Upload
Login or register
Newest
auto-refresh every 1 2 3 5 seconds
✖ Too many comments. Images disabled to prevent lag.
Online User List [+] Online: (6): cognosceteipsum, deepfriednigger, iphraem, theism, thumbfortrump, whoozy, anonymous(2).
asd
#132148 - anon
Reply 0
(02/24/2016) [-]
There's no neutral field for the exchange of ideas to blossom in. No one is disinterestedly drawn to the best epistemic case. Bad ideas frequently proliferate themselves, they effectively rape and pillage through society, and often completely unawares to their champions that these ideas are in fact bad ideas. For this reason I'm at a loss to see how a civilization could be justified in failing to exterminate anyone who rejects the ultimate source of goodness. Think about the ramifications of allowing these people to remain extent. We kill terrorists without too much in the way of moral disquiet, why cannot we exercise the same precautions with respect to God denialists.
#132153 to #132148 - anon
Reply 0
(02/25/2016) [-]
Comparing terrorists to people that don't believe in a deity. Hahahahaha
#132149 to #132148 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(02/24/2016) [-]
Did you forget to lig in zlamous?
#132150 to #132149 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(02/24/2016) [-]
log*
#132126 - thumbfortrump
Reply -1
(02/24/2016) [-]
>religion
#132130 to #132126 - anon
Reply -1
(02/24/2016) [-]
>trump
>not liking religion
Play your character right fagget
#132131 to #132130 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(02/24/2016) [-]
>board filled with muslims
>anon thinks trump likes muslims

you will burn in hell heathen
#132136 to #132131 - anon
Reply -1
(02/24/2016) [-]
The only regular muslim here is shekelnator. You have no idea what you're talking about. As one of the original oldfags of this board, I would know
-lulz
#132137 to #132136 - thumbfortrump
Reply +1
(02/24/2016) [-]
>trusting anything coming out of your mouth

lolk
#132156 to #132137 - anon
Reply -1
(02/25/2016) [-]
If only you knew the amount of garbage ive done here for the past 3+ years
#132155 to #132137 - anon
Reply +1
(02/25/2016) [-]
That's a little insulting, I know we have our slight disagreements but I didn't know you were this butthurt.
#132127 to #132126 - ragnarfag
Reply 0
(02/24/2016) [-]
>trump
#132128 to #132127 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(02/24/2016) [-]
iDubbbzTV  What Are You Gay What Are You A Fucking Faggot >not liking trump
#132129 to #132128 - ragnarfag
Reply -1
(02/24/2016) [-]
I just don't like to see countries being ruined, you know
#132056 - deepfriednigger ONLINE
Reply -4
(02/24/2016) [-]
#132007 - zlane
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
the moral argument

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.


for premise 1, there's no objective standard that atheists can derive from some source other than God. an atheist may give an example of an objective moral truth and provide a basis for this, but what set of facts and logic did they use to justify this as their basis? now they have to justify that, and afterwards, they have to justify the next layer. this either creates an infinite regress of justifications or circular reasoning.

in the absence of God there is no universally applicable moral standard. someone can always respond with "why should i care" when some standard is presented because there's always some possible subjective reason someone could disregard an atheistic standard.

i don't think premise 2 can be denied by any rational person
#132316 to #132007 - anon
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
Morality changes even in the bible. What is seen as wrong today e.g. incest, murder, etc was all committed in the bible and in the name of god and was seen as just. Even in your arguments, all your 'objectively immoral' statements are based on your SOCIETY AND CULTURE, not belief in god. Many other cultures follow god yet do things our society does not agree with yet believe they are right as it is justified in the bible.
Human suffering for example is massively contradicted time and time again. This is a huge flaw in your argument. Not even god or the bible understands what should be objective. You are basing it all off your own opinions.
#132379 to #132316 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
there are actions that are objectively wrong.
#132315 to #132007 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
kanatana, is there some reason you thumbed down my comments beyond the fact that you're mentally handicapped?
#132253 to #132007 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
In a possible world without God nothing would be objectively immoral. Therefore there is nothing that is immoral in all possible worlds.
#132258 to #132253 - zlane
-1
(02/25/2016) [-]
we have to assume that God does not exist for this to work because He exists in every possible world
#132387 to #132258 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
You don't understand, you're attempting to justify a proof, using a different proof. This would imply the second proof is the superior proof and the first proof is useless.
#132389 to #132387 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
your disproof requires a separate line of argumentation. my refutation of your disproof is not evidence for the moral argument, it's actually completely unrelated, but that's only because you initiated a separate line of discussion
#132390 to #132389 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
You're disproof necessitates an appeal to an unsubstantiated argument.
#132391 to #132390 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
so does yours nigga
#132392 to #132391 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/26/2016) [-]
No, it is possible for God to not exist.
#132393 to #132392 - zlane
0
(02/26/2016) [-]
and this is a separate line of argument that needs to be addressed with an argument outside of the topic
#132394 to #132393 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/26/2016) [-]
It's self evident.
#132259 to #132258 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
Except the possible worlds in which he doesn't.
#132261 to #132259 - zlane
-1
(02/25/2016) [-]
of which there are none
#132263 to #132261 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
Prove it.
#132265 to #132263 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
you literally have to prove God cannot exist to support this claim
#132268 to #132265 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
Shifting the burden of proof tho.
#132273 to #132268 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
is it impossible for a maximally great being to exist?
#132274 to #132273 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
If it's possible for one to not exist.
#132277 to #132274 - zlane
-1
(02/25/2016) [-]
"if its impossible for it to exist, then it's impossible that it exists"

thats all you're saying
#132278 to #132277 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
If you obfuscate it like a dishonest tool. "Wow if you rephrase things to not make sense then they don't make sense. Who'd a thought? "
#132298 to #132278 - zlane
-1
(02/25/2016) [-]
"there's a possible world where a being that exists in every possible world does not exist"
#132299 to #132298 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
"I can rephrase things to not make sense so they don't make sense. I also have no idea what burden of proof is."
#132304 to #132299 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
you claim there's a possible world where God does not exist

God is a being that exists in every possible world

you're saying there's a possible world where a being that exists in every possible world does not exist
#132305 to #132304 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
Yeah, can you prove me wrong?
#132313 to #132305 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
for the sake of argument i'll grant that a possible world in which a maximally great being does not exist is logically possible. But God is both logically and metaphysically possible, so my argument supersedes your counter argument
#132319 to #132313 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
No, that's simply not how that works. If you cede that there is a world without a God, in that world there is no objective morality, invalidating your entire argument. Not to get in to all the other reasons that's idiotic.
#132378 to #132319 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
>. If you cede that there is a world without a God

no, i'm not admitting that. i'm saying that it may be logically possible, but the_ modal ontological argument_ supersedes this because God is both logically and metaphysically possible
#132382 to #132378 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
So then your proof is the modal ontological argument? You need to invoke an entire different proof as a lemma to support the moral argument?
#132384 to #132382 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
you invoked a disproof of God to try to defeat the argument in the first place
#132221 to #132007 - jettom
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
There isnt a single thing in human history that's been forbidden across all cultures that have existed, and as such your argument is void.
#132225 to #132221 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
my moral experience tells me that certain actions are wrong in every possible situation. peeling a baby alive with a potato peeler is wrong in all possible worlds.
#132231 to #132225 - jettom
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
Yes. That would be your standards. But many, many times through history, torture and killing of infants have taken place. Usually linked to a genocide, but not always. So those morales of yours are not universal to the human race.
#132241 to #132231 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
you don't share my view though? you think it's justified in some situation?
#132187 to #132007 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
Or morality actually is subjective.
#132139 to #132007 - eight
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
Premise 1 assumes:

A) Objective Moral values do exist.
B) That if objective moral values do exist, said Objective values are not situational.
C) That premise 3 is already true, defeating the purpose and validity of the argument.
#132145 to #132139 - zlane
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
a) no.
b) by definition
c) no. as i've explained below
#132135 to #132007 - cognosceteipsum ONLINE
-1
(02/24/2016) [-]
I believe God exists, but the moral values that exist aren't given by him actually.
#132138 to #132135 - anon
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
Same with me
-lulz
#132132 to #132007 - thumbfortrump
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
>If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist
Agreed

>Objective moral values and duties do exist
No they don't.

#132134 to #132132 - anon
+1
(02/24/2016) [-]
not necessarily to the first premise
of course he's talking about the christian god but there could be other gods, or entities or agents driving an objective morality. that argument will never get further than this though, and it most certainly will never reach the christian god.
#132124 to #132007 - zlane
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
first paragraph isn't written very well.

-there's no objective source of morality apart from God from which atheists can derive morality
-any moral truth they provide is contingent upon some atheistic framework of morality
-all of these frameworks are contingent. the supporting premises are contingent. theres nothing other than God that can eliminate the regress of contingencies.
#132073 to #132007 - cleverguy
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
you have to defend premise 2 better than that
#132075 to #132073 - zlane
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
i only have to come up with a single objective moral truth to prove premise 2.

it is wrong in every context to take a potato peeler and peel a baby alive for fun
#132186 to #132075 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
Based on what though?
#132188 to #132186 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
based on the fact that it cant be justified
#132189 to #132188 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
So that makes it objectively immoral?
#132191 to #132189 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
if it can't be justified in any situation, yeah. it would still be wrong in a situation where everyone thought it was right, so its independent of human opinion
#132193 to #132191 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
So anything that cannot be justified is objectively wrong. Why does God need to exist for this to be the case?
#132195 to #132193 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
what would make it injustifiable in every situation other than God?
#132198 to #132195 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
unjustifiable*
#132222 to #132198 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
i can't believe i typed "injustifiable"
#132197 to #132195 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
So God needs to exist for it to be in justifiable?
#132200 to #132197 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
yes. but we can observe this without invoking God. so it's not circular
#132201 to #132200 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
But if God doesn't exist it's not immoral.
#132203 to #132201 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
not objectively
#132206 to #132203 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
So it's possible that it's subjectively immoral.
#132076 to #132075 - cleverguy
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
prove it is wrong in every context
#132077 to #132076 - zlane
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
there's no conceivable context in which it could be justified
#132301 to #132077 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
Proving their existence doesn't hinge on the existence of reality.
#132302 to #132301 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
they cant exist and not be part of reality
#132303 to #132302 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
Which means their existence demonstrates the existence of reality. If I were trying to employ your logic I would have said "reality exists so obviously you exist".
#132306 to #132303 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
when you speak of their existence you're already assuming reality
#132307 to #132306 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
No... I can show they exist, independently of how I would show reality exists. It's just not comparable to your argument.
#132312 to #132307 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
i explained that we can establish premise 2 without invoking c and then you changed your contention to p2 relies on c to be true, then i showed that this isn't necessarily a problem by providing an argument with the same logical structure
#132320 to #132312 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
No you didn't you dodged the question. You said "we know these are moral truths because of God's nature". Without the existence of a God these are not moral truths. Therefore in order to call anything a moral truth you have to believe in a God. The contention is that your evidence IS the conclusion.
#132377 to #132320 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
> You said "we know these are moral truths because of God's nature"

know i said we can simply recognize them by the fact that there are objectively wrong actions

>Therefore in order to call anything a moral truth you have to believe in a God.

no. that doesn't follow from the previous sentence
#132381 to #132377 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
The only thing that makes them objective or wrong is the nature of God. Absent that nothing is a moral truth, following, without God you can't "recognize" a moral truth.
#132383 to #132381 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
>, without God you can't "recognize" a moral truth.

you don't have to have knowledge of God to recognize it. it exists because of God, but believing in God is not the necessary condition for recognizing it

conversation over
#132385 to #132383 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
Conversation not over. If God doesn't exist you aren't recognizing anything.
#132386 to #132385 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
one last time

God is the necessary condition for moral truths to exist

God is not the necessary conditions for the recognition of moral truths
#132388 to #132386 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
If they're not moral truths are you really recognizing anything?
#132280 to #132077 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
That's not at all how that works... you keep trying to shift burden of proof. P2 can be false if God MIGHT not exist so the only presumption necessary is that the argument might be untrue.
#132282 to #132280 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
if nothing is real, i do not exist
i exist
therefore something exists

the only way for p2 to be true is if c is true. is this argument circular?
#132284 to #132282 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
P2 is demonstrable outside of c.
#132286 to #132284 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
If c is false no example you can give is real.

i'm using the same logic as you right now
#132287 to #132286 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
You can provide evidence outside of c to prove p2 so your example doesn't really work very well.
#132288 to #132287 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
the same is true for the moral argument. we can recognize that moral truths exist apart from knowledge of God, even though it's true that p2 is only true if c is true

#132282 in this argument p2 is also only true if c is true. its not circular
#132289 to #132288 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
The only evidence you can conceive of requires you to assume the conclusion though, so... yeah.
#132290 to #132289 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
if nothing is real, i do not exist
i exist
therefore something is real

p2 entails acceptance of the conclusion.
if this argument isn't circular then neither is mine
#132291 to #132290 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
P2 can be demonstrated with evidence that doesn't rely on the conclusion.
#132292 to #132291 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
nope
#132293 to #132292 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
Yep, you can appeal to your cognitive faculties.
#132294 to #132293 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
which are not outside of reality...
#132295 to #132294 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
But they definitely exist.
#132296 to #132295 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
so you're appealing to part of reality
#132297 to #132296 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
It's something that definitely exists. It's existence necessarily proves reality.
#132300 to #132297 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
you have to presuppose the conclusion to say that
#132283 to #132282 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
therefore something is real*
#132252 to #132077 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
So you can basically just claim anything as proof of God? "I call these things objective morals. They don't actually have to be but if I claim they coincide with the nature of this thing I believe in then that proves he exists." You really can't prove your premises without going into circular reasoning honestly. The
#132254 to #132252 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
we can recognize that some actions are wrong in every situation. the reason behind this is God, but we don't have to know this to recognize the former
#132255 to #132254 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
But nothing actually makes them objectively wrong. You're like a broken record.
#132256 to #132255 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
i just said what makes them objectively wrong, but the argument is only circular if i invoke this
#132257 to #132256 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
So then unless God exists nothing is objectively wrong?
#132260 to #132257 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
yes
#132262 to #132260 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
So the argument is completely circular.
#132264 to #132262 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
premise 2 is only true if the conclusion is true.
but i don't have to use the conclusion to demonstrate premise 2.
the fact there is some proof outside of God doesn't imply theres some explanation outside of God
#132266 to #132264 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
>Objective moral truths only exist if God exists
>God only exists if objective moral truths exist.
Totally not circular do.
#132269 to #132266 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
but i don't invoke 1 to prove 2
#132270 to #132269 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
You invoke c to prove p2.
#132271 to #132270 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
i meant 1 and 2 from your comment

p2 is only true if c is true, but i don't have to invoke c to prove p2.
#132272 to #132271 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
C is the only proof you gave of p2.
#132275 to #132272 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
nope. its the only explanation, not the only way we can know
#132276 to #132275 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
C is the only possible way for anything to be a moral truth. If c is false no example you can give is a moral truth.
#132279 to #132276 - zlane
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#132235 to #132077 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
But it's not objective.
#132236 to #132235 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
what makes us incapable of recognizing their objectivity?
#132237 to #132236 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
It has to be objective to "recognize" objectivity. Otherwise you're just claiming objectivity.
#132238 to #132237 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
the reason they are objective and the manner in which we can determine they are objective are separate things.

they are in fact objective, but i don't just presuppose this, i point out that there are actions that are wrong in every possible world
#132239 to #132238 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
But why are they wrong?
#132240 to #132239 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
because they go against God's nature. but like i said,
>the reason they are objective and the manner in which we can determine they are objective are separate things.

we can observe the fact that they are objective apart from any explanation.
#132242 to #132240 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
But they're only objective if God exists...
#132243 to #132242 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
that's true. but i think premise 2 can be established even if we knew nothing about God- in this case, it would just be a mystery why these truths exist
#132244 to #132243 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
But they wouldn't be truths...
#132245 to #132244 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
they wouldn't be truths if we didnt know about God?
#132246 to #132245 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
Yes.
#132247 to #132246 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
we don't have to know about God to recognize moral truths
#132248 to #132247 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
You just said they're only moral truths because of God. Does something else make them moral truths then?
#132249 to #132248 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
>they're only moral truths because of God
>we don't have to know about God to recognize moral truths

there's no explicit contradiction. our knowledge has no effect on reality
#132250 to #132249 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
Why would we consider them moral truths without belief in God?
#132251 to #132250 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
because we can observe these truths. they exist because of God, but we don't have to know that to recognize them.

i don't know how to explain this any further....
#132215 to #132077 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
But WHY is it wrong?
#132216 to #132215 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
it creates suffering.
#132217 to #132216 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
Why is suffering wrong?
#132218 to #132217 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
i know i'm falling into your trap

ultimately its objectively wrong because it goes against God's nature.
but we can observe the fact that these moral truths exist without knowledge of God.
it's not a circular argument
#132219 to #132218 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
But they wouldn't be moral truths without God. They would be perspectives.
#132220 to #132219 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
the point you're trying to make is that i can't prove premise 2 without invoking God and therefore the arugment is circular, right?
#132223 to #132220 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
Pretty much yeah.
#132224 to #132223 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
but we can observe moral truths even with no knowledge of God. explaining these truth is irrelevant to this premise
#132226 to #132224 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
It hinges on them being moral truths. Nothing makes them moral truths.
#132227 to #132226 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
but that's irrelevant to the fact that we can recognize these truths
#132228 to #132227 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
What makes them moral truths though?
#132229 to #132228 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
thats irrelevant to establishing the 2nd premise
#132230 to #132229 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
It's pretty fucking relevant. If they aren't moral truths your argument means nothing.
#132232 to #132230 - zlane
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#132233 to #132232 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
So you can't prove their moral truths and you just don't want to admit it? If you're going to claim moral truths exist seems like you ought to be able to prove it.
#132234 to #132233 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
the prove is the fact that we can simply recognize their objectively
#132190 to #132077 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
What if a guys going to do it to 2 babies if you don't?
#132192 to #132190 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
but thats different than my hypothetical. i said that its wrong to potato peel a baby for fun in every situation
#132194 to #132192 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
What if the guy is going to do it if you don't enjoy it?
#132196 to #132194 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
then it wouldnt be for personal enjoyment, it would be out of necessity
#132199 to #132196 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
What if there's a microchip in your brain making you enjoy it?
#132202 to #132199 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
it would still be wrong....
#132204 to #132202 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
But you're not morally responsible.
#132205 to #132204 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
the action is inherently wrong because of the suffering its creating
#132207 to #132205 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
But it's not an immoral act if you were unable to not do it.
#132208 to #132207 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
it's still an inherently wrong action though.

but i can just alter my hypothetical. "it is wrong for someone with free will to peel a baby for fun"
#132209 to #132208 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
But why?
#132210 to #132209 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
it's wrong that he was controlled to do that. he's just a tool for the action.

but anyway, i can just keep adding caveats to my hypothetical
#132211 to #132210 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
But why is it wrong objectively?
#132212 to #132211 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
"it is wrong for someone with free will to peel a baby purely for personal enjoyment."

that's wrong in every context.
#132213 to #132212 - theism ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
What makes it wrong objectively?
#132214 to #132213 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
as i said before, if its wrong even in contexts where everyone thought it was right, then its wrong independent of anyones opinion
#132081 to #132077 - cleverguy
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
im sure someone could conceive of a justification

my problem with this argument is that to support premise 2 without making the argument circular, you have to provide an objective moral without invoking the existence of God, but that would contradict premise 1 inherently, so your argument is paradoxical
#132085 to #132081 - zlane
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
>you have to provide an objective moral without invoking the existence of God,

but this doesn't prove that this moral would be absolute if God didn't exist....as far as i can tell. the underlying reasons only exist because God exists
#132087 to #132085 - cleverguy
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
then you can't prove premise 2
#132089 to #132087 - zlane
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
Because it assumes God exists or because i have to invoke God to prove it?
#132090 to #132089 - cleverguy
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
both of those are the same reason
#132092 to #132090 - zlane
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
i could prove premise 2 without invoking God in my argument and you could still claim that it assumes God exists because it could only be true if God exists. but that conclusion is necessitated by the premise simply because its a deductive argument. if that premise didn't entail that conclusion, the argument wouldnt work
#132097 to #132092 - cleverguy
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
except your premises are working in reverse. 2 needs 3 to be true for it to prove 3 and that's circular
#132100 to #132097 - zlane
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
but 2 is not logically equivalent to 3. the conclusion is dependent on both premises
#132102 to #132100 - cleverguy
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
you support premise 2 with "objective morals exist because of God" right? that means premise 3 is already assumed to be true and thus the conclusion is in the premises, making it a circular argument
#132103 to #132102 - zlane
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
no i support it with our moral experience. peeling a baby for fun is wrong in any context i can conceive
#132267 to #132103 - cleverguy
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
what makes your conception objective
#132405 to #132267 - zlane
0
(02/26/2016) [-]
i'm just recognizing a truth- that there's no such context.
#132421 to #132405 - cleverguy
0
(02/26/2016) [-]
according to your point of view which is not objective, as far as we know
#132423 to #132421 - zlane
0
(02/26/2016) [-]
if premise 2 is false, then there is some possible world wherein the action i mentioned is not morally wrong. i don't think that anyone can conceive of such a situation
#132482 to #132423 - cleverguy
0
(02/27/2016) [-]
i would need to start a new thread to talk more about why that argument is not god enough for me
#132484 to #132482 - zlane
0
(02/27/2016) [-]
i welcome your response.
#132425 to #132423 - cleverguy
0
(02/26/2016) [-]
i mean you can say that all you want but you actually have to prove it logically
#132429 to #132425 - zlane
0
(02/26/2016) [-]
i think its self-evident. unless you can conceive of a situation wherein it's not morally wrong, you're forced to accept p2.
#132055 to #132007 - totallytito
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#132057 to #132055 - zlane
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
> our universe already began in a state of equilibrium before the Big Bang.

the universe literally did not exist prior to the big bang. the singularity was the boundary point of spacetime, it was not an entity that existed within spacetime. there was no space, time or matter therefore whatever caused the universe to begin to exist was outside of space, time and matter. what sort of entity fits this description? God

>Morals are more than just self restraints, they are what bring our social capabilities to their fullest potential.

i like this description of their function. we can also look at other dimensions of morality such as moral reasoning, moral values/virtues, moral intuitions, moral identity etc... there's a lot to talk about

there's a yearning question to be asked about the nature of morality though- are moral truths and duties objectively true, or are they merely subjective? if there's even a single moral truth thats applicable in every context, then there must be some explanation for this that's outside of any subjective opinion.
#132058 to #132057 - totallytito ONLINE
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
I deleted my comment incase my disbelief in God might upset anybody,
but here it is incase you might want to re-read it later or something
fter losing some of my sanity from believing in a godless life,
i've learned that living is pretty worthless since everything eventually will implode and return to equilibrium. What's interesting is that our universe already began in a state of equilibrium before the Big Bang. Something caused a disturbance. Something that broke a certain law of physics...

While "creationism" isn't something that I'd agree with, I will admit that there is an ignisive force that generated energy, which formed matter, which then scattered itself in a radial force. Therefore, there is a chance that the universe might have another Big Bang some day in the future beyond.
It's hard for me to argue that it was "God", since that would just imply that a fully conscious super-being evolved from scattered matter. It just leads to more questions...

Now, I'm in it because existence is fun, and this is a nice anomaly that I'm going to enjoy as long as I can. I follow moral ideals because they mutually benefit everyone, because a lawless and carefree world would only allow the strongest to dominate and survive.

Thanks to our mutual benefit system, the weak can live among the strong and live an equally rewarding life regardless of socioeconomic and physical status(with some exceptions).

Of course, the system isn't perfect and is subject to bias, but this is the closest we'll ever get to the mutual protection of everyone that hasn't deprived another human being of their chance to enjoy their life.

Since our actions here are less likely(not impossible) to affect humanity(let alone the fate of the universe in the long run), it may as well just be a temporary sequence of events that occur without a global result.

"Merrily merrily merrily merrily, live is but a dream".

Let's enjoy it while we still have the chance.
Be kind to others, so that they'll be kind to you.
Morals are more than just self restraints, they are what bring our social capabilities to their fullest potential. Otherwise, we wouldn't have collaborated on vaccines.

If there is a God out there,
he probably exists more as an ignisive law of nature that breaks every other law,
sorta like magnetism but more rebellious.


Morals are entirely subjective because not all of them protect us from being functional in life. The only benefit from them is that if everyone follows them, you are likelier to benefit from being treated in a manner that allows you to live a comfortable life without having to worry about having the right genes or mentality for survival. It completely destroys the concept of evolution.
However this system also allows weaker people to become dominant through the use of currency and earning a lot of money. This said money can be used to manipulate media as well as hire mercenaries in order to do the work that a lone man would otherwise be unable to do.

Essentially, the system can be exploited.
Those who can exploit it become the dominant alpha's.
Evolution starts over and takes the business path instead of natural brute force.

It's also thanks to the moral system and the power of money that you can pay a group of people to work on aerospace technology and encourage humanity to colonize other celestial bodies(suchas mars or the moon). If migrating from the Earth can extend the existence of human beings as a species, then it is the fulfillment of the purpose of evolution.
#132071 to #132058 - anon
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
Zlane is a fucking holocaust denier. Scroll down and read his other comments. He also said that transgender people should be "treated" by being killed.
#132105 to #132071 - zlane
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
i don't deny the fact that people died under unfortunate circumstances during the holocaust. i'm not disrespecting them by telling the truth.
#132059 to #132058 - zlane
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
thank you for reposting it. no one is going to be upset. this board is filled to the brim with atheists

evolution i don't think its real could potentially explain moral behaviors but the moral standards and duties i'm describing have an "oughtness" property associated with them, a property that i think objectively exists. the property of "oughtness" is outside the purview of evolution. and it's not something that could be derived from the examination of nature or evolution.
#132060 to #132059 - totallytito ONLINE
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
I dunno, some pack animals actually wait their turn when eating a meal to avoid conflicts and everyone benefits from getting their share of the meal.
#132061 to #132060 - zlane
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
right. i have no problem accepting that moral behavior patterns could be explained by evolution. if these patterns are adaptive and encourage survival, they would be selected for. but this doesn't get to the heart of the issue i'm describing
#132063 to #132061 - totallytito ONLINE
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
There could also be a factor regarding mental conditioning in which someone is raised to believe that the established morals are the only way to be a good human being.

#132062 to #132061 - totallytito ONLINE
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
Well, emotionally... morals are also a matter of mutual respect and a rewarding feeling of human superiority when restraining animalistic behavior. There's also the fact that some people may just want to avoid trouble with other people, or somehow feel that they are better people for indirectly faking the desire for someone else to be happy(particularly when dealing with strangers).
#132064 to #132062 - zlane
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
from what basis do we derive the conclusion that we should engage in mutual respect and reward the restraint of animalistic behavior? we can examine nature and look at successful patterns of behavior but this doesn't inform us of the things we ought to value. why even value life? I have a great answer, but i'm not sure atheists have a sufficient one.
#132065 to #132064 - totallytito ONLINE
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
We value life because our instincts tell us to survive and mate.
Those that lack it will fall the same way as the Pandas(nearly extinct).

Mutual respect comes from trial and error(conflict).
Staying out of eachother's way is a good way to avoid conflicts.

That being said, the ability to evolve these commands is very unlikely.. so this might support your statement.
#132066 to #132065 - zlane
+2
(02/24/2016) [-]
is that the only reason we should value life though- because our instincts tell us to keep going and find new pussy? on this view, we're just slaves to our biological imperatives

mutual respect promotes happiness and well-being, but on atheism, we have no objective reason to value these things. these things are only superficially good, not intrinsically good. they're just socially beneficial patterns and there's no other, deeper dimension to these actions
#132068 to #132066 - totallytito ONLINE
+2
(02/24/2016) [-]
That being said, the atheistic way of looking at life is pretty limited.
While I have a positive bias towards atheism, I can't really deny that a lot of our moral actions are objectively illogical, yet we feel good for following our own creed as human beings.
Why do we do it, and why do we feel good about being nice to people?
I have no idea.

Survival and sex instincts can't really explain things like friendships that have no benefits other than companionship, or forsaking one's own safety and comfort for the sake of someone else's.
#132067 to #132066 - totallytito ONLINE
+2
(02/24/2016) [-]
Annnnd you are absolutely right.

However what makes us different from machines is the acknowledgement of our own program, and thus we give ourselves the power to abolish it and replace it with our own directive.

This is why suicide and abstinence is possible.
Why?
Because we choose another set of programming which also gives us a rewarding feeling of fulfilment for accomplishing a self-given goal. This is why popculture revolves around media that makes us feel good; music, movies, games, and even drugs.
They're quick shortcuts to feeling good.

Hell even telling you these things makes me feel slightly good about myself because I somehow feel that my perspective might be closer to the truth. Even saying "I could be wrong" is a self-fulfilling statement because I'm restraining my ego to show that I'm a "good person".
Alternatively I could also be saying it because I have doubts in the security of my answer and would rather not pose as a hostile opposition to your perspective. After all, I did mention that I wanted to avoid conflicts. At the moment though, I don't really feel any self-doubt, but I'm still interested in what you're going to say.

I kinda want you to find a loophole in my statement because it would require me to learn and challenge my current mindset. I want to feel superior to my current self by improving all the time as new information comes in.
#132069 to #132067 - zlane
+1
(02/24/2016) [-]
i agree that our consciousness gives us the ability to reflect on our actions and determine whether there are good reasons behind these actions, and that this gives our actions another dimension of value. but this value can only be subjectively appreciated on atheism, and i find this type of value ultimately shallow. it's short-lived and has no ultimate meaning or impact. but beyond the questions of moral epistemology (the study of how we discover moral values) i'm interested in moral ontology- whether or not moral values are real in any meaningful sense of the word. if moral values are only real in the sense that certain actions can be reflected upon and judged according to other subjective values, that's not good enough for me. my worldview allows me to appreciate these values on a whole other level. if they are permanent, unchanging, based on an objective source and they really do matter beyond my subjective appreciation, then i never have to doubt the fact that these values need to be followed. i have an imperative to do the right things and i can be certain that failing to do this is wrong
#132070 to #132069 - totallytito ONLINE
+1
(02/24/2016) [-]
Couldnt have said it better
#132032 to #132007 - Zaxplab
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
How does your first point hold up?
#132035 to #132032 - zlane
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
because there's other way for objective morals to exist. for a moral value to be objective it must be based on an objective source/basis, can you provide one? is this basis contingent upon some other basis or framework? if so then it's not absolute.
#132037 to #132035 - Zaxplab
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
It is objectively bad for a tribesman to kill his family, because the tribe would have less people, and it would hurt the tribe.
#132038 to #132037 - zlane
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
it's objectively bad with respect to that basis. but is that basis a truly objective standard, or are you just defining it that way?
#132039 to #132038 - Zaxplab
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
Why does self-preservation not count? Are sins objectively bad based on the basis of God? Why is it defined that way?
#132040 to #132039 - zlane
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
why is self-preservation important? that has to be justified with supporting reasons, therefore it's contingent rather than absolute

in my worldview, moral are grounded in God's unchanging perfect nature. His nature defines what's moral because it is the source of what's moral. His nature is not contingent
#132041 to #132040 - Zaxplab
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
Why is his nature not contingent?
#132042 to #132041 - zlane
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
it cannot be changed by anything. it exists necessarily
#132043 to #132042 - Zaxplab
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
The same could be said about the concept of death.
#132044 to #132043 - zlane
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
why is death the reason why we should value certain actions? this proposition has to be justified, it's still contingent
#132045 to #132044 - Zaxplab
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
As does the proposition of God.
#132046 to #132045 - zlane
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
why is God the reason why we should value certain actions? because God's nature literally defines what makes something right/wrong
#132047 to #132046 - Zaxplab
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
I could say the same about life.
#132048 to #132047 - zlane
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
but do you value life for some objective or subjective reason?
#132049 to #132048 - Zaxplab
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
it literally defines what makes something right/wrong
#132050 to #132049 - zlane
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
?
life is a description of a phenomenon, not a prescription of what we should value
#132051 to #132050 - Zaxplab
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
And a creator wouldn't be?
#132052 to #132051 - zlane
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
His nature defines these things. it is the source.
#132053 to #132052 - Zaxplab
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
You can't just keep telling me that. You might as well just say "it is because it is"
#132054 to #132053 - zlane
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
i interpreted your question as "why is God's nature the thing which we should objectively value?"

and the answer is that objective moral values are grounded in God's nature

i guess what you really want to know is "why are objective moral values grounded in God's nature?" or "why does God's nature define these things"

i'm not completely sure how to answer. these things simply exist as a part of God's nature. that's just what they are. God's nature is the substance from which moral values are made. ragnarfag could probably give you a more fleshed out answer
#132036 to #132035 - zlane
+1
(02/24/2016) [-]
no other*
#132011 to #132007 - whoozy ONLINE
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
Objective morals and values do not exist. This is evident by the vastly different laws in different societies even to this day where globalisation is bringing us closer than ever.
#132140 to #132011 - eight
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
An objective standard would still be true regardless of societal opinion. Objective Morality says nothing about the ignorance of a society or their individual opinion.

If morality is based on situational well-being, it can be considered objective, because every situation would have a positive or negative effect. Drinking Aconite Poison could be considered immoral as it negatively effects well-being.
#132141 to #132140 - whoozy ONLINE
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
I don't believe in objective morality for the reasons I stated with my debate below. I don't find anything moral about self preservation or following your nature.
#132142 to #132141 - eight
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
If we define morality as the nature of right and wrong, you're claiming that you could not tell me what is right and wrong in regard to well being?

Don't you feel like you have a general idea about what best preserves life?

Wouldn't you agree that drinking battery acid is unhealthy for the body? Would it be crazy to claim that it's wrong to drink battery acid? Wouldn't drinking battery acid be objectively harmful to a persons well being?
#132143 to #132142 - whoozy ONLINE
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
You missed the point.

I don't base morals on the bodys well being. That's just silly to me.
#132144 to #132143 - eight
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
It's not based on only the bodies well being, that was an analogy. It's not based on any individual. It's not based on any opinion.

It's based on well-being in general. The concept. It's not contingent to humans, but to all forms of life. Is something or isn't something in our best interest in regard to any given situation?
#132147 to #132144 - zlane
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
why do you value well-being? you have subjective reasons for accepting this as your basis. using this as your standard is contingent upon you valuing other things related to well-being. it's not objective. there's no objective reason to value it
#132152 to #132147 - eight
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
You're asking me why? Why don't you drink battery acid?

Well being is contingent on survival. If you believed in Evolution or Natural Selection, you would understand that if we as a species typically made decisions and performed actions which harmed us, it would harm our probability to survive.

We value well being because it benefits us. That's why our species is still alive. That's why any species is alive.
#132157 to #132152 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
you're not understanding the underlying point. why value survival? any basis for your moral standard is based on other contingent, subjective values. theres objective reason to value any of the things you bring up.
#132176 to #132157 - eight
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
I am afraid it is you who doesn't understand the point.

The value in survival is that we want to survive. That's it. What more does there need to be? All life seems to do one thing, reproduce, this is a trait passed down from the very first cells. Replication, survival, that's what is required for life to continue. If one can't survive, one can't reproduce.
#132178 to #132176 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
that's an explanation of why we value it. not an explanation of why we should value it. is there any objective reason to want to survive? everything you bring up is going to be contingent. remember my point about the infinite regress of justifications?

give me a non-contingent basis and provide an objective reason why we should accept it as the basis for morality.
#132181 to #132178 - eight
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
1. I think you're asking the wrong questions here.
2. I also think you're looking for special meaning in something that is pretty straightforward (quite literally if this is a trait acquired from the first living cells) and meaningless.
3. We want to survive because we are already living. Whether this desire is instinctual as a form to carry on and reproduce or simply because we can't fathom not existing, I don't know and frankly I don't care. I don't need any other reason. You clearly do.
4. You continue to assume that morality cannot be contingent on anything. Morality is contingent on well-being. Morality is a concept. So is well-being. Morality is contingent on well-being which itself is contingent on the mind. Without a mind, we have no use for morality.
The irony in your statement is that in your case, morality is contingent on your mind and on God's opinion, which makes it subjective anyway. INB4 God is morality. The source. The creator. The objective being.
#132182 to #132181 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
so then we're talking past eachother because we're using the word "objective" to mean different things. i would contend that you're the one misusing the word.

> We want to survive because we are already living

this an explanation for why we value it rather than an objective justification for valuing it. moral epistemology vs moral ontology

>You continue to assume that morality cannot be contingent on anything.

objective morality. (1)it must be based on an absolute source(2)this source must contain some intrinsic property such that we can have some objective(non-contingent) reason to value it.

any reason you come up for valuing well-being is contingent upon some other underlying thing you value...like survival, you value survival because you value life, you value life because you enjoy it, you enjoy it because X. you value X for Y. you value Y for Z.... there's no ultimate, absolute, objective limiting factor.

> morality is contingent on your mind and on God's opinion

its created by God's absolute, unchanging nature. this is an objective basis and i have an objective reason to accept it as the basis- because it literally defines these concepts
#132162 to #132157 - anon
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
Value survival because any species that didn't would be dead?
#132180 to #132162 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
#132177

even if there was a situation wherein i was convinced it was right, that wouldn't make it right. i still can't think of a situation where it would actually be ok

i don't see how you can attack the validity of the argument. if the only state of affairs in which objective morals can exist is one where God exists, and we live in a state of affairs in which objective morals exist, then God exists.

you're actually attacking the soundness of the argument. you're rejecting premise 1. but to reject this, there must be some objective source of morality other than God. what could this possibly be?

> The lack of a scenario in which peeling a baby is acceptable doesn't prove its objective ouside of human acceptance only that we all agree on it.

if its unacceptable even in possible worlds where everyone agrees that its ok, then its wrong for reasons outside of human opinion
#132163 to #132162 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
that's an explanation of why we've come to value it(on evolution at least) but not an explanation of we should value it. you're confusing moral epistemology with moral ontology.

you should we value life? you have a list of contingent reasons that are all based on other subjective factors. it's all contingent. you can't come up with any objective source
#132166 to #132163 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
why should*
#132164 to #132163 - anon
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
I know you won't like this answer but I don't think there is a why or should for this. It's valued because it's useful and useful things are programmed to make us happy.

Also how do you claim objective morals exist?
#132165 to #132164 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
you're forced to conclude that life has no objective value on atheism. all atheists should just come out and admit this

i claim that objective morals exist because there are actions that are objectively wrong in every conceivable context. /religion/132075
#132168 to #132165 - anon
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
If you see it that way. Im not forced into anything, just calling it like i see it because im perfectly fine with subjective happiness and making my loved ones happy. Why does life need objective value?

By what do you claim they're objectively wrong? A majority of people agreeing on something doesn't make it objective.
#132169 to #132168 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
if these values are not objective, then they don't matter beyond our subjective appreciation. torturing a baby wouldn't be wrong independent of our perception. the wrongness of this action would not be a fact the same way that 2+2=4 is a fact. that bothers me

can you think of some situation where that action is not objectively wrong?
#132171 to #132169 - anon
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
So if I'm understanding it comes down wanting meaning for it, that it's not enough that a vast majority of people would agree with you? Because if that's the case I fully understand where you're coming from truly.

Guy threatens to murder many people unless you torture a baby.
#132172 to #132171 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
yes. that's not enough for me. i know that moral standards are real. it's really wrong to do certain things even if everyone on earth thought otherwise.

the situation i presented earlier was "peeling a baby for fun"
#132173 to #132172 - anon
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
My issue with that statement is that you say that given your current mindset. I don't see how you can "know" something to be wrong like that when everyone would disagree, how could you be so sure you'd think that in that context?


In the mind of an insane person I'm sure but that's not a great answer. To answer that you have to get into what it means for an action to be moral and have a definition. Once again just because many people would agree on an opinion doesn't make it an objective fact.

On a related but more ptactical note: most people would agree with your Bible derived morals regardless of how they arrived at them, so I guess I'm personally having trouble seeing why it really matters. The validation thing?
#132174 to #132173 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
because i can't conceive of a context wherein i would think that it's right.

if you agree that there is no situation like this, you have to accept premise 2

"peeling a baby nigger even if it is going to grow to be a criminal is wrong". I cannot accept that this is not a fact. i see it as a non-contingent truth. it's as true to me as the statement 1+1=2. i don't want to abandon the objective reality of moral truths
#132177 to #132174 - anon
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
I know it's a hypothetical scenario but even then I don't see how you alone in that scenario would be the able discern the truth.

No scenarios that any sane person would agree to no

About accepting premise 2, your argument is set up so accepting premise 2 doesn't prove the existence of God.
It's set up as if
1. If I don't jump onto the pool, I wont get wet
2. I am wet
3. Therefore I jumped into the pool

It assumes the only explanation for 2 is the one you presented in premise 1. There are plenty of other ppssible explanations as to why I'm wet. The lack of a scenario in which peeling a baby is acceptable doesn't prove its objective ouside of human acceptance only that we all agree on it.
#132146 to #132144 - whoozy ONLINE
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
Depends
Some people prefer dying for glory

Basing morals on well being can be the basis for a moral system, but it's hardly objective
#132151 to #132146 - eight
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
Again, if morality is objective and based off of well being, an individuals opinion on the matter 'dying for glory' is irrelevant to the consequences it has. It may or may not be in societies best interest for someone to die for glory depending on the situation.

Objective evaluations can be reached through the understanding of the consequences of our actions. Based on those consequences for any given situation, we can determine what is objectively right or wrong for future reference.
#132154 to #132151 - whoozy ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
This only applies if you agree that morals are based on well being. I reject this.

Sure you can say that drinking battery acid is objectivly bad for your body, that doesn't mean however that it's objectively wrong morally. Doing something that harms you is not objecively wrong. It's subjectively wrong.
#132179 to #132154 - eight
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
Also, I forgot to ask in my earlier comment, you reject my position, but you haven't really explained why.

What is flawed in the proposition? You seem to agree that if morality were based on well being that it would be objective.
#132175 to #132154 - eight
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
We are talking about two different things then. If it's objectively bad for your body, it's objectively wrong. This doesn't mean you have any obligation to follow it. It just means that to not follow it would to allow unnecessary harm.

You don't need a being to hand you down commands for something to be objective (and that's subjective anyway as it depends on the opinion of the being). You just have to demonstrate that there is an evaluation being made which is factually true and consistent with the reality we live in.

If morality isn't based on well being, then what use is it?
#132311 to #132175 - whoozy ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
As for what use morality has:
Morals are a social contract that enables people to live together and benefit from each other. The goal is to reduce conflict to a minimum and apply laws that most people morally agree with.
#132310 to #132175 - whoozy ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
Objectively bad for your well being is not the same as morally wrong. That's a subjective connection you make while interpretating an objective event. In itself it's nothing but a cause and effect. You're the one who decides if the action is morally right or wrong.

When Socrates was forced to take back what he said or empty a cup of poison people viewed him as a hero for sticking to what he said and dying with his integrity intact. When samurais failed they killed themself to preserve family honour. Morals are always subjective because they're value-laden interpretations of objective events.

I'm very strict on definitions and you're using the term "objective" misleadingly. Objective has no value ascribed to it. It just is.
#132183 to #132175 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
it's only objectively bad with respect to things that we subjectively value.

> If it's objectively bad for your body, it's objectively wrong.

only if there's some objective reason to value your body's well-being.
#132158 to #132154 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
wow you're actually supporting my argument against eight's lol
#132159 to #132158 - whoozy ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
I am.
I'm not against you by default, it just appears this way since we disagree on just about everything.

What you said above corresponds with my own opinions so of course I'll agree with it.
#132160 to #132159 - zlane
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
kudos. i'm glad you're able to recognize the valueless nature of a universe without God
#132161 to #132160 - whoozy ONLINE
0
(02/25/2016) [-]
It's not valueless in my perspective. But objectively... possible indeed.
#132015 to #132011 - zlane
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
if even one moral truth exists, the first premise holds true. torturing someone for fun is always wrong. if you think this is untrue, you are a completely unreasonable person
#132120 to #132015 - whoozy ONLINE
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
Christianity was thought to you and you eventually embraced the ideology.

I never went through a rebel phase. I grew up in a very open community. We used to discuss our views without prejudice. (Unlike you guys)

Your truth is defined by your own ideology. Most people don't accept this ideology. You're more than welcome to live inside your ideology, but don't expect others to embrace it as you have.
#132122 to #132120 - zlane
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
truth is wholly non-contingent upon any ideology. it's the truth because corresponds to reality. it's not my truth its the truth. good night.
#132123 to #132122 - whoozy ONLINE
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
It's only the truth in your mind. Given to you by the ideology you embraced.

Dont worry I understand you. After all the simple answers are the easiest to live with.
#132121 to #132120 - whoozy ONLINE
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
Taught*
#132095 to #132015 - whoozy ONLINE
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
Nothing I just mentioned is my own morality. I just told you the truth of how right and wrong come to be.

But yes. Humans have the ability to be swallowed by ideologies. That is why this happens. This is also why I stress that an open mind is important. I'm sure you've seen how muslim children today is practically indoctrinated into islam from their birth. It's no wonder you get radical people.
#132098 to #132095 - zlane
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
so your morality is based on something other than majority opinion. dont you see this?

i agree that open-mindedness is important, but we shouldn't take this attitude toward everything. i'll use the example you brought up- muslim ideology. it's not even worthy of consideration.
#132099 to #132098 - whoozy ONLINE
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
My morals come from the world around me. My parents, my friends, the society I grew up in.

Do you really think I would have the same morals if I grew up in Iran?
#132101 to #132099 - zlane
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
to you, morality is just majority opinion. but your morality is based on other factors. your morality is outside the parameters you defined
#132104 to #132101 - whoozy ONLINE
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
Incorrect. You're not fully comprehending what I'm telling you. The majority of people become the morals of society. Society shapes all of us including your parents, friends etc. Which again affect you. Your morals come from your context.

Let's say your imaginary revolution came to be. Society would be christian, the majority would ne christian and in turn I myself would probably be christian.
#132106 to #132104 - zlane
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#132107 to #132106 - whoozy ONLINE
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
It was justified within that context yes. Doesn't mean I ahree with them. You can't apply the standards of the present to the past.

How is this a contradiction. That's pretty much a pin point example of why different societies exist.
#132108 to #132107 - zlane
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
you believe in morals that contradict aspects of ideologies which you have to claim are justified. you defend this by saying different contexts create different rules. imagine yourself in your current state of mind, transported to nazi germany.(lets pretend they actually intentionally killed jews) would it be ok for you to engage in the killing of jews? you'd part of a context that makes it justifiable.
#132110 to #132108 - whoozy ONLINE
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
If you went out of Germany though you would probably despise tha nazi's as your social context changes.
#132109 to #132108 - whoozy ONLINE
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
Yes it would be okay within that society. That's why normal people bought into it. Don't you see how simple it is? If you were born there you would probably have been a nazi as well. That's just how humans work
#132111 to #132109 - zlane
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
you understand my thought experiment right? you'd be transported to nazi germany in your current state of mind
#132112 to #132111 - whoozy ONLINE
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
Then it would not be okay for me. This is because my morals are from a different time and place. A different context.

Is this really that hard for you to understand or are you purposely being difficult?
#132113 to #132112 - zlane
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
but like you said, morals adapt according to the context
#132114 to #132113 - whoozy ONLINE
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
Yes. But I already had my childhood which is where you are most vulnerable. I would still be affected (as no people are unaffected by those around them), but I already have a moral framework from a different context I can hold on to. This means that according to society around me my opinions would be wrong.
If I had a child and didn't raise it myself he/she would most likely be a nazi.
#132115 to #132114 - zlane
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
you are susceptible to this kind of influence because your morals are not set in stone. i am not. my morality is superior
#132116 to #132115 - whoozy ONLINE
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
You're as moldable as the rest of man. You're already swallowed by an ideology as we speak
You just don't realise it yet.
#132117 to #132116 - zlane
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
i will never accept any moral that goes any of God's commandments
#132118 to #132117 - whoozy ONLINE
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
That is your ideology. Taught to you by those around you.

Think about that for a moment.
#132119 to #132118 - zlane
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
it's not an ideology, my Christianity is a relationship with God.

that's not the reason i currently accept it though. i went through a rebellious phase i grew out of it unlike you guys and denied the truth, but logic and reasoning uncovered this truth and i was forced to accept it again.
#132017 to #132015 - whoozy ONLINE
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
So torturing someone is ok if its not fun? Is fun the same for all people at any given time?

People used to watch others get tortured or executed publicly in the old days. This used to be socially acceptable.

I obviously don't believe it is acceptable, but for different people im a different context it was.
#132018 to #132017 - zlane
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
torturing someone is acceptable when used to extract sensitive information. the situation i presented is always wrong in any conceivable context. if you agree with this, you're forced to accept the first premise.
#132021 to #132018 - zlane
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
the 2nd premise
#132019 to #132018 - whoozy ONLINE
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
I just proved to you that it's not.

I agree that it is wrong, but I am a SUBJECT.

Theres nothing objectivly wrong or right about anything. It's just interpretation of actions
#132020 to #132019 - zlane
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
>but I am a SUBJECT

but you would agree that its wrong in every context? it doesn't matter that you're a subject. you're affirming the truth of the first premise if you answer yes to that question
#132022 to #132020 - whoozy ONLINE
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
No I don't. Clearly people used to percieve it to be OK so it's appereantly not wrong in every context.
#132024 to #132022 - zlane
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
as long as someone thinks something is ok, it's ok for them to do it?
#132026 to #132024 - whoozy ONLINE
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
As long as the MAJORITY thinks something is ok it becomes ok for them to dp indeed.

This is how all laws work.
#132028 to #132026 - zlane
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
if the majority of people thought that it was ok to kill your family for some reason, would you think it's ok?
#132029 to #132028 - whoozy ONLINE
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
I wouldn't but the majority would thus the action would be viewed as a roghtful action by society.
#132033 to #132029 - zlane
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
the fact remains that there is some possible action which you think is wrong that society could view as right, so your morality is not entirely consistent with majority opinion. you have to appeal to something else to account for this. what is it?
#132072 to #132033 - whoozy ONLINE
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
I would have to say that I believe it's wrong. But if everyone disagreed with me I would actually be wrong in that context.
#132074 to #132072 - zlane
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
its such a silly basis for morality. if the majority of people decided atheists should be killed, that would be ok?
#132078 to #132074 - whoozy ONLINE
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
According to the majority yes. If the majority of people had a spesific opinion it doesn't matter what you think. They're going to go through with it and the action would be viewed as a good action by society in general.

All I'm doing is telling you the truth.
#132079 to #132078 - zlane
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
all i can do is point out that this standard butchers the word "moral" by allowing for "moral" atrocities
#132084 to #132079 - whoozy ONLINE
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
Moral atrocities is nothing more than what people agree is a moral atrocity. But lets put the bad things aside for a minute.

This system sounds horrible right? But it's not actually that bad. Yes the truth of the matter is hard to swallow sonce we're taught what's right and wrong for our entire childhood. However if you look around you, you will see that most people today believe those actions you just mentioned is wrong and treat each other fairly.
We do this because we're social creatures. The law is a contract we make in order to live in peace with each others so we can benefit from each others. As long as this is our nature we'll continue to develop and feel safe without someone having to worry about suddenly being hanged.
#132088 to #132084 - zlane
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
what about real life situations where the majority people were swayed by an ideology and supported atrocities? ideologies are capable of altering our social attitudes
#132091 to #132088 - whoozy ONLINE
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
We have already seen what that can do to humanity.

Ideologies are powerful. Even your own ideology ruled europe in the medieval times. By todays standards a lot of those actions was atrocities.
#132093 to #132091 - zlane
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
and your morality allows for justification of these ideologies.

btw, i wouldn't consider nazism an absolutely horrible ideology
#132031 to #132029 - whoozy ONLINE
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
rightful*
#132027 to #132026 - whoozy ONLINE
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
do*
#131986 - shekelnator
Reply +1
(02/23/2016) [-]
>retires from shitposting
>zlane comes and do something maybe better than me.

ah yes im proud of you.
#131987 to #131986 - anon
Reply +1
(02/23/2016) [-]
True Omar. It feels nostalgic in nature, the continuation of the cycle.

One day I ruled this board, and then you did. And now zlane does, and the cycle will likely continue. One will always be worthy of rule.

-lulz
#131970 - anon
Reply +1
(02/23/2016) [-]
Can't contain the Zlane
#131980 to #131970 - anon
Reply +1
(02/23/2016) [-]
#131947 - caette
Reply +1
(02/23/2016) [-]
bye literally forever retards
#132133 to #131947 - anon
Reply 0
(02/24/2016) [-]
niggawut...once you're here you can't leave
#131981 to #131947 - anon
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
i hope you mean it
#131975 to #131947 - dehumanizer ONLINE
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
good
#131958 to #131947 - whitechino
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
nigga you ain't leaving. I love you too much
#131952 to #131947 - anon
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
why?
#131891 - anon
Reply 0
(02/22/2016) [-]
If Trump wins, I'll start putting on tefillin everyday.
#131934 to #131891 - whitechino
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
These mother fuckers need a reminder every weekend to remind other jews about jews. These niggas are crazy.
#131881 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(02/22/2016) [-]
Appereantly the pope calls for the abolishment of death penalty.

Thoughts?
#132005 to #131881 - zlane
Reply 0
(02/24/2016) [-]
#132004

so there's not a single action that's objectively wrong?
#132006 to #132005 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(02/24/2016) [-]
Technically not, but you can argue that actions that's damaging to our society and universally condemned is objective to most humans (murder for example).
#131938 to #131881 - caette
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
I heard the real catholics want to assassinate him
#131931 to #131881 - whitechino
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
Good for him to say that. The nun organization has been saying that for years.
#131906 to #131881 - zlane
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
some people deserve to die. theres something in the genetic code that creates a disposition towards crime, cruelty, sexual perversion, etc... if we actually killed these people, this "mean gene" would disappear from the gene pool and we'd have a much better society. if we actually implemented the Bible's laws we'd live in a utopia.
#131976 to #131906 - dehumanizer ONLINE
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
>dont let them reproduce
>save human race

no need for murder
#131996 to #131976 - zlane
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
i wouldn't call it murder though
#132080 to #131996 - dehumanizer ONLINE
Reply 0
(02/24/2016) [-]
the killing is completely unnecesairy, make them contribute to society like that brazilian jail where they made them generate electricity through cycling
#132082 to #132080 - zlane
Reply 0
(02/24/2016) [-]
i only recommend killing because the Bible commands it.
#132083 to #132082 - dehumanizer ONLINE
Reply 0
(02/24/2016) [-]
get out jew
#132086 to #132083 - zlane
Reply 0
(02/24/2016) [-]
sorry gotta go with what God says
#132094 to #132086 - dehumanizer ONLINE
Reply 0
(02/24/2016) [-]
NO
#132096 to #132094 - zlane
Reply 0
(02/24/2016) [-]
he made germany great again
#131946 to #131906 - anon
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
I completely agree with this and you made a pretty sound argument
-lulz
#131948 to #131946 - zlane
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
glad there's at least one other rational person here
#131988 to #131948 - anon
Reply +1
(02/23/2016) [-]
I'm a big proponent of the death penalty. Inert gas asphyxiation specifically.
#131932 to #131906 - whitechino
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
Then don't you have to kill yourself?
#131935 to #131932 - zlane
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
in what universe am i any of the things i described?
#131936 to #131935 - whitechino
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
If everyone dies, how can they deserve to die?
If you want people to die, than you want it to happen sooner than later
You love Nazis, they're the fucking best at it.
#131941 to #131936 - zlane
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
people who are a danger to other people, either directly or via degradation of society's moral fabric, should die

i don't love the nazis, i just think their actions are incredibly distorted and misrepresented
#131943 to #131941 - whitechino
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
Yo you're fucking insane my dude, Jesus can't save you with these fucking things stuck in your head.
#131950 to #131943 - zlane
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
i didn't want this to turn into name-calling. the holocaust is definitely a distorted event

the camps were actually set up to protect the Jews from the extensive US and British bombing campaigns going on at the time. the Germans were the ones experiencing a real holocaust. disease spread through most camps resulting in many deaths. the nazis actually tried to prevent this- they used gas to kill off the parasites that the jews were bringing in. there was no intentional act of killing. the photos proclaimed as "proof" are of skinny jews who died from typhoid from bad camp conditions from allied bombing making supplies scarce.

There are 365.25 days in a year. Each day consists of 24 hours. Each hour consists of 60 minutes. The amount of minutes in a year is 365.25 x 24 x 60 = 525960. The Holocaust was from 1941 to 1945 which is a span of 4 years. 525,960 x 4 = 2,103,840 minutes in those 4 years.

it is stated that the holocaust had 6 million distinctly Jewish victims, and 14 million victims in total. how many individuals would have to killed per minute for these figures to make sense? that would be at least 6,000,000/2,103,840 = 2.85192790326. lets say about 2-3 people per minute, assuming it was going 24/7 nonstop. this rate couldnt have been sustainable over a 4 year period. the real death toll was approximately 50,000 and pretty much all the deaths were related to environmental circumstances. there are no bones of holocaust victims so you have to claim that the bones were all incinerated. the Nazis didn't have enough incinerators to do the job in that time frame.

the evidence of intentional killing consists of doctored/misleading photos, misleading/distorted documents, propagandist newspapers, unreliable eyewitness testimony(eyewitness testimony can't be used in a court of law), and nazi confessions which were done under duress.

and just as a little bonus- (1)many doors on the gas chamber at the various camps are made of wood with a glass window, why couldn't the Jews break through them and escape?
(2) look at this picture of holocaust victims, do they look terrified? do these look like people who are being intentionally starved and are about to be killed?
#131984 to #131950 - ragnarfag
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
Hello /pol/
Mate, what the fuck, the first CCs were build already in 1933 as internment camps for political prisoners and used as concentration camps for both political dissidents such as Jehova's Witnesses, the homosexuals, communists, socialists, social democrats, "asocials" AND racial "enemies" such as Roma and Jews by 1935 long before the start of WW2 and allied bombing, the system was extended after the start of the war into the occupied countries, mainly Poland.

You're largely misunderstand the methods used, of the 11 million those are the most precise and widely accepted claims about "only" 7 million died in the camps which includes the major camps (Stammlager, not be confused with the POW camps) and hundreds of minor camps (which belong to the central camps) and working projects such as "Weingut I und II" fortified hidden airplane factories which I personally visited once, the rest (about 4 to 5 million died in various executions, massacres (usually performed by either Armed SS forces, Wehrmacht or "Einsatzgruppen") and ghettos.
The "bombing campaigns" are a longstanding myth and would have hardly any impact since the prisoners were already intentionally undersupplied with only small and unnutritious bread and soup rations since 1933
The main causes of death in the camps were: exhaustion by labour, marches and meaningless tasks; suicide, starvation, execution, punishment and diseases.
Gassing only occurred only in extermination camps such as Auschwitz I and II and Treblinka

And a little bonus
1) Seriously? What a non-argument
2) That was taken during liberation of KZ Dachau in 1945 by the US Army, of course they were happy
#131992 to #131984 - zlane
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
"the first CCs were build already in 1933 as internment camps for political prisoners and....."

i'm questioning the nature of these camps. i think they were mostly used a protection for poor/homeless people who had no where else to go and no means to survive on their own

> 11 million

source for this figure please

>The "bombing campaigns" are a longstanding myth and would have hardly any impact since the prisoners were already intentionally undersupplied with only small and unnutritious bread and soup rations since 1933

what do you mean the bombing campaigns were a myth? the only source for the "prisoners" being undersupplied comes from documents post 1935. the fact that they were undersupplied is perfectly explained by the fact that a huge war wasing going on and Germany was being bombed to hell

"The main causes of death in the camps were: exhaustion by labour, marches and meaningless tasks; suicide, starvation, execution, punishment and diseases.
Gassing only occurred only in extermination camps such as Auschwitz I and II and Treblinka "

how does any combination of these factors produce a death rate of 3 jews per minute 24/7 for 4 years straight? there's no evidence of intentional starvation. the only executions that took place happened because they were starving and there was no means of feeding them. this rarely even happened though. the gassing, as i explained, was to kill off parasites and prevent disease.

>Seriously? What a non-argument

they couldn't break through a flimsy door even with the adrenaline rush they would have had in that situation?

>That was taken during liberation of KZ Dachau in 1945 by the US Army

there are german guards there smiling with them. doesn't look like what you're describing
#132008 to #131992 - ragnarfag
Reply 0
(02/24/2016) [-]
Have you ever been to one? I have, and they are prisons with guards towers, electrified fences, moats even and high barbed walls, those aren't "homeless shelters", you know?
Those are, as I said the widely accepted numbers, there's no singular source
The myth is that "bombing raids on railways" caused starvation, that was never the case, those rations were always low and poor with the only intention to keep the prisoners alive, I also hope you are aware that the war started in 1939 not 1935.
First of all, the Holocaust took place from January 1933 till May 1945 not 1941-1945, starving was intentional, starvation was not.
Okay not seriously, you claim that CCs were protection for the homeless and then you go on claiming that they would have simply killed those they wanted to protect according to you instead of protecting them? You might want to be a little bit more coherent.
Disinfection did exist in the camps but was practised differently and only on newcomers or cloths, you don't however disinfect by filling a room full of people with poison gas.
It's simply a retarded question, 40 starved people in a small room won't be able to break through a "bolted heavy iron-studded door which was fitted with a rubber seal" as an eyewitness reports (a prisoner who worked in the gas chambers), there's no indication that those doors you describe were the actual doors to the chambers.

There are no guards present in this picture.
#132012 to #132008 - zlane
Reply 0
(02/24/2016) [-]
>they are prisons with guards towers, electrified fences, moats even and high barbed walls

maybe this was just for their protection?

>Those are, as I said the widely accepted numbers, there's no singular source

right, and i explained why all the sources fail as real evidence

>The myth is that "bombing raids on railways" caused starvation

extensive nation wide bombing = low supplies and resources. you can't deny this

> you claim that CCs were protection for the homeless and then you go on claiming that they would have simply killed those they wanted to protect

if they were starving and there was no means of feeding them at the time, it had to be done.

>, you don't however disinfect by filling a room full of people with poison gas.

why would they use Zyklon B for this purpose?

> 40 starved people in a small room

full of adrenaline and perfectly capable of working together to exert force upon the door

> "bolted heavy iron-studded door which was fitted with a rubber seal

why would it be replaced with the type of door that there's now? what happened to it?
#132380 to #132376 - zlane
Reply 0
(02/25/2016) [-]
sorry, i don't trust any of those sources
#132398 to #132380 - ragnarfag
Reply 0
(02/26/2016) [-]
"i don't trust any of those sources"
You have no valid reason not to do so, unless you're one of those "Hur dur muh jews conspiracy" in which case whitechino might have been right with his accusations and I can only advise you to do one thing
Anyway here're some more sources
You need to login to view this link
#132400 to #132398 - zlane
Reply 0
(02/26/2016) [-]
the problem, at this point, you're not even making an argument. you're just saying "you're wrong, and these sources prove it". i have sources of my own.

there is a conspiracy to make the holocaust look authentic, and no, i'm not gonna take your advice just because i'm smart enough to see through it. the fact that you've fallen for it suggests that maybe you should take that advice.
#132401 to #132400 - ragnarfag
Reply 0
(02/26/2016) [-]
You're denying one of the biggest genocides to ever occur right now and disregard any source given to with "ah dun believe it", you're just undermining your own credibility

But okay show those sources of yours and let's evaluate their sincerity
#132402 to #132401 - zlane
Reply 0
(02/26/2016) [-]
i don't want to have this conversation. i know that i'm the one who started it and i'm sorry for doing that.
i think the facts i brought up are legitimate reasons to question the scope and nature of the holocaust story

we shouldn't be arguing with eachother, we should be arguing together against the atheists.
/religion/132054#132054
i even mentioned your name here because i thought you'd give a better explanation than me. we need to support eachother. we're outnumbered here. i want to refute every single atheist objection/argument on this board and i need some help to do this. i want to prove to everyone that there are no valid reasons to be an atheist.
#132399 to #132398 - zlane
Reply 0
(02/26/2016) [-]
i honestly fail to understand the sudden hostility
#131989 to #131984 - anon
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
Has your opinion of zlamous changed ever since he's come back?
:^ )

-lulz
#131990 to #131989 - ragnarfag
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
Huh, it never did, I was always aware of his "eugenic tendencies" and in opposition to his religious views, I was excited because he was gone for a quite some while and I didn't expected him to ever return.
#131993 to #131990 - zlane
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
>in opposition to his religious views

which views? just YEC right?
#131991 to #131990 - anon
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
ok good, I was just wondering
#131973 to #131950 - anon
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
What would the Germans possibly have to gain by guarding Jews in camps over their own people? I suppose the testimonials from guards of the camps are all lies?
#131997 to #131973 - zlane
Reply 0
(02/24/2016) [-]
the jews, gypsies etc... were mostly poor and homeless. some testimonials were done under duress some were done to gain self-recognition
#132009 to #131997 - anon
Reply 0
(02/24/2016) [-]
That didn't answer my question. Why would the Germans be oh so nice to house these people in these great camps they made and not their own German citizens? If they were so concerned about these people getting bombed why did they shove them into dense areas where they could be easily taken out by bombs?
#132010 to #132009 - zlane
Reply 0
(02/24/2016) [-]
because these people were homeless

>why did they shove them into dense areas where they could be easily taken out by bombs?

why would these areas be targeted? which country would be willing to ruin their reputation killing these people?
#132013 to #132010 - anon
Reply 0
(02/24/2016) [-]
If the German government was so concerned about them why not find space within the city? Again why prioritize getting these minorities out of the line of fire while leaving Germans in the cities to get bombed?

They don't need to be targetted. Bombs frequently over or under shot their intended targets. Hit a concentrated area of Jews and many die. How could the government had the idea of saving them in these camps and not forseen the disease and problems that would inevitably come from having the dense population?
#132014 to #132013 - zlane
Reply 0
(02/24/2016) [-]
why not find space within the city?

they tried that. they were called ghettos. the jews were too rowdy to be contained in these places. i already explained the 2nd question

> Bombs frequently over or under shot their intended targets.

to what degree? the tragectory would be off by that much as evidenced by the fact that this never happened

> forseen the disease and problems that would inevitably come from having the dense population?

their hand was forced. they didn't have the time or resources for a better plan
#132023 to #132014 - anon
Reply 0
(02/24/2016) [-]
If they were so rowdy why were they bothering to save them? Are you implying that having a house makes you safe from bombing runs?
Bombs never hit the camps so clearly they should have put the German citizens into the camps to protect them too right?
#132025 to #132023 - zlane
Reply 0
(02/24/2016) [-]
because it was the right thing to do.

they chose to take in the people who were most vulnerable.
#132030 to #132025 - anon
Reply 0
(02/24/2016) [-]
Germans got bombed in their homes but it's OK we saved the minorities by putting them in unsanitary disease ridden camps.
#132034 to #132030 - zlane
Reply 0
(02/24/2016) [-]
well they couldn't fit everyone.
#132016 to #132014 - zlane
Reply 0
(02/24/2016) [-]
wouldn't*
#131953 to #131950 - whitechino
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
You're insane. Explain how in the holocaust museum they also have a memorial for the +2000 Jehovah Witnesses that refused to help and serve the Reich?
You're a sad mother fucker.
Each time you comment you lose -.04 of my respect.
#131977 to #131953 - dehumanizer ONLINE
Reply +1
(02/23/2016) [-]
this makes no sence, just because a memorial says something doesent mean its true lmao, those camps were for enemies of the state including jehovasniggers they existed even in your favourite jew es ai
#131954 to #131953 - zlane
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
Stop insulting me. i'm not being disrespectful to you. i'm not disrespecting the people who did die in unfortunate circumstances.
#131955 to #131954 - whitechino
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
but you love them nazis don't you squidward?
#131957 to #131955 - zlane
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
i don't love them, but i will defend them against unfair demonization. during WWI, The British and the French were accusing the Germans of raping nuns and killing orphans. the holocaust was just an extension of this propaganda
#131960 to #131957 - whitechino
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
Germans introduced nerve Gas-WWI
Hitler uses religion to attack Jews
Germans use children in war cause low recruits
What good things can you defend about the nazis?
How good they were at killing?
#131978 to #131960 - dehumanizer ONLINE
Reply +1
(02/23/2016) [-]
nigga look up the german civil, virtualy all of the leaders of the communist revolution were jews
#131965 to #131960 - zlane
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
like i said, i'm defending them against the things they were falsely accused of
#131966 to #131965 - whitechino
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
It's like saying "oh well, he was a serial killing rapist necrophiliac pervert, but at least no one can say he didn't brush twice."
#131967 to #131966 - zlane
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
if an accusation is false, it needs to be exposed as a falsehood. i'm interested in the truth. are you?
#131968 to #131967 - whitechino
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
Maybe you need to learn to pick your battles better. You're not a fucking lawyer. There's no way you can make a nazi look cleaner cause then they were a piece of shit and now they're still pieces of shit cause they only get attention when they talk about race. You're you have problems. I'm logging off, I'll argue with the wall tomorrow.
#131969 to #131968 - zlane
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
the only you've done is personally attack me.
i'm not propping up the nazis, i'm not glorifying them. i. am. not. a. nazi.
#131908 to #131906 - ragnarfag
Reply +2
(02/23/2016) [-]
"the genetic code that creates a disposition towards crime, cruelty, sexual perversion"
#131910 to #131908 - zlane
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
all behavior is made up of heritable components.

psychcentral.com/news/2009/07/21/genetic-influence-on-behavior/7237.html

"By testing DNA samples from saliva in conjunction with computerized cognitive tests, researchers found that the certain gene variations could be connected to certain choices — focusing on decisions that previously produced good outcomes, avoiding negative outcomes, or trying unfamiliar things even though an outcome is uncertain.

“In some cases, single genes can have surprisingly strong influences on particular aspects of behavior,” said Michael J. Frank, assistant professor of cognitive and linguistic science, psychology, and psychiatry and human behavior."
#131937 to #131910 - whitechino
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
IT's funny the doctor is German. The Germans are the best at knowing the mind since they used to euthanize retards and challenged people a few decades ago.
#131979 to #131937 - dehumanizer ONLINE
Reply +1
(02/23/2016) [-]
THEY TOOK THOSE PRACTISES FROM THE USA LMAO LOOK IT UP
#131942 to #131937 - zlane
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
proof of concept
#131944 to #131942 - whitechino
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
Don't even call yourself a christian. Just make a new account called ZlaneDasZealot
#131951 to #131944 - zlane
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
i don't want to play this game. you're a freakin Mormon and i've never claimed that you are a fake Christian.
#131956 to #131951 - whitechino
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
There's no reason or evidence that you can not call me a Christian.
#131959 to #131956 - zlane
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
the same is true of me unless you have some bias against me
#131961 to #131959 - whitechino
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
Yo I got a list that can turn into a cape , I just don't want to expose you.
#131962 to #131961 - zlane
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
there's nothing to expose. list of what? you're just trying to make it sound like i'm an asshole because you're mad at my post
#131914 to #131910 - ragnarfag
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
That article doesn't support what you claim, mate
#131916 to #131914 - zlane
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
if ONE gene can have a clearly observable effect on behavior, it follows logically that sum total of all behavior-influencing genes is perfectly accountable for all observed behavior. you're probably going to bring up environment. environment affects us depending on how we've shaped our environment, creating a sort of feedback loop. the manner in which environment shapes our behavior is decided by our genes anyway.
#131918 to #131916 - anon
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
They found a correlation, not a mechanism. Potentially other variables involved between prevalence of the gene and behavior. Like different populations having different prevalences of alleles and customs, with only the behavior being what is observed here and one can see only the variable of alleles and not upbringing.
How the environment affects behavioral development is genetically determined but it's not that different across people.
#131920 to #131918 - zlane
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
the correlation is consistent enough, and sufficiently predictive to imply causation. especially considering there's no support for other causative factors outside of genetics. upbringing does have an effect, but this effect is mediated by our genes. all behavior is the direct consequence of genes because genes decide how we're going to react to any given stimulus.
#131924 to #131920 - anon
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
The paper never specifies how strong the relationship is. Genes decide how we react to experiences, but once they've been experienced the experiences themselves are important. Take two people with identical genes and give them different experiences from birth and one can turn out to be a philanthropist and one a serial killer. Shouldn't focus on the genes when you can focus on creating a better upbringing that can lead the genes to not be significant.
#131927 to #131924 - zlane
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
>experiences themselves are important.

but as you said, the nature of these experiences is gene based. the effect of this experience down the line is gene based.

> people with identical genes and give them different experiences from birth and one can turn out to be a philanthropist and one a serial killer.

the subjective nature of the experiences is based on genetic components. the differing outcomes would be based on things are ultimately mediated by genes. experiences do shape outcomes but only insofar as our genes allow
#131933 to #131927 - anon
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
The point was to show that the genes held the outcome for wildly different humans as determined by the environment. You can't say how someone will end up by looking at their genes alone, the genes will decide behavioral growth but having X, Y, and Z genes doesn't condemn someone.
#131939 to #131933 - zlane
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
i'm hoping that sometime in the future we'll able to predict which behaviors are likely to arise from which genes and *ahem* prevent certain people from coming into the world. if it is discovered that homosexuality is indeed gene based, i'll be very happy
#131945 to #131939 - anon
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
You'd be willing to have that done based on chances?
#131949 to #131945 - zlane
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
on sufficiently good chances, yes
#131972 to #131949 - anon
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
Who gets to decide what is sufficient?
#131995 to #131972 - zlane
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
the chances just have to be reasonably good i think
#131994 to #131972 - zlane
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#131907 to #131906 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply +1
(02/23/2016) [-]
Back to medieval times ey zlamous?
Glad you're not in charge
#131909 to #131907 - zlane
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
i'm not suggesting any sort of regression. our current laws should evolve to fit with the tenets of the Bible. we don't have to throw everything away to accomplish this
#131926 to #131909 - caette
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
what do you have against shellfish and pork you bitch
#131929 to #131926 - zlane
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
ceremonial laws no longer apply
#131930 to #131929 - caette
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
idk wat
#131911 to #131909 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
No thanks

If you want that join a cult
#131912 to #131911 - zlane
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
i'm describing principles that need to be applied universally. i want everyone to be held accountable to God's laws. any laws that are not derived from the Bible are based on a subjective standard, and that's not good enough.
#131913 to #131912 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
Laws are made by the opinions most common with the people of any given society. This is called democracy. Pretty much no one shares your opinion thus your laws are impossible to implement.

If you apply religious law universally you pretty much have regression. Look at any country with religious laws and see how great they're doing hint, the middle east

Every law is made by a subjective standard. The only difference is that we acknowledge it.
#131915 to #131913 - zlane
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
it shouldn't be up to majority opinion. an objective standard cannot be undermined by opinion or even by universal non-acceptance. the laws may have to be implemented under a new system of government. i'm not suggesting a theocracy- we can form our own laws, and interpret Biblical laws in new ways, but this has do be done in a Biblical framework using logic based on premises that are Biblically established.

i don't want a direct, universal application of Biblical content alone, i just want the Bible to be the foundation.

God's laws, however, are not, demonstrating exactly why we need to ground everything in these laws
#131917 to #131915 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
Your "objective standard" is in your head. Not anybody elses. You're a mere subject. And contrary to what you claim it is undermined by other subjective morals. Establishing a framework with the bible as the foundation limits development as our moral framework needs to change along with society.

The world is currently under massive development the likes of which it has never seen. Development technology and progress stops for no one. Our moral framework adapts along wit it, not the other way around.
#131919 to #131917 - zlane
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
i didn't come up with it. it's not subject dependent, it's dependent on God's unchanging nature. it literally cannot be changed by anyone's opinion

no development in technology is going to somehow reveal that God's nature is not the best standard for morality. we can't derive any 'oughts' from any discovery we make with respect to nature or some piece of technology. these things tell us nothing about what ought to be the case morally or legally. any discoveries we make about morality must come from the study and reflection of the Bible and from the logical application of established Biblical tenets. any moral quandary that arises in the future can and will be resolved using Biblical tools

taking this approach to morality will not have any detrimental effect on technological progress or social progress. nothing about discovering new aspects of God's nature is inherently detrimental to these things. misapplication of this knowledge might have this effect, but that can be easily prevented with a more thorough investigation of God's intentions with respect to this information
#131921 to #131919 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
Your opinion is shaped by a book in which YOU apply divine attributes to. It is simply text on paper like anything else. I didn't make the law for example, but as a subject I interpret it to the best of my ability.

Development and technology have no standard or morality. Only power. Society adapts to power. Once the nuke is invented there is no going back. This is why we have to adapt.

Our morals is simply a contract between individuals living in a state to ensure efficient cooperation within a societal framework. Our morals is simply those that satisfies the most amount of people. The minority will be silenced by the majority and society will move on. This is an unstoppable process.

But it does. Just the rule of not working on Sundays does slow down progress. That's not even mentioning the outdated rules made by people with no compression of the society we live in today. We evolve, we adapt and theres nothing you or I can do to stop it.
#131923 to #131921 - zlane
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
aspects of the Bible imply divine attributes. objective analysis rather than subjective interpretation is what yields this conclusion.

how do we decide the best way to utilize this power? Biblical analysis and conceptual analysis of God's nature and will.

misapplication does. that rule no longer applies. the rules are outdated only in the sense that they were intended for a more primitive society, but the basic moral components undergriding these rules can be applied universally.
#131925 to #131923 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
What objective analysis? Text on paper is text on paper. Nothing mysterious or unexplainable by that. Everything you connect it to is in your head.

The bible tells us nothing of said power. It's from a time where fighting was done by the sword. It's utterly inadequate in modern society. Which is why we ditched it for new laws who will also be replaced in time.

It's all about control, efficiency and power. Your ways are past it's time and reduced to private affairs.
#131928 to #131925 - zlane
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
objective analysis simply entails the use of valid logic + premises we know to be true

it doesn't. but we can derive the necessary conclusions using premises that are established by underlying Biblical principles. we can reduce Biblical lessons, regardless of their context, to basic moral components that are applicable in any context

these things need to looked at through a Biblical lens. the Bible is the most useful tool we have for determining moral truths
#131982 to #131928 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
Looking at everything through one spesific lens is called being narrowminded.

As I've explained. It will never happen.
#131998 to #131982 - zlane
Reply 0
(02/24/2016) [-]
not if the lens is as encompassing as the Bible. it can happen if a major revolution occurs
#132000 to #131998 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(02/24/2016) [-]
Good luck with that
#132001 to #132000 - zlane
Reply 0
(02/24/2016) [-]
even as an atheist, you should support this revolution. you should recognize the fact that the Bible contains better morals than any secular philosophy can produce(without borrowing)
#132002 to #132001 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(02/24/2016) [-]
Not really no. Morals will change and adapt as society see fit.
#132003 to #132002 - zlane
Reply 0
(02/24/2016) [-]
we have to create new rules for new situations but these rules should be extracted from unchanging absolute standards that we know to be true
#132004 to #132003 - whoozy ONLINE
0
(02/24/2016) [-]
Most people (including me). Reject that these standards are true.

You're the minority
#131922 to #131921 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
comprehension* lel
#131883 to #131881 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(02/22/2016) [-]
The pope is a moron and should stay out of politics.

Religion is a personal matter, and should not influent on state politics.
#131940 to #131883 - whitechino
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
why don't you stop sucking nutz and go back to your original account so you I can shit on you better.
#131963 to #131940 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
Who are you even lol. I don't associate with peseants.
#131964 to #131963 - whitechino
Reply 0
(02/23/2016) [-]
I'm your superior, king, and master
#131885 to #131883 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(02/22/2016) [-]
He just speaks to catholics

Hes not the moral authority of anyone else
#131886 to #131885 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(02/22/2016) [-]
So why does he try to claim moral authority over non-catholics?

Trump is a Presbyterian aka Protestant. That didn't stop Francis from claiming he wasn't a real Christian, even though Trump's religious views is outside of his moral jurisdiction.
#131889 to #131886 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(02/22/2016) [-]
And yes I agree he stepped out of line with the Trump comment
#131887 to #131886 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(02/22/2016) [-]
That is a separate incident
I was jusy speaking of this particular case
#131888 to #131887 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(02/22/2016) [-]
just*
#131882 to #131881 - cognosceteipsum ONLINE
Reply 0
(02/22/2016) [-]
I don't fully agree there. In some cases its simply a folly to keep some criminals alive
#131894 to #131882 - theism ONLINE
Reply 0
(02/22/2016) [-]
The only valid justification for the death penalty is if it's cheaper to kill them than to house them, which it currently never is (imo).
#131897 to #131894 - cognosceteipsum ONLINE
Reply 0
(02/22/2016) [-]
I think there are people who just can't be rehabilitated too.
#131898 to #131897 - theism ONLINE
Reply 0
(02/22/2016) [-]
Life in prison bro.
#131899 to #131898 - cognosceteipsum ONLINE
Reply -1
(02/22/2016) [-]
Depends on a lot of things though, and if you'd rather live your life in prison or die.
#131900 to #131899 - theism ONLINE
Reply 0
(02/22/2016) [-]
Eh if they could opt for execution and skip the trial I'd agree but as it stands it costs too damn much to give them a trial.
#131901 to #131900 - cognosceteipsum ONLINE
Reply -1
(02/22/2016) [-]
You wouldn't think it's more economically efficient to actually put them in prison as opposed to killing them but there you go
#131902 to #131901 - theism ONLINE
Reply 0
(02/22/2016) [-]
Trials are expensive.
#131893 to #131882 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(02/22/2016) [-]
Interresting
I'm against it by principle but I can see why people would be in favour of it
#131890 to #131882 - anon
Reply 0
(02/22/2016) [-]
Well damn, I'm surprised you said that Jakob. 1+ respect
-lulz
#131892 to #131890 - cognosceteipsum ONLINE
Reply -1
(02/22/2016) [-]
I don't care what you think, but I want to clarify that it is usable when they CANNOT BE REHABILITATED. which is incredibly hard to define anyway.
#131903 to #131892 - anon
Reply 0
(02/22/2016) [-]
>I don't care what you think
>proceeds to comment on every single post I make
#131974 to #131903 - cognosceteipsum ONLINE
Reply -1
(02/23/2016) [-]
No and yes.
#131880 - whoozy
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#131879 - anon
Reply 0
(02/22/2016) [-]
I find it comical that people believe in evolution even after Charles Darwin himself, after he created his theory, denounced it a being impossible. Yet people still hold on to it. If you look at evolution from a mathematical standpoint, it is absolutely impossible mathematically. Not to mention it's just idiotic. If you trace evolution back to it's roots, how did life come from absolutely no life at all? For example, if you have a mattress that you let sit for millions of years, it's not going to spontaneously come to life and evolve into more complex mattresses and other bedding accessories.
#131876 - deepfriednigger ONLINE
Reply 0
(02/22/2016) [-]
any prove of atheism or evolution yet guys? i'm still waiting. funny how no one has given any prove yet in all this time
#131875 - anon
Reply 0
(02/22/2016) [-]
/religion/131871 WHAT THE FUCK. NO SERIOUSLY WHAT THE FUCK
#131877 to #131875 - zlane
Reply -1
(02/22/2016) [-]
what, did i trigger you? i didn't say we should round up trans people and kill them all. i suggested that, like other mental illnesses, it probably can't be fully cured by conventional means.
#131895 to #131877 - theism ONLINE
Reply +1
(02/22/2016) [-]
The bulk of psychiatric professionals would disagree with you.
#131849 - caette
Reply 0
(02/22/2016) [-]
**caette used "*roll picture*"**
**caette rolled image**
There is a chapter in the book of Mormon with a person who comes into town rejecting god and the coming of Christ because there is no evidence and he even says "show me a sign and I will convert in an instant"
Okay so this is great right? this is where they show the evidence that god is real and I convert to Mormonism, right? This is the moment Mormons have been telling me about for years, right? This is the life altering proof that they will offer to change my mind. Why else would they include this character in here? It must have a point, this will be a moral or lesson anyone who thinks like this man can gain from this, right?

Nope. The sign he receives is that god makes him a mute. Literally has never been observed to happen for rejecting God, and I'm not scared it's going to happen to me.
#131843 - zlane
Reply +1
(02/22/2016) [-]
do people really think that it's discriminatory for a straight guy to reject a transgender "woman" on the basis that it's transgender? if you volunteer to have your dick replaced with a carved out, infected hole you are severely mentally ill. it's not discrimination to tell a mentally unstable beast that you have no interest in it. no sane person wants to have contact with a living horror show. Jesus Christ.
#131896 to #131843 - theism ONLINE
Reply 0
(02/22/2016) [-]
Logically speaking it doesn't make sense to reject someone you find objectively attractive for that sort of reason but that doesn't mean you should be forced to go through with it.
#131904 to #131896 - zlane
Reply 0
(02/22/2016) [-]
>someone you find objectively attractive

kinda hard to be attracted to carved out man cave
#131905 to #131904 - theism ONLINE
Reply 0
(02/22/2016) [-]
k
#131862 to #131843 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(02/22/2016) [-]
Most people don't

Then again there is the PC cult
#131864 to #131862 - zlane
Reply 0
(02/22/2016) [-]
i watched a video with steve shives and some mutant behemoth taking about which behaviors are "transphobic". www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul-kW0q_Dp0 steve said that failing to be attracted to a trans "person" after you've discovered the fact they're trans is discrimination and a type of phobia. "phobia" implies that the avoidance is irrational, which it is not. also, the avoidance cannot be attributed to fear. it's actually based on moral principles and the simple recognition that trans people are mentally unstable.

i fucking hate steve shives
#131878 to #131864 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply +1
(02/22/2016) [-]
Yeah just about nobody like these radical PC people

Most people are fine with trans people who stick to themselves though

I honestly couldn't care less how people dress
#131848 to #131843 - caette
Reply +1
(02/22/2016) [-]
okay. you posted two issues here
1 being is it wrong for a straight man reject a trans MTF
2 being it's wrong to be transgender
I will only be addressing 1
No, I don't think it's wrong. I also don't think it's wrong to generally find other races, body sizes, or hair color unattractive
if you aren't attracted to the idea, you shouldn't be forced by society to like it.
#131844 to #131843 - whitechino
Reply 0
(02/22/2016) [-]
Maybe they just want to feel different and comfortable. If they can then let it be.
#131845 to #131844 - zlane
Reply +1
(02/22/2016) [-]
i don't think turning yourself into a living deformity is an acceptable way to feel different and comfortable
#131846 to #131845 - whitechino
Reply 0
(02/22/2016) [-]
You never know till you try. You don't have to fuck them, Just don't be rude. You don't have to do anything but you don't have to act worse than them.
#131847 to #131846 - zlane
Reply 0
(02/22/2016) [-]
i don't have to cut my dick off to know that it's stupid and indicative of malfunctioning cognitive faculties. i have every right to disrespect the fuck out of anyone who makes a choice like that.
#131850 to #131847 - whitechino
Reply 0
(02/22/2016) [-]
You have the right, the easiest right to say and do in the world. I think it's brave to make a leap to take to go under the knife and completely change who you are.
#131851 to #131850 - zlane
Reply 0
(02/22/2016) [-]
i think bad ideas and stupid choices should be ridiculed and mocked. it's not brave to allow a mental illness to influence your decisions. a brave person would fight their mental illness with therapy, prayer, meditation, medication etc..
#131852 to #131851 - whitechino
Reply 0
(02/22/2016) [-]
Therapy- telling someone who defiantly doesn't understand how you're feeling since you were a kid
Prayer- God helps those who help themselves courage
Meditation- hummmmmmmmmmm
Medication- great more drugs
#131853 to #131852 - zlane
Reply 0
(02/22/2016) [-]
therapy can be effective. prayer is always effective. meditation is effective depending on the type, duration of each session, and number of consistent sessions. psychiatric medication essentially lobotomizes people, but maybe they're better off in a lobotomized state
#131854 to #131853 - whitechino
Reply 0
(02/22/2016) [-]
Maybe you like shiting on people you don't understand?
#131855 to #131854 - zlane
Reply 0
(02/22/2016) [-]
no, thats not my fetish.

do you really think the choice is based on some logic that normal people don't understand? it's a mental illness. i don't understand the mindset of a schizophrenic person either.
#131856 to #131855 - whitechino
Reply 0
(02/22/2016) [-]
Fine man, you're right. You're always right.
You should play Moral Jeopardy. You'll fucking go undefeated.
#131857 to #131856 - zlane
Reply 0
(02/22/2016) [-]
i didn't mean to offend you, honestly.
#131858 to #131857 - whitechino
Reply 0
(02/22/2016) [-]
You can never offend me, I just wonder how and why you can have some of these hard headed, anti-social, bigoted thoughts in Cali.
#131859 to #131858 - zlane
Reply 0
(02/22/2016) [-]
because i'm very careful not to let the people around me influence my beliefs rather than consistent, fact based reasoning. which of my beliefs are anti-social and how do they fit this description?
#131860 to #131859 - whitechino
Reply 0
(02/22/2016) [-]
you wouldn't be able to politely socialize with people who aren't backwards.
#131861 to #131860 - zlane
Reply 0
(02/22/2016) [-]
i usually just fake it. i just smile and nod when someone's spouting liberal nonsense and occasionally bring up some flaw in their reasoning in a polite way. i don't bring up all of my beliefs and lecture people in real life, it's not worth the trouble.
have you ever considered that these supposed "backward" people are the ones who've got it right?
#131863 to #131861 - whitechino
Reply 0
(02/22/2016) [-]
Not if their words can hurt other people.
I don't act fake around others cause it's easy too.
#131865 to #131863 - zlane
Reply 0
(02/22/2016) [-]
speaking for "backward" people here, i think our intention is to be truthful. if someone's feelings get hurt thats merely incidental. i only act fake when it's socially beneficial for me to do so
#131874 to #131865 - whitechino
Reply 0
(02/22/2016) [-]
I'm done talking about your issues, buddy.
#131872 to #131865 - whitechino
Reply 0
(02/22/2016) [-]
It's not anymore a mental illness than being gay. Everyone is different.
Get used to it.
There's going to be a lot more of it.
#131873 to #131872 - zlane
0
(02/22/2016) [-]
as expected, you also see homosexuality as normal. sigh
#131870 to #131865 - whitechino
Reply 0
(02/22/2016) [-]
you sound like a fucking robot
robots don't need a heart
#131871 to #131870 - zlane
0
(02/22/2016) [-]
i sympathize with them to some degree. my use of logic to determine the truth of the position i hold does not undermine my ability to empathize with the group of people in question. now heres where you might really take issue- i don't think its heartless to suggest that the most humane course of action might be an eliminatory policy. if they cannot be helped by other means, it's not totally crazy to suggest that they are better off unencumbered by their mental illness. and it may be the case that the complete elimination of the mental illness entails the elimination of the causative factor. it's another layer of elimination, but not an unnecessary one. every treatment has side effects.
#131868 to #131865 - whitechino
Reply 0
(02/22/2016) [-]
Then how you know it's really true if you never experience either our truths?
#131869 to #131868 - zlane
0
(02/22/2016) [-]
the truth of my viewpoint is derived by valid logic, true premises, and consistent application of this logic to related propositions.
#131866 to #131865 - whitechino
Reply 0
(02/22/2016) [-]
The only truth you have is when you can say it in a safe place like here. Let's stop talking about your views that's somehow justified by your experiences.
#131867 to #131866 - zlane
0
(02/22/2016) [-]
i don't mean to be insulting but its kinda hard to decipher that comment. i don't try to justify my views with my experiences
#131833 - anon
Reply 0
(02/21/2016) [-]
Abu Yaseer  Salil Sawarim Clashing of Swords Salil Buggati
#131831 - caette
Reply 0
(02/21/2016) [-]
**caette used "*roll picture*"**
**caette rolled image**
"Now when the king saw that Ammon could slay him, he began to plead with Ammon that he would spare his life. But Ammon raised his sword, and said unto him: Behold, I will smite thee except thou wilt grant unto me that my brethren may be cast out of prison. Now the king, fearing he should lose his life, said: If thou wilt spare me I will grant unto thee whatsoever thou wilt ask, even to half of the kingdom." Alma 20:21-23

Holy shit, really? he just wanted his people to be freed and the king bitches out and literally offers half the kingdom to save his life. wtf? talk about going out like a bitch
#131829 - caette
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#131830 to #131829 - caette
Reply 0
(02/21/2016) [-]
rerolling cause gay ass picture
#131820 - alekksandar
Reply +3
(02/21/2016) [-]
#131818 - thumbfortrump
Reply +1
(02/21/2016) [-]
The claim that the false Abrahamic God created the world is wrong, and the evidence is clear.
For example, look at trees. Trees are green.

What else is green? Boogers.
So logically, there is coherence between the creation of trees (which represents life) and boogers.
Now, what does this tell us?

It definitely tells us that there is a connection between life and noses.

Now, the Humma's Hymn, chapter 1, provided by the great prophet Douglas Adam (blessed be his name) tells us that:
"Oh mighty Arkleseizure, Thou camest from high above. Thou sneezed, From out thy nostrils, A gift of boundless love. The Universe around us Emergeth from thy Nose."

The evidence is there; all around us. Why do you think you can't cure the common cold?
Because the great Arkleseizure put the cold in our bodies to forever remind us that He is the Supreme Creator of all Life and Matter.

I must also remind you all, now that I have proven the true God, that the Time of the Great White Handkerchief is coming. Only the true believers will be wiped clean. The disbelievers will remain with their noses forever clogged.

Bless you.
#131884 to #131818 - dehumanizer ONLINE
Reply 0
(02/22/2016) [-]
#131827 to #131818 - caette
Reply +1
(02/21/2016) [-]
Thank you for proving you can literally make anything sound convincing if you don't demand evidence for it.
#131834 to #131827 - anon
Reply 0
(02/21/2016) [-]
yeah, like evolution
#131837 to #131834 - caette
Reply 0
(02/22/2016) [-]
yfw
#131838 to #131837 - anon
Reply 0
(02/22/2016) [-]
yeah not believing in evolution is just a phase nothing at all like new-atheism, that shits definently not a cultural phase thats gonna end soon
#131840 to #131838 - caette
Reply 0
(02/22/2016) [-]
#131828 to #131827 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(02/21/2016) [-]
Bless you.
#131823 to #131818 - mvtjets
Reply +1
(02/21/2016) [-]
A M E N
M
E
N
#131835 to #131823 - anon
Reply 0
(02/21/2016) [-]
GTFO OFF MY BOARD NORMIE
#131836 to #131835 - mvtjets
Reply +1
(02/22/2016) [-]
this board gives me low functioning autism
#131839 to #131836 - anon
Reply +1
(02/22/2016) [-]
jokes on you, you already had low functioning autism