OCinBuffalo Posted October 2, 2009 Posted October 2, 2009 an atheists ethics come from the foundation of happiness and suffering... moving away from suffering and towards happiness... this is off topic but do u think life starts at conception? lets find out what morality really means here... I have news for you: all religious ethos are based on moving away from suffering towards happiness as well.... So how does this disprove what I wrote above? Hint: it doesn't. Essentially you have answered: "what is 2 + 2?", with "chili", again. i forget to mention jesus supported slavery too... And Martin Luther King, an ordained minister, f'ed around....so does that invalidate his entire message and his existence? Of course it doesn't. And, quote me chapter and verse where Jesus directly supports slavery please.
DELLAPELLE JOHN Posted October 2, 2009 Author Posted October 2, 2009 I have news for you: all religious ethos are based on moving away from suffering towards happiness as well.... So how does this disprove what I wrote above? Hint: it doesn't. Essentially you have answered: "what is 2 + 2?", with "chili", again. And Martin Luther King, an ordained minister, f'ed around....so does that invalidate his entire message and his existence? Of course it doesn't. And, quote me chapter and verse where Jesus directly supports slavery please. look we have a problem of communication here, religion is not all the same , its a word like sports. there hundreds of different sports.. same with religion... within christianity if u dont accept christ rising from the dead then u go to burn forever, hardly a doctrine of happiness dude... i sent u a personal message.
OCinBuffalo Posted October 2, 2009 Posted October 2, 2009 look we have a problem of communication here, Yes, apparently I know how to, and you....well....apparently you are still learning. EDIT: and how like a typical leftist dbag to move away from the content and onto the process as soon as they have no reasonable counter religion is not all the same , its a word like sports. there hundreds of different sports.. same with religion... Sure, I'll buy that just as soon as you tell me which religion is based on moving away from happiness and towards suffering. within christianity if u dont accept christ rising from the dead then u go to burn forever, hardly a doctrine of happiness dude... That's an "interesting" way to define Christianity. I guess the "turn the other cheek", "do unto others as you would have done to yourself", and "anything you do unto my brothers, you do unto me" parts are only minor tenets of the faith...and the burn in hell thing is the important stuff huh? i sent u a personal message. Hooray! Now you can lamely try to avoid my arguments in private. Wonderful.
DELLAPELLE JOHN Posted October 2, 2009 Author Posted October 2, 2009 Yes, apparently I know how to, and you....well....apparently you are still learning. Sure, I'll buy that just as soon as you tell me which religion is based on moving away from happiness and towards suffering. That's an "interesting" way to define Christianity. I guess the "turn the other cheek", "do unto others as you would have done to yourself", and "anything you do unto my brothers, you do unto me" parts are only minor tenets of the faith...and the burn in hell thing is the important stuff huh? Hooray! Now you can lamely try to avoid my arguments in private. Wonderful. you can have good moral tenets like turn other cheek without believing in fairy tales... u dont need delusion in order to have good morals... the main doctrine of OT christianity isnt even debatable. its atrocious... some parts in the nt are good but that with any other book too. some parts are bad and some are good. bottom line christianity says non-believers will go to hell... its not a good premise, its disturbing man
DC Tom Posted October 2, 2009 Posted October 2, 2009 an atheists ethics come from the foundation of happiness and suffering... moving away from suffering and towards happiness... this is off topic but do u think life starts at conception? lets find out what morality really means here... So you're making statements about the evolutionary basis of morality not only without evidence, but without a definition of morality? And you think that's rational and empirical?
DELLAPELLE JOHN Posted October 2, 2009 Author Posted October 2, 2009 the evidence is in our survival, we need coperation in order to survive... morality is based on moving away from suffering and towards well being... how many times have i said it...
DC Tom Posted October 2, 2009 Posted October 2, 2009 the evidence is in our survival, we need coperation in order to survive... That's not evidence, that's a statement. WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE that that statement is true? morality is based on moving away from suffering and towards well being... how many times have i said it... That definition is based on...what, exactly?
OCinBuffalo Posted October 2, 2009 Posted October 2, 2009 you can have good moral tenets like turn other cheek without believing in fairy tales... u dont need delusion in order to have good morals... the main doctrine of OT christianity isnt even debatable. its atrocious... some parts in the nt are good but that with any other book too. some parts are bad and some are good. bottom line christianity says non-believers will go to hell... its not a good premise, its disturbing man And this is all well and good, but it still doesn't tell us: Why you used atheism's moving it's followers towards happiness and away from suffering, as a counter to my clearly presented argument that says, if all you say is that: No atheists believe that life is meaningless Then, you can place any value you want on life high or low, as long as it's not 0, Which means the value of each life therefore relative, by definition. Again, I am calling out Sam, and you, for being phony. You are phony because instead of simply saying: I don't have a moral basis for my beliefs, they are relative to the situation, which would be accurate, you are saying "well, we don't place 0 value on life, therefore, it's OK if we place a value of 1 on lives we don't care about, and 10 on our kids, but you can't say we don't value life at all".
DELLAPELLE JOHN Posted October 2, 2009 Author Posted October 2, 2009 That's not evidence, that's a statement. WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE that that statement is true? because the statement is true. if u dont have societal norms, society breaks down, like during katrina... That definition is based on...what, exactly?
DELLAPELLE JOHN Posted October 2, 2009 Author Posted October 2, 2009 And this is all well and good, but it still doesn't tell us: Why you used atheism's moving it's followers towards happiness and away from suffering, as a counter to my clearly presented argument that says, if all you say is that: No atheists believe that life is meaningless Then, you can place any value you want on life high or low, as long as it's not 0, Which means the value of each life therefore relative, by definition. Again, I am calling out Sam, and you, for being phony. You are phony because instead of simply saying: I don't have a moral basis for my beliefs, they are relative to the situation, which would be accurate, you are saying "well, we don't place 0 value on life, therefore, it's OK we place a value of 1 on lives we don't care about, and 10 on our kids, but you can't say we don't value life at all". im curious , what is your moral compass? i already explained that without god u can have moral objectives when based on happiness and suffering.. im also curious as to whether or not u r a christian? go bills!
DELLAPELLE JOHN Posted October 2, 2009 Author Posted October 2, 2009 just because people attach value on certain action or belief doesnt mean its morally relative.. its not like there is one right food, but there is a distinction between food and poison, same with ethics and morality...
DC Tom Posted October 2, 2009 Posted October 2, 2009 because the statement is true. if u dont have societal norms, society breaks down, like during katrina... Learn to use the quote feature, retard. So your evidence that the statement is true is stating "the statement is true"? Even by your abyssmally low standards, that's idiotic. "'The statement is true' proves the truth of the statement" isn't even a rational construct of logic. And NOW you're introducing the concept of "societal norms". We're not talking about societal norms, we're talking about an evolutionary basis for morality. Those are not the same things.
DELLAPELLE JOHN Posted October 2, 2009 Author Posted October 2, 2009 Learn to use the quote feature, retard. So your evidence that the statement is true is stating "the statement is true"? Even by your abyssmally low standards, that's idiotic. "'The statement is true' proves the truth of the statement" isn't even a rational construct of logic. And NOW you're introducing the concept of "societal norms". We're not talking about societal norms, we're talking about an evolutionary basis for morality. Those are not the same things. the evidence is that it helps our survival, thats obvious... dont u think utility plays a role here??
DC Tom Posted October 2, 2009 Posted October 2, 2009 the evidence is that it helps our survival, thats obvious... dont u think utility plays a role here?? WHAT evidence is that it helps our survival? You have yet to present any evidence. Every time I ask for some, you avoid giving any. If the evidence is obvious, you should be able to present it.
OCinBuffalo Posted October 2, 2009 Posted October 2, 2009 im curious , what is your moral compass? i already explained that without god u can have moral objectives when based on happiness and suffering.. im also curious as to whether or not u r a christian? go bills! and I'm just curious...you sound like a Scientologist. As soon as the argument stops going your way, which was pages ago, now you want to personalize it to me. That's right out of the Scientologist playbook. Then, no matter what I say, this will now be about me, and conveniently gets you away from the obvious flaw in your "logic". Hint: I have nothing to do with the point currently being discussed. What does my religious "status" have to do with my argument that Sam is a phony who plays word games like saying "Well we don't think life is meaningless", instead of saying specifically what exact value they place on life. What's so difficult with simply being honest? Don't bother telling us what you don't believe = life is meaningless, and instead tell us what you do believe = what is the value you place on life, and is that consistent?
DELLAPELLE JOHN Posted October 2, 2009 Author Posted October 2, 2009 because it has already been observed that without coperation we will have a harder time with survival... u disagree?
DELLAPELLE JOHN Posted October 2, 2009 Author Posted October 2, 2009 and I'm just curious...you sound like a Scientologist. As soon as the argument stops going your way, which was pages ago, now you want to personalize it to me. That's right out of the Scientologist playbook. Then, no matter what I say, this will now be about me, and conveniently gets you away from the obvious flaw in your "logic". Hint: I have nothing to do with the point currently being discussed. What does my religious "status" have to do with my argument that Sam is a phony who plays word games like saying "Well we don't think life is meaningless", instead of saying specifically what exact value they place on life. What's so difficult with simply being honest? Don't bother telling us what you don't believe = life is meaningless, and instead tell us what you do believe = what is the value you place on life, and is that consistent? i just want to see where ur coming from of course i place value on life, what is ur point? ur equating on the idea that if i dont believe in god then life is meaningless, u r forgeting that u must deal with reality...for example u will suffer if u think u can fly... u will hit the ground hard when u jump. reality forces us to make decisions that coincide with our happiness... why is this so hard for u to understand... life has meaning without god, its easy to see.
DELLAPELLE JOHN Posted October 2, 2009 Author Posted October 2, 2009 i love my parents, i can still do this without belief in santa claus...
DELLAPELLE JOHN Posted October 2, 2009 Author Posted October 2, 2009 i still have meaning and it deals with reality.
DC Tom Posted October 2, 2009 Posted October 2, 2009 because it has already been observed that without coperation we will have a harder time with survival... By any mathematically sound logical formalism, your statement is equivalent to your earlier "the evidence is that it helps our survival". All you did was add "it has already been observed that...", which is semantically null. Little hint, Mr. Potato Head: repating the same thing over and over does NOT constitute "evidence". So...again...where is your evidence? u disagree? The only statement I've made is to demand you, as a self-professed rationalist, rationally prove your statements.
Recommended Posts