This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
If There is No God... (debate)
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
blademeld
That since he is the son of god he is the only bridge we have to reach god.
Which is why in most practises of Christianity we end with "In the name of the Christ, Amen."
I could go into in-depth detail, but that's kind of irrelevant to the point.
Post by
Malgayne
How does the knowledge that Jesus is the son of god explain anything?
This is a separate thread, and we're off topic. I'll come back and hit this tomorrow. :)
Post by
Skreeran
On topic:
There are no such things are morals beyond what we have set up for ourselves to preserve ourselves. My life, your life, everything is worthless to me.
Post by
Malgayne
On topic:
There are no such things are morals beyond what we have set up for ourselves to preserve ourselves. My life, your life, everything is worthless to me.
So, senseless random murder—aside from the potential legal consequences—is perfectly acceptable then?
Post by
85162
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
182246
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Arcage
I cant read all this but
become animals without any moral code?
Almost all animals have a fantastic moral code, when compared to humans, so i dont think this statement is valid sry.
Post by
Haxzor
Animals dont have morals
Post by
Random0098
Animals dont have morals
wrong.
We're animals, and we have morals.
Also, different animals who live in groups tend to behave in certain ways to each other that can be defined as morals if you look closely at them. For example: "It's not right to eat my kid even if he's being really annoying" when you're a lion.
Post by
blademeld
For the sake of this argument, let us assume that "humans" are not categorised under "animals"
because that will bring in the religious debate.
Also, there's the argument of animal morals versus animal instincts.
Post by
ASHelmy
For the sake of this argument, let us assume that "humans" are not categorised under "animals"
because that will bring in the religious debate.
Also, there's the argument of animal morals versus animal instincts.
...Animal morals? Any who, malgayne, It's bad because it cause pain, and pain is undesirable.
Post by
Random0098
For the sake of this argument, let us assume that "humans" are not categorised under "animals"
because that will bring in the religious debate.
Also, there's the argument of animal morals versus animal instincts.
But for the sake of the original argument, we're
saying
that God doesn't exist - So humans are animals, and have morals.
Ok, but for the sake of this individual argument, who's to say that the "instinct" that a lion has not to kill its young isn't a moral choice?
I have been saying that moral codes and ethical standards have been developed to enable people to live in societies together - If you apply that to the animal kingdom, any animal that lives peacibly with other animals of it's kind or other has it's own moral code. This moral code may be completely different from our own, but it still exists.
Post by
blademeld
If people so choose to believe that animals have morals, who are you to say that they are wrong?
Post by
blademeld
Ok, but for the sake of this individual argument, who's to say that the "instinct" that a lion has not to kill its young isn't a moral choice?
Just wondering: If it's an instinct, is it really that much of a choice as much as a reflex?
Post by
ASHelmy
If people so choose to believe that animals have morals, who are you to say that they are wrong?
Here we go again, you need to know the difference between fact and opinion, not everything is opinion and not everything is fact. If it was moral choice, you'd think that some lions would do and some wouldn't, right? No, instincts make animal have the same reaction every time. That and morals need conscious though.
Post by
blademeld
Fact: just because you claim a fact doesn't make it a fact.
Maybe there have been killings of lion cubs by their father, after all, we don't keep a track of all the wild animals.
Post by
ASHelmy
Fact: just because you claim a fact doesn't make it a fact.
Maybe there have been killings of lion cubs by their father, after all, we don't keep a track of all the wild animals.
If you don't have proof then your theory is wrong, you can't just say the proof "is out there", by the same method I could argue the existence of pink, fluffy dragons. I don't just claim things to be fact, I back myself up with proof.
Post by
Skreeran
On topic:
There are no such things are morals beyond what we have set up for ourselves to preserve ourselves. My life, your life, everything is worthless to me.
So, senseless random murder—aside from the potential legal consequences—is perfectly acceptable then?
Yes.
On topic:
There are no such things are morals beyond what we have set up for ourselves to preserve ourselves. My life, your life, everything is worthless to me.
So, if I blew up everything but you and you had enough time to understand what had happened, you wouldn't care?
Yes.
We're all dead anyway.
Post by
blademeld
If you don't have proof then your theory is wrong, you can't just say the proof "is out there", by the same method I could argue the existence of pink, fluffy dragons. I don't just claim things to be fact, I back myself up with proof.
You've failed on so many levels here it's not even funny.
you'd think that some lions would do and some wouldn't, right? No, instincts make animal have the same reaction every time. That and morals need conscious though.
This is the same as saying the proof is out there.
Post by
Arcage
Fact: just because you claim a fact doesn't make it a fact.
Maybe there have been killings of lion cubs by their father, after all, we don't keep a track of all the wild animals.
If you don't have proof then your theory is wrong, you can't just say the proof "is out there", by the same method I could argue the existence of pink, fluffy dragons. I don't just claim things to be fact, I back myself up with proof.
Your correct Ash, though a theory is never wrong, it just remains a theory, as it cant be substantiated.
And see it how you will, but animals have they're own "code" whether you define this as morals is up to you, but it uses the same kind of guide lines.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.