If when we die....

[Skavau]

LOL! Where did I say it was wrong?

You seem to be using it as an example an awful lot. Do you think according to theism sadomasochism is wrong?

 

[Gadarene]

I think our little Craigian is a bit confused by the notion that certain actions can have a spectrum of outcomes and varying harms depending on circumstances and other factors.

It's a bit more complicated than "thou shalt not do X", I'll admit.

 

[Elioenai26]

And attributing it to atheism.

Even though not a single atheist present recognises this.

Why presume they're the majority? This is no less bigoted or offensive than presuming that Christians should be paedophiles because some Christians were paedophiles.

Did you look up what consequentialism meant?

If the shoe fits, I recommend wearing it.

Because bigotry causes harm.

Your definition of harm might be different than mine.

Yes, I know it won't last forever. What is your point?

My point is this: if I believe my body will not last forever, then I can do what I want to with it. Thats all.

I hate to point out more of the obvious to you, but it does seem to be eluding you. You are of course aware that even if your existence is finite, a world where everyone goes around NOT killing and raping as they please is generally more enjoyable than one in which they do? Killing and raping people, not to put too fine a point on it, causes harm.

That is your opinion sir. You are entitled to it.

 

[Genersis]

Why do some people want to believe atheists are moralless so badly?
Do they really wish that to be the case?

 

[Gadarene]

Why do some people want to believe atheists are moralless so badly?
Do they really wish that to be the case?

Yes, there are a lot of bigots on the board at the moment.

Ni illigetimi carborundum.

 

[Skavau]

That is your opinion sir. You are entitled to it.

You are now being completely absurd.

A society which allows or approves of murder and rape is by definition less safer for all of us than a society which does not.

 

[Elioenai26]

Wow, and now you're saying atheists should be social Darwinists?

Put the shovel down, Elioenai

Nothing more bizarre than what you have been saying funny guy!

 

[Gadarene]

If the shoe fits, I recommend wearing it.

It doesn't fit. I don't think that atheism prohibits morality - and I've already given you the basis for it. Consequentialism.

Your definition of harm might be different than mine.

It might, but this is hardly an objection to any moral system. Someone might *gasp* disagree with Christian moral statements!

My point is this: if I believe my body will not last forever, then I can do what I want to with it. Thats all.

You can do what you want to it either way. Being an atheist has little to do with that.

That is your opinion sir. You are entitled to it.

You think a world where everyone is raping and killing is better than one where people try to prevent raping and killing?

How'd you work that one out?

 

[Gadarene]

Nothing more bizarre than what you have been saying funny guy!

I almost wish that your level of debating ineptitude and general rudeness would hinder your attempts to become an apologist, but based on the track record of a lot of Christian apologists I've encountered, it's not that much of an obstacle.



So, you have no clue about the theory of evolution either, and you've fallen straight into the is-ought fallacy.

Yeah, about as expected, really.

 

[Elioenai26]

You are now being completely absurd.

A society which allows or approves of murder and rape is by definition less safer for all of us than a society which does not.

You keep saying things like: "by definition". Who determines who defines what something is? Who in their right mind would take that upon themselves to put a moral constraint upon someone? Is this not acting like God?

 

[Elioenai26]

I almost wish that your level of debating ineptitude and general rudeness would hinder your attempts to become an apologist, but based on the track record of a lot of Christian apologists I've encountered, it's not that much of an obstacle.



So, you have no clue about the theory of evolution either, and you've fallen straight into the is-ought fallacy.

Yeah, about as expected, really.

Thats your opinion. You are entitled to it.

 

[Skavau]

You keep saying things like: "by definition". Who determines who defines what something is?

Uhm.

We are able to speak. Through this ability we formulate sounds and through our ability to write we use symbols to represent these sounds. The sounds are arranged and the symbols accordingly so. A group of people assign meaning to these organised sounds and symbols (which we call words) in order to communicate more effectively and to pass on the knowledge to their offspring. Eventually, a group of people will have an expansive amount of words and a unique system to be able to add new ones that we call it a language.

You are honestly asking the most asinine of questions in an attempt to make the cheapest points.

Who in their right mind would take that upon themselves to put a moral constraint upon someone? Is this not acting like God?

No, it isn't and yet any definition I refer to is not my definition, it is the accepted definition of the English language.

Do you need anything else completely irrelevant explained to you?

 

[Gadarene]

Thats your opinion. You are entitled to it.

Ah ok, and now you think that going "that's your opinion" after every sentence is a viable tactic.

Well, consider yourself fortunate some more competent people are here to enlighten you.

Naturalistic fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evolution no more requires that we obey survival of the fittest than the theory of gravity requires that we drop people from cranes, or organic chemistry requires that we get drunk. It is descriptive, not prescriptive.

As for whether social Darwinism would actually work, it's usually based around optimising one or two prominent traits like physical strength, hair and eye colour, etc. The irony is reducing the other available traits actually reduces your overall genetic diversity, which reduces net survivability.

And the most significant believer in social Darwinism of recent times was a religious believer

So, what's your next fallacious argument?

 

[quatona]

I´m not really seeing the substantial difference between "I believe X is right/wrong" and "I believe god say X is right/wrong". But, anyway, if it eases your mind, I might consider ascribing my opinions to god henceforth.

 

[Elioenai26]

Now you gentlemen are telling me that it is wrong to harm people! Is that correct? If so, why? And who determines what is right and wrong?

 

[Skavau]

Now you gentlemen are telling me that it is wrong to harm people! Is that correct? If so, why?

Yes, we are. It is wrong to harm others on the simple basis that none of us would like to be harmed. We can recognise from this base self-interest that we ought not harm others lest we be repayed equally.

That's just one simple argument from self-interest that I'm sure you can identify with.

Now: Why do you think that it is wrong to harm people, as a theist?

And who determines what is right and wrong?

No-one. This is a nonsense question. Good moral arguments are not derived from who says it but by how reasoned it is.

 

[Elioenai26]

Yes, we are. It is wrong to harm others on the simple basis that none of us would like to be harmed. We can recognise from this base self-interest that we ought not harm others lest we be repayed equally.

That's just one simple argument from self-interest that I'm sure you can identify with.

Now: Why do you think that it is wrong to harm people, as a theist?

No-one. This is a nonsense question. Good moral arguments are not derived from who says it but by how reasoned it is.

My point exactly. Who determines what is reasonable?

 

[Skavau]

My point exactly. Who determines what is reasonable?

No-one. That's a logical fallacy from appeal to authority. Arguments determined by reason don't require an authority to verify them. They stand on their own merits.

Now I answered your question: Why do you think that it is wrong to harm people, as a theist?

 

[Gadarene]

My point exactly. Who determines what is reasonable?

It's pretty easy to determine when something causes harm. Pain is inflicted; suffering occurs; mental distress is experienced. One also has a sense of empathy.

As for a consequentialist morality - it has the great advantage that the entities involved -people - can be shown to exist, for one thing.

 

[Genersis]

My point exactly. Who determines what is reasonable?

Say there's a spider on your wall.

Who decides if it is moral to squash it, release it, keep it as a pet, serve it for dinner ETC?