It is currently Sun Sep 22, 2019 11:19 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Dr. Detroit on Ethics
PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2019 7:28 am 
Hermit
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm
Posts: 9012
Location: Cave
President Chung called attention to the latest of a string of threads over at SeN on God and morality.

Doctor Detroit's initial response has been up-voted eleven times thus far, and five of those up-votes are by Phds. I suspect that Doctor Detroit may have two Phds himself. I have to wonder if Mr. Midgley is pulling our collective leg with his claim to a Ph.D., and especially his most recent claim that he taught the history of philosophy for 36 years.

Mr. Midgley wrote:
And gemli miserable fan club, whoever she might be, claims that one can determine right from wrong by something called "empathy." One does not salvage gemli's bald assertions with another radically contradictory bald assertion. Should Roman Catholics who found that randy Priests had been buggering their boys ask for "empathy" training. That would make about as much sense as pleading with the old bull Elk to have some empathy for all those young bucks.


Good Lord, is it too late for 36 year's worth of students to ask for their money back?

After a junior apologist points out that Jeffrey Dahmer claimed his disbelief justified his actions, Dr. Detroit responds:

Dr. Detroit wrote:
I have a question for you. If you didn't believe in God would you act differently or less moral? If so, why?


Billy Shears answers the only point the mopologists ever want to make by their stupid morality arguments and they don't even have the decency to respond:

Billy Shears wrote:
Sure, with a God you can define objective morality as doing what God wants you to do, but how is that any more objective than defining objective morality as doing whatever it is that you want to do?


It doesn't require positing God to make morality objective. A great example would Kantian ethics. So premise 1 of the authors stupid opening post is false on its face. Did Lou Midgley cover Kant in his 36 years of teaching the history of philosophy? How about Plato and Aristotle, unconvinced's suggestion?

The apologists only care about Divine Command theory, which is the lamest of all attempt to make morals objective as there is little actual substance to the position, and runs straight into the euthyphro dilemma -- is it good because it's good or because God says so? None of the apologists in the comment section nor the blog author have ever tried to answer this. They just assert God is required for morality and then run.

Dr. Detroit wrote:
Mark Twain famously illustrated the point that morality doesn't come from God, when he said "At Salem, the parson clung pathetically to his witch text after the laity had abandoned it in remorse and tears for the cruelties it had persuaded them to do. The parson wanted more blood, more shame, more brutalities; it was the unconsecrated laity that stayed his hand."


Indeed. If metaphorically, the speech given by Elder Holland about the sins of godlessness in academia were a witch burning manual, then the Mopologists will clutch it to their graves. Such is the ethical enlightenment of Mopologetics.

_________________
FARMS refuted:

"...supporters of Billy Meier still point to the very clear photos of Pleiadian beam ships flying over his farm. They argue that for the photos to be fakes, we have to believe that a one-armed man who had no knowledge of Photoshop or other digital photography programs could have made such realistic photos and films..." -- D. R. Prothero


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Dr. Detroit on Ethics
PostPosted: Fri Aug 02, 2019 12:59 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 8:53 pm
Posts: 3770
Dean,

I just read the comments on this thread. Wow!

It's interesting that nobody will even attempt to respond to Billy Shear's excellent questions. I guess the SeN regulars feel that if they ignore the hard questions they will just magically go away.

_________________
"I'm on paid sabbatical from BYU in exchange for my promise to use this time to finish two books."

Daniel C. Peterson, 2014


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Dr. Detroit on Ethics
PostPosted: Fri Aug 02, 2019 6:26 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 5:03 pm
Posts: 2619
Location: ON, Canada
Everybody Wang Chung wrote:
Dean,

I just read the comments on this thread. Wow!

It's interesting that nobody will even attempt to respond to Billy Shear's excellent questions. I guess the SeN regulars feel that if they ignore the hard questions they will just magically go away.

Well, that approach seems to have worked OK on the Dales paper in the Interpreter. Comments closed with several serious questions outstanding, and a promise of a prequel.

_________________
NOMinal member

Maksutov: "... if you give someone else the means to always push your buttons, you're lost."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Dr. Detroit on Ethics
PostPosted: Sat Aug 03, 2019 6:24 pm 
Hermit
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm
Posts: 9012
Location: Cave
Mr. Midgley wrote:
I have to admire the shameless audacity by which you boldly assert a claim that is so obviously false. There's nothing remotely "objective" about humanism. The only way anything can be objective is if it has nothing to do with human preferences.


And there you have, from one of the world's most shallow thinkers. Has he ever heard that saying, "Adam fell than men might be, and men are that they might have joy"?

Although they are oblivious, the reason why Mormonism seems so much more moral to Mr. Midgley and his favorite blog's owner than dreaded Calvinism is because of the humanist influences on Mormonism. Humanism invents the basic platforms, and then Mormon leaders who lived at the right time back-fill ancient scripture.

A second reason they are oblivious is because they themselves argue against Gemli all the time on grounds of human preferences. If human's can't live forever, and experience infinite utility, then life is meaningless to them.

Folks, you just can't make this stuff up.

_________________
FARMS refuted:

"...supporters of Billy Meier still point to the very clear photos of Pleiadian beam ships flying over his farm. They argue that for the photos to be fakes, we have to believe that a one-armed man who had no knowledge of Photoshop or other digital photography programs could have made such realistic photos and films..." -- D. R. Prothero


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Dr. Detroit on Ethics
PostPosted: Sat Aug 03, 2019 6:48 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 9:53 pm
Posts: 1507
Gadianton wrote:
Did Lou Midgley cover Kant in his 36 years of teaching the history of philosophy? How about Plato and Aristotle ...
Possibly.

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Dr. Detroit on Ethics
PostPosted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 6:58 pm 
Hermit
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm
Posts: 9012
Location: Cave
On the Memories of Heaven post (lol), Dr. Detroit shares a moving passage from Carl Sagan:

Dr. Detroit wrote:
It reminds me of the famous Carl Sagan quote: "Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy."


a guest stops by and replies:

Quote:
If Sagan is correct there is nothing objectively wrong with rape


Only one person was dumb enough to up-vote that one, I'm sure you can figure it out.

Dr. Detroit wrote:
-Is your belief in God the reason you don't rape?
-If you knew there was no God would you rape?
-What do you think of God condoning rape in the Bible?


The blog owner tells professor Detroit that he's missing the point. I don't think he is. the "guest's" original reply is entirely unsubstantiated. Nobody has explained how rape being okay follows from life being a momentary glimpse (if matter / moral are two different realms, than the measurements of the material in and of themselves do not give us any information about what's moral.) What Dr. Detroit is asking is if these religious nuts can really conceive of maliciously inflicting pain on a person being okay. If they believe their own lies, then they should proudly answer "Yes!" -- or at least they'd consider doing it, on the chance that they might like it.

At the very least, they should respond, "Dr. Detroit, I can't say whether or not that I would, because it doesn't just depend on whether the act is right or wrong, but desirable for me personally. But I would in fact, have no qualms whatsoever considering it. I am not saying I would consider it, as what I consider also must align with my tastes, but there would be nothing preventing me from considering it. And should I consider it and decide that I might like it, then yes, I might do it."

Why not respond truthfully?

_________________
FARMS refuted:

"...supporters of Billy Meier still point to the very clear photos of Pleiadian beam ships flying over his farm. They argue that for the photos to be fakes, we have to believe that a one-armed man who had no knowledge of Photoshop or other digital photography programs could have made such realistic photos and films..." -- D. R. Prothero


Last edited by Gadianton on Tue Aug 06, 2019 7:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Dr. Detroit on Ethics
PostPosted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 7:09 pm 
Hermit
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm
Posts: 9012
Location: Cave
"guest" continues with this lie:

Quote:
You didn't answer my charge. If atheism is correct why is rape wrong?

That's not what the charge was. The charge was that if Carl Sagan was correct about life being momentary, then rape isn't wrong. What a fool. I'll bet DCP can't see why that change of parameters would make a difference, though. That's the level he's at, after all these years of denial.

_________________
FARMS refuted:

"...supporters of Billy Meier still point to the very clear photos of Pleiadian beam ships flying over his farm. They argue that for the photos to be fakes, we have to believe that a one-armed man who had no knowledge of Photoshop or other digital photography programs could have made such realistic photos and films..." -- D. R. Prothero


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Dr. Detroit on Ethics
PostPosted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 8:47 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am
Posts: 5557
Location: Firmly on this earth
Quote:
Why not respond truthfully?

They are terrified to be truthful because Jesus is listening to them and they really, REALLY, ***REALLY*** want to fool him into thinking that they are righteous and worthy of 2nd and who knows, even those super duper sneaky 3rd anointings! The Mopologist brotherhood of their ancient counterparts the Pharisees and hypocrits is alive and truly a well oiled machine of phony righteousness.

_________________
Is Midgely serious? Peterson's blog is a patty-cake, surface only, all too frequently plagiarized bit of ephemeral nonsense. Why would anyone suppose avatars must be real? Midgley has lost his tiny little mind. Maybe he can go over to never-neverland and harass Peter Pan for not really knowing how to fly. -Lemmie-


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Dr. Detroit on Ethics
PostPosted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 9:07 pm 
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am
Posts: 7436
Location: Cassius University
Gadianton wrote:
On the Memories of Heaven post (lol), Dr. Detroit shares a moving passage from Carl Sagan:

Dr. Detroit wrote:
It reminds me of the famous Carl Sagan quote: "Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy."

a guest stops by and replies:

Quote:
If Sagan is correct there is nothing objectively wrong with rape

Only one person was dumb enough to up-vote that one, I'm sure you can figure it out.

Dr. Detroit wrote:
-Is your belief in God the reason you don't rape?
-If you knew there was no God would you rape?
-What do you think of God condoning rape in the Bible?

The blog owner tells professor Detroit that he's missing the point. I don't think he is. the "guest's" original reply is entirely unsubstantiated. Nobody has explained how rape being okay follows from life being a momentary glimpse (if matter / moral are two different realms, than the measurements of the material in and of themselves do not give us any information about what's moral.) What Dr. Detroit is asking is if these religious nuts can really conceive of maliciously inflicting pain on a person being okay. If they believe their own lies, then they should proudly answer "Yes!" -- or at least they'd consider doing it, on the chance that they might like it.

At the very least, they should respond, "Dr. Detroit, I can't say whether or not that I would, because it doesn't just depend on whether the act is right or wrong, but desirable for me personally. But I would in fact, have no qualms whatsoever considering it. I am not saying I would consider it, as what I consider also must align with my tastes, but there would be nothing preventing me from considering it. And should I consider it and decide that I might like it, then yes, I might do it."

Why not respond truthfully?

That whole discussion has been very revealing, and the implications concerning the Mopologists' views on LDS theology are frightening. Many years ago, I adopted the quote from Dr. Peterson as my signature line, but I figured that he had merely misspoken. Seriously: that is what I actually thought. But, no, it turns out that those really are his views:

DCP on SeN wrote:
gemli: "I'm not sure what you're for advocating here. If we want to live, work and take advantage of the benefits of society, we must participate in it with others."

Yes. But perhaps, while most others are honest, etc., we can do better through dishonesty, etc. Mafiosi certainly act on that principle. Are they "wrong"? Or do they merely like venison liver while most people don't?

gemli: "There are certainly sociopaths among us who would agree that there's nothing wrong with lying, stealing or hurting others if it gives them some personal advantage."

True. And non-sociopaths, as well. Are they "wrong"? Or do we all just have different preferences?

gemli: "Most people would think this is a bad thing."

Most people (in my circle, anyway) like apple pie. Are those who don't like apple pie "wrong"? Are those who've decided that there's nothing wrong with lying, stealing or hurting others if it gives them some personal advantage "wrong"? Or have they simply made a different choice?

gemli: "Brutalizing the population is not a good thing."

When the alpha male elk drives all of the other bulls away and reserves the elk cows for himself, is THAT "not a good thing"? Or is it just "a thing"?
gemli: "But having no scruples or sense of morality does not make a tyrant "right.""

Does it make a tyrant "wrong"? By what standard?

So, yes: the Mopologists really *do* think that theism is required for good behavior. But consider what I said about their theology. If God is the only thing holding them back from a life of avarice, greed, and lustful anarchy, what will happen when they themselves become Gods in the CK? Is the appeal of Godhood that they will get to control "lesser" beings in this way? Or, instead--as I've speculated elsewhere--is it because they will at last get to lie, murder, cheat, steal, and rape like they have always wanted to?

_________________
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Dr. Detroit on Ethics
PostPosted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 10:15 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:02 am
Posts: 18904
Could you imagine Mr. Midgley or McGregor as the god you owe fealty to? I can imagine them gleefully sending their creations to Hell for disobedience. My god, it all makes sense now. The Old Testament, blood sacrifices, god-sanctioned murder and rape... It's all good as long as they say it is, because they're god. They get to hold the magnifying glass to the ant hill.

Utterly depraved.

- Doc

_________________
https://youtu.be/IdTMDpizis8


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Dr. Detroit on Ethics
PostPosted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 10:27 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am
Posts: 5557
Location: Firmly on this earth
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Could you imagine Mr. Midgley or McGregor as the god you owe fealty to? I can imagine them gleefully sending their creations to Hell for disobedience. My god, it all makes sense now. The Old Testament, blood sacrifices, god-sanctioned murder and rape... It's all good as long as they say it is, because they're god. They get to hold the magnifying glass to the ant hill.

Utterly depraved.

- Doc


I have said as much several times. The Gospel has been bastardized by them for their own egos. They are mini mes of Jehovah..... and will mimick him as often and as jealously as they can and imagine they are serving in righteousness during the process. Oh, and by their Priesthood they shall change all love of Jesus into hate the enemy. They will redo Christ's Gospel because once they become Elohims themselves they will have no one to answer to. And the grand vision of themselves in all their glory and greatness Lording it over their creation will blow in the wind as dust. Just like their apologetic does now.

_________________
Is Midgely serious? Peterson's blog is a patty-cake, surface only, all too frequently plagiarized bit of ephemeral nonsense. Why would anyone suppose avatars must be real? Midgley has lost his tiny little mind. Maybe he can go over to never-neverland and harass Peter Pan for not really knowing how to fly. -Lemmie-


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Dr. Detroit on Ethics
PostPosted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 6:05 am 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am
Posts: 16225
Gadianton wrote:
Mr. Midgley wrote:
I have to admire the shameless audacity by which you boldly assert a claim that is so obviously false. There's nothing remotely "objective" about humanism. The only way anything can be objective is if it has nothing to do with human preferences.


And there you have, from one of the world's most shallow thinkers. Has he ever heard that saying, "Adam fell than men might be, and men are that they might have joy"?

Although they are oblivious, the reason why Mormonism seems so much more moral to Mr. Midgley and his favorite blog's owner than dreaded Calvinism is because of the humanist influences on Mormonism. Humanism invents the basic platforms, and then Mormon leaders who lived at the right time back-fill ancient scripture.

A second reason they are oblivious is because they themselves argue against Gemli all the time on grounds of human preferences. If human's can't live forever, and experience infinite utility, then life is meaningless to them.

Folks, you just can't make this stuff up.


This is ground I've seen covered with that crowd to no affect numerous times. I know you know this, but there's no way that the best case scenario here is anything other than willful ignorance.

Re: having "meaning" in life via never dying, the problem is that they haven't cleaned up their thoughts about what exactly about meaning is meaningful. That is to say, why is having meaning of the sort they are proposing a valuable thing? The arguments, largely borrowed from evangelical apologetics and thinking about it in the most shallow way possible, shift to and fro. At the end of the day the most coherent thing you can wring out of them is that they find it subjectively desireable to live forever and not having that is sad. Setting aside that infinite life and one's stance on the existence of gods are different things, we learn that atheists are also free to derive meaning in this sense - that things they desire can or cannot happen - and they only claim atheism is inferior because they take it as one in the same with not getting what they want out of life. This ends up looking petulant when phrased this way, so if you confront that position, the dance to another one begins. It always starts with the dubious assertion that teleology = meaning, but not a bloody one of them will argue that being created with the purpose to be tortured forever is wonderful because it supplies meaning.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Dr. Detroit on Ethics
PostPosted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 6:10 am 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am
Posts: 16225
Doctor Scratch wrote:
So, yes: the Mopologists really *do* think that theism is required for good behavior. But consider what I said about their theology. If God is the only thing holding them back from a life of avarice, greed, and lustful anarchy, what will happen when they themselves become Gods in the CK? Is the appeal of Godhood that they will get to control "lesser" beings in this way? Or, instead--as I've speculated elsewhere--is it because they will at last get to lie, murder, cheat, steal, and rape like they have always wanted to?

What's obnoxious about that exchange is that the comments DCP are making could be disabused in an introductory class on phil of ethics. At first you might just want to fault DCP for never doing even a little work towards understanding a subject he likes to opine on. Then you remember he has a undergraduate degree in philosophy.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Dr. Detroit on Ethics
PostPosted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 8:02 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 4471
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Gadianton wrote:
"guest" continues with this lie:

Quote:
You didn't answer my charge. If atheism is correct why is rape wrong?

That's not what the charge was. The charge was that if Carl Sagan was correct about life being momentary, then rape isn't wrong. What a fool. I'll bet DCP can't see why that change of parameters would make a difference, though. That's the level he's at, after all these years of denial.

In moments like these, I'm glad some people believe a higher power is telling them "thou shalt not."

What kind of a complete ____ human being thinks the only reason rape is wrong, is because their chosen deity told them it is? Ugh.

_________________
"Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead." ~Charles Bukowski


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Dr. Detroit on Ethics
PostPosted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 8:38 am 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am
Posts: 16225
Doctor Steuss wrote:
What kind of a complete ____ human being thinks the only reason rape is wrong, is because their chosen deity told them it is? Ugh.


I think lots of people think that. Divine Command Theory, while a kooky fringe idea in phil of ethics that is widely considered to a useless basis to understand morality, holds a lot of sway with the average religious person in America. One of the main reasons that atheists tend to be distrusted is the common belief that apart from God there exists no moral motivation and/or moral truth.

The ideal response to this is to figure out why a person thinks that morality must depend on the existence of God and show them what's wrong with their reasoning. Absent that, the best you can do is point out that there are lots of secular metaethical views out there. Indeed, the only ones taken seriously in academic philosophy are the secular ones. At the same time, you can show how the Euthyphro dilemma works and why it is widely considered to refute the idea that morality is contingent on the existence of God. It's a sometimes misunderstood argument, but it makes a strong case that making morality contingent on the will or nature of God makes moral assertions arbitrary and empty in a way that does not align with what we think or want moral assertions (to) mean.

Mormons have a leg up here in that their scripture is often interpreted to mean that God is bound by some preexisting moral order that exists apart from him. If that is the case, then Divine Command theory is necessarily false. Dr. Peterson gets this. He also completely fumbles trying to respond to the Euthyphro dilemma. He says he isn't a Divine Command theorist when point blank confronted about these issues, in fact. But he also doesn't want to give up the ability to claim atheism is inconsistent with moral life. So he just contradicts himself depending on which audience his talking to and how adept they are at confronting what he's arguing.

He's intellectually dishonest, in other words.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AZCaesar, Dr Moore, Google [Bot] and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group