Advertisements

Antipelagian vs. Vitaminbook

For those of you following the exchange between Antipelagian and Vitaminbook in the comments section of this post, Antipelagian has taken the battle to his own home front here.  AP pulls no punches when it comes to atheist morality, so be warned.  Vitaminbook has a response of sorts, pondering atheist morality here.  I’ll dissect that post later, when I have some more time.

Meanwhile, I encourage readers to follow up on that debate.  It is very interesting to say the least.

Advertisements

About Cory Tucholski

I'm a born-again Christian, amateur apologist and philosopher, father of 3. Want to know more? Check the "About" page!

Posted on June 13, 2008, in Apologetics, Morality and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. 7 Comments.

  1. That wasn’t actually a response from me – I’ve just now seen AP’s post. The ‘Heathens Gone Wild’ post was inspired by a commentor on another blog.

  2. Seriously, that comment wasn’t you? Trolls are usually less subtle when they impersonate other…I hate blogger…

    Well, I responded to the comment as if it was you.

  3. No no, *that* was me. What I meant was that the post on my bog – Hedonistic Heathens Gone Wild – wasn’t meant to be a response to you.

    So the comment on your blog *is* me, and it’s a response, but the post on my blog *isn’t* a response…

    If you get me!

  4. That is, the older post on my blog isn’t a response. The new one (the longer one) is.

    (Well, I’ve just invalidated any corellation between atheists and intelligence…)

  5. Okay. I got it. I had some trouble a few months back with a troll…he said foul things you wouldn’t believe…I’ve seen a lot in my life, but what he said was likely illegal…so there is relief on my part that the comment was yours!

  6. Here’s my next response…both on my site and VB’s if anyone is interested:

    VB,

    I’m not sure if we’re really in a debate, per se…my post was “inspired” by you, but I wasn’t inviting you to a debate…though I’m willing to discuss these things.

    I won’t get into everything in your post…I’ll note a few items.

    Now apply that to a more realistic situation: anyone may do anything they want with or two themselves, so long as it doesn’t impinge on the rights of others.

    What you’re doing is begging the question. When we talk about “rights” we’re already presuming a system of justice…which is essentially an application of ethics (i.e. morality). I am asking you to demonstrate logically how it is that morality (which includes “rights”) *follows* from your worldview. I am not speaking practically…I know atheists are not immoral all the time, violating squirrels and urinating on children’s chalk art on sidewalks. I realize you may act in a morally utilitarian way…I’m asking you to make sense of that being an approach which is *necessarily incumbent on people to follow*. Again, I’m asking you to do this in a way which is logical…which means the fallacy of begging the question is inadmisable.

    Since nearly all of us are subject to these emotions, and since we realize that others feel them as well, it isn’t difficult to consider that the actions we take against others will produce in them a similar effect as if that action was taken against us.

    But why should the way I might feel about something alter the way I act towards others? I feel differently about many issues than you…in fact, that is why you argue for sodomite rights against me…you think I’m wrong…so the way you feel is not the way I feel. This makes *you* the ultimate arbiter of morality…it absurdly implies that your ethical judgements could never be mistaken, unless you happen to misunderstand your own feelings. It also absurdly implies *I can never be wrong either*…which means when there are conflicting “moral feelings”…both are deemed *right*.

    You see the logical contradiction, I hope.

    To do so would be to completely ignore the framework that most atheists use to determine right and wrong, a point that Antipelegian misses entirely.

    Trust me, I haven’t missed you at all. Your framework rests on your own feelings…you also mix in utilitarianism…so you’re all about the “good of others”…but again, this also begs the question:
    Why is the “good” of others *GOOD*?

    Subjectivism cannot account for morality, because in the end it must address intrinsic *goodness* (i.e. what is good about the good of others?)…which is to deny the premise of subjective morality.

    So far, you rest your argument on at least 2 logical fallacies: you’re begging the question, and you violate the law of non contradiction.

  1. Pingback: Apparently I’m In A Debate « Odder Stories

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: