(September 16, 2011 at 8:24 pm)Shell B Wrote: Do I really? Hm, I wonder why you think I must give you account of anything.

You don’t have to, you are completely entitled to behaving and thinking irrationally, however If you don’t enjoy being irrational then you must give account for them.

(September 16, 2011 at 8:27 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: You don’t have to, you are completely entitled to behaving and thinking irrationally, however If you don’t enjoy being irrational then you must give account for them.

So, the only way one can be rational is by giving you an account about their morality, despite the fact that they solicited no conversation about morality from you? In other words, you are the sole pathway to rationality?

By the way, you'll notice I never said I didn't have answers. I just said I didn't care to answer your questions, as you set them forth rudely after a refusal to admit you were wrong in your first assertions in this thread. If you weren't a lazy self-aggrandizing douchenozzle, you would probably find several conversations in this forum in which I discussed the very things you are asserting I must answer to you about or risk being irrational. Find the answers yourself.

You just don’t get it do you? You appealed to morality, if you are going to make appeals to certain portions of your worldview you are required to give account for these beliefs according to the principle of sufficient reason. So if you make an appeal to morality by calling me dishonest or whatever unsubstantiated claim you wish to make today and I ask you to account for that belief you must give an account for that belief or you are behaving irrationally. Violating the principle of sufficient reason is no different than violating the law of contradiction or any other law of reasoning, it’s irrational.

(September 16, 2011 at 8:52 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: You just don’t get it do you? You appealed to morality, if you are going to make appeals to certain portions of your worldview you are required to give account for these beliefs according to the principle of sufficient reason. So if you make an appeal to morality by calling me dishonest or whatever unsubstantiated claim you wish to make today and I ask you to account for that belief you must give an account for that belief or you are behaving irrationally. Violating the principle of sufficient reason is no different than violating the law of contradiction or any other law of reasoning, it’s irrational.

I have to explain my entire moral belief system because I said you were being rude? That claim was not unsubstantiated. You accused all atheists in this thread of bringing up Christianity. As one who did not, I pointed out the error of your assertion. You acted like a bitch and refused to take any responsibility for it, acting as if it is okay to make generalizations based on a portion of a conversation, though it goes against the very reason you keep spouting off at the asshole about. Get this: I don't give a fuck what you think about me. I don't care if you think I am a blithering idiot. I am not indulging you by answering your silly questions so you can go on a tangent about how anyone who doesn't believe god is the master of all things is an idiot. Seriously, you're wasting your time.

(September 16, 2011 at 8:58 pm)Shell B Wrote: I have to explain my entire moral belief system because I said you were being rude?

Why is it wrong for someone to be rude?

Quote: That claim was not unsubstantiated.

Yes it was, I have asked you multiple times to point to where I was dishonest, you have never done this, that’s what unsubstantiated means.

Quote: You accused all atheists in this thread of bringing up Christianity.

Uh oh! I did not say Christianity, I said religion. Are you being dishonest by purposely misquoting me? You actually did bring up theism and religion later in the discussion, so my initial claim seems to be accurate.

Quote: As one who did not, I pointed out the error of your assertion.

Not so fast, you did address religion in this discussion! Were you being dishonest when you claimed you never did?

“You have never managed morals without coaching from a book or religious leader.” - Shell

Quote: I don't care if you think I am a blithering idiot.

You’re not an idiot, you are just irrational.

(September 16, 2011 at 9:13 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Why is it wrong for someone to be rude?

Did I say it was wrong? I just said you were.

Quote: Yes it was, I have asked you multiple times to point to where I was dishonest

Actually, you said "whatever unsubstantiated claim I am making today." The only claim against you I made today -- prior to this ridiculous back and forth -- is that you are rude, which was easily substantiated. The dishonest thing was another thread. I can always count on you to convolute everything.

Quote: Uh oh! I did not say Christianity, I said religion. Are you being dishonest by purposely misquoting me? You actually did bring up theism and religion later in the discussion, so my initial claim seems to be accurate.

My apologies. Religion. At any rate, I did not bring it up. I discussed it when it became part of the discussion. My initial post and later posts did not introduce the topic to this discussion.

Quote:Not so fast, you did address religion in this discussion! Were you being dishonest when you claimed you never did?

No, as this thread shows clearly.

Quote:“You have never managed morals without coaching from a book or religious leader.” - Shell

Read the posts in-between and ask yourself if I introduced or "brought up" religion.

Quote:You’re not an idiot, you are just irrational.

Perhaps in your opinion, but it is hardly esteemed, so I believe I am safe from stigma.

We must have certain rules in place so that we may live together. Morality is a byproduct of civilization.

(September 16, 2011 at 9:39 pm)SleepingDemon Wrote: We must have certain rules in place so that we may live together. Morality is a byproduct of civilization.

All social animals have evolved to be able to live together pirhana wont bite each other even in a feeding frenzy
Because humans have more complex interactions they have more complex social 'rules' imposed by the society at the time.

One of the interesting things about morals is that over time they shift.
In the past slavery was 'normal', mysogeny was 'normal', capital punsihment was 'normal', racism and xenophobia were 'normal'.
Society has largely moved on from these old bad ways to be replaced by moral codes that are significantly better than the old ones.

This is one of the biggest problems with religions it pins societies to he past and is a major cause of stagnation.

It recently emerged that muslims owning sex slaves is not forbidden in the koran so is considered to be perfectly ok by some.

Time for them to get better morals isnt it!

(September 17, 2011 at 1:45 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(September 16, 2011 at 9:39 pm)SleepingDemon Wrote: We must have certain rules in place so that we may live together. Morality is a byproduct of civilization.

All social animals have evolved to be able to live together pirhana wont bite each other even in a feeding frenzy
Because humans have more complex interactions they have more complex social 'rules' imposed by the society at the time.

One of the interesting things about morals is that over time they shift.
In the past slavery was 'normal', mysogeny was 'normal', capital punsihment was 'normal', racism and xenophobia were 'normal'.
Society has largely moved on from these old bad ways to be replaced by moral codes that are significantly better than the old ones.

This is one of the biggest problems with religions it pins societies to he past and is a major cause of stagnation.

It recently emerged that muslims owning sex slaves is not forbidden in the koran so is considered to be perfectly ok by some.

Time for them to get better morals isnt it!

To theists, not believing in god means you are free to steal, rape, murder, etc. It is beyond their capacity of understanding that anyone can have a moral compass and be an atheist at the same time. Any attempt to make them understand this simple concept to their single digit IQ will turn out to be futile.

(September 17, 2011 at 2:11 pm)little_monkey Wrote: To theists, not believing in god means you are free to steal, rape, murder, etc. It is beyond their capacity of understanding that anyone can have a moral compass and be an atheist at the same time. Any attempt to make them understand this simple concept to their single digit IQ will turn out to be futile.

Agreed. They cannot (or possibly will not) understand the concept of self-accountability. They don't believe humans capable of a little self-restraint and self-imposed regulation. Possibly because their fear of god is the ONLY thing keeping them from committing wanton vile acts upon humanity, and in reality, they are the REAL demon to be feared - projecting all their hidden desires onto non-believers. Much like a father who is overly possessive of his daughter and her boyfriends because he himself has a devious mind and has treated his own past female conquests with disrespect.