Bhutto killed
- Started
- Last post
- 72 Responses
- mikotondria30
** I think he's gone..** (Teleos)
- TheBlueOne0
Hahaha..you think I have time to devote to your rash of strawman setups with setups? Brother, I'm tired of every freakin' religious nut trying to steal my precious time to convince me that he's got some super secret to life. Get outta my way son, I got some livin' and dyin' to do. Just like I met and had some pleasant words with your Jesus fellow I left him far behind, just as I do now with you. I shant be engaging you or your lightweight time wasting viewpoints again.
- teleos0
blueOne:
1. If you go back a few pages you'll see that it was Mikotondria who turned this into a discussion about religion and morality. Care to do some intense investigation on that?
2. "all powerful supreme nanny in the sky." = Strawman (a term you should be well acquainted with by now). If not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Str…
3. Children stop believing in fairies and santa claus, etc... They either keep believing or start believing in God on into adulthood. Hmmmm.
4. If there is nothing beyond material, then morals do not matter in principle. They are illusory. I don't know how many different ways I can explain it. Perhaps you could benefit from one of my freshman philosophy textbooks? Ok a remedial one then.
Got that? Write that down.
- how can a practicing christian be such a spiteful motherfucker?mrdobolina
- ...and 14 minutes later we get a response...you just live to respond to these don't you?TheBlueOne
- Spite? I'm having fun.teleos
- when in Rome. ;)teleos
- it's like you don't practice what your god preaches though. I don't practice it either, but I do not pretend to.mrdobolina
- I should have a more gentle tone. You are right. I am just prone to "giving it right back". I need work in that dept.teleos
- TheBlueOne0
"Otherwise your only other option is to accept that morality is a pragmatic necessity resulting from material processes and thus dies when the human brain dies. This is absurd."
A) Not Absurd.
B) Better than believing in some all powerful supreme nanny in the sky.
C) It's what adults do, take responsibilty for their actions in the real material world where real material things can help or harm us depending on our choices. Children believe in fairies, boogie men and the dumber ones, "god".
d) stop turning every freaking discussion about political events into your lame ass religious morality crap with a side order of you r half ass psuedo science discussion and cliff notes from freshman philosophy classes.
- Yes.madirish
- Corollary: If there were no humans, would there be "morality"?TheBlueOne
- That was my point. If there is no "mind" which set an absolute standard and gave us our sense of right and wrong, then no. The illusory notion of morality dies with the human brain.
teleos
- mrdobolina0
I am at a loss as to how my saying all non-religious people are immoral is in any way different than what you are saying above.
- or is it that I have this morality given to my by your religion even though I choose not to accept it?mrdobolina
- teleos0
Mikotondria: How can you not understand that humanity, compassion and kindness are qualities which cannot be explained by blind material processes, but rather are the hallmarks of intentional design and purpose?
And again, you capitalize on incidents involving religious groups and then make broad sweeping generalizations. All the while discarding those inconvenient facts about all the good that has been done in the name of "religion" throughout the centuries. You lack intellectual honesty.
Further, I have not argued for "religion" as the source of morality. I have argued that morality only makes sense within a theistic framework where an absolute and objective standard has been established. Otherwise your only other option is to accept that morality is a pragmatic necessity resulting from material processes and thus dies when the human brain dies. This is absurd.
- you can't "logic" people into believing your mumbo jumbo...mrdobolina
- dskz0
anarchists give me a headache
- mikotondria20
"name one ethical statement made,
or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever. And here is my second challenge. Can (you) think of a wicked statement made, or an evil action performed, precisely because of religious faith"The second part I propose, covers the murder of Bhutto.
There is no answer to the 1st. Belief is not necessary for any action of compassion, generosity, kindness etc, trust me, it's how I operate. Even down to the 'human sacrifice' of christ, and beyond - any action carried out based on a 'faith' that it was right (rather than actual knowledge of same), has been carried out by people who see it as untirely unrelated to any superstition.
How can you not understand that humanity, compassion and kindness are intrinsic qualities of people, as are the senses of awe and wonder and connectedness that are labeled 'spiritual' and seen as entirely the governance of religion ?
Religion and religious leaders seek to convince everyone that they have special knowledge of these aspects of human experience, and that their particular extensive research into the philosophy behind them grants them (and therefore you) priveledges that include transgressing otherwise set rules on morality. Kill the unbeliever, lock up Galileo, change the textbooks, crusade against the heretics, and so on, and so on. Morality and religion are oil and water.
- teleos0
mrdobolina and bonseff have made a career at NT out of committing the genetic fallacy and dodging the matter at hand.
Learn:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gen…It doesn't matter if it's D'Souza, Lane Craig, JP Moreland, Ravi Zaccharias, etc... the logic of the argument stands regardless of who is employing it. This is not rocket science.
- you are delusionalBonSeff
- your truth comes from christian science internet articles. save it flagellumBonSeff
- seriously, baby jesus weeps everytime you insult me.mrdobolina
- telos is flagellum?
FFS.madirish - maybe/maybe not - to me, they are all flagellum-
flagellum everywhere!BonSeff
- dskz0
She faked her death and went underground. Heh...she faked it, typical woman. 8D
- mrdobolina0
Dinesh D'Souza? Really?
Here's the main argument, such as it is. Why has al-Qaeda targeted America? "Not because of U.S. troops in Mecca," D'Souza writes. "Not even because of Israel. . . . The suicide bombers of radical Islam are not blowing themselves up because they are distressed over the Gulf War of 1991 or because they are in solidarity with the Palestinians." Rather, "what bin Laden objected to was America staying in the Middle East, importing with it the immoral ingredients of American values and culture." That makes the left "responsible for 9/11" because it "has fostered a decadent American culture that angers and repulses traditional societies" and has waged "an aggressive global campaign to undermine the traditional patriarchal family and to promote secular values in non-Western cultures." In sum, "the cultural left and its allies in Congress, the media, Hollywood, the nonprofit sector, and the universities are the primary cause of the volcano of anger toward America that is erupting from the Islamic world."
The guy is a fucking nut.
- The argument of the article I posted, had you read it you would understand, is that it is silly for secularists to use the "religion has dun wrong in the past", while at the same time ignoring the evils it has committed.teleos
- teleos0
This might provide you with some perspective, mikotondria...
- http://en.wikipedia.…BonSeff
- a really interesting thing about that article is religious peeps arent "supposed" to kill anyone...mrdobolina
- while seculars make no such claim.mrdobolina
- lol. Read a book, mrdobolina. My goodness you can't even glean the point of a simple poignant article like that one!?teleos
- BonSeff: Godwin's Law applies to a comparison to Hitler. Not the listing of statistics regarding Hitler's regime. Please put your critical thinking/reading cap on and and then report back to me.teleos
- geralddean0
son her son is taking the reigns, eh?
he is 19...
- mikotondria20
Yeh, I love the way that the church battered beat and burned free-thinking women and called them witches for hundreds of years, that was a class act, and exactly the same thinking as the murdering fundies that have us in their cross-hairs (pun intended) right now.
Fuck them lot of them, I've really really really had enough of all of them.
Apart that is, from maybe the people from the Salvation Army who stand outside in the rain for hours collecting money to help people that life has shit on, those people I applaud and give money and props to, whether they believe in the bloke in the sky or not, but particularly if they say they are doing it because they believe it, but don't really.
We had some mormons knock the door recently, and if they asked me if I was aware of the church of jesus blah de blah, I gladly and proudly said 'no - Im an atheist', enjoying the look on their faces that was akin to someone who has seen the devil himself, and they pointed to the father christmas hung up in our window and said 'but you're happy to celebrate santa claus coming, I see ?' (the snarky little clones)..
'Yes, but we both know that he really IS a fictional person, don't we ?' I replied.
To which they responded by giving me a little card with a renaissance style depiction of a caucasian man with a black beard and a funny greenish costume.
When I stared at it then looked away at a white wall - ho hoho ! It was Santa Himself. A true-a a-miracle-a at-a a-Christmass time-a.- jesus was the first honky to spread freedom in the middle east - get with the programBonSeff
- The "church" did no such thing. Gross generalizations and slippery slope, seem to be your fallacy of choice.teleos
- It was the "church" that was at the heart of the civil rights movement and abolition of slavery. Inconvenient, I know.teleos
- it's also the church of fred phelps who says god hates fags, so you are back to square onemrdobolina
- lol! The "church" we are speaking of is professing believers worldwide. Not some internet cult, you dolt.teleos
- keep insulting me. it shows how much of an enlightened christian you are.mrdobolina
- mrdobolina0
everyone who is not christian is immoral, don't you get it?
- did you check hickabee's act on meet the press? particularly his spin on sin, homosexuality and abortion?
fuck that closed-minded aholeBonSeff - what is terrible is the politicization of abortion. It's not exclusively a conservative/xian standpoint that it is wrong.mikotondria2
- You are terribly thick, mrdobolina. The point you insist on missing is that there really is no such thing as morality/immorality if they are illusory products of animal brains.teleos
- everytime you insult me, baby jesus criesmrdobolina
- did you check hickabee's act on meet the press? particularly his spin on sin, homosexuality and abortion?
- mikotondria20
To bring it slightly back to topic, the people that killed Bhutto and themselves did so because they believed they were entitled to do so because their god said it was ok, and they believed this to be the case because someone ELSE told them that was true.
You can examine that sentence and see that their reasoning is uttely false, yet you lack the ability to turn that logic upon yourself and your own ideas on the origin or basis of morality, for to do so would reveal that such a position bears a great deal more in common with murdering fundamentalists than with the rest of the world that have to put up with them, and you, and that whereas they will murder in these cirucmstances based on their idiotic superstition, you would require a different set of circumstances to carry out acts which contraviened 'mere mortal' morality, it is simply a question of degree: you would harm someone based on nothing other than an unprovable, abstract belief in divinity, and divine purpose , or you would not, and I will fight you every inch to make sure you and the billions of other innocent people affected by this idiocy don't get near me or my family.
The sooner you all get taken up, the sooner the rest of us can get on with whatever other non-cloud-floating activities we please.- You seem to have a problem with compartmentalizing people into neat little groups that you can understand/label. Evidently, anyone who has faith in a higher being is a "murdering fundamentalist". Sounds like you might be an Atheist fundie.
It is superstitious to believe that matter produced matter and information out of nothing. Whereas an inference to a designing intelligence is logical and warranted, based on the empirical evidence. We've been over this before, don't you know.teleos - Remember, right/wrong is subjective, so you are contradicting yourself by expressing righteous indignation in defense of "innocent people".teleos
- You seem to have a problem with compartmentalizing people into neat little groups that you can understand/label. Evidently, anyone who has faith in a higher being is a "murdering fundamentalist". Sounds like you might be an Atheist fundie.
- PonyBoy0
Inconceivable!
- mikotondria20
"absolute standard" ? What does this even mean here ?
Do you mean some kind of meta-rule by which the other rules are formed ?
And yes, it is utterly superstition to believe that the rules described as the 10 commandments (there were many others that were discarded), were dictated from a supernatural source. Its almost the definition of superstition..
"The only other option is that they are the product of the human mind and therefore die when the human mind is gone from this earth."
Yes of course they are the product of the human mind, they are abstract concepts, but being such cannot 'die' for they are not material.
But even there you confoud the issue...'gone from this earth '? Do you mean in space, on the moon, how far away from the earth do you mean ?
The meta rule for morality, I will postulate, (and it will probably sound familiar to you), is:
"Dont do something to someone else, that you wouldnt want them to do to you"...
I think that fits your idea of "what is right for you may not be right for me (and who is to judge?)".
And for that matter, we are all to judge, for we are all responsible for each other, whether we like it or not.- If such a meta rule is the product of molecules in motion, then in principle it doesn't matter what we do. Do as you please. No one may judge you.teleos
- No one is responsible to anyone else. Unless there is a universal absolute standard, I can do anything I want. In principle. This is not a difficult concept.teleos
- teleos0
"right" and "wrong" only have any meaning if there is an absolute standard with which to juxtapose them. Otherwise, what is right for you may not be right for me (and who is to judge?). Superstition has nothing to do with this; it is a matter of logic. The point of the argument is that right and wrong must have immaterial value and not reducable to social conventions, etc... The only other option is that they are the product of the human mind and therefore die when the human mind is gone from this earth. ie. prior to the human mind, there was no such thing as right or wrong, as this is what a materialistic framework necessitates. And therefore, such concepts are illusory and useless.
- ...and therefore something beyond blind material causes must be the originator of what we recognize as right and wrong.teleos
- yeah that thing is called societal norms. in times of war people kill, are they all heallbound?mrdobolina
- there is no absolute standardribit
- Good job, ribit. Do you mind then if we go out and rob the elderly together? I mean, it's acceptable by MY standard of right and wrong. It's a stress reliever.teleos