Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 70
Thanks Tree5Thanks

Thread: Two questions for theists

  1. #51
    Official HayJenn fan boi knight's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    8,021
    Thanks
    7243

    From
    Galaxy ZRF
    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post
    Yea, we kind of assumed that.

    I don't think there are really many true theists left nowadays.

    Not sane ones anyways.
    Were there ever?

  2. #52
    Junior Member zaangalewa's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    1,099
    Thanks
    147

    From
    Germany
    Quote Originally Posted by knight View Post
    What utter, undiluted bullshit. You are an adult and you're spouting that crap...jesus isn't going to enforce the law...there is no law, and there is no jesus.
    So it makes no sense for you to believe in justice and Jesus. What's your alternative? Perhaps no one is able to live without justice without becoming the same time psychologically insane. Unfortunately our inborn structures of justice have not a lot to do with the reality all around, except we try to be with our own deeds in harmony with the inner sensation of justice and the outer laws of nature.

    Two things awe me most, the starry sky above me and the moral law within me.
    Immanuel Kant


    Last edited by zaangalewa; 17th March 2017 at 12:29 AM.

  3. #53
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    34,127
    Thanks
    17031

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by zaangalewa View Post
    So it makes no sense for you to believe in justice and Jesus. What's your alternative? Perhaps no one is able to live without justice without becoming the same time psychologically insane. Unfortunately our inborn structures of justice have not a lot to do with the reality all around, except we try to be with our own deeds in harmony with the inner sensation of justice and the outer laws of nature.

    Two things awe me most, the starry sky above me and the moral law within me.
    Immanuel Kant
    What complete, and utter crap. Knight's problem, and mine, is this concept that you need someone else to tell you right from wrong, and you need some threat of punishment, or promise of reward to do right. How about you just treat people with respect, and decency because that feels better than being a fucking asshole? How about that for your reward? Why do you need to be threatened with some punishment, or retribution in order to be a decent human being? Are you incapable of just saying, "Hey, you know what? I want to treat my fellow human beings with respect, and dignity just because,"? Because, if not, then you are not a moral person, whatever you may tell yourself. You are not an ethical person, whatever you may tell yourself. You are an evil person, who only obeys the laws, follows the rules, and does what you are required to do in order to avoid punishment, and for the promise of reward.

    By the way, you get that Kant was in agreement with me, right? Kant thought that the idea that we needed some external adjudicator dictating "right, and wrong" was complete bullshit. That was the point of that quote you just posted. He fully believed that the only "moral laws" were those that we find for ourselves; that there was no higher moral judge than man.
    Last edited by Czernobog; 17th March 2017 at 07:41 AM.

  4. #54
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    6,557
    Thanks
    281

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by knight View Post
    You can't wrap your head around the concept that you have been lied to your entire life and deep down you know you have...yet you refuse to not repeat the lie you've been fed since you were shitting yellow. It isn't my fault you people are gullible as you are... And, I'll post anywhere I Fucking want to and you can deal with it...or not. I personally don't give a fuck which road you take on that...

    Ummm....duh?
    Nothing pertinent to add to the discussion? Good.

  5. #55
    Junior Member zaangalewa's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    1,099
    Thanks
    147

    From
    Germany
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    What complete, and utter crap.
    I guess this means you don't agree never with anyone who believes in god or with anything what someone says who believes in god.

    Knight's problem, and mine,
    ?

    is this concept that you need someone else to tell you right from wrong,
    Right? Wrong? I spoke not about mathematics when I used the word "justice". It's for example hurting me always a lot if one of my dogs dies. That's not justice. My dogs should not die. That's not fair.

    and you need some threat of punishment, or promise of reward to do right.
    No one lives in your world of abstracts.

    How about you just treat people with respect, and decency because that feels better than being a fucking asshole?
    I am an asshole - and I respect people. I don't see your problem. It feels not bad to be an asshole and it feels not bad to respect people. Depends.

    How about that for your reward? Why do you need to be threatened with some punishment, or retribution in order to be a decent human being? Are you incapable of just saying, "Hey, you know what? I want to treat my fellow human beings with respect, and dignity just because,"? Because, if not, then you are not a moral person, whatever you may tell yourself. You are not an ethical person, whatever you may tell yourself. You are an evil person, who only obeys the laws, follows the rules, and does what you are required to do in order to avoid punishment, and for the promise of reward.
    Aha

    By the way, you get that Kant was in agreement with me, right?
    Kant is not able to agree with you, because he is dead.

    Kant thought that the idea that we needed some external adjudicator dictating "right, and wrong" was complete bullshit.
    Bullshit? So why do you try to tell me what's right (you) and wrong (I)? Kant spoke about rationality - about ways how we are able to think and how we are not able to think. He was a philosopher of the enlightenment. He said everyone will find on his own what's right and wrong if he is using the own rationality. His "sapere aude" ( "Dare to be wise") is a short form of a sentence of Horace of the year 20 AD: "Dimidium facti, qui coepit, habet: sapere aude, incipe." (="He who has begun is half done; dare to know; begin now!"). Only because you think you are right this makes nothing right or wrong. Kant said not no one should read books or no one should listen what others are saying or no one should learn how to think and so on and so on ... .

    That was the point of that quote you just posted. He fully believed that the only "moral laws" were those that we find for ourselves; that there was no higher moral judge than man.
    No - this said Kant not. He never said there is no higher entity than man. The original german words for "the starry sky above me" in "Two things awe me most, the starry sky above me and the moral law within me." are: "der bestirnte Himmel über mir". 'Correct' German would had been "der besternte Himmel über mir". Do you see a difference and what this difference means? It's the letter "e" vs "i" in the word "besternt" vs "bestirnt". "Stern" means "star" and "Stirn" means "forehead" in the german language. Behind the forehead are thoughts, logic, words.

    -----
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
    -----
    Last edited by zaangalewa; 18th March 2017 at 04:44 AM.

  6. #56
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    6,557
    Thanks
    281

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    What complete, and utter crap. Knight's problem, and mine, is this concept that you need someone else to tell you right from wrong, and you need some threat of punishment, or promise of reward to do right. How about you just treat people with respect, and decency because that feels better than being a fucking asshole? How about that for your reward? Why do you need to be threatened with some punishment, or retribution in order to be a decent human being? Are you incapable of just saying, "Hey, you know what? I want to treat my fellow human beings with respect, and dignity just because,"? Because, if not, then you are not a moral person, whatever you may tell yourself. You are not an ethical person, whatever you may tell yourself. You are an evil person, who only obeys the laws, follows the rules, and does what you are required to do in order to avoid punishment, and for the promise of reward.

    By the way, you get that Kant was in agreement with me, right? Kant thought that the idea that we needed some external adjudicator dictating "right, and wrong" was complete bullshit. That was the point of that quote you just posted. He fully believed that the only "moral laws" were those that we find for ourselves; that there was no higher moral judge than man.
    Actually, you are saying the complete opposite of what kant said.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics

    Deontology is the study of that which is an "obligation or duty," and consequent moral judgment on the actor on whether he or she has complied.[citation needed] In philosophy and religion, states Bocheński, there is an important distinction between deontic and epistemic authority.[6] A typical example of epistemic authority, explains Anna Brożek, is "the relation of a teacher to his students; a typical example of deontic authority is the relation between an employer and his employee."[7] A teacher has epistemic authority when making declarative sentences that the student presumes is reliable knowledge and appropriate but feels no obligation to accept or obey; in contrast, an employer has deontic authority in the act of issuing an order that the employee is obliged to accept and obey regardless of its reliability or appropriateness.[7]

    Kant's moral philosophy is said to be deontological because it speaks of a universal moral law that is objective and accessible only through the application of pure reason.

    What you seem to be suggesting is that moral law is what we find good for ourselves. According to kant, this is merely a hypothetical imperative because it accrues merely to subjective ends. Categorical imperatives are good in themselves and good without qualification.
    Last edited by kingrat; 18th March 2017 at 08:20 AM.

  7. #57
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    34,127
    Thanks
    17031

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    Actually, you are saying the complete opposite of what kant said.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics

    Deontology is the study of that which is an "obligation or duty," and consequent moral judgment on the actor on whether he or she has complied.[citation needed] In philosophy and religion, states Bocheński, there is an important distinction between deontic and epistemic authority.[6] A typical example of epistemic authority, explains Anna Brożek, is "the relation of a teacher to his students; a typical example of deontic authority is the relation between an employer and his employee."[7] A teacher has epistemic authority when making declarative sentences that the student presumes is reliable knowledge and appropriate but feels no obligation to accept or obey; in contrast, an employer has deontic authority in the act of issuing an order that the employee is obliged to accept and obey regardless of its reliability or appropriateness.[7]

    Kant's moral philosophy is said to be deontological because it speaks of a universal moral law that is objective and accessible only through the application of pure reason.

    What you seem to be suggesting is that moral law is what we find good for ourselves. According to kant, this is merely a hypothetical imperative because it accrues merely to subjective ends. Categorical imperatives are good in themselves and good without qualification.
    You misunderstand me. I am not referring to what we find good for ourselves "what's in it for me". Rather what is good about ourselves "What must I do in order to feel good about myself". Now many people would equate "What makes me feel good about myself", with "what makes me feel good, " period, full stop. Can you spot the difference Kingrat, and see how the two questions result in two very different results?

  8. #58
    Junior Member zaangalewa's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    1,099
    Thanks
    147

    From
    Germany
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    You misunderstand me. I am not referring to what we find good for ourselves "what's in it for me". Rather what is good about ourselves "What must I do in order to feel good about myself". Now many people would equate "What makes me feel good about myself", with "what makes me feel good, " period, full stop. Can you spot the difference Kingrat, and see how the two questions result in two very different results?
    Example: Drugs and alcohol make someone to feel good - but someone should not feel good about oneself by using alcohol and drugs. As far as I can see all experienced people from all serious religions in the world will always try to fight against the use of alcohol and drugs and against a life in delusions and self-delusions. The history of violence and war is also always a history of drugs and delusions. The problem: Even if 99.9999 percent of all mankind would install a "human right" for the free use of alcohol and drugs, then such a "human right" will never be able to be a human right. So what are you fighting for?

    Last edited by zaangalewa; 18th March 2017 at 10:41 PM.

  9. #59
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    34,127
    Thanks
    17031

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by zaangalewa View Post
    Drugs and alcohol make someone to feel good - but someone should not feel good about oneself by using alcohol and drugs. Do you use alcohol or drugs? If you have to say "yes" to yourself, then your inner rationality would not be harmony with your outspoken words. As far as I can see all experienced people from all serious religions in the world would try to fight against the use of alcohol and drugs and a life in delusions.
    This was why I directed the question to Kingrat. I recognised in him an intelligence which, in you, is noticeably lacking. Thus, I directed the question to him, expecting him to understand the question in a manner in which you are clearly incapable. Now, I will give you a choice. You may go back, re-read my post, find out where you when wrong, which makes your response not only inadequate, but utterly moronic, or you can just sit back, an shush, leave this conversation to the adults, and perhaps learn something. The choice is yours.

    Should you choose the former, I will give you this much of a hint. You said, "Drugs and alcohol make someone to feel good". Except I didn't say the point was to feel good. There was an important part you. Left. Out. You go back, reread post #57 and figure out that that part is, then see how that part renders your response meaningless, and useless.

  10. #60
    Junior Member zaangalewa's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    1,099
    Thanks
    147

    From
    Germany
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    This was why I directed the question to Kingrat. I recognised in him an intelligence which, in you, is noticeably lacking. Thus, I directed the question to him, expecting him to understand the question in a manner in which you are clearly incapable. Now, I will give you a choice. You may go back, re-read my post, find out where you when wrong, which makes your response not only inadequate, but utterly moronic, or you can just sit back, an shush, leave this conversation to the adults, and perhaps learn something. The choice is yours.

    Should you choose the former, I will give you this much of a hint. You said, "Drugs and alcohol make someone to feel good". Except I didn't say the point was to feel good. There was an important part you. Left. Out. You go back, reread post #57 and figure out that that part is, then see how that part renders your response meaningless, and useless.
    Speaks anyone with each other in the english speaking world?

    Bye bye.

    Last edited by zaangalewa; 18th March 2017 at 10:58 PM.

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Why should Atheists give a shit about Theists?
    By Czernobog in forum Philosophy and Religion
    Replies: 586
    Last Post: 16th January 2017, 01:55 AM
  2. Should Theists Be Allowed To Shop/Vote?
    By Xerographica in forum Economics
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 29th August 2013, 08:45 PM
  3. Iowahawk: Questions, So Many Questions
    By Macduff in forum Political Humor
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 7th July 2011, 03:50 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed