Conquer Club, a free online multiplayer variation of a popular world domination board game.
http://www.tools.conquerclub.com/forum/
http://www.tools.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=213565
Logic doesn't exist in a non-mathematical sense, and humans certainly don't possess it. Rational thought and self-identity are illusions.TA1LGUNN3R wrote:If morals are a flight of imagination, then so is logic.mrswdk wrote:By which I mean that a logical system built on a fallacious assumption is not, when all is said and done, truly logical.
-TG
It's actually a lot harder than you might otherwise think. But he obviously created this world for us. Otherwise the dolphins would have told us to get the beep of this planet ages ago and move back to the planet that was created for us.Metsfanmax wrote:Well, for one thing, the world that exists essentially guarantees the existence of life forms on other planets. So it seems infinitely unlikely to assert that he created this world for us.
4/5DoomYoshi wrote:Logic doesn't exist in a non-mathematical sense, and humans certainly don't possess it. Rational thought and self-identity are illusions.
Why would evolution need to be 'set up' by a creator? Isn't time along with an earth that is ever changing enough reason for evolution? Why would anything stay exactly the same, forever and ever? I don't get why some people operate with a rule that if something was created by a creator, it could never ever ever ever changeMetsfanmax wrote:Well, if we accept as true the basic cosmology that we have now (the Universe was created nearly 14 billion years ago, but Earth wasn't created until less than 5 billion years ago) -- and there's no good scientific reason to disagree with that -- then for evolution to be a purpose of creation, the Creator would have needed to set up the universe in just such a way as to guarantee that evolution was possible, and that it would happen on Earth.Phatscotty wrote:Why couldn't evolution be a perfectly natural and fully integrated function or purpose of something that was created?TA1LGUNN3R wrote:There have been plenty of instances where myself and others have showed proof of evolution, incontrovertibly. Whether the creationists choose to acknowledge it is up to them. It does require at least a working familiarity of the basics of genetics and physiology.warmonger1981 wrote:Is it possible there is something out there so unbelievably smarter than us that they were able to create all of this. Humans are only touching the tip of the iceberg. It's silly to think that creation or evolution are the only option. You people act as we have figured it all out. We haven't even discovered all the animals or plants on the earth yet we can definitively say where everything from or they evolved. If evolution is correct why not compress all that has been learned into a 2-3 hour movie showing proven facts of evolution? Not theories. Or if creation is the other option why not compress all that info into a 2-3 hour movie stating proven facts?Neither side can do so. If they could there would be no debate because either side would be able to explain where we came from.
-TG
And of course, there's not really any way for us to test that right now. But one wonders why the Creator would go through all that trouble to set up the universe just right, when if He wanted humans to exist, he could have just created us straight up.
One could be moral, but how about an entire society of hundreds of millions, or an earth of billions? If there are no guidelines or recommendations for morals, then wouldn't there be millions or billions of different versions of moral codes? If that were the case how could a moral code actually exist?macbone wrote:This has been done to death, M. Yes, one can be moral without having faith in gods or other higher powers. This is pretty well-established in philosophy.mrswdk wrote:The question of whether or not the concept of morals has any value is entirely predicated on whether or not you believe in a higher being.WingCmdr Ginkapo wrote:If you live a moral life then the question of if there is the presence of a higher being is somewhat irrelevant.
The argument being discussed here is whether the universe was created specifically for us. The universe couldn't have been created with that purpose if it wasn't certain that we would actually come to exist, which means that the rules couldn't have just spontaneously changed. Also, if they did it means either the Creator is not omnipotent because He cannot control the rules, or He is omnipotent and somehow set up something that could arbitrarily change, in which case He wasn't actively trying to make sure that we existed.Phatscotty wrote: Why would evolution need to be 'set up' by a creator? Isn't time along with an earth that is ever changing enough reason for evolution? Why would anything stay exactly the same, forever and ever? I don't get why some people operate with a rule that if something was created by a creator, it could never ever ever ever change
That's what makes it invalid.Dukasaur wrote:I don't understand why you don't understand it.mrswdk wrote:And while doing it to death on this forum even Dukasaur has agreed that the morality being produced by atheists is not objective. I quote:
andDukasaur wrote:You can talk about "happiness for the greatest number" but it's only a subjective opinion that we should seek happiness. What objective reason is there that universal misery is not the goal?
and finallyDuksomemore wrote:What I believe is not possible, is to come up with any objective reason to desire an outcome.
Which is why I don't understand his stance in this thread.Duyathinkhesaurus wrote:I certainly think ethical systems are possible, I just deny them any claim to be objective.
Yes, we can and do construct moral codes. No, they are not objective. They are filtered through our particular set of biases. We say "Thou Shalt Not Kill" but then we clarify "But It's Okay To Kill Things That Taste Good." That's because evolution has made us a carnivorous hunter, so we construct a moral code that still allows us to murder little piglets. If we were a strictly herbivorous species, we would probably have a stricter rule about not killing any sentient being. If we were a scavenging species, we might have a moral code where it's good to eat meat, but only if it has died of natural causes.
So, I disagree with people who say "My code is based purely on Natural Law." No, I say. Your code is based on Natural Law as you see it from your vantage point at a particular nexus in the food chain. That doesn't make it any less valid. Just accept that you have restrictions and limitations to your viewpoint. Your code is valid, but only within the particular set of constraints that evolution has placed on you.
Yet I have not argued any of the things you list as being the argument. The argument I am and have been making is that creationism and evolution don't have to be one or the other, and very likely could be halves of a greater whole. Also I have asked people who do think the two are diametrically opposed why they think that.Metsfanmax wrote:The argument being discussed here is whether the universe was created specifically for us. The universe couldn't have been created with that purpose if it wasn't certain that we would actually come to exist, which means that the rules couldn't have just spontaneously changed. Also, if they did it means either the Creator is not omnipotent because He cannot control the rules, or He is omnipotent and somehow set up something that could arbitrarily change, in which case He wasn't actively trying to make sure that we existed.Phatscotty wrote: Why would evolution need to be 'set up' by a creator? Isn't time along with an earth that is ever changing enough reason for evolution? Why would anything stay exactly the same, forever and ever? I don't get why some people operate with a rule that if something was created by a creator, it could never ever ever ever change
Point is, if the creator had a plan and wanted to create us, that means he needed to control how things went from the very beginning. If instead one believes that the creator made a universe and then just let it go to see what would happen, then one must abandon the assumption that we humans on Earth are privileged in any cosmic way. One must also abandon the idea that the creator has set down any moral rules for how we should live, because he didn't even intend for us to exist in the first place. Indeed, what's the difference between this latter universe and the one that we atheists believe in? The existence of an unidentifiable creator who does not interact with our universe at all and therefore may as well have committed suicide after he created the Universe, for all the difference it would make to us? If you believe that, then you are basically an atheist.
Do the words in this sentence have any meaning? What would be an example of a model of the universe (other than the ones I offered) in which creationism and evolution are "halves of a greater whole?"Phatscotty wrote: Yet I have not argued any of the things you list as being the argument. The argument I am and have been making is that creationism and evolution don't have to be one or the other, and very likely could be halves of a greater whole.
Here is a somewhat related article to the point of ethics.TA1LGUNN3R wrote:If morals are a flight of imagination, then so is logic.mrswdk wrote:By which I mean that a logical system built on a fallacious assumption is not, when all is said and done, truly logical.
-TG
Huh. I actually agree with Mets hereMetsfanmax wrote:The argument being discussed here is whether the universe was created specifically for us. The universe couldn't have been created with that purpose if it wasn't certain that we would actually come to exist, which means that the rules couldn't have just spontaneously changed. Also, if they did it means either the Creator is not omnipotent because He cannot control the rules, or He is omnipotent and somehow set up something that could arbitrarily change, in which case He wasn't actively trying to make sure that we existed.Phatscotty wrote: Why would evolution need to be 'set up' by a creator? Isn't time along with an earth that is ever changing enough reason for evolution? Why would anything stay exactly the same, forever and ever? I don't get why some people operate with a rule that if something was created by a creator, it could never ever ever ever change
Point is, if the creator had a plan and wanted to create us, that means he needed to control how things went from the very beginning. If instead one believes that the creator made a universe and then just let it go to see what would happen, then one must abandon the assumption that we humans on Earth are privileged in any cosmic way. One must also abandon the idea that the creator has set down any moral rules for how we should live, because he didn't even intend for us to exist in the first place. Indeed, what's the difference between this latter universe and the one that we atheists believe in? The existence of an unidentifiable creator who does not interact with our universe at all and therefore may as well have committed suicide after he created the Universe, for all the difference it would make to us? If you believe that, then you are basically an atheist.
You make Horseshoe Crab very sad panda.Phatscotty wrote:Why would anything stay exactly the same, forever and ever?
Technically speaking, technology generally comes about from constantly changing environments. Constant environments (like the frozen lands or the tropics) often do not see the same advancement in technology that one sees in the temperate climate changing regions. In stable environments, people adapt over time to the constant climate.rishaed wrote:I mean would we have guns or technology advances if we never adapted to our environments a/o other peoples.
What da fuk you talkin' 'bout Willis? This thread was made to discuss where the CC creationists went.Metsfanmax wrote:The argument being discussed here is whether the universe was created specifically for us. The universe couldn't have been created with that purpose if it wasn't certain that we would actually come to exist, which means that the rules couldn't have just spontaneously changed. Also, if they did it means either the Creator is not omnipotent because He cannot control the rules, or He is omnipotent and somehow set up something that could arbitrarily change, in which case He wasn't actively trying to make sure that we existed.Phatscotty wrote: Why would evolution need to be 'set up' by a creator? Isn't time along with an earth that is ever changing enough reason for evolution? Why would anything stay exactly the same, forever and ever? I don't get why some people operate with a rule that if something was created by a creator, it could never ever ever ever change
Point is, if the creator had a plan and wanted to create us, that means he needed to control how things went from the very beginning. If instead one believes that the creator made a universe and then just let it go to see what would happen, then one must abandon the assumption that we humans on Earth are privileged in any cosmic way. One must also abandon the idea that the creator has set down any moral rules for how we should live, because he didn't even intend for us to exist in the first place. Indeed, what's the difference between this latter universe and the one that we atheists believe in? The existence of an unidentifiable creator who does not interact with our universe at all and therefore may as well have committed suicide after he created the Universe, for all the difference it would make to us? If you believe that, then you are basically an atheist.
Most of them were convinced of the rationality of atheism through logical argumentation such as this, and hence they no longer existnotyou2 wrote:What da fuk you talkin' 'bout Willis? This thread was made to discuss where the CC creationists went.Metsfanmax wrote:The argument being discussed here is whether the universe was created specifically for us. The universe couldn't have been created with that purpose if it wasn't certain that we would actually come to exist, which means that the rules couldn't have just spontaneously changed. Also, if they did it means either the Creator is not omnipotent because He cannot control the rules, or He is omnipotent and somehow set up something that could arbitrarily change, in which case He wasn't actively trying to make sure that we existed.Phatscotty wrote: Why would evolution need to be 'set up' by a creator? Isn't time along with an earth that is ever changing enough reason for evolution? Why would anything stay exactly the same, forever and ever? I don't get why some people operate with a rule that if something was created by a creator, it could never ever ever ever change
Point is, if the creator had a plan and wanted to create us, that means he needed to control how things went from the very beginning. If instead one believes that the creator made a universe and then just let it go to see what would happen, then one must abandon the assumption that we humans on Earth are privileged in any cosmic way. One must also abandon the idea that the creator has set down any moral rules for how we should live, because he didn't even intend for us to exist in the first place. Indeed, what's the difference between this latter universe and the one that we atheists believe in? The existence of an unidentifiable creator who does not interact with our universe at all and therefore may as well have committed suicide after he created the Universe, for all the difference it would make to us? If you believe that, then you are basically an atheist.
Hardly.Metsfanmax wrote:Most of them were convinced of the rationality of atheism through logical argumentation such as this, and hence they no longer existnotyou2 wrote:What da fuk you talkin' 'bout Willis? This thread was made to discuss where the CC creationists went.Metsfanmax wrote:The argument being discussed here is whether the universe was created specifically for us. The universe couldn't have been created with that purpose if it wasn't certain that we would actually come to exist, which means that the rules couldn't have just spontaneously changed. Also, if they did it means either the Creator is not omnipotent because He cannot control the rules, or He is omnipotent and somehow set up something that could arbitrarily change, in which case He wasn't actively trying to make sure that we existed.Phatscotty wrote: Why would evolution need to be 'set up' by a creator? Isn't time along with an earth that is ever changing enough reason for evolution? Why would anything stay exactly the same, forever and ever? I don't get why some people operate with a rule that if something was created by a creator, it could never ever ever ever change
Point is, if the creator had a plan and wanted to create us, that means he needed to control how things went from the very beginning. If instead one believes that the creator made a universe and then just let it go to see what would happen, then one must abandon the assumption that we humans on Earth are privileged in any cosmic way. One must also abandon the idea that the creator has set down any moral rules for how we should live, because he didn't even intend for us to exist in the first place. Indeed, what's the difference between this latter universe and the one that we atheists believe in? The existence of an unidentifiable creator who does not interact with our universe at all and therefore may as well have committed suicide after he created the Universe, for all the difference it would make to us? If you believe that, then you are basically an atheist.
Athiesm is hardly rational either. Its like trying to sail a ship without a rudder in most cases. Or drive a car without an engine. The problem lies in how you define morality then (already argued), you can neither argue that that things are good/bad, because morality is then subjective to each person therefor: No absolutes, aka if i think that Stealing and killing is ok, then I can do it without any problems.The golden rule is sufficient to define morality for all practical purposes. Most people can figure out intuitively, without having to be told by an authority, that stealing from and killing others is not OK, because they don't want to be stolen from or killed.rishaed wrote:Hardly.Metsfanmax wrote:Most of them were convinced of the rationality of atheism through logical argumentation such as this, and hence they no longer existnotyou2 wrote:What da fuk you talkin' 'bout Willis? This thread was made to discuss where the CC creationists went.Metsfanmax wrote:The argument being discussed here is whether the universe was created specifically for us. The universe couldn't have been created with that purpose if it wasn't certain that we would actually come to exist, which means that the rules couldn't have just spontaneously changed. Also, if they did it means either the Creator is not omnipotent because He cannot control the rules, or He is omnipotent and somehow set up something that could arbitrarily change, in which case He wasn't actively trying to make sure that we existed.Phatscotty wrote: Why would evolution need to be 'set up' by a creator? Isn't time along with an earth that is ever changing enough reason for evolution? Why would anything stay exactly the same, forever and ever? I don't get why some people operate with a rule that if something was created by a creator, it could never ever ever ever change
Point is, if the creator had a plan and wanted to create us, that means he needed to control how things went from the very beginning. If instead one believes that the creator made a universe and then just let it go to see what would happen, then one must abandon the assumption that we humans on Earth are privileged in any cosmic way. One must also abandon the idea that the creator has set down any moral rules for how we should live, because he didn't even intend for us to exist in the first place. Indeed, what's the difference between this latter universe and the one that we atheists believe in? The existence of an unidentifiable creator who does not interact with our universe at all and therefore may as well have committed suicide after he created the Universe, for all the difference it would make to us? If you believe that, then you are basically an atheist.
Religion has had millennia to root this shit out, and their approach failed. Atheists are a bit newer on the scene, but we'll clean this up eventually.warmonger1981 wrote:I lived in a culture where stealing was quite alright. Fuckem was the motto.
Metsfanmax wrote:Religion has had millennia to root this shit out, and their approach failed. Atheists are a bit newer on the scene, but we'll clean this up eventually.warmonger1981 wrote:I lived in a culture where stealing was quite alright. Fuckem was the motto.
I think that, if we can do it a way that is non-discriminatory in practice, we should use genetic screening to prevent the births of infants with severe disabilities (mental or physical) if we expect that those disabilities would result in a severely impaired quality of life, and the parents would prefer to raise a child that doesn't have those disabilities.warmonger1981 wrote:Mets what's your personal view on eugenics?
Can't speak for all atheists. But many will say that as long your religion is limited to things like going to church and doing community building exercises, we will not attempt to use any sort of legal means to stop you. On the other side of the coin, we don't want any public recognition of a particular religion in any state function. No prayer to the Abrahamic God at town hall meetings or in public schools. No Ten Commandments inscribed on government buildings. That sort of thing.How do atheists view religious freedom?
Well, we have the freedom to recognize and use the good, and ignore the not so good. We agree on things like "killing innocent people is bad" and "stealing is wrong," but we don't have any problems that arise from a book that tells us that lying with another man requires one to be stoned.How has religion influenced atheists moral code and is there a correlation?
There are so many ways to go with this, and I am having a hard time picking one. But I'll just go with ISIS.BTW religion has nothing to do with the drug culture. If it did there wouldn't be murders.