Here is another awesome diatribe.

Here is another awesome diatribe.

"Blondie" Lies about My Honesty With Evidence.

ON CARM in an exchange on the moral argument:

Originally Posted by Metacrock

you don't understand the moral argument. I'm not surprised. this is the kind of third rate attempt we get when we are content to stop with the surface of level of ideolgoical sloganizing.

I understand the moral argument.

The moral argument that the Crock is referring to is Kant's idea that unless you believe in some objective moral system you are not allowed to make value judgments concerning human behavior. Of course this is silly on a thousand levels and has been shot down many, many times.

Still, apologists like to bring it up because they can ask the atheists where they get their morals from and throw them off in debates. The theist can always answer any question with "on account a' Jesus." The moral argument is not so much an argument as a debate trick.

Blondie:

I doubt you do because you have never been able to defend any position.

I still remember when you pulled a quote from some quy off the Internet and actually went in and changed a word to make is sounded like he supported your point. When I caught you you said I was stupid and that you we're modifying it or something and I was too dumb to know what that meant. I have never seen anyone do anything so nakedly dishonest and shameful on one of these forums.

when challenged he can't come across with the skinny.

Here he wants me to dig through tens of thousands of CARM threads to find this one post. All I can say is that he did it and when I caught him he didn't deny it, he tried to justify it.

I offer Metacrock's character as my witness.

Originally Posted by ferengi

Evidence please.

Even if it were true - you cannot say what he did was wrong - because your feelings are not a basis for a moral law - objective or otherwise.

It is true and it is wrong, in my subjective opinion. One of the many reasons that the moral argument is not just wrong but stupid is ferengi's response.

He defends the Crock's dishonesty by claiming I have no right to make a value judgment about his lies.

See, you gotta believe in Jesus or something to make those kind of calls.


Blondie:

In your subjective opinion because, like so many Christians, you have a broken moral compass.

Like I said. People that believe in objective morality often end up justifying things we all believe to be wrong. Atheists just end up getting tongue tied or saying human happiness or something is the foundation for morality.

several things to notice:

(1) I have repeated remakes that I don't argue for objective ethics I think that is not a valid concern of major ethicist such as Kant, ect. so I don't use it.

(2) the fact that tries to stick me with it shows (a) he has never actually paid attention to any of my arguments. (b) I've denied over and over that I"m into objective ethics (c) he clearly doesn't care about truth, he thinks in stereotypes the real facts of a situation are secondary to him.

The Crock is so confused between the Evangelical/fundamentalist and new age versions of his made up religion he can't even make a consistent point. He uses the moral argument as a weapon and then denies that it is valid.

(3) the real issue is his bid to assassinate my charter.. This twister little guy is a street fighter. He goes for the jugular. he knows my work as a scholar is improtant to me so tha'ts what he tries to destroy from day one. He began attacking my scholarship and my reserach ability (which are so clearly better than since he used 100 year old articles in documentation about Lourdes) That's what he's out to destroy is the understanding that I'm a scholar and that's what I'm good at. He's lied in many ways to try and destroy that reputation.

As I mentioned before, the Crock only has 2 arguments for his new age version of Christianity: peak experiences and faith healing. For some reason the Lourdes "miracles" are somehow more sober than others.

The Crock is somehow mindbogglingly gullible when it comes to Lourdes. He is obviously unaware of what the "miracle" implies or that there are many of the healing wells around the area.

(4) I don't care that most atheist her hate my guts, I don't care if you think you have a valid reason, which you don't. I don't give a damn. I understand why I fight back against your bullying I understand why can't admit that you bully.

I will now allow this aspect of it to be destroyed without taking the character assassin down with me.


(5) please notice how totally unfair this is to make this kind charge and not have any evidence. He could be totally making this up. I'm willing to think he's just not a very good researcher so he doesn't understand something, or it was typo and it's too good to pass up.

a mistake that plays so into his hands is too good for him to not use somehow.

think of the unfair nature of it to say that and not have proof. It's just destructive he could lie about it so easily. If no one cares that it's just and someone is being hurt unfairly then its so easy to do. what are you going to do when someone does to you?

I love it when he starts to lose it. The Crock has the emotional level of of child. It would be tempting to feel sorry for him but he is just so mean spirited.


If there was any reality to it he would at least have a name. he doesn't offer any kind of info. We don't know when it happened, what the issue was no idea.

I's so obviously just propaganda.

when someone demands that he makes good he just plays off of stereotypes and general hatred for Chrsitians.

Once again, the Crock's character is the most powerful argument against his "arguments."