| Author | Message | ||
     Superdavetfft |
drkside, Yep this was a loaded question... it's meant to be... it's meant to provoke critical thinking on everyone's part. I'm sure 99% (i wish 100%) of you reading this thread wouldn't EVER EVER EVER kill your kid based on a voice, hallucination or whatever you think is a 'god'. That's my point, if you wouldn't that's doubt and doubt is the key... The point is that the religion so many hold dear think this is a GOOD thing? Being willing to murder your child for 'god' is considered a virtue in that context! Just take a second and try to see the religion for what it is... | ||
| Sifo |
and frankly if 'god' did exist and asked me to kill MY kid and i KNEW it was 'god', I'd tell him to f*ck off, give him the bird and say send me to hell because if you're the 'good guy' and you want the death of my kid, well I'd rather be with the losers in hell playing blackjack. And if the result of ignoring God meant that your child followed in your foot steps as an atheist and was also condemned to an eternity in hell, instead of dieing as a believer and spending an eternity in heaven? Boy playing this what if game can be fun! How about addressing the evidence that DNA information wasn't assembled randomly? I've asked about that a few times in the other thread only to be ignored. I find it more interesting looking at scientific evidence, but this can be fun too. | ||
| Blake |
SDave, The premise is that it is indeed god, so whatever convincing is needed has been accomplished. You didn't say "a voice in my head", you said "god", not "what I imagined was god" or "what was suggested was god" or "what I thought was god". This is why I cannot debate with you in any productive manner. Words have little meaning and you shift from one to another to suit your incredibly closed-minded view. I figured you wouldn't answer the question I asked, no closed-minded atheist ever does. There is no point in such a discussion with you, since the discussion can never be honest. Prove me wrong by honestly answering the question. | ||
| Drkside79 |
Super- I am by no means a bible thumper. That being said I believe that religion in its pure form is a great thing. It has provided great relief to many people and provides a moral basis on how life should be lived. You seem to have a beef with the turns religion has made more than anything. So do I at times. If you put peoples faith in the hands of an evil man then all hell can break loose. Is that religions fault? NO! that is man the ultimate corrupter fault. | ||
| Drkside79 |
Blake, As I am playing devils advocate wouldn't the premise that God exists and anyone who feels he doesn't is wrong also be a close minded view? | ||
| Blake |
Nik, Absent Good and Evil there is no basis for God. Untrue. There may well be existence absent evil, heaven for instance. Here on earth, I think you have a point. If one holds that their life has value, simply because they exist, and they act in such as a way as to increase that value in rational self interest, then there's no need for external validation from God or anyone else; and objective morals exist absent any deity. Your initial premise is invalid. Valuing one's own life provides zero basis for morality. All living creatures value their own lives. Without a standard by which to define morality, there is no objective morality, we could simply make it up as we like. See Hitler, Mengela, Stalin, and pals, all atheist, all defined morality as they figured was best for them. Fail. And we do all just die and the universe expands and cools into icy darkness for eternity. You know this with such glaring certainty how? Care to prove it? What if... you are wrong? That doesn't change the fact that I am here now, and sure going to make the most of it. Maybe so. It may not change that you are here, but it sure would change the entire meaning of being here and even the meaning of "making the most of it." Absurdity in the extreme. Nothing but a chance cosmic joke? It makes no sense. Bottom line, if objective morality exists, then god must exist. There is no other plausible source for objective morals; as with all such objective measures, there must be a set standard from by to gauge. (Message edited by blake on September 15, 2011) | ||
| Superdavetfft |
Sifo; Forgive whatever I missed, please present your evidence that DNA was created and didn't simply evolve over eons as the scientific community states. Blake; Didn't I answer your question? I thought I did by telling 'god' to sit n spin... Oh and regarding morals, here are a few morals the bible endorses; 1. religious persecution 2. murder 3. slavery 4. misogyny 5. child abuse I could go on, I could quote scripture etc but I did that once, it's all there in the bible, just read it thoroughly. Regarding morality, you can find numerous studies where scientists have discovered moralistic traits in many other species. One that comes to mind is a certain species of bat. They monitored them and observed that when one bat was ill the others brought it food and helped care for it and when it recovered it would go on to help others in it's community. These basic morals are evolutionary in nature, in order for a species to continue it must have basic survival instincts which at the most basic level is to stay alive and keep others in your species alive. There's a ton of information out there on this topic as well. If the bible was a moral code then why does it NOT state anywhere that you shouldn't abuse your kids? It doesn't state you shouldn't beat up your wife. etc etc... bible = morality? no I don't buy that, not for one second. There have been bits cherry picked out of there admittedly, but as a whole, no, that logic doesn't fly. | ||
| Superdavetfft |
Blake; Again Hitler was Catholic and NEVER renounced his faith, he even mentioned god in his book! dude do your homework... What if we're wrong? well that's called Pascal's argument and it's BS... If you use that logic you have about a .03% chance of being right and having picked the 'right' god out of the thousands humans have invented... If you DO pick a god chances are you're already wrong anyway. It's all Zeus & Apollo's show baby! Yaewah (SP?) is late to the party!  | ||
| Drkside79 |
Super Dave here is you list. Once again before i go into this i respect your lack of belief. You may be right though i hope you aren't. Oh and regarding morals, here are a few morals the bible endorses; 1. religious persecution 2. murder 3. slavery 4. misogyny 5. child abuse These are all bullshit statements. Yes every one of those things exist in the bible. However to present them as such is a misrepresentation and is simply a way to skew an opinion by presenting only half the facts. (perhaps you should run for office) 1) Always remember that the bible was written by men not God and at the time it was written such things were happening that does not mean God approved. Also yes in the old testament God was a bit cranky at times perhaps he had reason to be. 2) The bible's words have been twisted to suit ones own agenda by many before you. It's never been appropriate to do so. 3) The bible also preaches acceptance peace and love although you left that out. | ||
| Blake |
Matt, No it (objective morality) isn't (proof that god exists). It is merely proof that we can think for ourselves and have a choice in what we do. How does one recognize objective morality merely based on being able to think and have a choice? | ||
| Blake |
Charlotte, If god does not exist, but KARMA is the law of nature... what we do to each other in the name of 'religion' will result in us all coming back in our next life as cockroaches that survived the nuclear winter... Are you talking about the establishment of universities, libraries, hospitals, hunger relief efforts, disaster relief efforts. What exactly are you talking about that you view as such a sweeping condemnation of religion? I think you need more than just karma, you also need reincarnation. I do not think that a personification of a diety that tells us what to do is neccessary to live life right. What is "right"? A beating heart that can feel sure helps. From what does heartfelt empathy and basic morality originate? I find it really bizzare to believe the entire Eastern population of the world is wrong. "The entire... population"? How many different religions including atheism exist in the Eastern world? Why would you not likewise find it really bizarre to believe that a third of the world's population is wrong? | ||
| Sifo |
Sifo; Forgive whatever I missed, please present your evidence that DNA was created and didn't simply evolve over eons as the scientific community states. OK. Scientific theories typically predict things. This is one of the ways that we can look at a theory and see if it really makes sense. Gravity for instance predicts that objects in space will orbit each other. If objects in space behaved differently than our theory predicts, then there is almost certainly a problem with the theory. So when it comes to the theory that the origin of life comes from random events, i.e., chance, that theory will make predictions. One of those predictions is that the information contained in DNA was assembled by chance, until it just happened upon a combination that could replicate and become life as we know it. We know that there is a very large amount of information contained in the simplest of DNA strands. It is enormously complex. We know that the information contained in DNA is unique, i.e., it isn't repetitive in nature such as fractals. We also know that it is useful information, i.e., it serves a purpose, to produce a life form. Now it's certainly conceivable that chance can produce a large quantity of information. It's also conceivable that chance can produce unique information. It's even conceivable that chance can produce useful or purposeful information. Combining all three takes a whole lot of chance though. Assuming it were even possible to have chance assemble the needed information to produce a simple life form, certainly mixed in with that large amount of unique and useful information will be a huge amount of random garbage included. That is the nature of chance happenings. What we have learned studying DNA is that there is very little useless information. In fact most of what we used to think was useless information has been found to have purposes that weren't initially realized. That trend of identifying the purpose of various parts of DNA strings continues. DNA seems to have very little if any useless information. What's more is that science typically will look for examples to point to that are similar in nature to what is being hypothesized as support for the fact that what is being proposed is know to happen similarly in other areas of nature. I'm unaware of nature ever producing large amounts of unique and useful, purposeful information that could possibly parallel what we are talking about with DNA. That leads us to believe that nature producing DNA is not typical of what nature normally does. There is however a known source of large amounts of unique, useful, purposeful information that exits in the universe. That is a parallel that scientific method should demand that we explore. That source of known large amounts of unique, useful purposeful information is of course an intelligent designer. Here we can see countless examples where intelligent designers have compiled information of all sorts, including the motorcycles we ride. So the question is: Does the large amount of unique, useful, purposeful information seen in DNA support the scientific theory of chance or intelligent design? | ||
| Sifo |
I find it really bizzare to believe the entire Eastern population of the world is wrong. Certainly considering the diversity of religious beliefs represented in that region, it stands to reason that at least a large percentage of them are wrong. | ||
| Blake |
SDave, We just condemned a person for beating their child because (they thought) 'god' told them to yes? I'll take your word on that with the added parenthetical clarification. Well the point was if you're christian then you'd be obligated to kill your kid if 'god' said to. I don't think such obligation applies to only Christians. If god (the creator of the universe, time itself, all that exists and all life) indeed revealed himself to a person, no matter their prior persuasion, then I'd find it implausible that they'd not be overwhelmed with awe and utter terror. Ask Abraham. If you would not do this then that shows you have DOUBT about 'god' and are already partially atheistic. That makes no logical sense. A child's disobedience of a parent in know way indicates that the child doubts the existence of said parent. Disobedience is simply disobedience. Free will and all that. If you WOULD kill your child, then ... well what do you think that says about a person? That they trust the creator of the universe, time itself, all that exists including life. Lacking perspective makes the discussion worthless. Isn't that what you conveyed earlier in another thread? Dave, you have no realistic perspective of what it would really mean to be confronted by god. Your mind is closed to even the slightest possibility, so much so that you cannot even engage honestly in a simple thought experiment. Discussion of the issue with you is thus worthless. | ||
| Xl1200r |
OTOH, if a good Christian didn't do as commanded, couldn't it simply be that they don't really believe that it was God telling them to kill their child? Does that make you an atheist? I don't see how. OTOH, who's to say that all the chumps in the Old Testament weren't as crazy as someone who just "hears voices" or "sees things" and chose to believe it was God? Morals can certainly exist without God. I value my life, therefore I can assume that my neighbor values his and I shouldn't kill and eat him. I don't need a book to tell me that. If you do, then you should reassess who is moral and who isn't. 2) The bible's words have been twisted to suit ones own agenda by many before you. It's never been appropriate to do so. 3) The bible also preaches acceptance peace and love although you left that out. These two points only prove, not disprove. | ||
| Blake |
Drk, >>> @ Blake You too knew where this would go why engage? What is with the "@"? Twitter? I think if you just use someone's name, they'll figure your comment is addressed to them, and have a much easier time typing too, no? Sorry, it's a peeve of mine lately. He seems to want to engage, so I'm willing, at least as long as I can tolerate it. If the debate with him in particular continues to prove worthless, maybe a lurker or other participant will find it interesting. It was through similar discussions that I came to my own faith. I was never a hostile angry Christian hating atheist like Dave, but I was very much in doubt of god. I'm not like many who had a sudden spiritual awakening. It's been a long difficult journey for me. I'm still not to the destination I seek. Pray I make it.  | ||
| Blake |
SDave, That doubt will help a person trapped by religious dogma to free themselves. What does dogma have to do with the existence or truth of god??? You seem to confuse religion and dogma with god. I'll agree with you about dumb dogma. Your question has zero to do with dogma. BTW Atheists have always been around, in the old days they were actually called 'doubters'. It's that DOUBT that makes you part atheistic because you don't really believe 100% when it comes right down to it. No, that only means that you question your faith. Most people of faith deal with that issue at some point or another. Your argument is nonsense Dave. As a single seed can grow into a tree and split a mountain, a single thought can grow into a new perspective and help a person flourish. Excellent point. Let's hope the thought is accurate. How about you honestly answer my question now Dave? Let's see what type of intellectual and personal integrity you can muster. If god, (the creator of life, the universe, and all that comprises it) irrefutably revealed himself to you such that you were left with zero doubt, then confirmed to you that Jesus was who he said he was, and that what he taught was 100% truth, that we do indeed have an immortal soul, how would that affect you? No close-minded atheist has ever honestly answered me that question. They only pretend to be open-minded and enlightened, but they cannot answer it. Very telling. They are not honest even with themselves. It's a very bizarre thing. | ||
| Blake |
Drk, As I am playing devils advocate wouldn't the premise that God exists and anyone who feels he doesn't is wrong also be a close minded view? As pertains to discussion of the issue, no; that is just having an opinion. Being open-minded is being willing to entertain the opposing perspective, answer questions honestly, discuss thoughtfully. I may believe as you state, but I'm perfectly willing to discuss the possibility that my belief(s) may be mistaken. What is so incredibly close-minded of Dave and those like him is that their singular view of faith is that it is blinding, stifling, oppressing, a terrible negative thing for people and the world. He is unwilling to distinguish the church (religion) from those who do evil under its guise. He's not even open-minded enough to research all the magnificent good works those of faith have done. When it comes to the existence of god, again, closed-minded. One one hand he'll demand proof that god exists, but on the other requires no proof that the universe and life sprang forth from purely naturalistic means. He ignores quite significant evidence for god, the big bang, the discovery of the beginning of time, the ever accelerating expansion of the universe, the magnificent perfection of DNA, etc. It all just happened by accident out of nothing and chaos came near infinite order and perfection. But I'll engage. Who knows what might happen? | ||
| Blake |
I see Dave has once again launched into his pathetically ignorant the bible/god are evil hatefest nonsense. Ignorance and hate are very unfortunate bedfellows. Closed-minded and ignorant beyond redemption I fear. Go do as you like Dave, but if you ever spout that ignorant malicious blasphemy on my web site again, you'll be shown the door. Dave, If you are interested in seeking truth, I'm happy to oblige and will likely learn a thing or two myself in the process. You can start by honestly, thoughtfully answering my question to you. I honestly answered yours. You owe me the same respect. Failing that, you can take a hike. I don't care to have you on my web site. The only thing you seem interested in is jamming your own religion, atheism, down everyone's throats and insulting those who dare try to debate in opposition or hold a different view. To this point, you've been a horrendously bad ambassador for atheism. | ||
| Xl1200r |
He's not even open-minded enough to research all the magnificent good works those of faith have done. Perhaps he believes that people would do the same regardless of religion. Surely you can admit that there are good works that have been done independent of religion? the big bang, the discovery of the beginning of time, the ever accelerating expansion of the universe, the magnificent perfection of DNA, etc. I'm confused... Are these arguments in favor of a God? As far as your atheist busting question goes, perhaps no one answers because it's a poor question. If there is something that occurs which removes all doubt, then by definition you can no longer doubt it. The only outcome of your scenario is that the person would change their view because that's how you've worded the question. What if I reversed it and asked you: "If the Wizard of Oz irrefutably revealed himself to you such that you were left with zero doubt, told you that he made up the whole of Christianity, showed you how he did it and fooled people's minds into believing it, confirmed that Jesus was a crock of an idea he got from a Cracker Jack box and that we had no souls and our existence was finite, how would that affect you?" The only correct response is that you would renounce your faith because, as the scenario states, you would have absolutely zero doubt that what you were just told/shown is the truth. | ||
| Blake |
Mark (XL1200R), OTOH, who's to say that all the chumps in the Old Testament weren't as crazy as someone who just "hears voices" or "sees things" and chose to believe it was God? Who's to say? All those around them who understood otherwise at the time. Ask Pharaoh if he thought Moses was a crazy chump. Seriously, which "chumps" would you be referring to, Adam, Cain, Able, Noah, Abraham, Isaak, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Job, King David, King Solomon, Ezekiel, Daniel, Isaiah... who? I kinda doubt you've even bothered to read the Old Testament. Have you? Morals can certainly exist without God. I value my life, therefore I can assume that my neighbor values his and I shouldn't kill and eat him. How does his valuing his own life lead you to value it? A chicken values its life, but you'll kill it for food yes? So why not kill your neighbor for his stuff? What puts you above a chicken in the grand scheme of things absent god? I don't need a book to tell me that. If you do, then you should reassess who is moral and who isn't. You're confused. God is not a book. Objective morals come from god. Without a master gauge by with to set the measure there can be no standard. It's that simple. How that standard is set is another question entirely. But if you recognize that objective morals exist, then it follows that god does indeed exist. Or to put it another way, if god does not exist, then objective morals do not exist. | ||
| Blake |
<sigh> Mark (XL1200R), Perhaps he believes that people would do the same regardless of religion. Surely you can admit that there are good works that have been done independent of religion? That is not the point. My point was to point out the closed-minded view of religion that Dave exhibits. I'm confused... Are these arguments in favor of a God? If you can't see that, then indeed you are confused. Yes, the fact that science has proved that the universe and time itself had a beginning is incredibly profound. The former atheist stance was that the universe was eternal, then that it must fluctuation from expansion then collapse then expansion, repeated big bang cycles. That has been proved false. The universe has a beginning along with time itself, and it is expanding at an accelerated rate, thus never to collapse and repeat. DNA, perfection from chaos out of nothing, yes a pretty iron-clad argument for a creator. Like I said, if you cannot see that, then yes, you are confused, or perhaps unwilling to have an open mind on the subject. As far as your atheist busting question goes, perhaps no one answers because it's a poor question. If there is something that occurs which removes all doubt, then by definition you can no longer doubt it. The only outcome of your scenario is that the person would change their view because that's how you've worded the question. No, I asked how it would affect them, not merely how their view would change. That as you point out is a known quantity and trivial to the point of the question. I'm asking how such knowledge would affect one's life, philosophy, behavior, feelings. What if I reversed it and asked you: "If the Wizard of Oz irrefutably revealed himself to you such that you were left with zero doubt, told you that he made up the whole of Christianity, showed you how he did it and fooled people's minds into believing it, confirmed that Jesus was a crock of an idea he got from a Cracker Jack box and that we had no souls and our existence was finite, how would that affect you?" I'd thank him, end my foolish belief, and spread the word. I'd still be wondering about the unanswered question of origins. I would be deeply, deeply depressed for a long time I think. The only correct response is that you would renounce your faith because, as the scenario states, you would have absolutely zero doubt that what you were just told/shown is the truth. It was an easy answer for me, but that is not the type of simple answer I am looking for. Honesty. "How would it affect you." I'd be devastated and have more questions, but yes, I'd spread the word of truth. | ||
| Xl1200r |
Who's to say? All those around them who understood otherwise at the time. Ask Pharaoh if he thought Moses was a crazy chump. Seriously, which "chumps" would you be referring to, Adam, Cain, Able, Noah, Abraham, Isaak, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Job, King David, King Solomon, Ezekiel, Daniel, Isaiah... who? I kinda doubt you've even bothered to read the Old Testament. Have you? This doesn't prove or disprove anything, but we can move on. How does his valuing his own life lead you to value it? A chicken values its life, but you'll kill it for food yes? So why not kill your neighbor for his stuff? What puts you above a chicken in the grand scheme of things absent god? Because there's a mutual valuation going on... I think that of him just as he thinks that of me and chooses not kill me and eat me and take my stuff. A chicken worships no God, so what's stopping it from killing other chickens? There are so many things that would put me above. Working on this same topic, would you be willing to slaughter and eat a littler of cute little kittens? What about a litter of puppies? What about your own dog? I would guess not (I know I wouldn't) - that moral compass was not calibrated by God... pretty sure he never said not to eat kittens. God is not a book. And yet what is taught of him comes from a book. If not, then it comes from whatever interpretation someone has on their own and is no longer objective. Or to put it another way, if god does not exist, then objective morals do not exist. If you're going to force me to accept that these are mutually exclusive, then I will say that objective morals do no exist and rather we have a unspoken consensus on what is subjectively accepted. In any event, the only place these morals are objectively identified are in your book, which brings man back into the equation and eliminates the objective nature. | ||
| Whatever |
Karma and reincarnation are two sides to the same coin. My point being... there are plenty of people in the world that believe in a simple "cause and effect" that seem to be living life just fine. They really don't need any one else's "help". I find it defies the rule of buddhist practice/ thought (which is actually where the hippocratic oath came from anyway) of First Do No Harm. I find it particualarly harmful (ie destructive) to myself to believe in "a god" that is shaming, punishing, vengeful, judgemental, controlling, narrow minded, bullying, threatening and otherwise downright terrifying. I no longer have any use in thinking that there is someone out there with a big stick waiting to smack me with it. However, I do find it useful to beleive that my actions have meaning and that I create "bad energy" or karma or whatever you want to call it if I create harm to other people (not quite down to the idea of killing an ant will cause harm, but there are many buddhist who do believe that). I have no problem with other people that believe in that "kind" of god that I described above. If they find those beliefs usefull or they need their beliefs to do right instead of wrong, so be it. Myself, I don't need it. Others are entitled to their own beliefs as they see fit. Nowhere in buddhist thought or any other Eastern religion (ie. non theistic religion such as Shintoism, Taoism, etc.) is there the condemnation of huge populations of people that do not subscribe to buddhist (or other non theistic) thought. It serves no purpose, in my opinion. Again, that is just my opinion. You can take it or leave it. I have earned it through my own experience and I am entitled to it, just as any one who is christian (jewish, islamic, or other theistic religions etc.) is entitled to their own opinion. | ||
| Xl1200r |
Like I said, if you cannot see that, then yes, you are confused, or perhaps unwilling to have an open mind on the subject. I do have an open mind, but something like the perfection of DNA is not an argument for a God. There are reasons it's like that. Furthermore, life cannot exist without it, so arguing that it's existence is God's doing is no different than arguing that God created life. "How would it affect you." I'm glad to read your answer. What I was trying to say is that my answer to your question would be remarkably similar and my new views, philosophy, etc would be dependent on some further questions I had. I'd have no choice but to believe and accept, but I'd still be allowed the free choice to participate or not. For example, if God then asked me to kill my child, I'm likely to decide that this is no God I care to worship and would be willing to face the eternal price for standing up for my own, subjective morals. | ||
| Xl1200r |
And just to be clear, I do consider myself very open to this notion. I was raised Christian but in my adult years have placed myself somewhere in a "spiritually agnostic" camp. My church was fantastic, full of great people, I made some great friends and did some great things for people I had never met previously. While those were all done in the name of the church, christ, god, et al, for me it never quite felt like that and more that I was just doing it for the betterment of society, the betterment of myself, and because it was just a nice thing to do. I don't feel close to any religious being when I'm in a Church. Instead, I marvel at the beautiful building man has created, nothing more. I see everyone singing the songs, making the hand motions and reciting prayers and I try to figure out if anything separates these people from a group who thinks aliens on an asteroid are going to take them to heaven aside from a few thousand years. However, when I'm out in nature, surrounded by something man had nothing to do with, I do feel 'something'. I'm not thankful to any particular God, but I'm thankful for an overwhelming feeling of peace and calm I get. I don't know why I get it, I only know that I do. Perhaps one day I'll know, perhaps not, it matters not to me. Didn't Jesus himself preach that we shouldn't build churches and that instead nature is our church? | ||
| Sifo |
I do have an open mind, but something like the perfection of DNA is not an argument for a God. There are reasons it's like that. Furthermore, life cannot exist without it, so arguing that it's existence is God's doing is no different than arguing that God created life. Please expand on the "there are reasons it's like that" comment. What mechanisms make this happen? | ||
| Tankhead |
Blake's responses are his way and only his way. Whether his arguments are weak, not supported by real science, scriptures, his opinion (most of the time)they continue to spew into every thread. Blake's response "your premise is invalid" "or you're 100% wrong" Then he spends hours and hours of his time taking apart sentence by sentence and picking at every nook and cranny. MR. Literal. He then takes things out of context and then executes a slam like as if he was a five year old that won an arm wrestling match. For instance he accuses some of being passive agressive but lists things like this "What is with the "@"? Twitter? I think if you just use someone's name, they'll figure your comment is addressed to them, and have a much easier time typing too, no? Sorry, it's a peeve of mine lately." If that annoys you Blake, too ••••••• bad get over yourself. I have never in my life found someone who is so insecure with himself that spends hours a day wasted on trying to feel superior to "internet " friends. Nothing was proven to be wrong, nothing says that he wins the debate except only him and fantasy. But the best line is this: wouldn't the premise that God exists and anyone who feels he doesn't is wrong also be a close minded view? His answer: Being open-minded is being willing to entertain the opposing perspective, answer questions honestly, discuss thoughtfully. I may believe as you state, but I'm perfectly willing to discuss the possibility that my belief(s) may be mistaken. Bullshit! That will never happen. ] You, my boy, have a screw loose. Go ride your bike. Talk about INSANE BEHAVIOR. Einstein was so correct about insanity. Hours and Hours Over and Over Year after Year. My wife and I laughed for along time yesterday. I had a bet with her that I could get five pages into that thread by just copying and pasting other things on the internet and being the devils advocate. It worked. Blake went on and on and on and on. You are a fool Blake. I have seen you do this since 2006 when I first joined. Treat people like crap whoever disagrees with you. Thanks for all cool people who have helped me along the way.you know who you are.. good luck. This place is insane.. | ||
| Blake |
Mark, >>> This doesn't prove or disprove anything, but we can move on. I think it shows that you don't know what you are talking about and are willing to state anything no matter. Because there's a mutual valuation going on... I think that of him just as he thinks that of me and chooses not kill me and eat me and take my stuff. Reciprocal non-aggression is not the same as morality. What stops you from killing when you hate your neighbor and can get away with it? A chicken worships no God, so what's stopping it from killing other chickens? Nothing, it happens all the time. There's even a sport for it. There are so many things that would put me above. If there is no god, no higher being who set us above all others, I don't see it. You may see yourself that way, but the grizzly bear won't agree and you have zero basis for thinking so. Working on this same topic, would you be willing to slaughter and eat a littler of cute little kittens? What about a litter of puppies? What about your own dog? I would guess not (I know I wouldn't) - that moral compass was not calibrated by God... pretty sure he never said not to eat kittens. } Now you are confusing emotional attachment with morals. Morals is doing the right thing even when it is difficult, or not doing the wrong thing even when it is easy and very rewarding. The example you cite is not an example of moral behavior. | ||
| Sifo |
Tankhead, You know where Blake is coming from and where his arguments are coming from. What's the problem? You and others keep complaining about the lack of scientific content in this sort of debate, yet refuse to engage the debate on that level. You have just described your actions to be that of an immature troll. What's up with that? |
