Morals, Christianity, Atheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-11-2014, 04:39 PM
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(19-11-2014 02:42 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-11-2014 02:12 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  I told you you had the burden of proof to demonstrate that claim is accurate. You have been shifting the goal posts, and obfuscating your responsibilities since then.

Sure, once you figure out how I am suppose to prove a negative. How am I suppose to prove that your momma so fat, that you can't even lift her?
You would weigh her....how are you so stupid?

(19-11-2014 02:42 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  How would I prove that moral obligations cannot be established without appealing to some sort of deity, a higher power, transcendent forces above one self, or some sort?
That's not what you have been asked to do dumbass, and I think you actually know that and are just being a dishonest fuck wit.
I did not ask you to prove that moral obligations cannot be established with out god, I asked you to prove that they can be. And that your god exists in the first place. And that he can have qualities, And that you know what they are.
No one is asking you to prove a negative, but you know that you dishonest snake.

Prove those things go.

(19-11-2014 02:42 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Uhm, let's see I can think of a few scenarios, how about we get atheists to attempt to establish moral obligations without in the end making an appeal to such things? Does that sound good to you?
No asshole it does not, and we won't. Yours is the burden of proof and you have yet to even try, TRY, to meet it and until you do meet your part of this conversation is stuck at the start.

PROVE. YOUR. BULLSHIT.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
19-11-2014, 04:43 PM
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(19-11-2014 03:59 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I am here to have fun, but by being as clear as possible about it.

Ya no, I don't believe even you believe that. The last thread where you tucked tail and ran from me I raised the complaint that you are intentionally vague and noncommittal on purpose so you don't have to actually address any hard questions yourself.

You are as clear as concrete.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2014, 04:46 PM
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(19-11-2014 04:19 PM)The Polyglot Atheist Wrote:  If by obligation you mean that it's something "you're supposed to do, that you must do because it's your responsibility"

Yes, something like that.

Quote:then you can call it an obligation. But the causes of this can be found in nature.

So you would say it's nature that gave us these obligations? And that someone who doesn't recognize these obligations, has merely not reflected on his nature deep enough? If he only looked within him, he would say that the desire to care for his children, is not merely just a feeling compelling him to do so, but an obligation to do so?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2014, 04:49 PM
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
No, I meant that the causes are naturalistic, not that nature gave them. Nature is not an agent in that sense, it has no intelligence, it has no intention. It's not even an "it". Nature is just an umbrella term to refer to a set of things.

People are supposed to care for their children, but for various reasons (lack of sense of responsibility, lack of education, immaturity, they don't care, and so on), they don't.

孤独 - The Out Crowd
Life is a flash of light between two eternities of darkness.
[Image: Schermata%202014-10-24%20alle%2012.39.01.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2014, 05:05 PM (This post was last modified: 19-11-2014 05:09 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(19-11-2014 04:49 PM)The Polyglot Atheist Wrote:  No, I meant that the causes are naturalistic, not that nature gave them. Nature is not an agent in that sense, it has no intelligence, it has no intention. It's not even an "it". Nature is just an umbrella term to refer to a set of things.

You do see that imagining that nature gave us obligations, is to speak of nature as having some intelligence, or intention though correct?

Quote:People are supposed to care for their children, but for various reasons (lack of sense of responsibility, lack of education, immaturity, they don't care, and so on), they don't.

If people are obligated to care of their children, and it's not nature that makes them obligated, then what is that makes them obligated? If I were to say I recognize that I have an obligation to love my children, by contemplating this feeling of compassion that I have for them, not as merely a feeling, but rather an obligation, some law within my being, in which I am obligated to heed. I'm assuming you would believe this view was wrong, even though for some of us this may appear to be common sense?

If so, then what would be the correct view of obligation here?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2014, 05:19 PM
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(19-11-2014 03:59 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-11-2014 03:32 PM)Timber1025 Wrote:  Is this what your church youth group leader tells you to say as part of "Evangelism 101 for the miserable and mindless followers"?

No, Evangelism 101 is where they ask you, "Have you ever stolen anything, Have you ever lied, committed adultery." And 102, is where they lie to you, steal your money, and attempt to sleep with you.
No respect for this? Anybody?

Soulless mutants of muscle and intent. There are billions of us; hardy, smart and dangerous. Shaped by millions of years of death. We are the definitive alpha predator. We build monsters of fire and stone. We bottled the sun. We nailed our god to a stick.

In man's struggle against the world, bet on the man.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue's post
19-11-2014, 05:46 PM
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(19-11-2014 04:25 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  But returning back to one of your original comments, the obligation which you feel, is one that exists within you, not the product of outside coercion, but intrinsic to the fabric of your own being.

I never said anything was "intrinsic to the fabric of my own being". That's just so much word salad as far as I"m concerned.

Quote:All father's have obligations in such a way.

ALL fathers do? Not in my experience.

Quote:Common sense is a recognition that the thing, that nudge, that desire to care, is not just a feeling, but an obligation.

I do not understand the distinction you are trying to make.

Quote:Or does your common sense tell you something differently?

Apparently, since your position appear to me to be irrational

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2014, 05:59 PM (This post was last modified: 19-11-2014 06:09 PM by The Polyglot Atheist.)
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(19-11-2014 05:05 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  You do see that imagining that nature gave us obligations, is to speak of nature as having some intelligence, or intention though correct?

Incorrect. I said that Nature is an empty term. It's not a being, it's not an essence, it's not a spirit and it's not an intelligence of some sort. It's a term we use because it makes it easier to refer to a certain set of things as "nature", so we don't have to list all of those things each time.

Again, I said that the causes of our caring can be found to be naturalistic. As in, not supernatural, just from the natural.

(19-11-2014 05:05 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  If people are obligated to care of their children, and it's not nature that makes them obligated, then what is that makes them obligated? If I were to say I recognize that I have an obligation to love my children, by contemplating this feeling of compassion that I have for them, not as merely a feeling, but rather an obligation, some law within my being, in which I am obligated to heed. I'm assuming you would believe this view was wrong, even though for some of us this may appear to be common sense?

If so, then what would be the correct view of obligation here?

The moment you decide to have sex, you implicitly accept that if a children is born, then you're supposed to care for that child, and I've given reasons for this in my previous posts, as in sense of responsibility, for example.

孤独 - The Out Crowd
Life is a flash of light between two eternities of darkness.
[Image: Schermata%202014-10-24%20alle%2012.39.01.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2014, 05:59 PM
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(19-11-2014 05:05 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-11-2014 04:49 PM)The Polyglot Atheist Wrote:  No, I meant that the causes are naturalistic, not that nature gave them. Nature is not an agent in that sense, it has no intelligence, it has no intention. It's not even an "it". Nature is just an umbrella term to refer to a set of things.

You do see that imagining that nature gave us obligations, is to speak of nature as having some intelligence, or intention though correct?

Quote:People are supposed to care for their children, but for various reasons (lack of sense of responsibility, lack of education, immaturity, they don't care, and so on), they don't.

If people are obligated to care of their children, and it's not nature that makes them obligated, then what is that makes them obligated? If I were to say I recognize that I have an obligation to love my children, by contemplating this feeling of compassion that I have for them, not as merely a feeling, but rather an obligation, some law within my being, in which I am obligated to heed. I'm assuming you would believe this view was wrong, even though for some of us this may appear to be common sense?

If so, then what would be the correct view of obligation here?

If you want to make a logically strong case... It would require you to demonstrate what exactly Feeling and Obligation are by term or example and what is it that makes it an obligation over feeling. Why is feeling something lesser than obligation? What is it about obligation that is deeper?

And how is this obligation not evolutionary charged? In essence to protect and benefit your species/progeny in the best possible ways in essence and hope your fellow species members do the same. What about this is so more profound it couldn't be evolution at work?

In the past, you also ignored multiple points on how Social contract theory is relevant to humans having a shared community of moral obligations and how that is a manner of how it can form outside of a deity... also again, that there are atheists who also believe in a universal morality without any deistic quality. These are alternatives to your scenario that exists in the world.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
19-11-2014, 07:19 PM
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(19-11-2014 05:46 PM)unfogged Wrote:  ALL fathers do? Not in my experience.

So only some fathers have obligations, while others don't?

Treesap stated he cares for his kids, but doesn't believe he has a obligation to do so.

Is he an example of a father without such an obligation?

Why is it that some fathers have this obligation, but others don't?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: