Words fail me.
-
China Plate = mate. Cockney rhyming slang. Dog = telephone etc etc etc
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Cambridge Punt = Illion
-
Apparently he was a born again christian...
digital man wrote:
Apparently he was a born again christian...
Anyone can *claim* anything. You know, sort of like you are tendentiously doing here. His actions are consistent with atheism; his actions are consistent with what you fools assert is the truth about the nature of reality. *YOUR* (plural) actions in this thread are not consistent with what you (plural) assert is the truth about the nature of reality. You fools are acting as though this man is morally responsible for what he did. You fools are acting as though there is such a thing as objective morality (which you verbally deny), and that he has violated it. You fools are acting as though there is such a thing as justice (which cannot really exist were atheism true), and that justice demand that this fellow be punished, and worse than punished, for his violation of morality.
-
Brady Kelly wrote:
How is torturing a baby consistent with atheism?
How is it not consistent? If atheism is the truth about the nature of reality, then there are no such things as right and wrong (or, to write the words consistent with your atheistic metaphysics, "right" and "wrong"). If atheism is the truth about the nature of reality, then "all things are permissible." If atheism is the truth about the nature of reality, then no one is responsible for his actions[^], for no one is responsible for *anything* (You children freak out when I point out that in this very piece Mr Dawkins admits to being a liar about the very things he's asserting.)
Brady Kelly wrote:
You've stooped really low here.
No; you *refuse* to think clearly, logically, rationally.
:laugh: You know what's funny? Chalk. :laugh:
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
-
digital man wrote:
Apparently he was a born again christian...
Anyone can *claim* anything. You know, sort of like you are tendentiously doing here. His actions are consistent with atheism; his actions are consistent with what you fools assert is the truth about the nature of reality. *YOUR* (plural) actions in this thread are not consistent with what you (plural) assert is the truth about the nature of reality. You fools are acting as though this man is morally responsible for what he did. You fools are acting as though there is such a thing as objective morality (which you verbally deny), and that he has violated it. You fools are acting as though there is such a thing as justice (which cannot really exist were atheism true), and that justice demand that this fellow be punished, and worse than punished, for his violation of morality.
Egocentric righteousness: the natural tendency to feel superior in the light of our confidence that we are in the possession of THE TRUTH.
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
-
digital man wrote:
Apparently he was a born again christian...
Anyone can *claim* anything. You know, sort of like you are tendentiously doing here. His actions are consistent with atheism; his actions are consistent with what you fools assert is the truth about the nature of reality. *YOUR* (plural) actions in this thread are not consistent with what you (plural) assert is the truth about the nature of reality. You fools are acting as though this man is morally responsible for what he did. You fools are acting as though there is such a thing as objective morality (which you verbally deny), and that he has violated it. You fools are acting as though there is such a thing as justice (which cannot really exist were atheism true), and that justice demand that this fellow be punished, and worse than punished, for his violation of morality.
and you are just a fool. Time for you to crawl back into your hole.
-
digital man wrote:
Apparently he was a born again christian...
Anyone can *claim* anything. You know, sort of like you are tendentiously doing here. His actions are consistent with atheism; his actions are consistent with what you fools assert is the truth about the nature of reality. *YOUR* (plural) actions in this thread are not consistent with what you (plural) assert is the truth about the nature of reality. You fools are acting as though this man is morally responsible for what he did. You fools are acting as though there is such a thing as objective morality (which you verbally deny), and that he has violated it. You fools are acting as though there is such a thing as justice (which cannot really exist were atheism true), and that justice demand that this fellow be punished, and worse than punished, for his violation of morality.
Egocentric blindness: the natural tendency not to notice facts or evidence which contradict our favored beliefs or values.
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
-
Egocentric righteousness: the natural tendency to feel superior in the light of our confidence that we are in the possession of THE TRUTH.
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
-
digital man wrote:
Apparently he was a born again christian...
Anyone can *claim* anything. You know, sort of like you are tendentiously doing here. His actions are consistent with atheism; his actions are consistent with what you fools assert is the truth about the nature of reality. *YOUR* (plural) actions in this thread are not consistent with what you (plural) assert is the truth about the nature of reality. You fools are acting as though this man is morally responsible for what he did. You fools are acting as though there is such a thing as objective morality (which you verbally deny), and that he has violated it. You fools are acting as though there is such a thing as justice (which cannot really exist were atheism true), and that justice demand that this fellow be punished, and worse than punished, for his violation of morality.
His actions are actually completely INconsistent with atheism. But I can see how that would be confusing to you...
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
-
You called me a 'twit'! :) :rose:
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
-
and you are just a fool. Time for you to crawl back into your hole.
-
Did you ever notice how 'twit' spelled backwards is 'tiwt'? Isn't that cool?
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
-
dish ... plate ... Oh well, I did try...
-
You know what else is beyond parody? Give up? Ya mum!!! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
-
Ilíon wrote:
Because I'm right and you can't bring yourself to admit it?
Egocentric righteousness: the natural tendency to feel superior in the light of our confidence that we are in the possession of THE TRUTH.
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
-
Do you think my cat is in heaven? Do cats go to heaven? :confused:
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
-
I would much prefer to be considered a fool and an ass rather than an abusive obnoxious little man whose humanitarian credentials are akin to "the clap".
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
I would much prefer to be considered a fool and an ass rather than an abusive obnoxious little man whose humanitarian credentials are akin to "the clap".
Translation: Richard A. Abbott "much prefers to not *think* about what he claims is true and instead prefers to try to insult anyone who does try to think critically. And, if that doesn't get the job done, he'll spount some meaningless froth about 'humanitarianiam.'"
-
Are you getting sick of me pestering you? You just have to tell me to stop, ya know.
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
-
I have to admit, out of all the people with whom I have *arguments* (that is so feeble when you do that) you are by far and away the most completely ignorant, bigoted and just plain thick. You clearly have not a single idea of your own, do not understand anything outside of your own selfish world view, have never read anything other than that which supports your twisted ideals and generally have not got a clue. Even when challenged you shy away and refuse to answer simply asserting that only you know the truth. Well I hope your happy with it. I suspect you are quite alone and very lonely which is sad but you bring it on yourself. In short, you are a fool.
-
Isn't that right Ilíon? I don't hurt other people because I don't want to, whereas you don't hurt them because your God doesn't want you to? Doesn't that make me a better person than you?
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Doesn't that make me a better person than you?
Yes, it does. However, that simple fact does not account for all the vast legions of people who can just as freely define morality in a completely different way. Just because you are a good person doesn't place any sort of social obligation upon anyone else to be likewise. Ilion is absolutely correct to point out that in the real world being an individually good person simply is not good enough. You must expect, indeed demand, similar behavior from everyone. Doing that requires some agreed upon standard of social behavior. Now, obviously, such standards could be coded into law (ie "Do not microwave your baby or we will put you in jail"). But just as clearly any kind of legal code that attempted to define every sort of bhevior would be unworkable. A much better system, is to have a population which simply has an agreed upon set of moral principles which they accept on faith as arising from some underlieing set of universally true principles. In that way, you do not need a huge legal system, people would act 'morally' simply because they are taught the difference between right and wrong as deinfed by that grass roots moral perspective. That is the role religion plays within society, and it is an important role.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Doesn't that make me a better person than you?
Yes, it does. However, that simple fact does not account for all the vast legions of people who can just as freely define morality in a completely different way. Just because you are a good person doesn't place any sort of social obligation upon anyone else to be likewise. Ilion is absolutely correct to point out that in the real world being an individually good person simply is not good enough. You must expect, indeed demand, similar behavior from everyone. Doing that requires some agreed upon standard of social behavior. Now, obviously, such standards could be coded into law (ie "Do not microwave your baby or we will put you in jail"). But just as clearly any kind of legal code that attempted to define every sort of bhevior would be unworkable. A much better system, is to have a population which simply has an agreed upon set of moral principles which they accept on faith as arising from some underlieing set of universally true principles. In that way, you do not need a huge legal system, people would act 'morally' simply because they are taught the difference between right and wrong as deinfed by that grass roots moral perspective. That is the role religion plays within society, and it is an important role.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization