Originally posted by @dj2beckerIf you yourself only discuss things you have an "objection to", that's alright.
So you brought something up that you have no objection to just because this is a debate and discussion forum? Ok whatever floats your boat.
Originally posted by @dj2beckerI have found yours and others intellectual behaviour interesting on this matter, so its been a worthwhile exchange from my perspective. We can agree to disagree of course.
Normally things are brought up in a debate forum to make a point or to argue a case. If you never want to make a point or argue a case, that's alright.
Originally posted by @dj2beckerRegarding your superstitious beliefs? No, not really. You can buy into whatever far-fetched magical stories you want to as far as I am concerned.
Is there ever anything you cannot agree to disagree on?
Originally posted by @dj2beckerWhen and where did 'exact' come into play here?
The only way they could choose their exact time and means of death is by suicide even then it's not cast in stone as quite a few people have survived attempted suicides.
1 edit
Originally posted by @rbhillIf Mohler needs to tell himself some stuff about not being just accidental beings in an accidental universe in order to live his life in a morally sound way and avoid being evil, then I suppose it's welcome.
Albert Mohler If we are just accidental beings in an accidental universe, nothing can really be evil.
If he finds that he can only understand evil by perceiving it as being something to some degree caused by supernatural phenomena or beings, as opposed to something he himself is 100% personally responsible for [as opposed to there being an "evil" being that is partly responsible], then I reckon the end perhaps justifies the means, if the 'end' is the avoidance morally sounds interactions with fellow humans on his part.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
1 edit
Originally posted by @fmfIf evil is merely a word used to describe certain actions that certain people agree they dislike and no one is right or wrong when they disagree about it, what makes evil inherently bad and why is evil such a big deal?
If Mohler needs to tell himself some stuff about [b]not being just accidental beings in an accidental universe in order to live his life in a morally sound way and avoid being evil, then I suppose it's welcome.
If he finds that he can only understand evil by perceiving it as being something to some degree caused by supernatural phenomena or being ...[text shortened]... means, if the 'end' is the avoidance morally sounds interactions with fellow humans on his part.[/b]
Originally posted by @dj2becker"what makes evil inherently bad"?
If evil is merely a word used to describe certain actions that certain people agree they dislike and no one is right or wrong when they disagree about it, what makes evil inherently bad and why is evil such a big deal?
Surely this is a wind up!
You really Sacha Baron Cohen?
What makes water wet?
Originally posted by @dj2beckerWhen I explained what I believe "evil" is in a post directly addressed to you a few weeks back, you just blanked it out. Then a few days later you simply pretended that I hadn't explained my take on the nature and source of "evil" to you, and asked me about it again.
If evil is merely a word used to describe certain actions that certain people agree they dislike and no one is right or wrong when they disagree about it, what makes evil inherently bad and why is evil such a big deal?
And then, oddly, when I pointed out where my explanation was, you just pretended that you couldn't find it, even though it was on a thread started by you - on "evil" - and I told you when I'd posted it there. I seem to recall you saying something along the lines of how I should just repeat myself for you instead, and that I would surely do so if I thought what I'd said had been worthwhile. It was like a kind of trolling punchline on your part.
So I guess that was your opportunity to discuss "evil" with me. And you missed it, or - shall we say - you used the opportunity for something else rather than to have a genuine dialogue with me.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by @dj2beckerIt would appear you use the same technique to ignore explanations and just repeat your question. Why not address the answers you are given? It appears you are looking for loopholes that you can jump on......but as of yet no holes are given.
If evil is merely a word used to describe certain actions that certain people agree they dislike and no one is right or wrong when they disagree about it, what makes evil inherently bad and why is evil such a big deal?
Originally posted by @stellspalfie to dj2beckerI have tried to discuss morality with dj2becker in the past but I found that the more time I spent answering his questions and the more detail I went into explaining my stance, the more likely he was to simply ignore what I'd said, and then later pretend that I hadn't already answered, and simply ask me about the same thing over and over and over again. Ghost of a Duke has described dj2becker's tactic as being an attempt to "win" by irritation.
It would appear you use the same technique to ignore explanations and just repeat your question. Why not address the answers you are given? It appears you are looking for loopholes that you can jump on......but as of yet no holes are given.
Originally posted by @fmf(parody)
. Ghost of a Duke has described dj2becker's tactic as being an attempt to "win" by irritation.
But if there is no objective definition of irritation
where do you get your definition of irritation from?
(/parody)
Originally posted by @wolfgang59😲
(parody)
But if there is no objective definition of irritation
where do you get your definition of irritation from?
(/parody)