Ask An Atheist Anything

Originally posted by ChickenPie
Why would somebody who created a, "Ask An Atheist" thread think that the following question, "Why should we avoid pain?" should be taken literally? You'd think they'd be smart enough to understand the context in which it was asked and conclude that they were talking about morality.

Whether your question was literal or figurative about morality, the answer remains the same for both conditions. It seems you misinterpreted my response for whatever reason. Perhaps you should stop and think my response through.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by ChickenPie
Why would somebody who created a, "Ask An Atheist" thread think that the following question, "Why should we avoid pain?" should be taken literally? You'd think they'd be smart enough to understand the context in which it was asked and conclude that they were talking about morality.

Whether your question was literal or figurative about morality, the answer remains the same for both conditions. It seems you misinterpreted my response for whatever reason. Perhaps you should stop and think my response through.

You can go on and go on about how pleasure "feels good" and pain "feels bad," but when you say pain feels bad you're simply describing what pain is, and you cannot derive what you should do from what is. Think about this concept for more than a minute and maybe you'll get it.

Pain is something that feels bad--we can all agree on that, but that does not necessarily mean it's bad in the sense that it is immoral. In other words, there is no direct path from the nature of what something is to what we ought to do. Yes, pain feels bad, but why ought we avoid it? You may give the answer, "So we do not experience pain," which is fine, but that's different from saying, "So we do not experience pain because pain is immoral." No, you'd be avoiding pain because pain feels bad, not because it's immoral. That immorality is something you created and attached to that bad feeling.

[edit on 1-8-2010 by ChickenPie]

Originally posted by ChickenPie
You can't be serious? Do I have to hold your hand through everything?

To assert that morality is subjective means there is no objective morality. That would mean you'd also be asserting there is no God.

No, it simply means that god is not part of the equation when discussing human behavior. I know it's hard for you to think outside of this box but try it. God is not a factor here, therefore there is no assertion in that statement which denies existence of deities. There are no deities but we'll stick to this topic until you can discern it.

Ad hom? Ad hominem? What? You didn't know how to spell it out?

Very good. Ad hom, a shortened version of ad hominem.

You have yet to challenge this logic:

To assert that morality is subjective means there is no objective morality. That would mean you'd also be asserting there is no God.

Just because I'm making fun of you for being stupid doesn't mean my arguments do not hold water. That's a fallacy in itself.

Sir, the fact that you cannot understand that behavior can be defined without the use of deities is most certainly not my stupidity. As I said, your constant employment of ad hominem, especially when you're in a state of perpetual error in comprehension, is especially revealing.

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by ChickenPie
Of course you can do that... but it wouldn't actually hold any objective meaning. If you want to create meaning using your meaningless rationality and morality, then that's your business. But understand that everybody else can do the same.

But I do not think that moral has an objective meaning, just the meaning we give to it. It could well be that in 150 years people will look back at us as savages, because we kill and let suffer millions of animals.

It's fortunate for both of us and convenient for your position that more people believe in God than not. Otherwise, we may get people running away betraying their rationality and morality because they've found it to be meaningless.

I live in a country where very little people believe in god, and we have about the lowest crime rates in the world, while the people are about the most happy in the world. So this argument holds absolutely no ground. I know of no atheist who thinks moral is meaningless. This idea is caused by a massive inability to emphasize with an atheist on your side.

To iterate, I never claimed people cannot be good with a belief in God. What I am asserting is that somebody could diagonally oppose your morality and you would have no way of arguing against them. Somebody could even challenge human rationality on the basis that God does not exist.

Originally posted by ChickenPie
Pain is something that feels bad--we can all agree on that, but that does not necessarily mean it's bad in the sense that it is immoral. In other words, there is no direct path from the nature of what something is to what we ought to do. Yes, pain feels bad, but why ought we avoid it? You may give the answer, "So we do not experience pain," which is fine, but that's different from saying, "So we do not experience pain because pain is immoral." No, you'd be avoiding pain because pain feels bad, not because it's immoral. That immorality is something you created and attached to that bad feeling.

[edit on 1-8-2010 by ChickenPie]

You just perfectly described how we humans create our own moral without the need of a god.

Originally posted by ChickenPie
To iterate, I never claimed people cannot be good with a belief in God. What I am asserting is that somebody could diagonally oppose your morality and you would have no way of arguing against them. Somebody could even challenge human rationality on the basis that God does not exist.

So you think the only argument for moral is god? It isn't, you can perfectly come with arguments why you think one thing is bad and the other isn't. We are actually constantly doing so, and politics, laws and society change accordingly.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by ChickenPie
You can't be serious? Do I have to hold your hand through everything?

To assert that morality is subjective means there is no objective morality. That would mean you'd also be asserting there is no God.

No, it simply means that god is not part of the equation when discussing human behavior. I know it's hard for you to think outside of this box but try it.

Oh, look, you're using ad hominems now. That must mean you're getting frustrated knowing that your arguments do not hold water.

Sir, read the following carefully:

To assert that morality is subjective means there is no objective morality. That would mean you'd also be asserting there is no God.

There is no way getting around that line of reasoning, which is why you're avoiding it. All you're doing is repeating that God has no place when discussing human behavior, but that does not in any way refute the argument I've given. You're being an ignoramus.

Sir, the fact that you cannot understand that behavior can be defined without the use of deities is most certainly not my stupidity. As I said, your constant employment of ad hominem, especially when you're in a state of perpetual error in comprehension, is especially revealing.

Sir, you're condescending and you resort to ad hominem, so stop playing the victim card with me.

The difference between you and I is that I have actually made a point... and all you're doing is avoiding that point. I don't know if this is because you're stupid or what...

[edit on 1-8-2010 by ChickenPie]

Originally posted by ChickenPie
Pain is something that feels bad--we can all agree on that, but that does not necessarily mean it's bad in the sense that it is immoral. In other words, there is no direct path from the nature of what something is to what we ought to do. Yes, pain feels bad, but why ought we avoid it? You may give the answer, "So we do not experience pain," which is fine, but that's different from saying, "So we do not experience pain because pain is immoral." No, you'd be avoiding pain because pain feels bad, not because it's immoral. That immorality is something you created and attached to that bad feeling.

Let's review.

You asked:

I want an atheist to tell me why we should steer clear of death and psychological and physical pain. I also want to know why I should be careful not to negatively affect others with my actions.

I responded:

Because of the inherent danger to yourself and others in such actions. This should be self-evident

I said nothing of pain, nor did I or would I associate the avoidance of pain with some self-invented morality. Honestly, you're still not being clear about any of this. Still though, you did mention something about a "created immorality" (a subjective and arbitrary one) while in the midst of arguing that morals could not be subjective or arbitrary. Whatever. Let's not deviate into this tangent since I've included your question and my response to it: let's try to stick to the actual content of the question and response.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Let's review.

You asked:

I want an atheist to tell me why we should steer clear of death and psychological and physical pain. I also want to know why I should be careful not to negatively affect others with my actions.

I responded:

Because of the inherent danger to yourself and others in such actions. This should be self-evident

Yes, I know what you did was stupid...

You didn't actually answer the heart of the question. You explained to me what pain is and used that as a reason why we should avoid it. If you had a brain, then you'd understand that I wasn't asking you what pain is. I was asking why you would associate pain with immorality.

I'm glad we had a chance to review.

[edit on 1-8-2010 by ChickenPie]

Originally posted by ChickenPie
Sir, read the following carefully:

To assert that morality is subjective means there is no objective morality. That would mean you'd also be asserting there is no God.

There is no way getting around that line of reasoning, which is why you're avoiding it.

I don't see how it's possible for you to even arrive at that line of reasoning in the first place, let alone me having no way of getting around it.

Let's assume for a minute that somehow by observing that morality is subjective that this somehow violates your belief that god is responsible for some objective morality.

First, you have to provide the proof of your god's existence. Then you have to provide the definition of the morality you believe is mandated by your deity. And then you have to provide an explanation for why cultures have different moral behaviors and that there is no apparent universal moral set. Even then you must also explain why atheists and even nihilists can behave in moral and ethical manners since presumably they'd be excluded from the moral mandates of the deity.

So you see, if you believe you have a great point here you actually have placed quite a burden on yourself in order to support it. I'm willing to hear your case.

reply to post by ChickenPie


Let me put it this way since it's such a hard idea to comprehend...

Me: "Why should we avoid pain?"

Retard: "Der, because pain is pain!"

Me: "Yes, pain is unpleasant, but why do we--with our human faculties--categorize pain as something that should be avoided?"

Retard: "Der, because pain is, der, painful! It may lead to my destruction!"

Me: "OK, then, why is destruction a bad thing?"

Retard: "Der, because it leads to nonexistence!"

Me: "Why is nonexistence a bad thing?"

Retard: "Der, because we don't exist"

Me: "But you're just explaining what nonexistence is..."



Do you see the pattern here, yet?

You're just arbitrarily assigning morality to certain aspects of reality.


[edit on 1-8-2010 by ChickenPie]

Originally posted by ChickenPie
Yes, I know what you did was stupid...

You didn't actually answer the heart of the question. You explained to me what pain is and used that as a reason why we should avoid it. If you had a brain, then you'd understand that I wasn't asking you what pain is. I was asking why you would associate pain with immorality.

I'm glad we had a chance to review.

No, I did not explain to you what pain is nor use it a reason why we should avoid it. Perhaps it was another poster and before calling others stupid you should discern who you're speaking with. I also made it clear in my above post that in no way did I or would I associate pain with morality. I'm uncertain as to why you keep insisting I said things that I clearly did not.

I understand you're frustrated and apparently befuddled by the constant opposition to your posts but take a deep breath and actually review the thread and read the posts you respond to.

Originally posted by ChickenPie
reply to post by ChickenPie

 

Let me put it this way since it's such a hard idea to comprehend...

Me: "Why should we avoid pain?"

Retard: "Der, because pain is pain!"

Me: "Yes, pain is unpleasant, but why do we--with our human faculties--categorize pain as something that should be avoided?"

Retard: "Der, because pain is, der, painful! It may lead to my destruction!"

Me: "OK, then, why is destruction a bad thing?"

Retard: "Der, because it leads to nonexistence!"

Me: "Why is nonexistence a bad thing?"

Retard: "Der, because we don't exist"

Me: "But you're just explaining what nonexistence is..."



Do you see the pattern here, yet?

You're just arbitrarily assigning morality to certain aspects of reality.


[edit on 1-8-2010 by ChickenPie]

If you're referring to me please quote the actual things I wrote in the thread rather than inventing your ad hominem fantasies. If you think the above exchange represents anything I've said in this thread you either have me confused with another poster or you are delusional.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
I don't see how it's possible for you to even arrive at that line of reasoning in the first place, let alone me having no way of getting around it.

In other words, you have no argument... at least not here... moving on.

Let's assume for a minute that somehow by observing that morality is subjective that this somehow violates your belief that god is responsible for some objective morality.

As evidenced by what I wrote:

To assert that morality is subjective means there is no objective morality. That would mean you'd also be asserting there is no God.

It does.

You still haven't made any point...

First, you have to provide the proof of your god's existence.

No I don't. because you're the one making claims here.

Your claim is that morality is subjective. Well, if that claim is correct, then it implies other things. In a world where morality truly is subjective... there cannot possibly be a God, because the existence of a God would mean that there indeed exists objective morality. So by claiming morality is subjective, you're also claiming God does not exist. This has absolutely nothing to do with me and my beliefs. Case closed.

[edit on 1-8-2010 by ChickenPie]

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by ChickenPie
reply to post by ChickenPie

 

Let me put it this way since it's such a hard idea to comprehend...

Me: "Why should we avoid pain?"

Retard: "Der, because pain is pain!"

Me: "Yes, pain is unpleasant, but why do we--with our human faculties--categorize pain as something that should be avoided?"

Retard: "Der, because pain is, der, painful! It may lead to my destruction!"

Me: "OK, then, why is destruction a bad thing?"

Retard: "Der, because it leads to nonexistence!"

Me: "Why is nonexistence a bad thing?"

Retard: "Der, because we don't exist"

Me: "But you're just explaining what nonexistence is..."



Do you see the pattern here, yet?

You're just arbitrarily assigning morality to certain aspects of reality.


[edit on 1-8-2010 by ChickenPie]

If you're referring to me please quote the actual things I wrote in the thread rather than inventing your ad hominem fantasies. If you think the above exchange represents anything I've said in this thread you either have me confused with another poster or you are delusional.

I asked you why we should avoid pain and like a dunce you replied by explaining what pain is or what it can lead to. You're correct in the literal sense, but we're discussing morality here. To give what I'm saying more perspective, why should I not hurt other people? Is your answer going to be I shouldn't hurt people because I will hurt them? Are you kidding?

reply to post by ChickenPie


FYI, I'm going to go take a break and play some Planescape Torment. Don't worry I'll be back to know down all of your arguments, again.

Originally posted by ChickenPie

No I don't. because you're the one making claims here.

Your claim is that morality is subjective. Well, if that claim is correct, then it implies other things. In a world where morality truly is subjective... there cannot possibly be a God, because the existence of a God would mean that there indeed exists objective morality. So by claiming morality is subjective, you're also claiming God does not exist. This has absolutely nothing to do with me and my beliefs. Case closed.

[edit on 1-8-2010 by ChickenPie]

So god could not create humans with the ability to decide their totally subjective moral for themselves? In that case your god is not very capable. If I was to imagine a god, mine could do that.

Originally posted by ChickenPie

First, you have to provide the proof of your god's existence.

No I don't. because you're the one making claims here.

No, I made an observation about morality. You make a claim that god is somehow responsible for morality. You must first prove your god exists, then define the morality it provides. Don't avoid it. The burden is on you.

Your claim is that morality is subjective. Well, if that claim is correct, then it implies other things. In a world where morality truly is subjective... there cannot possibly be a God, because the existence of a God would mean that there indeed exists objective morality. So by claiming morality is subjective, you're also claiming God does not exist. This has absolutely nothing to do with me and my beliefs. Case closed.

Well, there is no apparent god as there is no objective evidence of a god. Therefore, until and unless you or someone else can provide evidence establishing a god's existence and then defining the morals mandated by that god, then god is not a part of the equation when discussing moral behaviors. So, make your case. No more avoiding it.

Originally posted by ChickenPie
I asked you why we should avoid pain and like a dunce you replied by explaining what pain is or what it can lead to.

I did not explain what pain is. I provided my actual response cut and pasted from this thread. Like I said, use my actual posts instead of inventing your own dialogue.

You're correct in the literal sense, but we're discussing morality here. To give what I'm saying more perspective, why should I not hurt other people? Is your answer going to be I shouldn't hurt people because I will hurt them? Are you kidding?

There are consequences that come from hurting others. This should be self-evident.

I seriously hope you're capable of comprehending this. It doesn't get more basic than this.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by ChickenPie

First, you have to provide the proof of your god's existence.

No I don't. because you're the one making claims here.

No, I made an observation about morality. You make a claim that god is somehow responsible for morality. You must first prove your god exists, then define the morality it provides. Don't avoid it. The burden is on you.

Your claim: morality is subjective. It's worth noting that you didn't say you believe morality is subjective. If that claim is true, then it implies certain things. One of which is that God does not exist, because God would be objective morality.

If you want to work a different angle by saying since evidence shows that God probably doesn't exist, then it follows objective morality probably doesn't exist either, then that's different. But you didn't do that. You unequivocally claimed that morality is subjective. You didn't say it probably doesn't exist, or you believe that it doesn't exist, etc. You lose. Good day sir.

Not to mention, the whole idea that there exists the possibility of creating evidence to prove God's existence is ridiculous in itself as a point out here:

www.belowtopsecret.com...