Godless morality

[JillSwift]

Tripe

You're not worth further time. Buh bye.

[Davin]

there are various claims:
1) i need to see more context, but even this is not a valid claim because a human can make a judgment solely from the photo
2) it's an accident perhaps due to something like wind or erosion or an earthquake
3) it's the result of humans
4) it's the result of some other intelligence such as aliens

almost everyone except atheists goes with 2. atheists don't want to admit humans did it because they understand that they're inferring design based on intuition.

No, most atheists would say they don't know... unless they did know, in which case they would provide the evidence for their claim.

Let me give you some advice: Stop assuming. Your baseless speculation means nothing useful, it gets in the way, wastes other peoples time and makes you look like someone not concerned with honest debate.

[harriet_tubman]

No, most atheists would say they don't know... unless they did know, in which case they would provide the evidence for their claim.

right, most atheists would say number one which shows how irrational they are. anyone with any sense would choose 3.

this is my challenge to you davin.  take that photo and show it to 10 people and say, i, davin, believe there is not info in this photo to decide whether or not it is the result of human agency and see what the general common sense reaction is.

[Sophus]

harriet_tubman please stop telling us what we believe after we've already told you we do not think that way. Thanks.  

[harriet_tubman]

In the universes I created, destruction was good. It's what got you points and extra lives.

this is impossible because if a creator suddenly repented of his creation we wouldn't be here.

The point is: without first even knowing that a creator exists, speculating as to what the imaginary creator wants is completely pointless.

none of us can ever KNOW what happened in the beginning, we have to make a decision based on the info available to us, and if the most rational decision is that we do not have enough info then so be it.  when we see fine-tuning the most rational inference is that it is the result of intelligence.

Most of us humans have similar goals. By bringing up homosexuals, Klu Klux Klan, Hitler, slaves, purple aliens, Mexicans... it doesn't matter, almost all of us want to stay alive and don't want our stuff taken. That doesn't require a god at all, just us.

most humans do not have similar goals.  there are the greedy and there are the altruistic, though of course almost all are a combination of both.  now how do you prove to someone who is greedy that he is wrong.  for example:

you: nero, you're a bad person because you killed you're mother
nero: this world is kill or be killed

how do you prove that he is wrong?  

So most people do like to have their stuff taken?

my point is your maxim to not steal doesn't explain a lot.

Really, cute little rabbit frolicking in the forest is a destructive life force?

cute little rabbit is not a destructive life forest.  i don't see how you imply that i believe that.

There are several laws that came from people claiming to know that a god existed and on top of that what that god wanted, do you support these laws?

this is the because people do bad things in the name of God, God therefore does not exist fallacy.  and no, i don't support those laws and those people that made them were wrong.

Because that is exactly what you're proposing.

no, it's not.  please demonstrate how.

Davin,
i'm still waiting for your justification of right and wrong in an accidental universe other than "most humans have common goals."

[Whitney]

since you're not willing to state that creators hate creation and since you're not willing to back up the statement that random forces can create designs with evidence there is no debate between us.

There is debate. You make a claim and I say your claim is bogus as it is riddled with fallacy and is not evidenced in the least. I don't have to offer a counter-claim, that's just a facile gambit on your part.

no there isn't a debate.  here's how our debates work.

me: because of x therefore y
you: wrong
me: why
you: i don't have to state a reason

This is a warning regarding the following post made by you: viewtopic.php?f=5&p=66506#p66506 .

haf is for civil discussion, you have not been civil since you got here and this is a prime example.  shape up or ship out.

[Whitney]

dawkins certainly does.  do you believe the cosmos is the result of an intention?  if you do then you're a theist.

To add to your warning...if you continue to insist that Dawkins is some sort of atheist pope I'm going to give you another warning then ban you.  Continuing to try to shoe horn all atheists into what you think they should be is evidence of not wanting to have a civil and productive conversation and we don't need that type on nonsense around here.

[harriet_tubman]

dawkins certainly does.  do you believe the cosmos is the result of an intention?  if you do then you're a theist.

To add to your warning...if you continue to insist that Dawkins is some sort of atheist pope I'm going to give you another warning then ban you.  Continuing to try to shoe horn all atheists into what you think they should be is evidence of not wanting to have a civil and productive conversation and we don't need that type on nonsense around here.

if you ban me that will send a message to other atheists: we hate to hear other people's ideas. besides, i've clicked on your sponsors more than 10 to 20 times.  i've brought you a lot of business.

[Davin]

In the universes I created, destruction was good. It's what got you points and extra lives.

this is impossible because if a creator suddenly repented of his creation we wouldn't be here.

Impossible? No I have done it several times. It's not impossible.

The point is: without first even knowing that a creator exists, speculating as to what the imaginary creator wants is completely pointless.

none of us can ever KNOW what happened in the beginning, we have to make a decision based on the info available to us, and if the most rational decision is that we do not have enough info then so be it.  when we see fine-tuning the most rational inference is that it is the result of intelligence.

If it's rational, then what is your reasoning? Where is your evidence?

Most of us humans have similar goals. By bringing up homosexuals, Klu Klux Klan, Hitler, slaves, purple aliens, Mexicans... it doesn't matter, almost all of us want to stay alive and don't want our stuff taken. That doesn't require a god at all, just us.

most humans do not have similar goals.  there are the greedy and there are the altruistic, though of course almost all are a combination of both.  now how do you prove to someone who is greedy that he is wrong.  for example:

you: nero, you're a bad person because you killed you're mother
nero: this world is kill or be killed

how do you prove that he is wrong?

What does this have to do with the discussion of laws that we're having?

So most people do like to have their stuff taken?

my point is your maxim to not steal doesn't explain a lot.

My point is that because most of us have similar interests like not having our stuff stolen, it naturally leads into a civilization making laws against stealing.

Really, cute little rabbit frolicking in the forest is a destructive life force?

cute little rabbit is not a destructive life forest.  i don't see how you imply that i believe that.

Really? You need me to go over the conversation with you? Why don't you go back reread the conversation.

There are several laws that came from people claiming to know that a god existed and on top of that what that god wanted, do you support these laws?

this is the because people do bad things in the name of God, God therefore does not exist fallacy.  and no, i don't support those laws and those people that made them were wrong.

No, I'm asking you, since you previously said that we just have to extrapolate what some creator of the universe wants in order to make a decision as to what is right and wrong. This has been done lots of times before, so I'm asking: do you support these laws which came about by the very same speculative process that you're saying that we should use?

Because that is exactly what you're proposing.

no, it's not.  please demonstrate how.

Please refer to... everything you said. And the above.

Davin,
i'm still waiting for your justification of right and wrong in an accidental universe other than "most humans have common goals."

Then you're going to be waiting a long time. Why are you moving the goal post to some field I don't even play in?

[harriet_tubman]

creators by their very nature enjoy creating, otherwise they wouldn't be creators.  That's obvious. would you like to take the opposing view that creators don't like to create?

More wacky assertions made without evidence.  This statement is just your conjecture put forth as fact.

if it's such a wacky assertion, that creators like to create then try out this statement on some strangers and see how they react: "i, pinkocommie, do not believe creators like to create.  see how far you get.

I'm going to let you in on a secret - even if you add comments about your own assertions like 'that's obvious' and seem to really REALLY believe your assertions are factual, that's not enough to make them factual.

when we're talking about metaphysics we're dealing with speculation and an absence of hard concrete, rock solid evidence.  this is where faith comes in.  the atheist puts his faith in an accidental universe.  the agnostic says, well, the universe is fine-tuned but i still don't know.  the theist says where there is fine-tuning there is intelligence.  you have to make a decision, if you refuse to make a decision then you're an agnostic and even that decision is untenable.  

I don't know the motivations of everything that could possibly be considered a creator, so claiming that creators don't like to create is the same amount of absurd as claiming creators like to create.

not true.  would you say destroyers hate destruction just as much as they love it?  would you say accountant love accounting just as much as they hate it?  

Not believing the universe is a result of an intention does not mean that I have to think the universe was created by accident.

it's really a minor point.  you might as well say that just because i like scarlet does not mean i like crimson. why are you so ashamed to admit that the universe is accidental?

[pinkocommie]

dawkins certainly does.  do you believe the cosmos is the result of an intention?  if you do then you're a theist.

To add to your warning...if you continue to insist that Dawkins is some sort of atheist pope I'm going to give you another warning then ban you.  Continuing to try to shoe horn all atheists into what you think they should be is evidence of not wanting to have a civil and productive conversation and we don't need that type on nonsense around here.

if you ban me that will send a message to other atheists: we hate to hear other people's ideas. besides, i've clicked on your sponsors more than 10 to 20 times.  i've brought you a lot of business.

Your inflated sense of self importance is showing.  Banning you won't send any message to anyone, you're not that important.

[harriet_tubman]

this is impossible because if a creator suddenly repented of his creation we wouldn't be here.

Impossible? No I have done it several times. It's not impossible.

provide me with a concrete example.

none of us can ever KNOW what happened in the beginning, we have to make a decision based on the info available to us, and if the most rational decision is that we do not have enough info then so be it.  when we see fine-tuning the most rational inference is that it is the result of intelligence.

If it's rational, then what is your reasoning? Where is your evidence?

my reasoning is simple.  let's take wind, there's a random force.  i have been watching wind all my life.  i have never seen wind take some sticks and create anything of any significance whatsoever.  it takes intelligence to fine-tune parts.  let's say you build a car.  only an intelligence can know what bolts are needed, what crews are needed. an unintelligent force cannot distinguish between a 1000 different parts.  an unintelligent force, like a computer, can follow orders such as those written in code, but a computer cannot write a code.  

you: nero, you're a bad person because you killed you're mother
nero: this world is kill or be killed
how do you prove that he is wrong?

What does this have to do with the discussion of laws that we're having?

you said people have similar goals, therefore there is right and wrong.  i say how do you prove to someone who has dissimilar goals that his goals are wrong.

My point is that because most of us have similar interests like not having our stuff stolen, it naturally leads into a civilization making laws against stealing.

actually laws are mostly written by the powerful.  so let's take the bailout.  wall st managed to legally steal millions and millions of dollars from the american people.  back in 1800 it was legal to enslave people.  mankind having similar interests has nothing to do with right and wrong.  

Really, cute little rabbit frolicking in the forest is a destructive life force?

cute little rabbit is not a destructive life forest.  i don't see how you imply that i believe that.

Really? You need me to go over the conversation with you? Why don't you go back reread the conversation.

i read it and didn't find out what you're referring to.

No, I'm asking you, since you previously said that we just have to extrapolate what some creator of the universe wants in order to make a decision as to what is right and wrong. This has been done lots of times before, so I'm asking: do you support these laws which came about by the very same speculative process that you're saying that we should use?

in the past people tried to determine what God wanted by referring to some stupid passage in a book.  what i'm suggesting is that we determine what is good based on whether or not it helps life on earth as a whole, hardly a controversial enterprise.  

Davin,
i'm still waiting for your justification of right and wrong in an accidental universe other than "most humans have common goals."

Then you're going to be waiting a long time. Why are you moving the goal post to some field I don't even play in?[/quote]

you have clearly stated that most humans share common goals, therefore right and wrong can be determined, haven't you?  if you haven't then where do right and wrong come from?  

i'm suggesting that if you start from the premise that the universe is accidental then morality is basically "anything goes."  do you disagree?

[pinkocommie]

why are you so ashamed to admit that the universe is accidental?

 

Obvious troll is obvious.

[Whitney]

dawkins certainly does.  do you believe the cosmos is the result of an intention?  if you do then you're a theist.

To add to your warning...if you continue to insist that Dawkins is some sort of atheist pope I'm going to give you another warning then ban you.  Continuing to try to shoe horn all atheists into what you think they should be is evidence of not wanting to have a civil and productive conversation and we don't need that type on nonsense around here.

if you ban me that will send a message to other atheists: we hate to hear other people's ideas. besides, i've clicked on your sponsors more than 10 to 20 times.  i've brought you a lot of business.

ROFLOL  clicking on an add is the equivalent of pennies; i really don't care if you click on them or not.

And no, it will just send a message that we don't allow people who can't play nice to post here; we ban theists and atheists alike and have resident theists who are able to play nice with others.

Does this mean you want to be banned now rather than later?  I can make exceptions.

[Whitney]

why are you so ashamed to admit that the universe is accidental?

 

Obvious troll is obvious.

Obvious troll is on thin ice.  I typically don't issue a second warning in the same day so we'll see what harriet has to say tomorrow.