Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-10-2013, 08:52 AM
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
Okay, do you design a section for debate with theists. You know most likely you won't like what a theist says. So, how "thinking" is it of you, who are now grumbling, to even click to come to this section?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2013, 08:58 AM
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
(29-10-2013 08:52 AM)Dearthair Wrote:  Okay, do you design a section for debate with theists. You know most likely you won't like what a theist says. So, how "thinking" is it of you, who are now grumbling, to even click to come to this section?

Present a valid point sir, someone will be glad to debate you on it. Toss out some ignorant stereotypical insults and people will be glad to call you an ass.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Losty's post
29-10-2013, 09:09 AM
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
Dearth of hair - Theists are always sniffing around this site. Here's the usual progression:
1. Theist enters the fray, full of bluster!
2. Theist delivers compelling arguments. That everyone has heard before, and are easily refuted by arguments the theist hasn't heard before.
3. Theist can't quite believe that their arguments were not compelling, and feebly ventures on. For a while.
4. Theist paints themselves into a corner, justifying brutality, calling wrong right, defending the indefensible.
5. Theist starts to concede a few points here and there
6. Theist either becomes atheist (can take a few years) or settles down and becomes a moderator
amiright?

At any point during this progression the theist may just blow up and leave.

The whole forum is open for your contribution, if you have a contribution to make that is. You're welcome to stay if you have something interesting to say. Until you say something interesting, something new, something unrefuted, or something that suggests you are in some way open to reason you can continue to expect lethargic interactions. We've heard it before.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Hafnof's post
29-10-2013, 09:10 AM
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
(29-10-2013 08:58 AM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  
(29-10-2013 08:52 AM)Dearthair Wrote:  Okay, do you design a section for debate with theists. You know most likely you won't like what a theist says. So, how "thinking" is it of you, who are now grumbling, to even click to come to this section?

Present a valid point sir, someone will be glad to debate you on it. Toss out some ignorant stereotypical insults and people will be glad to call you an ass.

Think. Debates don't have to start with a valid point. They only have to be a point someone disagrees with.

I gave it. There is no basis for morality with atheists.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2013, 09:14 AM
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
(29-10-2013 07:30 AM)Dearthair Wrote:  Every thread has a focus, and the focus on this one is about right/wrong & why on a desert isle. The question presented on an atheist forum by a theist is obviously directed only to atheists (everyone knows the answer of a theist already). Attempts to turn the subject to what a theist personally thinks is merely attempts to divert attention away from the focus of the question, and its results.
If you want to criticize *us* then it's only fair that we get the chance to criticize you too. You didn't say in your OP that you only wanted to talk about atheistic answers. We don't know your answers, that's why we're asking. But hey, OK you refused. Moving on...

Quote:The results are this: The answers all varied per person, and even each answer had no foundation other than personal "taste". Like the taste of milk, there is no disputing taste. One atheist says it is circular argument, another chooses the golden rule, another reason, and another says it doesn't matter, etc.

It is essentially anarchy.
You would want all the answers the same ? That only happens if no one thinks for themselves. By all means go ahead and take your morality out of some book written by crazy people. We choose not to.

Quote:Atheists will overlook their differences, not wanting to argue too heatedly with their own kind (particularly in the presence of a theist). This comraderie of atheists, I see, is based on the principle of "common ground", expressed specifially as, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". So, regardless of the acceptable "a la carte" personal morality of another atheist, he is a friend, because he knows the other opposes religion that has a supreme being. The anti-religion is the bond of the comraderie.
a. You're a tit.
b. If you hung around you'd see that the main criteria for friendship here is that you not be a douche. But even among friends we still argue - our opinions are our own, we have no obligation to be nice to each other.

Quote:Morals is essentially the "should" and "should not" of human action. Although atheists often try to argue this concept, they really have no basis at all for doing so. But, hey, who says inconsistency and contradiction are wrong, right?
Yeah because an invisible psychopath provides a much better basis.

Quote:So, for the atheist, his own personal free-will and pleasure, for the moment, is his god. Yet, if an atheist uses his own free-will and good pleasure to choose a supreme being, that is the atheist heresy; all things acceptable by free choice except for freely choosing the supreme being, the Creator.

WTF is with you clowns ? You all come here, don't read a word we type, and proceed to *tell* us what we think and why we think it. God give you a link into my brain ? That's hypothesis A. Hypothesis B is that you're a twit. Guess which one I find more probable ?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
29-10-2013, 09:14 AM
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
There is no basis for morality with theists. Unless you count your blood blood murder rape genocide infanticide woman hate woman hate I ain't no queer, burn burn burn monster in the sky fear loathing hatred manifesto of a holy book.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Hafnof's post
29-10-2013, 09:14 AM
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
(29-10-2013 08:52 AM)Dearthair Wrote:  Okay, do you design a section for debate with theists. You know most likely you won't like what a theist says. So, how "thinking" is it of you, who are now grumbling, to even click to come to this section?

'Cause it's fun. Big Grin

This section was not implemented for theist debate, but rather for fellow atheists to post about theist debate. Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2013, 09:19 AM (This post was last modified: 29-10-2013 09:23 AM by sporehux.)
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
Thats debatable .

When I Asked my theist m8 how isolated islanders / aboriginals / american indians could have morals absent of the bible and god.

He claimed god was guiding them silently. WTF i give up.

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes sporehux's post
29-10-2013, 09:19 AM
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
(29-10-2013 09:14 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  There is no basis for morality with theists. Unless you count your blood blood murder rape genocide infanticide woman hate woman hate I ain't no queer, burn burn burn monster in the sky fear loathing hatred manifesto of a holy book.

Yes, you cannot debate my point, because there is no basis. So, you turn to the fallacy of "tu quoque" instead.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2013, 09:25 AM
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
(29-10-2013 07:30 AM)Dearthair Wrote:  Every thread has a focus, and the focus on this one is about right/wrong & why on a desert isle. The question presented on an atheist forum by a theist is obviously directed only to atheists (everyone knows the answer of a theist already). Attempts to turn the subject to what a theist personally thinks is merely attempts to divert attention away from the focus of the question, and its results.
A thread should be a discussion between equals. Not one guy asking, but
not answering any questions. That reminds me of my question:
Would you torture infants if God ordered you to?
This thread is about where we derive our values and morals from.
So my question is relevant, because it tells me where you would derive
your values from. Since you do not want to answer my question I answer it
for you:
Deathair (as interpreted by black_squirrel) Wrote:God is the ultimate authority on morality, so yes, I would torture infants
if God ordered me to.
Please correct me if this would not be your answer.
Quote:The results are this: The answers all varied per person, and even each answer had no foundation other than personal "taste". Like the taste of milk, there is no disputing taste. One atheist says it is circular argument, another chooses the golden rule, another reason, and another says it doesn't matter, etc.

It is essentially anarchy.
There is no absolute morality. Religions claim that there is an absolute morality,
but then, among themselves, dispute what exactly those absolute morals are.
In practice, "absolute morals" are just the values of religious leaders who
force their morals onto other people by calling them "absolute".

Atheists have differences of opinion among themselves about moral values.
Theists have differences of opinion among themselves about moral values.
The only difference is, that Atheists accept the fact that there can be
differences of opinions on this. Accepting this reality is not the same
as accepting other peoples morals, though.

Still, moral values are not completely arbitrary. Almost every value system
among different cultures are based on the "golden rule". So morals
are more than just an arbitrary taste. But it isn't absolute either.
Quote:Atheists will overlook their differences, not wanting to argue too heatedly with their own kind (particularly in the presence of a theist). This comraderie of atheists, I see, is based on the principle of "common ground", expressed specifially as, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". So, regardless of the acceptable "a la carte" personal morality of another atheist, he is a friend, because he knows the other opposes religion that has a supreme being. The anti-religion is the bond of the comraderie.
If religions would look for more common ground among themselves, maybe
there would be fewer wars. I think to some extend it is worthwhile to accept
another persons morals for the sake of peace. However, there are limits.
Quote:Morals is essentially the "should" and "should not" of human action. Although atheists often try to argue this concept, they really have no basis at all for doing so. But, hey, who says inconsistency and contradiction are wrong, right?
In what way are atheists inconsistent?
Quote:So, for the atheist, his own personal free-will and pleasure, for the moment, is his god.
Nope. Atheists are not hedonists. You won't get very far in life if you do
whatever you like at every given time. Delayed gratification is often the key to a successful and happy life. But atheists might not want to delay the gratification
until after death. So here is a question for you:
Suppose that God does not exist and there are no laws. Would you lead
a completely selfish life?

Quote:Yet, if an atheist uses his own free-will and good pleasure to choose a supreme being, that is the atheist heresy; all things acceptable by free choice except for freely choosing the supreme being, the Creator.
That is nonsense. Obviously, atheists have chosen to not believe in God.
But we are free to choose a supreme being if we want to. But most
of us are not that interested. However, I am contemplating to accept
the Flying Spaghetti Monster as the supreme being.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: