(September 13, 2012 at 5:27 pm)greneknight Wrote:

(September 13, 2012 at 2:15 pm)whateverist Wrote: You really make her point for her. You behave like a twerp. You are rude, obnoxious and frankly rather repetitive. I think I'll take up your suggestion and put you on ignore. Think of it as a time out.

Like I give a damn. If you ever make a single response to any of my posts, I'll laugh at you and call you a liar.

Sir Greneknight, Knight of the Round Table

Hey there. Just thought I'd reply to one of your posts like you specifically commanded me not to.
You know because you've got me on ignore and wouldn't be able to respond if I say, suggested you were a squirt of jizzem that dripped from your mothers breasts into her holiest of holes while she was giving her special services to one of her clients.
I mean, you wouldn't even be able to tell if I'd put that and would have no real means of retort if I were to ever type that you're so deep in the closet you're still finding Christmas presents. Its not like you're full of shit and would check to see what I had typed in response to your rather rude post toward whateverist.

... *starts stopwatch*
:-)

(September 13, 2012 at 5:27 pm)greneknight Wrote: .

Your are a disappointment.

(September 13, 2012 at 1:26 pm)Undeceived Wrote: Morality is known by an inner sense, conveyed (negatively) by guilt and (positively) by contentment. We can tell the difference between God's morality and evolution's by the mechanisms in place. If morality is linked directly to survival in every phase, it is compatible with evolution. If, however, some completely non-selfish qualities are revealed, we must appeal to a Creator with more than propagation in mind.

Completely and utterly wrong. Evolution doesn't guarantee that every aspect that ever evolved would be geared towards survival. If it did, there would be no diseases. Also, even if that were false, it doesn't make your appeal to creator true by default. Maybe the ultimate moral authority isn't the creator but something else that he created that has surpassed it.

(September 13, 2012 at 1:26 pm)Undeceived Wrote: I don't know if there's a 'morality gene' per se. The human brain remains a mystery to scientists. Everyone has a unique soul not received from parents so it's conceivable morality could also be imparted at conception.

Try asking a fetus its opinions on morality and you'll find out if that is true or not.

(September 13, 2012 at 1:26 pm)Undeceived Wrote: The Bible tells us we are not just physical beings but spiritual persons, half of us at home in the body, half yearning for a spiritual relationship with Jesus Christ.

A bare-faced lie. Full of me is at home in my body and none of me yearns for any sort of relationship with that imaginary being.

(September 13, 2012 at 1:26 pm)Undeceived Wrote: You have to do nothing, only accept Jesus dying for your sins. Be of a repentant heart.

So you do have to do something. And that something is selfish.

Quote:4. No Preaching
To advocate, especially to urge acceptance of or compliance with your own theology, philosophy or point of view is not permitted. If you want to preach, get yourself a soapbox in hyde park and don't do it here. You are welcome to discuss your own beliefs, why you believe them, etc. Just don't expect or demand anyone to agree with them.

—

(September 13, 2012 at 8:11 am)greneknight Wrote:

Quote: Anybody, atheist or theist, is free to make whatever argument they want and be judged on the merits of the case they present. This isn't a theistic, tribal society where they must present the correct shibboleth before they are accepted in. Your repeated raising the question of whether Vinny is atheist is both badgering and a personal attack and frankly I'm sick of your shit. Everybody here is free to follow the dictates of their conscience and ye shall know them by their fruits. It's none of your fucking business. You aren't the forum police. Thankfully that job is already in competent hands.

I have every right to point out that Vinny is dishonest in his replies and that he isn't telling the truth. It's none of your bloody business if I write my own observation. Who the hell do you think you are? Thank God you aren't the forum police. I have as much right to express my view that Vinny is not an atheist although he pretends to be and if you don't like reading what I post, you are at liberty to put me on ignore. I don't give a shit what you think. If you are sick, go see a doctor.

That's not necessarily the case. From my perspective, you are violating this forum's rules against preaching by attempting to badger Vinny into representing himself the way that you think he should.

You would be lucky if I were to put you on ignore, but I am not going to do so. Instead, I am going to be reporting future posts obsessing over Vinny's alleged sins as preaching and thus a violation of the forum rules, and I urge others to do likewise.

(It's also a borderline personal attack as you are dedicating posts simply to calling him a liar rather than responding substantially to the things he says. [Not to mention they are essentially ad hominems, and thus stupid and irrelevant])

---

@Undeceived: I want to commend you for your candid response. I don't actually know what other theists would do, but I compliment you for taking the time to at least investigate the arguments. I'm sure there are many who wouldn't do likewise. (Though as noted, how many, I do not know.) I disagree with your understanding of the implications of evolution, but have no real interest in entering that debate.

(September 14, 2012 at 1:00 am)apophenia Wrote:

Quote:4. No Preaching
To advocate, especially to urge acceptance of or compliance with your own theology, philosophy or point of view is not permitted. If you want to preach, get yourself a soapbox in hyde park and don't do it here. You are welcome to discuss your own beliefs, why you believe them, etc. Just don't expect or demand anyone to agree with them.

—

(September 13, 2012 at 8:11 am)greneknight Wrote: I have every right to point out that Vinny is dishonest in his replies and that he isn't telling the truth. It's none of your bloody business if I write my own observation. Who the hell do you think you are? Thank God you aren't the forum police. I have as much right to express my view that Vinny is not an atheist although he pretends to be and if you don't like reading what I post, you are at liberty to put me on ignore. I don't give a shit what you think. If you are sick, go see a doctor.

That's not necessarily the case. From my perspective, you are violating this forum's rules against preaching by attempting to badger Vinny into representing himself the way that you think he should.

You would be lucky if I were to put you on ignore, but I am not going to do so. Instead, I am going to be reporting future posts obsessing over Vinny's alleged sins as preaching and thus a violation of the forum rules, and I urge others to do likewise.

(It's also a borderline personal attack as you are dedicating posts simply to calling him a liar rather than responding substantially to the things he says. [Not to mention they are essentially ad hominems, and thus stupid and irrelevant])

---

@Undeceived: I want to commend you for your candid response. I don't actually know what other theists would do, but I compliment you for taking the time to at least investigate the arguments. I'm sure there are many who wouldn't do likewise. (Though as noted, how many, I do not know.) I disagree with your understanding of the implications of evolution, but have no real interest in entering that debate.

How can that be preaching? Do you even know what preaching means? YOu should read the exchanges from the start. It started with me asking Vinny very nicely to state clearly if he really is an atheist as he claims to be. He gave an answer that is as usual ambiguous. He asked if what I was asking was his true position? To which I replied yes it was. I wanted to know for sure if he's an atheist as he claims to be because his posts don't seem to show he's an atheist. He then replied with an attack on my earlier rudeness (in fact that rudeness was something I was guilty of at the start and I had stopped doing it that way. By the way, the rudeness is very much like yours). Based on this history of our exchanges, I concluded that he was being dishonest because he said he would give me an answer but he did not. That's dishonest.

You are very silly to use threats of reporting that I'm trying to preach on me. I cannot for the world of me see how this can be an example of preaching. Let any moderator adjudicate if I am indeed preaching. I have no doubt they will show you that it's your failure to understand what "preaching" means that has led you to make such a shocking and false accusation. I don't think you intended to make a false accusation. Rather, I think it's your misunderstanding of what "preaching" means that has led you to this ridiculous conclusion.

I am board with the one trick pony the tin man sits on.

(September 14, 2012 at 8:13 am)jonb Wrote: I am board with the one trick pony the tin man sits on.

Nice ass.

"Where do atheists get their morality from? "

Cracker Jacks? I hear the prizes can be excellent!

(September 12, 2012 at 8:04 pm)Undeceived Wrote: You misunderstood me. Altruism is not impossible for atheists because they are created by God with a moral code like anybody.

Assumptive speculation, you start with an unproved assertion. I am not arguing it is not correct (which is probably also true) but rather that you are professing a theory on an inherently indefinite foundation, which is (1) never prudent, and (2) a terrible argument.

Quote: I argued that altruism would be impossible if humans evolved. Perhaps I should ask you: how does altruism fit with evolution? Be careful in your answer, because many scientists believe true altruism does not fit at all. Take Richard Dawkins

Why would it be impossible? This presupposes that evolution provides morality and selflessness, which is not exactly true. Admittedly, it can be given that certain ethical attitudes are conducive to evolution yet this is not a causal relation. What if, perhaps, morality was drawn from rational reflection and not biological-psychological necessity? Then your criticism is irrelevant at best. I don't want to talk about Dawkins, he isn't every atheist's guide to life.

Quote:Do you think morals are still morals even if followed for selfish or robotic reasons? If so, your definition of moral is different from a Christian's.

Yes, yes I do, because the action is what is judged, not the motivation. Let me tell you why in short form:
1) You can't know motivation so you can't judge it, that is just ridiculous.
2) The action is what we are judging, not the motivation, somebody who saves someone else from a burning building performed a good act without their motivation being considered. They did it and they deserve approbation regardless of their motivation for doing so.
3) This would imply that such things as a bad motivation are bad, thus a moment of passionate motivation to evil is more immoral than an actual killing with good intentions. This is clearly impermissible.
4) This leads us to judge only the unknowable, not the actual action, which is ridiculous.

(August 30, 2012 at 11:39 pm)Atom Wrote: How do atheists know what is morally right or morally wrong? Is morality cultural, gut feel, are there any basic principled you can use? Opinions?

Atheists get their morals from the same place you do, from within.

You may think you get your morals from the bible, but let's face it, the bible morally is a bucket of shit and you know it. Therefore you cherry pick the morals that suit you and that you think are right, and disregard the uncomfortable ones. Once you do that though, you are making your own moral code.

Realise that, and you shouldn't need to ask atheists where they get morals.

God doesn't come into it for either of us, if you're honest.