(December 8, 2017 at 1:29 am)wallym Wrote:

(December 8, 2017 at 1:20 am)Tizheruk Wrote: 1. Mocking my grammar how original 

2. It's clear you have not even scratched the bark let alone tapped anything

I thought the way I mocked it was fairly original.

Not really no . Hell i even did it.

It's quite overused and boring at this point .

(December 8, 2017 at 1:34 am)Tizheruk Wrote:

(December 8, 2017 at 1:29 am)wallym Wrote: I thought the way I mocked it was fairly original.

Not really no . Hell i even did it.

It's quite overused and boring at this point .

I don't know.  I'd have to see it to believe it.  And how would anyone know if you were doing it vs. you just typing normally?

The fact i say it in the mockery itself is how. But your free not to believe me . It makes little difference really .

(December 8, 2017 at 12:19 am)wallym Wrote:

(December 7, 2017 at 6:57 pm)Grandizer Wrote: This isn't about being emotionally invested in the well-being of all your fellow human beings. The discussion is about what morality should be like, regardless of whether you choose to invest in that or not.


Nah, I don't need that premise to be true. That's open to discussion. Just be real with me, and don't give me an explanation that involves a practically non-existent entity.

1) I'm an atheist.  You're an atheist. Why do you keep bringing up what religious people think?  It's like tourettes with you people on here. 
2) The discussion is about whether humans being harmed is objectively immoral.  Which is tricky, because you're going to have a hard time pulling up morality in the lab.  So right of the bat, if you are a believer in science and 'show me proof', objective morality probably isn't for you.  But it sounds like you're just getting into this stuff.  I think you'll find that most people here think objective morality is dopey idea.  You just caught a bad break that the person you were taking the side of held such a lousy opinion.

1. Yes, you're an atheist. The implicit "you" was rhetorical.

2. To be accurate, I'm just getting into the philosophical stuff regarding morality and ethics. It does not mean I never did any reading or thinking regarding morality. It's just that most of the time I've pondered morality was with respect to the claims theists made themselves. Not too long ago, I was an avid moral subjectivist due to my ignorance of what academic philosophers had to say in the field of ethics. But for a while now, I've been wary of adhering strictly to moral subjectivity and now consider myself to be an agnostic regarding the question of whether morality is purely subjective. I see the points made by Khemikal and Tizheruk, but I have to have time to think about these matters. At this point, I see no problem with objective morality being possible in the absence of God, but what is the best system to have is the other question I have been pondering about myself. It's certainly not the theistic system, which is (as I keep saying) practically useless. So yeah, that's basically my stance right now with regards to morality. I am way more into metaphysics than I am into ethics, though.

(December 8, 2017 at 1:56 am)Grandizer Wrote:

(December 8, 2017 at 12:19 am)wallym Wrote: 1) I'm an atheist.  You're an atheist. Why do you keep bringing up what religious people think?  It's like tourettes with you people on here. 
2) The discussion is about whether humans being harmed is objectively immoral.  Which is tricky, because you're going to have a hard time pulling up morality in the lab.  So right of the bat, if you are a believer in science and 'show me proof', objective morality probably isn't for you.  But it sounds like you're just getting into this stuff.  I think you'll find that most people here think objective morality is dopey idea.  You just caught a bad break that the person you were taking the side of held such a lousy opinion.

1. Yes, you're an atheist. The implicit "you" was rhetorical.

2. To be accurate, I'm just getting into the philosophical stuff regarding morality and ethics. It does not mean I never did any reading or thinking regarding morality. It's just that most of the time I've pondered morality was with respect to the claims theists made themselves. Not too long ago, I was an avid moral subjectivist due to my ignorance of what academic philosophers had to say in the field of ethics. But for a while now, I've been wary of adhering strictly to moral subjectivity and now consider myself to be an agnostic regarding the question of whether morality is purely subjective. I see the points made by Khemikal and Tizheruk, but I have to have time to think about these matters. At this point, I see no problem with objective morality being possible in the absence of God, but what is the best system to have is the other question I have been pondering about myself. It's certainly not the theistic system, which is (as I keep saying) practically useless. So yeah, that's basically my stance right now with regards to morality. I am way more into metaphysics than I am into ethics, though.

Totally fair .Go at your own pace 

(December 8, 2017 at 12:53 am)MysticKnight Wrote:

(December 4, 2017 at 11:53 am)wallym Wrote: What you're doing by saying "Hitler is evil, right?"  Is trojan horsing a bunch of your beliefs in a more palatable form.  I don't think humans have value.  I don't believe in morality.  I don't think existence is bettered or worsened in any way by humans being murdered.  In fact, I don't think there is even a measurement of the state of existence.  It just is.  

But by presenting "Hitler is evil, right?" everybody has to agree on all the things that go into Hitler being evil.  I'm familiar with the strategy, because as a christian apologist in my younger years, I did the same thing.

I agree with William Lane Craig that people just give lip service against free-will and morality, everyone actually believes in these things, no one actually doesn't believe in these things.

Frankly, I don't believe Atheists when they say God has not been proven to them, a few might be like that, but there is a great amount that isn't. They lack faith and don't believe, fine, doesn't mean it hasn't been proven.

There is another argument I made that is along the following lines that summarize it:

If objective morality is not real, we would not know an objective moral fact.
We know objective morality requires an absolute source and origin and judge that maintains it if it were real.
That is an objective moral fact we know to be true.
Therefore morality is real.


Premise 2 is not really disputable with you. So perhaps premise 1? I can explain, elaborate, and support it, and I have had a discussion on this premise in the past as a Deist.

Premise 1 seems logical.

Premise 2 is questionable. Objective morality can be grounded in a system as opposed to a person.

(December 6, 2017 at 4:31 am)Grandizer Wrote:

(December 6, 2017 at 3:20 am)Godscreated Wrote:  In Abraham's time men knew there were about 6000 stars, yet God told Abraham they were innumerable. So the God of Abraham knew more than Abraham and all other people.

GC

Thats so lame, and you know it.

How is that lame, Moses wrote Genesis and in his time man still could only observe around 600 stars. Seems you have a problem with the facts.

GC

(December 8, 2017 at 2:02 am)Godscreated Wrote:

(December 6, 2017 at 4:31 am)Grandizer Wrote: Thats so lame, and you know it.

How is that lame, Moses wrote Genesis and in his time man still could only observe around 600 stars. Seems you have a problem with the facts.

GC

No, I have a problem with idiotic statements like the ones you just made. For one, Moses didn't write Genesis. In fact, Moses was a made up character. That's a historical fact.

(December 6, 2017 at 8:43 am)chimp3 Wrote:

(December 6, 2017 at 3:20 am)Godscreated Wrote:  In Abraham's time men knew there were about 6000 stars, yet God told Abraham they were innumerable. So the God of Abraham knew more than Abraham and all other people.

GC

That was just god's creators taking a wild guess! The stars are not innumerable and some of them are planets. Good try!

There was no try intended. What wild guess, the people of those times knew more about the night sky than most people today and they knew around 6000 stars could be seem and they didn't know there were other planets. As far as we know they are innumerable, we can't count all the stars and we do not know for fact that the universe has an end. Poor try in trying to discredit what I stated.

GC

1. Moses did not write  Genesis

2. Guessing a number of stars is not impressive 

3. Nope the ancients could observe  way more then 600 stars .