|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 14, 2009 13:57:12 GMT
I will acknowledge that I have misrepresented someone if they explain how I have misinterpreted them and what they meant to say. Simple blank denial is not enough; it amounts to saying that their statements are to be treated as self-evident and off limits to critical debate. So the existence of common truths about the human condition does not indicate the existence of a moral law based on the nature of that condition, whether that moral law is seen as autochtonous or infused by a creator? On what grounds does hazelireland rule out such a moral law? Pray do tell. "I dare do all that may become a man. Who dares do more is none."
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Oct 14, 2009 15:18:01 GMT
I will acknowledge that I have misrepresented someone if they explain how I have misinterpreted them and what they meant to say. Yay, that is good to hear man. Now is your chance to do it then. Here is again what you said about me: Here is again what I actually said. Which is, as you can see, the exact POLAR OPPOSITE of what you said I believe. So now waiting for you to withdraw your lie/error honestly like a real man.
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Oct 14, 2009 15:21:59 GMT
So the existence of common truths about the human condition does not indicate the existence of a moral law based on the nature of that condition, whether that moral law is seen as autochtonous or infused by a creator? On what grounds does hazelireland rule out such a moral law? Pray do tell. I never said I rule it out, I said I have seen no evidence for such a law. I rule nothing out, I merely proceed without assumptions that have no evidence. Just like I do not rule out the possibility there is a god, I simply have to proceed without that assumption in building my political, social and moral views as there has not been a shred of evidence offered to support the existence of such an entity. Meanwhile I have seen many truths about the human condition which would lead people to define their own moral law, and also lead them to define them the same as most other people. Such truths of the human condition are, for example only, Pain and peoples wish to avoid it. This would lead us to want to build a society with moral rules such as "cause no pain" etc. That so many of us have this wish can clearly be seen to be based on that human condition mentioned. Not on a moral law giver or a moral law external or above ourselves. It is merely a response to our human condition. That so many of us agree on such a moral law, gives us the false impression that this is some how an "objective" moral truth outside of ourselves. The illusion would appear to be false however. so while I have seen, nor have you shown, a single shred of evidence for a "moral law" independant of us, we can very clearly see how our own defined moral law could lead from our basic human condition and desires.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 15, 2009 11:30:12 GMT
Hazelireland declares that he has seen no evidence and that he refuses to explain what he means by evidence. If he does not give us the criteria by which he rejects the arguments/evidence offered to him as being invalid, how can we judge the validity of his rejection or know whether he would recognise evidence if he saw it?
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Oct 15, 2009 15:06:39 GMT
So in other words, you are now taking back your offer and you are not about to apologise for misrepresenting me not once but continuously. I expected nothing else from you to be honest, so I will not even pretend to be surprised.
In every area of discourse people present their evidence AND explain why it is evidence for their propositions. You have done neither. All I am asking is that you follow the same rules the rest of us have to.
But no, you chose instead not only to not present evidence, but make excuse after excuse about why you are not doing it. OF COURSE it could not possibly be because you have NONE to give could it? No, it must be that I do not really want it, I would not accept it anyway, I would not recognise or understand it if I see it... or any one of a million other cop outs that you continue to offer me.
If you have none, say you have none. Otherwise you are just wasting not only my time, but your own, by engaging in this excuse making.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 16, 2009 11:44:54 GMT
I haven't withdrawn anything. Once more, with feeling, two basic lessons in epistemology for Hazelireland: (1)The advancement of knowledge is a cumulative process, not a game of "show me yours and I'll show you mine". A hypothesis is proposed and then it is tested by analyses which aim to support or refute it. This can only be done if the participants are agreed on what counts as refutation/confirmation; it can't be done if one person announces that he will simply reject anything he disagrees with without explaining why he rejects it and agreeing to engage with anyone who is prepared to argue that his criteria are invalid. Arguments have been put forward on this very blog which question Hazel's views, and Hazel rejects them as "not evidence" while refusing to give reasons for this rejection. In other words, Hazel is not prepared to participate in the discussion on equal terms, but insists on being appointed judge, jury and executioner in advance, ruling every criticism as contempt of court without giving reasons for his decision, and demanding that his viwpoint should be assumed to be true as a precondition for any discussion.. (2)The supercomputer in THE HITCHHIKER'S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY which discovers the answer that explains the meaning of life but not the question (without which the answer is incomprehensible) is NOT a model of cognition but a piece of absurdist fiction, since the answer could only be identified as such if the question was already known. Hazel seems to have overlooked this minor detail.
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Oct 16, 2009 13:05:48 GMT
So again, although I showed what you said of my position, and although I showed FIVE quotes showing my position is the EXACT opposite of the one you made up for me. You STILL won't withdraw your lie and prefer instead to get upset I call you a liar. Again, I will not pretend to be surprised at the level of honesty you wish to show on this board. Your lies are an embarrassment to yourself, your faith and everyone who shares it.
And as usual rather than answer what I have asked you, you have just engaged in re-writing what I have said to you. Nothing above is an answer to anything, it is merely you taking what I have said, claiming to be summarising it, but wholly changing it instead. More lies in other words. Lie built on lie built on lie is all you offer us here.
If you are aware of evidence I have "JUST REJECTED" as you put it, then point me to it and I will go ahead and explain my rejection of it.
I am aware of no such evidence, and judgnig by your honesty so far I am forced to question whether it really has been given to me or are you just lying again.
So please, rather than just TALKING about evidence I have rejected, SHOW me which evidence I am meant to have rejected. If it really is there, that cant be hard to do can it? Yet inexplicably you fail to be able to do it over, and over, and over, and over, and over and over again.
However if you are getting your arguments from "THE HITCHHIKER'S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY" I will not be expecting much to be honest.
|
|