|
PhiloCentinel (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
I am a fellow atheist, and an American, and a moral philosopher, but I disaree with your relatvism. There is "some force" determining what's right and what's wrong, and it is the universal means of emotion and sensation. Things that make people happy are good and things that harm them are bad, it's that simple really. Evil people are ones who harm others, it's not a matter of "different" morality.
cjla1987 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
I forgot what major university ran that test. They just wanted to see if the word "Hello" would come out. But what came out from the monkeys was not a word, but shit from their asses. THEY ALL POOPED ON THE KEYBOARDS! Ha...ha! I saluted those scientists who took that time to put it to the test. The results were marvelous, in fact, they even tried to hide that embarrasing test but eye-witnesses spread the word and finally, they scientists admitted such experiment with great shame.
cjla1987 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
How can people be very stupid to try to apply physical laws to a non-physical being (God)? Well, that is another issue. Look, my friend, you keep coming and applying things I do not say. I never said evolution was by mere chance. I am saying the beggining of the Universe and the formation of the Earth and other thigs are by mere chance.
Kazumaster (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
There isn't some force saying what is right and what's not, it's the people whose morals decide on what's right and what's not. And don't say you need god to have morals, because that is just bull. Some people do have different morals though, and that is why there are "evil" people.
Kazumaster (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
It is irrelevant. Their religion had nothing to do with it, like I said. Also, I'm aware that Finland is not a super power, I mean we're only 5 million people here against your 350-ish(?). What I am saying is that scandinavian countries, despite being atheistic, have higher standards of life than the U.S, thus proving that you don't need religion in a society.
heiyoulianglaohu (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
And if you think that evolution is just chance, as you claimed it is by using your "chance of the gaps" argument, now you know why I stated that you know nothing of evolution. I am amazed at how many people believe that science makes theories from just "chance." Just because we don't know what caused us doesn't mean it was just chance (I can assure you we don't believe that). If you want to prove god exists then I am gladly willing to listen, but don't waste my time with this. Goodnight.
heiyoulianglaohu (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
Your straw man is that you are steering around on a nonsense course. We were talking about god of the gaps, and the idea that god doesn't win the argument simply because science can't explain something. In that convo, I stated that there is no evidence for god. If you want to know what my idea of evidence of god is.. it's something that fits the scientific theories, or something which could cause them all to be thrown out and be replaced by god.
catricola (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
Sharpton is a renowned racist. He is not intelligent enough to sit in a room with Hitchens, let alone debate. His only tact is to appeal to people's base instincts and to deride Hitchens and to joke. But his words are empty as his arsenal for intelligent discourse. Sharpton is an embarrassment, yet representative of the religious argument whether Jewish, Christian, Muslim or other.
cjla1987 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
Now, just to show you your straw man argument you used. Show me, I repeat, show me where did I say something about the scientific evidence? You keep applying words I did not say. I cannot hide it. You. All what I have written it is in here. Show me (again) where I distorted the scientific method. You said I cannot understand how science works, what made you conclude that? What I said is that what it takes to convince your mind is different then what it takes to change mine. That was it, pal!
cjla1987 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
It was Cardinal Mercier who said, a solid criterion of truth should be internal, objective, and immediate. I agree with this statement because it underlies the very nature of the observer. Each observer has to define for themselves what a solid criterion is. Indeed, this also means that another observer could never tell you what a good criterion is, because this would not be internal and immediate. |
