The Illusion of Self

[Shaker]

And they would think he was wrong because.........?

Because it's merely opinion about something with no coherent definition, no evidence of its existence, and in any case scepticism in the absence of the preceding is the rational default position.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Your take on morality suffers from philosophical poverty.

Only in your head Vlad, only in your head. At least, unless you finally want to have a go at explaining what the "philosophical poverty" might actually be?

Go on - why not finally break your duck to get you from assertion to an actual argument?

You know you want to really don't you?

Don't you?

And also it's the transgressor of universal morality who has a huge vested interest in explaining morality away...as a mere matter of taste.

Actually instinct and reason rather than "taste", but either way your argumentum ad consequentiam effort is noted.

It's still a very bad argument though.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

And they would think he was wrong because.........?

...because it's in the nature of guesses that they're more often wrong than right.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

...because it's in the nature of guesses that they're more often wrong than right.

How do you know he is guessing?...... answer? Hillside doesn't......he's guessing.

[Shaker]

How do you know he is guessing?...... answer? Hillside doesn't......he's guessing.

I'm sure that Alan has been given many opportunities many times by many different people to demonstrate that he isn't merely guessing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm sure that Alan has been given many opportunities many times by many different people to demonstrate that he isn't merely guessing.

As many times as Hillside has positively asserted he is, do you think?

[Shaker]

No, since bluey covered this in at least one place - #227 - doubtless more.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Only in your head Vlad, only in your head. At least, unless you finally want to have a go at explaining what the "philosophical poverty" might actually be?

Not finally Hillside........ I have already. Basically it is the failure to make any valid point on morality since morality is an adjudication and your take on it cannot make that.

In your hands Hillside the term is redundant and superfluous....a mere tautology from the term ''behaviour'' which carries no moral connotation whatsoever.

We've been through all of this

But don't just take my word for it. Try the philosophical poverty section here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because it's merely opinion about something with no coherent definition, no evidence of its existence, and in any case scepticism in the absence of the preceding is the rational default position.

Opinion is not necessarily wrong is it. It is merely your opinion that he is but in your case opinion seems to be right...in short, that it is opinion does not seem to give you warrant that he is wrong.

Is scepticism a declaration of wrongness and not merely suspicion of it? I don't know.
Seems to be a bit of word piracy.....

[Shaker]

Opinion is not necessarily wrong is it.

Not necessarily, no; but as bluey has already pointed out, when guessing there are vastly - perhaps infinitely - many more ways of being wrong than right.

Is scepticism a declaration of wrongness and not merely suspicion of it? I don't know.
Seems to be a bit of word piracy.....

Scepticism is scepticism, Vlad - doubtless another one of the many words whose definition you don't understand.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not necessarily, no; but as bluey has already pointed out, when guessing there are vastly - perhaps infinitely - many more ways of being wrong than right.

Except when you guys do it obviously. Ha Ha!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Scepticism is scepticism, Vlad - doubtless another one of the many words whose definition you don't understand.

That's the beauty of Wikipedia. You and Hillside almost invariably get found out, trouser talking, by it.

[Alan Burns]

Yes, we know that that's your personal opinion on the matter. Why would anyone think you're right about that though?

But God's love is much, much more than an opinion.  It is a life changing experience.

[Alan Burns]

my pencil case loves me, its love is real , it also loves you whether you want it to or not

To compare the creator of our universe with a pencil case is truly bizarre.

[Shaker]

But God's love is much, much more than an opinion.  It is a life changing experience.

Only if it's your opinion that it's based on something external to your individual brain - still opinion.

You're not going to get out of this one, Alan 

[Alan Burns]

CS Lewis's sums it up in his essay on ''man or rabbit'' where he challenges us to be men or self identify with something with not much depth caught  in the headlights of a determinism/fatalism to which one could add reductionism.

Just re reading this essay, it seems to give an inspired description of the nature of some prominent posters on this forum.  I would hope that they would recognise themselves if they ever come to read it.

[Shaker]

Just re reading this essay, it seems to give an inspired description of the nature of some prominent posters on this forum.

Such as?

[Nearly Sane]

But God's love is much, much more than an opinion.  It is a life changing experience.

This isn't just begging the question, this is purest green, undistilled, mountain spring B&S begging the qyestion

[Gordon]

Just re reading this essay, it seems to give an inspired description of the nature of some prominent posters on this forum.  I would hope that they would recognise themselves if they ever come to read it.

Just read it: twice in fact, and it is just as much twaddle as the rest of this old duffers output.

It is simplistically twee special pleading in favour of Christianity with a dash of added false dichotomy (Christians vs Materialists), a bunch of non sequiturs and a patronising misrepresentation of those who aren't 'Christians': it is nauseating pap, so much so that I wondered if I'd stumbled into something by Enid Blyton.

I can't see that I recognise any of our non-theist posters in this.       

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just read it: twice in fact, and it is just as much twaddle as the rest of this old duffers output.

It is simplistically twee special pleading in favour of Christianity with a dash of added false dichotomy (Christians vs Materialists), a bunch of non sequiturs and a patronising misrepresentation of those who aren't 'Christians': it is nauseating pap, so much so that I wondered if I'd stumbled into something by Enid Blyton.

I can't see that I recognise any of our non-theist posters in this.     

Since ''Old duffer'' seems to be a disqualification, I take it we can disregard your post.

[Shaker]

I can't see that I recognise any of our non-theist posters in this.     

Me either, but Alan thinks he does so let's see if he'll come up with the goodies.

[Alan Burns]

Just read it: twice in fact, and it is just as much twaddle as the rest of this old duffers output.

It is simplistically twee special pleading in favour of Christianity with a dash of added false dichotomy (Christians vs Materialists), a bunch of non sequiturs and a patronising misrepresentation of those who aren't 'Christians': it is nauseating pap, so much so that I wondered if I'd stumbled into something by Enid Blyton.

You seem to find it very easy to dismiss the works of one of the greatest literary scholars of the 20th century.  Do you seriously think that Lewis did not realise what a non sequitur is?
(And I assume you will be labelling this as the fallacy of arguing from authority) 

[Shaker]

You seem to find it very easy to dismiss the works of one of the greatest literary scholars of the 20th century.

His academic work may have been very good and may still stand up, for all I know. Or maybe not; it's not my area, though I do know these things can be superseded. I've read a little of it relating to the mediaeval troubadour tradition, courtly love etc. while researching for something else. It's OK. His Narnia books however are tenth-rate pseudo-Tolkien rip-offs and his apologetics risible.

Do you seriously think that Lewis did not realise what a non sequitur is?

Why not? Competence, even excellence, even genius in one specific field is not and never has been a guarantee of competence in any other. A bad argument is a bad argument whoever uses it. And Lewis can deploy bad arguments with the best - or is that the worst? - of them. Gordon's analysis, brief as it was, was quite correct. Lewis is doing no more than any business does on a daily basis; trying to tout his wares that he wants you to buy by rubbishing the competition. It has always been standard practice in especially monotheistic religions just as it has in trade and commerce.

[Alan Burns]

Me either, but Alan thinks he does so let's see if he'll come up with the goodies.

Perhaps I am mistaken about the nature of some of our non theistic posters.  I certainly hope so.
 

[Shaker]

Perhaps I am mistaken about the nature of some of our non theistic posters.  I certainly hope so.
 

What nature? You haven't said.