You are so fucking predictable. YOU are the one on here claiming so-called 'atheists' are amoral, yet you refuse to even define 'morality'. I defined it miles ago on this thread, but you ignore every single point made to you. Why don't you just fuck off and find somewhere else to proselytise with your insulting claims.Immanuel Can wrote:Rather, just answer the question. One word. One.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Why don't you just define 'morality' then, and clear up this incredibly boring and pointless discussion.
A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists
- vegetariantaxidermy
- Posts: 13975
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
- Location: Narniabiznus
Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists
Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists
Immanuel Can wrote:
Rather, just answer the question. One word. One.
Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists
This is Mr Can's way of saying 'Wait till your father gets home'. Our father, who art in heaven has a great big bag of sweeties, and a fucking huge stick. For Mr Can being good is about promoting your own self interest; it is the morality of children.Immanuel Can wrote:Yes, you are...and will be accountable for the same.Hobbes' Choice wrote:I am responsible for my choices and my honour.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 27604
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:You are so fucking predictable. YOU are the one on here claiming so-called 'atheists' are amoral, yet you refuse to even define 'morality'. I defined it miles ago on this thread, but you ignore every single point made to you. Why don't you just fuck off and find somewhere else to proselytise with your insulting claims.Immanuel Can wrote:Rather, just answer the question. One word. One.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Why don't you just define 'morality' then, and clear up this incredibly boring and pointless discussion.
One word would have been shorter. And you would have won your point.
Either you don't want to win...or can't.
I'm thinking it's the latter.
- vegetariantaxidermy
- Posts: 13975
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
- Location: Narniabiznus
Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists
You have to define the word first. There's not a heck of a lot of point in answering an answerable 'question'. Or is that the whole point? The only way you can 'win' your ridiculous 'argument'.Immanuel Can wrote:vegetariantaxidermy wrote:You are so fucking predictable. YOU are the one on here claiming so-called 'atheists' are amoral, yet you refuse to even define 'morality'. I defined it miles ago on this thread, but you ignore every single point made to you. Why don't you just fuck off and find somewhere else to proselytise with your insulting claims.Immanuel Can wrote:
Rather, just answer the question. One word. One.
One word would have been shorter. And you would have won your point.
Either you don't want to win...or can't.
I'm thinking it's the latter.
I noticed you bad-mouthing islam earlier. Are you suggesting your version of 'morality' (whatever you think it is, because we are all in the dark about that) is better than theirs?
Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists
Morality means to be moral, or to act morally, as in not harming another person. There is nothing in Atheism that supports morality.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: You have to define the word first.
Last edited by thedoc on Tue Dec 06, 2016 9:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- vegetariantaxidermy
- Posts: 13975
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
- Location: Narniabiznus
Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists
I didn't ask you. And that is not a definition. It's a moronic answer, but expected.thedoc wrote:Morality means to be moral, or to act morally. There is nothing in Atheism that supports morality.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: You have to define the word first.
Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists
Just trying to post something that you can understand.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: It's a moronic answer.
- vegetariantaxidermy
- Posts: 13975
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
- Location: Narniabiznus
Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists
thedoc wrote:Morality means to be moral, or to act morally, as in not harming another person. There is nothing in Atheism that supports morality.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: You have to define the word first.
Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists
So he did. Oh well, here's my response to the original version.
That's not much help. What does one do to act morally?thedoc wrote:Morality means to be moral, or to act morally.
Do you think there is something in "Atheism" that supports immorality?thedoc wrote:There is nothing in Atheism that supports morality.
- vegetariantaxidermy
- Posts: 13975
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
- Location: Narniabiznus
Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists
Excellent question. Don't expect any answers though (keeping in mind that those clowns refuse to define either morality or immorality).uwot wrote:So he did. Oh well, here's my response to the original version.That's not much help. What does one do to act morally?thedoc wrote:Morality means to be moral, or to act morally.Do you think there is something in "Atheism" that supports immorality?thedoc wrote:There is nothing in Atheism that supports morality.
Last edited by vegetariantaxidermy on Tue Dec 06, 2016 9:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists
So by that definition god, who will harm the vast majority of human beings for eternity, is pretty fucking immoral.thedoc wrote:Morality means to be moral, or to act morally, as in not harming another person.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 27604
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists
Honestly, given your confusions, I don't think I can make it simple enough for you. But I'll try.vegetariantaxidermy wrote:You have to define the word first.
Say one thing (a value, an ethic, a moral precept) that every Atheist is rationally, ethically obliged to respect and uphold.
Let me even hand you an easy one: is there anything inherent to being an Atheist that makes it morally bad for an Atheist to commit genocide?
Most people will instinctively say that's "bad." Would an Atheist be bound to do the same? And why?
Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists
Thank you. I don't; I take it as a huge compliment that neither Mr Can, nor thedoc, have the balls to answer my questions.vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Excellent question. Don't expect any answers though.uwot wrote:Do you think there is something in "Atheism" that supports immorality?
- vegetariantaxidermy
- Posts: 13975
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
- Location: Narniabiznus
Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists
Is there something inherent in kristians to commit genocide? because they do it a heck of a lot. I don't remember the last genocide I committed. It must have slipped my mind.Immanuel Can wrote:Honestly, given your confusions, I don't think I can make it simple enough for you. But I'll try.vegetariantaxidermy wrote:You have to define the word first.
Say one thing (a value, an ethic, a moral precept) that every Atheist is rationally, ethically obliged to respect and uphold.
Let me even hand you an easy one: is there anything inherent to being an Atheist that makes it morally bad for an Atheist to commit genocide?
Most people will instinctively say that's "bad." Would an Atheist be bound to do the same? And why?
So we now have a definiton of 'morality'. It means you mustn't commit genocide.
Last edited by vegetariantaxidermy on Tue Dec 06, 2016 9:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.