Some Schmo wrote:LOL... "dimbulb" eh? (Silly me... I always though those were two words).
Some Schmo wrote: Whatever helps the dimwit sleep at night, I guess.
Too freakin' funny.
I get the feeling you don't know what irony is. Not surprising (or even ironic).
Doing a quick search: dimwit is in the free online dictionary; dimbulb is not. Incidentally, dumbass is in the dictionary as well. Going forward, it'll be tough to decide what to call you between dimwit and dumbass, since both fit so well.
antishock8 wrote:I want to know what you mean by your statement because I have no context through which to make sense of your statement.
Make it three of us that are curious.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Some Schmo wrote:I get the feeling you don't know what irony is. Not surprising (or even ironic).
My dear pos, the irony meter is appropriate here, although, I admit, a stupidity meter would be even more appropriate. If you (wrongly) criticize my use of dimbulb instead of dim bulb, then one would expect you to use dim wit. Your subsequent incongruous use of dimwit and your inability to perceive that dimbulb and dimwit are the result of the same process is where the irony is introduced.
Doing a quick search: dimwit is in the free online dictionary; dimbulb is not. Incidentally, dumbass is in the dictionary as well. Going forward, it'll be tough to decide what to call you between dimwit and dumbass, since both fit so well.
Your ability to make recourse to the free online dictionary impresses the hell out of me.
Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei
(I lost access to my Milesius account, so I had to retrieve this one from the mothballs.)
Realism is, technically, the position that moral statements are truth-apt and at least some of them are true. Put in an easier to understand way, there exist moral facts. Facts don't have to be "decided" by anyone. They can exist in of themselves and be accessed by the rational mind, so asking "who decides" fundamentally misunderstands what people think. This is a naïve reply that people sometimes pull out of a hat when they want to challenge some factual assertion. "Who decides that evolution is true?" "Who decides that science is an sound way of knowing?" It doesn't work. Personal authority doesn't necessarily matter.
Relativism, technically, is the position that moral statements are truth-apt and at least some of them are true, but their truth is contingent on (or "relative to") the convictions, practices, mores of the individual or group of people being judged or doing the judging. Very few people are seriously relativists and the phrase is synonymous with criticism because the position is near universally recognized as bad. It's like calling someone a sophist.
I don't think you are a relativist in this technical sense. I think you are what I said in the part you cut out of the quote. I then explained why the "who decides?!" doesn't work for that either. Really, my problem with you is your lame counterargument. If you want to reject that anyone can be meaningfully morally condemned, then I'll just roll my eyes and dismiss you for now I'll save my criticism of Sam Harris for those who accept that there is such a thing as being morally wrong. Perhaps we'll discuss metaethics at some other time. I have in detail in the past, and a search on my name at the usual Mormon discussion board haunts will probably result in finding some of those discussions.
If you are just wondering why I think Sam Harris is morally questionable and aren't trying to challenge the metaphysical basis for saying anyone can have morally questionable views, then you just have to look upthread to see his views on torture, etc.
EAllusion wrote:I don't think you are a relativist in this technical sense. I think you are what I said in the part you cut out of the quote. I then explained why the "who decides?!" doesn't work for that either. Really, my problem with you is your lame counterargument. If you want to reject that anyone can be meaningfully morally condemned, then I'll just roll my eyes and dismiss you for now I'll save my criticism of Sam Harris for those who accept that there is such a thing as being morally wrong.
Thanks for the lesson Professor Logic. I just want to know what you mean by your statement, "morally sketchy". What IS "morally sketchy" to you?
EAllusion wrote:If you are just wondering why I think Sam Harris is morally questionable and aren't trying to challenge the metaphysical basis for saying anyone can have morally questionable views, then you just have to look upthread to see his views on torture, etc.
Did you post his views or did someone else, and if you remember then who? Did you or they quote Harris to illustrate?
Well, this thread has taken an interesting turn. Blind devotion to Harris is apparently so profound, some atheists here are willing to turn on one of their own as if he were a turncoat, for daring to criticize one of the New Atheists. Ironic, in that it further shows how religious atheists operate in ways very similar to religious theists.
The funny thing about this is that none of the Harris fans are willing to point out what makes Harris so special. Nobody has dealt with the criticisms provided by scholars. Nobody has been able to point to a single innovative contributon Harris has provided. The bigotry is not unique. His anti-religion arguments are nothing new. He just threw himself into the "New Atheist" limelight and the gullible, preferring more than less, just took it for granted he was worthy to be there.
So what makes Harris "one of the greatest thinkers" today, as Schmo humorously asserted?
Nobody can name a single thing. You're all at a loss for words. You just like the fact that he can get his voice heard in periodicals, and that he shares the same ignorance and bigotry as has been expressed here.
Instead of attacking EA for sharing an educated opinion, you guys could at least share with us some clue as to why you're desperate to defend Harris. Not that we don't already know, but it would at least relieve you of the overt hypocrisy. EA has to detail why he is critical, but you don't have to even provide even a single basis for insisting EA is wrong.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
