Total Posts:60|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The RR Interview

ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2016 1:13:08 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/3/2016 2:32:49 PM, ethang5 wrote:

See RR's answer here Gentle Readers? Why could he not simply say Yes or No? He had to add a caveat to his "Yes". Why do you think that is?

Because unlike you, he actually thought about this point and realized the silly childish caveats that people would make up,....

If something is ALWAYS immoral, the caveats matter not.

It's not as simple as you would like it to be. You didn't ask me whether it is always immoral by itself, that is what I was talking about and why I needed to qualify my answer first.

But that is precisely how atheists ask moral questions. They ask only about the action and demand a yes or no answer.

"Is it moral or immoral to stone children for being drunk?"

If you were interested in a productive dialog you would have figured that out.

I've been the one telling atheists that the morality of actions cannot be correctly judged without context. Yet you keep asking dishonest questions like, "is X action moral?" refusing to consider authority, relationship, and intent. To convict God, you will dispense with context, but to defend yourself, suddenly context is relevant again.

Oh please. There is not a single question you could ever throw at me that I would "dodge".

That has not been your history with me, but would you submit to an interview? Can I ask you a series of questions?

Please do. In fact start a whole thread on it. No attacks or questions by me allowed, only answers.

It need not be that stringent, you will be free to ask questions as long as you also answer mine. And I will take you up on that.

*Grabs the popcorn*

lol, you're gonna enjoy it a lot less than you do a movie.

If you accuse God, the Bible, or Christians of being immoral, you should be able to give a logical reason for why you do. And, "Because I don't personally like it" is NOT a logical reason to condemn another person of immorality.

And yet that is ultimately what every moral condemnation is based on, including yours.

Untrue. There are things I know are immoral but I desire anyway. You think I'm like you, with a morality which is wholly composed of only what you like. If I were to change my mind on a moral issue, my moral principles would remain the same. Yours would change. No Sir, some moral condemnations are NOT based on anyone's desire. That may be alien to you, but such a morality exists.

I am only miffed that you seem to believe your morality ultimately comes from somewhere else.

My morality is at least 2,000 years older than I. Unless you think I am one of the immortals, it is irrational to think my morality comes from me.

What should be self evident is that it is a problem when your supposedly perfectly moral God condones something that you would never accept as morally correct in your own life and so you just brush it off as "he wasn't talking to me".

Nonsense. It is laughably silly for atheists to pretend that every directive of God in the Bible is universal. Such stupidity is not worth the effort to respond.

I arrived at my judgement by beginning with my own arbitrary and subjective standards for morality, then applying logic. Just as you have.

Fine. But often you atheists then want to deny the clear implications from that. And even if you claim that I suffer from the same shortcoming, that does not negate the original claim about your so called morality.

Which is what exactly?

It isn't morality. It is a tool to place a fake cloak of morality over your desires.

Pleasure is preferable to Pain. This isn't complicated.

But that isn't morality. Not for anyone but you anyway. You have simply picked your standard and are upset that others don't follow it. So what?

I am not upset that others don't follow my standards, but it is irritating when others claim that the standard they chose to follow is objective and therefore superior to mine, and if I argue with them their standard will kick my @$$.

Just because both of you chose a standard does not mean the standards are equal or both subjective. And objective standards tend to be superior to subjective ones.

We both begin with our preferences and then use logic from that point to build a more complicated system.

Untrue. If I change my preference, my principles remains the same. If you change your preference, your principle changes right along with your desire. That difference shows your claim that we both begin with our preferences is false.

God is not immoral because you love pleasure and hate pain. That is the morality of desire, not true morality.

lol take a guess which one it is before clicking the link...
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com......

I really hope you aren't the type of doofus who thinks posting a link to a fallacy is a logical argument or means the other person has committed that fallacy. For I could just post a link myself and we would have dueling links.

Sorry if I annoyed you, but silly comments deserve silly responses.

You should worry more about the health of your argument than about annoying me. Silly responses will make this way too easy for me. I'd prefer a challenge.

Your comment was essentially "well your morality isn't true morality". Sure, ok.
And unlike you, I can show you why. Making up a moral code in your head based on your tastes is not morality. It has never been morality. And your calling it morality does nothing to change that fact.

Morality was a well defined word and concept long before either of us were born.

If you want to re-define morality, fine, simply say so. Don't pretend your new definition is simply an equally valid option. It isn't.

If you're defining morality as a system of evaluating what is right and wrong according to Gods will, then you need a new definition until you can demonstrate that God exists.

No Sir. Intelligent people can think theoretically. We can use "If /Then" logic to figure out even theoretical things. The logic of hypotheticals can be easily determined. You will not be able to hide behind the "prove God" dodge.

Other than that, I am using the same definition society has always used,...

Other than what? You aren't. Other than the definition society has always used, you are using the "same" definition? Same as what?

Morality can be defined without reference to God. It can be defined by its purpose. Morality is a system or principle which we use to determine what is right and what is wrong.

Your morality fails this definition as it cannot determine what is right and wrong. It can only tell us what you feel at a specific time. That is not morality, that is self-serving nonsense, and no matter how many links to fallacies you post, it will remain nonsense.

First question,

If your morality is based on reducing suffering, how can you tell if an action is moral if you cannot tell at the time of deciding on the action whether it will result in a reduction of suffering?
illegalcombat
Posts: 632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2016 3:28:39 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/31/2016 9:05:41 AM, ethang5 wrote:
Double R claimed he would not dodge.

He dodged.

Surprised?

Not me.

And what was your superior morality again ? Make moral claims, claim they come from God ?.............
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2016 8:28:15 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/31/2016 9:05:41 AM, ethang5 wrote:
Double R claimed he would not dodge.

He dodged.

Surprised?

Not me.

"Last online 2 weeks ago".

Dude hasn't touched his DDO account in half a month. Victory parties might be a premature, yo.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 12:45:31 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/31/2016 9:05:41 AM, ethang5 wrote:
Double R claimed he would not dodge.

He dodged.

Surprised?

Not me.

Perhaps, you're being ignored after penning that outrageously hilarious thread where you catapulted yourself into the category of religious nutter.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 1:50:06 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/31/2016 3:28:39 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 5/31/2016 9:05:41 AM, ethang5 wrote:
Double R claimed he would not dodge.

He dodged.

Surprised?

Not me.

And what was your superior morality again ? Make moral claims, claim they come from God ?.............

Guess my "superior morality" excuses ole double R.
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 1:52:27 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/31/2016 8:28:15 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 5/31/2016 9:05:41 AM, ethang5 wrote:
Double R claimed he would not dodge.

He dodged.

Surprised?

Not me.

"Last online 2 weeks ago".

Dude hasn't touched his DDO account in half a month. Victory parties might be a premature, yo.

Double R hasn't touched the challenge in half a month, but you're a Glass-half-full kinda atheist aren't you?

I'm not happy. I really wanted to interview him. I'm just not surprised.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 2:09:27 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/9/2016 1:52:27 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 5/31/2016 8:28:15 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 5/31/2016 9:05:41 AM, ethang5 wrote:
Double R claimed he would not dodge.

He dodged.

Surprised?

Not me.

"Last online 2 weeks ago".

Dude hasn't touched his DDO account in half a month. Victory parties might be a premature, yo.

Double R hasn't touched the challenge in half a month, but you're a Glass-half-full kinda atheist aren't you?

I'm not happy. I really wanted to interview him. I'm just not surprised.

I'm not happy either, but I can't help but notice your interview challenge thing started one week after the start of his hiatus, when last I checked his activity.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 2:54:50 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/18/2016 1:13:08 PM, ethang5 wrote:


It's not as simple as you would like it to be. You didn't ask me whether it is always immoral by itself, that is what I was talking about and why I needed to qualify my answer first.

But that is precisely how atheists ask moral questions. They ask only about the action and demand a yes or no answer.

"Is it moral or immoral to stone children for being drunk?"

Very simple question. For the irreligious, its a very simple answer: it is immoral to stone children for being drunk.

For Christians, they don't know the answer to this question. Maybe it is moral to kill your children if they sneak a few Heinekens, maybe it is not.

Christians cannot answer the question without a bunch of obscure generalities and double talk. Points go to the Christians whose answer uses the most profound sounding words while presenting an answer completely void of content.

Can you finish this sentence with a straight answer?

It is immoral to stone your children for being drunk, except when _________________________________.

What does the Christian say to the police when asked why he killed his kids for sneaking a few beers?
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 3:19:30 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/18/2016 1:13:08 PM, ethang5 wrote:


I've been the one telling atheists that the morality of actions cannot be correctly judged without context. Yet you keep asking dishonest questions like, "is X action moral?" refusing to consider authority, relationship, and intent. To convict God, you will dispense with context, but to defend yourself, suddenly context is relevant again.

You can change the context however you like. Finish this sentence:

It is immoral to stone your children for being drunk, except when ________________________________.

Have at it.


Please do. In fact start a whole thread on it. No attacks or questions by me allowed, only answers.

It need not be that stringent, you will be free to ask questions as long as you also answer mine. And I will take you up on that.

If you finish the above sentence, you can ask me any question you like and I will answer it.



If you accuse God, the Bible, or Christians of being immoral, you should be able to give a logical reason for why you do. And, "Because I don't personally like it" is NOT a logical reason to condemn another person of immorality.

You just gave an argument for subjective morality.

And yet that is ultimately what every moral condemnation is based on, including yours.

Untrue. There are things I know are immoral but I desire anyway. You think I'm like you, with a morality which is wholly composed of only what you like. If I were to change my mind on a moral issue, my moral principles would remain the same. Yours would change. No Sir, some moral condemnations are NOT based on anyone's desire. That may be alien to you, but such a morality exists.

How do you know? You cant even give a straight answer as to when killing babies, genocide, slavery, etc is moral and when it is immoral.

I am only miffed that you seem to believe your morality ultimately comes from somewhere else.

My morality is at least 2,000 years older than I. Unless you think I am one of the immortals, it is irrational to think my morality comes from me.

Exactly. You believe in a religion that esteems human sacrifice. Doesn't that seem a bit barbaric to you?

What should be self evident is that it is a problem when your supposedly perfectly moral God condones something that you would never accept as morally correct in your own life and so you just brush it off as "he wasn't talking to me".

Nonsense. It is laughably silly for atheists to pretend that every directive of God in the Bible is universal. Such stupidity is not worth the effort to respond.

Who decides what biblical directive to follow and by what standards? The voices in your head? Hearsay from other people that also listen to the voices in their heads?

I arrived at my judgement by beginning with my own arbitrary and subjective standards for morality, then applying logic. Just as you have.

Fine. But often you atheists then want to deny the clear implications from that. And even if you claim that I suffer from the same shortcoming, that does not negate the original claim about your so called morality.

Which is what exactly?

It isn't morality. It is a tool to place a fake cloak of morality over your desires.

How does thinking that one should not kill babies, own slaves or stone difficult or mentally ill children equate to evidence of a "fake cloak of morality over your desires"?

More profound sounding words completely void of content. You should be a pastor.

Pleasure is preferable to Pain. This isn't complicated.

But that isn't morality. Not for anyone but you anyway. You have simply picked your standard and are upset that others don't follow it. So what?

I am not upset that others don't follow my standards, but it is irritating when others claim that the standard they chose to follow is objective and therefore superior to mine, and if I argue with them their standard will kick my @$$.

Just because both of you chose a standard does not mean the standards are equal or both subjective. And objective standards tend to be superior to subjective ones.

We both begin with our preferences and then use logic from that point to build a more complicated system.

Untrue. If I change my preference, my principles remains the same. If you change your preference, your principle changes right along with your desire. That difference shows your claim that we both begin with our preferences is false.

God is not immoral because you love pleasure and hate pain. That is the morality of desire, not true morality.

Again, how would you know? If you cant finish the sentence I presented, how can you claim to know whats moral?

lol take a guess which one it is before clicking the link...
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com......

I really hope you aren't the type of doofus who thinks posting a link to a fallacy is a logical argument or means the other person has committed that fallacy. For I could just post a link myself and we would have dueling links.

Sorry if I annoyed you, but silly comments deserve silly responses.

You should worry more about the health of your argument than about annoying me. Silly responses will make this way too easy for me. I'd prefer a challenge.

Your comment was essentially "well your morality isn't true morality". Sure, ok.
And unlike you, I can show you why. Making up a moral code in your head based on your tastes is not morality. It has never been morality. And your calling it morality does nothing to change that fact.

Morality was a well defined word and concept long before either of us were born.

If you want to re-define morality, fine, simply say so. Don't pretend your new definition is simply an equally valid option. It isn't.

I have asked many Christians to define how one can know what is moral and when it is immoral. None have been able to do it and stumble on simple questions.

If you're defining morality as a system of evaluating what is right and wrong according to Gods will, then you need a new definition until you can demonstrate that God exists.

No Sir. Intelligent people can think theoretically. We can use "If /Then" logic to figure out even theoretical things. The logic of hypotheticals can be easily determined. You will not be able to hide behind the "prove God" dodge.

You want other people to follow your morality yet you cannot define a system of knowing right or wrong in simple, specific situations? If you want to test that out, I can present a few situations and lets see how you do.

Other than that, I am using the same definition society has always used,...

Other than what? You aren't. Other than the definition society has always used, you are using the "same" definition? Same as what?

Morality can be defined without reference to God. It can be defined by its purpose.

Exactly. We don't need the Bible to know whats moral. I'm surprised to hear you admit this however.

If your morality is based on reducing suffering, how can you tell if an action is moral if you cannot tell at the time of deciding on the action whether it will result in a reduction of suffering?

Some moral questions are not clear but some are very clear. Lets start with some simple questions like killing babies and work our way up.
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2016 10:18:17 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/9/2016 2:09:27 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 6/9/2016 1:52:27 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 5/31/2016 8:28:15 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 5/31/2016 9:05:41 AM, ethang5 wrote:
Double R claimed he would not dodge.

He dodged.

Surprised?

Not me.

"Last online 2 weeks ago".

Dude hasn't touched his DDO account in half a month. Victory parties might be a premature, yo.

Double R hasn't touched the challenge in half a month, but you're a Glass-half-full kinda atheist aren't you?

I'm not happy. I really wanted to interview him. I'm just not surprised.

I'm not happy either, but I can't help but notice your interview challenge thing started one week after the start of his hiatus, when last I checked his activity.

lol. It started while he and I were talking. If he was going on hiatus, he could have told me.

I can't help but notice his hiatus thing started one week after the start of the interview challenge. Go figure.
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2016 11:05:13 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/9/2016 3:19:30 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 5/18/2016 1:13:08 PM, ethang5 wrote:

I've been the one telling atheists that the morality of actions cannot be correctly judged without context. Yet you keep asking dishonest questions like, "is X action moral?" refusing to consider authority, relationship, and intent. To convict God, you will dispense with context, but to defend yourself, suddenly context is relevant again.

You can change the context however you like.

I didn't change the context. There was NO context.

Finish this sentence:

It is immoral to stone your children for being drunk, except when ________________________________.

I see you're an idiot in the vein of clown8. I tell you that the morality of actions cannot be correctly judged without context and you repeat a context-less question! Sorry, you will just have to be an idiot alone. Ethan doesn't do stupid.

Please do. In fact start a whole thread on it. No attacks or questions by me allowed, only answers.

It need not be that stringent, you will be free to ask questions as long as you also answer mine. And I will take you up on that.

If you finish the above sentence, you can ask me any question you like and I will answer it.

I have no interest in interviewing you as you are a moron. If you cannot understand why moral judgement needs context, beating you would have the joy of beating a cripple. I like my wins to come with lolz.

If you accuse God, the Bible, or Christians of being immoral, you should be able to hive a logical reason for why you do. And, "Because I don't personally like it" is NOT a logical reason to condemn another person of immorality.

You just gave an argument for subjective morality.

And you just convinced us that you missed all your critical thinking classes.

And yet that is ultimately what every moral condemnation is based on, including yours.

Untrue. There are things I know are immoral but I desire anyway. You think I'm like you, with a morality which is wholly composed of only what you like. If I were to change my mind on a moral issue, my moral principles would remain the same. Yours would change. No Sir, some moral condemnations are NOT based on anyone's desire. That may be alien to you, but such a morality exists.

How do you know?

I can think.

You cant even give a straight answer as to when killing babies, genocide, slavery, etc is moral and when it is immoral.

Of course I can, and in the thread you are plagiarizing, I did. It is your POV that fails when asked questions. That is why RR is now dodging. You can only make unsupported claims, and then run away from questions to your worldview.

I am only miffed that you seem to believe your morality ultimately comes from somewhere else.

My morality is at least 2,000 years older than I. Unless you think I am one of the immortals, it is irrational to think my morality comes from me.

Exactly. You believe in a religion that esteems human sacrifice. Doesn't that seem a bit barbaric to you?

No, that seems stupid to me. But then you appear to specialize in stupidity, I should not be surprised.

What should be self evident is that it is a problem when your supposedly perfectly moral God condones something that you would never accept as morally correct in your own life and so you just brush it off as "he wasn't talking to me".

Nonsense. It is laughably silly for atheists to pretend that every directive of God in the Bible is universal. Such stupidity is not worth the effort to respond.

Who decides what biblical directive to follow and by what standards?

Common sense. If God says, "Peter, I need to pay taxes, go get me a fish I will sell to pay my tax." He cannot be telling everyone to go get Him a fish. Stupidity will not play well here.

The voices in your head? Hearsay from other people that also listen to the voices in their heads?

Do you hear voices in your head? Do you use them to figure what Shakespeare said? Or what the declaration of independence said? Or what Lord of the Rings mean? It doesn't help your case if you are an idiot in trying to prove someone else an idiot.

I arrived at my judgement by beginning with my own arbitrary and subjective standards for morality, then applying logic. Just as you have.

Fine. But often you atheists then want to deny the clear implications from that. And even if you claim that I suffer from the same shortcoming, that does not negate the original claim about your so called morality.

Which is what exactly?

It isn't morality. It is a tool to place a fake cloak of morality over your desires.

How does thinking that one should not kill babies, own slaves or stone difficult or mentally ill children equate to evidence of a "fake cloak of morality over your desires"?

More profound sounding words completely void of content. You should be a pastor.

All Christians are Pastors. I would say you should be a dolt, but you beat me to it.

Pleasure is preferable to Pain. This isn't complicated.

But that isn't morality. Not for anyone but you anyway. You have simply picked your standard and are upset that others don't follow it. So what?

I am not upset that others don't follow my standards, but it is irritating when others claim that the standard they chose to follow is objective and therefore superior to mine, and if I argue with them their standard will kick my @$$.

Just because both of you chose a standard does not mean the standards are equal or both subjective. And objective standards tend to be superior to subjective ones.

We both begin with our preferences and then use logic from that point to build a more complicated system.

Untrue. If I change my preference, my principles remains the same. If you change your preference, your principle changes right along with your desire. That difference shows your claim that we both begin with our preferences is false.

God is not immoral because you love pleasure and hate pain. That is the morality of desire, not true morality.

Again, how would you know?

Again, unlike you, I can think.

If you cant finish the sentence I presented, how can you claim to know whats moral?

Your sentence is not a "test" that proves someone knows what is moral. It is the question of an idiot who doesn't know that morality comes from the context and not from the simple action.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2016 11:09:38 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/10/2016 10:18:17 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 6/9/2016 2:09:27 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 6/9/2016 1:52:27 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 5/31/2016 8:28:15 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 5/31/2016 9:05:41 AM, ethang5 wrote:
Double R claimed he would not dodge.

He dodged.

Surprised?

Not me.

"Last online 2 weeks ago".

Dude hasn't touched his DDO account in half a month. Victory parties might be a premature, yo.

Double R hasn't touched the challenge in half a month, but you're a Glass-half-full kinda atheist aren't you?

I'm not happy. I really wanted to interview him. I'm just not surprised.

I'm not happy either, but I can't help but notice your interview challenge thing started one week after the start of his hiatus, when last I checked his activity.

lol. It started while he and I were talking. If he was going on hiatus, he could have told me.

I can't help but notice his hiatus thing started one week after the start of the interview challenge. Go figure.

All I am saying is that I remember a challenge you were issued, slow responses, and a flooded house, so expedience in light of general appearance of abandonment doesn't mean much.

To me, at least.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2016 11:30:16 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/9/2016 3:19:30 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 5/18/2016 1:13:08 PM, ethang5 wrote:

I have asked many Christians to define how one can know what is moral and when it is immoral. None have been able to do it and stumble on simple questions.

You've never asked me. This very thread exists because I have found the same thing about atheists.

If you're defining morality as a system of evaluating what is right and wrong according to Gods will, then you need a new definition until you can demonstrate that God exists.

No Sir. Intelligent people can think theoretically. We can use "If /Then" logic to figure out even theoretical things. The logic of hypotheticals can be easily determined. You will not be able to hide behind the "prove God" dodge.

You want other people to follow your morality yet you cannot define a system of knowing right or wrong in simple, specific situations?

Stop being stupid. First, I have asked no one to follow my morality. Follow what you like, just don't misrepresent it. Second, I was not asked to define a system of knowing right or wrong in simple, specific situations, I was asked to demonstrate God exists. That has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

My morality is not on trail here. YOURS is. YOU say morality is subjective. YOU say there is no objective morality. So YOU show us a system of knowing right or wrong in simple, specific situations. You cannot. You can only show us what you DESIRE in specific situations. And we know that, what you desire, is not what morality is.

If you want to test that out, I can present a few situations and lets see how you do.

lol, your morality is in question, but like all atheists, you don't want to answer any questions about it, you only want to ask questions which divert attention from your illogical POV. This thread was set up to question an atheist about his POV. Would you like to sit in for him?

Other than that, I am using the same definition society has always used,...

Other than what? You aren't. Other than the definition society has always used, you are using the "same" definition? Same as what?

Morality can be defined without reference to God. It can be defined by its purpose.

Exactly. We don't need the Bible to know whats moral. I'm surprised to hear you admit this however.

You are surprised because you have without thought swallowed the atheist lie that Christians say we need the Bible to know what is moral. What Christians say is that, "without God, all morality is subjective and lacks authority".

If your morality is based on reducing suffering, how can you tell if an action is moral if you cannot tell at the time of deciding on the action whether it will result in a reduction of suffering?

Some moral questions are not clear but some are very clear.

The moral question above must have been very unclear to you because you dodged it like a chimp.....err...scuse me, like a champ. Why did you not answer? Because your moral system is illogical and you know it. It lacks coherence so you do not want it examined.

Lets start with some simple questions like killing babies and work our way up.

Again, you will not flip the script here. YOUR moral code is in question. Can you defend it? You seem to think you know what morality is. Can you say? Or like most atheists, are you a closet dodger?

I sense another non-surprise coming up.
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2016 11:33:21 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/10/2016 11:09:38 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 6/10/2016 10:18:17 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 6/9/2016 2:09:27 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 6/9/2016 1:52:27 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 5/31/2016 8:28:15 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 5/31/2016 9:05:41 AM, ethang5 wrote:
Double R claimed he would not dodge.

He dodged.

Surprised?

Not me.

"Last online 2 weeks ago".

Dude hasn't touched his DDO account in half a month. Victory parties might be a premature, yo.

Double R hasn't touched the challenge in half a month, but you're a Glass-half-full kinda atheist aren't you?

I'm not happy. I really wanted to interview him. I'm just not surprised.

I'm not happy either, but I can't help but notice your interview challenge thing started one week after the start of his hiatus, when last I checked his activity.

lol. It started while he and I were talking. If he was going on hiatus, he could have told me.

I can't help but notice his hiatus thing started one week after the start of the interview challenge. Go figure.

All I am saying is that I remember a challenge you were issued, slow responses, and a flooded house, so expedience in light of general appearance of abandonment doesn't mean much.

To me, at least.

Ok. Maybe like me, RR will show up with a reasonable explanation and follow through.

Would you like to take some questions in the interim?

No. I didn't think so.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2016 11:35:17 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/10/2016 11:33:21 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 6/10/2016 11:09:38 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 6/10/2016 10:18:17 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 6/9/2016 2:09:27 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 6/9/2016 1:52:27 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 5/31/2016 8:28:15 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 5/31/2016 9:05:41 AM, ethang5 wrote:
Double R claimed he would not dodge.

He dodged.

Surprised?

Not me.

"Last online 2 weeks ago".

Dude hasn't touched his DDO account in half a month. Victory parties might be a premature, yo.

Double R hasn't touched the challenge in half a month, but you're a Glass-half-full kinda atheist aren't you?

I'm not happy. I really wanted to interview him. I'm just not surprised.

I'm not happy either, but I can't help but notice your interview challenge thing started one week after the start of his hiatus, when last I checked his activity.

lol. It started while he and I were talking. If he was going on hiatus, he could have told me.

I can't help but notice his hiatus thing started one week after the start of the interview challenge. Go figure.

All I am saying is that I remember a challenge you were issued, slow responses, and a flooded house, so expedience in light of general appearance of abandonment doesn't mean much.

To me, at least.

Ok. Maybe like me, RR will show up with a reasonable explanation and follow through.

Would you like to take some questions in the interim?

Sure.

No. I didn't think so.

... um....
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2016 11:49:28 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/10/2016 11:35:17 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 5/31/2016 9:05:41 AM, ethang5 wrote:

Double R claimed he would not dodge.

He dodged.

Surprised?

Not me.

"Last online 2 weeks ago".

Dude hasn't touched his DDO account in half a month. Victory parties might be a premature, yo.

Double R hasn't touched the challenge in half a month, but you're a Glass-half-full kinda atheist aren't you?

I'm not happy. I really wanted to interview him. I'm just not surprised.

I'm not happy either, but I can't help but notice your interview challenge thing started one week after the start of his hiatus, when last I checked his activity.

lol. It started while he and I were talking. If he was going on hiatus, he could have told me.

I can't help but notice his hiatus thing started one week after the start of the interview challenge. Go figure.

All I am saying is that I remember a challenge you were issued, slow responses, and a flooded house, so expedience in light of general appearance of abandonment doesn't mean much.

To me, at least.

Ok. Maybe like me, RR will show up with a reasonable explanation and follow through.

Would you like to take some questions in the interim?

Sure.

No. I didn't think so.

... um....

( !!!!!! ) Under the same rules of engagement as RR agreed to????
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2016 3:09:59 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/10/2016 11:49:28 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 6/10/2016 11:35:17 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 5/31/2016 9:05:41 AM, ethang5 wrote:

Double R claimed he would not dodge.

He dodged.

Surprised?

Not me.

"Last online 2 weeks ago".

Dude hasn't touched his DDO account in half a month. Victory parties might be a premature, yo.

Double R hasn't touched the challenge in half a month, but you're a Glass-half-full kinda atheist aren't you?

I'm not happy. I really wanted to interview him. I'm just not surprised.

I'm not happy either, but I can't help but notice your interview challenge thing started one week after the start of his hiatus, when last I checked his activity.

lol. It started while he and I were talking. If he was going on hiatus, he could have told me.

I can't help but notice his hiatus thing started one week after the start of the interview challenge. Go figure.

All I am saying is that I remember a challenge you were issued, slow responses, and a flooded house, so expedience in light of general appearance of abandonment doesn't mean much.

To me, at least.

Ok. Maybe like me, RR will show up with a reasonable explanation and follow through.

Would you like to take some questions in the interim?

Sure.

No. I didn't think so.

... um....

( !!!!!! ) Under the same rules of engagement as RR agreed to????

That being
"Please do. In fact start a whole thread on it. No attacks or questions by me allowed, only answers."

"It need not be that stringent, you will be free to ask questions as long as you also answer mine. And I will take you up on that."
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2016 3:10:56 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/10/2016 11:49:28 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 6/10/2016 11:35:17 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 5/31/2016 9:05:41 AM, ethang5 wrote:

Double R claimed he would not dodge.

He dodged.

Surprised?

Not me.

"Last online 2 weeks ago".

Dude hasn't touched his DDO account in half a month. Victory parties might be a premature, yo.

Double R hasn't touched the challenge in half a month, but you're a Glass-half-full kinda atheist aren't you?

I'm not happy. I really wanted to interview him. I'm just not surprised.

I'm not happy either, but I can't help but notice your interview challenge thing started one week after the start of his hiatus, when last I checked his activity.

lol. It started while he and I were talking. If he was going on hiatus, he could have told me.

I can't help but notice his hiatus thing started one week after the start of the interview challenge. Go figure.

All I am saying is that I remember a challenge you were issued, slow responses, and a flooded house, so expedience in light of general appearance of abandonment doesn't mean much.

To me, at least.

Ok. Maybe like me, RR will show up with a reasonable explanation and follow through.

Would you like to take some questions in the interim?

Sure.

No. I didn't think so.

... um....

( !!!!!! ) Under the same rules of engagement as RR agreed to????

That being:

Please do. In fact start a whole thread on it. No attacks or questions by me allowed, only answers.

It need not be that stringent, you will be free to ask questions as long as you also answer mine. And I will take you up on that.

Correct?

(sorry, forgot the 'correct' in my similar post)
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2016 3:42:18 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/10/2016 11:05:13 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 6/9/2016 3:19:30 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 5/18/2016 1:13:08 PM, ethang5 wrote:

I've been the one telling atheists that the morality of actions cannot be correctly judged without context. Yet you keep asking dishonest questions like, "is X action moral?" refusing to consider authority, relationship, and intent. To convict God, you will dispense with context, but to defend yourself, suddenly context is relevant again.

You can change the context however you like.

I didn't change the context. There was NO context.

Finish this sentence:

It is immoral to stone your children for being drunk, except when ________________________________.

I see you're an idiot in the vein of clown8. I tell you that the morality of actions cannot be correctly judged without context and you repeat a context-less question! Sorry, you will just have to be an idiot alone. Ethan doesn't do stupid.

That's what I thought. I ask you to give any context you want and you complain that I didn't provide any context. I cant tell if you don't have the brain power to understand the question or if you are just purposely avoiding.

Either way, I will take that as your concession that you cannot think of a situation in which that is moral, which of course means your bible is immoral.

Apparently, Ethan does do stupid as a regular matter of habit.

Please do. In fact start a whole thread on it. No attacks or questions by me allowed, only answers.

It need not be that stringent, you will be free to ask questions as long as you also answer mine. And I will take you up on that.

If you finish the above sentence, you can ask me any question you like and I will answer it.

I have no interest in interviewing you as you are a moron. If you cannot understand why moral judgement needs context, beating you would have the joy of beating a cripple. I like my wins to come with lolz.

Again, PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR OWN CONTEXT. YOU CAN PROVIDE ANY CONTEXT YOU LIKE. Do you need help with examples?

Here are a couple:

It is immoral to stone your children for being drunk, except when:

You hear a voice in your head that tells you its ok.

Your pastor says you should.

If your child drinks on Sunday.

This is the second time he did that.

He's a belligerent drunk.

Etc, etc.

Do you see any from the above list that would work for you? To repeat, if you do not, YOU CAN MAKE ANY CONTEXT YOU LIKE.


You cant even give a straight answer as to when killing babies, genocide, slavery, etc is moral and when it is immoral.

Of course I can, and in the thread you are plagiarizing, I did. It is your POV that fails when asked questions. That is why RR is now dodging. You can only make unsupported claims, and then run away from questions to your worldview.

RR runs away from questions, huh. Do you see any irony in your statement?

I am only miffed that you seem to believe your morality ultimately comes from somewhere else.

My morality is at least 2,000 years older than I. Unless you think I am one of the immortals, it is irrational to think my morality comes from me.

Exactly. You believe in a religion that esteems human sacrifice. Doesn't that seem a bit barbaric to you?

No, that seems stupid to me.

Finally we agree on something ;)


What should be self evident is that it is a problem when your supposedly perfectly moral God condones something that you would never accept as morally correct in your own life and so you just brush it off as "he wasn't talking to me".

Nonsense. It is laughably silly for atheists to pretend that every directive of God in the Bible is universal. Such stupidity is not worth the effort to respond.

Who decides what biblical directive to follow and by what standards?

Common sense. If God says, "Peter, I need to pay taxes, go get me a fish I will sell to pay my tax." He cannot be telling everyone to go get Him a fish. Stupidity will not play well here.

The voices in your head? Hearsay from other people that also listen to the voices in their heads?

Do you hear voices in your head? Do you use them to figure what Shakespeare said? Or what the declaration of independence said? Or what Lord of the Rings mean? It doesn't help your case if you are an idiot in trying to prove someone else an idiot.

I don't need voices. I just read text and assume the author meant to say what he said. You should try it.

For example, I understand what the following verses say:

"Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

Do you know what it says? I can explain it to you if you don't.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2016 4:04:48 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/10/2016 11:30:16 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 6/9/2016 3:19:30 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 5/18/2016 1:13:08 PM, ethang5 wrote:

I have asked many Christians to define how one can know what is moral and when it is immoral. None have been able to do it and stumble on simple questions.

You've never asked me. This very thread exists because I have found the same thing about atheists.

Several times now I have asked you a specific question as to how to know when stoning your child is moral and when it is immoral.

Go ahead. Ask me any question and lets see what happens. Then lets see if you can give me a simple, straight answer or if you continue to avoid the question. (you will undoubtedly avoid)

If you're defining morality as a system of evaluating what is right and wrong according to Gods will, then you need a new definition until you can demonstrate that God exists.

No Sir. Intelligent people can think theoretically. We can use "If /Then" logic to figure out even theoretical things. The logic of hypotheticals can be easily determined. You will not be able to hide behind the "prove God" dodge.

You want other people to follow your morality yet you cannot define a system of knowing right or wrong in simple, specific situations?

Stop being stupid. First, I have asked no one to follow my morality. Follow what you like, just don't misrepresent it. Second, I was not asked to define a system of knowing right or wrong in simple, specific situations, I was asked to demonstrate God exists. That has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

My morality is not on trail here. YOURS is. YOU say morality is subjective. YOU say there is no objective morality. So YOU show us a system of knowing right or wrong in simple, specific situations. You cannot. You can only show us what you DESIRE in specific situations. And we know that, what you desire, is not what morality is.

You are in no position to put anyone's morality on trial when you cant tell anyone when it is immoral to kill your children or kill innocent non-combatants and kidnap their young virgin daughters. Ill answer: it is immoral under all circumstances. Do you have any answer?

Who cares what a priest thinks about contraception if he excuses other priests for diddling young boys.

If you want to test that out, I can present a few situations and lets see how you do.

lol, your morality is in question, but like all atheists, you don't want to answer any questions about it, you only want to ask questions which divert attention from your illogical POV. This thread was set up to question an atheist about his POV. Would you like to sit in for him?

Ill answer your questions if you answer mine. It would be entertaining to see how that goes.

Other than that, I am using the same definition society has always used,...

Other than what? You aren't. Other than the definition society has always used, you are using the "same" definition? Same as what?

Morality can be defined without reference to God. It can be defined by its purpose.

Exactly. We don't need the Bible to know whats moral. I'm surprised to hear you admit this however.

You are surprised because you have without thought swallowed the atheist lie that Christians say we need the Bible to know what is moral. What Christians say is that, "without God, all morality is subjective and lacks authority".

If you cannot answer my question as to when it is moral to kill your child, all your other opinions about morality lack credibility. The irreligious can assess that situation clearly and I can prove it.

Want to take a poll to see what atheists think about killing their kids if they get drunk? Their answers would be straight forward and to the point. Theists answers would all be like yours and simply resort to name calling and insults as a distraction away from the fact they simply cant answer.

If your morality is based on reducing suffering, how can you tell if an action is moral if you cannot tell at the time of deciding on the action whether it will result in a reduction of suffering?

Some moral questions are not clear but some are very clear.

The moral question above must have been very unclear to you because you dodged it like a chimp.....err...scuse me, like a champ. Why did you not answer? Because your moral system is illogical and you know it. It lacks coherence so you do not want it examined.

Lets start with some simple questions like killing babies and work our way up.

Again, you will not flip the script here. YOUR moral code is in question. Can you defend it? You seem to think you know what morality is. Can you say? Or like most atheists, are you a closet dodger?

Hmmm, lets try out my moral code to see if I can discern whats moral.

Q: It is immoral to kill your drunk children except when ___________________________.
My Answer: Never.

Ok, your turn. Lets see if your moral code can figure out what seem to be a difficult riddle to you.
Fly
Posts: 2,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2016 5:53:31 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
http://youtu.be...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2016 12:28:25 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/10/2016 3:10:56 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 6/10/2016 11:49:28 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 6/10/2016 11:35:17 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 5/31/2016 9:05:41 AM, ethang5 wrote:

Double R claimed he would not dodge.

He dodged.

Surprised?

Not me.

"Last online 2 weeks ago".

Dude hasn't touched his DDO account in half a month. Victory parties might be a premature, yo.

Double R hasn't touched the challenge in half a month, but you're a Glass-half-full kinda atheist aren't you?

I'm not happy. I really wanted to interview him. I'm just not surprised.

I'm not happy either, but I can't help but notice your interview challenge thing started one week after the start of his hiatus, when last I checked his activity.

lol. It started while he and I were talking. If he was going on hiatus, he could have told me.

I can't help but notice his hiatus thing started one week after the start of the interview challenge. Go figure.

All I am saying is that I remember a challenge you were issued, slow responses, and a flooded house, so expedience in light of general appearance of abandonment doesn't mean much.

To me, at least.

Ok. Maybe like me, RR will show up with a reasonable explanation and follow through.

Would you like to take some questions in the interim?

Sure.

No. I didn't think so.

... um....

( !!!!!! ) Under the same rules of engagement as RR agreed to????

That being:

Please do. In fact start a whole thread on it. No attacks or questions by me allowed, only answers.


It need not be that stringent, you will be free to ask questions as long as you also answer mine. And I will take you up on that.

Correct?

(sorry, forgot the 'correct' in my similar post)

Yes, correct.
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2016 12:39:33 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/10/2016 11:05:13 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 6/9/2016 3:19:30 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 5/18/2016 1:13:08 PM, ethang5 wrote:

I've been the one telling atheists that the morality of actions cannot be correctly judged without context. Yet you keep asking dishonest questions like, "is X action moral?" refusing to consider authority, relationship, and intent. To convict God, you will dispense with context, but to defend yourself, suddenly context is relevant again.

You can change the context however you like.

I didn't change the context. There was NO context.

Finish this sentence:

It is immoral to stone your children for being drunk, except when :________________________________.

I see you're an idiot in the vein of clown8. I tell you that the morality of actions cannot be correctly judged without context, and you repeat a context-less question! Sorry, you will just have to be an idiot alone. Ethan doesn't do stupid.

That's what I thought. I ask you to give any context you want and you complain that I didn't provide any context.

Liar. You did not tell me to use any context I wanted.

I cant tell if you don't have the brain power to understand the question or if you are just purposely avoiding.

Or if those 2 aren't the only options and you are committing a logical fallacy.

Either way, I will take that as your concession that you cannot think of a situation in which that is moral, which of course means your bible is immoral.

You have to take it that way because you are unable to reason to your conclusion.

Apparently, Ethan does do stupid as a regular matter of habit.

For a militant, you have very thin skin. But if you think that stung, hold on to your britches.

If you finish the above sentence, you can ask me any question you like and I will answer it.

I have no interest in interviewing you as you are a moron. If you cannot understand why moral judgement needs context, beating you would have the joy of beating a cripple. I like my wins to come with lolz.

Again, PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR OWN CONTEXT. YOU CAN PROVIDE ANY CONTEXT YOU LIKE. Do you need help with examples?

No. You need help with your logic. You say morality is subjective and then tell us that X is always immoral. Those two beliefs contradict. No subjective thing can be ALWAYS immoral. I debate logical people, not illogical dweebs.

Do you see any from the above list that would work for you? To repeat, if you do not, YOU CAN MAKE ANY CONTEXT YOU LIKE.

There is context in the Bible story you take your example from. Why don't we use the context of that story?

You cant even give a straight answer as to when killing babies, genocide, slavery, etc is moral and when it is immoral.

Of course I can, and in the thread you are plagiarizing, I did. It is your POV that fails when asked questions. That is why RR is now dodging. You can only make unsupported claims, and then run away from questions to your worldview.

RR runs away from questions, huh. Do you see any irony in your statement?

No. I started a thread and showed up.

I am only miffed that you seem to believe your morality ultimately comes from somewhere else.

My morality is at least 2,000 years older than I. Unless you think I am one of the immortals, it is irrational to think my morality comes from me.

Exactly. You believe in a religion that esteems human sacrifice. Doesn't that seem a bit barbaric to you?

No, that seems stupid to me.

Finally we agree on something ;)

It only seems that way to you because you don't know of what you speak. Christianity does not "esteem" human sacrifice. Reality and your bias are different things. Really.

What should be self evident is that it is a problem when your supposedly perfectly moral God condones something that you would never accept as morally correct in your own life and so you just brush it off as "he wasn't talking to me".

Nonsense. It is laughably silly for atheists to pretend that every directive of God in the Bible is universal. Such stupidity is not worth the effort to respond.

Who decides what biblical directive to follow and by what standards?

Common sense. If God says, "Peter, I need to pay taxes, go get me a fish I will sell to pay my tax." He cannot be telling everyone to go get Him a fish. Stupidity will not play well here.

The voices in your head? Hearsay from other people that also listen to the voices in their heads?

Do you hear voices in your head? Do you use them to figure what Shakespeare said? Or what the declaration of independence said? Or what Lord of the Rings mean? It doesn't help your case if you are an idiot in trying to prove someone else an idiot.

I don't need voices. I just read text and assume the author meant to say what he said. You should try it.

I do it. But unlike you, I do it without the logic-crippling bias and militant stupidity.

For example, I understand what the following verses say:

"Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

Do you know what it says? I can explain it to you if you don't.

Your question is not about what it says, but what it means, and the moral implications. You will claim it is immoral, but will be unable to tell us by what moral code is it immoral, and why that code has the authority to morally judge an action. Basically, you will insist it is immoral because,

1. It is self-evident
2. Other militants agree with you
3. You dislike it, so it is immoral, as for you, immorality is whatever you don't like.

And I will tell you that your opinion is just that, your opinion. Morality is not based on anyone's desires. Basically, you want to simply point at something, deem it immoral, have that judgment accepted as fact without any logical support, and then have theists defend your judgment as if your pronouncements are forgone fact.

So show me how the story in the Bible about stoning your disobedient child is immoral. Don't just call it immoral. Show us how it is.
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2016 12:51:25 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/9/2016 3:19:30 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 5/18/2016 1:13:08 PM, ethang5 wrote:

I have asked many Christians to define how one can know what is moral and when it is immoral. None have been able to do it and stumble on simple questions.

You've never asked me. This very thread exists because I have found the same thing about atheists.

Several times now I have asked you a specific question as to how to know when stoning your child is moral and when it is immoral.

Go ahead. Ask me any question and lets see what happens. Then lets see if you can give me a simple, straight answer or if you continue to avoid the question. (you will undoubtedly avoid)

Of course I will avoid answering illogical questions. Legitimate questions must make sense. I don't really care for your opinion of my choice. Ask a stupid queston, and you will be treated like the idiot you are. You are then welcome to squall that I am "avoiding" the question. But when you are ready for adult debate, you will ask me why the question is stupid and I will show you why. Or you can "assume" a win and be happy. Lord knows you can't win through actual debate.

If you're defining morality as a system of evaluating what is right and wrong according to Gods will, then you need a new definition until you can demonstrate that God exists.

No Sir. Intelligent people can think theoretically. We can use "If /Then" logic to figure out even theoretical things. The logic of hypotheticals can be easily determined. You will not be able to hide behind the "prove God" dodge.

You want other people to follow your morality yet you cannot define a system of knowing right or wrong in simple, specific situations?

Stop being stupid. First, I have asked no one to follow my morality. Follow what you like, just don't misrepresent it. Second, I was not asked to define a system of knowing right or wrong in simple, specific situations, I was asked to demonstrate God exists. That has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

You are in no position to put anyone's morality on trial when you cant tell anyone when it is immoral to kill your children or kill innocent non-combatants and kidnap their young virgin daughters.

Who died and made you the arbiter of who is "in position"? It is you who cannot tell. You say it is ALWAYS immoral, and then will turn right around and say morality is subjective. You have no morality. You are simply stating your subjective taste.

Ill answer: it is immoral under all circumstances. Do you have any answer?

Of course. But having an answer is not morality. Hitler would have an answer. So what? What is your evidence that your answer is moral? Your personal taste will not be accepted as evidence.

If you want to test that out, I can present a few situations and lets see how you do.

Stop being stupid. All you want to do is see if my answer is the same as yours. Because you have already irrationally decided that your answers are the CORRECT moral ones, and want to compare my answers. But who made your choices moral? What moral code are you using? What gives it authority? Can you say? Or are we to tacitly accept your opinion as morality, and condemn anyone who disagrees? As you already know, Ethan doesn't do stupid.

lol, your morality is in question, but like all atheists, you don't want to answer any questions about it, you only want to ask questions which divert attention from your illogical POV. This thread was set up to question an atheist about his POV. Would you like to sit in for him?

Ill answer your questions if you answer mine. It would be entertaining to see how that goes.

I would be, but it won't be as entertaining for you as you seem to believe.

Morality can be defined without reference to God. It can be defined by its purpose.

Exactly. We don't need the Bible to know whats moral. I'm surprised to hear you admit this however.

You are surprised because you have without thought swallowed the atheist lie that Christians say we need the Bible to know what is moral. What Christians say is that, "without God, all morality is subjective and lacks authority".

If you cannot answer my question as to when it is moral to kill your child, all your other opinions about morality lack credibility.

So you believe. But my credibility does not rest on answers to your questions. You think way too highly of yourself. You aren't judge of anyone's morality. No one has to answer your questions to be credible. You lack authority.

The irreligious can assess that situation clearly and I can prove it.

I would like to see you prove it. Up to now, you seem to believe simply saying something is immoral is proof of it being immoral. Prepare to be surprised.

Want to take a poll to see what atheists think about killing their kids if they get drunk?

Why would I care about what atheists think about a moral question?

Their answers would be straight forward and to the point.

Then you haven't been reading my posts closely enough. They hardly ever have answers. They dodge and contradict themselves. Like you've done here.

Theists answers would all be like yours and simply resort to name calling and insults as a distraction away from the fact they simply cant answer.

You are being stupid. Answering by itself means nothing. Hitler would answer easily, but would his answers be the moral choice? Are yours?

If your morality is based on reducing suffering, how can you tell if an action is moral if you cannot tell at the time of deciding on the action whether it will result in a reduction of suffering?

Some moral questions are not clear but some are very clear.

The moral question above must have been very unclear to you because you dodged it like a chimp.....err...scuse me, like a champ. Why did you not answer? Because your moral system is illogical and you know it. It lacks coherence so you do not want it examined.

Lets start with some simple questions like killing babies and work our way up.

Again, you will not flip the script here. YOUR moral code is in question. Can you defend it? You seem to think you know what morality is. Can you say? Or like most atheists, are you a closet dodger?

Hmmm, lets try out my moral code to see if I can discern whats moral.

lol, I question your process of judgment and you say lets judge first and then look at process later?

Q: It is immoral to kill your drunk children except when ___________________________.
My Answer: Never.

But this is illogical. How can you think it is always immoral when you also think morality is subjective? What are you saying here? That morality is your tastes? I don't agree that morality is your tastes. So tell me, on what rational are you basing your conclusion?

Ok, your turn.

My turn to be stupid? No thank you.

Lets see if your moral code can figure out what seem to be a difficult riddle to you.
Not difficult, just stupid. For example, is your question asking if it is ever ok to kill your child for being drunk? Or if it is ever ok to kill your child while the child is drunk?

Being of low mental ability, and therefore having poor reading comprehension, you probably think the Bible advocates stoning your children for being drunk. So we would have to clear up your biblical misconceptions before we could begin to even try to show you your numerous failures in logic.

But remember. You aren't a judge here. No one has to submit to your questioning to pass some moral test. You don't set the standard. Your opinions aren't reality. Keep those things in mind and you will do fine.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2016 3:08:11 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/13/2016 12:51:25 PM, ethang5 wrote:


Being of low mental ability, and therefore having poor reading comprehension, you probably think the Bible advocates stoning your children for being drunk. So we would have to clear up your biblical misconceptions before we could begin to even try to show you your numerous failures in logic.

Maybe you can assist me in trying to interpret the following verses:

"And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear."

I'm curious as to what your little pea brain thinks those verses mean.

As you already know, Ethan doesn't do stupid.

Christianity: A cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

Obviously, Ethan does do stupid ;)
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2016 4:48:54 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/13/2016 3:08:11 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 6/13/2016 12:51:25 PM, ethang5 wrote:


Being of low mental ability, and therefore having poor reading comprehension, you probably think the Bible advocates stoning your children for being drunk. So we would have to clear up your biblical misconceptions before we could begin to even try to show you your numerous failures in logic.

Maybe you can assist me in trying to interpret the following verses:

"And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear."

Basically, the parents bring the child to the authorities. They have a trial officiated by the Elders of the Community. If The Elders agree that the boy is a danger to the nation and is stubbornly unwilling to change, He should be executed. The method of execution is grim so as to provide a deterrence to others of the seriousness of the situation.

I'm curious as to what your little pea brain thinks those verses mean.

Now you need not be curious anymore.

As you already know, Ethan doesn't do stupid.

>>>Stupid rant deleted<<<<

Obviously, Ethan does do stupid ;)

Err matt, that's a mirror.
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2016 8:47:25 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/13/2016 4:48:54 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 6/13/2016 3:08:11 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 6/13/2016 12:51:25 PM, ethang5 wrote:


Being of low mental ability, and therefore having poor reading comprehension, you probably think the Bible advocates stoning your children for being drunk. So we would have to clear up your biblical misconceptions before we could begin to even try to show you your numerous failures in logic.

Maybe you can assist me in trying to interpret the following verses:

"And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear."

Basically, the parents bring the child to the authorities. They have a trial officiated by the Elders of the Community. If The Elders agree that the boy is a danger to the nation and is stubbornly unwilling to change, He should be executed. The method of execution is grim so as to provide a deterrence to others of the seriousness of the situation.

I'm curious as to what your little pea brain thinks those verses mean.

Now you need not be curious anymore.

As you already know, Ethan doesn't do stupid.

>>>Stupid rant deleted<<<<

Obviously, Ethan does do stupid ;)

Err matt, that's a mirror.

So Ethan would willingly give up his kids to the religious police and have them stoned to death for having a few beers. God save us from theists.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2016 11:09:52 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/13/2016 12:28:25 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 6/10/2016 3:10:56 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 6/10/2016 11:49:28 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 6/10/2016 11:35:17 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 5/31/2016 9:05:41 AM, ethang5 wrote:

Double R claimed he would not dodge.

He dodged.

Surprised?

Not me.

"Last online 2 weeks ago".

Dude hasn't touched his DDO account in half a month. Victory parties might be a premature, yo.

Double R hasn't touched the challenge in half a month, but you're a Glass-half-full kinda atheist aren't you?

I'm not happy. I really wanted to interview him. I'm just not surprised.

I'm not happy either, but I can't help but notice your interview challenge thing started one week after the start of his hiatus, when last I checked his activity.

lol. It started while he and I were talking. If he was going on hiatus, he could have told me.

I can't help but notice his hiatus thing started one week after the start of the interview challenge. Go figure.

All I am saying is that I remember a challenge you were issued, slow responses, and a flooded house, so expedience in light of general appearance of abandonment doesn't mean much.

To me, at least.

Ok. Maybe like me, RR will show up with a reasonable explanation and follow through.

Would you like to take some questions in the interim?

Sure.

No. I didn't think so.

... um....

( !!!!!! ) Under the same rules of engagement as RR agreed to????

That being:

Please do. In fact start a whole thread on it. No attacks or questions by me allowed, only answers.


It need not be that stringent, you will be free to ask questions as long as you also answer mine. And I will take you up on that.

Correct?

(sorry, forgot the 'correct' in my similar post)

Yes, correct.

Verra well, at your leisure.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2016 1:33:46 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/13/2016 8:47:25 PM, desmac wrote:
At 6/13/2016 4:48:54 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 6/13/2016 3:08:11 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 6/13/2016 12:51:25 PM, ethang5 wrote:


Being of low mental ability, and therefore having poor reading comprehension, you probably think the Bible advocates stoning your children for being drunk. So we would have to clear up your biblical misconceptions before we could begin to even try to show you your numerous failures in logic.

Maybe you can assist me in trying to interpret the following verses:

"And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear."

Basically, the parents bring the child to the authorities. They have a trial officiated by the Elders of the Community. If The Elders agree that the boy is a danger to the nation and is stubbornly unwilling to change, He should be executed. The method of execution is grim so as to provide a deterrence to others of the seriousness of the situation.

I'm curious as to what your little pea brain thinks those verses mean.

Now you need not be curious anymore.

As you already know, Ethan doesn't do stupid.

>>>Stupid rant deleted<<<<

Obviously, Ethan does do stupid ;)

Err matt, that's a mirror.

So Ethan would willingly give up his kids to the religious police and have them stoned to death for having a few beers. God save us from theists.

If your case is strong, why do you have to be stupid?

The Elders were not religious police. They were more akin to judges in our society today. So yes, I would give up my child to the authorities if I thought their behavior would endanger the lives of many others and they would not listen to my pleading to change. I live in a society and I do not expect them to live by my personal preferences.

The alternative is to have your child cause the death of countless other innocents.

To me, that is the less moral choice. But I know you don't want context. No. You only want to prattle the evokative, "child!, stone!, drunk!" and have people make moral decisions based on that deceptive picture.

Carry on.