Logic dictates that there is a God!

[Dancing Mustard]

I'll gladly correct you. I'm saying that if a set of OBJECTIVE morals exist, it is logical to believe that there is an OBJECTIVE rule giver.

1. You haven't even made a set of 'OBJECTIVE morals' seem probable. You've said that you think they might exist, but I don't see any compelling reason to believe you. You should probably try to prove your premise before moving on to insisting that it in turn proves a 'god'.

2. Even if you could prove a set of 'OBJECTIVE morals' existed (which I assure you, you can't), that wouldn't of itself prove that there had to be an 'OBJECTIVE rule giver'. Granted, the existance of such a thing would be one possible solution to the origin of the morals, but it would by no means be the only solution, and it would be no more probable than any other solution.

3. If you can't imagine a set of objectively held rules that came about without a centralised objectively ascertainable law giver, then go check out a basic international law textbook... because that's exactly what you'll find.

4. Quit with the random capital letters, that's just rude.

[bradleybadly]

Homosexuality is a gene and I think identical twins are enough to prove it.

Ooooohh I want to see this homosexual gene please.

Identical Twins proof that it's genetic! LMFAO!!! Since identical twins have identical genes, when one twin is homosexual then the other one should also be homosexual 100% of the time. I want to see these studies which show identical twins are both homosexual in every single case.

[Napoleon Ier]

There is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE FOR A GAY GENE.

I'll repeat so it is clear.

All your premises for discourse on homosexuality are wrong.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE FOR A GOD OR FOR THE EXISTANCE OF MAGICAL 'GAY DEMONS'.

I'll repeat so it is clear.

All your premises for discourse on homosexuality are wrong




Whoopee! I too can screech and howl idiotic comments that have no basis in fact or logic, and then proceed to provide no evidence for them!

I AM THE WINNER!!!!

Fantastic. You call me stupid, (wow, nice one there dm!), claim there's no evidence for God (this is relevant tomy post because...?), then only do you actually make a reasonable assertion.

You do make diotic comments that have no basis in fact or logic, and then proceed to provide no evidence for them, just as I was saying unriggable does.

[Snorri1234]

Fantastic. You call me stupid, (wow, nice one there dm!), claim there's no evidence for God (this is relevant tomy post because...?), then only do you actually make a reasonable assertion.

You do make diotic comments that have no basis in fact or logic, and then proceed to provide no evidence for them, just as I was saying unriggable does.

Because the only reason to oppose homosexuals is religious reasons.

[Dancing Mustard]

There is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE FOR A GAY GENE.

I'll repeat so it is clear.

All your premises for discourse on homosexuality are wrong.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE FOR A GOD OR FOR THE EXISTANCE OF MAGICAL 'GAY DEMONS'.

I'll repeat so it is clear.

All your premises for discourse on homosexuality are wrong




Whoopee! I too can screech and howl idiotic comments that have no basis in fact or logic, and then proceed to provide no evidence for them!

I AM THE WINNER!!!!

Fantastic. You call me stupid, (wow, nice one there dm!), claim there's no evidence for God (this is relevant tomy post because...?), then only do you actually make a reasonable assertion.

You do make diotic comments that have no basis in fact or logic, and then proceed to provide no evidence for them, just as I was saying unriggable does.

Feeling vitriolic today are you? Whatever sparked your sudden pugnacious attitude?

At any rate, you appear to have completely missed the point of my post. Perhaps you should try again and come back when you've calmed down a bit?

[MelonanadeMaster]

I'll gladly correct you. I'm saying that if a set of OBJECTIVE morals exist, it is logical to believe that there is an OBJECTIVE rule giver.

1. You haven't even made a set of 'OBJECTIVE morals' seem probable. You've said that you think they might exist, but I don't see any compelling reason to believe you. You should probably try to prove your premise before moving on to insisting that it in turn proves a 'god'.

2. Even if you could prove a set of 'OBJECTIVE morals' existed (which I assure you, you can't), that wouldn't of itself prove that there had to be an 'OBJECTIVE rule giver'. Granted, the existance of such a thing would be one possible solution to the origin of the morals, but it would by no means be the only solution, and it would be no more probable than any other solution.

3. If you can't imagine a set of objectively held rules that came about without a centralised objectively ascertainable law giver, then go check out a basic international law textbook... because that's exactly what you'll find.

4. Quit with the random capital letters, that's just rude.

I admit I have not proven that there are objective morals, but that is not, and was not, my goal. I only wished to supply the formula.
Of course it isn't the only solution to the issue But in my humble opinion, it certainly is the most rational of the proposed solutions. I disagree with your statement that these "flying noodle monsters" are just as rational as the God proposed by famouse theologians across the centuries. Equality of religions is a silly idea, even if my religous beliefs are wrong, they'd still be much more rational than others.
I sincerely apologize that my capital letters were insulting to you, although I can assure you their purpose was not random.

[Napoleon Ier]

Feeling vitriolic today are you? Whatever sparked your sudden pugnacious attitude?

You're arrogance has pushed me too far.

[hrryflashman]

objective morals dont exist. at least, i've never found a rock with a packet of moral rules inside them.
that said, there is common decency.

[Napoleon Ier]

objective morals dont exist. at least, i've never found a rock with a packet of moral rules inside them.
that said, there is common decency.

common decency is your way of saying objective morals. Deep down we all know they exist.

[hrryflashman]

no, they arte cultural "norms"-they are not oblective. I disapprove, like Poirot, of murder. But a tribe in the Amonzian rainforest (they are so handy, those tribes!) approve of murder.
who am i to say i'm right.
Only if you believe in God does "objective" morality make sense.
and then its based on a flawed premise.
ie that God exists.
which is nonsense.

[Napoleon Ier]

no, they arte cultural "norms"-they are not oblective. I disapprove, like Poirot, of murder. But a tribe in the Amonzian rainforest (they are so handy, those tribes!) approve of murder.
who am i to say i'm right.
Only if you believe in God does "objective" morality make sense.
and then its based on a flawed premise.
ie that God exists.
which is nonsense.

ok. fair enough.

However, to ignore objective morals, you must deny God.
This means however, you can never say someone is in the wrong. A nazi or a communist is just as "right" as you are in his ethics.

[hrryflashman]

yes, of course i deny "God" whatever "god means".
And i can never say i'm a 100% "in the right"-but i FEEL (see Hume) that Hitler was a bit of a git.
And i act accordingly. so there is no problem.

[Snorri1234]

no, they arte cultural "norms"-they are not oblective. I disapprove, like Poirot, of murder. But a tribe in the Amonzian rainforest (they are so handy, those tribes!) approve of murder.
who am i to say i'm right.
Only if you believe in God does "objective" morality make sense.
and then its based on a flawed premise.
ie that God exists.
which is nonsense.

ok. fair enough.

However, to ignore objective morals, you must deny God.
This means however, you can never say someone is in the wrong. A nazi or a communist is just as "right" as you are in his ethics.

Hah no. Because their opinions are ill-informed and just plain fucking stupid.

[Napoleon Ier]

no, they arte cultural "norms"-they are not oblective. I disapprove, like Poirot, of murder. But a tribe in the Amonzian rainforest (they are so handy, those tribes!) approve of murder.
who am i to say i'm right.
Only if you believe in God does "objective" morality make sense.
and then its based on a flawed premise.
ie that God exists.
which is nonsense.

ok. fair enough.

However, to ignore objective morals, you must deny God.
This means however, you can never say someone is in the wrong. A nazi or a communist is just as "right" as you are in his ethics.

Hah no. Because their opinions are ill-informed and just plain fucking stupid.

By what standard?

[Snorri1234]

no, they arte cultural "norms"-they are not oblective. I disapprove, like Poirot, of murder. But a tribe in the Amonzian rainforest (they are so handy, those tribes!) approve of murder.
who am i to say i'm right.
Only if you believe in God does "objective" morality make sense.
and then its based on a flawed premise.
ie that God exists.
which is nonsense.

ok. fair enough.

However, to ignore objective morals, you must deny God.
This means however, you can never say someone is in the wrong. A nazi or a communist is just as "right" as you are in his ethics.

Hah no. Because their opinions are ill-informed and just plain fucking stupid.

By what standard?

Reason and science.
For example: Saying that jews are less than humans is silly, because they're clearly not.

[Napoleon Ier]

no, they arte cultural "norms"-they are not oblective. I disapprove, like Poirot, of murder. But a tribe in the Amonzian rainforest (they are so handy, those tribes!) approve of murder.
who am i to say i'm right.
Only if you believe in God does "objective" morality make sense.
and then its based on a flawed premise.
ie that God exists.
which is nonsense.

ok. fair enough.

However, to ignore objective morals, you must deny God.
This means however, you can never say someone is in the wrong. A nazi or a communist is just as "right" as you are in his ethics.

Hah no. Because their opinions are ill-informed and just plain fucking stupid.

By what standard?

Reason and science.
For example: Saying that jews are less than humans is silly, because they're clearly not.

But why is killing them wrong?

[Snorri1234]

no, they arte cultural "norms"-they are not oblective. I disapprove, like Poirot, of murder. But a tribe in the Amonzian rainforest (they are so handy, those tribes!) approve of murder.
who am i to say i'm right.
Only if you believe in God does "objective" morality make sense.
and then its based on a flawed premise.
ie that God exists.
which is nonsense.

ok. fair enough.

However, to ignore objective morals, you must deny God.
This means however, you can never say someone is in the wrong. A nazi or a communist is just as "right" as you are in his ethics.

Hah no. Because their opinions are ill-informed and just plain fucking stupid.

By what standard?

Reason and science.
For example: Saying that jews are less than humans is silly, because they're clearly not.

But why is killing them wrong?

By that logic killing anyone wouldn't be a bad thing, since we're all the same. And since that would mean society couldn't function in any way, we just use as a general rule that killing is wrong.
It's very simple. Our societies are build on the general principle that our individual rights are there because a society without them wouldn't prosper.

[Napoleon Ier]

no, they arte cultural "norms"-they are not oblective. I disapprove, like Poirot, of murder. But a tribe in the Amonzian rainforest (they are so handy, those tribes!) approve of murder.
who am i to say i'm right.
Only if you believe in God does "objective" morality make sense.
and then its based on a flawed premise.
ie that God exists.
which is nonsense.

ok. fair enough.

However, to ignore objective morals, you must deny God.
This means however, you can never say someone is in the wrong. A nazi or a communist is just as "right" as you are in his ethics.

Hah no. Because their opinions are ill-informed and just plain fucking stupid.

By what standard?

Reason and science.
For example: Saying that jews are less than humans is silly, because they're clearly not.

But why is killing them wrong?

By that logic killing anyone wouldn't be a bad thing, since we're all the same. And since that would mean society couldn't function in any way, we just use as a general rule that killing is wrong.
It's very simple. Our societies are build on the general principle that our individual rights are there because a society without them wouldn't prosper.

In which case you admit there's nothing wrong about the holocaust, rape, paedophilia or infanticide, just that it is societally inconvieniant.

So, tell me, what for example, is wrong with killing off people in Africa because the world population is too large? It benefits society...

[comic boy]

A 12 week old embryo is not a person,that is the difference.

[Snorri1234]

In which case you admit there's nothing wrong about the holocaust, rape, paedophilia or infanticide, just that it is societally inconvieniant.

So, tell me, what for example, is wrong with killing off people in Africa because the world population is too large? It benefits society...

I can't understand why you would miss the point.
Societial convenience needs to be also applied to everyone equally. It's just plain wrong to choose one group of people over the other. Killing people because they are different is fucking stupid because they are not less than anyone else.
I think noone can make a good case for killing someone, so therefore it's wrong.

The rights of humans aren't god-given, but in a sense they are absolute because they apply to everyone. And those rights are made because that is what a reasonable person would like for himself. A person doesn't want to get raped, killed or discriminated against, so the only solution that is fair is appyling it to everyone.

[Napoleon Ier]

A 12 week old embryo is not a person,that is the difference.

I'm sorry, are you following the debate a all or are you just trying to display your imbecility again?

Do you have any idea what an embryo is (cos I can tell you at 8 weks it isn't an embryo)?

Does this look inhuman to you?

[Napoleon Ier]

In which case you admit there's nothing wrong about the holocaust, rape, paedophilia or infanticide, just that it is societally inconvieniant.

So, tell me, what for example, is wrong with killing off people in Africa because the world population is too large? It benefits society...

I can't understand why you would miss the point.
Societial convenience needs to be also applied to everyone equally. It's just plain wrong to choose one group of people over the other. Killing people because they are different is fucking stupid because they are not less than anyone else.
I think noone can make a good case for killing someone, so therefore it's wrong.

The rights of humans aren't god-given, but in a sense they are absolute because they apply to everyone. And those rights are made because that is what a reasonable person would like for himself. A person doesn't want to get raped, killed or discriminated against, so the only solution that is fair is appyling it to everyone.

fair? where do you get the concept that anything is fair,or just from?

[Snorri1234]

fair? where do you get the concept that anything is fair,or just from?

Reason.
The problem is that I can't prove that I'm better than everyone, the same way they can't prove they're better than me. So we're equal. Equality means that things have to be done fair.

[Napoleon Ier]

fair? where do you get the concept that anything is fair,or just from?

Reason.
The problem is that I can't prove that I'm better than everyone, the same way they can't prove they're better than me. So we're equal. Equality means that things have to be done fair.

You can't get that kind of moral concept though from an atheistic base. What makes it wrong for you to kill? Nothing.

[got tonkaed]

Religion is in no way the only institution that has claimed its a bad idea to kill.

Likewise with society as developed as it is right now, you could certainly not have a single experience in a religious arena and know its not acceptable to kill individuals.