Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/25/12 08:21 PM, BigLundi wrote:

At 3/25/12 07:58 PM, EmmaVolt wrote:

At 3/25/12 07:40 PM, BigLundi wrote:

At 3/25/12 06:42 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: And, still reliable :).

Not really : /

It's reliable for me. Fair enough?

No. Purely subjective metaphysics based on preconceived notions about the reality of an ontological entity that can be logically dismantled through the usage of dilemmas and epistemic attacks is not reliable for you, it just shows you don't know what you're talking about.

Flowery language to tell me I am not allowed to have an opinion (?) is fair as well ... I guess.

I'll keep it there so we don't go off track again.

If the laws given to us reflect who he is(a terminology you rejected my usage of) then it follows that if something is moral for us to do, it is moral for him to do,

No it does not follow. You're trying to make God equivalent with man. It's like saying being above the law means that if you have anyone below the law, you have to submit yourself as well. God cannot do wrong because God is above "right and wrong".

And if you think he is 'above' our laws, which are bestowed upon us by him, then he is not morality,

Um, what? How is He not morality when it was given to us as a reflection of Him? You're logic is ... well, the rhetoric I would expect to hear. Much to your disbelief, there are actually a lot more logical steps you need to traverse before jumping to these conclusions.

You've screwed yourself.

Kinda hard to do that when no counter-arguments have actually been made yet. You're just restating the same thing in different ways while using terms that don't add anything to your stance.

At 3/25/12 02:37 PM, amplefied wrote:

Atheism is supposed to be about disbelief. I don't think anyone who describes themselves as Athiest would even use the word 'belief' to describe his points of view.

Actually, the very definition of atheism is one who believes there is no God. It is not simply the absence of belief, but a specific belief that God does not exist. This is all proven and explained in the link I provided.

There were two people who followed their religious beliefs very well and they were Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi. However they have both been taken out of context many times. They're morals and beliefs were very sincere and they are both seen as wise men and many people believe in what they stood for... I myself being one of them. I am an atheist though.

Before the scientific revolution, people didn't think of facts the way we do now. Therefore, they didn't think of the bible as really being true or false. The entire world was just one big metaphor through which real and unreal were more of a gradient than black and white, therefore they saw the bible as stories and their validity as unimportant compared to the lessons they taught.

At 3/26/12 12:39 AM, Jin wrote:

At 3/25/12 08:21 PM, BigLundi wrote: You can't have your cake

Don't you feel you're wasting time on an idiot?

I do actually. I'm going to stop responding to her on this subject because every time I provide an argument her response is, "Nuh uh."

Well, following the Ten Commandments has an athiest has nothing to do with having any sort of faith. Most of the things listed in it are just basic morality rules, along with the good things that Jesus said.

At 3/26/12 07:26 AM, BigLundi wrote:

At 3/26/12 12:39 AM, Jin wrote:

At 3/25/12 08:21 PM, BigLundi wrote: You can't have your cake

Don't you feel you're wasting time on an idiot?

I do actually. I'm going to stop responding to her on this subject because every time I provide an argument her response is, "Nuh uh."

Or, maybe you can't understand how ludicrous your responses are, as they don't even begin to respond to mine. God is "moral", because "moral" as we understand it to be is what God is. Simple enough?

I think it is possible to follow some parts of religious teachings (we are speaking of Judeo-Christian values, correct?) without actually being religious. But, then one might ask, "Why would you devote yourself to a faith which founds itself on the existence of God and the divinity of Jesus Christ without believing in either?" A person can have their own selection of "morality", but I feel that taking points from other religions defeats the purpose. In Christianity especially, the entire point to following teaching is to develop a personal relationship with God. I suppose you could simply follow these instructions for purely secular means; but, the faith has a strange way of being genuine only through those who actually submit themselves to the whole. Wouldn't it be easier to come up with your own philosophies rather than undermining something with much more meaning?

At 3/26/12 10:00 AM, EmmaVolt wrote:
Or, maybe you can't understand how ludicrous your responses are, as they don't even begin to respond to mine. God is "moral", because "moral" as we understand it to be is what God is. Simple enough?

Congratulations, you've rendered the relationship between god and morality to be nothing more than a meaningless tautology.

God's nature is that of goodness. Goodness is god's nature.

Therefore. God's nature is god's nature means the same thing as

Goodness is goodness.

And a useless tautology is a useless tautology.

At 3/26/12 10:47 AM, BigLundi wrote: God's nature is god's nature means the same thing as

Goodness is goodness.

Yep. And no "why" needs to be asked with a remote sense of "objectivity".

Good is good, because that's what we understand it to be. I don't see the problem.

At 3/26/12 10:54 AM, EmmaVolt wrote:

At 3/26/12 10:47 AM, BigLundi wrote: God's nature is god's nature means the same thing as

Goodness is goodness.

Yep. And no "why" needs to be asked with a remote sense of "objectivity".

Good is good, because that's what we understand it to be. I don't see the problem.

You don't see the problem in defining goodness as being goodness.

You don't understand philosophy. I'm sorry but I'm not quite sure what I can say to you that wouldn't fly over your head, and as a result you'd baselessly assert that I'm being illogical or whatnot.

The fact of the matter is, if you admit that morality is a tautology in your worldview, then your worldview is useless for discussing morality.

At 3/26/12 10:58 AM, BigLundi wrote: You don't understand philosophy. I'm sorry but I'm not quite sure what I can say to you that wouldn't fly over your head, and as a result you'd baselessly assert that I'm being illogical or whatnot.

Oh, I understand that philosophy will always be subjective, and that there can never be a goal when questions can always be asked and never answered. "Good is good" is logical, but wanting for someone who will never be satisfied by simply existing.

The fact of the matter is, if you admit that morality is a tautology in your worldview, then your worldview is useless for discussing morality.

Absolutely. My world view IS actually useless when discussing "philosophy" because I don't ask questions that can't be answered until we die.

At 3/26/12 11:01 AM, EmmaVolt wrote:

At 3/26/12 10:58 AM, BigLundi wrote: You don't understand philosophy. I'm sorry but I'm not quite sure what I can say to you that wouldn't fly over your head, and as a result you'd baselessly assert that I'm being illogical or whatnot.

Oh, I understand that philosophy will always be subjective,

Further demonstrating you know nothing of the subject. Bravo.

So logic is subjective is it? Jesus...

and that there can never be a goal when questions can always be asked and never answered.

And if they can be answered then gues what? The question's been answered and the question is now irrelevant. However an answer must be able to stand on its own merits, it must not be subject to a reductio ad absurdum, it must not be subject to scrutinized observations of logical fallacies...which is why your answers...are not answers.

"Good is good" is logical, but wanting for someone who will never be satisfied by simply existing.

Sure it's logical, but it's useless. All you did is make morality a tautology. I would think you would want to actually figure out why things are good instead of making good a useless tautology. Guess you christians just don't give a shit huh?

The fact of the matter is, if you admit that morality is a tautology in your worldview, then your worldview is useless for discussing morality.

Absolutely. My world view IS actually useless when discussing "philosophy" because I don't ask questions that can't be answered until we die.

The thing is, many of the questions you think can't be answered..probably can be answered. Go ahead, give me a shot. Ask me one of your 'unanswerable questions that can only be found out when I'm dead'.

At 3/26/12 11:17 AM, BigLundi wrote:

At 3/26/12 11:01 AM, EmmaVolt wrote:

At 3/26/12 10:58 AM, BigLundi wrote: You don't understand philosophy. I'm sorry but I'm not quite sure what I can say to you that wouldn't fly over your head, and as a result you'd baselessly assert that I'm being illogical or whatnot.

Oh, I understand that philosophy will always be subjective,

Further demonstrating you know nothing of the subject. Bravo.

So logic is subjective is it? Jesus...

Philosophy, in this subject, is not logic. No one knows what happens after we die. You can debate that all you want, but it won't change my SUBJECTIVE opinion. Same goes for "morality" in which there are no absolutes (allegedly).

and that there can never be a goal when questions can always be asked and never answered.

And if they can be answered then gues what? The question's been answered and the question is now irrelevant.

These questions can't be answered, and you're wasting your time.

Sure it's logical, but it's useless.

And? I don't care. I'm not a psuedo-intellectual. I'm satisfied with what is. Fact is, it's logical.

The thing is, many of the questions you think can't be answered..probably can be answered. Go ahead, give me a shot. Ask me one of your 'unanswerable questions that can only be found out when I'm dead'.

Sure, what happens after we die, oh wise one?

Are you trying to say that you are not religious? Or that you dont believe in god? Desists believe in god but dont follow any religion. Atheists dont believe in god but could follow a life style associated with a certain religion.

At 3/26/12 12:26 PM, EmmaVolt wrote:
Philosophy, in this subject, is not logic. No one knows what happens after we die. You can debate that all you want, but it won't change my SUBJECTIVE opinion. Same goes for "morality" in which there are no absolutes (allegedly).

No, philosophy isn't logic. Logic is philosophy. Also, kudos on admitting to being close minded on the opinion of the afterlife and morality. Seriously, this is the easiest debate I've ever had with anyone. You've admitted Christianity is useless for discussing morality, you've admitted that you're close minded on the afterlife and morality...really everything past this is just icing on my big old cake of pwnage.

These questions can't be answered, and you're wasting your time.

Sure, as soon as you demonstrate that they can't be answered.

Sure it's logical, but it's useless.

And? I don't care. I'm not a psuedo-intellectual. I'm satisfied with what is. Fact is, it's logical.

Basing your beliefs about morality on a tautology that begs the question isn't logical. You're a pseudo-intellectual, though I know pseudo-intellectuals love to think they're smarter than they are. That damned Dunning-Kruger effect.

The thing is, many of the questions you think can't be answered..probably can be answered. Go ahead, give me a shot. Ask me one of your 'unanswerable questions that can only be found out when I'm dead'.

Sure, what happens after we die, oh wise one?

Scientific evidence suggests that our bodies decompose and break down into fundamental materials used as nutrients by other animals and the planet in order to continue on the cycle of life. Plants and animals feed on your energy just as you fed on their energy in life. Quite poetic actually.

But you're trying to ask what happens to US after we die. And see, the question is based on a predilection for inquiring about the dualistic nature of our epistemological roots. The fact of the matter is, to presume anything happens to us, or say, our consciousness, after we die in any sort of eternal way is to presuppose dualism itself. Dualism has been abandoned en masse by the professional philosophical community. This is because, primarily, of the mind body problem, that is, the utility of dualism is specifically undermined when trying to explain the machinations of the individual because all things can be explained without the use of a nonphysical substance referred to as the 'mind'.

Without Dualism, there is nothing to suggest anything other than nothingness happens to the individual at death.

So the most reasonable answer to your questions, after the science and philosophy is done? Nothing happens to us. We die. And that's it.