dragonstar57

ok i'm going to make an assumption and assume that the asteroid has a high iron concentration. what if we shot it with a series of high speed magnetized projectiles? each one would hit it and would decrease the speed of the object.

wrong you have the Sam Harris model. are you are attempting to argue that god is the basis for an objective morality?? because I really don't want to commit an accidental straw man. even with a "moral givver" the only objective quality is that those were what that "moral givver" valued and therefore subjective

I am not claiming that it does (I would claim that it does not) my contention is that christian/theistic values are not at the core of morality (or law) and that morality is completely subjective. aka the atheistic view

he could study the subject or he could just watch this YouTube video!

yes, we cannot establish where the Loch Ness Monster came from if is not established that it indeed exists.if it does not exist it did not come from anywhere. however I CAN ask "where did the loch ness monster come from" in such a way as to question its existence

ok I have been seeing this pop up everywhere on the religion section so I wanted to make a thread specifically for it. In my opinion morality being from god doesn't make sense because people disagree a lot about what is right and wrong: ergo morality is not innate. and many different religions (of which only one may be "true" as the majority claim all others are false) which all arrive at similar morals. I am now going to link some YouTube videos all of which make arguments against Christianity being the basis for law in the us (although also applies to other nations as well) I think that a YouTube video is as valid as anything any of us could say on here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lg6Q_xRII0 ps. I would like to see this made a sticky topic that could be linked to whenever conversations in other topics turn to this topic.

I'm wondering how exactly mods respond to rule violations as it pertains to how long a "strike" remains on a person's name. so if the violations are separated by day,weeks,months what then?

how about a definition of evolve? while reading was an evolved trait (unless you think it was just pattern recognition and a taught behavior that was passed to children by parents not through genetics but through experiance) I don't see how it could have in its self have assisted the process of evolution like you seem to claim...[edit] I mean it was a trait that made us what we are today but didn't help us evolve (in the verb sense)

the one where you say to me this means "I don't care if I am being deceived until I have already acted on those deceptions" and is pretty stupid. Please tell me that I am somehow misinterpreting these comments and that you have not truly been saying that you do not really care what the truth is ultimately. What would you think if I said "maybe I am a pawn in a socialist scheme to take over America but if so don't tell me until the sickle and hammer are flying above the capital building" or just something tame (because I don't intend to say that a gop candidate would be that bad) like "global warming may not be real and I might be buying into the lies but don't tell me until the entire country runs on solar power"

the fact is that almost all of those things have been refuted or have little to no evidence to corroborate them. the idea that someone might control the entire human population through chips is frighting and imho real. in this video I saw many things that sounded frighting but no evidence the Illuminati exist. no evidence that swine flue was made in a lab. no evidence that colony collapse disorder has anything to do with anything. this video is full of factual errors and logical fallacies.

As for the occupy wall street people they are angry about the same thing the tea party is, the bail outs and the lack of job creation. translation: maybe I'm wrong but if so I don't want to know about it.This repeated sentiment would be enough for a mod to close this thread and have no one question the decision. I don't know how to respond to this without an ad hominem attack. What you said here is the most contemptible thing I have seen in a while.

and here is some of the counteractions cheers

I tried to edit my previous post because I made a mistake but it wont let me

I believe he was saying that a general statement of belief is not conductive to a conversation.We can't really comment with anything other than agreement or disagreement as their is no substance behind it to refute. What exactly do you think Obama has done poorly and why? my point wasn't that Norbert's point was valid, but understandable under the circumstances. (ie he was likely upset and felt it was okay to make it personal) it is like seeing a simple homophone error. it IS bad form but also an error you know is probably rather common. (the fallacy that anyone who doesn't like the president (even blindly not that I am saying rigney does) is motivated by race is almost certainly widespread)

I'm sure we can agree that weather or not something happened is objective and can be proven one way or the other. insane:In a state of mind that prevents normal perception, behavior, or social interaction; seriously mentally ill.https://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&tab=ww#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=define:insane&oq=define:insane&gs_l=serp.3...3088.6692.0.6796.13.13.0.0.0.0.178.1413.3j9.12.0...0.0...1c.t2eyod6ou1w&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=5f6f9e525258df09&biw=1600&bih=718 are you surprised I said something that contradicts someone else who has a similar view?? we also shouldn't need a the threat of hell or a deity to tell us so while it might seem awful to us it would seem absolutely right to them. they would lament the horrors of a world where 90% of the rest of the world would be fine taking their "propriety" from them. there are traps with your belief as well 1. it lacks cultural empathy 2. it insists that your morality is superior to others' morality 3. it has the potential for causing unneeded inter-cultural conflict when people have conflicting belief. keep in mind the bible condones slavery in several passages When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB) do you think we know inherently what is right and wrong? in which case why is there so much disagreement? if the bible is so moral why is there so much morally reprehensible stuff in it? so as stated in this video prove something to be right or wrong based on something that is not opinion. I could reiterate her argument but I wouldn't be able to put it as well as she does.

No you are in a group who wants to give the credit for human morality to your god. Why do you keep using deist arguments? Are you a deist?

idk I kind of agree it is a big + that Obama has experienced being in the lower income brackets and it is easy to think that will make him more grounded and in touch with the average American. I think Norbert was just indulging in some hyperbole. after all it does seem that rigney wants to find a reason to not like obama not to mention quote mining is a very common pet peeve.

The fact is that different people's views on morality differ widely. this is proof positive that morality is subjective. The insane don't just not care that something is wrong. The insane don't just not see the difference. The insane actually believe that that they are morally justified in doing something insane. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lg6Q_xRII0 Some think the death penalty is justified. Some don't. Some think promiscuity is wrong. Some don't. Some Most think that slavery is wrong and yet still some don't. Their is no uniform way to view morality, no "correct" way and to think that you have found the "true" morality is the height of arrogance and only the opinion of the pious. we can say that "maybe somewhere written in the stars is the true morality" but this is a failed precept because morality is based upon personal values (ie fighting a war to gain freedom for yourself or another) you could no more tell someone to stop eating spinach because it is disgusting. so in cases like the on you described (about being able to say being cruel to children) our morality is based on consensus and while this reduces the subjectivity somewhat it does not in any way make it objective ps watch my linked video this time if you didn't before

FALSE DICHOTOMY Why do we have to pick to leave things as they are or bleed business dry? Why can't we simply ask them to pay a little more to offset the fact that a large portion of their profits come from public propriety (roads etc) which they use more than any others. society has given great wealth to a very small number of individuals and it is time they start paying their fair share imho*EDIT* corrected punctuation

regardless quote mining should be called out whoever is doing it. the claim that Obama meant anything other than that business owners didn't do it by themselves is obviously wrong if you listen to what he said. this stuff does nothing for the right but make them look foolish and weaken their credibility, right leaning people should get just as annoyed about this left leaning people. it doesn't mater what party does it or what party you are part of you should be kind of mad if this method becomes highly used tool. ps. wtf is with the font? it is in like tinny text mode!

perfect so far the professor uses the "Whence Cometh Evil?" idea and then claims that god has to be the author of evil as he created everything and had the omniscience to know the future impact of his actions. this valid point is not dealt with by the student despite it being a very credible argument of god's nonexistence this can be a couple ways the most popular way is likely the "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" arguement which is valid. however the student takes the strict interpretation of this sentiment which is "anything not directly observable to my senses does not exist" which is ridiculous. cold is a relative term which talks about the average motion of molecules in a given substance if the average energy is low we call it cold if it is high we call it hot. to say cold is not the opposite of heat is like saying low is not the opposite of numbers. we can count downwards to 100 million below zero and never reach low, however low still has an opposite. just because it is not on a spectrum where you have low---number of units----middleground----same number of units----high doesn't mean that these things cannot be opposite um...what? if darkness is 0 than you could in theory have absolute darknes (just as you can have absolute zero in temperature) this line of reasoning might be compelling to you but to me this is nonsense and not even clear nonsense. either there is an absolute darkness in which case it exists or it is relative in which it exists huh? did he just say death doesn't exist?as for seeing electricity if you are seeing this post electricity is real it produces real observable effects on our world and by seeing that we can not only know it exists we can even begin to understand its proprieties. same with magnetism. as for viewing god as something finite wtf does that even mean... unless you look at life as some mystical glowing energy than life and death can be defined as "functioning or nonfluctuating" last i checked broken and working were opposite this has been refuted so many times I won't waste my time. the evidence is there in spades from genetics to fossils to macro-evolution having been observed in bacteria and much more. and by the very same failed reasoning this student does not have a brain. Cogito ergo sum roughly translated it means "I think therefore I am" but to me it has a different meaning, to me it is a commentary on how little we know for 100% sure. in math you do proofs because somethings we know for sure like 1+1=2 however much about our physical world is up in the air. we don't know that what we experience is reality. we don't know others truly exist. for all you know no actual being was required in the typing of this post just as I do not know if you are truly a person who exists either. I don't "take it on faith" I make assumptions I assume that my senses do not deceive me. I assume that others do exist. I assume that my computer is not sending me false information. this is why in science a preponderance of evidence is required. faith is defined as believing without evidence we have evidence of the brain through a mountain of medical knowledge and we can observe activity in the professor that implies the presence of a brain (cognition, problem solving, heart beat etc) but on some level we are assuming that a brain is present so the question becomes not "prove god exists" but "show me a evidence that he does" and there is none. the inconsistencies between the bible's account of history and known history takes away from the bible's credibility as does inconsistencies between different parts of the bible. the illogical of the story of Jesus takes away from the bible's credibility the fact is when all things are considered god seems preposterous it wouldn't let me post before so here it is

it seems that this conversations has several assumptions going on. 1. I an assuming that there is un-combusted fuel leaving with the exhaust 2. it seems some are assuming that either their is no unburned fuel or that supplying with more/denser 02 supplies would either not burn the unburned fuel or doing so would not improve efficiency there are many threads where someone comes up with an idea of how to get more 02 to the engine and thinks that it would improve efficiency and everyone says it wont work. can someone explain why extracting more energy from a given amount of fuel would not increase efficiency?

as I see it his response is fairly obvious he would say that god was responsible for setting objective morality and that god sets those standards he would claim that god saying that it is wrong makes it wrong. afaict from what he has said so far that is likely what he would say. it also tells us that everything happens (a universe for every possible permutation of events) so if he doesn't reply in this universe at least we know he did in another

several obvious problems 1. atheists can not be generalized 2. atheists generally do not think the universe was a random coincidence (at least none that I have ever spoken to have claimed to) that is an over-simplification of several theories like evolution and the big bang theory 3. the non belief in an all powerful creator does not preclude the belief in other supernatural powers ex fate, ghosts, spirits, etc 4. you don't have to have someone to blame to feel anger about a situation 5. one does not have to have an entity to blame to have feelings of injustice and no one would ever stop and think "my emotions are just social conditioning and governed by majority choice" 6. the person in question might instead be more inclined to turn to blaming others or themselves or even inanimate objects and animals. illogical yes; but whats your point? 7. they could simply accept that bad things happen and move on without needing an object to direct their indignation at. I can only hope 2000 years from now my accounts of what happened 100 years ago will be treated as well as we treat the accounts bronze age people who wrote the bible ps. I may have made some homophone errors sorry about that well might makes right is a consent that some believe in... your argument seems to be something along the lines of "if animals have no problem with it then its kewl" survival of the fittest is a statement of tendency not a justification. as for the rest of what you say that happened there was a time where rulers believed they ruled by divine right etc and then there was the enlightenment. to say that we innately know that democracy is the best way or that exploitation is wrong (presumably from god) is ridiculous as throughout history we humans haven't gotten those concepts very well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lg6Q_xRII0 *edit* I think that there is a very good likelihood that dogs do understand morality (at least to some extent)

rigney please learn how to use an apostrophe. when you have me correcting your grammar you have failed pretty epically. oh and um...what exactly does this mean? that probably sounded good in your head but you are not at all clear here. if you could format your posts using this format (format below) in the future it would be appreciated. I think (insert subject) is ( insert thesis) because (insert logically reasoned argument) see isn't that much better, now we know what your stance actually is rather than having to guess try taking more time on your posts and reread asking yourself "am I being as clear as I can be?" ps. mod could you fix Obamas to Obama's ik I'm not the op but I feel like this thread wont be taken seriously with such a painfully obvious grammatical error in the name. reading it is slightly painful