The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free! Being an athiest doesn't mean they lack moralityin Religion

ethang5

@MayCaesar

>I will assume that you do not know what you yourself mean by "objective morality", because you have failed repeatedly to explain what it is.

Keep assuming. I have told you what objective morality means. That definition does not need to please you.

>These 5 qualities of a god you listed seem very arbitrary.

Lol. Like the speed of light is "arbitrary"? I am telling you facts homer, not guessing.

>In the Greek mythology, there were multiple gods, all having powers limited in some way, but each being far above humans in terms of level of existence. You do not think this could be the case?

The case of what? The concept of "God" means something. Anything cannot be God. Words mean things. So if for you a goat can be God, then yes, there could be more than one.

>Regarding your last question, here is the thing.

I feel a dodge a-comin.

>The concept of ownership exists as a means to protect people's interests from other people.

You were not asked to tell us why ownership exists.

>If there was only one being in the world, "ownership" would mean nothing, because....

You dodge my question, substitute your own and the start to explain your bogus question? Lol. Funny.

Why could you not just answer my question?

>But that is not your real question, is it?

I asked you my real question.

>Your real question is, "Do you own what you have created?" And the answer here is yes and no.

Lol. So you'll even dodge the fake question I didn't ask. The one you substituted.

>Do you own it in theory?

I do not play the atheists game of only the theist answers questions. If you don't answer my questions, I toss yours too.

>What I "believe" is of no consequence.

You do not decide what is of consequence for my argument. I do. This is a debate, not a court case. Answer my questions or it will be pointless talking to you.

> do not build my world view on beliefs. I know that the unconditional property rights are essential for a societal well-being, and they are morally right from my point of view -

Less blab and more answers please.

>My property rights end where my property starts thinking for itself and decides we should part ways.

Stop trying to get ahead of yourself. Answer the question I ask, not the question you think I'm working towards.

Now answer my question, or you can take it somewhere else.

MayCaesar

@ethang5

I am sorry that my responses are too difficult for you to comprehend.

I do not "believe" in anything. I think and reason. I do not believe. "Belief" is for gullible people who have zero knowledge on a given subject, but are afraid to admit their ignorance and prefer to substitute it with alleged, but in reality non-existent, knowledge and understanding.

I have answered your question perfectly well. It is not my fault that beyond "lol-s" and failed attempts at a sarcasm, you have nothing of value to say on the subject.

Your position is "I know everything and my word is the truth. If you doubt my word, then you are wrong." This discussion is way beyond your ability, obviously. A thinking person does not just answer a question with one sentence, they provide an expansive answer with all the upsides and downsides of the reasoning taken into consideration. A zealot, on the other hand, has to dodge everything, because they know well that they have nothing reasonable to say.

I have asked you 10 times or so to define "objective moral". It is a very simple request. If you have a definition, you can provide it. It should take no more than a couple of sentences. The problem is, you do not have the definition, hence all the circus.

I do not care much. I just like seeing what people think and why, so I can expand my own perspective. With you, unfortunately, there is nothing to expand into.
I do not have anything against religious people; I have lived with a mathematician who also was a deep Catholic believer, and we had a lot of interesting discussions with him. With you, the problem is not that you are a theist. The problem is that you are, speaking plainly, either intellectually dishonest, or dense. I will go with the former, since your sentences do not look like a complete dribble, and you can write pretty well when you really want to.

ethang5

@MayCaesar

>I am sorry that my responses are too difficult for you to comprehend.

Your responses are off topic. You have difficulty staying on the subject. You may have ADD.

>I do not "believe" in anything. I think and reason. I do not believe. "Belief" is for gullible people who have zero knowledge on a given subject, but are afraid to admit their ignorance and prefer to substitute it with alleged, but in reality non-existent, knowledge and understanding.

Perhaps you should get a cape and spandex with that supermind complex. Either way, I don't care about your opinion of yourself, no matter how bloated it is.

>I have answered your question perfectly well.

You did not even answer it. You addressed the question you substituted, and another you were anticipating.

>It is not my fault that beyond "lol-s" and failed attempts at a sarcasm, you have nothing of value to say on the subject.

Lol. OK.

>Your position is "I know everything and my word is the truth. If you doubt my word, then you are wrong."

Solid logic tend to do that to liberals.

>This discussion is way beyond your ability, obviously.

Yet only you dodged questions.

>A thinking person does not just answer a question with one sentence, they provide an expansive answer with all the upsides and downsides of the reasoning taken into consideration.

Use as many sentences as you like, but answer the question. You answered your substituted bogus question.

>A zealot, on the other hand, has to dodge everything, because they know well that they have nothing reasonable to say.

I dodged nothing.

>I have asked you 10 times or so to define "objective moral". It is a very simple request.

And I answered you twice. If you didn't like the answer, that is your problem.

> you have a definition, you can provide it.

If you had answered my questions, I would now repeat my answers now. But I will leave you to find them. I do not play the atheist game of dodging questions while requiring the theist to answer them.

>It should take no more than a couple of sentences.

Which makes your dodging my questions puzzling.

>The problem is, you do not have the definition, hence all the circus.

The circus is from you dodging. You call it being "expansive", I call it dodging.

>I do not care much. I just like seeing what people think and why, so I can expand my own perspective.

Other people like that too. But your dodging frustrates that. Think about it.

>With you, unfortunately, there is nothing to expand into.

Except your fake questions that is. I ask you about 2 people in a universe, you answer for one person and then conclude ownership therefore means nothing. 

>I do not have anything against religious people;

I don't care if you do. Just be intellectually honest. This is a debate, not a friendship request.

>I have lived with a mathematician who also was a deep Catholic believer, and we had a lot of interesting discussions with him.

When an atheist praises a "Christian", I know what that means.

>With you, the problem is not that you are a theist. The problem is that you are, speaking plainly, dense.

I don't think you're dense. You're just dishonest.

piloteer

"@dbox

" If our place in eternity is contingent on our adherence to the Law of God, that means that the Lawgiver (and His Law) is authoritative over us. If the Law (and the Lawgiver) had no authority over us, there would be no consequences for breaking the law. There would be no reason for a hell, because there is no punishment." 


That's only IF our place in eternity is contingent to the Law of God. You've brought no solid proof that proves religious morality is rooted in something other than social attitudes. The bible was written by man, not God himself!!! Furthermore, it doesn't answer exactly what God could do to punish someone for willfully going against his word and accepting hell. God may have patience for us, but some of us will still reject his patience and accept hell, and willfully sin just for the pleasure of it. What's he gonna do, send them to hell?



 If Stalin, for example, felt that wiping out 45 million of his own people was justified, what person could say he was not justified in so doing? 


I could!!! I'm atheist and I can easily say that Stalin was not only unjust when his regime murdered 45 million, let alone anybody, but the basic principles of his government were evil!! Communism is a collectivist form of government. Collectivism means that our only purpose for life is to live for the happiness of everybody else. It's a government mandated charity. But if charity is the law, it takes the genuineness out of charity, because we're supposed to be charitable out of our own choice to do so. It's not a righteous act to enforce charity!!!! Also, I believe that the people who carried out Stalins egregious crimes are just as guilty if not, more guilty. But since I believe in the principles of individualism, then I believe our true purpose on earth is to live for ourselves, but if we let others invade our individuality, then we are guilty of letting them. So, I believe the murdered people of Russia are also guilty of letting Stalin do it to them. They're not evil like the perpetrators of the crimes, but guilty by association. Notice I did all that without saying, "Stalin was guilty because God said so"!!! 


Sincerely 

Pilot.

ethang5

>it doesn't answer exactly what the government could do to punish someone for willfully going against the law and accepting the death penalty. The government may have patience with us, but some of us will still reject this patience and accept the death penalty, and willfully break the law just for the pleasure of it. What's the government gonna do, give us the death penalty?
---------------------------------------
Yes. That is exactly what the government is "gonna" do.

I love analogies. 

Plaffelvohfen

@dbox

" If our place in eternity is contingent on our adherence to the Law of God, that means that the Lawgiver (and His Law) is authoritative over us. If the Law (and the Lawgiver) had no authority over us, there would be no consequences for breaking the law. There would be no reason for a hell, because there is no punishment." 

You realize you're describing North Korea to one of its citizens, right?