Forums → WEPR → Theism and Atheism

And temporary things will always be pointless.

Sigh.

Since this is all we have, that makes this "temporary existence" EVERYTHING.

You must be joking with that outright lie.

You apparently won't accept anything other than what you already believe. What we have given you are legitimate answers, just because -you- don't accept them doesn't make them otherwise.

You just can't give me a good reason to the meaning of life from an atheist perspective.

I and others already have.

Think about it. He believes he's right and you believe you are rit.

Who's side are you on?

Since this is all we have, that makes this "temporary existence" EVERYTHING.

Except for our eternal souls.

You apparently won't accept anything other than what you already believe.

Neither will you.

What we have given you are legitimate answers,

If they were legit, I would not keep asking the questions.

I and others already have.

I think our definitions of "good" are not on the same page.
-
But like you proposed, we can continue this discussion in our comments and from the start.

Neither will you.

Care to give some legitimate, independent, verifiable proof of an eternal soul?

And as for the rest of that first speech of useless pointlessness..... But why was the instinct of the first cell to survive? Why didn't it just say "to heck with surviving" and then stop making food for itself? Yes, we want to survive and reproduce, but WHY? What are we trying to achieve?

It didn't chose, i said that. If you want the honest answer, chance (i think, Magegreywolf may have a different answer). It just happened that the cell naturally reproduced, and evolution would dictate that only it would produce offspring that will reproduce more.

As for the second speech of useless pointlessness..... Okay, so about that fancy code. Why are certain things right and wrong on it? And

That wasn't the point of mentioning the Hamurabi code at all. The point was that Christianity didn't create these morals, they existed thousands of years before it.

That law is quite confusing. I don't think I'd like to follow it...

Um, okay?

Look in the Bible. In most all cases, except for the case of the Israelites and the Egyptians, the words "slave" and "servant" are almost completely interchangeable. Back then, 'slaves' were paid to do their work. And so "slaves" in the Bible were almost no different than the modern-day waiter/waitress.

They aren't used interchangeably. The word for "servant" and "slave" in hebrew is the same word, "eved".

Why??? Because it is morally wrong? Well then why is it morally wrong??? It's back to my very beginning question: Where do you get your morals?

Because it doesn't release serotonin into our body. Also, stop asking questions without waiting for an answer. If you ask "why?", then don't assume our answer is "it is morally wrong", and then don't continue on this spree of assumptions. You're trying to make us look like we're making the wrong arguments. You are literally shoving words in people's mouths here.

Also, here's an interesting question for you Afterburner. What is "cool"? The bible didn't tell us what is cool and uncool, so how do we know? Did society and culture dictate what we think is cool and uncool? Now replace "cool" with "moral".

"Why will you feel bad about stealing? Because you have caused harm to others. Why should you not cause harm to others? Because inflicting harm to someone is a sin.

Uh, no. Because hurting someone is mean. How would you feel to be hurt? Would you like it? No. No you would not. So it is only fair not to hurt someone else, just like you wouldn't want to be hurt. A sin, really? So anything defined as a sin is bad, and anything not defined as a sin is okay? What exactly do you do if you don't know if something is a sin? And could you please define a few sins for us so we can understand this sense of morality and compare it to a few of theirs.

Those evil things do not bring me pleasure because I know that they are wrong. Now then... can you give me real answers?

So if your religion said that this was okay, then you would find this pleasurable? Would you find watching people cringe in unbearable pain pleasurable, if god didn't say they were a sin? Because it seems to me like you're saying the only reason things are wrong is because god says they're wrong.

But your meaning is still temporary, therefore pointless.

So would all your material possesions be pointless then too? Because all of those things are temporary. Is money pointless?

Who's side are you on?

This reminds me of the accurate comparison of Bush to Jesus: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." here; "He who is not with me is against me" here. Oh, found a nice lil contradictory statement: "Whoever is not against you is for you." here. One says neutral=enemy, the other says neutral=friend. Which is it?

Sorry for the double post, that image was supposed to be the version of this one made of smaller facepalms, I don't know what happened.

Awesomeness. Awesomeness happened.

These are the words of someone with a serious mental illness, I hope you aren't serious.

I am serious. If I had nowhere to get my morals (as you do), I would logically conclude that I may do whatever I please. I do not have a mental illness. I am logical. It's called logic, pal. You should try it sometime.

You compared the bible and computers as if they were the same thing, they aren't.

That's because it's an analogy. derp.

It didn't chose, i said that. If you want the honest answer, chance (i think, Magegreywolf may have a different answer). It just happened that the cell naturally reproduced, and evolution would dictate that only it would produce offspring that will reproduce more.

Alright then. You're saying that it is part of a cell's natural life cycle to reproduce, right? You yourself said that the cell didn't have a choice. But we human's have brains and we have choices. So why do we choose to reproduce? Because it's our instinct? But why is it our instinct?

That wasn't the point of mentioning the Hamurabi code at all. The point was that Christianity didn't create these morals, they existed thousands of years before it.

Fallacies, misconception, lies, fallacies, failures, contradiction, and more fallacies. Is your &quotoint" assuming that Christianity is real or not? Because if you are assuming Christianity is true, then your logic is impossible, because Christianity and God's morals have existed forever. If you're assuming Christianity isn't real, then your logic is STILL impossible because how can something exist before Christianity if Christianity doesn't exist? You are just a very confused little boy who blurts out endless fallacies. I wouldn't blame you if you left the debate now.

They aren't used interchangeably. The word for "servant" and "slave" in hebrew is the same word, "eved".

If they are the same word, doesn't that mean that they can be interchangeable?

If you ask "why?", then don't assume our answer is "it is morally wrong", and then don't continue on this spree of assumptions. You're trying to make us look like we're making the wrong arguments. You are literally shoving words in people's mouths here.

I merely expose logic that you should be going by. Example: "They have money. I want money to make me happy because happiness is my goal in life. I will take their money." Those are the words I'm putting in your mouth. Now are you going to swallow them, spit them out, or keep stuffing your mouth and not really answering it and hoping it all disappears. So tell me why you are going to spit out those words. Tell me why that logic is wrong.

Also, here's an interesting question for you Afterburner. What is "cool"? The bible didn't tell us what is cool and uncool, so how do we know? Did society and culture dictate what we think is cool and uncool? Now replace "cool" with "moral".

Okay. So to you think it's cool to steal? Because if your goal is to be happy, then your logic should be like the example above ^

As for your "Did society and culture dictate what we think is cool and uncool?" No they did not. People come up with what they think is cool. So thank you for defeating yourself again, because with your example of substituting words, I logically concluded that society is not a valid place to get morals.

And before you call me off on "People come up with what they think is cool." Just think. If people think it's cool to wear a belt everywhere, that's fine and they may wear as many belts as they'd like. But God most likely doesn't give a care about what belt you wear. So the words "Cool" and "Moral" are not always substitutable.
-

Uh, no. Because hurting someone is mean. How would you feel to be hurt? Would you like it? No. No you would not.

Thanks for making a false assumption for me. But if I were an atheist, I wouldn't care, because everything is temporary and it's all going to be lost anyway.

And could you please define a few sins for us so we can understand this sense of morality and compare it to a few of theirs.

A sin is doing something that God says not to do. A sin is also neglecting to do something that God tells us to do.

So if your religion said that this was okay, then you would find this pleasurable?

I wouldn't give a care about what was pleasurable and what isn't. I would just do whatever I had the freedom to do, unless someone told me not to do it.

Would you find watching people cringe in unbearable pain pleasurable

I wouldn't care. I wouldn't feel bad or good because I have nothing to tell me if it's bad or good.

Because it seems to me like you're saying the only reason things are wrong is because god says they're wrong.

I think if the Creator of the universe says something is wrong, it's wrong.

So would all your material possesions be pointless then too? Because all of those things are temporary. Is money pointless?

Yes. And yes. Only the eternal souls of people matter. Oh, and God, He's pretty important too.

-
Well that about wraps up my posting for the day. I'm headed to get some sleep. I'll address the rest of you first thing in the morning.

And could you please define a few sins for us so we can understand this sense of morality and compare it to a few of theirs

.
Let's see what was the ten commandments? Sorry i'm gonna put this as kjv. Here look at this:

Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 4. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth: 5. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me; 6. And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. 7. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. 8. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10. But the seventh day [is] the sabbath of the Lord thy God: [in it] thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that [is] within thy gates: 11. For [in] six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. 12. Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. 13. Thou shalt not kill. 14. Thou shalt not commit adultery. 15. Thou shalt not steal. 16. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. 17. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ***, nor any thing that [is] thy neighbour's.

Christianity and God's morals have existed forever

Christianity didn't exist as a religion until the mid-1st century AD. It was still considered a branch of Judaism.

Yes. And yes. Only the eternal souls of people matter.

Again, any verifiable and independent proof that an eternal soul exists?

I wouldn't feel bad or good because I have nothing to tell me if it's bad or good.

Then you lack empathy and are indeed a sociopath.

I am serious. If I had nowhere to get my morals (as you do), I would logically conclude that I may do whatever I please. I do not have a mental illness. I am logical. It's called logic, pal. You should try it sometime.

What? How? I..? What?

That's because it's an analogy. derp.

a·nal·o·gyâ â[uh-nal-uh-jee] Show IPA
noun, plural -gies.
1.
a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.
2.
similarity or comparability: I see no analogy between your problem and mine.
3.
Biology . an analogous relationship.
4.
Linguistics .
a.
the process by which words or phrases are created or re-formed according to existing patterns in the language, as when shoon was re-formed as shoes, when -ize is added to nouns like winter to form verbs, or when a child says foots for feet.
b.
a form resulting from such a process.
5.
Logic . a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects.

A bible and a computer don't fit in any of those definitions.

Again, any verifiable and independent proof that an eternal soul exists?

Sigh. I suppose I can answer these real quick...

Yes. Why do you feel that certain things are right and wrong? Because you have an eternal soul given to you by the Creator of the universe.

Then you lack empathy and are indeed a sociopath.

My statement was assuming that I was an atheist. And I would lack empathy because I would have logic. And If I had empathy, like you, I would have no logic, like you. Atheism doesn't give both logic and empathy. Christianity, on the other hand, does.

Yes. Why do you feel that certain things are right and wrong? Because you have an eternal soul given to you by the Creator of the universe.

Nope. I can honestly say thats not why certain things feel right or wrong. Especially since I have very mild kleptomania that I can't always control.

Atheism doesn't give both logic and empathy. Christianity, on the other hand, does.

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god, nothing more. Christianity on the other hand tells you to ignore logic and shun non Christians, I fail to see empathy there.

Then you lack empathy and are indeed a sociopath.

Truth is if I were an atheist I would be a mad man because it wouldn't be long till I wouldn't exist. I would kill any person I saw. Yeah. I said it. But since i'm a christian, you don't have to worry about me slitting your necks. :P

Right now I am histericaly laughing because of what I just wrote.

Yes. Why do you feel that certain things are right and wrong? Because you have an eternal soul given to you by the Creator of the universe.

No. Emotion, empathy, consciousness, is all done by the brain.

My statement was assuming that I was an atheist. And I would lack empathy because I would have logic. And If I had empathy, like you, I would have no logic, like you. Atheism doesn't give both logic and empathy. Christianity, on the other hand, does.

No. No it doesn't. Please explain to me the logic in this. How it is logical to just believe and do whatever someone else tells you, without question. Because that is exactly what you are doing. Also, how is it that you just assume atheists can't be logical and empathetic? It just doesn't make any sense. What does a belife in christianity have to do with empathy and logic. Empathy is an emotion caused by the brain. I'm not sure how logic works exactly, but I know that what you're using isn't logic.

Yes. Why do you feel that certain things are right and wrong? Because you have an eternal soul given to you by the Creator of the universe.

I just told you where emotion comes from. So, this means you have failed to prove the existance of a soul. Please try again.

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

So does this mean the spaghetti monster is okay since he was invented after this God? :P

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth:

Opps...

Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God [am] a jealous God,

Sure this is still about morality? Sounds to me this God is just being more of a narcissist.

visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me;

What a ******.
Anyway no contradictions.

Ezekiel 18:20
The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father.

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Again seems rather petty.

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

Update, unless you need to work three jobs in a poor economy to support those half dozen or so kids you had from not using birth control. Just saying.

For [in] six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

But that was all just a metaphor, not meant to be taken literally. That's why it's given as a reason for one of the big 10 things you're not suppose to do.

Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.

Even if your father is an absentee father who when he is around is a drunk ******* and your mother is a useless crack *****. Yep definitely deserving of honor just because they got it on once in the back seat of a car and didn't use a condom.

Thou shalt not kill.

Finally one I can actually agree with, that's only what more then half way through this wall o' text? Of course we can just ignore those times God wants you to go around killing in the very same book.

Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Hey that's two for two. Wait, originally this referred to a woman who has sex with a guy other than her husband. So I guess the context here only applies to women. Also what if the guy is okay with it, not really doing any harm there. Also what of other cultures who have completely different social relations when it comes to family structures?
I guess this one isn't working as a definite yes either.

Thou shalt not steal.

Cool another one that actually sounds like a moral. What if the person is starving to death and the only way to survive is to steal? I guess they are suppose to just starve.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

I wish more Christian actually followed this one. Maybe then we wouldn't have this bs like creationism.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ***, nor any thing that [is] thy neighbour's.

Yeah it's not like we have a system like capitalism based on this or anything.

Am I making fun of it? Yeah. These morals as absolutes or as morals at all are laughable.