Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk Why do you think it's funny that nothing is objectively wrong for an atheist? It's actually quite sad. If you disagree feel free to tell me what objective standard you use to differentiate between right and wrong.
The sad thing is you thinking humans are reduced to 'cannibal torturing machines' when God is not part of the equation.
Truth be told, as an atheist I think I have a stronger claim to morality than you do. My own morality is reflective of the world I live in, while yours is stagnating in a dusty book that has to trip over itself to appear relevant.
Originally posted by avalanchethecat You don't need an objective standard. The consequences of torturing a baby for fun are a lot of suffering and physical injury to the baby, and a lot of suffering to the relatives thereof, plus further suffering (albeit possibly less severe) to any right-thinkikng person who becomes aware of the act. The consequences of not torturing the baby are... n ...[text shortened]... is not a moral absolute. Which is presumably why you keep avoiding this one when asked about it.
So you admitting that torturing a baby for fun is always wrong for all people at all times. And hence it is a moral absolute.
I never claimed that thou shalt not steal is a moral absolute, since the Bible clearly says do not despise a thief that steals to satisfy his hunger.
Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke The sad thing is you thinking humans are reduced to 'cannibal torturing machines' when God is not part of the equation.
Truth be told, as an atheist I think I have a stronger claim to morality than you do. My own morality is reflective of the world I live in, while yours is stagnating in a dusty book that has to trip over itself to appear relevant.
(Is 'objectively' your buzz word for the day?)
You've got that wrong, I believe humanity has not yet been reduced to cannibal torturing machines because I believe God IS part of the equation. Hence we all have a God given sense of what is right and wrong. I just can't see why we would have a sense of right and wrong if God was not part of the equation.
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk So you admitting that torturing a baby for fun is always wrong for all people at all times. And hence it is a moral absolute.
I never claimed that thou shalt not steal is a moral absolute, since the Bible clearly says do not despise a thief that steals to satisfy his hunger.
I have not admitted that at all, in fact I gave you an albeit rather unlikely circumstance in which your baby torturing would be morally right. Do you actually read other people's posts?
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk You've got that wrong, I believe humanity has not yet been reduced to cannibal torturing machines because I believe God IS part of the equation. Hence we all have a God given sense of what is right and wrong. I just can't see why we would have a sense of right and wrong if God was not part of the equation.
God is not part of my equation and I have a sense of what is right and wrong. Why this concept goes right over your head escapes me.
Our evolution thrived due to our ability to cooperate and share, the building blocks for morality and empathy. But yeah I know, you just can't see it.
Originally posted by avalanchethecat I have not admitted that at all, in fact I gave you an albeit rather unlikely circumstance in which your baby torturing would be morally right. Do you actually read other people's posts?
Is the unlikely circumstance the one you cannot imagine?
Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke God is not part of my equation and I have a sense of what is right and wrong. Why this concept goes right over your head escapes me.
Our evolution thrived due to our ability to cooperate and share, the building blocks for morality and empathy. But yeah I know, you just can't see it.
You assume he is not part of your equation. I assume he is.
If you say your moral standard, whether social or personal, is evolving and getting better, then by what non-subjective standard do you judge that it is getting better and how do you know it is getting better without committing the logical fallacy of begging the question by saying things are getting better because they are evolving?
Originally posted by avalanchethecat Obviously not, since i imagined it
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Is the following statement true or false? “It is always wrong for everyone to torture babies to death merely for one’s personal pleasure.”
A) It is true.
B) It is not true.
C) It is neither true or false
D) It is a trick question and has no meaning
Avalanchethecat:
(e) True to the best of my knowledge, although that knowledge, like yours, is limited. I of course accept as I presume would any reasonable person that there may be circumstances of which I am unaware under which the statement would be false.
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk You assume he is not part of your equation. I assume he is.
If you say your moral standard, whether social or personal, is evolving and getting better, then by what non-subjective standard do you judge that it is getting better and how do you know it is getting better without committing the logical fallacy of begging the question by saying things are getting better because they are evolving?
"If you say your moral standard, whether social or personal, is evolving and getting better, then by what non-subjective standard do you judge that it is getting better and how do you know it is getting better without committing the logical fallacy of begging the question by saying things are getting better because they are evolving?"
The above sentence is pure gobbledegook. I don't think even you know what you are asking (apart from having abandoned objective in favour of non-subjective).
I'm not going to find new words for things I had already said to you countless times. Either change your posting style or just don't bother responding at all.
Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke "If you say your moral standard, whether social or personal, is evolving and getting better, then by what non-subjective standard do you judge that it is getting better and how do you know it is getting better without committing the logical fallacy of begging the question by saying things are getting better because they are evolving?"
The above se ...[text shortened]... to you countless times. Either change your posting style or just don't bother responding at all.
Of course the oldest evasion trick in the book is to say a question is gobbledegook, that way you don't have to answer it. The words, 'objective' and 'non-subjective' are standard English, if you don't know what they mean you could look them up.
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk Of course the oldest evasion trick in the book is to say a question is gobbledegook, that way you don't have to answer it. The words, 'objective' and 'non-subjective' are standard English, if you don't know what they mean you could look them up.
Can you even say your last ridiculously convoluted question without pausing for breath? Give it a try:
"If you say your moral standard, whether social or personal, is evolving and getting better, then by what non-subjective standard do you judge that it is getting better and how do you know it is getting better without committing the logical fallacy of begging the question by saying things are getting better because they are evolving?"
Talking to you is both tiresome and meaningless. Jog on.
Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke Can you even say your last ridiculously convoluted question without pausing for breath? Give it a try:
"If you say your moral standard, whether social or personal, is evolving and getting better, then by what non-subjective standard do you judge that it is getting better and how do you know it is getting better without committing the logical falla ...[text shortened]... better because they are evolving?"
Talking to you is both tiresome and meaningless. Jog on.
whereas talking to me is both refreshing and liberating, like taking a shower with Fruit chew flavoured shower gel!
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Is the following statement true or false? “It is always wrong for everyone to torture babies to death merely for one’s personal pleasure.”
A) It is true.
B) It is not true.
C) It is neither true or false
D) It is a trick question and has no meaning
Avalanchethecat:
(e) True to the best of my knowledge, a ...[text shortened]... that there may be circumstances of which I am unaware under which the statement would be false.
What are you, an idiot? Or just a troll? Go back and read the rest of the thread.
Originally posted by avalanchethecat I couldn't do it anyway, the mrs would have a blue fit if I sat around all day playing video games.
I cld see how that cld be a problem.
I find it fascinating that kids will watch others just play through games rather than actually playing. Like I said we love it. But I guess I dont really think I'd be playing games if it weren't for bonding with my kid. If I didn't have him I dont know where i'd be or what I'd be doing ..
spirituality forum
27 Jan '17 15:15
Back to Top