Words fail me.
-
And yet people still "feed" him. :sigh:
"Normal is getting dressed in clothes that you buy for work and driving through traffic in a car that you are still paying for, in order to get to the job you need to pay for the clothes and the car and the house you leave vacant all day so you can afford to live in it." - Ellen Goodman
"To have a respect for ourselves guides our morals; to have deference for others governs our manners." - Laurence Sterne
DavidCrow wrote:
And yet people still "feed" him. :sigh:
You all "feed" me because you all *know* that I'm right. If I really were the "troll" that you fools want to believe that I am, you'd have no difficulty in ignoring me. Nor would you have to resort to insults -- it is, after all, you people who *always* initiate the insults, usually as your first response, and then you (plural) bitch because I return to you exactly what you asked for. If it really were true that what I say is wrong, as you fools want to assert is the case, you'd not have to resort to irrationality and illogic (and sometimes, outright lies) to "argue" against what I say. Nor would you have to resort to "disappearing" my posts. You people respond to criticism of your false worldview just as the Islamists do to criticism of their false worldview: rage, irrationality, illogic, self-contradiction, and attempted intimidation.
-
Warning credibility levels now at Absolute Zero. Houston, he has a problem!
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
Translation: "Once again, Ilíon is correct and that really pisses!" You people are so amusing. You constantly assert that I have no "credibility," you constantly assert that what I say is false and illogical ... and then you keep "discovering" the very things you've asserted since day one. So, if my "credibility" is only just now a Absolute Zero, it must have been higher previously. And yet, you (singular and plural) have asserted all along that everything I say is not creditable. So, by your own admission, you were lying before. Why should we believe that you are not lying now?
-
Ilíon, I'm confused. You wrote this; this is your ultimate logic debunking atheism: IF 'materialism' is the truth about the nature of reality, THEN minds (or 'souls' if you prefer that word) cannot exist. BUT minds do exist. THEREFORE, 'materialism' (and 'physicalism,' and 'naturalism,' and 'atheism,' and 'agnosticism') is clearly seen to be false. But I don't get it.
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
But I don't get it.
That just means your brain is functioning correctly. If gibberish starts to make sense, then you need to worry.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
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.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
we are in the possession of THE TRUTH.
What is that truth that you call THE TRUTH young junior?
The Digital World. It is an amazing place in which we primitive humans interact. Our flesh made this synthetic machine. You see, we are so smart, we know a lot of stuff. We were grown from cells that came from the universe, which the matter and physics I'm typing in it is amazing how the universe is working. Human life is very amazing. How I experience this sh*t its like wow.
-
Even if the jury rejected that argument, one can wonder how sane is somebody able to do such a thing. Sometimes the frontier beween crime and mental desease is fuzzy.
Sie wollen mein Herz am rechten Fleck, doch Seh' ich dann nach unten weg Da schlägt es links!
-
Translation: "Once again, Ilíon is correct and that really pisses!" You people are so amusing. You constantly assert that I have no "credibility," you constantly assert that what I say is false and illogical ... and then you keep "discovering" the very things you've asserted since day one. So, if my "credibility" is only just now a Absolute Zero, it must have been higher previously. And yet, you (singular and plural) have asserted all along that everything I say is not creditable. So, by your own admission, you were lying before. Why should we believe that you are not lying now?
Ilíon wrote:
Translation: "Once again, Ilíon is correct and that really pisses!"
Not by a long shot. I'm affraid it will be a cold day in hell before I need to utter the words "Iliot is correct." But I'd love to see you prove me wrong.
Ilíon wrote:
You constantly assert that I have no "credibility,"
You keep proving it.
Ilíon wrote:
you constantly assert that what I say is false and illogical
No, I usually assert that you are insane and spout gibberish and yet have an overly hyper sense of pride in your meager mental faculties. You are without a doubt the most arrogant person I've ever encountered, and I've yet to see anything that would warrant it.
Ilíon wrote:
and then you keep "discovering" the very things you've asserted since day one
No, I keep pointing them out hoping some day you'll realize what we all know every time we read one of your posts.
Ilíon wrote:
it must have been higher previously
Very astute. Since previously I've said that you are loosing credibility fast.
Ilíon wrote:
asserted all along that everything I say is not creditable
Show me the post that says that, and I'll show you somebody else' post.
Ilíon wrote:
So, by your own admission, you were lying before
Incorrect.
Ilíon wrote:
Why should we believe that you are not lying now?
I couldn't care less what you believe. But who's this "we" you refer to?
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
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.
It doesn't require a theocracy at all. In fact, it is the only way to prevent a theocracy. The only way you can have separation of church and state is if both exist.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
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.
You make no sense.
-
Even if the jury rejected that argument, one can wonder how sane is somebody able to do such a thing. Sometimes the frontier beween crime and mental desease is fuzzy.
Sie wollen mein Herz am rechten Fleck, doch Seh' ich dann nach unten weg Da schlägt es links!
Granted, you can't be mentally stable that think that sticking a child in a microwave is a rational act. But... Sometimes I feel that mental illness is all the more reason to fry somebody. In this kind on case, I don't know why we feel a need to feel sorry for the insane. It doesn't make them any less guilty or dangerous. If anything, it's another argument against the possibility of rehabilitation. Insane or not, hurt a child like that and society doesn't need you to continue breathing.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
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.
"You *refuse* to think critically." :laugh: :laugh: Personally I think you do more for atheistic causes than atheists ever could. If they were to harp on about there being no reason to believe in a god without being provoked, they would probably come off just as preachey and annoying as religious nuts. You on the other hand, give pretty substantial weight to there being good reasons not to believe in a god. Look at how the alternatives can rot your brain of ration arguments and substance. I'd probably go as far as to say you're actually an atheist in disguise, actively damaging peoples opinions on religion from the inside out, thanks for your continued dedication and hard work. You're a star! :)
-
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.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Religion is just the clown costume that morality wears when it is taught to kids.
Spoken like a child who understands far less than he thinks he does. Obviously, religious people are just as capable of violence as anyone else is, and religion itself is just as capable of encouraging violence as is any other sort of social institution. The point remains that the very definition of civilization is the establishment and enforcement of rules and standards of civil conduct. Those rules can be imposed from the top down (the legal system) or they can be imposed from the bottom up (ie, an agreed upon code of moral ethics arising from the traditional beliefs and customs of a people). If a stable, peaceful society can be established by the latter means, the former can be kept to an absolute minimum
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
DavidCrow wrote:
And yet people still "feed" him. :sigh:
You all "feed" me because you all *know* that I'm right. If I really were the "troll" that you fools want to believe that I am, you'd have no difficulty in ignoring me. Nor would you have to resort to insults -- it is, after all, you people who *always* initiate the insults, usually as your first response, and then you (plural) bitch because I return to you exactly what you asked for. If it really were true that what I say is wrong, as you fools want to assert is the case, you'd not have to resort to irrationality and illogic (and sometimes, outright lies) to "argue" against what I say. Nor would you have to resort to "disappearing" my posts. You people respond to criticism of your false worldview just as the Islamists do to criticism of their false worldview: rage, irrationality, illogic, self-contradiction, and attempted intimidation.
But you're just so easy.
-
It doesn't require a theocracy at all. In fact, it is the only way to prevent a theocracy. The only way you can have separation of church and state is if both exist.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
So what governs the actions of those who don't subscribe to a religion?
-
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).
Ilíon wrote:
No it doesn't. He's a fool and a liar (I'm making two moral assertions, by the way).
I was speaking in the hypothetical. Clearly, if all people were intrinsically 'good' there would be no need for laws or religion. Thats the weakness of his argument. And those who are good, or believe themselves to be so, must understand that some system of authoritarian moral ethics must exist to define what represents 'goodness' for the entire society.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
So what governs the actions of those who don't subscribe to a religion?
Clearly, if a majority do not subscribe to a personal code of ethics (religious or otherwise) than the state must grow in authority to impose such ethics from above. If a minority views 'separation of church and state' as a fundamental statement that they are never to be required to acknowledge the ethical authority of the majority, or that it is the duty of the state to protect them from such, than that achieves the same result - impostition of ethical authority from above, ie - the state assumeing ever greater authority to dictate what constitutes moral behavior.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Ilíon wrote:
No it doesn't. He's a fool and a liar (I'm making two moral assertions, by the way).
I was speaking in the hypothetical. Clearly, if all people were intrinsically 'good' there would be no need for laws or religion. Thats the weakness of his argument. And those who are good, or believe themselves to be so, must understand that some system of authoritarian moral ethics must exist to define what represents 'goodness' for the entire society.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Religion is just the clown costume that morality wears when it is taught to kids.
Spoken like a child who understands far less than he thinks he does. Obviously, religious people are just as capable of violence as anyone else is, and religion itself is just as capable of encouraging violence as is any other sort of social institution. The point remains that the very definition of civilization is the establishment and enforcement of rules and standards of civil conduct. Those rules can be imposed from the top down (the legal system) or they can be imposed from the bottom up (ie, an agreed upon code of moral ethics arising from the traditional beliefs and customs of a people). If a stable, peaceful society can be established by the latter means, the former can be kept to an absolute minimum
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
The point remains that the very definition of civilization is the establishment and enforcement of rules and standards of civil conduct. Those rules can be imposed from the top down (the legal system) or they can be imposed from the bottom up (ie, an agreed upon code of moral ethics arising from the traditional beliefs and customs of a people). If a stable, peaceful society can be established by the latter means, the former can be kept to an absolute minimum
No society can long continue to exist and function as a peaceful society if "ethics" is defined by reference to "the legal system." The reason that we (the West, in general, and America, the particular instantiation of it that you and I care most about) are falling apart is that we, as societies, have abandoned real morality and are trying to get the same moral "buzz" from "the legal system."
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The point remains that the very definition of civilization is the establishment and enforcement of rules and standards of civil conduct. Those rules can be imposed from the top down (the legal system) or they can be imposed from the bottom up (ie, an agreed upon code of moral ethics arising from the traditional beliefs and customs of a people). If a stable, peaceful society can be established by the latter means, the former can be kept to an absolute minimum
No society can long continue to exist and function as a peaceful society if "ethics" is defined by reference to "the legal system." The reason that we (the West, in general, and America, the particular instantiation of it that you and I care most about) are falling apart is that we, as societies, have abandoned real morality and are trying to get the same moral "buzz" from "the legal system."
I agree with that completely. Human civilizaton is simply not possible without moral authority. But democratic systems make a very poor source for stable, moral authority. If the morality does not emerge naturally from the bottom up (as Jefferson, Madison, et al assumed it would) in the form of traditional religious sentiments and beliefs, than a democratic system will become increasingly less socially stable over time.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Granted, you can't be mentally stable that think that sticking a child in a microwave is a rational act. But... Sometimes I feel that mental illness is all the more reason to fry somebody. In this kind on case, I don't know why we feel a need to feel sorry for the insane. It doesn't make them any less guilty or dangerous. If anything, it's another argument against the possibility of rehabilitation. Insane or not, hurt a child like that and society doesn't need you to continue breathing.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
Certainly, this is a very emotional reaction, but it is inconsistent with the assertion that atheism is the truth about the nature of reality. If atheism were indeed the truth about the nature of reality, then there are no such things as "sane" and "insane" in the senses we *all* know those words to mean. If atheism were indeed the truth about the nature of reality, then there are no such things as "innocence" and guilt;" there are no such things as "choices" and "responsibility." Indeed, if atheism were actually the truth about the nature of reality, then there are no such things as "reason" and "rationality."
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I was speaking in the hypothetical.
I understand that; but I was replying in the concrete, as his original assertion was concrete rather than hypothetical.
And I was merely accepting the terms of his argument in order to counter-argue that the ethical nature of a given individual, as important as it may be, is not the point at all.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization