Re: what do christians say about chinese people
 

[ QUOTE ]
only statements of fact can be proven wrong. if it's a statement of fact then it's pretty mundane, basically "criminals are punished in our society" or "criminals can expect to be punished" from which few important conclusions follow.

in the sense i'm pretty sure you're using the word, "criminals deserve to be punished" is a declaration of taste. that doesn't make it "wrong."

[/ QUOTE ]

If it's a problem with the word 'deserve,' then just replace the whole sentence with "criminals owe a debt payable in punishment." If Joe steals $200 from Richard, is the statement "Joe owes Richard a debt payable in cash" merely a declaration of taste?

Re: what do christians say about chinese people
 

[ QUOTE ]
you know your debate is approaching its end asymptotically when it becomes necessary to clarify what "meaning" means.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, fair enough. But how else is one to reply when someone asserts but offers no arguments for a philosophical position that denies his opponents sentences have any meaning? His particular position fell out of vogue decades ago, so I'd like to hear some actual arguments for it.

My view might have fallen out of vogue in some circles centuries ago, but I'm actually not the one on the defensive here. Most of what I've been doing is just asking someone to present an actual challenge to the Christian position, instead of factoids and rhetorical questions.

Re: what do christians say about chinese people
 

[ QUOTE ]
I would be most interested to hear your arguments for the specific claim that the term 'God' can have no actual meaning.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, because religion characterizes God as an Entity with infinite, supra-temporal qualities? In case you haven't noticed, everything that can be meaningfully discriminated in observable reality is finite and temporal.

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps you could give an example of what you mean by "giv[ing] an actual meaning by proceeding rationally from actual definitions"

[/ QUOTE ]

How about: "The sky is blue." All terms in this sentence map to actually observable entities or definitional categories.

[ QUOTE ]
And what is "actual" about actual meaning?

[/ QUOTE ]
It is based in ACTUAL OBSERVATION.

The point is that you cannot inveigle metaphysical entities into actual entities just because you are able to analogize the two categories in a subjectively meaningful sentence.

Subjective meaning != actual meaning. Logical necessity != actual necessity.

Re: what do christians say about chinese people
 

[ QUOTE ]
Most of what I've been doing is just asking someone to present an actual challenge to the Christian position,

[/ QUOTE ]

NOBODY CAN RATIONALLY CHALLENGE A NONRATIONAL CLAIM. MMKAY?

Re: what do christians say about chinese people
 

[ QUOTE ]
My view might have fallen out of vogue in some circles centuries ago

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, yes, b/c Kant raped it so brutally that it lost all hope of credibility.

Re: what do christians say about chinese people
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
only statements of fact can be proven wrong. if it's a statement of fact then it's pretty mundane, basically "criminals are punished in our society" or "criminals can expect to be punished" from which few important conclusions follow.

in the sense i'm pretty sure you're using the word, "criminals deserve to be punished" is a declaration of taste. that doesn't make it "wrong."

[/ QUOTE ]

If it's a problem with the word 'deserve,' then just replace the whole sentence with "criminals owe a debt payable in punishment." If Joe steals $200 from Richard, is the statement "Joe owes Richard a debt payable in cash" merely a declaration of taste?

[/ QUOTE ]

it's not clear what you mean by "owe."

i don't think you can abandon the word "deserve" though, because eventually you will want to argue that there is some sort of cosmic need that criminals be punished and debts be repaid.

it's better if you can try to argue that people agreed to this implicitly by allowing the use of "deserve."

Re: what do christians say about chinese people
 

Ok, I'm going to bed, but why do you say this:

[ QUOTE ]
His particular position fell out of vogue decades ago, so I'd like to hear some actual arguments for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying that non-naturalistic idealism is somehow in vogue? Are you serious? Because my only "positions" are methodological naturalism and, more generally, repudiation of all specially privileged idealisms.

Re: what do christians say about chinese people
 

my problem with Christian morality:

The issue here isn't the arcana and details of whats right and wrong, who should be punished for what, and how. The issue here is why anyone should take any particular moral position. It seems to me that questions of the highest moral imperative should be answered with reason, and that any decision should take facts into account.

The Christian position (as I see it, please let me know if I'm wrong) goes like this: humans are born with evil in them, because of original sin. Everyone is guilty of crimes that were committed before they were born. Because we betrayed God in this way, we have to make it up to him by being as good as we can, and accepting the sacrifice of Jesus. Any time we commit a moral infraction, we are betraying God. If we live our lives as best we can, following the strict moral guidelines set down in the Bible and/or we deny the sacrifice of Christ, then we will be punished for eternity in Hell. If we do good, and accept Jesus, then we can live forever in heaven with God.
A Christian must take all these things into consideration in order to answer a moral question.

So ask yourself: are any of the claims about God, original sin, or Jesus Christ true? How can you even begin to prove them? Can anyone show me this Hell and Heaven that we are threatened/awarded with? Can anyone prove that Jesus even existed? To a degree that would hold up in court? All you have is a 2k year old book, whose accounts of Christ's life and death are contradictory and based on hearsay. Furthermore the accounts of his deeds border on the preposterous.

Surely we need more than this on which to base our morality. It would be irrational to make life or death decisions based on such flimsy, uncorroborated claims.
If you tell someone that deed X is good because thats what God wants, thats dishonest because you can't possibly know that. If you tell someone that deed X is bad because God will condemn you to Hell, its dishonest because you can't possibly know that. You haven't seen Hell, God, or Jesus outside of your own mind, or written about in a book.
When we are faced with moral questions of the highest importance we must be honest, scrupulously honest , about our intentions, our desires, and about the world that we live in. About the physical reality of the world. Nothing less is sufficient for a rational morality.

Re: what do christians say about chinese people
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would be most interested to hear your arguments for the specific claim that the term 'God' can have no actual meaning.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, because religion characterizes God as an Entity with infinite, supra-temporal qualities? In case you haven't noticed, everything that can be meaningfully discriminated in observable reality is finite and temporal.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what is your argument that it is only things in observable reality that can be meaningfully discriminated by language? Do 'two' or 'triangle' have actual meaning?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps you could give an example of what you mean by "giv[ing] an actual meaning by proceeding rationally from actual definitions"

[/ QUOTE ]

How about: "The sky is blue." All terms in this sentence map to actually observable entities or definitional categories.

[/ QUOTE ]

You left out the part where you clearly stated what you meant by "proceeding rationally from actual definitions." Anyway, I've already said that all talk of God is analogical in character, so it *does* proceed from knowledge of observable entities. The properties with which you take issue, infinitude and supra-temporality, are clearly terms which involve the negation of properties known in observable entities.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And what is "actual" about actual meaning?

[/ QUOTE ]
It is based in ACTUAL OBSERVATION.

The point is that you cannot inveigle metaphysical entities into actual entities just because you are able to analogize the two categories in a subjectively meaningful sentence.

Subjective meaning != actual meaning. Logical necessity != actual necessity.

[/ QUOTE ]

We're not dealing with merely subjective meaning here. You never responded to either my claim that analogy is different from metaphor or my question concerning when you do think analogical predication is meaningful, since you said it is "usually" nonrational.

You seem to admit now that we're able to speak of God as a logical concept and a logically possible metaphysical entity. So, on your account then, there is such a thing as a nonrational, totally meaningless statement that is logically true? Someone is playing language games here, but it isn't me. But, I suppose the rhetorical force of your response to theists isn't as strong or as impressive to less-educated atheists if you use the term 'non-empirical' instead of 'nonrational.'

Edit: Your criticism here also makes it sound like you think I am defending some version of an ontological argument. I'm not.

Also, why did you begin your response to me in this thread by asking for a theodicy, if you must think that the term theodicy itself and any sentences using it are nonrational?

Re: what do christians say about chinese people
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, I'm going to bed, but why do you say this:

[ QUOTE ]
His particular position fell out of vogue decades ago, so I'd like to hear some actual arguments for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying that non-naturalistic idealism is somehow in vogue? Are you serious? Because my only "positions" are methodological naturalism and, more generally, repudiation of all specially privileged idealisms.

[/ QUOTE ]

The specific position that 'God' has no actual meaning and that all analogical predication is meaningless is, to say the least, no longer a widely held view in contemporary analytic philosophy.