Maximus Posted February 7, 2009 Report Share Posted February 7, 2009 This guy is just trolling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamil Posted February 7, 2009 Report Share Posted February 7, 2009 Technically, haze is spelled correctly, but it is a poor substitute for the word has. I am not sure chow he could have assumed that either. Don't blame me blame the spell check. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EKUzombiE Posted February 14, 2009 Report Share Posted February 14, 2009 I have an intriguing and sometimes fairly heated discussion with my boss at work about once a week. My boss is a Christian (Baptist,) actually studying in seminary to become a preacher...pastor or whatever. I am an Objectivist, and an Atheist. Reliably every time, the discussion whittles down to the basis for morals and ethics. He states that, as I do not believe in a god or holy scripture or holy word, there is no basis for my morals or ethics (his basis being the word of his god.) I explain to him that the basis for my morals, values and ethics rests in my ability to reason...my understanding of the world and people around me, and my recognition of the correct values and morals which allow me to best serve my own well being. He then claims that my own reason or intelligence is not a valid basis for morals, ethics or values, as my knowledge is not nearly extensive enough to determine the difference between right and wrong. He claims that only god and jesus christ can truly make this distinction, and for that reason we should follow his word. I usually then repeat to him a quote I heard...from someone. Not Rand...peikoff, paul, anyone like that, not a name. I think it was from an obscure book. "It is foolish to claim that because I know something, I know everything. It is far more foolish to claim that because I do not know everything, I know nothing." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TuringAI Posted February 14, 2009 Report Share Posted February 14, 2009 Don't blame me blame the spell check. I've reported you to the mods, troll. Haste Law Visa, Baby. ;P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Patroller Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 He thinks that people can be good without religion just because some instinct informs them. This belief has an analogue in the Aristotelian view of ethical process as taught at Providence Collage in the Ethics course It is called "co-natural knowledge" and holds that an attutude toward good and evil "comes with the territory" i.e. from living and being an observant being, without formal training. This, in turn, is used as evidence to point to the legitimacy of Ethics (how to tell good from evil) as a subject of inquirey. Also the desireability of the Good lies not in ethics (which presupposes good and evel and the desireaability of making that observation and distinction), but in Metaphyisics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 (edited) He then claims that my own reason or intelligence is not a valid basis for morals, ethics or values, as my knowledge is not nearly extensive enough to determine the difference between right and wrong. He claims that only god and jesus christ can truly make this distinction, and for that reason we should follow his word. Just because he is not able to discern right from wrong dosen't mean the rest of us need the Great Wish fairy in the Sky to tell us what is what. Point out to him the Bible was not written by "God," but by men. He is willing to give up to an authority his ability to think for security of being told what to think. That make him no better than a child. Edited February 23, 2009 by Maximus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.