Words fail me.
-
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
-
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
People have always found ways to justify what they do. Plenty of religious people kill, despite everything. Religion is just the clown costume that morality wears when it is taught to kids.
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yes, it does.
No it doesn't. He's a fool and a liar (I'm making two moral assertions, by the way).
I'd rather lie about something I know to be true than to be completely convinced about something that's false. :rolleyes:
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
-
And, since you *know* that all those assertions are false, they are lies and you are a liar (on top of being a fool).
*giggles* You're funny! :rose:
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
-
NOT!!! :laugh:
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
You, Ilíon, are an abusive obnoxious little man. :mad:
And you're an ass and a fool: rather than *think* you must resort to lying about me.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
I was tempted to mark your post as Abuse.
Do it. Do you really imagine I care that fools who refuse to think cannot abide having the truth spoken?
Ilíon wrote:
Do you really imagine I care that fools who refuse to think cannot abide having the truth spoken?
Did that jumble of words actully say something? You're a fucking moron who has nothing to say, yet you keep coming back here braying like a donkey. You don't like us, don't fit in here and have one broken record to play, Atheism. Doesn't matter if it fits the bill you just throw out the Atheism card. So just fuck off back to the land of the delusional where you and you religious zealots can figure ou new ways to control morons and didle littl chidren.
Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
-
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.'"
You seriously believe what you say, don't you... That's sad... :(
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yes, it does.
No it doesn't. He's a fool and a liar (I'm making two moral assertions, by the way).
*poke*
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yes, it does.
No it doesn't. He's a fool and a liar (I'm making two moral assertions, by the way).
*poke* *poke*
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
-
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.
Ilíon wrote:
If atheism is the truth about the nature of reality, then "all things are permissible."
Only for someone week enough to needs an authority to determine what is permissible. Consensus among society, based on what is mutually beneficial, on things such as not 'wasting' valuable members by killing them, leaving others to assume their roles etc. is also a pretty good source of what is permissible and what is not. It doesn't take a God to say the taking another man's possessions without payment and permission is not permissible, unless you are incapable, through minimised intellect, to understand why you should not do this.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yes, it does.
No it doesn't. He's a fool and a liar (I'm making two moral assertions, by the way).
You're not ignoring me, are you? *poke*
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yes, it does.
No it doesn't. He's a fool and a liar (I'm making two moral assertions, by the way).
It's almost like you're...ignoring me...:suss:
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
-
And, since you *know* that all those assertions are false, they are lies and you are a liar (on top of being a fool).
I thought it said in the Bible that you shouldn't flaunt your religiousness about?
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
-
And, since you *know* that all those assertions are false, they are lies and you are a liar (on top of being a fool).
I mean really, REALLY annoying?
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
-
And, since you *know* that all those assertions are false, they are lies and you are a liar (on top of being a fool).
Ilíon, is this really annoying?
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
Stan Shannon wrote:
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.
I agree with you there, and have always avoided attacking religion, in debates, based on this, but then you have to replace the now redundant legal system with a theocracy, to ensure that all people have a religion that imparts some morality into them.
-
And, since you *know* that all those assertions are false, they are lies and you are a liar (on top of being a fool).
'cause, you know, I can imagine it would be.
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
-
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.
...a Pokemon Master!!![^]
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
-
Ilíon wrote:
If atheism is the truth about the nature of reality, then "all things are permissible."
Only for someone week enough to needs an authority to determine what is permissible. Consensus among society, based on what is mutually beneficial, on things such as not 'wasting' valuable members by killing them, leaving others to assume their roles etc. is also a pretty good source of what is permissible and what is not. It doesn't take a God to say the taking another man's possessions without payment and permission is not permissible, unless you are incapable, through minimised intellect, to understand why you should not do this.
Brady Kelly wrote:
Only for someone week enough to needs an authority to determine what is permissible. Consensus among society, based on what is mutually beneficial, on things such as not 'wasting' valuable members by killing them, leaving others to assume their roles etc. is also a pretty good source of what is permissible and what is not. It doesn't take a God to say the taking another man's possessions without payment and permission is not permissible, unless you are incapable, through minimised intellect, to understand why you should not do this.
You *refuse* to think critically. You imagine that your strawmen misrepresentations of "theists" are relevent to anything.
Brady Kelly wrote:
... It doesn't take a God to say the taking another man's possessions without payment and permission is not permissible, unless you are incapable, through minimised intellect, to understand why you should not do this.
You *refuse* to think critically. You refuse even to recognize that you're asserting objective morality ... except that the morality you assert is not grounded in anything, it's just there floating in your assertions.