Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8870 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-18-2018 5:32 AM
315 online now:
CosmicChimp, PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 312 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Upcoming Birthdays: Astrophile
Post Volume:
Total: 840,392 Year: 15,215/29,783 Month: 1,159/1,502 Week: 157/492 Day: 0/31 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
891011
12
13Next
Author Topic:   Hitch is dead
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


(4)
Message 166 of 190 (645654)
12-28-2011 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Dawn Bertot
12-28-2011 2:09 AM


Re: Afterlife Surprises
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.

“Mythology is what we call someone else’s religion.” Joseph Campbell

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-28-2011 2:09 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-29-2011 12:42 AM hooah212002 has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 194 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 167 of 190 (645677)
12-29-2011 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by Rrhain
12-28-2011 2:18 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Rrhain, posted 12-28-2011 2:18 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Rrhain, posted 12-30-2011 10:33 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 194 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 168 of 190 (645678)
12-29-2011 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by hooah212002
12-28-2011 7:17 PM


Re: Afterlife Surprises
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by hooah212002, posted 12-28-2011 7:17 PM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by hooah212002, posted 12-29-2011 1:03 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 194 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 169 of 190 (645680)
12-29-2011 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by Rrhain
12-28-2011 2:19 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Rrhain, posted 12-28-2011 2:19 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Rrhain, posted 12-30-2011 4:40 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 170 of 190 (645681)
12-29-2011 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by Dawn Bertot
12-29-2011 12:42 AM


Re: Afterlife Surprises
If you think I have misrepresented his overall position in this context, please explain why

Well, for starters, you make absolutely no sense.

Second:

Isnt it all just matter in motion according to his positions

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.

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

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 again:

If you think I have misrepresented his overall position in this context, please explain why

Yes, you have misrepresented everything about Hitch even down to the spelling of his name.....

Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.


“Mythology is what we call someone else’s religion.” Joseph Campbell

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-29-2011 12:42 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-29-2011 1:10 AM hooah212002 has responded
 Message 174 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-29-2011 1:19 AM hooah212002 has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 194 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 171 of 190 (645682)
12-29-2011 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Modulous
12-27-2011 12:30 PM


Re: objectivity
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Modulous, posted 12-27-2011 12:30 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-29-2011 1:33 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded
 Message 179 by Modulous, posted 12-29-2011 10:39 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 194 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 172 of 190 (645683)
12-29-2011 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by hooah212002
12-29-2011 1:03 AM


Re: Afterlife Surprises
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by hooah212002, posted 12-29-2011 1:03 AM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by hooah212002, posted 12-29-2011 1:16 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 173 of 190 (645684)
12-29-2011 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Dawn Bertot
12-29-2011 1:10 AM


Re: Afterlife Surprises
You have posted how many times in this thread? A thread that is dedicated to the man. A thread wherein you have blasted, ridiculed and mocked him....and you don't even know the answer to that?

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.

Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.


“Mythology is what we call someone else’s religion.” Joseph Campbell

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-29-2011 1:10 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-29-2011 1:23 AM hooah212002 has not yet responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 194 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 174 of 190 (645685)
12-29-2011 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by hooah212002
12-29-2011 1:03 AM


Re: Afterlife Surprises
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by hooah212002, posted 12-29-2011 1:03 AM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by hooah212002, posted 12-29-2011 1:29 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 194 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 175 of 190 (645686)
12-29-2011 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by hooah212002
12-29-2011 1:16 AM


Re: Afterlife Surprises
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by hooah212002, posted 12-29-2011 1:16 AM hooah212002 has not yet responded

    
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 176 of 190 (645690)
12-29-2011 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by Dawn Bertot
12-29-2011 1:19 AM


Re: Afterlife Surprises
There is a thread where you wouldn't be woefully off topic somewhere else on this forum: this one isn't it. However, I've no intention of even attempting to decipher your insanity laden drivel. Perhaps when you can slow down, form complete sentences and come to complete thoughts and stop throwing around the word "logic" at every turn as if you know what it means, then I'd take interest (basically: have someone else think and type for you).

Not one of your posts to me has had any semblence of a response to anything I have posted. Instead, you are going off on Markuze-esque rants about whatever is in that goo you call a brain. Crack open a book buddy. Try, for once, to learn a thing or two.


“Mythology is what we call someone else’s religion.” Joseph Campbell

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-29-2011 1:19 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16035
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


(2)
Message 177 of 190 (645691)
12-29-2011 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Dawn Bertot
12-29-2011 1:04 AM


Re: objectivity
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

You can probably get pills for whatever makes you write like that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-29-2011 1:04 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30920
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 178 of 190 (645736)
12-29-2011 9:40 AM


The origin of morals
According to the Bible morals are not absolute and come from humans knowing good and evil. The source of morality is some tree in a forbidden garden.

Edited by jar, : fix sentence


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 25 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(7)
Message 179 of 190 (645741)
12-29-2011 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Dawn Bertot
12-29-2011 1:04 AM


Re: objectivity
Actually I dont have to do this.

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.

My positions or beliefshave nothing to with the fact that his moral deductions are just matter in motion therefore irrelevant, except to him

Correction: Irrelevant except to him and to other people. Of course it should be said that they are irrelevant to Hitch now, too. 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-29-2011 1:04 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-30-2011 1:31 AM Modulous has responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 194 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 180 of 190 (645789)
12-30-2011 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by Modulous
12-29-2011 10:39 AM


Re: objectivity
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Modulous, posted 12-29-2011 10:39 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Modulous, posted 12-30-2011 10:31 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
891011
12
13Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018