I only believe objective morals can exist with the existence of god otherwise everything is subjective, so this is where the atheist is screwed. 9/11, the three standard perceptions you can have with the moral compass and lack therof is 1. Evil action. 2. just a action(good and evil doesn't exist) 3. good action. Whichever one you pick for your subjective truth there is still two delusions that you're subjectivelyperceiving on a subconscious level. When bypassing the usa law and going straight to the theory there is no chief in command to dictate the absolute answer so all 3 of these perceptions(even though they cancel each other out) are valid with the theory for the individual that wants to perceive it differently than you. All 3 of these perceptions are impossible to be wrong with the theory but you're perceiving two of the answers as delusions so this is a contradiction within itself. If there are two delusion that are compatible with your theory then it means you don't even believe the theory is 100% truthful 100% factual on subconscious levels. That's whats behind the atheist mask of fact, logic, reason, science, intelligence,.They are all sitting on a subjective truth accompanied by two subjective delusion on a subconscious level which means they don't even believe it, It's all a mask to deny god while playing dumb that god doesn't exist.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
another morality thread! check!
word salad, check!
random punctuation, check!
claims atheists are dishonest (playing dumb), check!
------------------------------------------------------
Should be funny!
Name one moral thought or action that a believer can produce that an atheist can not. Besides conducting a 9-11 style attack!
Saying you have objective morality means you believe your perceptions are infallible.
Saying that others denounce objective morality as a way of denying god implies that you have no standard for morality other than belief in what your god represents.
jazzyj7:
You should sober up, calm down, and try writing your thoughts down logically in English sentences. What you wrote is incoherent babble.
Seems like Keith is back...
That's just your subjective opinion. You can't demonstrate any objective evidence for it.
"It's all a mask to deny god while playing dumb that god doesn't exist."
Nonsense, demonstrate some objective evidence any deity exists? Then demonstrate objective evidence you know what it wants? Then finally explain how you know that what it wants is objectively moral if humans can't assess objective morality?
Same old same old...
As humans, we have a number of shared characteristics. We can feel pain and pleasure. We are social animals who benefit (emotionally and in terms of survival) from the presence of fellow humans. We can realize the effects of our actions on the lives of others and on the stability of the groups we participate in. And so on.
So, we use to label things as "good" or "bad" according to the amount of pleasure/prosperity or pain/harm they cause us. And doing "bad" deeds to others fellow humans knowing that it may cause them pain/harm is likely to cause dissatisfaction, fights and even the dissolution of the group. That is labeled as "wrong".
(What would you think if a neighbor beat your leg with an iron bar for fun? Since you and your neighbors share a common space as a society, wouldn't you expect that people agreed on rules and enforcing teams to prevent such acts that you could label as "wrong"?)
There you have it. Although this doesn't constitute a full-fledged "objective moral code", those are OBJECTIVE FACTS that serve as a FOUNDATION for moral codes, and since they are rooted in our shared human nature, they produce similar moral codes everywhere in the world. That's why murder, raping, stealing, etc. are generally regarded as "wrong" and regulated against.
Obviously, the perception of what is "good" and "bad" may vary somewhat. Faulty knowledge, tradition, superstition, local or timely circumstances etc. come into play, and so the end products, the final moral codes differ from place to place.
For a little low-tech tribe thriving to survive, it's important to have as many children as possible to guarantee the survival of the group. Wasting reproductive power is "wrong", and you may have rules against homosexuality, masturbation, abortion, etc. On the other hand, in a circumstance of overpopulation that may not be the case, and family planning may be encouraged as "right".
1. Evil action. See the amount of pain it caused.
He may have his "motives", but the objective facts should be put on the table and discussed. The terrorists from the 9/11 attacks objectively caused a lot of pain, thinking that they were doing something "good". But while the pain is quite evident, the "good" is an unsubstantiated belief in a mythic god character's will and promises.
(One problem of theistic religions is that it takes the focus of consideration of "good" and "bad" away from the human beings, and put it on some "god" whose "wills" may be molded and redefined to the interest of religious leaders. When you disregard people's well-being, you can merrily commit the worst atrocities.)
Most atheists probably were indoctrinated in religions as children, and later realized they were giving credit to old myths. To some it's a really distressing period, with many wanting to believe, but the broken pieces of the faith just won't stick back, given the plethora of evidence that gods are just a human construct. So one eventually assumes his new condition and starts to make sense of the world with focus on reality.
@Jazzy
9/11? That is your proof of objective morality. That is a stretch at best and not valid!
9/11 just proves that Voltaire was correct when he said:
"“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”
Religious "morality" is not objective, it is subjective, and anyone who subjugates their moral reasoning for blind adherence to religious dogma isn't being moral at all, they have simply become an amoral automaton at best, at worst they become immoral evil monsters capable of committing atrocities, like the 9/11 bombers, or Amber Pasztor who murdered her own children because her delusional religious beliefs convinced her this was their best chance of going to a fictional after life.
Re: Jazzy
This guy sounds like a warped morph combo of Keith and FIG/AB. Eeeeeek...!
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
Love your image attachment Tin-man.
@Logic Re: Attachment
Thanks, Logic! I can't really take the credit, though. I have my wife to thank for it. She loves finding various memes like that. LOL
i can see that your wife is more atheist than you are T-man.
hahahahah...
she dragged you into this? don't deny it!
just clowning T-man
peace
@Q
Actually, I DO have her to thank for helping drag me out of that last little puddle of religious muck that kept clinging to my feet. LOL
How ya been doin', bro?
doing...(stretching)...quite well, i'm almost done on my deadline reports..whew..
that's why i can't post nor comment that much..
am i that behind on the topics? can't even read post too..tsk..
anyway thanks T-man for asking..
This is a funny meme. Inaccurate but memes aren't supposed to be accurate.
Tin-man,
That cartoon is so true.
Like Nylar said in the first reply, Word salad, lousy punctuation, and something about morality (I did not even take the time to try to make sense of what the person was trying to say in his mess of a post that lacked even basic communication skills.
My guess is this is a drive-by-post. I almost would rather they just copy and pasted from some apologist website, at least there, there is punctuation.
I always like to debate with new folks here that think differently than me, but: man, cmon, can the apologist come up with someone at least a tiny bit better than this guy to represent them?
If god had wanted cogent arguments, accurate spelling, and proper grammar he wouldn't have created creationists.
Check mate..... ;-)
5 floobies to anyone who can explain what that means (specifically the 9/11 part).
@Nyar
Attempting to answer your question and earn those coveted floobies, I'd say that jazzy is an avid FOX watcher. He has convoluted various forms of propaganda and OP-EDs from FOX and applied them to his own fucked of sense of morality.
@Nyar Re: "5 floobies to anyone who can explain what that means (specifically the 9/11 part)."
I have no idea what a floobie is, but there is no amount you could offer to make me attempt to explain that convoluted cryptic crap. It ain't worth going back into the padded room wearing the "hug myself" jacket.
@Nyarlathotep: 5 floobies to anyone who can explain what that means (specifically the 9/11 part)
9/11 =0.81 recurring. 81 is 3 x 3 x 3 x 3. That stands for the three wise men. The three horseman of the apocalypse. The holy trinity. And a coke, cheeseburger, and fries.
well you lose cos its four horsemen of the procalypse which doesn't mean anything. Calculus sucks. see? Thats proof of creation dingbat. My mums name is louise.
@Algebe and Old Man
Well I say you are BOTH wrong, because rabbits don't eat tuna fish sandwiches on Wednesdays in a circle measuring greater than the cube of pi squared.
Old man shouts...
Four doesn't fit into my theology, so I'm changing it by papal bull(shit). You have to read these things in context.
Depends on what you mean by read. Anyway Im not introducing my theology into this so that is just a straw dog argument. My dogs name is louise, she licks her butt.
@Algebe and Old Man
Just when are you two gonna get it through your thick skulls that pineapples on orange trees is a totally invalid excuse for cucumber plants in the winter? Sheesh! I feel like I'm talking with a couple of fish legs here! And, Old Man, do please stop trying to use that old butt licking apologetic excuse. Everybody knows that has been proven wrong over and over.
Not edited at all. (Other than to put this "Not edited at all" statement in here.)
@Algebe and tin Man
if only you knew the truth!!!!!! grimble scope pluraline hiccups, catholic burble burble and tin oranges with condoms. There, now bow your head!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Aardvarks cant lick their own butts...
Every word edited, re-spelled,checked, anodised, catheterised, referenced for duplicitous mendacity. So there. HA!
@Old Man Re: "grimble scope pluraline hiccups"
*laughing so hard I'm crying*... Can't....... type.... Laugh- *deeeeeep breath*... ing... toohard!........ BWAAAAA-HAAAA-HAAAA....!!!.... help... medic... BWAAAA-HAAA-HAAAA....!
Pages