Can Theistic Morality Be Objective?Here and here, I argued that Luke Muehlhauser misled the audience at Colorado State University by declaring as subjective a God-based morality William Lane Craig does not actually endorse [a.k.a., refuting a strawman].
Luke’s response was to attack my character by labeling me a troll in his 7-point rejoinder, which I believe I successfully rebutted. Now, instead of responding to that rebuttal, Luke has declared in some sort of odd, melodramatic exit stage left that he’s “finally given up” on me. I won’t tire you with why I think that’s not a move a person with good desires would make. I’d rather dig a little deeper into one of the counterarguments I made in my aforementioned responses.
If I Say Food Is Cheap, Especially Meat…Lately I’ve been looking for new strategies in my discussions with atheists. I’ve come to realize, that which people need to see has often already been said, so sometimes it’s best to just restate things exactly as they’ve already been stated, and keep my commentary to a minimum.
I recently spent some time dissecting the 200+ comments in the thread of SI’s I Wish I’d Written That, and I’ve noticed that demands for clarity and accountability are very annoying to many atheists, for example PhillyChief:
Why I Do What I DoEvery now and again it's helpful to ask oneself why one does the things they do. Recently, I found myself asking myself why I actually blog, and more particularly, why I comment on other blogs. I encourage you to skip this post, actually. It's not about epistemology or consciousness or potency or any of the more stimulating things we've been talking about these past weeks. I just needed to think some stuff out, and figured, why not do it in public? [weird little interview with myself follows]
A Pact Of IgnoranceMy ears had been burning: I just knew on faith that ol' jim had somethin' nasty brewin' over there! He'd been way too quiet lately. He's written a letter to Team Scarlet A, an open invitation to a pact of ignorance amongst the likeminded:
What I’d like to suggest is a pact amongst the likeminded – the ‘haters’ as cl surely would dub us – to simply ignore the guy. I know, I know! LOL! Easy to say, yes? But it’s become absolutely crystal clear to me that cl does not have the ability to play well with others. At least, not with those who seriously challenge him.
–jim, reason vs. apologetics
Well, where to start? First, I like the use of the word "likeminded" and think it's an especially useful adjective for describing Team Scarlet A. Second, jim saying that I lack the ability to play well would be hilarious were it not for statements like these from him:
You're nothing but a big baby, cl. Put up or shut up, ya wuss… Suck THAT ass, you internet miscreant. Grow some.
–jim, reason vs. apologetics
This Is Getting Old: Meta-Analysis At SI’s, IMotivated by the pursuit of clarity, I've decided to undertake a more thorough meta-analysis of various threads I've been on at SI's. By meta-analysis I mean that I'm going through the posts and threads to see if any sort of patterns emerge, because numbers don't lie.
The first post I looked at was This is Getting Old [thread: 50 comments as of 12-15-2009].
A Response To bryceSo, the usual haters are at it again, but in between the name-calling and flanking I noticed a rather composed comment from somebody by the name of bryce. I liked the response his comment provoked, but it got a bit long, so I figured I'd post it here. Who knows? Maybe bryce will come by, maybe we'll have a fruitful discussion, or maybe he'll even become a regular commenter? Weirder things have happened. Here's bryce's comment in its entirety:
Errors Of Logical TreasonJust a quick log-on to vent about something momentarily. In my previous post about why I'd like to debate with a computer, we suggested that computers are effectively immune from errors of human pride. What's pissing me off at the moment is the amount of people that are perfectly willing to accuse others of all sorts of things that require some degree of clairvoyance, from arguing in bad faith to sophism to outright lying, usually all over some petty, related misunderstanding.
What's wrong with the idea of being cordial and extending the benefit of the doubt? I suppose the online world is just a reflection of reality, where far too many people are just impatient and all too willing to cast blame on the other person. Far too often, I feel like people are bumping directly into me, then telling me that I was in their way! They'll misunderstand some statement I made, then turn around and accuse me of sophism because my subsequent reasoning doesn't conform to their misunderstanding!! I mean this stuff would be hilarious were it not so maddeningly frustrating.