JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Reply
Old 21st November 2012, 03:52 PM   #321
Garnabby
New Blood
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 23
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
Why would you qualify that question with the phrase "in isolation"? What are you trying to get at with the second question? It seems that you are approaching the question as if a body of knowledge or a methodology (science) somehow owes something to humanity... I guess...?
The only thing which science, etc, put in this sense, "owes us" is a "fair shake" and an explanation. But it's up to each of us to properly avail ourselves of that and to try to understand its gist.

The only way to end up with any sort of a "unified field theory" is to begin with that, however rudimentary/complex. As must the universe, itself, which can only try as we, a part of it after all, to consistently sort out the absolute/paradoxical perspectives through a series of disjoint theories, or themes, (which, ironically, limits out at us in our observation and understanding of it. Someone asked me about that "cat in a box" the other day. Perhaps we're the somehow less-than-real ones in such a box, that we put the cat in it to justify our own baseless insecure beliefs. I mean, show me one thing which is for sure, and i'll show the every thing would which then immediately follow from it. Eg, has anyone really died yet, to, perhaps, be in a position to tell the rest of us what is death? Eternity doesn't start when we "think" we die... it's just eternity.)

Einstein had the right idea to stubbornly pursue such a "theory", even knowing that there were still many more such "fields" to be studied, but he could not give up on, his own, Relativity's many shortcomings... in the absence of firm data to strictly prohibit the existence of an infinity of such themes.

That's the thing. If you can see all of this from also a philosophical stance, nay, fundamentally explain also philosophy, itself, then your own ideas can't be reworked, stolen, however you want to look at it... nor would those be so-based on others'.

Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
Nonsensical.
Well then, at least one of us is confused.

Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
Irrelevant.
Well, don't expect the philosophers to "blow everything up" before then.

But, joking aside, neither am i here to argue perspectives. It's only not a waste of time when you can use this to such an "advantage".

Last edited by Garnabby; 21st November 2012 at 03:55 PM.
Garnabby is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2012, 03:53 PM   #322
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
Originally Posted by Gawdzilla View Post
I'm good with calling it a religion.
There are good arguments for calling it a religion.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2012, 03:54 PM   #323
Gawdzilla
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
 
Gawdzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 19,887
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
There are good arguments for calling it a religion.
Buddhism for a precedent.

But James (or his minions) were correct in lumping these two together in this subforum.
__________________
World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources
Hyperwar, WWII Military History
Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.
Gawdzilla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2012, 04:57 PM   #324
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 11,466
Originally Posted by Pup View Post
Reminds me of something I said to my wife the other night, as we were watching a news segment about people trying to save turkeys from being killed for Thanksgiving and adopting them. I said that the turkeys wouldn't have been born in the first place, if people weren't eating them for Thanksgiving, so if everyone turned vegetarian, there would soon be no more turkeys left to save, other than wild turkeys. Same idea.
So your solution to solving the killing of masses of turkeys is to go back in time? Have you offered this solution to your wife to fix problems in the marriage?
marplots is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2012, 05:43 PM   #325
Pup
Illuminator
 
Pup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 4,565
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
So your solution to solving the killing of masses of turkeys is to go back in time? Have you offered this solution to your wife to fix problems in the marriage?
No, I don't think you got it. It's a joke, because of the inherent paradox.

As proposed in this thread, saving people from fatal illness "causes" more death (because they survive to give birth to children who wouldn't have lived to die otherwise). Similarly, raising turkeys to be killed "causes" more life (because people breed new young turkeys for market each year that wouldn't have been born otherwise).

If we let people die young, we prevent the death of their never-born children. If we save domestic turkeys, we cause the non-existence of their never-born offspring because no one wants to eat them, and not eating them might therefore perhaps drive them to exictinction. Death prevents death. Life prevents life.

Last edited by Pup; 21st November 2012 at 05:48 PM.
Pup is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2012, 06:16 PM   #326
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 13,986
Avalon ignoring inconvenient questions, and conveniently disappearing when a co-religionist appears. Shocker.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2012, 06:29 PM   #327
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,853
Originally Posted by Halfcentaur View Post
Is there an analogy here for something you think people are unfairly accusing region of for the same reason?
Not at all. I'm just poking fun at arguments against science being a force for good.
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2012, 06:40 PM   #328
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Not Bandiagara
Posts: 7,241
Originally Posted by Gawdzilla View Post
Okay, I can put this to bed. If the believers were really good because of a higher authority, why haven't we seen this yet? They've had thousands of years to start behaving morally, and to date, zippo.

Correct. The position of the religious, that morality comes from a higher authority, is indefensible.
GeeMack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2012, 06:43 PM   #329
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 11,466
Originally Posted by Pup View Post
No, I don't think you got it. It's a joke, because of the inherent paradox.

As proposed in this thread, saving people from fatal illness "causes" more death (because they survive to give birth to children who wouldn't have lived to die otherwise). Similarly, raising turkeys to be killed "causes" more life (because people breed new young turkeys for market each year that wouldn't have been born otherwise).

If we let people die young, we prevent the death of their never-born children. If we save domestic turkeys, we cause the non-existence of their never-born offspring because no one wants to eat them, and not eating them might therefore perhaps drive them to exictinction. Death prevents death. Life prevents life.
Yeah, but none of that helps these turkeys here. The ones with the sad little bird eyes. Those weepy, weepy little eyes. They haunt my dreams.
marplots is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2012, 07:05 PM   #330
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 24,987
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
Not at all. I'm just poking fun at arguments against science being a force for good.
Avalon, is killing millions of people one of those universal good things to do? Or is it universally bad?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2012, 07:20 PM   #331
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,853
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Avalon, is killing millions of people one of those universal good things to do? Or is it universally bad?
Yet again, it is neither.
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2012, 07:51 PM   #332
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 24,987
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
Yet again, it is neither.
But The Flying Spaghetti Monster says it is universally bad. Didn't you say obeying The Flying Spaghetti Monster was universally good?

How am I to know which god's morality is correct? What about atheists, where does their universal good and bad come from?

Yet again.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2012, 09:15 PM   #333
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Not Bandiagara
Posts: 7,241
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Avalon, is killing millions of people one of those universal good things to do? Or is it universally bad?

Yet again, it is neither.

So good and evil are, according to AvalonXQ, arbitrary, open to interpretation, and by that reasoning I expect he'll agree this argument is just plain foolish...
Originally Posted by Someone View Post
The first is whether good and evil are arbitrary. They're not -- that is to say, what is good and what is evil is hard-wired into the fabric of reality. It's basic and it's not directly dependent on God.
I don't think religious people even realize how hypocrisy is as much a requirement for keeping the faith as dishonesty is.
GeeMack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2012, 09:26 PM   #334
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,853
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
So good and evil are, according to AvalonXQ, arbitrary, open to interpretation,
Nope. Neither arbitrary nor open to interpretation.
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2012, 09:41 PM   #335
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Not Bandiagara
Posts: 7,241
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
Nope. Neither arbitrary nor open to interpretation.

However much you subjectively believe what you've said is true, objectively it is untrue. Even you can't describe good and evil, right and wrong in terms that aren't arbitrary, yet you take the position that it's not. The notion that good and evil or right and wrong somehow rely on the existence of a higher authority is inconsistent, hypocritical, and self serving, very much like the belief in invisible magical beings.

Last edited by GeeMack; 21st November 2012 at 09:42 PM.
GeeMack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2012, 09:51 PM   #336
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,853
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
Even you can't describe good and evil, right and wrong in terms that aren't arbitrary,
I can, and I have.
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2012, 09:52 PM   #337
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Valhalla, one day at a time
Posts: 4,841
So just to keep this straight -- killing millions of people is neither good nor bad and good and bad are neither arbitrary nor open to interpretation.

I honestly am having trouble discerning the main thrust of these statements.
__________________
"It started badly, it tailed off a little in the middle and the less said about the end the better, but apart from that, it was excellent."
- Blackadder
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2012, 09:55 PM   #338
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,853
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
So just to keep this straight -- killing millions of people is neither good nor bad and good and bad are neither arbitrary nor open to interpretation.

I honestly am having trouble discerning the main thrust of these statements.
That's what happens when you ignore the original descriptions and explanations and derive your understanding from disingenuous posters repeatedly submitting facile, irrelevant questions.
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2012, 10:07 PM   #339
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Valhalla, one day at a time
Posts: 4,841
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
That's what happens when you ignore the original descriptions and explanations and derive your understanding from disingenuous posters repeatedly submitting facile, irrelevant questions.
Thanks for clearing that right up for me! I'll go back and re-read what you've said and see if that'll work.
__________________
"It started badly, it tailed off a little in the middle and the less said about the end the better, but apart from that, it was excellent."
- Blackadder
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2012, 10:10 PM   #340
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Valhalla, one day at a time
Posts: 4,841
Originally Posted by Garnabby View Post
The only thing which science, etc, put in this sense, "owes us" is a "fair shake" and an explanation. But it's up to each of us to properly avail ourselves of that and to try to understand its gist.

The only way to end up with any sort of a "unified field theory" is to begin with that, however rudimentary/complex. As must the universe, itself, which can only try as we, a part of it after all, to consistently sort out the absolute/paradoxical perspectives through a series of disjoint theories, or themes, (which, ironically, limits out at us in our observation and understanding of it. Someone asked me about that "cat in a box" the other day. Perhaps we're the somehow less-than-real ones in such a box, that we put the cat in it to justify our own baseless insecure beliefs. I mean, show me one thing which is for sure, and i'll show the every thing would which then immediately follow from it. Eg, has anyone really died yet, to, perhaps, be in a position to tell the rest of us what is death? Eternity doesn't start when we "think" we die... it's just eternity.)

Einstein had the right idea to stubbornly pursue such a "theory", even knowing that there were still many more such "fields" to be studied, but he could not give up on, his own, Relativity's many shortcomings... in the absence of firm data to strictly prohibit the existence of an infinity of such themes.

That's the thing. If you can see all of this from also a philosophical stance, nay, fundamentally explain also philosophy, itself, then your own ideas can't be reworked, stolen, however you want to look at it... nor would those be so-based on others'.


Well then, at least one of us is confused.


Well, don't expect the philosophers to "blow everything up" before then.

But, joking aside, neither am i here to argue perspectives. It's only not a waste of time when you can use this to such an "advantage".
Since I'm in the confessing spirit (see previous post above), I will also say that I'm confused of this response.

Science is either a body of knowledge or a method of discerning the world and our reality. All I can gather at this point is a massive anthropomorphizing of 'science'. Can anyone elucidate?
__________________
"It started badly, it tailed off a little in the middle and the less said about the end the better, but apart from that, it was excellent."
- Blackadder
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2012, 10:11 PM   #341
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,853
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
Thanks for clearing that right up for me! I'll go back and re-read what you've said and see if that'll work.
Thanks!

Sorry for the snark. The repeated irrelevant questions, and then the dishonest attacks based on the questions, are frustrating.
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2012, 10:18 PM   #342
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Valhalla, one day at a time
Posts: 4,841
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
Thanks!

Sorry for the snark. The repeated irrelevant questions, and then the dishonest attacks based on the questions, are frustrating.
Sure, no problem, I have seen you take what I sometimes have felt to be unfair criticisms so I understand. I didn't mean to come across as attacking you and for that I apologize.

I'm trying to parse what you've said so that I may better understand your point of view.
__________________
"It started badly, it tailed off a little in the middle and the less said about the end the better, but apart from that, it was excellent."
- Blackadder
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2012, 02:04 AM   #343
IanS
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 2,613
Originally Posted by Garnabby View Post
Okay, let's all just assume that Einstein never heard of (a "guesser" like) Aristotle, and furthermore, that him, and all the other scientists, "instantaneously" appeared out of that "null vacuum".

All bow down to "the scientists", lol. You win... what?


Then don't use the word "probably", as "discussed to death".


Oh, i've heard of that. Just not of someone claiming that time comes out of space within such a point, itself. Even the dictionaries no longer recognize the instantaneous or now as being timeless?

P.S. Einstein did a lot of guessing/fudging on his own, but nothing of the classic sort that's going to withstand a few millennia, in my opinion.


This is not worth replying to (it‘s also largely incoherent).

And neither is it some sort of childish “fight” between science and philosophy.

If you can show that important scientific papers in say QM, GR, or Evolution, typically reference earlier key publications from philosophers, then just post them. Or else admit that scientific papers do not normally rely on any earlier philosophy, and do not normally cite any reference to it.

Last edited by IanS; 22nd November 2012 at 02:07 AM.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2012, 07:50 AM   #344
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 24,987
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
That's what happens when you ignore the original descriptions and explanations and derive your understanding from disingenuous posters repeatedly submitting facile, irrelevant questions I can't answer honestly without exposing my hypocrisy.
FTFY

Avalon, where do atheists' morals come from? Where do morals come from for people who believe in more than one god?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2012, 08:43 AM   #345
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,853
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
I can't answer honestly without exposing my hypocrisy.
If I realized you were interested in playing "gotcha" rather than understanding a different point of view, I wouldn't have bothered responding to your inanities in the first place. Good day, sir.
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2012, 09:52 AM   #346
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
Thanks!

Sorry for the snark. The repeated irrelevant questions, and then the dishonest attacks based on the questions, are frustrating.
Discussing reality with theists who have abandoned logic is frustrating too.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2012, 10:18 AM   #347
Pup
Illuminator
 
Pup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 4,565
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
Nope. Neither arbitrary nor open to interpretation.
In a purely logical, cold-hearted sense, I can see that. If doing what God says is defined as good, then of course, whatever God says is good, no matter how cruel, unreasonable or downright horrible and disgusting it would sound in any other context.

It's not arbitrary, because it always goes back to God to set the standard.

It's not open to interpretation because it doesn't need reconciled for consistency. If God killed a baby, then killing a baby was good. If he said to love your neighbor, then loving your neighbor was good. Period. No need to interpret it to try to find some outside consistency.

But I think the problem that a lot of people have with that is the desire to scream out, "Don't you have any morals of your own? Don't you know those things are bad? What' wrong with you?"

It's the same kind of disgust and frustration that most people would feel listening to a sociopath calmly explain why it's okay for him to murder people who are rude to him, if he feels like it. There's a deep instinctive feeling in the majority of people that some things are simply wrong, regardless of explanations and justifications. Most people are born with at least some kind of moral compass, defective and quirky and subject to social influence though it may be.

Religion becomes palatable when it's disguised with all the benefits and disclaimers, but for atheists who don't feel the need of it and so look clearly through the trappings, it sounds bizarre for a person to claim that their moral compass is based on the whims of a being who once committed mass murder and could do it again if he felt like it. Because that's just wrong.

If I've misunderstood, hopefully you can clarify.
Pup is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2012, 10:18 AM   #348
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,853
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
Discussing reality with theists who have abandoned logic is frustrating too.
As is debating reality with atheists who never bothered with logic in the first place.
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2012, 10:24 AM   #349
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 33,446
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
As is debating reality with atheists who never bothered with logic in the first place.
Debating reality with those whose reality is bound up in a book is frustrating.
tsig is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2012, 10:26 AM   #350
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
As is debating reality with atheists who never bothered with logic in the first place.
Logic tells me that there are no sky daddies. What tells you that there is a sky daddy? Logic tells me that the story of Noah is complete bollocks, but something tells you that it is not bollocks. That something is an old book of fairy tales. Mot much logic there.

Last edited by dafydd; 22nd November 2012 at 10:28 AM.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2012, 10:29 AM   #351
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 24,987
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
If I realized you were interested in playing "gotcha" rather than understanding a different point of view, I wouldn't have bothered responding to your inanities in the first place. Good day, sir.
How is playing the victimized Christian working out for you? I notice you jump right to that defense every time you can't defend your position, which is every time.

Where does morality come from for atheists? How about people who believe in more than one god? Which of their gods' moral trumps?

Happy Thanksgiving to you, sir.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2012, 10:33 AM   #352
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Where does morality come from for atheists? How about people who believe in more than one god? Which of their gods' moral trumps?
You are expecting an answer?
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2012, 10:51 AM   #353
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,853
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
How is playing the victimized Christian working out for you?
How's willful ignorance working out for you? It must be boring talking to people without bothering to actually listen to anything they say. I guess the satisfaction you get for tripping them up with your simplistic questions makes up for it.

Quote:
Happy Thanksgiving to you, sir.
And to you.

Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
You are expecting an answer?
He shouldn't be.

Last edited by AvalonXQ; 22nd November 2012 at 10:53 AM.
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2012, 10:56 AM   #354
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post



He shouldn't be.
Of course not. You never answer questions about the morality of your sky daddy or indeed any questions.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2012, 11:00 AM   #355
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,853
And you are clearly not trustworthy, as you fail to keep your own commitments.
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2012, 11:02 AM   #356
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
And you are clearly not trustworthy, as you fail to keep your own commitments.
Kindly state these commitments, or stop posting gibberish.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2012, 11:04 AM   #357
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,853
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
Kindly state these commitments, or stop posting gibberish.
Do you remember your promise to stop using "sky daddy"?
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2012, 11:05 AM   #358
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
Do you remember your promise to stop using "sky daddy"?
Do you remember your promise to answer questions? Your faith must be very weak if the phrase ''sky daddy'' offends you. ''Imaginary being'', is that better?

Last edited by dafydd; 22nd November 2012 at 11:06 AM.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2012, 11:13 AM   #359
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2012, 11:37 AM   #360
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
''Our Father, who art in heaven....'' atheists didn't make that up. I wonder who did?
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

JREF Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:12 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.