Republicans Belief in Evolution plummets

#853
#853
Orange_Crush said:
I did not. :hi:

(Is it objectively true that I totally ignored the question? Can you know that I totally ignored the question? lulz)
Click to expand...

Of course you did. Instead of answering the question, you implied that I did not have the right to ask the question.

Orange_Crush said:
Obviously.
Click to expand...

I articulated the conspicuous differences between the two. Apples and oranges.
 
#854
#854
PKT_VOL said:
Of course you did. Instead of answering the question, you implied that I did not have the right to ask the question.
Click to expand...

The answer to the question was implied in the fact that we would need to have conversations about it, like people have had throughout human history. But the fact of the matter is that the opinions do not equal the objective law. And the fact of the matter, no matter whether you want to comprehend it or not, opinions about the objective law are not the discussion I have been having. I have been having a conversation about the philosophical impact of its existence, and the very fact that it transcends human opinions.

You and rjd want to bring it back down to the opinion level of discussion because that is all you have. But the discussion is not about opinions. I have not been telling you that my morality is better than yours. And I want to make this very clear, so please read twice...

I have not been telling you that my morality is better than yours. I have been telling you that, for all intents and purposes, I have a morality and you do not. I can say objectively that something is wrong. You can not, while being internally consistent. You can kind of sort of say that you consider something wrong. But you can only say that you have an opinion that is no more right or wrong than anyone else's. Your morality is equivalent to ice cream flavors.

That is the discussion I have been having with you. It's not about opinions, it's about who has a morality and who does not.

PKT_VOL said:
I articulated the conspicuous differences between the two. Apples and oranges.
Click to expand...

The funny thing about apples and oranges is that they are both fruit. It's a bit illogical to ignore similarities for the differences.

:hi:
 
#855
#855
Roustabout said:
Sorry you were wounded by a Hellfire nutjob. There are certainly a lot of those out there.

I am confused though, when you say you were "saved."
Do you mind explaining what exactly do you mean by this?
Click to expand...

I mean I was a frightened child who out of fear was convinced to ask your Christ to save me, and was later baptized.
 
#856
#856
Orange_Crush said:
You began with a nonsensical statement. I'm not trying to be rude, just transparent in conversation. You literally just said that relative morality does not mean that morality isn't absolute. I am beginning to think that you have trouble with even a semblance of critical thinking.
Click to expand...

So you do not consider baby murder to be absolutely immoral? You think there's baby that provoke their own murder?

Kinda like those kids that seduce priests?
 
#857
#857
Orange_Crush said:
I was wondering when you would get to this equivocating ad hominum attack.

Well done. Thank you for not disappointing. Now, except for the spurious claim that relative morality is absolute, how do you claim baby killing to be immoral?
Click to expand...

I claimed only that certain aspects of morality were absolute. Such as baby murder. You apparently disagree, because you support a pro baby murdering god.
 
#858
#858
Orange_Crush said:
I took the time to study and dwell upon those things that troubled me. You... Not so much.
Click to expand...

Please enlighten me with all the studyin you have done.What made it cool for god to kill David's unborn child as a way of punishing David? How do you justify your god killing the innocent due to the sins of the wicked?
 
Last edited:
#859
#859
Vol8188 said:
Please enlighten me with all the studyin you have done.What made it cool for god to kill David's unborn child as a way of punishing David? How do you justify your god killing the innocent due to the sins of the wicked?
Click to expand...

I think we're still gnawing on that 'absolute relativity' bone of yours.
 
#861
#861
Orange_Crush said:
I think we're still gnawing on that 'absolute relativity' bone of yours.
Click to expand...

So the idea that some individuals may differ on their opinions of morality, but that there will be certain consistencies among all is too much for a guy who believes in the trinity?
 
#862
#862
Orange_Crush said:
Where did that absolute come from? If it is absolute, how can it be relative?
Click to expand...

Did I say baby murder was relative? Probably a natural instinct developed to increase the likelihood of survival for the species. The same way some animals will an orphan to nurse from them.
 
#863
#863
Vol8188 said:
So the idea that some individuals may differ on their opinions of morality, but that there will be certain consistencies among all is too much for a guy who believes in the trinity?
Click to expand...

So, shared opinions make something good or bad? It's defined by the opinion? I don;t think you know what "objective" means. It literally means "not an opinion".
 
#865
#865
Vol8188 said:
Did I say baby murder was relative? Probably a natural instinct developed to increase the likelihood of survival for the species. The same way some animals will an orphan to nurse from them.
Click to expand...

So, it being a natural instinct means that it is not relative? What if a person evolved without this instinct? What if a whole group of people on an island in the Pacific evolved without this instinct? Would it be wrong there?

If it is not relative, as in wrong despite opinion on the matter, then what defined that it is wrong even if opinions vary? What exists that transcends these opinions?
 
#866
#866
Orange_Crush said:
So, shared opinions make something good or bad? It's defined by the opinion? I don;t think you know what "objective" means. It literally means "not an opinion".
Click to expand...

Would you prefer hard facts on how baby murder would be a negative for our species?
 
#868
#868
Vol8188 said:
Would you prefer hard facts on how baby murder would be a negative for our species?
Click to expand...

You'd then need to show that negative impacts on our species in inherently, objectively, morally wrong. We aren't talking about convenience. We are talking about morality-- right and wrong.
 
#869
#869
Orange_Crush said:
So, it being a natural instinct means that it is not relative? What if a person evolved without this instinct? What if a whole group of people on an island in the Pacific evolved without this instinct? Would it be wrong there?

If it is not relative, as in wrong despite opinion on the matter, then what defined that it is wrong even if opinions vary? What exists that transcends these opinions?
Click to expand...

Are you hearing what you just said? It would be impossible for a group of people who were without such instincts to survive. The first person with this mutation would reproduce and then kill all children they had until their eventual death.
 
#870
#870
Orange_Crush said:
You'd then need to show that negative impacts on our species in inherently, objectively, morally wrong. We aren't talking about convenience. We are talking about morality-- right and wrong.
Click to expand...

So were back at square one. Your baby killer god can do no wrong because you believe morality is impossible to define without him. I give up, goodnight.
 
#871
#871
Vol8188 said:
Are you hearing what you just said? It would be impossible for a group of people who were without such instincts to survive. The first person with this mutation would reproduce and then kill all children they had until their eventual death.
Click to expand...

We aren't talking about convenience or survival. We are talking about objective morality-- right and wrong. Would it be wrong there?
 
#872
#872
Orange_Crush said:
Are you dumb or diverting? Please answer my question. So, shared opinions make something good or bad?
Click to expand...

You're entire defense for why god murdered David's innocent child and countless other babies in the New Testament is that right and wrong can only be defined, in your opinion, through a divine source.

If that's not a diversion, I don't know what is.
 
#873
#873
Vol8188 said:
So were back at square one. Your baby killer god can do no wrong because you believe morality is impossible to define without him. I give up, goodnight.
Click to expand...

That's not what I said. We are trying to define whether you believe in objective morality. Id baby murder objectively wrong? If so, as an atheist, why?
 
#875
#875
So Vol8188 I have a question for you. Do you blame God for most of the bad in the world? Murder, rape, war etc.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top