And Statler continues to have problems understanding basic philosophical issues...
You struggle with problems that only exist in your head. Attempted crimes are still crimes, even if they weren't successfully carried out, and can easily be prosecuted as such.
Nice. Another non sequitur. You really do run through the list of fallacies quickly. A free thinker is one who thinks freely, as opposed to getting your answers from scriptures or institutions. It does not follow that a free thinker is necessarily rational.
In any event, we've rode this merry-go-round as many times as I care to. The "problem" that you see is an artificial one, just as artificial as your "GodWillsIt" solution. The problem and the validity of the solution only exist in your head. No matter how many times you bring up this issue, this will continue to be my answer. Let's just agree to disagree and let the reader decide which one of us is making a better case.
Every theist always thinks that the god they just so happen to have believed in all along is the only one out there. Every theist can pick apart someone else's religion. That's why we say that we are all atheists. It's just that some suspend their atheism and fail to apply that critical thinking to their own religion.
(November 3, 2011 at 5:56 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Well you can’t use intent because that would be nothing more than “thought crime”, and we all know how unbelievers hate the Bible because it punishes people for “thought crime”.Intent does properly have a place in discussions of morality. This doesn't constitute "thought crime" since thoughts were accompanied by corresponding action.
Quote:So now it is not only morally wrong to cause harm to others, but it is morally wrong to risk causing harm to others? So would it be morally wrong to drive a car because you then run the risk of running someone over?It would be morally wrong to drive a car recklessly, in ways that wantonly disregard safety.
Quote:So the act of having sex with someone behind the spouse’s back is not what is morally wrong, it’s the act of lying about it that is actually wrong? So if the guy never actually has to lie about what he did because he was never asked then he is innocent?Ever heard of lie by omission? And if he pledged to be faithful or fidelity was an understood agreement between the two, then breaking that contract is deceptive.
Quote:You are contradicting every definition you have given of morality thus far, if nothing bad happened then no harm was done to an individual or society, which are the two definitions of morality I have seen you give thus far. Are you willing to give a third definition that would include thought crimes such as intent?
You struggle with problems that only exist in your head. Attempted crimes are still crimes, even if they weren't successfully carried out, and can easily be prosecuted as such.
Quote:You can’t call yourself a free-thinker and then display a complete disregard for laws of reasoning such as the principle of sufficient reason.
Nice. Another non sequitur. You really do run through the list of fallacies quickly. A free thinker is one who thinks freely, as opposed to getting your answers from scriptures or institutions. It does not follow that a free thinker is necessarily rational.
In any event, we've rode this merry-go-round as many times as I care to. The "problem" that you see is an artificial one, just as artificial as your "GodWillsIt" solution. The problem and the validity of the solution only exist in your head. No matter how many times you bring up this issue, this will continue to be my answer. Let's just agree to disagree and let the reader decide which one of us is making a better case.
Quote:Actually there are extensive writings by proponents of TAG laying out exactly why all other gods also fail to account for the preconditions of knowledge. However, since that is not the topic of our discussion, and you do not believe in these other gods it is nothing more than a red herring; a way of trying to divert the attention off of your own worldview’s shortcomings.Oh, I have no doubt Christian apologists have written extensively on why the other gods can be dismissed. Christians are every bit as sharp as atheists when it comes to debunking Islam or other religions. Muslim apologists show themselves to be quite adept, as much as atheists, when it comes to tearing apart Christianity.
Every theist always thinks that the god they just so happen to have believed in all along is the only one out there. Every theist can pick apart someone else's religion. That's why we say that we are all atheists. It's just that some suspend their atheism and fail to apply that critical thinking to their own religion.
Quote:the only reason the unbeliever is able to function at all is because he is doing so in a universe created by the God of scripture.Prove it.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
