambiguity except in your ill-formed own
> > > > > arguments. We aren’t making the arguments you pretend we’re making.
>
> > > > > I’m very close to the discontinuation of our discourse, Walt, because
> > > > > you’re a dishonest debater. You refuse to address the arguments we’re
> > > > > making and instead raise countless red herrings.
>
> > > > > So I’ll let you have the last word. If your last words happen to
> > > > > respond to the arguments in question, I’ll respond. If not, buh-bye.
>
> > > > Good religious belief lends justification to evil religious
> > > > belief only in the sense that it says it’s OK to have
> > > > religious beliefs.  
>
> > > You finally got it! I’m impressed! As promised, I will reply.
>
> > Yes I’ve always agreed with this.  I don’t see
> > why you find this fact so conclusive.
>
> > > > The existence of the US government
> > > > lends justification to the existence of the military
> > > > government of Burma in the same sense, that it says
> > > > it’s OK to have a government.
> > > > Not a conclusive
> > > > argument that we should have no government.
>
> > > Except that the justification for both are different, so this, as
> > > usual, is a red herring argument.
>
> > > The justification for a democracy is that the will of the people is
> > > represented and they collectively decide to have a stable and
> > > partially regulated lifestyle (laws, etc). The justification of
> > > military dictatorship is that it is present to give power to few at
> > > the expense of the many.
>
> > Military governments do provide some services to the populace.
> > When there ceases to be a small net benefit to the majority, they
> > are overthrown.  It can be said that there is much more
> > justification for the US Government than the Burmese Government.
> > The justification for the Burmese Government is so
> > inadequate, the small bit of justification it gets because
> > there are no anarchies is insignificant.
>
> > Human beings want things (to stay alive, to
> > eat ice cream, etc.).  Rational secular morality
> > is the game-theory-based mutual respect we
> > have for each other’s wants.  The purpose
> > is for each individual to maximize the
> > expected value of the net satisfaction
> > of their wants.  Any time we don’t respect
> > peoples desires, there is an evil aspect
> > to it.  In many cases, like with the
> > desire to commit crimes, the desire
> > itself represents a greater disrespect
> > for the wants of others.  So there is
> > a net benefit to not respecting it.  Many
> > people want to hold benign theist beliefs.
> > If you don’t respect that, there is an
> > evil aspect to doing so.
>
> Can you define “evil” for me? I tend to dismiss it as a throwaway
> Biblical word that explains nothing.

Evil here means going against rational
secular morality.

> The offseting
> > benefit, preventing the lending of
> > creedence to malignent beliefs, seems
> > very weak.  I agree it’s a logical
> > possibitlity, but I don’t see where
> > you’ve given evidence of the it really
> > happening.  So I have to think that
> > anti-theism is a net evil under rational
> > secular morality.
>
> > Most religious belief systems are primarily good but
> > have a signigicant qualtity of evil beliefs.  Islam
> > and Catholicism are good examples.  In these cases,
> > we can contribute to resolving the problem with
> > these sorts of arguments:
>
> > 1)  Communication from God is ambiguous at
> > best.  God’s brain is not really accessable to
> > you, you’re stuck with using your own.
> > 2)  The central command of your faith is
> > reciprocity.
> > 3)  If God wanted thoughtless obedience,
> > there would be no people, only dogs.  The
> > fact that you have intelligence is a big
> > hint you are probably supposed to use it.
> > The other …
>
> > read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

0 comments.