world population

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Is that the pot calling the kettle black?

Do you recognise the difference between an atheist not following the bible and a Christian not following the bible?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Do you recognise the difference between an atheist not following the bible and a Christian not following the bible?

Indeed, but from the perspective of an atheist it isn't the right thing to do anyway so why does it matter?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Indeed, but from the perspective of an atheist it isn't the right thing to do anyway so why does it matter?

You think someone without God doesn't think it is right to look out for his fellow man?

Again, have you started this day with no memory of what has been explained to you over the previous weeks?!

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
You think someone without God doesn't think it is right to look out for his fellow man?

Again, have you started this day with no memory of what has been explained to you over the previous weeks?!

Of course he can think that, but how does that thought follow logically from the presupposition of atheism, which assumes 'survival of the fittest' is part of our evolutionary heritage. Why would it be wrong in all cases to throw your fellow human under the bus if he is only competing with you for nonrenewable resources and his life has no intrinsic value?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well I am not at war with Africans. Are you?

Have I nuked anyone?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Of course he can think that, but how does that thought follow logically from the presupposition of atheism, which assumes 'survival of the fittest' is part of our evolutionary heritage. Why would it be wrong in all cases to throw your fellow human under the bus if he is only competing with you for nonrenewable resources and his life has no intrinsic value?

It would be 'wrong' because:
(a) It would cause suffering to that person
(b) It would cause suffering to people for whom that person is important
(c) Consequent to (a) and (b) it would cause suffering to one's self (not believing in god doesn't mean that one doesn't have a conscience)
(d) It could lead to negative consequences socially and legally for one's self

We have 'evolved' beyond an idiot's reading of 'survival of the fittest'. Caring for other members of our society benefits ourselves.

None of the above reasoning requires the existence of god or of moral absolutes. How are you unable to see all of this?

Originally posted by Eladar
Have I nuked anyone?

Stop trying to dodge.
You have proposed denying Africans healthcare in order to keep the population down.
You have also advocated nuking people. That you didn't personally press the button, doesn't change the fact that you live in a democracy and in democracies, opinions are put together and all are collectively responsible. Your advocating nuking people is morally equivalent to pushing the button.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Stop trying to dodge.
You have proposed denying Africans healthcare in order to keep the population down.
You have also advocated nuking people. That you didn't personally press the button, doesn't change the fact that you live in a democracy and in democracies, opinions are put together and all are collectively responsible. Your advocating nuking people is morally equivalent to pushing the button.

Trying to dodge a trumped up claim? That is priceless. Such a hypocrite.

Originally posted by Eladar
Trying to dodge a trumped up claim? That is priceless. Such a hypocrite.

Which claim do you say is trumped up? Such a liar.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Again, have you started this day with no memory of what has been explained to you over the previous weeks?!

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Why would it be wrong in all cases to throw your fellow human under the bus if he is only competing with you for nonrenewable resources and his life has no intrinsic value?

That would be a 'yes'.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
It would be 'wrong' because:
(a) It would cause suffering to that person
(b) It would cause suffering to people for whom that person is important
(c) Consequent to (a) and (b) it would cause suffering to one's self (not believing in god doesn't mean that one doesn't have a conscience)
(d) It could lead to negative consequences socially and legall ...[text shortened]... ning requires the existence of god or of moral absolutes. How are you unable to see all of this?

So are you saying that causing suffering is wrong in all cases?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
[b]Why would it be wrong in all cases to throw your fellow human under the bus if he is only competing with you for nonrenewable resources and his life has no intrinsic value?

That would be a 'yes'.[/b]

So do you therefore as an atheist believe in moral absolutes?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So do you therefore as an atheist believe in moral absolutes?

Why should I bother explaining it to you given that you will have forgotten before your next post?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Why should I bother explaining it to you given that you will have forgotten before your next post?

Suit yourself.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Why should I bother explaining it to you given that you will have forgotten before your next post?

I had to do a 'refresh' on my computer earlier this week (it completely froze up on me) and when I finally got back into the system it remembered nothing of who I was. It didn't recall my various passwords, had forgotten my desktop picture and preferences, and had no recollection of my browser preference or internet security.

I think a similar thing occurs with FMJ each morning when he enters the forums. A convenient 'refresh' occurs in his brain and he simply forgets how he was out argued and intellectually embarrassed the day before, and so precedes to ask the same old questions (though perhaps with a new buzz word added).