Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So your disbelief in the FlyingSpaghettiMonster must be equated to your belief in Biblegod?
According to your previous argumentation he would be. Except that it would be Aharrypotterist (the th being part of "theos" in "atheist").I am not talking in terms of silly creations!
I mean, someone that doesn't believe in Harry Potter isn't
Athharrypotteresit are they?
quatona said:So your disbelief in the FlyingSpaghettiMonster must be equated to your belief in Biblegod?
Ok, then your argumentation is at least consistent.Right.
I don´t understand how that´s relevant for the question discussed.May I make is absolutely flipping clear to everyone that
"IN REGARDS TO GOD"
Means "in regards to the judeo-christian concept of GOD"
Besides pulling my chain, is there any point in this remark?Well, it seems quatona, that being an Atheist requires faith in the lack of a flyingspaghettimonster.
"Atheist" means what the person speaking means.No it doesn't. Because "atheist" means belief in No-god."
Since nobody here seems to use "atheist" for describing people who "lack belief of all things" (except maybe this one entertaining new christian poster), I have no idea what to do with this remark.Not, "lack of belief of all things"
That would be an extreme nihilist.
No, not me, because to me"atheist" doesn´t mean a lump of sugar and I use this term in one of the common definitions - the one I have told you about.Maybe you could use it as a lump of sugar when we go have a nice cup of tea together?
"Forever" is a big word.I think these rants at each other aren't constructive, as I always seem to come back at you aggressively, and you are forever finding some fault in my argument.
No, not me, because to me"atheist" doesn´t mean a lump of sugar and I use this term in one of the common definitions - the one I have told you about.
"Forever" is a big word.
But, yes, I often find flaws in your argumentation, and I express my opinion. I thought that´s what we are here for.
In other instances I feel you might be onto something, but I don´t really understand what you are trying to establish and why. Then I ask cricical question in the hope the answer might help me spot your idea.
Anyways, if you feel uncomfortable with me and the way I respond, and if you´d like me to abstain from responding to your post and posting in your threads, just say it. It´s really no problem: I won´t impose myself on you anymore in this case. No hard feelings whatsoever.
Yes, because they are dear to me. In fact, even if I did not have a short time to die, I would definitely press a button that could save my wife's life or the life of my child at the cost of mine. There is no others for whom I would do this.You know that you will die a sertain death within short time. Survival is no option at all. Your family is also doomed to die, if you not press a sertain button. This button will save your dear ones lives, but also take your own life instintly. Would you push it?
God Why Is This Thread Still Here
You know that you will die a sertain death within short time. Survival is no option at all. Your family is also doomed to die, if you not press a sertain button. This button will save your dear ones lives, but also take your own life instintly. Would you push it?
In such a specialized case, I would say there is only one reasonable answer: push the button. The outcome is preferable: only you die, instead of all of you die.
But such a question is not transferable to a general level. On this level, the problem would not be solvable, for everyone - including your loved family - would have such a button.
Selflessness can only be of value when there is someone selfish enough to accept it.
Still true.Not true. Provided everyone doesn't commit suicide all at once, selflessness will work. Someone will do it before anyone else can, and the problem will be solved before the others can do anything about it. If they say they've got it, then everyone else can back off.
For example, let's say you have a squad of soldiers. They're all prepared to jump on a grenade if it lands in their trench. The first soldier to see a grenade can yell "I've got it!" and everyone else can take cover. You end up with only one guy dying instead of potentially half the squad. It's a working group survival strategy.
Still true.
"Selflessness can only be of value when there is someone selfish enough to accept it."
The other soldiers in the squad still have to be selfish enough to accept the selflessness of the first soldier.
And again, this would be a specialized case, where reaction speed and order of events play a role. Have every soldier singled out and presented with a situation where he alone could save everyone else.... and you would have a selfless stalemate.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?