responding to common objections to bible part 5

[total relism]

Hmmm. That doesn't seem very civil. Why can't you just let sleeping dogs lie? I bet when the entire world finally accepts each other, there will be people like you who are stirring fights among the people. Not very Christian of you.

sorry,should have said argument/counter argument, not actual fighting.

But what will bring about this wold that accept each other? this deny's human sin sadly a very real thing, that is a fantasy. when will you accept me?, or people who like to argue?, cant you just accept me, i am part of this world, or do you mean people only accept what you want to accept, that is not very accepting.

What a delightful showing of not understanding. Representing two arguments are necessary when concluding, something I very rarely do. I'll go through the threads you found one by one:

First off, the thread taking pleasure in the misfortunes of others: I posted one argument, one I do not agree with myself, in order to get good counter-arguments.

Dyslexia: the OP is a scam, my point with that thread is dealt with way down in the thread. It's deliberately provocative, and my actual point is radically different from the OP. In retrospect, I failed massively with that thread, but that's besides the point.

Women: I assume you refer to the woman-bashing thread? That's a commentary on a news article I found interesting, which I copied and posted here to see what others made of it. It should be obvious that it's extremely far from my position.

Zimmerman: a simple news post to get a discussion on the topic going(not realizing it was already underway in another thread).

My motivation for posting is radically different from yours: you come here "knowing the truth" and you're trying to convince others. As such, it is vitally important that you understand both sides of the issue which you have demonstrated(through your nonsense about "atheist morality") you do not. Who wants to discuss with someone who is fully convinced he is right, without knowing what the other side is talking about?

When I, and thankfully a lot of others, start threads here, I do so because of an acknowledged lack of knowledge and/or understanding of the thread topic. I post to be informed, and have zero interest in convincing others about anything.

Ok far off topic here, i am likely to not respond to you unless you have something relevant to the topic.


misfortunes
I scanned your every post, even at the very end post 49 you agree with post 48 that says

"Nothing is inherantly wrong unless we assume there's an all-pervasive moral structure to the universe"

but the fact is in your op, you gave no counter arguments as you told me i am suppose to do, no matter what side you may or not agree with.


Dyslexia
you said
" It's deliberately provocative"

why am i not allowed to do the same thing?is my op not so?. But does not matter,as you said i needed to post argument and best counter on op, you did not do so yourself.


Women:/Zimmerman
Well i was hoping so,yet i saw no counter. You seem to post on op to start conversation on the subjects over and over with no counters given in op. Why am i not allowed to?.



My motivation does not matter to, if or what i should post, i come on forums like this see objections to things i believe to be true arguments against. Than respond since noone gives a response to these, tell me what is wrong with that?. Its not like serious debates [phd scientist at universities etc] are with people discussing a topic, no they find people firmly behind were they stand to debate. its also not like opinions cannot be changed. Neither am i trying to convince anyone, i am simply giving a counter response to arguments, not sure why your having a big problem with this. Your also kind of committing a logical fallacy Appeal to motive.


you keep saying this
"you understand both sides of the issue which you have demonstrated(through your nonsense about "atheist morality") you do not."

yet you know you either are not understanding, or know you cant debate subject or defend the other side. As i said before this topic has been done for all to see [you were their made no counters to op] here
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...ity&highlight=

but phd debate after another will show this true. Are you humble enough to admit it may be you [either just trying to sound like you have a counter and keeping it all to yourself] that has misunderstood argument?, that makes you think there is a counter. As i asked before please respond to show i am misunderstanding and you are correct,until than its just wishful thinking.


Atheist philosopher Richard Taylor
The modern age, more or less repudiating the idea of a divine lawgiver, has nevertheless tried to retain the ideas of moral right and wrong, without noticing that in casting God aside they have also abolished the meaningfulness of right and wrong as well. Thus, even educated persons sometimes declare that such things as war, or abortion, or the violation of certain human rights are morally wrong, and they imagine that they have said something true and meaningful. Educated people do not need to be told, however, that questions such as these have never been answered outside of religion
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/a-chr...ality#_ednref3


"In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won’t find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music."Richard Dawkins, --Out of Eden, page 133



you said you post because
I do so because of an acknowledged lack of knowledge and/or understanding of the thread topic. I post to be informed, and have zero interest in convincing others about anything.


so than you should have at least learned something from my op you did not know. So what is problem?.

[spankythehippo]

sorry,should have said argument/counter argument, not actual fighting.

But what will bring about this wold that accept each other? this deny's human sin sadly a very real thing, that is a fantasy. when will you accept me?, or people who like to argue?, cant you just accept me, i am part of this world, or do you mean people only accept what you want to accept, that is not very accepting.

I am merely questioning your aggressive way of putting forward an argument. Variety is good, but in the end, you need to understand that people are different. That is when people can truly accept each other. The fact that people are different is the truth. Some people know it's the truth, but don't like it (i.e. you). They want everyone to be the same as them. When you start preaching to people about how they need to change their life to a Christian one, people can get testy. I repeat, let sleeping dogs lie. If people want to know more about what you perceive to be true, let them come to you. Don't intrude on them.

[total relism]

I am merely questioning your aggressive way of putting forward an argument. Variety is good, but in the end, you need to understand that people are different. That is when people can truly accept each other. The fact that people are different is the truth. Some people know it's the truth, but don't like it (i.e. you). They want everyone to be the same as them. When you start preaching to people about how they need to change their life to a Christian one, people can get testy. I repeat, let sleeping dogs lie. If people want to know more about what you perceive to be true, let them come to you. Don't intrude on them.

thank you for your honest opinion.


Just wondering because i do not see it that way, what did you mean by saying my arguments were put fourth in a aggressive way?. How would you personally liked to have them put Fourth?.



the rest of what you said is a great big contradiction,
by you making your post [last 2] you do the opposite, you tell me,that variety is good, yet dont like my variety [christian who makes post related to Christianity],understand people are different,yet tell me not to be who i am but who you want me to be[not aggressive post,dont argue etc] truly accept each other, yet you are not accepting of me or my post sharing my thoughts, Some people know it's the truth, but don't like it (i.e. you) [in this case you] you dont like that i post and talk of bible. They want everyone to be the same as them,When you start preaching to people about how they need to change, just what your doing when you tell me how and what to post about. ,If people want to know more about what you perceive to be true, let them come to you., yet you come and tell me what you precise is right.


now i have no problem at all with your posts, just pointing out how hypocritical and self contradictory your posts are. Its like the tolerance people, they are the most intolerant people ever, and being "tolerant" is really just being intolerant of any who disagrees with them.



but since nothing on thread is on topic really,for the sake of discussion. I disagree with your post wholly. Variety can be good and can be bad,variety of customs can be great, variety of adolf hitlers, stalins,polpots etc is a vary bad thing, variety of good=good, variety of bad=bad. Variety of ways to be tortured is bad imo. Some kinds of variety can be good,but variety can also be very bad,including human beliefs,customs etc. I understand that people are different,my post require this to be true. As i sated before i am not sure how you think i see people as different, it is because bible i see all mankind the same,were as this would not be the case in atheism/evolution. It is true i in some ways dont like that people are different, and i do at the same time. I dont like people like this

“if nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one. Because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being may thus be rendered futile.”
Hitler A Mein Kampf, english translation by James Murphy, 1939 Fredonia Classics, New York, p263 2003#


I do like people like this

Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”


I also like people who are saved and go to heaven, that is my wish for all mankind.



preaching to people
you said "When you start preaching to people about how they need to change their life to a Christian one, people can get testy"

were in my op did i even say this? but i do agree with you this will happen.


18 “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19 If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.#
john 15 18-19

The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it that its works are evil.
John 7.7


But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him
1 Corinthians 2 .14


but maybe this is reason i do so?

Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people?#If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ.
Galatians 1.10




Don't intrude on them.
no one is making anyone read my thread.

[Sigurd]

Ya know TR...
If you are really into pointing out fallacies, that "I am allowed to do this because you do it all the time" is called argumentum ad hominem tu quoque. Even if others demonstrably does a thing, it doesn't make it right methodically wise or make it a valid argument. Everyone is a hypocrite.

[spankythehippo]

thank you for your honest opinion.


Just wondering because i do not see it that way, what did you mean by saying my arguments were put fourth in a aggressive way?. How would you personally liked to have them put Fourth?.



the rest of what you said is a great big contradiction,
by you making your post [last 2] you do the opposite, you tell me,that variety is good, yet dont like my variety [christian who makes post related to Christianity],understand people are different,yet tell me not to be who i am but who you want me to be[not aggressive post,dont argue etc] truly accept each other, yet you are not accepting of me or my post sharing my thoughts, Some people know it's the truth, but don't like it (i.e. you) [in this case you] you dont like that i post and talk of bible. They want everyone to be the same as them,When you start preaching to people about how they need to change, just what your doing when you tell me how and what to post about. ,If people want to know more about what you perceive to be true, let them come to you., yet you come and tell me what you precise is right.

Your initial threads were quite aggressive. I guess you've quietened down, so I take that statement back. It's just that those threads were a lot more memorable. And you often resorted to the Unholy Trifecta of arguments when backed into a corner (i.e. wall of text, "read the OP" or "wait for future thread").

yet dont like my variety [christian who makes post related to Christianity]
What you're doing isn't variety. When you go to an amusement park, there is variety. But the ride attendants don't run up to you, urging you to have a whirl on their ride. People go there to do what they want. When I was a kid, my parents wouldn't ride on the rollercoaster. How would they feel if the attendant forced them on the ride, when they clearly said they don't want to?

yet tell me not to be who i am but who you want me to be[not aggressive post,dont argue etc]
I understand that you're different. I have quite a few friends who are avid Christians, maybe even more into it than you. I don't start arguments with them, I leave them alone when it comes to theism. Otherwise, a heated argument may ensue. The angry animal in man might surface in debates like these, so I heavily sedate my inner animal with cynicism, egalitarianism and huge amounts of weed.

yet you are not accepting of me or my post sharing my thoughts
I am accepting your views. Acceptance does not mean to agree with. I'm just questioning your beliefs on other people with different faiths.

[in this case you] you dont like that i post and talk of bible
When did I say that I didn't like when you post or talk about the Bible? Be my guest, but what I dislike is massive unreadable walls of text. Or when you evade the question.

just what your doing when you tell me how and what to post about
I can't really argue with that. I'm just letting you know that no one likes to be preached at.

yet you come and tell me what you precise is right
Because you started this thread. I don't go up to people and say "Hey, you know religion? It's all fake, you know. I have evidence!" and then proceed to smack them in the face with papers by Richard Dawkins. When people ask me on my views on religion, I say "I don't believe in it." Simple as that. When they question me more on my lack of belief, I state my points on why I don't believe, and that's it. I don't tell them to lose faith or to believe in what I say. To be fair, the people I normally talk to are all atheists anyway, so we're all talking about Pokemon or pooping techniques or something.

[total relism]

Ya know TR...
If you are really into pointing out fallacies, that "I am allowed to do this because you do it all the time" is called argumentum ad hominem tu quoque. Even if others demonstrably does a thing, doesn't make it right methodically wise. Everyone is a hypocrite.

you are right to do so,however that only tells part of story,as i pointed out i said

" i have no problem at all with your posts, just pointing out how hypocritical and self contradictory your posts are"


now keep reading after "but since nothing on thread is on topic really,for the sake of discussion. I disagree with your post wholly" that is were i respond to the arguments made. Just wondering were you feel i was self contradictory, not saying i am not, my behavior sure is, but what in any of my posts made do you see this?.

[Sigurd]

now keep reading after "but since nothing on thread is on topic really,for the sake of discussion. I disagree with your post wholly" that is were i respond to the arguments made. Just wondering were you feel i was self contradictory, not saying i am not, my behavior sure is, but what in any of my posts made do you see this?.

It was more in relation to your banter with HoreTore.. all though my post with the included edit does fit nicely with spanky's post as well. HT is right in one thing... A valid argument needs to follow the rules of such, or else it is not a valid argument - it is just text. I will not comment on the OP since the listed 11 through 14 are objections that I wouldn't make. I am however interested in your :

a future thread will share the reasons i believe the bible is the truth. I think truth is knowable...

I'll be awaiting this topic.

[total relism]

Your initial threads were quite aggressive. I guess you've quietened down, so I take that statement back. It's just that those threads were a lot more memorable. And you often resorted to the Unholy Trifecta of arguments when backed into a corner (i.e. wall of text, "read the OP" or "wait for future thread").

yet dont like my variety [christian who makes post related to Christianity]
What you're doing isn't variety. When you go to an amusement park, there is variety. But the ride attendants don't run up to you, urging you to have a whirl on their ride. People go there to do what they want. When I was a kid, my parents wouldn't ride on the rollercoaster. How would they feel if the attendant forced them on the ride, when they clearly said they don't want to?

yet tell me not to be who i am but who you want me to be[not aggressive post,dont argue etc]
I understand that you're different. I have quite a few friends who are avid Christians, maybe even more into it than you. I don't start arguments with them, I leave them alone when it comes to theism. Otherwise, a heated argument may ensue. The angry animal in man might surface in debates like these, so I heavily sedate my inner animal with cynicism, egalitarianism and huge amounts of weed.

yet you are not accepting of me or my post sharing my thoughts
I am accepting your views. Acceptance does not mean to agree with. I'm just questioning your beliefs on other people with different faiths.

[in this case you] you dont like that i post and talk of bible
When did I say that I didn't like when you post or talk about the Bible? Be my guest, but what I dislike is massive unreadable walls of text. Or when you evade the question.

just what your doing when you tell me how and what to post about
I can't really argue with that. I'm just letting you know that no one likes to be preached at.

yet you come and tell me what you precise is right
Because you started this thread. I don't go up to people and say "Hey, you know religion? It's all fake, you know. I have evidence!" and then proceed to smack them in the face with papers by Richard Dawkins. When people ask me on my views on religion, I say "I don't believe in it." Simple as that. When they question me more on my lack of belief, I state my points on why I don't believe, and that's it. I don't tell them to lose faith or to believe in what I say. To be fair, the people I normally talk to are all atheists anyway, so we're all talking about Pokemon or pooping techniques or something.

comment taken back
ah ok, thanks for tacking it back. you said "And you often resorted to the Unholy Trifecta of arguments when backed into a corner (i.e. wall of text, "read the OP" or "wait for future thread")". I would like a example, i fully admit to wait for future thread,if you noticed this is best way of doing it, and i do respond in future thread. As for read my op, i see no problem with someone not reading my op, than making a statement that is responded to in op, for me than to tell them to read op. I think its not to much to ask instead of responding to same thing over and over, that is what the op is for imo.


variety

I think you have changed the goal posts i believe, you said variety is good, so variety of opinions posts,subjects etc is good. So my variety of subjects [bible] should be welcome. You now say its because i am somehow forcing people on my thread [ride in your analogy] i think this is clear to all that this is indeed impossible for me to do.



tell others what to do

yet you seem ok to tell me to not post, so you are in fact doing what you tell others not to do, by forcing your opinions beliefs on others, that they should not post on debatable subjects that may get people mad.



what than do you mean by accepting? you accept that someone believes something to be true and you then let them be as they are?. May i suggest this is very unloving?.What if you friend thought throwing away your pot was good that was his belief, would you accept and not say anything? what if he thought that guns are not real and aimed to shoot and kill you, would you accept his beliefs and leave him alone [it might cause him to get upset, what if your friend was a lost sinner headed for eternity from god..........] Also it seems your accepting of my beliefs so long as they dont effect you or you dont have to hear them, i would say not very accepting.


"
When did I say that I didn't like when you post or talk about the Bible? "

I would say your very first post was a example
"Why are you not accepting of all people? Why are you prejudiced against different religious groups? Doesn't your Lord and saviour preach acceptance? Why aren't you following your Lord? Why are you an advocate of hate?"

but to claim as you did, that i avoid the question, given you avoided half the post you current are responding to seems hypocritical. I would love even one example of me avoiding a question that was on topic on any thread.


preached at.
i did not come on to be liked. But ever think i dont like to be preached the liberal tolerance gospel you preach?, i care not for political correctness. But i am glad you see the hypocritical nature of this at least.


tell me
proving just what i said, you are coming and telling me how/what to say and be, to keep to myself and respond to questions the way you think i should. Not very tolerant or variety in that.

[total relism]

It was more in relation to your banter with HoreTore.. all though my post with the included edit does fit nicely with spanky's post as well. HT is right in one thing... A valid argument needs to follow the rules of such, or else it is not a valid argument - it is just text. I will not comment on the OP since the listed 11 through 14 are objections that I wouldn't make. I am however interested in your :

I'll be awaiting this topic.

i said against your claim

"Just wondering were you feel i was self contradictory, not saying i am not, my behavior sure is, but what in any of my posts made do you see this?."


so than you know say there is no example?. I am glad you are waiting for my final thread, it always causes the most stir/reactions/emotions, it shall be fun. I have just one more 3 topic thread real quick, than final.

[spankythehippo]

comment taken back
ah ok, thanks for tacking it back. you said "And you often resorted to the Unholy Trifecta of arguments when backed into a corner (i.e. wall of text, "read the OP" or "wait for future thread")". I would like a example, i fully admit to wait for future thread,if you noticed this is best way of doing it, and i do respond in future thread. As for read my op, i see no problem with someone not reading my op, than making a statement that is responded to in op, for me than to tell them to read op. I think its not to much to ask instead of responding to same thing over and over, that is what the op is for imo.


variety

I think you have changed the goal posts i believe, you said variety is good, so variety of opinions posts,subjects etc is good. So my variety of subjects [bible] should be welcome. You know say its because i am somehow forcing people on my thread [ride] i think this is clear to all that this is indeed impossible for me to do.



tell others what to do

yet you seem ok to tell me to not post, so you are in fact doing what you tell others not to do, by forcing your opinions beliefs on others, that they should not post on debatable subjects that may get people mad.



what than do you mean by accepting? you accept that someone believes something to be true and you then let them be as they are?. May i suggest this is very unloving?.What if you friend thought throwing away your pot was good that was his belief, would you accept and not say anything? what if he thought that guns are not real and aimed to shoot and kill you, would you accept his beliefs and leave him alone [it might cause him to get upset, what if your friend was a lost sinner headed for eternity from god..........] Also it seems your accepting of my beliefs so long as they dont effect you or you dont have to hear them, i would say not very accepting.


"
When did I say that I didn't like when you post or talk about the Bible? "

I would say your very first post was a example
"Why are you not accepting of all people? Why are you prejudiced against different religious groups? Doesn't your Lord and saviour preach acceptance? Why aren't you following your Lord? Why are you an advocate of hate?"

but to claim as you did, that i avoid the question, given you avoided half the post you current are responding to seems hypocritical. I would love even one example of me avoiding a question that was on topic on any thread.


preached at.
i did not come on to be liked. But ever think i dont like to be preached the liberal tolerance gospel you preach?, i care not for political correctness. But i am glad you see the hypocritical nature of this at least.


tell me
proving just what i said, you are coming and telling me how/what to say and be, to keep to myself and respond to questions the way you think i should. Not very tolerant or variety in that.

I'm really tired, so I'll answer your main queries.

Anyone can believe what they want, as long as it does not infringe upon the belief of anyone else. Do what you want, but don't effect other people who are unwilling. If a friend threw away my pot, I would ask him why. If he said it was bad for me, then I would slowly disconnect my "friendship" with him. True friends don't throw away pot. I'll make that a commandment of my new religion. I don't quite understand the gun analogy, so I'll just leave it.

"Also it seems your accepting of my beliefs so long as they dont effect you or you dont have to hear them, i would say not very accepting."

There are gay people in this world. What they do in their private life is not my business. I'm not gay, they don't bum-rape me or yell at me for gay rights. I'm not particularly affected by gay people, in general. Does that make me not accepting of gay people?

In regards to avoiding half your post, to be honest, I didn't even see it. Whoops. The perils of multi-tasking on the internet.

In short, my philosophy is "Do what you want, but don't bring other people into your madness."

[Sigurd]

I scanned your every post, even at the very end post 49 you agree with post 48 that says
"Nothing is inherantly wrong unless we assume there's an all-pervasive moral structure to the universe"
but the fact is in your op, you gave no counter arguments as you told me i am suppose to do, no matter what side you may or not agree with.

argumentum ad hominem tu quoque

Dyslexia
you said "It's deliberately provocative"
why am i not allowed to do the same thing?is my op not so?. But does not matter,as you said i needed to post argument and best counter on op, you did not do so yourself.

argumentum ad hominem tu quoque

Women:/Zimmerman
Well i was hoping so,yet i saw no counter. You seem to post on op to start conversation on the subjects over and over with no counters given in op. Why am i not allowed to?.

argumentum ad hominem tu quoque

Right so my point is... you can't qualify your arguments by pointing out that others has done the same. It then becomes a fallacy. You should rather point out how your OP arguments follow a known and accepted methodology for arguments. They will then remain valid in the continued discussion, unless contested again. It is then your job to prove their validity by restate your counter if they don't bring anything new.

[total relism]

I'm really tired, so I'll answer your main queries.

Anyone can believe what they want, as long as it does not infringe upon the belief of anyone else. Do what you want, but don't effect other people who are unwilling. If a friend threw away my pot, I would ask him why. If he said it was bad for me, then I would slowly disconnect my "friendship" with him. True friends don't throw away pot. I'll make that a commandment of my new religion. I don't quite understand the gun analogy, so I'll just leave it.

"Also it seems your accepting of my beliefs so long as they dont effect you or you dont have to hear them, i would say not very accepting."

There are gay people in this world. What they do in their private life is not my business. I'm not gay, they don't bum-rape me or yell at me for gay rights. I'm not particularly affected by gay people, in general. Does that make me not accepting of gay people?

In regards to avoiding half your post, to be honest, I didn't even see it. Whoops. The perils of multi-tasking on the internet.

In short, my philosophy is "Do what you want, but don't bring other people into your madness."

this is your law code of political correctness, i do not have to agree to, in fact your infringing on my. You say as long as it does not infringe upon the belief of anyone else, yet your post [everyone] does so to me, it infringes on my beliefs to share freely what i believe, i will not bow down to your hatred of my beliefs and tyranny. You said not to don't effect other people who are unwilling yet never asked if i was willing to be effected by your political correctness gospel and laws. You said If a friend threw away my pot, I would ask him why. If he said it was bad for me, then I would slowly disconnect my "friendship" with him. True friends don't throw away pot. I'll make that a commandment of my new religion, that sir seems very intolerant and not accepting of others beliefs [that throwing away pot is good] even pushing hate, to not be friends with them because of their beliefs. you said I don't quite understand the gun analogy, so I'll just leave it. allow me to try again. your friend thinks that guns are not real and aimed to shoot and kill you with a loaded real gun [but to him not real], would you accept his beliefs and leave him alone? be tolerant of his belif guns are not real? and dont cause any debate because he might get upset and all are allowed to believe as they want, what if your friend was a lost sinner headed for eternity from god..........]. Gay i would say very accepting of their actions. But it matters not, it matters how your acting here towards me,that is not very accepting at all. "Do what you want, but don't bring other people into your madness.". But that is telling others what to do and bringing them into your madness [being do what you want and dont bring others into your madness] your telling others your madness of "Do what you want, but don't bring other people into your madness."

argumentum ad hominem tu quoque


argumentum ad hominem tu quoque

argumentum ad hominem tu quoque

Right so my point is... you can't qualify your arguments by pointing out that others has done the same. It then becomes a fallacy. You should rather point out how your OP arguments follow a known and accepted methodology for arguments. They will then remain valid in the continued discussion, unless contested again. It is then your job to prove their validity by restate your counter if they don't bring anything new.

]

very nice, however...

first
i never used it as a argument to say no counter means your wrong, he said it was bad posting style. I was simply saying that what he was claiming i was wrong on, a thread showed he agreed with me, not that i am right because so.



second
again i think your applying it wrong, i never said because he did something i am right or off the hook. i said why does he not take his own advice. I clearly dont disagree with how my op was posted or i would not have made it, so it does not apply to me.


third
same thing


end you said
[B]Right so my point is... you can't qualify your arguments by pointing out that others has done the same. It then becomes a fallac

but if you go back, i never tried or said this,i said it was hypocritical for him to demand one thing of my post but not follow his rules for his own post. never does this apply in your examples. If you read post 26 and 31 you will see i disagree with him on how to post, i was just showing he did not follow on his own threads.

[total relism]

boy were getting off topic,i guess never was on. Maybe we should let this die off, i have only 2 more threads on major objections, i new this would not be big here as these objections [op] aren't really brought up here like previous objections op threads. i do know the next two will start some conversations on topic the last especially.

[spankythehippo]

this is your law code of political correctness, i do not have to agree to, in fact your infringing on my. You say as long as it does not infringe upon the belief of anyone else, yet your post [everyone] does so to me, it infringes on my beliefs to share freely what i believe, i will not bow down to your hatred of my beliefs and tyranny. You said not to don't effect other people who are unwilling yet never asked if i was willing to be effected by your political correctness gospel and laws. You said If a friend threw away my pot, I would ask him why. If he said it was bad for me, then I would slowly disconnect my "friendship" with him. True friends don't throw away pot. I'll make that a commandment of my new religion, that sir seems very intolerant and not accepting of others beliefs [that throwing away pot is good] even pushing hate, to not be friends with them because of their beliefs. you said I don't quite understand the gun analogy, so I'll just leave it. allow me to try again. your friend thinks that guns are not real and aimed to shoot and kill you with a loaded real gun [but to him not real], would you accept his beliefs and leave him alone? be tolerant of his belif guns are not real? and dont cause any debate because he might get upset and all are allowed to believe as they want, what if your friend was a lost sinner headed for eternity from god..........]. Gay i would say very accepting of their actions. But it matters not, it matters how your acting here towards me,that is not very accepting at all. "Do what you want, but don't bring other people into your madness.". But that is telling others what to do and bringing them into your madness [being do what you want and dont bring others into your madness] your telling others your madness of "Do what you want, but don't bring other people into your madness."

I'm not forcing you to do anything. This is a forum where we spout our views. And these are my views on the issues you brought up.

In regards to the weed, I guess jokes don't come across well on the internet.

I still don't understand the gun analogy. Guns are not real? What does that mean? If you mean that my friend is a gun hater, then I'd support him. I'm a gun hater too.

Your morphing this into a paradox. Don't over think it. I'll be clear, it's MY philosophy. I apply MY philosophy. I don't demand that others follow MY way of life.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Hmmm. That doesn't seem very civil. Why can't you just let sleeping dogs lie? I bet when the entire world finally accepts each other, there will be people like you who are stirring fights among the people. Not very Christian of you.

Because Jesus never disagreed with anybody?

[Sigurd]

but if you go back, i never tried or said this,i said it was hypocritical for him to demand one thing of my post but not follow his rules for his own post. never does this apply in your examples. If you read post 26 and 31 you will see i disagree with him on how to post, i was just showing he did not follow on his own threads.

Sorry M8... pointing out hypocrisy is still ad hominem. "You do it too" is and will always be ad hominem tu quoque.

[The Stranger]

I think truth is knowable..

Oh boy, I'm so excited! You found an answer to the skeptical argument! My professor will be so thrilled as well!

[Sarmatian]

Does anyone else find the numbers in the thread title ominous? Like a reverse countdown to something... When he gets to 10, we'll all be converted and call him master, or something?

I'm gonna stay away from this. Like I don't have enough problems already. And that elephant in my backyard needs to be watered again.

[Pannonian]

Does anyone else find the numbers in the thread title ominous? Like a reverse countdown to something... When he gets to 10, we'll all be converted and call him master, or something?

I'm gonna stay away from this. Like I don't have enough problems already. And that elephant in my backyard needs to be watered again.

He's certainly a master hand at baiting debate traps that even the wary fall into. Not sure what title this entitles him to.

[total relism]

Sorry M8... pointing out hypocrisy is still ad hominem. "You do it too" is and will always be ad hominem tu quoque.

agreed, if i was trying to make the argument for the posting style he was saying i should have, but clearly i disagree with him as my post show. So i was simply showing his own hypocrisy, not as a way to say, hay i should not have to post that way because you dont. That is made clear in my post 26 and 31. If your saying i am supose to post the way he thinks that he does not apply [%99.9999 you dont either] than that is separate discussion, that really does not need to be had unless you can show me some forum rule on it. Also as i pointed out,my op assume a argument against, so it is a counter argument to arguments made.

Oh boy, I'm so excited! You found an answer to the skeptical argument! My professor will be so thrilled as well!

? i said truth is knowable,no more no less. What is the skeptical argument? i think you misunderstand,skeptical is good,that does not mean truth is not knowable or that we can know everything.

[HoreTore]

Also as i pointed out,my op assume a argument against, so it is a counter argument to arguments made.

You don't need to write them out, but you do need to understand the arguments against it. And you do not understand the arguments you are trying to argue against(as you show when you reduce morality to "random chemical reactions"), thus your arguments become nonsense. That's the problem.

If, for example, Xiahou makes a thread arguing against obamacare or Lemur makes a thread against health insurance, they do so while understanding the arguments made against their position, and so their arguments make sense.

Another hilarious proof of you failing to understand is your interpretation of my morality thread. I didn't show agreement with anything in that thread, but somehow you think I do...

[total relism]

You don't need to write them out, but you do need to understand the arguments against it. And you do not understand the arguments you are trying to argue against(as you show when you reduce morality to "random chemical reactions"), thus your arguments become nonsense. That's the problem.

If, for example, Xiahou makes a thread arguing against obamacare or Lemur makes a thread against health insurance, they do so while understanding the arguments made against their position, and so their arguments make sense.

Another hilarious proof of you failing to understand is your interpretation of my morality thread. I didn't show agreement with anything in that thread, but somehow you think I do...

It is clear you have no response yet keep claiming there is one, otherwise you would provide.But wish to keep claiming there is one without offering it, than without offering claim its true and there is a some unknown response you wont provide here, or when the topic was posted earlier..

as stated earlier i see your supposed argument against atheistic morality that you wont present, on my op as "wishful thinking". Not to mention my entire post on 31 to this subject still applies that you ignored.

the very fact you claim i say "as you show when you reduce morality to "random chemical reactions" shows to me your not understanding still.


I will re-post from 31
yet you know you either are not understanding, or know you cant debate subject or defend the other side. As i said before this topic has been done for all to see [you were their made no counters to op] here
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showth...ity&highlight=

but phd debate after another will show this true. Are you humble enough to admit it may be you [either just trying to sound like you have a counter and keeping it all to yourself] that has misunderstood argument?, that makes you think there is a counter. As i asked before please respond to show i am misunderstanding and you are correct,until than its just wishful thinking.


Atheist philosopher Richard Taylor
The modern age, more or less repudiating the idea of a divine lawgiver, has nevertheless tried to retain the ideas of moral right and wrong, without noticing that in casting God aside they have also abolished the meaningfulness of right and wrong as well. Thus, even educated persons sometimes declare that such things as war, or abortion, or the violation of certain human rights are morally wrong, and they imagine that they have said something true and meaningful. Educated people do not need to be told, however, that questions such as these have never been answered outside of religion
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/a-chr...ality#_ednref3


"In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won’t find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music."Richard Dawkins, --Out of Eden, page 133




no offence but either debate, or shut up.Or at the very least admit you have knowledge that you wont share with others or debate, yet you know its true that no one else does [including phd atheist philosophers] .If that is the case as you believe,than you cant be mad at me for not knowing it, as your the source of truth on this subject,yet wont allow any others to share in your knowledge. or it could be as i said from beginning, you have misunderstood what i wrote/ dont have any argument but wish to.


HT the keeper of truth, but wont allow any to hear that truth or share with anyone.


after rereading you post, i think i have found your misunderstanding. tell me if i cam correct. You think that i say or think, that atheist believe or base there morality on random chemical reactions, is this true?. If so that you would be correct i think very few honest evolutionist/atheist do this. That is my point often when i argue against atheist morality, i say they are inconstant with there supposed beliefs in evolution/atheism. not at all that they do, or have to base morality on what they believe is true[atheism/evolution], in fact 99% dont even think of the foundations to witch they base there morality on.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

Ok, I shall take up the challenge.

Your (copied) contention is that morality has no meaning outside of a religious context.

The argument seems to be that (and if I have misrepresented this, please correct me):

1) Morality is only meaningful if expressed in absolute terms.
2) Absolute morality can only originate from a divine source.
These claims, taken together have the result that:
3) Morality is only meaningful if it originates from a religious context.

The problem is that the snippets which you have quoted do not establish either claim. Both can be challenged.

I would argue that it is possible to construct a meaningful quasi-absolute moral system within a given society. There are certain acts which are commonly agreed to be morally unacceptable. If one accepts the validity of the social contract, one can posit a tacitly agreed upon moral code: one which is absolute for the purposes of the given society. While this is not absolute in a fundamental sense, other societies may have different codes, it is robust enough ipso facto to be considered meaningful.

[HoreTore]

"Belief in evolution"....?

What an absurd phrase. It's like saying you "believe" in gravity. Evolution is a simple scientific fact, just like gravity, and carries just as much impact on morality as gravity does(which is nothing at all).

See, this is why it's ridiculous to "discuss" with you; you are simply clueless about what you're trying to discuss.

[total relism]

Ok, I shall take up the challenge.

Your (copied) contention is that morality has no meaning outside of a religious context.

The argument seems to be that (and if I have misrepresented this, please correct me):

1) Morality is only meaningful if expressed in absolute terms.
2) Absolute morality can only originate from a divine source.
These claims, taken together have the result that:
3) Morality is only meaningful if it originates from a religious context.

The problem is that the snippets which you have quoted do not establish either claim. Both can be challenged.

I would argue that it is possible to construct a meaningful quasi-absolute moral system within a given society. There are certain acts which are commonly agreed to be morally unacceptable. If one accepts the validity of the social contract, one can posit a tacitly agreed upon moral code: one which is absolute for the purposes of the given society. While this is not absolute in a fundamental sense, other societies may have different codes, it is robust enough ipso facto to be considered meaningful.

Great post, you have given the typical [best scenario about] atheist response. Thanks for trying what HT would not.


1] I would say no, morality is always in some way meaningful,especially to those who hold to whatever it is.
2] To say something is abosultley right or wrong, yes needs a divine source or higher power to decide/command so. Otherwise there all relative.
3] not at all would i agree to this.


so it is not accurate of what im saying. Have you read my op? I will put under spoiler

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Assumptions/things to consider before answering.

Atheist must put themselves in place as god, as perfect judge of people living thousands of years ago, to decided what is morally correct or not.
1] we must assume we are god, that only we can tell and know what is morally acceptable or not.
2] we must assume their are such things as morals, “right” and “wrong” those ideas only make sense if a moral god created us.
3]we must assume our evolved brains of completely random chemical reactions and matter can somehow have the right idea of what is right and wrong, our evolved animal brains formed by random chemical reactions and matter [dirt] that combined for a survival advantage[according to atheist]. They only “feel” killing is wrong because the random chemical reactions give them a chemical feeling that killing is wrong.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showth...ity&highlight=

is god not able to take life he has given?


Morality makes no sense in a atheist worldview
"if it all happens naturalistic whats the need for a god? cant I set my own rules? who owns me? I own myself".
Jefery dahmer DVD documentary Jeffrey Dahmer the monster within

This is inconsistent with an evolutionary worldview in which there is no logical basis for “good” or “bad.” By making such a statement, the evolutionist is actually borrowing morals from the Christian worldview and the Bible in order to claim something is “trickery.”
Within a naturalistic, evolutionary worldview, morality is merely a matter of subjective opinion. So, whether something such as trickery or deception is wrong depends on each person—because it’s merely the result of chemical reactions in our brains.
I could just as easily say that this email we received is deceptive and full of wishful thinking. And if I get a big enough group together, we can decide that your definition of trickery is wrong. The combined random chemical reactions in our brains form the majority, which makes you wrong—at least until another majority comes along. Without any ultimate standard, we could go back and forth all day saying this is right or that is right.
As silly as this scenario sounds, it is one of the only arguments evolutionists have for anything that resembles morality. Absolute morals only make sense in a Christian worldview—they come from the One who knows what is good because He is the standard for good. The only One who fits that description is the God of the Bible, the Creator of the universe.

So, for example, if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in brainwashing or exterminating everyone who disagreed with them, so that everybody would think the Holocaust had been good, it would still have been wrong, because God says it is wrong, regardless of human opinion. Morality is based in God, and so real right and wrong exist and are unaffected by human opinions.


In fact you only#feel#,murder,rape etc are wrong because the#random chemical reactions in your brain make you feel that way.#Not because it truly is right or wrong. I may be like hitler and think murdering is good, what makes your random chemical reactions correct and mine wrong?.They have no right to tell another person [random chemical reactions] That thinks murder,rape,sexism are good [hitler]. That that person is wrong to do so. there is no way to now if you, and not the other person have the right chemical reactions. In fact there is no "right" reactions, or good or bad.

#
Atheist philosopher Richard Taylor
The modern age, more or less repudiating the idea of a divine lawgiver, has nevertheless tried to retain the ideas of moral right and wrong, without noticing that in casting God aside they have also abolished the meaningfulness of right and wrong as well. Thus, even educated persons sometimes declare that such things as war, or abortion, or the violation of certain human rights are morally wrong, and they imagine that they have said something true and meaningful. Educated people do not need to be told, however, that questions such as these have never been answered outside of religion
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/a-chr...ality#_ednref3


"In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won’t find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music."Richard Dawkins, --Out of Eden, page 133

“ He who does not wish to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist”.
Hitler A Mein Kampf, english translation by James Murphy, 1939 Fredonia Classics, New York, p266 2003

“The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrafice of its own higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel,and if he does so it is mearly because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind for if such a law did not direct the process of evolution#
then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all”.
Hitler A Mein Kampf, english translation by James Murphy, 1939 Fredonia Classics, New York, p262 2003#


Darwin on the poor
“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
#Charles Darwin,#The Descent of Man

I am saying it is inconstant and unknowable and meaningless, for a atheist/evolutionist today, to say anything is "right" or "wrong" morally. They can say there chemical reactions decided they think something is right or wrong, or even a large group of chemicals [majority opinion] decided at one point in time something is wrong, but that is purely unknowable and makes no sense and inconstant with evolution/atheism.


It would help alot if you were to read this first, than anything you wish to say/challenge after, as it did take many pages to finally get through the misunderstandings of what i am saying. There are plenty of debates on subject i could link if your interested.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...ity&highlight=


I am not saying atheist have no morals, or a purely atheistic society will not come up with morals. Or that atheist cant or dont feel the need to follow certain morals, or that they would not be important or helpful. This is not even on topic,unless a atheist says/claims what the crusaders did/witch hunt etc,was morally wrong.

"Belief in evolution"....?

What an absurd phrase. It's like saying you "believe" in gravity. Evolution is a simple scientific fact, just like gravity, and carries just as much impact on morality as gravity does(which is nothing at all).

See, this is why it's ridiculous to "discuss" with you; you are simply clueless about what you're trying to discuss.

sometimes we say things we regret in future, this will be one of them.


Thank you HT, i shall keep this very quote of yours for a future thread, i may even post it on my future op. I will be asking for you to defend this statement you made above on that future thread. Now just to be clear, what i meant when i say evolution is that all life came from a common ancestor and increased in complexity over time to produce all life on earth, common decent evolution, I assume you meant the same. Lets assume evolution of all life from a common ancestor [easily shown false] is true, it still falls outside of saying its true as gravity is, yet you cannot tell the difference and dont precive any, this is why i liked you saying i dont know what i am talking about, it will be very useful in future. I am glad to see you have dropped your objections from entire post, maybe finally realized you had a slight misconception.

[HoreTore]

lol.

The theory of evolution has the same status as the theory of gravity in the scientific community. It's fact, and only weirdos without a clue don't accept it. And that applies to both macro and micro-evolution, of course.

It's not something you can choose to believe in, any more than you can choose to believe in gravity. Nor does it carry any more weight on how we as individuals or communities should behave, it's completely blank and unrelated to that. If you really want to see well-developed and very old philosophical systems on morality that doesn't suppose a divine creator, please help yourself to some Buddhism or Confucianism.

[total relism]

lol.

The theory of evolution has the same status as the theory of gravity in the scientific community. It's fact, and only weirdos without a clue don't accept it. And that applies to both macro and micro-evolution, of course.

It's not something you can choose to believe in, any more than you can choose to believe in gravity. Nor does it carry any more weight on how we as individuals or communities should behave, it's completely blank and unrelated to that. If you really want to see well-developed and very old philosophical systems on morality that doesn't suppose a divine creator, please help yourself to some Buddhism or Confucianism.

sometimes we say things we regret in future, this will be one of them.


Thank you HT, i shall keep this very quote of yours for a future thread, i may even post it on my future op. I will be asking for you to defend this statement you made above on that future thread. this is why i liked you saying i dont know what i am talking about, it will be very useful in future.


morality
i think you know have a new misconception on the morality part. You know have a thought that what i meant was

"Nor does it carry any more weight on how we as individuals or communities should behave, it's completely blank and unrelated to that".

so you seem to have another misconception that my op says that atheist/evolutionist should have to consider or even have to follow the morals of what atheism/evolution demand. I say god no, whenever some have tried it brings what i view as terrible results. But as I said was true before a few times with your objections to my atheistic morality

but phd debate after another will show this true. Are you humble enough to admit it may be you [either just trying to sound like you have a counter and keeping it all to yourself] that has misunderstood argument?

and many other posts.

[HoreTore]

You define "atheist morals" as applying the principles of evolution onto society.

That's about as wrong as you can possibly get. It's not based on evolution, and its not derived from a belief in any divine creature either.

Also, while it's true that Nazi Germany was based on social darwinism, Stalin explicitly rejected evolution, and saw evolutionary theory as morally wrong, scientifically wrong and in opposition to socialism. Yet you still lump him and the people he whacked into your "proof" of "evolutionary crimes"... In fact, many of the famine victims and a number of the purge victims are a direct result of his rejection of Darwin.

Stalin had much of the same view of evolutionary theory as you do, actually.

[total relism]

You define "atheist morals" as applying the principles of evolution onto society.

That's about as wrong as you can possibly get. It's not based on evolution, and its not derived from a belief in any divine creature either.

Also, while it's true that Nazi Germany was based on social darwinism, Stalin explicitly rejected evolution, and saw evolutionary theory as morally wrong, scientifically wrong and in opposition to socialism. Yet you still lump him and the people he whacked into your "proof" of "evolutionary crimes"...

Stalin had much of the same view of evolutionary theory as you do, actually.

i will deal with the Stalin claim later, i dont have time at the moment. But i am glad you challenged me on it, he was atheist and evolutionist, not his whole life. But still your not getting what i am saying, this is at least third misconception,please leave it to people like Gaius Scribonius Curio. I never said atheist morals should be applying evolution to society,thank god its not, a society would not be able to stand in today's world with atheistic morals at the helm [thank god]. since you seem not to grasp it [i know you read that part of op and entire thread on subject] it would do no good typing it again, that combined with your refusal to admit you might be misunderstanding it, will just lead to you giving one misconception after another and in a circle we go as has happened here 3 times. If i were to post you some debates on the subject would you be interested? you may come back with the correct perspective after.

[HoreTore]

I lol'ed.

You consider "debates" a legitimate source of information? No wonder you're clueless.

Try reading some peer-reviewed articles.