Posts by WH
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Are you suggesting that everyone here continue to extend patience and the most impeccable of good manners, with nary a hint of exasperation, ad infinitum?
Don't worry, no-one's accusing the magic poo monster space aliens of that.
To be fair, I always enjoying reading your posts Rich.
-
This doesn’t mean that there is necessarily no God, just that he isn’t necessary for morality
I think there are two slightly different issues.
The first is the 'objective source of meaning' problem. As I tried to show with references, this is something that many important atheistic thinkers have actively embraced. While you don't need a source of objective meaning to construct a useful ethical system (e.g, via some variant on ethical naturalism), without a source of meaning it is ultimately arbitrary.
I understand the force in the Platonic argument you've put, although I've wondered whether it covers the all of the possible relationships between divinity and morality (ie, is it a false dilemma).
In short, I agree with the first part of your sentence and I would accept the second with qualifications.
-
absolute toxin to creativity
It's okay, I don't have any of that.
Do you know what I have been having trouble with lately? Spooky co-incidences. I was at the lights last week when that old Bob Muldoon quip about emigres to Australia raising the IQ of both countries popped into mind. The next day, two colleagues walking past my desk (in London) brought it up. It's happened a few times. Maybe I should lay off the martinis.
I wouldn't suggest that this be taught in schools, however.
-
I know more than you ignorant dupes, enough to burst your complacent bubbles. You may queue to kiss my enlightened arse
Mmm. Maybe.
For conversational purposes I'm an agnostic, so it seems to me that atheism and theism are just different kinds of unsupportable assumption.
-
It may be understood, but it's still only an argument. Doesn't mean they're right or wrong.
You're not fully getting it, IMO.
But whatever. Feel free to disprove it, rather than ridicule other users or suggest that they be banned.
-
This is what comes of discussing religion with opinionated heathen on the internet.
I thought the argument that morality needs a universal reference point to have absolute meaning (ie, meaning that is not reducible to physical, psychological or social factors) was well understood. This has been discussed throughout the history of philosophy and can be found, for example, in the work of the sophists and the relativists and in the existentialism of Nietzsche and Sartre.
For the avoidance of doubt, I don't give a fuck what you happen to believe about the universe. Just don't pretend atheism doesn't raise questions about life's meaning.
Sometimes you people act like real wankers.
-
-
You have to be a bit careful about giving primacy to free speech rights in the context of the statutory regulation of elections.
This was one of the issues in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the US case that involved a hit job documentary about Hillary Clinton that a private group wanted to screen just before the Democratic primary.
I know it's not a major issue in New Zealand but in other places people work hard to get around the laws designed to ensure elections are fairly contested.
-
This is one of those posts that veers mysteriously between Salt Lake City and robot dog.
I'm not going to waste my breath or my weekend on this.
-
I just watched this John Campbell interview with Phil Goff. I've always thought of Phil Goff as a basically decent guy.
John Key looks a bit rattled.