Irish Times on the New Face of Atheism

Mark Hamill

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

No, because they are different in nature.

So? A Robin Reliant and a Lamborghini Diablo are different in nature, but they are both still cars in the general meaning of the word. Pointing out specific differences (that I may or may not disagree with) is irrelevant when I am using the general meaning of the word.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So? A Robin Reliant and a Lamborghini Diablo are different in nature, but they are both still cars in the general meaning of the word.

Staying with your car analogy, the issue is that the Reliant Robin and the Lambourghini aren't different in their nature. They are just different in degree. They can both take people from Dublin to Cork, and both can suggest the wealth and status of the driver.

The issue facing us is where a word includes things that have a different nature. Again within your car analogy, it would be similar to saying "Any car can take me to Cork", and then noticing that the car provided can't perform that task as it is different in nature to the cars you had in mind. Like this elevator car:



Just as that car is different to the kind of car that might take you to Cork, atheist "morality" is different to theist "morality" in significant respects, such that you cannot just use the term in this context without fudging substantial issues.

robindch

^^^ Jesus, don't mention the elevators!

Mark Hamill

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Staying with your car analogy, the issue is that the Reliant Robin and the Lambourghini aren't different in their nature. They are just different in degree.

They aren't different in their nature, in the general meaning of the word. They are both vehicles for transport, thats their nature, in the general meaning of the word. Oh they have very different engines for driving them, different speeds, handling, even different numbers of wheels. But, their nature, in the general meaning of the word, is that of transport. They are both cars. Pointing out specific differences doesn't change that nature, no matter how much you would it too.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Mark Hamill wrote: »

They aren't different in their nature, in the general meaning of the word. They are both vehicles for transport, thats their nature, in the general meaning of the word. Oh they have very different engines for driving them, different speeds, handling, even different numbers of wheels. But, their nature, in the general meaning of the word, is that of transport. They are both cars. Pointing out specific differences doesn't change that nature, no matter how much you would it too.

I've a feeling of you missing the entire point, again.

Can you re-read my post, because your response just doesn't relate to what I've said.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

robindch wrote: »

^^^ Jesus, don't mention the elevators!

Could we merge the threads?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056320768

Mark Hamill

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I've a feeling of you missing the entire point, again.

Can you re-read my post, because your response just doesn't relate to what I've said.

And I've a feeling that you have run out of verbose strawmen with which to avoid the entire point. If you are ready to drop the pretence and have a real discussion, that would be nice.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And I've a feeling that you have run out of verbose strawmen with which to avoid the entire point. If you are ready to drop the pretence and have a real discussion, that would be nice.

It might be helpful for you to explain what, in your view, is the "entire point"? From my perspective, you've not advanced the discussion at all in your last post - which, as I've said, just doesn't follow on from anything that I've said. All is does is demonstrate a confusion on your part as to what you mean by nature.

Mark Hamill

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

It might be helpful for you to explain what, in your view, is the "entire point"?

I already did, here, about 50 posts ago. What would really help would be if you were ever interested in an actual discussion on this subject. Both times we have discussed ethics and morality before (once, earlier in this thread, and previously in another thread), you resorted to the exact same tactics you have used here: verbose, declaration-based strawmen.

Mark Hamill

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

From my perspective, you've not advanced the discussion at all in your last post - which, as I've said, just doesn't follow on from anything that I've said. All is does is demonstrate a confusion on your part as to what you mean by nature.

Apologies, my second post, concerning the nature of the two cars, was mis-worded. I fixated on the word nature, and didn't review it before posting. It should have said (the underlined text is new):

They are different in their nature, but they are still cars in the general meaning of the word. They are both vehicles for transport, thats what cars are, in the general meaning of the word. Oh they have very different engines for driving them, different speeds, handling, even different numbers of wheels. But even with their different natures, they are both cars, the general meaning of the word. Pointing out specific differences between their natures doesn't change them being cars, no matter how much you would like it too.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I already did, here, about 50 posts ago. What would really help would be if you were ever interested in an actual discussion on this subject. Both times we have discussed ethics and morality before (once, earlier in this thread, and previously in another thread), you resorted to the exact same tactics you have used here: verbose, declaration-based strawmen.

That's simply not how I see it. As far as I'm concerned, I've explained why it is evasive to skip from talking about religious morality to atheist ethics as if it didn't involve a substantial change in outlook. You're simply not addressing the points raised, at all.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Apologies, my second post, concerning the nature of the two cars, was mis-worded. I fixated on the word nature, and didn't review it before posting. It should have said (the underlined text is new):

They are different in their nature, but they are still cars in the general meaning of the word. They are both vehicles for transport, thats what cars are, in the general meaning of the word. Oh they have very different engines for driving them, different speeds, handling, even different numbers of wheels. But even with their different natures, they are both cars, the general meaning of the word. Pointing out specific differences between their natures doesn't change them being cars, no matter how much you would like it too.

Grand so far as it goes, but you don't seem to have noticed how I've extended your car analogy to illustrate the point at issue. I'm not suggesting there's any significant difference between a Reliant Robin and a sports car, such that would make us put them into different categories or suggest that one of them couldn't take us from Dublin to Cork.

My point is the word "car" is also applied to things that couldn't take us from Dublin to Cork; for instance, a cable car.

What people like Micheal Nugent and yourself are doing is effectively saying we can use cable cars to do everything that we do with motor cars at present, just because the word "car" can be applied to both.

Now, can I point out that your post, which went on as if I'd said something about there being a significant difference between a Robin and a sports car is clearly completely irrelevant - because I'm not suggesting there's any significant difference at all. If you don't display an understanding of this in your next post (assuming you are persisting in the discussion), I will assume that you are being willfully obtuse.

Mark Hamill

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

That's simply not how I see it. As far as I'm concerned, I've explained why it is evasive to skip from talking about religious morality to atheist ethics as if it didn't involve a substantial change in outlook. You're simply not addressing the points raised, at all.

That's unsurprising, considering your points are strawmen, or unsupported assertions. No-one is denying that religious morality and atheistic morality are significantly different. They both have vastly different justifications, for one thing. But they are both still systems of morality, in the general meaning of the word.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

What people like Micheal Nugent and yourself are doing is effectively saying we can use cable cars to do everything that we do with motor cars at present, just because the word "car" can be applied to both.

No. We are effectively saying that both a sports car and a cable car can be called "car" because they are both cars, in the general meaning of the word. They are both vehicles for transport. Everything else beyond that might be different about them, but, as the most general meaning of car is that of a vehicle, for transport, it can be used to describe them both, in a very general way.

The problem is your continued strawmanning, your empty assertions that we are saying that religious and atheistic moralities are significantly equivalent, despite being corrected multiple times in this regard. You have long gone past being wilfully obtuse, you are now being wilfully ignorant.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Mark Hamill wrote: »

That's unsurprising, considering your points are strawmen, or unsupported assertions. No-one is denying that religious morality and atheistic morality are significantly different. They both have vastly different justifications, for one thing. But they are both still systems of morality, in the general meaning of the word.

But the point is the consequences of them being significantly different, with vastly different justifications, are being glossed over. Which means the "general meaning of the word" (a truly elastic concept, which encapsulates the fudge) has no application in the context in which it applies.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No. We are effectively saying that both a sports car and a cable car can be called "car" because they are both cars, in the general meaning of the word. They are both vehicles for transport. Everything else beyond that might be different about them, but, as the most general meaning of car is that of a vehicle, for transport, it can be used to describe them both, in a very general way.

But if the context is driving from Dublin to Cork, the "general meaning of the word" has no application. That's the point. Folk like our friend Mr N are effectively saying "people complain that atheists don't have cars, and so can't drive to Cork from Dublin. In fact, we have cable cars. Therefore, having cable cars, we can drive to Cork from Dublin".

The situation is exactly as I'm saying.

Mark Hamill

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But the point is the consequences of them being significantly different, with vastly different justifications, are being glossed over.

No, they are not, because they are discussed in a separate point (the point about atheistic morals generally being superior, as they aren't authoritarian and unquestionable because of a belief of divine origin).

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But if the context is driving from Dublin to Cork, the "general meaning of the word" has no application. That's the point. Folk like our friend Mr N are effectively saying "people complain that atheists don't have cars, and so can't drive to Cork from Dublin. In fact, we have cable cars. Therefore, having cable cars, we can drive to Cork from Dublin".

The situation is exactly as I'm saying.

No its not, your description is a strawman (of the claim that is made by theists), supported by a flawed use of my previous car analogy. To keep with my analogy, its more accurate to say Michael Nugent effectively said the following:
"Car (according to theists) exclusively implies expensive Italian sports car and atheists don't buy expensive Italian sports cars. Therefore theists complain that atheists can't get to Cork from Dublin. However, car doesn't actually imply Italian or expensive or sports model in reality. Atheists do have cars and are perfectly capable of getting to Cork using them, as evidenced by all the atheists in Cork."

I said this point already in this thread, sans analogy, here.

Galvasean

I have no idea what's going on anymore

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No, they are not, because they are discussed in a separate point (the point about atheistic morals generally being superior, as they aren't authoritarian and unquestionable because of a belief of divine origin).

But, sure, that's incoherent as there's no basis for saying what's superior.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

.... its more accurate to say Michael Nugent effectively said .... car doesn't actually imply Italian or expensive or sports model in reality. Atheists do have cars and are perfectly capable of getting to Cork using them, as evidenced by all the atheists in Cork."

That might be what he's asserting. The point is that he hasn't demonstrated that atheists have cars capable of getting to Cork - that's merely wishful thinking on his part. Because, ironically, the basis for his claim (switching back to the actual point) is to assert that some kind of natural morality exists. Natural morality is a theist concept, plain and simple.

Galvasean wrote: »

I have no idea what's going on anymore

Unfortunately, nothing is going on at all. The discussion hasn't advanced at all.

sephir0th

Galvasean

Galvasean wrote: »

I have no idea what's going on anymore

sephir0th wrote: »

^^ If I was a sharper dresser.

Mark Hamill

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But, sure, that's incoherent as there's no basis for saying what's superior.

Which is a different point to both theistic morality and atheistic morality being types of morality. Its also wrong, for every reason I pointed out to you already in this thread (not to mention this thread). All morality systems can be compared with respect to them actually achieving the outcomes they supposedly aim for.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Natural morality is a theist concept, plain and simple.

No its not, theism has merely tried to co-opt it as a theist concept, just like the word "marriage". Again, I pointed this out already, about 70 posts ago.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Unfortunately, nothing is going on at all. The discussion hasn't advanced at all.

Because you aren't here to discuss anything. You haven't addressed a single point put to you. Unsupported declarations, strawmen and just plain ignoring things said to you does not make for a functional discussion.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

sephir0th wrote: »

To the extent that it's about atheist morality, it's about nothing at all.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Which is a different point to both theistic morality and atheistic morality being types of morality.

Yeah, it's additional to that point.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its also wrong, for every reason I pointed out to you already in this thread (not to mention this thread). All morality systems can be compared with respect to them actually achieving the outcomes they supposedly aim for.

But such comparison is meaningless, as there's no way of placing any relative values on those aims.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No its not, theism has merely tried to co-opt it as a theist concept, just like the word "marriage". Again, I pointed this out already, about 70 posts ago.

You've asserted. You've demonstrated no capacity to actually "point out" anything at all.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Because you aren't here to discuss anything. You haven't addressed a single point put to you. Unsupported declarations, strawmen and just plain ignoring things said to you does not make for a functional discussion.

I've clearly explained the point repeatedly, and clearly. I've done more than a body should care to do.

Just as an aside, and in a possibly vain hope of getting anything out of this thread, has Mr N actually adapted his ethical atheist manifesto on foot of the comments he got?

Mark Hamill

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Yeah, it's additional to that point.

Which makes you bringing it up in answer to that point, being an example of you trying to sidestep that point.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But such comparison is meaningless, as there's no way of placing any relative values on those aims.

Those aims both have the same ultimate goal, so therefore they both can be assessed relative to their ability to attain that goal. Like I said in the post you just quoted: "All morality systems can be compared with respect to them actually achieving the outcomes they supposedly aim for".

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

You've asserted. You've demonstrated no capacity to actually "point out" anything at all.

Are you actually saying that (all) morality is a purely theistic concept then? Another slip of the façade?

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I've clearly explained the point repeatedly, and clearly. I've done more than a body should care to do.

No, you haven't. Otherwise the discussion would have moved on from when we started it, 2 months ago, in a previous thread.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Which makes you bringing it up in answer to that point, being an example of you trying to sidestep that point.

No, just an example of you being wrong again.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Those aims both have the same ultimate goal

Sez who? Seriously, you've no understanding of the topic if that's what you contend.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Are you actually saying that (all) morality is a purely theistic concept then? Another slip of the façade?

No drop of any facade - I've already made it quite plain that I think morality is a redundant term from an atheist perspective.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No, you haven't. Otherwise the discussion would have moved on from when we started it, 2 months ago, in a previous thread.

Sorry, but the problem with the discussion is your lack of comprehension of the subject matter.

Mark Hamill

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

No, just an example of you being wrong again.

So its an ad hominem? I am "wrong" (:rolleyes:) about one thing and therefore am wrong about something else?

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Sez who? Seriously, you've no understanding of the topic if that's what you contend.

Says morality. I've already explained this, what morality, in general, is supposed to be for. You can measure two different morality systems against each other based on whether their prescribed actions will actually achieve the outcome morality in general subscribes to.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

No drop of any facade - I've already made it quite plain that I think morality is a redundant term from an atheist perspective.

It is a drop of the facade. You are admitting to arguing for a supernatural origin for morality, despite claiming before that you weren't.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Sorry, but the problem with the discussion is your lack of comprehension of the subject matter.

Says someone whose last response was four declarations, without any explanation or evidence for any of them. You lack comprehension of how discussions, in general, are supposed to go.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So its an ad hominem? I am "wrong" about one thing and therefore am wrong about something else?

No, your repeated errors stand on their own merits.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Says morality. I've already explained this, what morality, in general, is supposed to be for.

And who told morality to say that? The Vatican? The Illuminoids? The New York State Boxing Commission? Some random blogger?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It is a drop of the facade. You are admitting to arguing for a supernatural origin for morality, despite claiming before that you weren't.

What I've "admitted" is I think morality is a redundant term. I can't account for your lack of comprehension at this stage.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Says someone whose last response was four declarations, without any explanation or evidence for any of them. You lack comprehension of how discussions, in general, are supposed to go.

Every point you've made has been comprehensively dealt with; the only unexplained part is your lack of comprehension.

Mark Hamill

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

No, your repeated errors stand on their own merits.

Why, pray tell, if my errors stand on their own merits, did you respond to one of my points by pointing out a supposed error in a separate point? Ad hominems. Strawmen. Ad infinitum it seems. :rolleyes:

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

And who told morality to say that? The Vatican? The Illuminoids? The New York State Boxing Commission? Some random blogger?.

What do you mean who told morality to say that? Its what the word means. There is obtuse, and then there is stupid. And your post is both.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

What I've "admitted" is I think morality is a redundant term. I can't account for your lack of comprehension at this stage..

No, thats what you are trying to change the goalposts to, but thats not what you said before, when you said "Natural morality is a theist concept, plain and simple" or "Morality is just something we invent and impose on the world".

Mark Hamill

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Every point you've made has been comprehensively dealt with; the only unexplained part is your lack of comprehension.

You talk about lack of comprehension and fudging things, yet it is you who fudge things to make things harder to comprehend. But you aren't very good at it, its still clear how you are trying to twist the argument, and this is it:

1) You say that Michael, and others, saying "atheists have morals too" is irrelevant without showing that reason based morals are better (a non sequitor), but then contradict this by saying moral systems can't be measured against each other anyway.
2) However 1 is a strawman of the argument being made in the article that Michael wrote, which you avoid by simply ignoring the argument that theists actually make and that Michael was responding to (ie that morals are from god, therefore atheists dont have any at all).
3) And then, just for kicks, you contradict yourself over the origin or morals in general, as either being natural derived by humans, or supernaturally instilled by god.

You are trying to use arguments against the efficiency of reason based morals (vs declaration based morals) as arguments against the existence of reason based morals. And you know full well how this obfuscates the discussion, hence you alternate between them without fail.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why, pray tell, if my errors stand on their own merits, did you respond to one of my points by pointing out a supposed error in a separate point?

Because my willingness to share my knowledge with you is boundless. If your capacity to absorb it was as great, this thread would be much shorter.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What do you mean who told morality to say that? Its what the word means. There is obtuse, and then there is stupid. And your post is both.

Morality isn't it's own explanation. You seem to assume that because we've inherited the concept, it should not be questioned.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No, thats what you are trying to change the goalposts to, but thats not what you said before, when you said "Natural morality is a theist concept, plain and simple" or "Morality is just something we invent and impose on the world".

You do understand that "natural morality" and "morality" are clearly two different things in the quotes you've chosen? That the two quotes you've chosen are actually showing two different sense of the word - one the idea of morality as existing as an entity in the world and the other as an arbitrary assertion?

You really should take up a religion. Not just because you believe in natural morality. But also because God loves a trier.

And he really loves you, so he's not just going to get bored when he sees there's no prospect of you understanding what we're talking about.

Mark Hamill

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Because my willingness to share my knowledge with you is boundless. If your capacity to absorb it was as great, this thread would be much shorter.

Not an answer to my question.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Morality isn't it's own explanation. You seem to assume that because we've inherited the concept, it should not be questioned.

A strawman. Never said morality was its own explanation, I said morality has a meaning.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

You do understand that "natural morality" and "morality" are clearly two different things in the quotes you've chosen? That the two quotes you've chosen are actually showing two different sense of the word - one the idea of morality as existing as an entity in the world and the other as an arbitrary assertion?

Wow. You actually seem to think using multiple meanings of the word morality in your argument is not an example of moving the goalposts in a discussion concerning the most general meaning (and origin) of morality.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

You really should take up a religion. Not just because you believe in natural morality. But also because God loves a trier.

And he really loves you, so he's not just going to get bored when he sees there's no prospect of you understanding what we're talking about.

So is this you admitting you are a theist then? Because you've let it slip several times already, but you keep denying it, so I'm wondering is this the one.

robindch

GCU Flexible Demeanour

I'd respond, only there's fairy cakes and lemonade down at the Mosque tonight. That really nice French lemonade, with the wire thing holding on the cork.

I love fairy cake and lemonade night. Puts you right in the mood to submit to an omnipotent power.