Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Thought of the Day #2

GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2012 9:55:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
All we are are stars?

Stars supposedly die all the time, sometimes due to other stars exploding, hence a black hole. If all we are is rearranged star dust, then murder is no more evil than a star ending a life of another star - correct?

Explain and reply back with reason and logic.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2012 10:20:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/24/2012 9:55:34 AM, GodSands wrote:
All we are are stars?

Stars supposedly die all the time, sometimes due to other stars exploding, hence a black hole. If all we are is rearranged star dust, then murder is no more evil than a star ending a life of another star - correct?

Explain and reply back with reason and logic.

Stars don't make laws. So... no, it is not the same.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2012 10:28:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/24/2012 10:20:06 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/24/2012 9:55:34 AM, GodSands wrote:
All we are are stars?

Stars supposedly die all the time, sometimes due to other stars exploding, hence a black hole. If all we are is rearranged star dust, then murder is no more evil than a star ending a life of another star - correct?

Explain and reply back with reason and logic.

Stars don't make laws. So... no, it is not the same.

Our laws are therefore illusions - correct? You are very blunt and incoherent in what you say.
Nosaj5q
Posts: 175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2012 10:38:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
everything is matter (exept anti-matter) you are matter i am matter. matter has different phases stars are just one phase of matter like being a human then being worm food!
Slimy yet satisfying"
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2012 10:40:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/24/2012 10:28:33 AM, GodSands wrote:
At 4/24/2012 10:20:06 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/24/2012 9:55:34 AM, GodSands wrote:
All we are are stars?

Stars supposedly die all the time, sometimes due to other stars exploding, hence a black hole. If all we are is rearranged star dust, then murder is no more evil than a star ending a life of another star - correct?

Explain and reply back with reason and logic.

Stars don't make laws. So... no, it is not the same.

Our laws are therefore illusions - correct?

They're abstract, but they are not illusions.

You are very blunt and incoherent in what you say.

Blunt, sure. But perfectly coherent.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2012 10:43:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/24/2012 9:55:34 AM, GodSands wrote:
All we are are stars?

Stars supposedly die all the time, sometimes due to other stars exploding, hence a black hole. If all we are is rearranged star dust, then murder is no more evil than a star ending a life of another star - correct?

Explain and reply back with reason and logic.

That's a weird and difficult -- perhaps impossible -- question to answer.

First off, there's the premise behind your argument -- that, if we reduce ourselves enough, it becomes apparent that we have the same constituents as stars. This is not entirely true.

In fact, stars entirely consist of hydrogen, helium, and plasma, to my knowledge, which is not sufficient to construct this planet, much less the complex life that lives on it.

In fact, the heavy elements necessary to create life manifest due to fusion with lighter elements as a result of supernova and magnetars.

So, based on a pedantic and myopic interpretation of the value of life, it is most moral to cause the death of a star.

However, if you're anywhere near that star when you cause its death (say, within the same solar system), then you and everything you know is going to die with it.

So, er. Idk about all that.
Nosaj5q
Posts: 175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2012 10:50:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Well to answer the initial question...what rulebook of ethics do you use? whats ethical for one may not be to some.
Slimy yet satisfying"
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2012 10:51:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/24/2012 9:55:34 AM, GodSands wrote:
All we are are stars?

Stars supposedly die all the time, sometimes due to other stars exploding, hence a black hole. If all we are is rearranged star dust, then murder is no more evil than a star ending a life of another star - correct?

Explain and reply back with reason and logic.

The crucial part of your question is 'if all we are is rearranged star dust' which is an odd reductionist account. To be less random, our constituent parts are ultimately composed of a-conscious building blocks (possibly quarks). However, on the macro-level humans are conscious creatures who feel, love, anticipate and have a rich experiential lives which would be terminated if murdered. Murdering another human being is thus very different than stars ending one another. Stars are not conscious beings.
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2012 10:57:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/24/2012 9:55:34 AM, GodSands wrote:
All we are are stars?

Stars supposedly die all the time, sometimes due to other stars exploding, hence a black hole. If all we are is rearranged star dust, then murder is no more evil than a star ending a life of another star - correct?

Explain and reply back with reason and logic.

Yes, humans are stars. But humans are everything - on an atomic level there are no barriers between what we perceive to be space and objects - it is all an illusion due to our powerful ability to re-percieve things based on knowledge and experience.

Technically, i agree - no one thing is any more 'evil' than another. Imagine yourself studying at a dying tree - with all filters off, with no preconceived notion of knowledgable facts.. This is hard to do, and for some - decidedly impossible.. However, when a human truly and deeply connects to the reality of the dying tree, the tree will begin represent death within any archetypical experience - (most likely the most important one to that person at the time) - and when a connection between it's life and the life of the humans is ultimately revealed, one will indeed discover a deep, true, and whole sadness that is unparalleled in societal reality. Many people will never get to experience such whole emotions on a fundamental level, because they will not allow themselves to let go of their dualistic perceptions on a universe that is actually non-dualistic.

We all experience life and death on a multitude of levels at every moment, it just takes pure thought to realize this. But remember, all deaths are sign of a new archetype, and true realization of the birth will often be accompanied by comfort and joy.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2012 11:12:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/24/2012 10:51:21 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 4/24/2012 9:55:34 AM, GodSands wrote:
All we are are stars?

Stars supposedly die all the time, sometimes due to other stars exploding, hence a black hole. If all we are is rearranged star dust, then murder is no more evil than a star ending a life of another star - correct?

Explain and reply back with reason and logic.

The crucial part of your question is 'if all we are is rearranged star dust' which is an odd reductionist account. To be less random, our constituent parts are ultimately composed of a-conscious building blocks (possibly quarks). However, on the macro-level humans are conscious creatures who feel, love, anticipate and have a rich experiential lives which would be terminated if murdered. Murdering another human being is thus very different than stars ending one another. Stars are not conscious beings.

This is perhaps mostly true, but I don't think you have fully understood my question. I will make my question clearer for you. A star cannot commit murder, because as you said, it isn't killing conscious life. I do not commit murder what I break a plate. The part where I think you got confused is where you assumed that I thought because if we are made from star ultimately, and we murder, stars also murder. Thus stars are as evil as us. What I meant instead is, if we are made from star dust ultimately, then us murdering others is no less evil than a star exploding and destroying another star. Being able to love, feel and have other emotions is irrelevant here. That is like saying the sun can feel and love because it gives warmth and light to our planet.
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2012 11:13:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Having had the 'dying tree' experience, should we do everything in our power to prevent trees from dying? Prevent animals from killing one another? Prevent people from killing plants and animals in order to sustain their lives - just because we see the evil within these cycles? Probably not. Humans raise the bar of acceptance to levels that do not make any sense - not based on true non-dualistic reality, because they are brainwashed to an under-sensitive emotional state in which certain aspects of death seem normal and acceptable and other forms of death seem so incredibly wrong. They (humans) are narrow-minded individuals.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2012 11:15:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
From a non-dualistic perceptive, breaking a plate IS murder. You are taking away the plates right to exist as a plate, and the energy will be reformed and manifest as something else. Depending on your perception, the murdered plate can now be seen as a symbol, a memory, trash, or artwork.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2012 11:16:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/24/2012 11:15:20 AM, CrazyPerson wrote:
From a non-dualistic perceptive, breaking a plate IS murder. You are taking away the plates right to exist as a plate, and the energy will be reformed and manifest as something else. Depending on your perception, the murdered plate can now be seen as a symbol, a memory, trash, or artwork.

Or it will represent the need for a new plate. It's all in perception.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2012 11:35:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/24/2012 11:16:03 AM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 4/24/2012 11:15:20 AM, CrazyPerson wrote:
From a non-dualistic perceptive, breaking a plate IS murder. You are taking away the plates right to exist as a plate, and the energy will be reformed and manifest as something else. Depending on your perception, the murdered plate can now be seen as a symbol, a memory, trash, or artwork.

Or it will represent the need for a new plate. It's all in perception.

I don't see breaking a plate as murder. Depending on the reason, it could be anything but murder. Murder is when one kills someone else for the purpose of their death.
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2012 11:37:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/24/2012 11:35:27 AM, GodSands wrote:
At 4/24/2012 11:16:03 AM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 4/24/2012 11:15:20 AM, CrazyPerson wrote:
From a non-dualistic perceptive, breaking a plate IS murder. You are taking away the plates right to exist as a plate, and the energy will be reformed and manifest as something else. Depending on your perception, the murdered plate can now be seen as a symbol, a memory, trash, or artwork.

Or it will represent the need for a new plate. It's all in perception.

I don't see breaking a plate as murder. Depending on the reason, it could be anything but murder. Murder is when one kills someone else for the purpose of their death.

Right but i mean, define your terms dude. You first talk about defining or reacting to murder between stars - in effect setting forth that we are talking about the emotional response to the idea of murder - rather than the physical law. If you're originally talking about murder in lawful aspects, you wouldn't be able to ask such a silly question.. right?
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2012 11:42:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/24/2012 11:37:56 AM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 4/24/2012 11:35:27 AM, GodSands wrote:
At 4/24/2012 11:16:03 AM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 4/24/2012 11:15:20 AM, CrazyPerson wrote:
From a non-dualistic perceptive, breaking a plate IS murder. You are taking away the plates right to exist as a plate, and the energy will be reformed and manifest as something else. Depending on your perception, the murdered plate can now be seen as a symbol, a memory, trash, or artwork.

Or it will represent the need for a new plate. It's all in perception.

I don't see breaking a plate as murder. Depending on the reason, it could be anything but murder. Murder is when one kills someone else for the purpose of their death.

Right but i mean, define your terms dude. You first talk about defining or reacting to murder between stars - in effect setting forth that we are talking about the emotional response to the idea of murder - rather than the physical law. If you're originally talking about murder in lawful aspects, you wouldn't be able to ask such a silly question.. right?

Non-duality is scientifically provable, yet nobody manifests the reality of it. All laws and governmental systems represent the full act of completely debasing humanity.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2012 3:45:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/24/2012 9:55:34 AM, GodSands wrote:
All we are are stars?

Stars supposedly die all the time, sometimes due to other stars exploding, hence a black hole. If all we are is rearranged star dust, then murder is no more evil than a star ending a life of another star - correct?

Explain and reply back with reason and logic.

I already debunked your implications in the last thread you made about morality, a star cannot be aware of it's actions, therefore cannot be morally responsible. Also, there is no negative effects on any specific conscious creatures when a random star explodes in space like there is when a human hurts another person.

You're threads = Epic fails.
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2012 4:11:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/24/2012 3:45:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/24/2012 9:55:34 AM, GodSands wrote:
All we are are stars?

Stars supposedly die all the time, sometimes due to other stars exploding, hence a black hole. If all we are is rearranged star dust, then murder is no more evil than a star ending a life of another star - correct?

Explain and reply back with reason and logic.

I already debunked your implications in the last thread you made about morality, a star cannot be aware of it's actions, therefore cannot be morally responsible. Also, there is no negative effects on any specific conscious creatures when a random star explodes in space like there is when a human hurts another person.

You're threads = Epic fails.

Actually the OP is suggesting to think within the terms of non-duality, hence the opening statement. Like, when someone dies a star burns out.. etc. If humans are stars, then stars are aware of their actions. From there you can see that murder is in fact no more evil than stars burning out other stars.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2012 4:15:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/24/2012 4:11:41 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 4/24/2012 3:45:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/24/2012 9:55:34 AM, GodSands wrote:
All we are are stars?

Stars supposedly die all the time, sometimes due to other stars exploding, hence a black hole. If all we are is rearranged star dust, then murder is no more evil than a star ending a life of another star - correct?

Explain and reply back with reason and logic.

I already debunked your implications in the last thread you made about morality, a star cannot be aware of it's actions, therefore cannot be morally responsible. Also, there is no negative effects on any specific conscious creatures when a random star explodes in space like there is when a human hurts another person.

You're threads = Epic fails.

Actually the OP is suggesting to think within the terms of non-duality, hence the opening statement. Like, when someone dies a star burns out.. etc. If humans are stars, then stars are aware of their actions. From there you can see that murder is in fact no more evil than stars burning out other stars.

Huh? Killing being as wrong as a star exploding? What are you guys smoking...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2012 4:17:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/24/2012 4:11:41 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 4/24/2012 3:45:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/24/2012 9:55:34 AM, GodSands wrote:
All we are are stars?

Stars supposedly die all the time, sometimes due to other stars exploding, hence a black hole. If all we are is rearranged star dust, then murder is no more evil than a star ending a life of another star - correct?

Explain and reply back with reason and logic.

I already debunked your implications in the last thread you made about morality, a star cannot be aware of it's actions, therefore cannot be morally responsible. Also, there is no negative effects on any specific conscious creatures when a random star explodes in space like there is when a human hurts another person.

You're threads = Epic fails.

Actually the OP is suggesting to think within the terms of non-duality, hence the opening statement. Like, when someone dies a star burns out.. etc. If humans are stars, then stars are aware of their actions. From there you can see that murder is in fact no more evil than stars burning out other stars.

There is nothing morally wrong with a star exploding, so to say killing is on the same level as that just because we are made of star dust, is ludicrous.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2012 9:46:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/24/2012 4:17:55 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/24/2012 4:11:41 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 4/24/2012 3:45:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/24/2012 9:55:34 AM, GodSands wrote:
All we are are stars?

Stars supposedly die all the time, sometimes due to other stars exploding, hence a black hole. If all we are is rearranged star dust, then murder is no more evil than a star ending a life of another star - correct?

Explain and reply back with reason and logic.

I already debunked your implications in the last thread you made about morality, a star cannot be aware of it's actions, therefore cannot be morally responsible. Also, there is no negative effects on any specific conscious creatures when a random star explodes in space like there is when a human hurts another person.

You're threads = Epic fails.

Actually the OP is suggesting to think within the terms of non-duality, hence the opening statement. Like, when someone dies a star burns out.. etc. If humans are stars, then stars are aware of their actions. From there you can see that murder is in fact no more evil than stars burning out other stars.

There is nothing morally wrong with a star exploding, so to say killing is on the same level as that just because we are made of star dust, is ludicrous.

Yes. Poor example.
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2012 10:13:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/24/2012 4:17:55 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/24/2012 4:11:41 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 4/24/2012 3:45:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/24/2012 9:55:34 AM, GodSands wrote:
All we are are stars?

Stars supposedly die all the time, sometimes due to other stars exploding, hence a black hole. If all we are is rearranged star dust, then murder is no more evil than a star ending a life of another star - correct?

Explain and reply back with reason and logic.

I already debunked your implications in the last thread you made about morality, a star cannot be aware of it's actions, therefore cannot be morally responsible. Also, there is no negative effects on any specific conscious creatures when a random star explodes in space like there is when a human hurts another person.

You're threads = Epic fails.

Actually the OP is suggesting to think within the terms of non-duality, hence the opening statement. Like, when someone dies a star burns out.. etc. If humans are stars, then stars are aware of their actions. From there you can see that murder is in fact no more evil than stars burning out other stars.

There is nothing morally wrong with a star exploding, so to say killing is on the same level as that just because we are made of star dust, is ludicrous.

You are unable to separate your mind from dualistic terms. That's fine, most people cannot or refuse to as well.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 6:00:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/24/2012 3:45:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/24/2012 9:55:34 AM, GodSands wrote:
All we are are stars?

Stars supposedly die all the time, sometimes due to other stars exploding, hence a black hole. If all we are is rearranged star dust, then murder is no more evil than a star ending a life of another star - correct?

Explain and reply back with reason and logic.

I already debunked your implications in the last thread you made about morality, a star cannot be aware of it's actions, therefore cannot be morally responsible. Also, there is no negative effects on any specific conscious creatures when a random star explodes in space like there is when a human hurts another person.

You're threads = Epic fails.

And I've said good or evil does not equate to something be conscious only. Therefore you have not debunked any of my arguments as far as I'm concerned.

@Crazyperson, I don't understand you arguments on dualism.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 6:04:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/24/2012 4:17:55 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/24/2012 4:11:41 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 4/24/2012 3:45:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/24/2012 9:55:34 AM, GodSands wrote:
All we are are stars?

Stars supposedly die all the time, sometimes due to other stars exploding, hence a black hole. If all we are is rearranged star dust, then murder is no more evil than a star ending a life of another star - correct?

Explain and reply back with reason and logic.

I already debunked your implications in the last thread you made about morality, a star cannot be aware of it's actions, therefore cannot be morally responsible. Also, there is no negative effects on any specific conscious creatures when a random star explodes in space like there is when a human hurts another person.

You're threads = Epic fails.

Actually the OP is suggesting to think within the terms of non-duality, hence the opening statement. Like, when someone dies a star burns out.. etc. If humans are stars, then stars are aware of their actions. From there you can see that murder is in fact no more evil than stars burning out other stars.

There is nothing morally wrong with a star exploding, so to say killing is on the same level as that just because we are made of star dust, is ludicrous.

By what you have said here, you haven't understood by question. I am not saying a star exploding is evil, what I am saying is, if all we are is rearranged star dust, (which secularism teachers) then us murdering each other, is no less evil than a star exploding. Can you explain why I am wrong using reason and logic?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 5:17:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 6:00:23 AM, GodSands wrote:
At 4/24/2012 3:45:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/24/2012 9:55:34 AM, GodSands wrote:
All we are are stars?

Stars supposedly die all the time, sometimes due to other stars exploding, hence a black hole. If all we are is rearranged star dust, then murder is no more evil than a star ending a life of another star - correct?

Explain and reply back with reason and logic.

I already debunked your implications in the last thread you made about morality, a star cannot be aware of it's actions, therefore cannot be morally responsible. Also, there is no negative effects on any specific conscious creatures when a random star explodes in space like there is when a human hurts another person.

You're threads = Epic fails.

And I've said good or evil does not equate to something be conscious only. Therefore you have not debunked any of my arguments as far as I'm concerned.

@Crazyperson, I don't understand you arguments on dualism.

You said it, but it made no sense. What I said does make sense, therefore you are most likely wrong.

Good and evil can only be related to conscious creatures, to disagree is to once again, provide an epic fail for yourself.

I guess to you, a tornado destroying a forest is evil. If you admit that, you'd have to admit God is evil to for creating tornadoes in the first place ;)
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 5:29:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 5:17:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/25/2012 6:00:23 AM, GodSands wrote:
At 4/24/2012 3:45:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/24/2012 9:55:34 AM, GodSands wrote:
All we are are stars?

Stars supposedly die all the time, sometimes due to other stars exploding, hence a black hole. If all we are is rearranged star dust, then murder is no more evil than a star ending a life of another star - correct?

Explain and reply back with reason and logic.

I already debunked your implications in the last thread you made about morality, a star cannot be aware of it's actions, therefore cannot be morally responsible. Also, there is no negative effects on any specific conscious creatures when a random star explodes in space like there is when a human hurts another person.

You're threads = Epic fails.

And I've said good or evil does not equate to something be conscious only. Therefore you have not debunked any of my arguments as far as I'm concerned.

@Crazyperson, I don't understand you arguments on dualism.

You said it, but it made no sense. What I said does make sense, therefore you are most likely wrong.

Oh... really? Dang it!

Good and evil can only be related to conscious creatures, to disagree is to once again, provide an epic fail for yourself.

Again - look at duality on an atomic level. What did you see? That it does not actually exist.

I guess to you, a tornado destroying a forest is evil. If you admit that, you'd have to admit God is evil to for creating tornadoes in the first place ;)

I'm glad you're learning. If there is a God, he is creator of everything - not just the good stuff as you so seem to imply. Whether you call that evil or not is subject to your opinion.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts