|
Post by Brent on Mar 27, 2010 3:48:42 GMT -5
then you obviously do it. If all I'm going to hear are what if's and hypothetical arguments, might as well close this thread because it'll go nowhere. Nothing is guaranteed. Guys rape females because they want sex and can get away with it, a lot of rapes go unreported but the chance of getting caught = not worth the risk. To be clear, I wouldn't rape a girl, but I'm using it as an example. A violent crime is a short term solution, but the consequences are likely to be long term. Getting convicted of a crime kills your chances of landing jobs, and basically making money. And in capitalism, money is pretty damn important. I've never had a sister, I wonder what it would be like - probably be awesome than just having brothers. pretty much having a sister is the worst part of my life I'd say. f**k her, hope she breaks her clavicle tomorrow
|
|
|
Post by Radiant Magnificence Alastair on Mar 27, 2010 4:29:14 GMT -5
Why? What's it like for you.
|
|
|
Post by Brent on Mar 27, 2010 4:39:11 GMT -5
she's a spoiled dumb b**ch
|
|
|
Post by Jacob on Mar 27, 2010 11:42:58 GMT -5
^That is true of all sisters.
|
|
|
Post by dlectronic on Mar 28, 2010 17:56:28 GMT -5
I never addressed it because of asinine it is. Way to dismiss my argument by deeming it stupid. Not gonna work in a debate. To say "might as well close this thread because it'll go nowhere" fails to further your point of view as well. You have ignored or misunderstood me when I said "Would it be bad to...........". Why would they be bad? I'm not referring to how socially advantageous those acts would be, rather, how morally right or wrong they would be. Set aside outside opinion, does the non-theist mind consider those things intrinsically wrong? Either way, why? That is not an asinine question. Start considering it rather than dismissing it with loaded words.
|
|
|
Post by Atheo on Mar 28, 2010 19:20:27 GMT -5
Personally, I'd say that without a God, or another outside entity offering an absolute moral standard, morals do not exist. That does not mean I am unoffended by hideous acts, or that I do not feel guilt, but subjective feelings are not relevant to objectively determined conclusions. As I recently said in another thread, we are all nothing more and nothing less than highly complex chemical systems. I do not believe in choice or free will, so I am not even a moral relativist: I believe that people do things because they could never have not done them, if you can follow that rather convoluted phrase.
|
|
|
Post by dlectronic on Mar 28, 2010 20:18:11 GMT -5
Personally, I'd say that without a God, or another outside entity offering an absolute moral standard, morals do not exist. That does not mean I am unoffended by hideous acts, or that I do not feel guilt, but subjective feelings are not relevant to objectively determined conclusions. As I recently said in another thread, we are all nothing more and nothing less than highly complex chemical systems. I do not believe in choice or free will, so I am not even a moral relativist: I believe that people do things because they could never have not done them, if you can follow that rather convoluted phrase. I admire the honesty in your statement Atheo. When I saw that you made the last reply I knew something important/worth reading was said because you posted, haha. (You usually aren't around here much). Following your claim, to attach add the adjective "hideous" to "acts" is a bit pointless in a Godless existence. On this issue Dr. William Lane Craig writes: www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5389Now, I do not for a minute believe one can exist completely unrestrained by morals (I am a theist), but existence without them is really quite terrible. "A universe in ruins," as Craig aptly puts it. Craig ends the linked essay with the following:
|
|
|
Post by Brent on Mar 28, 2010 22:23:40 GMT -5
I never addressed it because of asinine it is. That is not an asinine question. Start considering it rather than dismissing it with loaded words. Yeah, it is.
|
|
|
Post by dlectronic on Mar 29, 2010 20:55:56 GMT -5
So we let the thread die now?
|
|
|
Post by Muffy on Mar 30, 2010 1:22:10 GMT -5
Why not? It really had no content from the beginning.
|
|
|
Post by dlectronic on Mar 30, 2010 1:42:53 GMT -5
Why not? It really had no content from the beginning. I strongly disagree. You have to understand that, set aside the fact that this thread's six pages displays the topic's value, centuries have been spent tirelessly discussing the notion of man's morality and intrinsic desire to distinguish between good and bad. There is more to discuss, but some choose not to discuss.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 30, 2010 1:43:17 GMT -5
... aaaaaaand, that's my cue.
|
|
|
Post by Muffy on Mar 30, 2010 3:48:16 GMT -5
Why not? It really had no content from the beginning. I strongly disagree. You have to understand that, set aside the fact that this thread's six pages displays the topic's value, centuries have been spent tirelessly discussing the notion of man's morality and intrinsic desire to distinguish between good and bad. There is more to discuss, but some choose not to discuss. So I guess the Humor Rep and Anything topics blows this thread away. Which just goes to show that, the only thing worth doing is entertaining yourself to keep from going insane trying to argue about such topics as this.
|
|
|
Post by dlectronic on Mar 30, 2010 4:25:33 GMT -5
Well I laughed my head off at the Japanese video, but you can't truly believe this is a dry subject. You may not desire to talk about it, but truthfully you are dodging it. That probably triggers a "no I'm not" in your brain. I don't expect you to want to discuss it because it seems (based on the last few posts) you and brent are clearly giving up an attempt to maintain a valid point of view.
Debates are not "won" by dismissing opposition as asinine, then saying "No! I don't wanna tel you why you're dumb!". We are only on internet forums I know, but truthfully, it's a weak way to debate.
|
|
|
Post by Atheo on Mar 30, 2010 18:08:12 GMT -5
That's actually an excellent way to describe how the perception of such a universe feels, though it does not describe such a world itself. The belief that nothing matters- at all, and I mean nothing matters- goes against several evolutionary urges that we've had for a long, long time. It's not good for you to think the way I think. It truly does feel terrible to believe that there is neither choice nor importance nor, really, 'self'. We cannot choose our beliefs, however- I merely wish to compliment that choice of words. 'A universe in ruins' indeed, for it goes contrary to just about every evolved impulse we have, including moral and survival impulses.
|
|