Imperefct God

[gaffo]

[
That's right. It doesn't tell you to be moral. It doesn't tell you to be immoral. Rather, it means that "moral" is a meaningless term.

So it's "amoral." That is precisely the right term for it.

Exactly! its amorol - so like Sweden and Switerland in ww2 - neutral - why do you rail agaisnt ti?


serously - I'm wonder why so much vile against Switzerland.

[gaffo]

They have a one-precept creeed: "No gods." But that has implications.

my bad - thanks for correcting me - you ar eright we do have that one creed.

now how/why does that have "impications"?

[gaffo]

, I'm glad most Atheists are inconsistent.

touche.


off topic, but in our banter my mind goes to it. have you ever seen the 70's movie The Duelists (Ridley Scotts fisrt? movie - its equalt to his other best Alien, but never well known sadly) -

anyway our "duel" reminds me of that movie - if youve not seen it you should its really good - top 50 of all time imo - and i'm pickly (per cenematographiy is top 10 of all time) - but unlike Rob Caradine and Harvey Kitel - we are both Robert - not the dick Harvey playeed in the movie.

[gaffo]

It's both. Because if there is no God, there is no authority for anyone to say what "morality" should be, and no legitimative reality to any "morality" anybody invents.

Evolution is the authority to make man the moral animal via servival of the fitest!!!!!! (man is "here" due to being a moral animal due to being a social animal via insttinct)



man is moral via evoltuion and removing god does not make man less moral.

shock!!!!!!! i know. but true.

[gaffo]

Tochamada(sp) - killined thousand sin the inquasition - being a Chrsitian.

Well, he was a Catholic Inquisitor, actually. But he has nothing to do with Christ, or with me.

Christ killed nobody, and declared, "Love your enemies, and do good to those who use you spitefully." If you think Torquemada got his inspiration from that, you're going to have to explain how.

don'tbe thick, my point is Pol Pot/toq - can both be "good Buddists/Christinas" and still murder thousands in their god's name.........as at least 1000 other ahve per histroy in les number individually - but much more collectivelyly.

[gaffo]

Tochamada(sp) - killined thousand sin the inquasition - being a Chrsitian.

Well, he was a Catholic Inquisitor, actually. But he has nothing to do with Christ, or with me.

why so defensive? - I'm not accusing you (maybe you need to reflect upon Athiests - your views of pr your view of here - I'm not at war with you or your God)

Tor was a Christian - yes a Catholci (you claiming Catholics are nor nor were ever Christian? - if so then present your evidence) - if not then affirm Torq as one of you - a Bleiver in your Christ - who killed 20k at least 600 yrs (same as an type for Allah today..................let me tel you somthing personally that happen to me 8 yrs ago. on my state's capital we had 100 follks with signs "anti islamic sings) hate aarabs etc...........when i showd up on my daily walk around my cap building i noted all the hate (Muslims bad. kill chrsitians etc...) - i heard of the f-16 Jordanian polity that was BURNED ALIVE in a cage - 6?8? yrs ago????? - i se all this Yokalss "FEAR ISALM" hating the islamic polit while they do not know muslim was buring my muslimalive!!!!!!!!!!! - one on OUR SIDE (but these dumb fucks thought - "muslim so not on our side - even though burned alvie by other muslims)!!!!!!!!!!!!! it just fuckign pissing me off.nd fully hate dumb mother fuckers - regardless of ther religon.

so ya fuck the ignorantt - and that inclides you if you do not understand athiest.


otherwise peace.

Christ killed nobody, and declared, "Love your enemies, and do good to those who use you spitefully." If you think Torquemada got his inspiration from that, you're going to have to explain how.

who care what he declaries - only thing that matters is the Cross - as you said.

don'tbe thick, my point is Pol Pot/toq - can both be "good Buddists/Christinas" and still murder thousands in their god's name.........as at least 1000 other ahve per histroy in les number individually - but much more collectivelyly.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

Because if there is no God, there is no authority for anyone to say what "morality" should be, and no legitimative reality to any "morality" anybody invents.

That is correct. The moral that hangs from what you say, and which I agree with, is that we men are now responsible for whichever moral system we choose. God help us, it is a huge responsibility!

It is irresponsible to try to duck of that responsibility by reverting to a notion about God that is past its sell by date.

[Walker]

Would God allow "Imperfect" to be misspelled??? (That's sarcasm).

Of course not, just as God would not allow evil ... (That's sarcasm).

Therefore, there is no God ... (That's sarcasm).

[Immanuel Can]

They have a one-precept creeed: "No gods." But that has implications.

my bad - thanks for correcting me - you ar eright we do have that one creed.

now how/why does that have "impications"?

It's very simple.

If there is no God, then "morality" is just an idea made up by people.

What makes one group of people (say, the Taliban), objectively better or worse than another (say, the Democrats or Republicans)? By what single standard can both be legitimately compared? If God does not exist, no such standard exists. It is not better to respect women than to behead women. Moreover, if more people (as historically and demographically has always been the case) believe that women are NOT equal to men, what standard declares that wrong?

It's not, then, that Atheists will go around beheading women. But from their view, they could, if they wanted to; and if they did, no standard an Atheist could claim would prove that they were wrong to do so. They could also choose to affirm and defend women's rights, as if those were real; but no standard by which they could insist on or defend those rights is possible for an Atheist either, so if the Taliban ignores them, they have no comeback at all. They can't say, "Well, an objective truth exists that you Talibanees are wrong to harm women." The Taliban can simply reply, "You Atheists have no authority to tell us what to do.

Atheism has zero moral information in it. And somebody who is an Atheist has to believe no authority exists that is universal and capable of establishing human rights, or rights and wrongs.

So Atheism, by implication, is always amoral. And those Atheists who may choose to moralize have no leg to stand on.

[Immanuel Can]

have you ever seen the 70's movie The Duelists

No, but I've been meaning to. I like Ridley Scott movies.

[Immanuel Can]

That's right. It doesn't tell you to be moral. It doesn't tell you to be immoral. Rather, it means that "moral" is a meaningless term.
So it's "amoral." That is precisely the right term for it.

Exactly! its amorol - so like Sweden and Switerland in ww2 - neutral - why do you rail agaisnt ti?

I don't "rail," G. I point out what it implies. That's all.

To be "neutral" is good in some instances, but very bad in others.

To remain " neutral" in an equally-balanced conflict, for example, might be fine. But it wouldn't be, if, for example, one side were Hitler and the other were the Allies. Or to remain "neutral" which children or starved and women are assaulted...how is that good? Is it not the case that the good person takes up the good cause? But if a person chooses simply to remain neutral in the face of evil, doesn't that tell you that they are amoral, and lack any compass, at the very least; or at the worst, that they like the evil, or are too personally cowardly to confront it?

[Immanuel Can]

Evolution is the authority to make man the moral animal via servival of the fitest!!!!!! (man is "here" due to being a moral animal due to being a social animal via insttinct)

If you want "survival of the fittest" extended to the human race, then you're a Social Darwinist. But there are serious moral faults in that. One is that it means that the weak have to die, and helping them to survive is unnecessary and contra-Darwinian. Another is that the more "fit" should maximize their advantage at the expense of the "less fit," so the procreation rate turns out in favour of the "fit." That's a rationale for eugenics, which was Hitler's program.

Most people regard that as immoral, not just amoral. And I think they're right to do so, don't you?

[Immanuel Can]

Tochamada(sp) - killined thousand sin the inquasition - being a Chrsitian.

Well, he was a Catholic Inquisitor, actually. But he has nothing to do with Christ, or with me.

why so defensive?

I'm not. I'm just pointing out that if you regard Torquemada as a "Christian," you've obviously got the story wrong. He was no such thing.

[Immanuel Can]

we men are now responsible for whichever moral system we choose.

On what basis will you "choose" it?

There are more Taliban types than there are Western women. So what are you going to do if the Taliban types want to beat, rape and kill women? Are you going to object, "Well, we didn't choose that"?

They do. There's more of them than of you. They have power to do it. To what "court" will you then appeal?

[Belinda]

we men are now responsible for whichever moral system we choose.

On what basis will you "choose" it?

There are more Taliban types than there are Western women. So what are you going to do if the Taliban types want to beat, rape and kill women? Are you going to object, "Well, we didn't choose that"?

They do. There's more of them than of you. They have power to do it. To what "court" will you then appeal?

I have a weak "basis" for my choices .But that is not an adequate excuse for not trying to think for myself and take responsibility for my own decisions.

I am not responsible for what Taliban do. I am human so live and let live is only as good for me as my fear and anger reactions do not control me.

The court that I appeal to is, I hope, where I remember the past in order to learn from it and sometimes do otherwise than I did. What Taliban do is remember the past and old traditions without any intention to do otherwise than what old tribal traditions dictate.

I hope that the UK and the US can collectively learn from past errors regarding trying to control other people versus live and let live.