|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Hitch is dead | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 111 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
This is, of course, nonsense --- in the most literal sense, i.e. it consists of words combined in such a way that the resulting phrases have no meaning. lets see if DA has an explanation as to why a person that adopts and believes the law of the fittest and outright atheism, can explain why God is evil. Where did you get your standard of morality, that your buddy Hitchens claims you have? My bet is that DA has nothing valid to offer You see Agent you jumped ship to quickly. If you are looking for answers from these fellas you wont find any Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 111 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
It is for people who think God exists to explain why he's evil. Asking me that is like asking me to explain why Santa is fat.
Ok great, so we dont have to worry about God being evil. So the next time somone like Hitchens makes that allegation that God is evil or he is not good, it doesnt matter, because the allegationis irrelevant. Great
Where did you get your standard of morality, that your buddy Hitchens claims you have? DA writesI guess I was well brought up. What I meant is, can we be assured of its objectivity enough to know that claims concerning anyone elses behavior can be judged by it, your moral standard that is. If so why?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 111 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Of course not: No human is completely objective. And since all human actions are based upon human motivations, we are stuck with ourselves to be our own judges. You seem to have confused a pithy cliche that has been attached to evolutionary theory with a philosophical path. As beautiful as this sounds, it actually has no real meaning, since all judgments and philosophical paths are but a myth, if its just matter in motion, correct Even you observations above will serve no useful purpose when one person decides that another person is bad, wrong, immoral, etc IOWs it cant be considered serious as an argument, to establish that God is not great, or anybody is anything for that matter Since you mentioned it, tell me what a philosophical path is, that will matter past our own species Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 111 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
What Hitchens actually wrote was "God is not great". This would seem to follow from his nonexistence, since it is hard to attain greatness without actually existing. As this is both true and reasonable I can see why you'd have ignored it. Hitchens intimations about the possible existence or non-existence of God, have nothing or very little to do with Hitchens inability to formulate a platform for morality, seeing he has no way to establish a standard of morality, believing everything is just matter in motion Gods existence or non-existence have nothing to do with Hitchens inabiltiy to form a logical proposition concerning morality Therefore Hitchens making any comment about Gods, nature or stature is equally non-sensical and irrelevant Ill repeat the question. Is the best attempt at an argument he could put forward, to explain why religious people were insane or should be killed If you see your above statement as true and reasonable, I can see why you use jokes a nd sarcams instead of actually formulating an argument Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 111 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
And yet, people keep making them and following them, so they are necessarily real. My good natured, but simple friend, they may be real as people carrying out actions, or as a tree falling on an ardvark, but there is no real morality, the tree commited no crime and the ardvark was not murdered by the tree If its just matter in motion, then there is no such thing as bad or good, ethical or unethical My guess is that you are using these terms as the human species likes to use them. However, the colony of ants you murdered, plowing up the south forty does not share your same ethics. To demostrate my point that no ethics exist in a matter in motion world, you care little or nothing, or have any remorse for thier destruction, correct? IOWs, you dont feel like youve murdered anything correct? Morals and ethics cant just be ethical for humans, it has to present itself as logical in a logical format, the exclude involving itself in a logical contradiction. Unfortunately, that will never work in a matter in motion existence You can call morals and ethics a shoeshine kit, that doesnt change that it has no real meaning
Except I can oppose them should my observations be at odds with their conclusions. Thus, they're quite real. If only humans are considered and consistency across theboard does not matter to you, correct? Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 111 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
In typical creationist/religionist fashion, you've went through this whole thread bashing Christopher Hitchens, and you have no idea about anything at all about the man. you have NO idea what the book "God is not Great" is actually about because had you a clue, you would know that the full title continues "How Religion Poisons Everything" and how the book rarely, if ever, touches on the absentness of this god character. Had you spent as much time even reading a synopsis of his life as you have posting bullshit about him, you wouldn't look so much like a fool AND you might have learned something. However, it has become glaringly obvious that you've have an aversion, almost an allergic reaction to, learning. Where did Mr hitches, an admitted atheist get the ignorant idea that he had a logical, valid reason, to characterize anybody, anywhere else about anything Isnt it all just matter in motion according to his positions Moral judgements, therefore on his part are as absurd as him claiming God is not great. How would he proceed in any logical fashion to demonstrate that point If you think I have misrepresented his overall position in this context, please explain why Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 111 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Why is that a problem? After all, that's what everybody does. All moral standards were created by humans. Again my friend, you have to start at a point, where we can to determine, whether your above intimation is even valid to begin with. From a logical standpoint what you have suggested, is not logically possible. There are no moral standards if its just matter in motion. throwing terms, like moral and ethical at mindless matter, doesnt change the fact that person tyring do such a thing is involving him or herself in the worst form of contradiction Do the other species get a say in the development of moral standards, or just humans? When you violate your own code and kill and eat an animal, is that murder? Or does that just work for humans? Once you have established that is not murder for humans, you immediately redifine morality, correct? See the problem with Hitch trying to characterize God as not great or religious people as insane. If its just matter in motion, the being a journalist was evil, if I get to make up the rules. Dawn Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 111 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Then you simply have to provide an argument that supports the notion that having 'objectivity in a moral standard without fear of blatant contradiction' is a moral action. Actually I dont have to do this. Because if my observation that something is not logical or valid, is not actually valid, due to it simply being matter in motion, then it just furthers the idea that not only am I being inconsistent, but he is as well. And that is ofcourse, if consistency can actually be verified and actually matters in a matter in motion only world Of course it doesnt, which would include any pointless conclusions Mr Hitchens formulated, which are only actually atoms and molecules functioning, correct My positions or beliefshave nothing to with the fact that his moral deductions are just matter in motion therefore irrelevant, except to him Fell free to correct me if you think I am off track Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 111 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
His position on what? I suppose had you known ANYTHING at all about the person you so vehemently despise, ridicule and mock, you wouldn't be asking such illogical questions. I guess I didn't think you were completely dishonest, but this thread is showing just how much so you truly are. Am I mistaken in beliving that he was an adament Atheist that hated religion Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 111 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
There are these things called society and humanity that we are all a part of. These constructs are from what our moral compass is derived. So do you consider your morals to be moral. Would the animal kingdom love and apprectiate your standards. And if they could disagree with you, who would be correct, or at best consistent Again you can throw any term at morals, but they dont have any meaning in a relativistic, matter in motion, existence you need to start at a place called logic, before you jump the gun and consider that you actually have morals. Now I am sure you will continue to believe that you actually do, but that is called delusional Now there is term Hitchens and Dawkins like to use. How does it feel when its applied to you ? Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 111 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Secondly, if you are trying to tie atheism to the blather you are sniveling about, you are hopelessly clueless and should know better; especially after how long you've been here. Instead, you prove, time and again (and as I pointed out upthread) that you simply refuse to listen to anything anyone tells you. You have a refusal to learn.
You would actually represent youself and position better, if you responded with answers to my arguments, instead of characterizations[/qs] I have now made several valid arguments in this thread alone this evening. You have made zero attempts at a response Give it a try and see what happens. I believe this is a debate forum, correct? Werent you suspended recently for doing what you are doing now Just argue the position not the person, is I believe how the expression goes at thsi forum, correct Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 111 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Yes you do, since the challenge is to name one moral action that could only be performed by a believer. You named having 'objectivity in a moral standard without fear of blatant contradiction' so you have to now show that it is a moral action or concede that it doesn't meet the requirements of the challenge. Your a funny guy Modulous. It doesnt matter what I believe or need to prove, if its just matter in motion. Neither he or I are right or wrong He is just baballing words that have no meaning and my objections are just as irrelevant, correct
But who cares about what is morally relevant to a rock? I only care what is morally relevant to beings that can suffer and be happy. So the cow that has the pin slammed into his head, so you can enjoy him, should be considering your moral relevance What do you think the cow or chicken would think of your ethics? If Hanibal the Canibal, even in his right mind, wanted to kill and eat you, would he be morally correct? The point is Mod, is that it doesnt matter whether Mr H thinks he is as moral as anybody. he first needs to establish he has a platform to stand on to talk about morals. He does not by his own admissions of mindless matter Which further confirms my original estimation, that he knew very little about theism or the reasoning process Had he understood his inconsistency to begin with, he would not have be running around pronouncing condemnations on everyone and thier practices Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024