Questions for Atheists

[OzmO]

sorry i missed that the first time.

if i get struck by lightening, is lightening evil?

Lightling is not a concious entity and there for doesn't deliberatly choose to strike you.

how about bit by a shark ?

You remember we were talking about right and wrong not good and evil.  Good and evil are related to right and wrong but are more complex.

So the Shark was wrong. 

cancer ?

Cancer is a desease.  Same as lightning.

and unplanned pregnancy ?

That's an accident, not a deliberate action.

is it ok for me to rape a retard ?

since children dont really know what they want, how can child molestation be evil?

Retarded people fall in the same catagory of a normal person.  Becuase you don't know if the retard person does want or deosn't want you to rape them and also becuase of plain decentcy as a human being it's woring to rape them.

It's pretty much the same way with children.  Until they are at the age to  intelligently give consent, to molest them is the same as sexual harrasment with an adult.  Becuase you have to assume as a adult they wouldn't want to be molested. 

[Clubber Lang]

your first definition was void when you consider victims who cant intelligently chose for themselves. based on your last post it sounds like we can redefine your definition of wrong to

When there is a Victim, who had something happen to them a reasonable person wouldnt want to have happened, you can usually say something was "wrong"

which means its a matter of concensus, which brings us back to square one.

ask 12 people from ancient sparta if its ok to pluck your enemies eyes out and you will probably get 12 yay's

ask 12 people on this board and youd be luck to get 6

[OzmO]

your first definition was void when you consider victims who cant intelligently chose for themselves. based on your last post it sounds like we can redefine your definition of wrong to

which means its a matter of concensus, which brings us back to square one.

ask 12 people from ancient sparta if its ok to pluck your enemies eyes out and you will probably get 12 yay's

ask 12 people on this board and youd be luck to get 6

The point is not to ask the 12 spartans, but rather the ones getting their eyes plucked out.

If they can;t chose for themselves such as a young child then you have to make the determination based on an adult who would know the consequences of getting their eyes plucked out.

Becuase if a normal person wouldn't want it, then it's logical a retarded person wouldn't either.

Nice try, CL, but this is pretty black and white here.

You could have more fun if you applied your idea to good and evil instead of wrong and right.

[Clubber Lang]

The point is not to ask the 12 spartans, but rather the ones getting their eyes plucked out.

actually the point is sparta was a draconian society and wouldnt frown upon violence which would shock modern day people.

If they can;t chose for themselves such as a young child then you have to make the determination based on an adult who would know the consequences of getting their eyes plucked out.

Becuase if a normal person wouldn't want it, then it's logical a retarded person wouldn't either.

Nice try, CL, but this is pretty black and white here.

as i clearly stated in my previous post, its a matter of the moral concensus of the times, not "black and white". which is why, as i have repeated thrice now, you will get a vastly different concensus from ancient sparta than modern day america. youll get a different opinion on torturing jews in midevil eurpoe than post holocaust europe. 50 years ago locking up nips during wwII seemed like a great idea, from our politically correct eyes its practically a war crime.

i could go on and on but i dont see this point sinking in any time soon

[OzmO]

actually the point is sparta was a draconian society and wouldnt frown upon violence which would shock modern day people.

as i clearly stated in my previous post, its a matter of the moral concensus of the times, not "black and white". which is why, as i have repeated thrice now, you will get a vastly different concensus from ancient sparta than modern day america. youll get a different opinion on torturing jews in midevil eurpoe than post holocaust europe. 50 years ago locking up nips during wwII seemed like a great idea, from our politically correct eyes its practically a war crime.

i could go on and on but i dont see this point sinking in any time soon

I see what you are saying CL.   Like 16th Century Japan and the Shogun loping everyone heads off.  I get it.  Different societies put a different value on life , torture, rape, etc....

You are very right.

BUT, at it's core, you can define wrong based on the victim. 

Did the japaneese pesant "want" thier head chopped off becuase he/she didn't bow at the right time?

Now the society might have viewed that as perfectly ok.  But that doesn't mean it was right.  Much as throwing virgins into a volcano.

[Clubber Lang]

g*ddamit, yet another circle.

i thought i showed that defining wrong based on the victim is incomplete, because when you look at victims that cant intelligently know they have been wronged you have to use the standard of a normal person (u should say just say "reasonable person" and make it all legal like )

which implies general concensus

which changes with the times

which implies morality is mutable

which implies im awesome

[Dos Equis]

Morality isn't based on what is socially acceptable.  It isn't based on opinion polls.  That's where we have a fundamental disagreement. 

[Clubber Lang]

whats it based on??

[OzmO]

goddamit, yet another circle.

i thought i showed that defining wrong based on the victim is incomplete, because when you look at victims that cant intelligently know they have been wronged you have to use the standard of a normal person (u should say just say "reasonable person" and make it all legal like )

which implies general concensus

which changes with the times

which implies morality is mutable

which implies im awesome

Bush's handling of the Iraq intially implied he was awesome too................

Now to the point.

It's not a general concensus.  Who would want to get raped?  Who would want something done to them against their will? 

Anthony Robbins,  (for example, not that i'm a fan of his.) says people are motivated by 2 things: 

1.  Avoiding pain

2.  Attaining pleasure

Even at it's core it's not a general consensus that retarded person wouldn't want something a normal person would want.  It's a human fact not a concensus.

[NeoSeminole]

Ozmo, just curious how would you define what are the right or wrong actions in these scenarios?

a) preemptive war to prevent a future attack
b) torturing a person to extract information which could possibly save thousands of lives
c) stealing to feed your poor family who would die otherwise
d) ordered to rape a girl while having a gun put to your head

[OzmO]

Ozmo, just curious how would you define what are the right or wrong actions in these scenarios?

a) preemptive war to prevent a future attack
b) torturing a person to extract information which could possibly save thousands of lives
c) stealing to feed your poor family who would die otherwise
d) ordered to rape a girl while having a gun put to your head

There we go.  I was waiting for someone to bring up points like these.

I don't have much of an answer for you other than there are still victims.  And although in  c and d you don't have much choice, and in a and b, your actions seem justified, in the pure sense of the definition, it's still wrong.

Now, i'm not saying i wouldn't do any of these scenarios becuase i believe would.    I'm only saying that although these actions may be for ther right reasons they are still wrong becuase you are harming someone against their will. 

BTW  on the last one:  we are both victims here, because i'm doing something against my will. 

[ToxicAvenger]

When do you first let someone know you're an atheist?  When they start talking about God?  Or do you offer it as an FYI in general or......?

just an FYI in general....


i wish i believed in god...life would be easier...so i dont look down upon people that do believe...
i just like to challange em...on here...in real life..i just change the subject..there r better things to talk about and look at..at bars..

[Necrosis]

i can show you that your belief in no god is less probable then a beleif in a god through quantum physics, philosophy, meta-physics(which are self evident assumptions science makes) and the mind. along with a little parapsychology i thought up on my on. i will post my thoughts later but i am having trouble organizing into one picture without having to write a book. but for your comfort those that studied science like einstein and hawking have pointed towards a deity or god, people seem to look to the smart for answers when human intelligence is factually finite as is the universe and the electrons which carry information in it. if you understand quantum physics you would be amazed at how fairy tailish it really is. for example did you know the iron for instance is 99.999999999% non matter or energy only that small fraction is solid like it feels. also quantum entanglement has revealed that everything is one and anywere is everywere all at once in the universe. photons seperated for instance have cause effect relationship on each other regardless of distance as if they were still together. this whole universe is one thing, atoms for simplicity(quarks, leptons, and even more) are all acting in concert with each other across the vast stretches of the galaxy and nothing differentiates them, no difference between you and this letter on the screen they are composed of the same thing and these things operate in concert thanks to quantum entanglement. i am getting ahead of myself but i will have a bigger, factual, more intricate explanation for everything soon. some would like to think that the M-theory or string theory would put to be everything but refer to kurt godels theorem for how this wont and cant happen. also, a material explanation that atheism rests on is not sufficient to explain the facts. im not attacking anyone just going to show there is more then matter through science.

[Clubber Lang]

anything you show me is nothing more than a rationalization to justify your belief structure, im sure i could find an athiest with that kinda time on his hands to refute all your findings (and then you could refute his refutation and on and on)

fact is there is no proof either way about god, just as there is no proof either way about santa clause and the easter bunny. far as i can tell the only difference is at some point we acknowledge the latter 2 are made up

[Necrosis]

you wont be able to refute my scientific facts because they are facts as you will see, and i will not use a shred of conjecture, quantum physics is established and is melding with metaphysics, i will use quotes from top physicists with no agenda and atheists who say the same thing. no one can dispute what i say, you lack knowledge my friend and i will put it in laymens terms for you. to study physics, evolution and is one thing but to know what they imply is another. take for example reproduction, it is purposive and goal oriented, how bacteria came already equipped with this purpose driven intellect is unknown as is how the structures were magically there. i wont get into the implications this points too, but i will later because forming bits of the argument is useless without the whole thing. but accept this there is only one truth, two things cannot be the opposite at the same time, this is a meta-physical truth and is presupposed by science as fact. i will display this one truth, so no  refutation as you say can be made.

[Necrosis]

this is a smaller version of a theorem which will help my argument in the future. and you ask me to prove something, in honesty we cannot prove anything, say gravity for example we know how it works between objects of mass and can have calculations which we can predict it etc.. but we dont know why or how it works, this is were gravitons come in, although we dont know what they are we assume they or speculate they create gravity or allow gravity to operate. we can provide evidence that is so strong for gravity that it is accepted, just like i will provide evidence that the materialistic view of the world is so wrong and evidence for a deity(im not arguing pantheism) that you will be compelled to accept it. i will argue specifics against monism if you would like in my paper

now for the theorem, A can create B only if A contains the potentiality to create B,in that A cannot create something say C that is does not contain.in biological terms the parent has to contain the potential to create everything in the child and cannot create anything it does not contain, cant creat a different type. this is the premise of this theorem. also, i would like to say that atheist and theists alike must agree that something outside space time or some non-thing created the universe. multi-verse does not answer this as again would would have to ask what put the multiverse there, nothing cannot create something i have already shown this given eternal time nothing is nothing and has no potential. some non-thing would have to create the universe(vaccum is somethin by the why, what created the vaccum). it becomes evident that some non-thing had to create the universe for something cannot create itself even a vaccum, and vaccums located in atoms etc. NEO i can expand this point later to make it even more convincing using physics but it will have to wait. i am showing links in the chain i will create but it will be much stronger and become obviouse when i put the chain together. i will answer any hard questions you guys will have. you might ask how can i answer these questions,truth is i stole some of it but i wrote it in my own words. the information comes from eight books, and i have two left to read on quanta. i am not arguing for a anthropomophic god either.

anyway to clubber lang, nothing i post can be refuted except for variables as it is fact like i have already stated, wait until you read it to post thoughts. and you arguments against it should help to make it better.

im no genius or phd so my arguments will have some quotes from phd's to verify my arguments so you understand things about physics are not made up, in case some people dont understand them.

[Necrosis]

again this is not a rationilization of my belief structure but beleiving the obvious provided the evidence. i had no belief structure before this but studied much material to end up at a conclusion. you will do the same thing and a belief in something without any rationilization or evidence is ignorant. i will provide evidence for a god, but no one can prove a god exsists beyond doubt, but like antony flew(former atheist) said " given the evidence it is highly probable that a deity exsists, or a material explanantion if ever there could be one for this world is unacceptable". i will show you the evidence he is talking about.

[Clubber Lang]

lol ... so did you like memorize the entire intelligent design pamphlet

ill save you the trouble of expanding any further and summarily say that an intelligent designer would itself require an intelligent designer, so the argument is self defeating

[Necrosis]

nope im not arguing intelligent design arguments what so ever, these arguments are much more elequent and have changed the worlds top minds and atheists alike.your foolish to use that argument, to be infinite indicates an uncaused caused or eternal for that matter. to be eternal you have to be uncaused or not-created. something that exsists as its essence to exsist is the uncaused caused, this is known as the god equation as purported by four of the greatest minds in atheism and theism. you have to have something that is uncaused for cause to exsist, nothing cannot create something therefore logically nothing never exsisted and some non-thing created everything, wether that is the laws of physics i will determine but your argument flies in the face of logic and experience and is foolish at every level and has been put to bed much more aggresively then i have done by ontologists and great minds alike. agian some uncaused cause would have to create this world outside of space time, what that is , is the problem, i will show you how it is not a material argument. god would not need a creator for it is a nessecity for it to exsists for something rather then nothing, something has to exsist as its essence or exsistence would not be here, follow. your argument has been put to bed, so relax and take a deep breath, i will further anihilate this argument later although i dont think i need to.

again i am not arguing intelligent design or any other refutable argument. science can test the empirical but rests on the "matrix" of the metaphysical, such as we assume the world is rational and we can make sense of it, and we exsist and the world does too. science says there is an explanation for everything, that is the premise of materialism and the scientific method, so there is an explanation and that explanation will be discussed.

[Clubber Lang]

as i said, god needs a creator

next

[Necrosis]

hahah. seriously though, add something if you can because it would refine my argument like NEO did in the evolution thread. im not trying to bash your belief but show you mine is better . but if you aren't kidding and my argument didnt convince you the im sorry for your troubles down syndrome will be cured one day

[Clubber Lang]

you cant say that everythng needs a creator, and then say "except the creator"

if you dont see why this is a self defeting argument youre dumb

[Necrosis]

it is not a self defeating argument i have already outlined why, is it too hard for you to understand. your a uneducated tiny tit.

here something exsists rather then nothing-fact
nothing cannot create something-fact(vaccum is a type of something) if your having trouble grasping this i can help
therefore nothing never exsisted.
so something is eternal that is the result of us and this unverse-this is a given and accepted in science, based on the meta physics i laid out and reason and experience
eternal means to not be created un-created, something in this universe is uncreated-this is the premise of the athiest and theist agreement that a non thing created the universe, they differ on that non thing, i say god you say matter is everything and eternal
therefore there is an uncaused cause this is a theorem by the way and you know what theorems are right.

again i will not defend this postion again as your argument is uneducated and flies in the face of logic,reason and experience let alone science. so anyway you should abort your tatic as it is showing how unintelligent you are.it is accepted by everyone as a self evident truth you can deny it but people of reason will not listen for your are illogical.


also, if you would like to argue that there was nothing then, the only explanation is god because it would defy all our laws and reason, therefore something supernatural above the laws. this position is weak at best and something always exsisted, therefore you are arguing the latter argument which is ridiculous.

you have been supremely owned like suckmymuscle and his rant about memory that i shoved up his stupid ass. i dont like ad hominen arguments but when someone attacks me, this is not the main board by the way, i will return the favor, also those arguments are known to be used by the weak minded my friend. i rest my case on this argument.

sorry for the spelling i am studying for an exam and am in a rush to own you.

[Necrosis]

i can tell your iq is low, since i had to repeat my argument several times and you still dont understand the theorem. send my condolences to your parents please.

[Necrosis]

common sense doesnt apply to quanta or cosmology im sorry this is the reason for your mis-understanding.