Page 22 of 33 [ 517 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 ... 33  Next

AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,051
Location: San Jose

04 Jul 2015, 12:53 am

God: You dare question god?
Me: yes I do because you gave us free will, which is your mistake!
God: I don't make mistakes! I am perfect!
Me: But you gave us free will allowing me to question you!
God: gah....no!! I am perfect!! ! I know all!!
Me: If you know all then why did you give humans free will, let alone place the tree of knowledge and tell Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit but they did anyway? It is as if you wanted it to happen! If you wanted total obedience you would not have given us humans free will!
God: Gahhhhhhhh your right nooOOOOoooooo *fades away*
Me: I win!


_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList


AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,051
Location: San Jose

04 Jul 2015, 1:14 am


_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,748

04 Jul 2015, 10:46 am

AspieOtaku wrote:
God: You dare question god?
Me: yes I do because you gave us free will, which is your mistake!
God: I don't make mistakes! I am perfect!
Me: But you gave us free will allowing me to question you!
God: gah....no!! I am perfect!! ! I know all!!
Me: If you know all then why did you give humans free will, let alone place the tree of knowledge and tell Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit but they did anyway? It is as if you wanted it to happen! If you wanted total obedience you would not have given us humans free will!
God: Gahhhhhhhh your right nooOOOOoooooo *fades away*
Me: I win!


Problem here is; you are confusing GOD for a human;
But you are truly no different than most so-called Christians
and Muslims who refer to GOD as a HE with a giant Penis!

God is much bigger, than a Penis!

And these same folks cannot look at the
Statue of David, overall, without getting
locked in on his tiny penis; that is
such narrow minded penis thinking;
but truly a symptom of GOD fearing
groups of conservative thinking minds
that see GOD as a HE penis; instead
of
ALLTHATIS;
MY GOD is much
bigger than a FRIGGING PENIS;
big or small; GOD is not
a frigging HUMAN, ALONE!
GOD IS
ALLONE!

I AM FREE to do all Nude male NEW AGE
Renaissance artisTRY, as my penis
is no 'big' deal to me; MY PEN
IS MUCH BIGGER, ANYWAY;
with more than 10 million
words in the last 4 years
and 4 months shy of 5.

Some people spend all
their life worrying about
their penises; the penises
of other folks, and THE
penis of HE GOD;
THAT'S beyond insanity
to me; as my biggest
sexual organ is between
my ears; in my gigantic
FRED HEAD; that outmeasures
the heads of women and men; ALIKE!

Albiet, with few Facebook likes and followers but; with
OMG 1.2 million views; just on Google PLUS!

Some folks are a little shy around me; but OH MY GOD; DO THEY GAWK!

IN FACT, I'm all over Facebook and YouTube in voyeur videos by
mostly shy females; I will and do add; for the muse of dance I bring
to them, all around my metro area; now, at 3820 miles in
just 22 months, measured by GPS NIKE Sports watch for
empirical minded naysayers! as well, or not so well.

BUT YES! GOD IS MUCH MORE
THAN A FRED HEAD! TOO!
but yes, I am still,
HEMAN!
PER
general
SIZE OF
HUMAN HEADS!

FootNOTE:

Per empirical measure, my head is also
reAlly long from top to bottom
as peaceful ruler ON foot;
AKA 12 inches LONG!
And amazingly, my name
FREDERICK means
PEACEFUL RULER;
now isn't that
JUST
coincidence
or
Synchronicity!
Smiles..;)
or BS..:)
It matter not;
as it is the
FEELING
THAT COUNTS!


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

04 Jul 2015, 2:03 pm

Lintar wrote:
Well, what else can I say? Yes, the members of I.S.I.S. who engage in head-chopping do believe that what they are doing is right, but that's not the point. The point is that what they are doing is not right; it is objectively wrong. At all times, forever, and regardless of excuses or circumstances.


Your argument is basically "I believe my subjective moral position is objectively right". What is the source of this supposed objective moral position?

Quote:
'Subjective perspective'? So, since from their 'perspective' they consider what they are doing to be right, and since the moral relativist's position is that there are no absolute moral values, I cannot therefore judge their actions? Is that the message you are giving me here?


If you consider me to be a moral relativist, why would you assume that any "message" I had would be absolute? You should feel free to decide for yourself what is right and wrong, just as everyone else does.

Quote:
No wonder Western civilisation is collapsing. We no longer even have it within ourselves to even see the barbarians in our midst, never mind actually oppose them.


Define what you mean by the underlined phrase.

Quote:
How did we ever become so weak, so reluctant to stand up for what is right?


On whose behalf do you claim to speak in the above emotional plea?

Quote:
Churchill must be spinning in his grave. He managed to stop the Nazis, but he didn't count on the rise of the moral relativists, spin doctors, Marxists, and politically-correct post-modernists (i.e. fifth columnists, traitors and useful idiots) who are doing their best to destroy all that is good and worth preserving.


Wherein Godwin's law is satisfied, as moral relativists, Marxists and spin doctors are compared unfavourably to the Nazis.

What explanation do you offer as to why the people within the groups you listed don't recognise your "objective" moral position? By what moral standard do you dismiss them all as traitors and idiots?

Lintar wrote:
Exactly! We simply don't have the time to go through all the junk that is out there, to 'sift the wheat from the chaff' as J.C. once put it.


Which is the very definition of ignorance - as I suggested. I'm failing to see how your wilful decision to pretend information does not exist is justification for the claim that it does not exist.

Quote:
Yes Oldavid, you are correct when you attribute such attitudes to ideology; what happens to be fashionable to believe in the current 'zeitgeist' is that material reality is all there is, morality is not absolute, and science as it is currently practiced will eventually be able to explain everything.


If I were a subscriber to the 'zeitgeist', I'd simply dismiss your position as blind traditionalism and label you a hate-filled patriarchal dinosaur. I find it ironic (and frankly hilarious) that you're resorting to identity politics in order to denigrate modern society (along with myself).

Quote:
Well, I've never been one to follow fashions, and I see no reason now to change that.


Said a follower of the Abrahamic god.



Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

04 Jul 2015, 2:54 pm

Lintar wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Lintar wrote:
So what the group known as I.S.I.S. now does to its opponents (you know, like chop their heads off), rape, murder, theft and arson are only subjectively wrong, are they?


Those members of the group known as I.S.I.S. chop off heads in the belief that what they do is ethically and morally sound, in accordance with their god and their wider society. This makes the "beheading of infidels" very much a matter of subjective perspective.


Well, what else can I say? Yes, the members of I.S.I.S. who engage in head-chopping do believe that what they are doing is right, but that's not the point. The point is that what they are doing is not right; it is objectively wrong. At all times, forever, and regardless of excuses or circumstances.

'Subjective perspective'? So, since from their 'perspective' they consider what they are doing to be right, and since the moral relativist's position is that there are no absolute moral values, I cannot therefore judge their actions? Is that the message you are giving me here?


I agree that what they are doing is wrong. I am an atheist and have a set of morals that probably strongly overlap with yours. The difference is that I don't think these morals came from God. They came from the time and place in which I was born. They are subjective since they arise from culture but they sure feel[/] objective and absolute and so I judge certain things (like the murders they did) as objectively wrong. But that's a feeling. It's handed down from the society I am embedded in, not from God.

So go ahead and judge them. I don't think the relativism of morals (relative to the culture one is in) means you can't judge. I think this is the terrible mistake that people who see morals coming from God not from us make: that if morals come from us, not God then anything goes. But anything [i]doesn't
go. Morals come from us. They are how we live with ourselves and with each other. Morals are how we watch each other's backs in a world that is harsh by nature and requires that we get along with each other to some extent to survive. To say that morals come from us, not God, is not to throw them out the window. It is taking responsibility for the morals.

The catch with the "morals are absolute and come from God" is that the slightests examination shows they are just as subjective and culture-bound as morals not tied to religion. ISIS beheadings are a perfect example. How could God have told them it was objectively right but told you it is objectively wrong? The morals of different religions are different. The morals of the same religion but of different denominations or times are different. Morals are incredinly culture-bound and change in response to culture. But that doesn't mean you can't judge their action wrong. It just means you can't claim the wrongness of it came from God, because murder has been religiously sanctioned many times over.

Quote:
No wonder Western civilisation is collapsing.

I see no such collapse. I see crime,despair, suffering, but not in greater measure than at other points in Western civilization. Possibly less so, since a good many causes of despair and suffering (ex. religiously sanctioned murder of witches and gay people,slavery) have been recently declared immoral. Yay relativism! If the morals really were objective we'd still be stuck with 'never suffer a witch to live'. (My cultural milieau is Judeo-Christian so I can't whip out any examples of cruelty from Islam or Hinduism or a zillion other religions simply because I'm not familiar with them.)
Quote:
We no longer even have it within ourselves to even see the barbarians in our midst, never mind actually oppose them. How did we ever become so weak, so reluctant to stand up for what is right?

We see them jut fine. There is plenty of outrage. That the perpetrators are still alive is a matter of not being able to get at them, not lack of outrage.
Quote:
Churchill must be spinning in his grave. He managed to stop the Nazis, but he didn't count on the rise of the moral relativists, spin doctors, Marxists, and politically-correct post-modernists (i.e. fifth columnists, traitors and useful idiots) who are doing their best to destroy all that is good and worth preserving.


Hmm. I thought you were talking about ISIS but maybe not. What exactly does this last bit refer to? Is it still ISIS or somethinmg else? Or is there some sort of post-modern support for ISIS that I don't know about?



JakJak
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 24 May 2015
Posts: 116

04 Jul 2015, 11:20 pm

I think it is better to get your morals from your own personal judgment than from an ancient, barbaric book. For instance, it's probably best to not honor your father and mother if your parents are killers... A prisoner of war should probably feel it's okay to lie. There are even instances in which I would say that murder is okay.

However, I can't think of an instance in which rape would be a good moral judgment, and that isn't even important enough to list in the top 10.



Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

05 Jul 2015, 3:29 am

adifferentname wrote:
Oldavid wrote:
1; Observation: things exist.
2; Observation: changeable things are dependent on being caused and sustained by things other than themselves.
3; Logic: a thing that does not exist cannot cause itself to exist.
4; Logic: changeable things are caused by an uncaused First Cause.


So your definition of a "First Cause" is thing that cannot change..
It is not THE definition of a First Cause but it is a necessary attribute of a First Cause.
nameless wrote:
A thing that cannot change cannot create or cause.
Oh! Now why is that?
unnameable wrote:
Your First Cause is a logical impossibility.
Logic is a very precise science... as such it is not just a "yes-man" for fantastic fancies.



Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

05 Jul 2015, 3:35 am

adifferentname wrote:
Lintar wrote:
Well, what else can I say? Yes, the members of I.S.I.S. who engage in head-chopping do believe that what they are doing is right, but that's not the point. The point is that what they are doing is not right; it is objectively wrong. At all times, forever, and regardless of excuses or circumstances.


Your argument is basically "I believe my subjective moral position is objectively right". What is the source of this supposed objective moral position?

Quote:
'Subjective perspective'? So, since from their 'perspective' they consider what they are doing to be right, and since the moral relativist's position is that there are no absolute moral values, I cannot therefore judge their actions? Is that the message you are giving me here?


If you consider me to be a moral relativist, why would you assume that any "message" I had would be absolute? You should feel free to decide for yourself what is right and wrong, just as everyone else does.

Quote:
No wonder Western civilisation is collapsing. We no longer even have it within ourselves to even see the barbarians in our midst, never mind actually oppose them.


Define what you mean by the underlined phrase.

Quote:
How did we ever become so weak, so reluctant to stand up for what is right?


On whose behalf do you claim to speak in the above emotional plea?

Quote:
Churchill must be spinning in his grave. He managed to stop the Nazis, but he didn't count on the rise of the moral relativists, spin doctors, Marxists, and politically-correct post-modernists (i.e. fifth columnists, traitors and useful idiots) who are doing their best to destroy all that is good and worth preserving.


Wherein Godwin's law is satisfied, as moral relativists, Marxists and spin doctors are compared unfavourably to the Nazis.

What explanation do you offer as to why the people within the groups you listed don't recognise your "objective" moral position? By what moral standard do you dismiss them all as traitors and idiots?

Lintar wrote:
Exactly! We simply don't have the time to go through all the junk that is out there, to 'sift the wheat from the chaff' as J.C. once put it.


Which is the very definition of ignorance - as I suggested. I'm failing to see how your wilful decision to pretend information does not exist is justification for the claim that it does not exist.

Quote:
Yes Oldavid, you are correct when you attribute such attitudes to ideology; what happens to be fashionable to believe in the current 'zeitgeist' is that material reality is all there is, morality is not absolute, and science as it is currently practiced will eventually be able to explain everything.


If I were a subscriber to the 'zeitgeist', I'd simply dismiss your position as blind traditionalism and label you a hate-filled patriarchal dinosaur. I find it ironic (and frankly hilarious) that you're resorting to identity politics in order to denigrate modern society (along with myself).

Quote:
Well, I've never been one to follow fashions, and I see no reason now to change that.


Said a follower of the Abrahamic god.
About all that can be gleaned from the above is that the Abrahamic anti-god has not gained even a smidgin of virtues like honesty and integrity in thousands of years.



Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

05 Jul 2015, 8:19 am

JakJak wrote:
I think it is better to get your morals from your own personal judgment than from an ancient, barbaric book.
"your own personal judgment" is formed, presented to you; not created by you. You cannot choose something you do not know exists. Your choices are entirely limited to accepting some good presented to you or rejecting it (them).

The only alternative is the absurd proposition that you are creating yourself.



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

05 Jul 2015, 12:56 pm

Oldavid wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Oldavid wrote:
1; Observation: things exist.
2; Observation: changeable things are dependent on being caused and sustained by things other than themselves.
3; Logic: a thing that does not exist cannot cause itself to exist.
4; Logic: changeable things are caused by an uncaused First Cause.


So your definition of a "First Cause" is thing that cannot change..
It is not THE definition of a First Cause but it is a necessary attribute of a First Cause.


In the case of your hypothetical "First Cause" model, it's the only important attribute - especially as it is the only attribute present within the model.

Quote:
adifferentname wrote:
A thing that cannot change cannot create or cause.
Oh! Now why is that?


Creation is an action, as is causation. One cannot create or cause without acting, and actions can only be part of a physical system, requiring both energy and time. Either your "First Cause" is capable of change, or it is incapable of acting and cannot be a cause of anything.

Quote:
adifferentname wrote:
Your First Cause is a logical impossibility.
Logic is a very precise science... as such it is not just a "yes-man" for fantastic fancies.


Logic is a tool used in the pursuit of science, but not a science in and of itself. Like many tools, it is oft misused by amateurs. If one wishes to invoke science, one must take care to ensure one's hypothesis is compatible with established scientific theory - your flawed model is not.



pcuser
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2014
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 913

05 Jul 2015, 1:15 pm

Oldavid wrote:
JakJak wrote:
I think it is better to get your morals from your own personal judgment than from an ancient, barbaric book.
"your own personal judgment" is formed, presented to you; not created by you. You cannot choose something you do not know exists. Your choices are entirely limited to accepting some good presented to you or rejecting it (them).

The only alternative is the absurd proposition that you are creating yourself.

Much of science relies on thing we didn't know existed until someone figured it out. The same can be said about anyone's imagination. We create mythologies all the time. Simply look at religion...



Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

05 Jul 2015, 4:27 pm

adifferentname wrote:
Oldavid wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Oldavid wrote:
1; Observation: things exist.
2; Observation: changeable things are dependent on being caused and sustained by things other than themselves.
3; Logic: a thing that does not exist cannot cause itself to exist.
4; Logic: changeable things are caused by an uncaused First Cause.


So your definition of a "First Cause" is thing that cannot change..
It is not THE definition of a First Cause but it is a necessary attribute of a First Cause.


In the case of your hypothetical "First Cause" model, it's the only important attribute - especially as it is the only attribute present within the model.
All necessary attributes are important because they are what makes a thing what it is. Even one at a time seems to be more than you can comprehend.
adifferentname wrote:
A thing that cannot change cannot create or cause.
Odd wrote:
Oh! Now why is that?

name wrote:
Creation is an action, as is causation. One cannot create or cause without acting, and actions can only be part of a physical system, requiring both energy and time. Either your "First Cause" is capable of change, or it is incapable of acting and cannot be a cause of anything.
Our First Cause is "pure act" and not a series of results of proximate or distal secondary causes. We are talking about the ultimate cause of physical systems which cannot cause themselves.
Odd wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Your First Cause is a logical impossibility.
Logic is a very precise science... as such it is not just a "yes-man" for fantastic fancies.

name wrote:
Logic is a tool used in the pursuit of science, but not a science in and of itself. Like many tools, it is oft misused by amateurs. If one wishes to invoke science, one must take care to ensure one's hypothesis is compatible with established scientific theory - your flawed model is not.
My contention is that "established scientific theory" is not science at all since it is not based on observation and logic. It is a fantastic invention of runaway egos.

Amateurs mistake flawed reason based on illogical premises for logic. Backwards, or circular reasoning is not logic or logical. Logic is about non-contradiction. Any line of reasoning based on a self-contradictory premise is absurd... i.e. it is not logical no matter how popular the superstition is or becomes.



pcuser
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2014
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 913

05 Jul 2015, 5:07 pm

Oldavid wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Oldavid wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Oldavid wrote:
1; Observation: things exist.
2; Observation: changeable things are dependent on being caused and sustained by things other than themselves.
3; Logic: a thing that does not exist cannot cause itself to exist.
4; Logic: changeable things are caused by an uncaused First Cause.


So your definition of a "First Cause" is thing that cannot change..
It is not THE definition of a First Cause but it is a necessary attribute of a First Cause.


In the case of your hypothetical "First Cause" model, it's the only important attribute - especially as it is the only attribute present within the model.
All necessary attributes are important because they are what makes a thing what it is. Even one at a time seems to be more than you can comprehend.
adifferentname wrote:
A thing that cannot change cannot create or cause.
Odd wrote:
Oh! Now why is that?

name wrote:
Creation is an action, as is causation. One cannot create or cause without acting, and actions can only be part of a physical system, requiring both energy and time. Either your "First Cause" is capable of change, or it is incapable of acting and cannot be a cause of anything.
Our First Cause is "pure act" and not a series of results of proximate or distal secondary causes. We are talking about the ultimate cause of physical systems which cannot cause themselves.
Odd wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Your First Cause is a logical impossibility.
Logic is a very precise science... as such it is not just a "yes-man" for fantastic fancies.

name wrote:
Logic is a tool used in the pursuit of science, but not a science in and of itself. Like many tools, it is oft misused by amateurs. If one wishes to invoke science, one must take care to ensure one's hypothesis is compatible with established scientific theory - your flawed model is not.
My contention is that "established scientific theory" is not science at all since it is not based on observation and logic. It is a fantastic invention of runaway egos.

Amateurs mistake flawed reason based on illogical premises for logic. Backwards, or circular reasoning is not logic or logical. Logic is about non-contradiction. Any line of reasoning based on a self-contradictory premise is absurd... i.e. it is not logical no matter how popular the superstition is or becomes.

Established scientific theory is not science at all. Are you simply stupid or just ignorant? You have no idea and no way to even understand all of science. For you to make such a claim is the height of arrogance...



Lukecash12
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2012
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,033

05 Jul 2015, 5:36 pm

@pcuser: So I guess you would rather stay in your comfort zone, eh? And that appears to be swatting down arguments against the basis of scientific theory with (surprise, surprise) yet more ad homs and unsupported assertions, rather than addressing any compelling challenges. Well, outside of your apparent comfort zone I have another challenge for you, on top of the one you haven't addressed (that there are no epistemological grounds for your ethics, which you deflect with ad homs rather than answer):

Why does the scientific method represent the best knowledge gathering process? What are it's underpinning assumptions? What is empiricism and how does it justify it's claims? If you can't answer these then you are in no position to criticize anyone who doesn't accept Empiricism. And this is coming from an Empiricist who is confident he can play devil's advocate and make mincemeat of your vaunted claim to the only rational, modern option. We're a few quotes from Descarte's Meditation On First Principles away, from a Rationalist quandary that you don't appear to be in any position to answer.

For clarity's sake, here is the definition of an ad hominem argument:

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html

Quote:
Taxonomy: Logical Fallacy > Informal Fallacy > Red Herring > Genetic Fallacy
Translation: "Argument against the man" (Latin)
Alias: The Fallacy of Personal Attack


Or you've used argumentum ad ridiculum instead of ad hominem. Both are red herrings regardless, one being along the lines of "you must be stupid", and the other along the lines of "look how ridiculous this position is, I don't even need to bat it down", both of which are obvious fallacies.


_________________
There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.
Nahj ul-Balāgha by Ali bin Abu-Talib


pcuser
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2014
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 913

05 Jul 2015, 6:09 pm

Lukecash12 wrote:
@pcuser: So I guess you would rather stay in your comfort zone, eh? And that appears to be swatting down arguments against the basis of scientific theory with (surprise, surprise) yet more ad homs and unsupported assertions, rather than addressing any compelling challenges. Well, outside of your apparent comfort zone I have another challenge for you, on top of the one you haven't addressed (that there are no epistemological grounds for your ethics, which you deflect with ad homs rather than answer):

Why does the scientific method represent the best knowledge gathering process? What are it's underpinning assumptions? What is empiricism and how does it justify it's claims? If you can't answer these then you are in no position to criticize anyone who doesn't accept Empiricism. And this is coming from an Empiricist who is confident he can play devil's advocate and make mincemeat of your vaunted claim to the only rational, modern option. We're a few quotes from Descarte's Meditation On First Principles away, from a Rationalist quandary that you don't appear to be in any position to answer.

For clarity's sake, here is the definition of an ad hominem argument:

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html

Quote:
Taxonomy: Logical Fallacy > Informal Fallacy > Red Herring > Genetic Fallacy
Translation: "Argument against the man" (Latin)
Alias: The Fallacy of Personal Attack


Or you've used argumentum ad ridiculum instead of ad hominem. Both are red herrings regardless, one being along the lines of "you must be stupid", and the other along the lines of "look how ridiculous this position is, I don't even need to bat it down", both of which are obvious fallacies.

You know, you try to simply overwhelm people with deep sounding verbiage and make claims that would take a book to answer. Then when people don't rise to your bait, you claim they are out of their comfort zone. Consider evolution. The first comprehensive understanding of it took a textbook to explain. Then people like you make claims without the underlying foundations in place. You then want what you call proof. Take a damn course before you start spouting off about things for which you have little knowledge...



JakJak
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 24 May 2015
Posts: 116

05 Jul 2015, 7:17 pm

Oldavid wrote:
JakJak wrote:
I think it is better to get your morals from your own personal judgment than from an ancient, barbaric book.
"your own personal judgment" is formed, presented to you; not created by you. You cannot choose something you do not know exists. Your choices are entirely limited to accepting some good presented to you or rejecting it (them).

The only alternative is the absurd proposition that you are creating yourself.


I disagree. Yes, we do learn from our surroundings. I don't see how one book can be that relevant to what we learn. Also, some things that we are taught, we decide that we don't agree with it. We aren't programmed robots. I also think that most of our morals come from what we personally want.. I don't want to be killed, so I don't kill. I don't want to be stolen from, so I don't steal. These aren't religious principals. They're human principals. I don't think that you have to be taught to treat others as you'd want to be treated, to know that's what you should do. Of course, some people still want to hurt others, but raising someone to be religious, doesn't seem to prevent them from doing bad things.