Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Whining Atheists and objective morality

brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 3:21:54 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
Atheists constantly whine and carry on trying to place God in some kind of objective morality bubble of which in itself is undefined.

-We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively outnumbers the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here.
" Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow (1998), 1.

Richard Dawkins We are the lucky ones speech

http://youtu.be...
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 4:58:49 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
What is Atheist objective morality based on?

-----These guys views?-----

Iran's Leader

http://youtu.be...

Adolph Hitler

http://youtu.be...

KKK Speech

http://youtu.be...

Anjem Choudary

http://youtu.be...

---- ----
Jesus Christ

http://youtu.be...

Jesus Christ

http://youtu.be...
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 5:11:35 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 5:03:40 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/15/2016 4:58:49 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
What is Atheist objective morality based on?

The concept of harm.

Do you assert that God is immoral if He allows anyone into harm's way?
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
TREssspa
Posts: 567
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 5:22:58 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 3:21:54 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Atheists constantly whine and carry on trying to place God in some kind of objective morality bubble of which in itself is undefined.

-We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively outnumbers the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here.
" Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow (1998), 1.


Richard Dawkins We are the lucky ones speech

http://youtu.be...

Did he say, ' scientists greater than Newton' ?

http://ajitvadakayil.blogspot.in...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 5:26:15 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
Here is a particular Atheist's view.

We are machines built by DNA whose purpose is to make more copies of the same DNA. ... This is exactly what we are for. We are machines for propagating DNA, and the propagation of DNA is a self-sustaining process. It is every living object's sole reason for living.
" Richard Dawkins
Royal Institution Christmas Lecture, 'The Ultraviolet Garden', (No. 4, 1991). Quoted in Vinoth Ramachandra, Subverting Global Myths: Theology and the Public Issues Shaping our World (2008), 187.

Do you agree with his view or do you agree with this view?

Jesus Christ

Mark 8:36
"For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"

Matthew 7:12
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 5:50:01 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 5:11:35 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/15/2016 5:03:40 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/15/2016 4:58:49 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
What is Atheist objective morality based on?

The concept of harm.

Do you assert that God is immoral if He allows anyone into harm's way?

Depends on context. If he for example, commands parents of unruly children to take their children to edge of town and stone them to death then yes, I would assert that he is immoral.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 5:55:58 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 5:50:01 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/15/2016 5:11:35 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/15/2016 5:03:40 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/15/2016 4:58:49 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
What is Atheist objective morality based on?

The concept of harm.

Do you assert that God is immoral if He allows anyone into harm's way?

Depends on context. If he for example, commands parents of unruly children to take their children to edge of town and stone them to death then yes, I would assert that he is immoral.

Did Christ command that
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 5:57:23 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 5:50:01 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/15/2016 5:11:35 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/15/2016 5:03:40 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/15/2016 4:58:49 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
What is Atheist objective morality based on?

The concept of harm.

Do you assert that God is immoral if He allows anyone into harm's way?

Depends on context. If he for example, commands parents of unruly children to take their children to edge of town and stone them to death then yes, I would assert that he is immoral.

Secondly, in some nonChristian cultures that is not deemed immoral. How do you feel about that?
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 5:58:59 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 5:57:23 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/15/2016 5:50:01 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/15/2016 5:11:35 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/15/2016 5:03:40 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/15/2016 4:58:49 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
What is Atheist objective morality based on?

The concept of harm.

Do you assert that God is immoral if He allows anyone into harm's way?

Depends on context. If he for example, commands parents of unruly children to take their children to edge of town and stone them to death then yes, I would assert that he is immoral.

Secondly, in some nonChristian cultures that is not deemed immoral. How do you feel about that?

I deem it immoral.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 6:25:00 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 3:21:54 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Atheists constantly whine and carry on trying to place God in some kind of objective morality bubble of which in itself is undefined.

Christian morality as enshrined by custom and law isn't fixed, Bronto. Christians have changed their views over time regarding the right to blaspheme, the right to disagree with clergy, the right to contest dogmatic tradition as truth, the right to oppose the authority of family patriarchs, the rights of unmarried women, and of married women, the rights of children in a family, the rights of children outside the family, the right to commit violence in self-defense, the right to oppose monarchs and emperors, the rights of non-Christians to be treated equally, and obligations toward the environment.

Moral thought that isn't fixed is emergent. It might be emergent and objective or emergent and subjective, but it isn't absolute.

So let's be clear about this: on the whole, Christians have not found the BIble sufficient to formulate a fixed, unchanging morality. They have had to work out what is good using observation, compassion and reason, and constantly revise it in discussion with one another, and increasingly, also in discussion with non-Christians.

But since the Bible is not enough to fix a moral compass-heading, is it necessary at all? What is it observation, compassion and reason cannot do, which the Bible can? What demonstrably good act is enjoined by the Bible, yet not inferrable from compassion and reason? What demonstrably bad act is forbidden by the Bible, yet cannot be inferred from compassionate and responsible regard for one's own consequences?

If Christian morality is objective, then how can the same objectivity not be reproduced without Biblical law? Or if it is subjective to use observation, compassion and reason to formulate morality, then how are Christians who use such methods, not subscribing to subjective morality?

I do not spend a lot of time thinking about the Christian gods (I say gods, because although each Christian claims there's only one, it seems never the same one.) The nature of the Christian god, or what it is supposed to want from humanity, is of no interest to me at all. I find no need to revile it or whine about it. It's a semantic vacuity devoid of authenticity and moral relevance, unworthy of even a rebuttal most of the time.

However Christian morality as practiced and taught, is of great concern to me, because it affects everyone.

I keep wondering when Christians are going to admit that they don't know what they're doing morally, that they're making it up as they go, and that they need to be more accountable for how they do it.

What do you think, Bronto? Do Christians know what they're doing? If they do, then why is it changing over the centuries, and why is there so much disagreement among Christians as to what ought to be done?
ethang5
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2016 8:14:33 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 6:25:00 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/15/2016 3:21:54 PM, brontoraptor wrote:

I keep wondering when Christians are going to admit that they don't know what they're doing morally, that they're making it up as they go, and that they need to be more accountable for how they do it.

And yet it is the theists on the board who openly answer questions and are transparent, and you will dodge to the point of appearing absurd. How come reality doesn't jive with your world-view?

Does reality matter to you?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2016 8:36:28 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/16/2016 8:14:33 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 2/15/2016 6:25:00 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/15/2016 3:21:54 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
I keep wondering when Christians are going to admit that they don't know what they're doing morally, that they're making it up as they go, and that they need to be more accountable for how they do it.
And yet it is the theists on the board who openly answer questions and are transparent,

Transparent?

How can you tell the difference between an accurate moral revelation sent by a metaphysical being and written by an unnamed and unauthenticable author, and something that is not an accurate revelation?

I'm happy to wait while you answer. But in the meantimg...

Nothing asserted under the authority of a god is transparent, Ethan. And being entirely opaque gives the religious license to interpret it one way and another, because who knows what actually occurred?

Hence, the huge diversity of canonical interpretation, hence no hope of objective or absolute morality from revelation.

On the other hand, if we empirically test what harms people, we know why we've drawn that conclusion. So... transparent, yes? Also, as objective as it gets.
ethang5
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2016 10:06:55 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/16/2016 8:36:28 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/16/2016 8:14:33 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 2/15/2016 6:25:00 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/15/2016 3:21:54 PM, brontoraptor wrote:

I keep wondering when Christians are going to admit that they don't know what they're doing morally, that they're making it up as they go, and that they need to be more accountable for how they do it.

And yet it is the theists on the board who openly answer questions and are transparent,

Transparent?

Yes. As in, No need to dodge?

How can you tell the difference between an accurate moral revelation sent by a metaphysical being and written by an unnamed and unauthenticable author, and something that is not an accurate revelation?

No need to get that heavy. No one here wrote the Bible. Lets keep it to our posts. Do you think you answer questions easily and openly?

I'm happy to wait while you answer. But in the meantimg...

Nothing asserted under the authority of a god is transparent, Ethan.

Ok. But we don't need to make this about God. I said, "...it is the theists on the board who openly answer questions and are transparent.." Do you dispute that?

And being entirely opaque gives the religious license to interpret it one way and another, because who knows what actually occurred?

You claims must jive with reality. If the religious are "entirely opaque" how come the reality is that they answer questions about their world-view and you do not? How come they can say what they believe and you dodge? Does reality matter to you?

Hence, the huge diversity of canonical interpretation, hence no hope of objective or absolute morality from revelation.

I know you want to talk about something else, and if find someone who wants to talk to you about canonical interpretation, knock yourself out. I implied that YOU aren't transparent. The YOU dodge question. That YOU hide.

If you address me, address that. Otherwise, I will get out of the way of the person who wants to talk with you about canonical interpretation.

On the other hand, if we empirically test what harms people, we know why we've drawn that conclusion. So... transparent, yes? Also, as objective as it gets.

Sorry, I didn't understand your point here.
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2016 10:09:40 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 3:21:54 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Atheists constantly whine and carry on trying to place God in some kind of objective morality bubble of which in itself is undefined.

-We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively outnumbers the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here.
" Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow (1998), 1.


Richard Dawkins We are the lucky ones speech

http://youtu.be...

"Whining Atheists"

Isn't that what you're constantly doing? Whining about Atheists and Muslims?
Meh!
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2016 12:26:18 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/16/2016 10:06:55 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 2/16/2016 8:36:28 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/16/2016 8:14:33 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 2/15/2016 6:25:00 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/15/2016 3:21:54 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
I keep wondering when Christians are going to admit that they don't know what they're doing morally, that they're making it up as they go, and that they need to be more accountable for how they do it.
And yet it is the theists on the board who openly answer questions and are transparent,
Transparent?
Yes. As in, No need to dodge?
How can you tell the difference between an accurate moral revelation sent by a metaphysical being and written by an unnamed and unauthenticable author, and something that is not an accurate revelation?
No need to get that heavy.
Then you recant your previous assertion that the religious are usually transparent?

If so, that's fine. Accepted.

If not, then the transparency of religious morality rationale is linked to the transparency of how their dogma was authored, redacted, curated and interpreted.

And in my view, that's a labyrinthine rat's nest of revisionism, excuse-making, double standards, evasions and special pleading. So I reject your earlier assertion.

Do you think you answer questions easily and openly?
That's not for me to say, Ethan. I know I try to, but I also find it necessary to explain why I find some questions stupid -- and some people don't like to hear that their 'gotcha' questions aren't very smart, so they may invent reasons I've rejected the premise of their questions, instead of trying to understand why I did.

Nothing asserted under the authority of a god is transparent, Ethan.
Ok. But we don't need to make this about God. I said, "...it is the theists on the board who openly answer questions and are transparent.." Do you dispute that?
Absolutely. Since they refer everything to their interpretation of texts whose provenance they can't authenticate, and which can have many interpretations, and thus avoid falsification, virtually every piece of dogmatic religious rationale is smoke and mirrors hiding circular logic and furtive cherry-picking.

And being entirely opaque gives the religious license to interpret it one way and another, because who knows what actually occurred?
You claims must jive with reality. If the religious are "entirely opaque" how come the reality is that they answer questions about their world-view and you do not?
What questions? I've told members openly: I'm an empiricist and uphold reason and compassion as a guide for moral actions, along with the pursuit of benefit and avoidance of and accountability for harm as my primary ethics. The why is because I've observed them work to make us smarter, kinder, more effective people in a happier, more just world; the why not religion is because I've observed that religion is expensive, adds no value to that outcome, and often impedes it.

I'm not sure what else there is to be said, Ethan. I don't demand people abandon their faith, but I want for people in general what I try to work toward in myself: to be smarter and kinder than we are. To the extent I can see religion impeding that, I oppose religion. When it doesn't, I don't.

How come they can say what they believe and you dodge? Does reality matter to you?
I've no idea what you're talking about here. What I believe about what? And does a belief matter that much if evidence can change it?

Hence, the huge diversity of canonical interpretation, hence no hope of objective or absolute morality from revelation.
I know you want to talk about something else
No; you've asked me whether I agree that the religious are transparent. I emphatically disagree, and have now explained why twice. You can accept my view, contest it or ignore it, but it's certainly relevant to your assertion.

If you address me, address that.
Actually, it was you who engaged me on this, Ethan. As a rule I have little interest in what you think, because I've formed the view that you're a zealous dogmatist who doesn't research much and is prone to emotional rationalisations. However, you made a personal challenge to my integrity, and an assertion about religion I found bafflingly false... So I'm responding to that for now until you either say something new and interesting, shock me outright by asking a respectful and astute question, or I get bored by your usual run of hostile, dogmatic repetition.

On the other hand, if we empirically test what harms people, we know why we've drawn that conclusion. So... transparent, yes? Also, as objective as it gets.
Sorry, I didn't understand your point here.
Well, you seem to have your own idea of what transparency means, so it may not be relevant to you. Moreover, I've never seen evidence nor reason change your mind on anything, so I'm not clear what we'd gain from me explaining further. If you think there's benefit in you learning more about why I think empiricism is transparent, please tell me what it is. Else I'll stick with what I already believe: that you're not engaging me to listen, but to express how you feel and tell me what you think, and that you'll stop once you've done that, not having remembered or thought about a single word I've written.
Fly
Posts: 2,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2016 12:44:01 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/17/2016 12:26:18 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/16/2016 10:06:55 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 2/16/2016 8:36:28 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/16/2016 8:14:33 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 2/15/2016 6:25:00 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/15/2016 3:21:54 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
I keep wondering when Christians are going to admit that they don't know what they're doing morally, that they're making it up as they go, and that they need to be more accountable for how they do it.
And yet it is the theists on the board who openly answer questions and are transparent,
Transparent?
Yes. As in, No need to dodge?
How can you tell the difference between an accurate moral revelation sent by a metaphysical being and written by an unnamed and unauthenticable author, and something that is not an accurate revelation?
No need to get that heavy.
Then you recant your previous assertion that the religious are usually transparent?

If so, that's fine. Accepted.

If not, then the transparency of religious morality rationale is linked to the transparency of how their dogma was authored, redacted, curated and interpreted.

And in my view, that's a labyrinthine rat's nest of revisionism, excuse-making, double standards, evasions and special pleading. So I reject your earlier assertion.

Do you think you answer questions easily and openly?
That's not for me to say, Ethan. I know I try to, but I also find it necessary to explain why I find some questions stupid -- and some people don't like to hear that their 'gotcha' questions aren't very smart, so they may invent reasons I've rejected the premise of their questions, instead of trying to understand why I did.

Nothing asserted under the authority of a god is transparent, Ethan.
Ok. But we don't need to make this about God. I said, "...it is the theists on the board who openly answer questions and are transparent.." Do you dispute that?
Absolutely. Since they refer everything to their interpretation of texts whose provenance they can't authenticate, and which can have many interpretations, and thus avoid falsification, virtually every piece of dogmatic religious rationale is smoke and mirrors hiding circular logic and furtive cherry-picking.

And being entirely opaque gives the religious license to interpret it one way and another, because who knows what actually occurred?
You claims must jive with reality. If the religious are "entirely opaque" how come the reality is that they answer questions about their world-view and you do not?
What questions? I've told members openly: I'm an empiricist and uphold reason and compassion as a guide for moral actions, along with the pursuit of benefit and avoidance of and accountability for harm as my primary ethics. The why is because I've observed them work to make us smarter, kinder, more effective people in a happier, more just world; the why not religion is because I've observed that religion is expensive, adds no value to that outcome, and often impedes it.

I'm not sure what else there is to be said, Ethan. I don't demand people abandon their faith, but I want for people in general what I try to work toward in myself: to be smarter and kinder than we are. To the extent I can see religion impeding that, I oppose religion. When it doesn't, I don't.

How come they can say what they believe and you dodge? Does reality matter to you?
I've no idea what you're talking about here. What I believe about what? And does a belief matter that much if evidence can change it?

Hence, the huge diversity of canonical interpretation, hence no hope of objective or absolute morality from revelation.
I know you want to talk about something else
No; you've asked me whether I agree that the religious are transparent. I emphatically disagree, and have now explained why twice. You can accept my view, contest it or ignore it, but it's certainly relevant to your assertion.

If you address me, address that.
Actually, it was you who engaged me on this, Ethan. As a rule I have little interest in what you think, because I've formed the view that you're a zealous dogmatist who doesn't research much and is prone to emotional rationalisations. However, you made a personal challenge to my integrity, and an assertion about religion I found bafflingly false... So I'm responding to that for now until you either say something new and interesting, shock me outright by asking a respectful and astute question, or I get bored by your usual run of hostile, dogmatic repetition.

On the other hand, if we empirically test what harms people, we know why we've drawn that conclusion. So... transparent, yes? Also, as objective as it gets.
Sorry, I didn't understand your point here.
Well, you seem to have your own idea of what transparency means, so it may not be relevant to you. Moreover, I've never seen evidence nor reason change your mind on anything, so I'm not clear what we'd gain from me explaining further. If you think there's benefit in you learning more about why I think empiricism is transparent, please tell me what it is. Else I'll stick with what I already believe: that you're not engaging me to listen, but to express how you feel and tell me what you think, and that you'll stop once you've done that, not having remembered or thought about a single word I've written.

Isn't it humorous to observe how often some here complain about atheists allegedly butting rudely into their religious discussions when roughly half the threads in this forum either address atheists directly or talk disparagingly about atheism and atheists? The unwitting insulation from reality is... unreal.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2016 1:21:23 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/17/2016 12:44:01 AM, Fly wrote:
At 2/17/2016 12:26:18 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/16/2016 10:06:55 PM, ethang5 wrote:
If you address me, address that.
Actually, it was you who engaged me on this, Ethan. As a rule I have little interest in what you think, because I've formed the view that you're a zealous dogmatist who doesn't research much and is prone to emotional rationalisations. However, you made a personal challenge to my integrity, and an assertion about religion I found bafflingly false... So I'm responding to that for now until you either say something new and interesting, shock me outright by asking a respectful and astute question, or I get bored by your usual run of hostile, dogmatic repetition.

Isn't it humorous to observe how often some here complain about atheists allegedly butting rudely into their religious discussions when roughly half the threads in this forum either address atheists directly or talk disparagingly about atheism and atheists? The unwitting insulation from reality is... unreal.
I don't mind the criticism in itself, Fly. I'm an atheist replying to a thread called (with Bronto's usual sensitivity) "Whiny Atheists and Objective Morality." A debating site ought to encourage accountability; and whether justified or not, Ethan's questions (accusations really) are on-topic, so I'm fine with that.

On the other hand, I can't see how it's not hypocritical of him. A member I've seen demand atheists get out of Religion nevertheless seems to spend a lot of his time criticising atheism and atheists here.

Does he want the right to vilify atheists from the safety of knowing nobody's going to rebut him? Or is he secretly glad atheists are here so he can rail at them while pretending they shouldn't be here?

Darned if I know. :p
ethang5
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2016 4:44:45 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/17/2016 12:26:18 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/16/2016 10:06:55 PM, ethang5 wrote:

And yet it is the theists on the board who openly answer questions and are transparent,
Transparent?
Yes. As in, No need to dodge?
How can you tell the difference between an accurate moral revelation sent by a metaphysical being and written by an unnamed and unauthenticable author, and something that is not an accurate revelation?
No need to get that heavy.

Then you recant your previous assertion that the religious are usually transparent?

Stop being stupid. I charged you with not being transparent and you want to talk about the accuracy of revelation? And you think I must recant if I won't follow you down that silly rabbit hole??? Can't your stupidity at least have some relevance?

If so, that's fine. Accepted.

My assertion was that Christians here are more transparent than atheists as we generally can answer questions and speak on our beliefs. We do not need to dodge as you do.

If not, then the transparency of religious morality rationale is linked to the transparency of how their dogma was authored, redacted, curated and interpreted.

Lets just look at your posts. We don't need rabbit holes. My claim is that the less transparent the person is, the more he'll dodge questions. Do you disagree?

And in my view, that's a labyrinthine rat's nest of revisionism, excuse-making, double standards, evasions and special pleading. So I reject your earlier assertion.

So then how do you account for the fact that you dodge questions like a cheap conman and I do not?

Do you think you answer questions easily and openly?

When I found that you expected it to be only me answering questions, I cut you off. If you wish to make that your claim of non-transparancy, go ahead.

That's not for me to say, Ethan. I know I try to, but I also find it necessary to explain why I find some questions stupid -- and some people don't like to hear that their 'gotcha' questions aren't very smart, so they may invent reasons I've rejected the premise of their questions, instead of trying to understand why I did.

You don't only do it with me. I can pull convos of yours from multiple theists and you do the same thing. You will dodge questions, demand yours be answered, and generally be smugly smarmy. Do you disagree?

Nothing asserted under the authority of a god is transparent, Ethan.

Is your behavior on the forum transparent?

Ok. But we don't need to make this about God. I said, "...it is the theists on the board who openly answer questions and are transparent.." Do you dispute that?

Absolutely. Since they refer everything to their interpretation of texts whose provenance they can't authenticate, and which can have many interpretations, and thus avoid falsification, virtually every piece of dogmatic religious rationale is smoke and mirrors hiding circular logic and furtive cherry-picking.

Ok. Now, Is your behavior on the forum transparent?

Your claims must jive with reality. If the religious are "entirely opaque" how come the reality is that they easily answer questions about their world-view and you dodge?

What questions? I've told members openly: I'm an empiricist and uphold reason and compassion as a guide for moral actions, along with the pursuit of benefit and avoidance of and accountability for harm as my primary ethics.

Not stuff you volunteer. Answers to questions asked of you by theists. Are you transparent with those?

I'm not sure what else there is to be said, Ethan.

Perhaps answer the questions I'm putting to you here? Or are they also "gotcha!" questions?

I don't demand people abandon their faith, but I want for people in general what I try to work toward in myself: to be smarter and kinder than we are.

All you're saying here is a smarmy, "I'm smarter than you and you should be more like me." That is not the topic at hand.

I said theists are more transparent.
You disagreed.
I then asked, how come we answer questions and you dodge?
You said my questions are all "gotcha!" questions.
I said you dodge with virtually every theist you post to, not just me.
Now it is your turn.....

How come they can say what they believe and you dodge? Does reality matter to you?

I've no idea what you're talking about here. What I believe about what? And does a belief matter that much if evidence can change it?

Not the point. Are you transparent in your responses to the questions of theists on this board?

No; you've asked me whether I agree that the religious are transparent. I emphatically disagree, and have now explained why twice.

Thank you. But remember the original charge was that YOU aren't transparent. Now. Do you think you are?

You can accept my view, contest it or ignore it, but it's certainly relevant to your assertion.

It is, but what about the charge that YOU aren't transparent?

If you address me, address that.

Actually, it was you who engaged me on this, Ethan.

So then I decided the topic. If you you don't care for the topic, don't respond. But if you do respond, address my topic.

As a rule I have little interest in what you think, because I've formed the view that you're a zealous dogmatist who doesn't research much and is prone to emotional rationalisations.

Fine, now that you've patted yourself on the back yet again, address the topic. Are YOU transparent?

However, you made a personal challenge to my integrity, and an assertion about religion I found bafflingly false... So I'm responding to that for now until you either say something new and interesting, shock me outright by asking a respectful and astute question, or I get bored by your usual run of hostile, dogmatic repetition.

lol, he can't dodge anymore and is preparing to run. Simple question, Is your behavior on the board transparent? Why do you think, Gentle Reader, that he can answer for the theist, but not for himself?

On the other hand, if we empirically test what harms people,....

How about we empirically test whether you dodge or answer questions transparently? Would that work?

Sorry, I didn't understand your point here.

Well, you seem to have your own idea of what transparency means,...

Hee hee! Notice Gentle that Ruv did not need a definition of "transparency" to determine that theists are NOT. But for himself....? lol Too funny.

....so it may not be relevant to you. Moreover, I've never seen evidence nor reason change your mind on anything, so I'm not clear what we'd gain from me explaining further.

As you conclude with every single theist you speak to. So you don't have to be transparent because theists don't respond to reason. Cool rationalization.

If you think there's benefit in you learning more about why I think empiricism is transparent, please tell me what it is.

Why not address whether YOU think YOU are transparent? That is the topic. Why suggest something else? You are not bound to address it, but if you don't want to, say so. We can empirically test whether you are transparent or not can't we? Aren't you a fan of empiricism?

Else I'll stick with what I already believe: that you're not engaging me to listen, but to express how you feel and tell me what you think,...

I have no alternative as you will not answer questions. Think whatever you like, and continue to believe what ever you like, just stop dodging. Stop running. While at the same time smarmily praising yourself about how bright you are.

If you were as smart as you think you are, you would be able to answer questions.

....and that you'll stop once you've done that, not having remembered or thought about a single word I've written.

If at least one of those words were an honest answer to a question of mine, that would be a start.
ethang5
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2016 4:54:08 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/17/2016 1:21:23 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/17/2016 12:44:01 AM, Fly wrote:
At 2/17/2016 12:26:18 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/16/2016 10:06:55 PM, ethang5 wrote:
If you address me, address that.
Actually, it was you who engaged me on this, Ethan. As a rule I have little interest in what you think, because I've formed the view that you're a zealous dogmatist who doesn't research much and is prone to emotional rationalisations. However, you made a personal challenge to my integrity, and an assertion about religion I found bafflingly false... So I'm responding to that for now until you either say something new and interesting, shock me outright by asking a respectful and astute question, or I get bored by your usual run of hostile, dogmatic repetition.

Isn't it humorous to observe how often some here complain about atheists allegedly butting rudely into their religious discussions when roughly half the threads in this forum either address atheists directly or talk disparagingly about atheism and atheists? The unwitting insulation from reality is... unreal.
I don't mind the criticism in itself, Fly. I'm an atheist replying to a thread called (with Bronto's usual sensitivity) "Whiny Atheists and Objective Morality." A debating site ought to encourage accountability; and whether justified or not, Ethan's questions (accusations really) are on-topic, so I'm fine with that.

But not fine enough to address them though.

On the other hand, I can't see how it's not hypocritical of him. A member I've seen demand atheists get out of Religion....

This is a lie. I have never made such a demand and you know it.

...nevertheless seems to spend a lot of his time criticising atheism and atheists here.

I criticize the claims you all bring here. And that is why you claim you are here, to engage in debate with theists.

Does he want the right to vilify atheists from the safety of knowing nobody's going to rebut him?

Argument by innuendo. When you can answer questions put to you, you will have the moral ground to make comments like this.

Or is he secretly glad atheists are here so he can rail at them while pretending they shouldn't be here?

I have never said or implied they shouldn't be here. I disagreed with the OP about the reason why they are here.

Darned if I know. :p

If you did know, we'd never know cause you'd never answer any of our questions.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2016 7:46:22 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/16/2016 10:06:55 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 2/16/2016 8:36:28 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/16/2016 8:14:33 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 2/15/2016 6:25:00 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/15/2016 3:21:54 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
I keep wondering when Christians are going to admit that they don't know what they're doing morally, that they're making it up as they go, and that they need to be more accountable for how they do it.
And yet it is the theists on the board who openly answer questions and are transparent,
Transparent?
Yes. As in, No need to dodge?
As for example, in stipulating what minimum evidence would incontrovertibly show their scriptural canon was authored without divine inspiration, and hence had no claim to moral or intellectual authority over humanity?

The religious haven't built the edifice of theological apologetics specifically to dodge that question?

How can you tell the difference between an accurate moral revelation sent by a metaphysical being and written by an unnamed and unauthenticable author, and something that is not an accurate revelation?
No need to get that heavy. No one here wrote the Bible. Lets keep it to our posts. Do you think you answer questions easily and openly?
I'm happy to wait while you answer. But in the meantimg...
Nothing asserted under the authority of a god is transparent, Ethan.
Ok. But we don't need to make this about God. I said, "...it is the theists on the board who openly answer questions and are transparent.." Do you dispute that?
Yes, because any person of faith who claims authority about anything moral, physical or historical from their scriptural canon, yet can't authenticate how their scripture was written, is claiming authority from an opaque argument.

And being entirely opaque gives the religious license to interpret it one way and another, because who knows what actually occurred?
You claims must jive with reality. If the religious are "entirely opaque" how come the reality is that they answer questions about their world-view and you do not? How come they can say what they believe and you dodge? Does reality matter to you?
Hence, the huge diversity of canonical interpretation, hence no hope of objective or absolute morality from revelation.
I know you want to talk about something else, and if find someone who wants to talk to you about canonical interpretation, knock yourself out. I implied that YOU aren't transparent. The YOU dodge question. That YOU hide.
Actually, I think you made three claims:
1) Atheists dodge key questions about how they see the world;
2) That includes me; and
3) Theists don't.

Even if 1) and 2) were true (and you haven't established that they are), if 3) were also true then your point would be insignificant. So you must establish 3) before 1) and 2) are even meaningful.

And despite me telling you repeatedly that appeals to scriptural authority are opaque, you keep asserting that the religious respond transparently (they don't) WHILE asserting that any argument with this statement is irrelevant.

How many horses would you like to try and straddle, Ethan?

At 2/17/2016 4:54:08 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 2/17/2016 1:21:23 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/17/2016 12:44:01 AM, Fly wrote:
Isn't it humorous to observe how often some here complain about atheists allegedly butting rudely into their religious discussions when roughly half the threads in this forum either address atheists directly or talk disparagingly about atheism and atheists? The unwitting insulation from reality is... unreal.
I don't mind the criticism in itself, Fly. I'm an atheist replying to a thread called (with Bronto's usual sensitivity) "Whiny Atheists and Objective Morality." A debating site ought to encourage accountability; and whether justified or not, Ethan's questions (accusations really) are on-topic, so I'm fine with that.
But not fine enough to address them though.
What questions in particular are we talking about? I've asked you that once already; you didn't answer.

On the other hand, I can't see how it's not hypocritical of him. A member I've seen demand atheists get out of Religion....
This is a lie. I have never made such a demand and you know it.
That's puzzling. I seem to recall that among the hate-filled, closed-minded theistic members who've asserted from time to time that there should be no atheists in the Religion forum, you were a contributor. Now, if I've misremembered, Ethan, then I shall apologise. For clarity then, do you welcome atheists to the Religion forum as respected peers and colleagues in constructive discussion? I've never formed that view from the tone or substance of your posts. If you have that view, please say so and your affirmation will clear up my misapprehensions once and for all. But if you don't, then I shall understand that whether you've said so or not, you believe atheists shouldn't be here. That's certainly how I've seen you act -- like every atheist is here dishonestly, and every single atheist's post is a personal burden to you.

I criticize the claims you all bring here. And that is why you claim you are here, to engage in debate with theists.
Is it? My interests run mainly to religious history, critical thought, human morality, and religion and society. I engage in discussion with both the religious and the irreligious here. That discussion isn't always debate, and I sometimes agree with a religious member or disagree with someone irreligious. I don't advance many claims, except about science and empiricism. So on matters theological I'm more likely to ask a question, critique a line of reasoning, or offer an alternative conjecture.

As far as I can recall, in my time here I've started only three threads. One asked a question about the justice in blasphemy laws to which I didn't pose any answers, while the second laid out, as clearly as I could, my personal views on religion in general for anyone to question and critique if they wanted. (I link that thread below.) The third was a joke thread at the expense of a member known for insulting others and whom, I felt, had made an hilariously conceited claim.

I have never said or implied they shouldn't be here. I disagreed with the OP about the reason why they are here.
Why do you think I am I here?

If you did know, we'd never know cause you'd never answer any of our questions.
Please remind me: if you have a legitimate question where you can demonstrate the validity and truth of the premise, and which I have not sought diligently to answer, what is it?

In the meantime, here is a thread in which I expressed my views on religion and morality at a member's request [http://www.debate.org...]. And here are two more in which members asked me questions in detail, which I sought to answer in full: [http://www.debate.org...] [http://www.debate.org...]

Ethan, I think it's time you told me what legitimate questions I'm not answering, or stopped making such a vague and belligerent claim.
ethang5
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2016 1:08:00 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/17/2016 7:46:22 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/16/2016 10:06:55 PM, ethang5 wrote:

I keep wondering when Christians are going to admit that they don't know what they're doing morally, that they're making it up as they go, and that they need to be more accountable for how they do it.

And yet it is the theists on the board who openly answer questions and are transparent,

Transparent?

Yes. As in, No need to dodge?

As for example, in stipulating what minimum evidence would incontrovertibly show their scriptural canon was authored without divine inspiration, and hence had no claim to moral or intellectual authority over humanity?

No. Just as in you dodging because you cannot afford to be transparent. You will not be able to dodge here Ruv. The challenge was to you, on this board.

The religious haven't built the edifice of theological apologetics specifically to dodge that question?

You are now trying to dodge. That will not be permitted. The challenge was to you and your posts here.

How can you tell the difference between an accurate moral revelation sent by a metaphysical being and written by an unnamed and unauthenticable author, and something that is not an accurate revelation?

No need to get that heavy. No one here wrote the Bible. Lets keep it to our posts. Do you think you answer questions easily and openly?

I'm happy to wait while you answer. But in the meantimg...

Nothing asserted under the authority of a god is transparent, Ethan.

Ok. But we don't need to make this about God. I said, "...it is the theists on the board who openly answer questions and are transparent.." Do you dispute that?

Yes, because any person of faith who claims authority about anything moral, physical or historical from their scriptural canon, yet can't authenticate how their scripture was written, is claiming authority from an opaque argument.

And being entirely opaque gives the religious license to interpret it one way and another, because who knows what actually occurred?

You claims must jive with reality. If the religious are "entirely opaque" how come the reality is that they answer questions about their world-view and you do not? How come they can say what they believe and you dodge? Does reality matter to you?

>>>Ruv dodges<<<

Hence, the huge diversity of canonical interpretation, hence no hope of objective or absolute morality from revelation.

I know you want to talk about something else, and if you find someone who wants to talk to you about canonical interpretation, knock yourself out. I implied that YOU aren't transparent. That YOU dodge question. That YOU hide.

Actually, I think you made three claims:
1) Atheists dodge key questions about how they see the world;
2) That includes me; and
3) Theists don't.

Even if 1) and 2) were true (and you haven't established that they are), if 3) were also true then your point would be insignificant. So you must establish 3) before 1) and 2) are even meaningful.

So lets use you as the standard for transparent atheists and me as the standard for "opaque" theists, and do an empirical test.

And despite me telling you repeatedly that appeals to scriptural authority are opaque, you keep asserting that the religious respond transparently (they don't) WHILE asserting that any argument with this statement is irrelevant.

We disagree on who is more transparent. So lets test it empirically. I think the group which is more transparent will be the group whose members dodge less. Do you agree?

How many horses would you like to try and straddle, Ethan?

I will straddle every one you attempt to dodge.

At 2/17/2016 4:54:08 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 2/17/2016 1:21:23 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/17/2016 12:44:01 AM, Fly wrote:

Isn't it humorous to observe how often some here complain about atheists allegedly butting rudely into their religious discussions when roughly half the threads in this forum either address atheists directly or talk disparagingly about atheism and atheists? The unwitting insulation from reality is... unreal.

I don't mind the criticism in itself, Fly. I'm an atheist replying to a thread called (with Bronto's usual sensitivity) "Whiny Atheists and Objective Morality." A debating site ought to encourage accountability; and whether justified or not, Ethan's questions (accusations really) are on-topic, so I'm fine with that.

But not fine enough to address them though.

What questions in particular are we talking about? I've asked you that once already; you didn't answer.

On the other hand, I can't see how it's not hypocritical of him. A member I've seen demand atheists get out of Religion....

This is a lie. I have never made such a demand and you know it.

That's puzzling. I seem to recall that among the hate-filled, closed-minded theistic members who've asserted from time to time that there should be no atheists in the Religion forum, you were a contributor.

lol, a "contributor"? For or against? Argumentation by innuendo. You know I did not call for atheists not to be here, so you call me a "contributor" to the thread so that the impression of your lie is created. Sleazy.

Now, if I've misremembered, Ethan, then I shall apologise.

After you sleazily created the impression? How noble of you.

For clarity then, do you welcome atheists to the Religion forum as respected peers and colleagues in constructive discussion?

I welcome atheists and generally like that the are here, and think they have every right to be here. But I do not see them as respected peers and colleagues in constructive discussion because they aren't. Semantics will not fool Ethan.

I've never formed that view from the tone or substance of your posts.

That is not the issue in question. Thinking that you should be here is different than thinking you are respected peers and colleagues in constructive discussion. You wish to conflate the two ideas now because you are dishonest, and your point loses without dishonesty.

If you have that view, please say so and your affirmation will clear up my misapprehensions once and for all.

Think you have succeeded in diverting us away from the challenge to you have you? You dodge questions. You dodge because you are dishonest. Transparency is anathema for the dishonest. An objective review of your posts will show that you dodge most questions from theists. You claim to be a believer in empiricism. Lets examine our conflicting claims about transparency.

(notice Ruv, how sweet this is? If you agree to compare posts, it will be shown in black and white that you dodge most of the questions put to you. If you dodge the challenge, you demonstrate you are a dodger in a thread claiming you dodge. Gotcha! lol)

So you'll now do anything to avoid making any choice because you KNOW you are a dodger, nd cannot afford to have your posts examined, but also cannot openly decline the challenge. What will you do?

But if you don't, then I shall understand that whether you've said so or not, you believe atheists shouldn't be here.

You have always been free to believe anything you want. If I didn't want to talk to atheists, I simply wouldn't. And there are some distasteful ones here that I do not talk to. So I think atheists should be here, but I treat them by how they behave. You for example, are intellectually dishonest. You claim you accept only facts. But when the facts oppose you, you will dodge like a kid playing dodge-ball.

So, keep dodging now, so that the Gentle Reader can see that your praise of empiricism is hollow, or accept the challenge and let me show that you dodge like a man who is filthy under his robes.
ethang5
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2016 2:30:06 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/17/2016 7:46:22 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/16/2016 10:06:55 PM, ethang5 wrote:

I criticize the claims you all bring here. And that is why you claim you are here, to engage in debate with theists.

Is it? My interests run mainly to religious history, critical thought, human morality, and religion and society. I engage in discussion with both the religious and the irreligious here. That discussion isn't always debate, and I sometimes agree with a religious member or disagree with someone irreligious. I don't advance many claims, except about science and empiricism. So on matters theological I'm more likely to ask a question, critique a line of reasoning, or offer an alternative conjecture.

No one is contesting how many times you ask questions. The charge is that you dodge questions put to you by theists. Playing games with words only help to show the Gentle Reader that you are dodging right now. At this moment.

As far as I can recall, in my time here I've started only three threads. One asked a question about the justice in blasphemy laws to which I didn't pose any answers, while the second laid out, as clearly as I could, my personal views on religion in general for anyone to question and critique if they wanted.

Oh yes, you can pontificate ad-nauseum when you are simply spouting your self-praise couched as "views". No one is challenging that. But after all that hot air, you will run from questions about what you posted like dog from and animal control expert. So stay on topic. How many posts you've created is not being challenged. How much bloated verbage you can spew unsolicited is not in question.

Whether you answer questions put to you by theists is.

I have never said or implied they shouldn't be here. I disagreed with the OP about the reason why they are here.

Why do you think I am I here?

You have low self esteem and a poor opinion of the religious. So you are here because you think your "genius" against the unthinking religious will make you appear a hero to other atheists. You value this affirmation and imagine that your image on the board is of this intelligent, articulate, and eloquent person who knows much about many subjects.

This is why no matter the subject, you always devolve into "teaching" in your posts. You seem to think you are the only one who knows or at least the one who knows most. You are unctuous and self serving. Your poor self-esteem cannot allow you to be examined, so you dodge and cover up your fear by diverting and vomiting excess verbage.

Basically, you are here for affirmation. You originally came to shore up your fragile ego against what you thought would be easy targets, theists. But the boards system seduced you, as the inexperienced were conned by your snake-oli ways. ELO's were perfect balm for you low self-esteem. You are now willing to abandon your integrity to keep your drug of affirmation.

If you did know, we'd never know cause you'd never answer any of our questions.

Please remind me: if you have a legitimate question where you can demonstrate the validity and truth of the premise, and which I have not sought diligently to answer, what is it?

lol. First the question needs to be "legitimate". And guess who decides if it is? Then the truth of the premise needs to be validated. And guess who's going to validate that "truth". Funny how all your questions already seem to have passed those tests.

I know better than to ask you questions Ruv. You cannot possibly answer any questions which you think would damage your "image" here. Asking is pointless. I am not asking you to answer any questions here. I am challenging you to be empirical. Let us examine your posts. Lets see if you are transparent.

Like the last time, I know you cannot allow the examination, but neither can you openly decline. (oh, you will try to think some nonsense for why you cannot do it but I will burn through that chaff quickly) So all I need to do is challenge you.

Notice, I do not need your permission to evaluate your past posts. But I put it as a challenge simply to show the Gentle Reader your hollowness. (That and the fact that I like your creative dodges)

In the meantime, here is a thread in which I expressed my views.....

Solicited? By a theist? With follow-up questions or did you just vomit a busload of self-praising pablum? What about this tread? Can we check THIS one? You want to be the one who suggests which thread we should look at right? See, for me, you can pick any thread you like. I am transparent, so I need not hide, dodge, or try to self-submit pre-chosen threads.

Ethan, I think it's time you told me what legitimate questions I'm not answering, or stopped making such a vague and belligerent claim.

lol, using your doctored conditions huh? You don't answer question Ruv. So it would be silly for me to ask you more. You dodge questions and that fact can be shown empirically through your past posts. You dodge because you are basically dishonest and afraid to have your incoherent positions examined.

You are also most comfortable holding court while running your fantasy that everyone is rapt at your words and admiring your knowledge on the subject. Questions to you spoil that fantasy.

So you always "suggest" what questions you will "answer". You change or ignore the questions asked and answer only the ones you have substituted for the questioner. You are innately intelligent, but something accounts for you low self esteem. It hinders your intelligence because it requires you to self-praise, making you seem smug and snotty to onlookers. (Sorry if that hurts your fantasy)

My claim is neither vague or belligerent. Were it that, you could have easily disposed of it. My claim is true, and your behavior here shows that you know it is true.

But you know what? I withdraw the challenge. There is no reason for it. Everyone here knows it is true. Pushing it gets me nothing but your shame, and while I would enjoy that, it really isn't worth the trouble.

I am opening the door of your cage. Go be free.
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2016 2:40:26 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 4:58:49 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
What is Atheist objective morality based on?

-----These guys views?-----

Iran's Leader

http://youtu.be...

Adolph Hitler

http://youtu.be...

KKK Speech

http://youtu.be...

Anjem Choudary

http://youtu.be...

---- ----
Jesus Christ

http://youtu.be...

Jesus Christ

http://youtu.be...

30 years of making my morality . With no rules
Yours comes from a book with scripture that God made .
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2016 5:27:30 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/19/2016 1:08:00 PM, ethang5 wrote:
So lets use you as the standard for transparent atheists and me as the standard for "opaque" theists, and do an empirical test.
At 2/19/2016 2:30:06 PM, ethang5 wrote:
I withdraw the challenge.
So, just to recap... in the space of an hour and a half, between your first post and your second... you challenged me on transparency, and then withdrew that challenge a mere lunchtime later, with me having posted nothing new?

Is that because I'd already supplied you with three threads in which I answered the questions of religious believers extensively? ([http://www.debate.org...], [http://www.debate.org...], [http://www.debate.org...].)

That's not a withdrawn challenge Ethan... that's being routed before you started, isn't it?

May I ask: did you read any of my linked threads before you ran away? Or did you flee without even reading them?
Are you even brave and honest enough to answer that question? If not, you'd be dodging it, wouldn't you? And you've said you don't do that.

Regarding the other matter, of whether you think atheists don't belong here... I've observed that you do a fine job of making atheists feel like they don't. Your last post illustrated how, extensively, and in case you're not aware of just how bad it got, here's your hatred from one post condensed, featuring the one idea (you believe I'm conceited and dishonest) repeated over and over, decorated with whatever vilifying imagery you could find:

you KNOW you are a dodger. You are intellectually dishonest. You can pontificate ad-nauseum when you are spouting your self-praise. You run from questions like dog from an animal control expert. You are unctuous and self serving [with] poor self-esteem. You cover up your fear by vomiting excess verbage. you are here for affirmation, to shore up your fragile ego, you are willing to abandon your integrity. Did you just vomit a busload of self-praising pablum? Your fantasy [is] that everyone is rapt at your words and admiring your knowledge. You seem smug and snotty to onlookers.
Ethan, this was in a post that did nothing else but withdraw a challenge you'd previously made, which I didn't invite, and which I hadn't had a chance to respond to. So essentially you had no substantive point but to tell me you were slinking away before I could respond, and the rest of it was you being hateful.
Does your faith teach you to hate in this way? Do you feel it's constructive? Do you feel it represents your faith well to those outside your faith? Is this the behaviour you'd like younger people of your faith to emulate? Do you feel it produces a tone you'd like to see in this forum? (And you can answer those questions transparently, can't you? Because you've told me you don't dodge such questions.)

And speaking of dodging:
At 2/19/2016 1:08:00 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 2/17/2016 7:46:22 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
For clarity then, do you welcome atheists to the Religion forum as respected peers and colleagues in constructive discussion?
I welcome atheists and generally like that the are here, and think they have every right to be here. But I do not see them as respected peers and colleagues in constructive discussion because they aren't.
So, you like atheists being here because you like to disrespect them, and so disrespect them that you cannot admit when you are wrong?

That's certainly what you've shown with me.

And how do I view you? Let's see... [http://www.debate.org...]
At 6/19/2015 3:07:34 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/19/2015 12:47:12 PM, ethang5 wrote:
I was sent on a errand to retrieve a family from Syria and arrived back in Ghana on the 4th only to find my house flooded in the June 3rd/4th floods. It has been hectic but I think most things are back on track now.
I'm glad you're safe, Ethan, and look forward to reading your posts.

Here's me arguing with you a post later [http://www.debate.org...]:
At 6/19/2015 3:48:42 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/19/2015 12:47:12 PM, ethang5 wrote:
A real pattern, created outside the mind of the observer, would be real evidence of a pattern maker.
No, I think all patterns are evidence of process, but processes are either the products of credible statistical variations under natural laws, or of designs that so improbable that we can conclude the exercise of preference. However, identifying improbable design requires exhaustive investigation of [probable alternatives, not an argument from ignorance.
So I, the dishonest and conceited atheist Ruv, have treated you with concern, and disagreed with your arguments respectfully on at least one occasion. While you, the transparent and morally laudable Ethan, who is so omniscient he can see into my corrupt atheistic soul, have issued a silly challenge that was defeated before he could advance it, and slunk away hurling insults?

That's what you've put on record, Ethan, all of your own initiative.

Is there anything I've overlooked?
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2016 5:42:26 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/19/2016 5:27:30 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/19/2016 1:08:00 PM, ethang5 wrote:
So lets use you as the standard for transparent atheists and me as the standard for "opaque" theists, and do an empirical test.
At 2/19/2016 2:30:06 PM, ethang5 wrote:
I withdraw the challenge.
So, just to recap... in the space of an hour and a half, between your first post and your second... you challenged me on transparency, and then withdrew that challenge a mere lunchtime later, with me having posted nothing new?

Is that because I'd already supplied you with three threads in which I answered the questions of religious believers extensively? ([http://www.debate.org...], [http://www.debate.org...], [http://www.debate.org...].)

That's not a withdrawn challenge Ethan... that's being routed before you started, isn't it?

May I ask: did you read any of my linked threads before you ran away? Or did you flee without even reading them?
Are you even brave and honest enough to answer that question? If not, you'd be dodging it, wouldn't you? And you've said you don't do that.

Regarding the other matter, of whether you think atheists don't belong here... I've observed that you do a fine job of making atheists feel like they don't. Your last post illustrated how, extensively, and in case you're not aware of just how bad it got, here's your hatred from one post condensed, featuring the one idea (you believe I'm conceited and dishonest) repeated over and over, decorated with whatever vilifying imagery you could find:

you KNOW you are a dodger. You are intellectually dishonest. You can pontificate ad-nauseum when you are spouting your self-praise. You run from questions like dog from an animal control expert. You are unctuous and self serving [with] poor self-esteem. You cover up your fear by vomiting excess verbage. you are here for affirmation, to shore up your fragile ego, you are willing to abandon your integrity. Did you just vomit a busload of self-praising pablum? Your fantasy [is] that everyone is rapt at your words and admiring your knowledge. You seem smug and snotty to onlookers.
Ethan, this was in a post that did nothing else but withdraw a challenge you'd previously made, which I didn't invite, and which I hadn't had a chance to respond to. So essentially you had no substantive point but to tell me you were slinking away before I could respond, and the rest of it was you being hateful.
Does your faith teach you to hate in this way? Do you feel it's constructive? Do you feel it represents your faith well to those outside your faith? Is this the behaviour you'd like younger people of your faith to emulate? Do you feel it produces a tone you'd like to see in this forum? (And you can answer those questions transparently, can't you? Because you've told me you don't dodge such questions.)

And speaking of dodging:
At 2/19/2016 1:08:00 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 2/17/2016 7:46:22 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
For clarity then, do you welcome atheists to the Religion forum as respected peers and colleagues in constructive discussion?
I welcome atheists and generally like that the are here, and think they have every right to be here. But I do not see them as respected peers and colleagues in constructive discussion because they aren't.
So, you like atheists being here because you like to disrespect them, and so disrespect them that you cannot admit when you are wrong?

That's certainly what you've shown with me.

And how do I view you? Let's see... [http://www.debate.org...]
At 6/19/2015 3:07:34 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/19/2015 12:47:12 PM, ethang5 wrote:
I was sent on a errand to retrieve a family from Syria and arrived back in Ghana on the 4th only to find my house flooded in the June 3rd/4th floods. It has been hectic but I think most things are back on track now.
I'm glad you're safe, Ethan, and look forward to reading your posts.

Here's me arguing with you a post later [http://www.debate.org...]:
At 6/19/2015 3:48:42 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/19/2015 12:47:12 PM, ethang5 wrote:
A real pattern, created outside the mind of the observer, would be real evidence of a pattern maker.
No, I think all patterns are evidence of process, but processes are either the products of credible statistical variations under natural laws, or of designs that so improbable that we can conclude the exercise of preference. However, identifying improbable design requires exhaustive investigation of [probable alternatives, not an argument from ignorance.
So I, the dishonest and conceited atheist Ruv, have treated you with concern, and disagreed with your arguments respectfully on at least one occasion. While you, the transparent and morally laudable Ethan, who is so omniscient he can see into my corrupt atheistic soul, have issued a silly challenge that was defeated before he could advance it, and slunk away hurling insults?

That's what you've put on record, Ethan, all of your own initiative.

Is there anything I've overlooked?

I think you overlooked the irony on him ignoring every key part of your argument here and while launching into a tirade about how atheists are the ones dodging the key points?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2016 5:53:20 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/19/2016 5:42:26 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/19/2016 5:27:30 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
So I, the dishonest and conceited atheist Ruv, have treated you with concern, and disagreed with your arguments respectfully on at least one occasion. While you, the transparent and morally laudable Ethan, who is so omniscient he can see into my corrupt atheistic soul, have issued a silly challenge that was defeated before he could advance it, and slunk away hurling insults?

That's what you've put on record, Ethan, all of your own initiative.

Is there anything I've overlooked?

I think you overlooked the irony on him ignoring every key part of your argument here and while launching into a tirade about how atheists are the ones dodging the key points?
You're right, Rammy. I've overlooked the fact that Ethan T-boned the thread to with a belligerent personal challenge, contributed nothing substantively on-topic in any of his exchanges with me, and then fled without apology to me, to the Original Poster, or to other participants for his disruptive, belligerent, irrelevant and pointless interjection. :(
Outplayz
Posts: 1,267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2016 6:39:39 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 3:21:54 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Atheists constantly whine and carry on trying to place God in some kind of objective morality bubble of which in itself is undefined.

Can i blast this all day in heaven and make Jesus head bang, while i pinch Muhammad's butt cheek?

https://www.youtube.com...

This is one of there best if your down with it:

https://www.youtube.com...
ethang5
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2016 10:09:10 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/19/2016 5:27:30 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/19/2016 1:08:00 PM, ethang5 wrote:

So lets use you as the standard for transparent atheists and me as the standard for "opaque" theists, and do an empirical test.

At 2/19/2016 2:30:06 PM, ethang5 wrote:
I withdraw the challenge.
So, just to recap... in the space of an hour and a half, between your first post and your second... you challenged me on transparency, and then withdrew that challenge a mere lunchtime later, with me having posted nothing new?

No. You're just lying.
2/16/2016 10:06:55 PM Post #15 THREE DAYS before I withdrew the challenge!
No need to get that heavy. No one here wrote the Bible. Let's keep it to our posts. Do you think you answer questions easily and openly?

2/17/2016 4:44:45 PM Post #20 TWO DAYS before I withdrew the challenge.

Lets just look at your posts. We don't need rabbit holes. My claim is that the less transparent the person is, the more he'll dodge questions. Do you disagree?

You don't only do it with me. I can pull convos of yours from multiple theists and you do the same thing. You will dodge questions, demand yours be answered, and generally be smugly smarmy. Do you disagree?

How about we empirically test whether you dodge or answer questions transparently? Would that work?

Oops. How will you dodge this? Will you pretend you didn't see it, or spin up another lie? You couldn't respond in 3 DAYS? In those 3 days, you posted several times. And each time, you dodged. My God, you are dishonest!

Is that because I'd already supplied you with three threads in which I answered the questions of religious believers extensively? ([http://www.debate.org......], [http://www.debate.org......], [http://www.debate.org......].)

You did not. You pontificated and dodged and answered your own supplied question as you always do. But it is moot cause as we see above, you lied about when I first posted the challenge and when I withdrew it.

That's not a withdrawn challenge Ethan... that's being routed before you started, isn't it?

You could have responded in THREE DAYS of posting. You now lie and say I first posted on the 19th. You are a liar Ruv. Do you ever feel shame?

May I ask: did you read any of my linked threads before you ran away? Or did you flee without even reading them?

lol, I ran away huh? So why are you so relieved? I've seen enough of your posts to know what was in them. I had a very long thread with you were you dodged until you ran from shame. Your bestie FJ had to come in trying to divert hoping to save your face. But you told me what was in them. You said,

...In the meantime, here is a thread in which I expressed my views on religion and morality at a member's request [http://www.debate.org......].

And I asked, members who are theists? And of course, you dodged that question.

And here are two more in which members asked me questions in detail, which I sought to answer in full: [http://www.debate.org......] [http://www.debate.org......]

Again, theists? You dodged.

Are you even brave and honest enough to answer that question? If not, you'd be dodging it, wouldn't you? And you've said you don't do that.

I answered it, even with your dishonest wording. Honesty is easy, you should try it sometime.

Regarding the other matter, of whether you think atheists don't belong here... I've observed that you do a fine job of making atheists feel like they don't.

Really? With you idiots coming here and insulting Jesus, calling theists stupid for their belief? Arrogantly Implying that you want to help lift us up from poor thinking? When an atheists behaves like a moron, he will get treated like a moron. Can you even comprehend the level of insult to a Christian when some semi-literate monkey says Jesus was gay, or refers to Him as jebus?

Your last post illustrated how, extensively, and in case you're not aware of just how bad it got, here's your hatred from one post condensed, featuring the one idea (you believe I'm conceited and dishonest) repeated over and over, decorated with whatever vilifying imagery you could find:

You are so dishonest. YOU asked me to tell you why I thought you were here. I told you. Perhaps if you don't like facing your true self, you should not ask.

Ethan, this was in a post that did nothing else but withdraw a challenge you'd previously made, which I didn't invite, and which I hadn't had a chance to respond to.
.
lol. I can do that. And you did have a chance. After I thought about your record of dodging, and the scant reason to "remind" the Gentle Readers of what they already knew, And THREE FULL DAYS of you dodging, I withdrew the challenge. You had a chance to answer, you dodged.

One post is enough to say "yes, let's check my posts and see if I am a liar or not." Even now, you are trying to milk this to give the impression that you would have met the challenge when you and I know you could not possibly do that.

That is why you quickly offered three threads for us to "check" because you didn't want us check just any of your threads. I am not amazed that your smarminess fools some on the board. Slicksters are a dime a dozen, and often have people who think they are just great. BTW, do you sell used cars?

So essentially you had no substantive point but to tell me you were slinking away before I could respond, and the rest of it was you being hateful.

You could have responded Ruv. The challenge was up for several posts and three days. You are lying now to save face. Even now, you could say, "No, no Ethan, let's do it." But you cannot. Because you know what we'll find. Dodging and substituted questions. Oh, and copious amounts of self praise.

Does your faith teach you to hate in this way?

There are things to love, and things to hate. I don't like liars. Do you imagine you are scoring points with anyone other than your choir? And if you already agree with you, why pander to them? You really need affirmation don't you?

Do you feel it's constructive?

One cannot be constructive with a serial dodger. All you want is to hold court and tell everyone how much you know. Constructive would be you being open and transparent. Answering questions honestly, and sometime, at least, not praising yourself. And oh, not lying.

See how I'm answering your loaded questions now? That, my honesty challenged friend, is what integrity affords me. No question you have, no matter how "have you stopped beating your wife" they are, scares me. You cannot win because your dodging and dishonesty is easy to see. And your trying to cover it up is obvious too. Not to you of course, because you aren't very self-aware.

So, just to recap... in the space of three days, between your first post of the challenge and your withdrawal, you challenged me on transparency, and then withdrew that challenge a long three days later, with me having dodged the the entire time offering nothing new?

Lies removed. You're welcome.