Originally Posted by MarkUK
Not love. ok let's screw our heads on straight now and think oK? love in this context means the love of God from the News Statement which the word Agape It doesn't mean just anytime you like something. I don't agape ice cream. understand?
it's a certain kind of thing, where you accord the other the dignfiy due him/her as a human being. understand now?
You seem to have imposed a "not evil = good" dichotomy. Why?
So not helping old ladies across the road is evil? What are you talking about? Oh - you're applying your false dichotomy again.
same guy MarkUK in another thread:
Conjuring a concept like "agape" out of nowhere isn't desperate, then...In case you missed the point here this guy thinks I made up agape!
A little help from those theist posters who ask atheists to show evidence that proves that God does not exist.there are two reasons why this is abismally stupid:
Please take a moment to review the following list of deities that have been worshipped by humans at one to time or another;
(This is a partial list)
Agdistis or Angdistis
Now, if you wouldn't mind, please select a few of the deities, and prove with evidence that they don't exist.
This will provide us with an acceptable method that we can use in our attempts to show the non-existance of YHWH.
(1) We don't believe in any of these 'gods' because we are Christians how is disproving them going to disprove what we see as the true God?
(2) This guy has been around me long enough to know (he's posted on carm for years) he should have heard his 500 times, these are all pointing to the reality behind all the constructs. There's a real God beyond all the cultural constructs of God and all the constructs point to thta ralityi. So disproving them all is just nothing to do with the real God.
His supreme intellectual highness Royce: the all knowing said that my view of evil as the absence of the good is stupid, obviously BS ect ect.
Meta:yes it is. you show your ignorance in saying that because that hendges upon major wings of the chruch thought beginning with St. Augustine. you don't know Christian thinking well enough to be in his discussion.
Royce: I don't care if it's what Augustine or branches of the Church wrote; it's still false. There were a lot of claims made in medieval times that we now know to be false, especially since they were influenced by false claims from Plato and Aristotle. And I explained to you why saying "evil is the absence of good" is false.The all knowing one says "don't confuse me with the facts." Look at his logic
we know some claims from the medieval times are false.
this is a claim from mideval times (not really but who cares)
therfore it must be false.
so in ohter words because some claims from the past are false all claims form the past are false.
Royce:Do you expect contemporary philosophers and people interested in contemporary philosophy, to simply take medieval claims as true even if they make no sense?Meta:
Yes when they are right.
For example: do you want to go back to the false Aristotlean biology they advocated as opposed to the modern synthesis? If so, then enjoy setting science back by centuries. If not, then please stop engaging in special pleading by thinking you can rebut my claims by showing that some medieval philosophers like Augustine disagreed with me.
Meta: Now class what is special pleading? It's when you say I accept the ruels of logic in all other cases but let me break it in this case for a special reason.
The Nizkor Project
How am I doing that? he hasn't a clue. I guess he means to say that using Augustine as a special authority is soemthing I wouldn't do in other cases so that seems kind of special pleading except it would bit more appropriately under appeal to authority.
Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
- Person A accepts standard(s) S and applies them to others in circumtance(s) C.
- Person A is in circumstance(s) C.
- Therefore A is exempt from S.
The reason it's neither is because I'm quoting a doctrine that I accept as a price of membership in the club of Christianity. I find that Augustine's has the most logical and acceptable explanation of that doctrine ie the doctrine of evil. So therefore I choose Augustine's view. No special pleading about it. As for appeal to authority this is appeal to the proper authroity. no fallacy.
In terms of the rest of the argument, his attack is base based upon guilt by association. The idea that certain ideas form a time period are wrong therefore all ideas form that time are wrong is just guilt by association.
this just in the dumb ass adds to his follow:
Originally Posted by Royce
sure you can but I don't. I didn't say that's the only view. I said it's a respectable historically valid view Chrsitain wise.
Also, the position is false since there are morally neutral things that are neither good nor evil (ex: Darth Pringle's example of the chair in a cupboard, my example of an asteroid floating through a lifeless universe). Thus evil cannot be the absence of good.
that doesn't prove it. you don't understand what the term is talking about. There is such a thing as morally neutral. Sometime is not a moral issue it's not good or evil. That doesn't' mean that evil is a positive radiate like heat.It means it's got the appearance of such like cold air..
Next, you did commit the fallacy of special pleading since because you're willing to reject some false claims from medieval times and Augustine (such as Aristotlean biology) but when there are other false claims from those same times and that same individual, you decide to accept them. That's double-standard. That's special pleading. Even if it was their doctrine at the time, who cares. It's still false, since it runs afoul of the category of "morally neutral". Augustine was wrong.
how stupid can you get? you actually said it's special pleading to reject false claims and accept true ones. I don't accept Augustine because he's form a certain time period but becuase he's respected in the chruch.I don't accept demonstrably false claims of cousre, it's only right to accept true ones. so I accept those I think are true even if they are very old.