If your opening statement that I have quoted is supposed to be an indication that you have “won” some sort of “debate,” then I am happy for you. On the other hand, failing to excite interest in a topic about which few care does not strike me as much of a win.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, it was a lamentation that the critics in this thread didn’t actually appear to be here to discuss the premise of the thread.
Thank you for sharing with me your knowledge of what everyone else on this board believes. Is this a statement along the lines of: '“Blunt” is merely a euphemism for “rude” and “harsh” is merely a euphemism for “insult.” ’ Is your knowledge of everyone’s beliefs on this board along the same lines of knowing what words are also the same?
Now, although I have been discussing several issues, you don’t actully mention which one this is in reference to. Do I have to guess? Because I would guess that the most controversial thing I’ve stated is that morality is tied to purpose. And seeing as you know so very well what words have the same meaning as other words, I’m sure you noticed that right from the beginning I said that having a reason for a moral instruction is the same as having a purpose for a moral instruction.
The claim of “poor logic” should be followed by an example of such. Just as the previous claim of mining, (or “selected quotes” here,) should have been followed by examples showing Jesus never spoke harshly, or, examples showing that he treated the ruling elite, (Pharisees, scribes, priests, etc.) as the recipients of his message rather than as the targets of it.
Now, I like this claim of “poor logic” because it gives me something to discuss, (even though it provides no examples or descriptions of such, and I really have to ask what you mean by it.)
I really like this charge, because my whole argument is based on one simple premise: “reason” and “purpose” being synonyms in this context. Being able to replace “reason” with “purpose” and have your meaning be the same. (And please don’t use the stupid argument that “that’s just a meaningless word trick” as I’ve had claimed before in such a situation… Substitution is one of the first legitimate tactics they teach you in high school English.)
Right from the start I said that these were the same, and that in order to give people a reason to follow a moral instruction, you gave them a purpose for following a moral instruction. And the person who then attempted to give a reason for morality tied to existence rather than purpose set himself up as worthy of scorn for failing to recognise, (not logic,) but simple definitions. It was no effort for me to take any reason he gave, (when he gave one, and when he actually gave a moral instruction,) and turn it into the purpose of the instruction. It was dead simple and no one has disputed it. You didn’t show how it was illogical, all you can do is claim it isn’t. If you have an example, please show it.
There is one simple piece of logic you can try to refute if you wish. That was this…
If morality is tied to purpose, (and it has to be, for pure definition reasons above,) then in order for there to be any morality that isn’t simply the chosen whim of every individual, (of the same value whether imagined by serial killer or philanthropist…) in order for there to be what the vast majority imagine as “Right and Wrong,” we have to be endowed with the same purpose. Can you explain how we get that without a creator?
People are not actually persuaded by logic. They can be persuaded by emotional appeals. Which I try to avoid because it leads to illogical results. (Still, it’s their response that persuades them.) So, I’m not trying to do either. It’s not possible to persuade someone who doesn’t intend to discuss an issue, who is emotionally attatched to their side of the argument rather than the validity of an argument.
I’m sure that some people were so attached to their side that they couldn’t notice that “reason” and “purpose” have the same meaning in this context. They can’t refute it, but they will come back with the same belief again. I can’t persuade them. The only thing that will persuade anyone is that nagging uncomfortable feeling in the pit of their stomach when they realize they can’t refute an argument they don’t support, but the support for their argument has crumbled. I can only hope to provide that feeling in the pit of the stomach. The rest is up to you. It is your choice to either evaluate your position or dismiss the arguments without evaluation. I have no ability to force you to evaluate and change your position, even when a change is completely warranted.
So, what is your purpose? Are you here to discuss something? Or did you come in here to defend your side? Did you intend to accuse me of “dismissing” someone while they admitted that they dismissed the entire thread? Were you simply defending them because they agree with you, regardless of whether you ended up defending them for doing what you then accused me of? Or were you coming in to tell me that their bad behaviour is irrelevent, I shouldn’t angrily stoop to their level? That point I could accept. (In fact, I think I will accept that point even if you didn’t intend it.) Were you trying to help me, or attack my side? What was your purpose? I would prefer that you wanted a debate rather than simply defending a side. I would prefer that you had examples to explain your arguments rather than non-supported non-arguments like, “not shared by anyone on this board,” (which did not mention which statement, so I had to guess,) and “poor logic,” (which provided no examples at all. Why do people think they can “refute” arguments with statements that provide no arguments? I can only guess they are making an emotional appeal to their side.)
