debosky:

Furthermore, I disagree with the superficial assertion that atheism recognizes 'no standards' - that isn't the case, it simply doesn't recognise any standards as 'absolute' or 'divine' - that doesn't stop individuals or groups of individuals from setting their own standards as they deem fit - it may not be homogeneous among all atheists, but that isn't a requirement either.

Nothing to add here!

To Anony, you will soon cease to surprise me.

debosky:

you attempt to enforce your own blanket definition on all atheists.

Makes it quite easy to live with themselves

Ihedinobi:
If, say, each of seven billion people decide what they call right and wrong, on what basis will one moral code submit to another?

Are all religions harmonic on morals ?

musKeeto:

When theists can agree on one God and one set of morals, please call me.

Just saw this.

!!!!

Ihedinobi:

Er, excuse me. Did you say debosky showed me something? Show it to me please. I may have missed it.

Looks like you did. Won't be the first time.

debosky:
Furthermore, I disagree with the superficial assertion that atheism recognizes 'no standards' - that isn't the case, it simply doesn't recognise any standards as 'absolute' or 'divine' - that doesn't stop individuals or groups of individuals from setting their own standards as they deem fit - it may not be homogeneous among all atheists, but that isn't a requirement either.

Ihedinobi:
What's that about anarchy not meaning different answers to the same frigging question? Damn!

What's that you say aboute saying that anarchy means no morals? Where'd I say that? Damn!

Look up the definition of anarchy. You'll note that in anarchy, there is generally no order.

Ihedinobi:
Hehehe.... Grasping much? So based on what do you say that "theism cares naught for right and wrong"?

Based on the fact that theism only answers one question. Which is about whether or not the person believes that some God exists.

Ihedinobi:
All I saw above was a lot of grasping, buddy.

Then you should be able to form proper connections rather than the haphazard ones you made.

Ihedinobi:
Yeah Whatever rocks your boat, buddy.

This isn't about what rocks my boat, it is about showing you that you need to back up what you say with good evidence and not flights of fancy.

Enigma: ^^^Obviously, you are too daft to follow the argument; and you are blind to see my post that presaged the one you are addressing.

In any event, you are similarly too daft to realise that you are actually making the point that I have argued on this thread.

I'm also pretty sure that idiocy runs in your family and it shouldn't be difficult to guess who you inherited your idiocy from.

Please do explain then, mr fabulous. I'll be waiting. Else, again, why not consider shutting up? That's not so difficult, abi?


edit: and btw, where do I make a point? please show that as well.
edit again: ahh, my point, I see what point you're talking about. So, please, demonstrate.

Lol....What a full blown argument here


I opened this thread as a simple showcase of christian bigotry. Claiming that atheism leads to immorality.


There is no need to argue with someone that believes Enigma's comment in the op. The foolishness is clear. Atheism itself has nothing to do with morality. atheism is only a disbelief in God- simple.

I am not moral because I am an atheist. I am moral because I am a human that subjects myself to reason, logic and humanist principles.

---------------------------------------------------------------------


At least now, we have a thread that we can easily point to when christians claim that atheists receive no bigotry from "moderate christians" in Nigeria. Enigma and co believe that our natural course is onto evil as atheists.


Bloody fools set up a trap for themselves and fell into it.

Enigma:

1. An atheist is simply a person who lacks belief in god(s). Fine, then to that extent he is in the same category as a dog, a cow, a monkey etc.

To the same extent that you are in the same category as a dog, cow or monkey in that you eat food.

wiegraf:

. . . you've been here a while yet you seem to make some of the more asinine posts in this section with admirable frequency.

Thats really funny.

thehomer:

Looks like you did. Won't be the first time.

Ain't this what you said?

thehomer: ...Atheists can arrive at consistent moral decisions without appealing to a God as debosky already showed you...

So where in that post did debosky show me that atheists can arrive at consistent moral decisions without appealing to a God? That's what I'm missing. And what you are too, for that matter.

Look up the definition of anarchy. You'll note that in anarchy, there is generally no order.

And that, uh, means that I did say that anarchy means no morals. Right?

Based on the fact that theism only answers one question. Which is about whether or not the person believes that some God exists.

And, of course this one answer is without any kind of consequence, right? How ingenious!

Then you should be able to form proper connections rather than the haphazard ones you made.

Who says I'm unable to form proper connections? Or that I made haphazard ones? You? And I should believe it because...you say so? What a guy! If you didn't like it becausr it tore up your arguments or position, don't hate, just lick your wounds and get over it.

This isn't about what rocks my boat, it is about showing you that you need to back up what you say with good evidence and not flights of fancy.

Oh sure. Feel free to give me the exact description of what qualifies as good evidence for you, sir, and I'll have your order come right up. Lol. I still think it's all about what rocks your boat, man.

jayriginal:



Thats really funny.

Random rant alert

To be fair, I never actually read his post. Then again, they usually are rather poor and this one is no exception.

It seems to boil down to the usual transcendant vs subjective (I really can't be bothered to pay too much attention to it, so I may be wrong). There's no such thing as transcendant morality that is genuinely objective, but that has never stopped them from making these arguments.

Every god has his own 'objective' morality based around the god's goals, goals are determined by emotions, need I say more? They then claim morals built on the subjective whims of a god are objective? Interesting.

Yah-weh once wanted anyone with the temerity to work on sabbath put to death then roasted in hell for the rest of time. He then has a change of heart for seemingly no good reason and scraps that, now (thankfully) decreeing things like one should turn the other cheek after getting slapped. Great work there objective (and omniscient) yahweh. What do I hear? Long term goals? The original plan never changed in the larger scope of things? Those sinful 'humans' were not real humans, they didn't matter despite their possessing free will. God is also under no obligation to be moral to his creations. Just like a mai-guardie with 10 kids, a 10,000N monthly salary, that somehow manages the impossible feat of sleeping in one room with all those kids and still magically produce more. The mai-guardie is of course is under no obligation to be moral to those kids. Anyways, the only thing objective about their 'objective' morality is the slavishness and blind devotion to the god, it's the only constant.

Just as they assume god can show up from nowhere while somehow nature/energy can't, they assume gods are capable of shaping morals yet for some mysterious reason we are incapable of doing the same. I believe consciousness is all that's necessary to mold a moral code, and we happen to have that, no? In fact, as already pointed out, even if say xtian god existed, we already use man made morals. Everyone who isn't xtian (and perhaps jewish) uses man made moral codes as far as they're concerned, but I suppose they cannot be moral. Secular moral codes are also moot. These codes are not 'real' moral codes and thus they somehow don't matter in these debates.

I could go on and on, folly compounding folly. But really, what's atheism supposed to do with morality? Or, as already asked, theism? All theists get their moral codes from a god by default, hmmm?

yadda yadda yadda

Ihedinobi:

Ain't this what you said?



So where in that post did debosky show me that atheists can arrive at consistent moral decisions without appealing to a God? That's what I'm missing. And what you are too, for that matter.

He presented you with an analogy of trade didn't he? Do you remember he said this:

debosky:
I disagree with this - people may simply decide on a 'fundamental' set of morals that everyone can agree on simply for the sake of expediency (e.g. for trade), and not for accommodating 'God'.

I in my case have already gave you a sketched out way.

Ihedinobi:
And that, uh, means that I did say that anarchy means no morals. Right?

Morals indicate some sort of order doesn't it?

Ihedinobi:
And, of course this one answer is without any kind of consequence, right? How ingenious!

Actually it is if the God the person had in mind was an indifferent one a deist God. You really need to know that there are many more conceptions of God besides the monotheistic oppressor type you're familiar with.

Ihedinobi:
Who says I'm unable to form proper connections? Or that I made haphazard ones? You? And I should believe it because...you say so? What a guy! If you didn't like it becausr it tore up your arguments or position, don't hate, just lick your wounds and get over it.

Not because I say so, but because it is so. You saw that fact when I replaced theism with theism and that makes your points there not even wrong, just pointless.

Ihedinobi:
Oh sure. Feel free to give me the exact description of what qualifies as good evidence for you, sir, and I'll have your order come right up. Lol. I still think it's all about what rocks your boat, man.

At the very least, you'll need to form logical connections between your assertions. But with respect to the topic at hand, you'll need to show that all atheists are necessarily performing immoral actions simply because they're atheists and not that e.g all humans are performing immoral actions.

You'll note that even Enigma who you're trying to defend won't be willing to say this.

thehomer:

He presented you with an analogy of trade didn't he? Do you remember he said this:

Ok. So now, it wasn't in that first post of his you quoted, eh? It's in this one

Anyway, even in this new post of his you want to escape into I don't see that atheists can indeed arrive at consistent moral decisions without appealing to a God. But I do indeed see a supposition that people not merely atheists may agree on a fundamental set of morals without the need to accommodate God. And I think Enigma's long explanatory post fully and finally answered that. You should probably refer to it, my friend.

I in my case have already gave you a sketched out way.

And I needed one because....you thought so?

Morals indicate some sort of order doesn't it?

So? Does that still prove your statement that I said anarchy means no morals true? The question is, did I say that? Where did I say that? Pulling out dictionaries and encyclopaedias won't make me say something I didn't say, buddy.

In any case, clashing morals still means anarchy. And even in state, morals still exist. But, perpetuate that state and you'll arrive at what I did indeed say.

Actually it is if the God the person had in mind was an indifferent one a deist God. You really need to know that there are many more conceptions of God besides the monotheistic oppressor type you're familiar with.

What nonsense!

Not because I say so, but because it is so. You saw that fact when I replaced theism with theism and that makes your points there not even wrong, just pointless.

Oh yeah? And who says it is so? You? Funny guy!

I saw what fact? This guy is just priceless. Do you really think I give a damn what you think about my points? Newsflash, buddy: I sure as nails don't. Your saying that jiggling words about makes my point wrong or pointless does not make it so. You have to make it so to make it so.

At the very least, you'll need to form logical connections between your assertions. But with respect to the topic at hand, you'll need to show that all atheists are necessarily performing immoral actions simply because they're atheists and not that e.g all humans are performing immoral actions.

Hehehe. Coming from a guy who wouldn't recognize logic if it kicked him in the face, in my opinion, of course (but then in my moral code, my opinion is law), I think I'll pass over your advice.

You'll note that even Enigma who you're trying to defend won't be willing to say this.

Why should he be? Because you think he should?

Ihedinobi:

Ok. So now, it wasn't in that first post of his you quoted, eh? It's in this one

Anyway, even in this new post of his you want to escape into I don't see that atheists can indeed arrive at consistent moral decisions without appealing to a God. But I do indeed see a supposition that people not merely atheists may agree on a fundamental set of morals without the need to accommodate God. And I think Enigma's long explanatory post fully and finally answered that. You should probably refer to it, my friend.

I guess atheists aren't people any more. Maybe it is news to you but if people can do something, it means that atheists can do it too because atheists are people.

Ihedinobi:
And I needed one because....you thought so?

Huh? You claimed I hadn't presented one when I had. I'm countering your claim.

Ihedinobi:
So? Does that still prove your statement that I said anarchy means no morals true? The question is, did I say that? Where did I say that? Pulling out dictionaries and encyclopaedias won't make me say something I didn't say, buddy.

You were implying it.

Ihedinobi:
In any case, clashing morals still means anarchy. And even in state, morals still exist. But, perpetuate that state and you'll arrive at what I did indeed say.

This is the source of your confusion. You're confusing acting morally with a concept of morality. I'm not surprised you didn't see it.

Ihedinobi:
What nonsense!

This is why so many simply concepts fly by you.

Ihedinobi:
Oh yeah? And who says it is so? You? Funny guy!

I saw what fact? This guy is just priceless. Do you really think I give a damn what you think about my points? Newsflash, buddy: I sure as nails don't. Your saying that jiggling words about makes my point wrong or pointless does not make it so. You have to make it so to make it so.

And here we see that not only are you unable to carry out a conversation based on reason, you don't even understand when your point has been nullified. What a shame.

Ihedinobi:
Hehehe. Coming from a guy who wouldn't recognize logic if it kicked him in the face, in my opinion, of course (but then in my moral code, my opinion is law), I think I'll pass over your advice.

I'm already kicking you in the face with logic and reason but maybe out of ignorance or pride, you're blind to it.

Ihedinobi:
Why should he be? Because you think he should?

No because abandoning a point implies a rejection of such a point. For some reason you didn't see this too? Wow.

@ Ihedinobi

Very well said, bros.

Enigma: @ Ihedinobi

Very well said, bros.

Garbage supporter

Cheerleading squad!!!

thehomer:

I guess atheists aren't people any more. Maybe it is news to you but if people can do something, it means that atheists can do it too because atheists are people.

It's still a supposition, dude, and a demolished one for that matter.

Huh? You claimed I hadn't presented one when I had. I'm countering your claim.

Right. Sorry.

You were implying it.

Didn't you say that I said?

This is the source of your confusion. You're confusing acting morally with a concept of morality. I'm not surprised you didn't see it.

No, man. You are the one confused. And that's true because I say so. And I say so because it's true.

This is why so many simply concepts fly by you.

No, man. You are the sieve here. Concepts phase through you like light through a transparent glass pane.

And here we see that not only are you unable to carry out a conversation based on reason, you don't even understand when your point has been nullified. What a shame.

Well, considering that your whole argument was nullified a full page ago, I think it's you who lacks ability to recognize the demolition of your points. I've been facepalming since the last page.

I'm already kicking you in the face with logic and reason but maybe out of ignorance or pride, you're blind to it.

But you see I think that you are the blind one by reason of both a deep-seated willful ignorance and a deep-rooted pride. Therefore, if logic stomps you on the face as I have been guiding it to do all this time, you still won't know anything hit you. You're totally inured to reason. That's my opinion, of course (and my opinion rules!)

No because abandoning a point implies a rejection of such a point. For some reason you didn't see this too? Wow.

How am I supposed to see things that aren't there?

Ihedinobi:

It's still a supposition, dude, and a demolished one for that matter.

It is a supposition that atheists are humans?

Ihedinobi:
Right. Sorry.

Apology accepted.

Ihedinobi:
Didn't you say that I said?

Is English a problem for you too? If you're implying something, that means you're saying it indirectly.

Ihedinobi:
No, man. You are the one confused. And that's true because I say so. And I say so because it's true.

Ooh. And this is the best you can do with your confusion.

Ihedinobi:
No, man. You are the sieve here. Concepts phase through you like light through a transparent glass pane.

This from one who doesn't understand that there are various concepts of God.

Ihedinobi:
Well, considering that your whole argument was nullified a full page ago, I think it's you who lacks ability to recognize the demolition of your points. I've been facepalming since the last page.

Yes. That is why you couldn't respond when you were shown that atheism like theism says nothing about morality.

Ihedinobi:
But you see I think that you are the blind one by reason of both a deep-seated willful ignorance and a deep-rooted pride. Therefore, if logic stomps you on the face as I have been guiding it to do all this time, you still won't know anything hit you. You're totally inured to reason. That's my opinion, of course (and my opinion rules!)

Looking at how you failed to understand what you're supposed to show, it isn't surprising that you find it difficult to make logical connections and conclusions.

Ihedinobi:
How am I supposed to see things that aren't there?

But what he said is right there. Go back and take another look at what he wrote.

thehomer:

It is a supposition that atheists are humans?

No, debosky's post, on which you're hinging your salvation, is.

Is English a problem for you too? If you're implying something, that means you're saying it indirectly.

When people like you speak it, it kind of is.

Ooh. And this is the best you can do with your confusion.

But, you are the confused one, so how are you competent to label me confused?

This from one who doesn't understand that there are various concepts of God.

Yeah yeah yeah. Write a book so the critics can debunl you already. The way you go om about this multi-concept of God, one would think it's your religion.

Yes. That is why you couldn't respond when you were shown that atheism like theism says nothing about morality.

Ah, but it was based on that assertion of yours on which, surprisingly enough, you agree with Enigma and myself, that your arguments against Enigma's submission were destroyed a page ago. What better response could I give?

Looking at how you failed to understand what you're supposed to show, it isn't surprising that you find it difficult to make logical connections and conclusions.

Ah well, whipped dogs must whine.

But what he said is right there. Go back and take another look at what he wrote.

Ok. I still don't see how Enigma needs to say anything for you.

---

Man, I'm bored with this convo. Maybe another time, we can play "chase your tail again". Cheers

SHALOM!

When you are fighting somebody to the finish (i.e. THEIR finish, not YOUR finish), what sense does it make to handcuff yourself, and manacle yourself to fight them?

Therefore, given the option of using ONLY HONESTY, and ONLY TRUTH, and using LIES, and ADULTERATED/TRUNCATED TRUTHS, what do you expect ATHEISTS to DO- believing that THERE IS NO AFTERLIFE ACCOUNTABILITY?

"We are becoming GOD: period.
If you don't like it, get off.
You don't have to contribute.
You don't have to participate.
But if you're going to interfere
with ME becoming a god...
We are going to have BIG TROUBLE.
We are going to have WARFARE."
.
. -RICHARD SEED.