Evil?

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2003-06-18 09:34pm

Yep, brain of a turnip.

You really have no grasp what you type do you?

EvilGrey · Post by **EvilGrey** » 2003-06-18 09:35pm

Ghost Rider wrote:Yep, brain of a turnip.

You really have no grasp what you type do you?

Refute my logic, else concede that you are wrong and intellectually inferior.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2003-06-18 09:37pm

Why...you logic is basically just as simple as this.

Whatever you stated is right, whatever others state is wrong.

So it allow your Wall of Ignorance to be maintained all the while you put your fingers in your ears.

Nothing to refute...because you aren't using any logic.

EvilGrey · Post by **EvilGrey** » 2003-06-18 09:38pm

Ghost Rider wrote:Why...you logic is basically just as simple as this.

Whatever you stated is right, whatever others state is wrong.

So it allow your Wall of Ignorance to be maintained all the while you put your fingers in your ears.

Nothing to refute...because you aren't using any logic.

Thank you for admitting you are incapable of refuting me. 'Tis rare for an atheist to admit he is wrong.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2003-06-18 09:39pm

Yep brain of turnip.

Kitsune · Post by **Kitsune** » 2003-06-18 09:39pm

EvilGrey wrote: Refute my logic, else concede that you are wrong and intellectually inferior.

Evil can be easily be defined as the willingness to harm others
It can also be defined as the view that the ends always justify the means.

EvilGrey · Post by **EvilGrey** » 2003-06-18 09:40pm

Kitsune wrote:
EvilGrey wrote: Refute my logic, else concede that you are wrong and intellectually inferior.
Evil can be easily be defined as the willingness to harm others
It can also be defined as the view that the ends always justify the means.

Evil can be defined in a myriad of ways depending on how any particular atheist wishes to define it.

YT300000 · Post by **YT300000** » 2003-06-18 09:44pm

Ghost Rider wrote:Yep brain of turnip.

Which is why he always has a

smiley.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-06-18 09:45pm

No, atheism allows you to define the two objectively. Since rapes causes obvious objective harm to the other person...well, two plus two typically equals four, unless there's been another Commandment issued and I didn't hear about it.

EvilGrey · Post by **EvilGrey** » 2003-06-18 09:46pm

HemlockGrey wrote:No, atheism allows you to define the two objectively. Since rapes causes obvious objective harm to the other person...well, two plus two typically equals four, unless there's been another Commandment issued and I didn't hear about it.

Indeed, an atheist's definition of good and evil can be rooted in objectivism, but it is still inherently relative because there is no reason any atheist is obligated to submit to objectively-defined concepts of good and evil.

Kitsune · Post by **Kitsune** » 2003-06-18 09:47pm

EvilGrey wrote: Evil can be defined in a myriad of ways depending on how any particular atheist wishes to define it.

Who ever said that I am an athiest...I would say maybe 50% of this board are athiest. A percentage are liberal Christian, Diests, agnostics, and other smaller religions. Good an evil can be figured out with simple common sense "Hey, how do I want to be treated." Obviously, I do not want fundamentalist Christians romping around the country killing people like in the crusades so I will not do the same thing back to them.

EvilGrey · Post by **EvilGrey** » 2003-06-18 09:51pm

Kitsune wrote:
EvilGrey wrote: Evil can be defined in a myriad of ways depending on how any particular atheist wishes to define it.
Who ever said that I am an athiest...I would say maybe 50% of this board are athiest. A percentage are liberal Christian, Diests, agnostics, and other smaller religions. Good an evil can be figured out with simple common sense "Hey, how do I want to be treated." Obviously, I do not want fundamentalist Christians romping around the country killing people like in the crusades so I will not do the same thing back to them.

You are missing the crucial part of my argument: No atheist is obligated to hold any particular view of good and evil. It is not wrong for Joe Atheist to think rape and murder are good because there is no absolute standard of good and evil by which to judge his stance.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-06-18 09:55pm

EvilGrey wrote:You are missing the crucial part of my argument: No atheist is obligated to hold any particular view of good and evil.

No mathematician is obligated to hold any particular view of good and evil either. Does that mean math is evil?

It is not wrong for Joe Atheist to think rape and murder are good because there is no absolute standard of good and evil by which to judge his stance.

And what is your absolute standard of good and evil? The whims of a psychopathic, murderous imaginary god, which are only known to us through the writings of dead priests?

I don't even know why we bother arguing with this prick; we've made the same points over and over, and he doesn't even TRY to address them. He's just jerking us around, and I think he knows perfectly well that he's just wasting our time; look at how he puts smileys after every goddamned thing he says. Why don't we just ban the little fuckwad?

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2003-06-18 09:55pm

EvilGrey wrote:
Kitsune wrote:
EvilGrey wrote: Evil can be defined in a myriad of ways depending on how any particular atheist wishes to define it.
Who ever said that I am an athiest...I would say maybe 50% of this board are athiest. A percentage are liberal Christian, Diests, agnostics, and other smaller religions. Good an evil can be figured out with simple common sense "Hey, how do I want to be treated." Obviously, I do not want fundamentalist Christians romping around the country killing people like in the crusades so I will not do the same thing back to them.
You are missing the crucial part of my argument: No atheist is obligated to hold any particular view of good and evil. It is not wrong for Joe Atheist to think rape and murder are good because there is no absolute standard of good and evil by which to judge his stance.

Ah I get it...so because I don't believe in God(who murders, kills, and allows pillaging and rape to his follower...when it's a holy mission like the Inquisition) it's okay for me to kill, murder and rape.

Brain of turnip.

Kitsune · Post by **Kitsune** » 2003-06-18 09:57pm

EvilGrey wrote: You are missing the crucial part of my argument: No atheist is obligated to hold any particular view of good and evil. It is not wrong for Joe Atheist to think rape and murder are good because there is no absolute standard of good and evil by which to judge his stance.

There is an absolute view of good an evil, it is how you want to be treated. It can be described as "I am a member of the Human Race, I want to be treated like a member of the human race, to do this I have to treat others like humans" It is also called personal responsibility.

Crhistian Dogma actually destroys this link "Does not matter what I do, Jesus will forgive me." I work in law enforcement, you hear about this person who says "Jesus forgave me, therefore I am going to heaven." Since Jesus forgives anything, there is no personal responsibility.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-06-18 10:01pm

Darth Wong wrote: Why don't we just ban the little fuckwad?

Permission to make the thread calling for the vote?

EvilGrey · Post by **EvilGrey** » 2003-06-18 10:02pm

Darth Wong wrote:No mathematician is obligated to hold any particular view of good and evil either. Does that mean math is evil?

Non-sequitur.

And what is your absolute standard of good and evil? The whims of a psychopathic, murderous imaginary god, which are only known to us through the writings of dead priests?

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

Oh hell, why not this one too?!: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... icule.html

I don't even know why we bother arguing with this prick; we've made the same points over and over, and he doesn't even TRY to address them. He's just jerking us around, and I think he knows perfectly well that he's just wasting our time; look at how he puts smileys after every goddamned thing he says. Why don't we just ban the little fuckwad?

I've addressed everything thrown at me thus far, yet few here understand. It would seem my meager grasp of logic and reason exceeds that of the most of the posters here.

EvilGrey · Post by **EvilGrey** » 2003-06-18 10:03pm

Ghost Rider wrote:
EvilGrey wrote:
Kitsune wrote: Who ever said that I am an athiest...I would say maybe 50% of this board are athiest. A percentage are liberal Christian, Diests, agnostics, and other smaller religions. Good an evil can be figured out with simple common sense "Hey, how do I want to be treated." Obviously, I do not want fundamentalist Christians romping around the country killing people like in the crusades so I will not do the same thing back to them.
You are missing the crucial part of my argument: No atheist is obligated to hold any particular view of good and evil. It is not wrong for Joe Atheist to think rape and murder are good because there is no absolute standard of good and evil by which to judge his stance.
Ah I get it...so because I don't believe in God(who murders, kills, and allows pillaging and rape to his follower...when it's a holy mission like the Inquisition) it's okay for me to kill, murder and rape.

Brain of turnip.

God is not subject to judgement by His own moral decrees as He is above them; we are not, hence why it is wrong for us to murder.

SeebianWurm · Post by **SeebianWurm** » 2003-06-18 10:03pm

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2003-06-18 10:04pm

Darth Wong wrote: I don't even know why we bother arguing with this prick; we've made the same points over and over, and he doesn't even TRY to address them. He's just jerking us around, and I think he knows perfectly well that he's just wasting our time; look at how he puts smileys after every goddamned thing he says. Why don't we just ban the little fuckwad?

That's what I was saying to SirNitram. EvilGrey is the little boy throwing stones at the wasp's nest, just to see them riled up. It doesn't matter how often we prove he's wrong and an idjit, he'll keep coming back with stupid posts *because* we'll respond.

Since he's not engaging in proper debate, but simply enjoying yanking people's chians, I say Ban him.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-06-18 10:04pm

SeebianWurm wrote:Ban!

Why?

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2003-06-18 10:04pm

I second Nitram's thoughts on this.

Someone just shift his shit to the HoS and let's put a vote about dumbass here.

EvilGrey · Post by **EvilGrey** » 2003-06-18 10:08pm

Kitsune wrote:
EvilGrey wrote: You are missing the crucial part of my argument: No atheist is obligated to hold any particular view of good and evil. It is not wrong for Joe Atheist to think rape and murder are good because there is no absolute standard of good and evil by which to judge his stance.
There is an absolute view of good an evil, it is how you want to be treated. It can be described as "I am a member of the Human Race, I want to be treated like a member of the human race, to do this I have to treat others like humans" It is also called personal responsibility.

Absolute concepts good and evil cannot exist in atheism. To claim otherwise is to implicitly claim there is a being higher than mankind establishing and defining good and evil, i.e., admitting there is a God or a higher power of some sort. That is, obviously, the antithesis of atheism.

Crhistian Dogma actually destroys this link "Does not matter what I do, Jesus will forgive me." I work in law enforcement, you hear about this person who says "Jesus forgave me, therefore I am going to heaven." Since Jesus forgives anything, there is no personal responsibility.

In Christian dogma, the only crime that can warrant eternal death is to reject God. Acts such as lying, murdering, harming others, are all acts which equate to rejecting God.

But whatever, I'm not a Christian, so I don't care.

Kitsune · Post by **Kitsune** » 2003-06-18 10:08pm

Darth Wong wrote: I don't even know why we bother arguing with this prick; we've made the same points over and over, and he doesn't even TRY to address them. He's just jerking us around, and I think he knows perfectly well that he's just wasting our time; look at how he puts smileys after every goddamned thing he says. Why don't we just ban the little fuckwad?

I only have one question, has anyone met a fundy who is willing to actually debate what is being discussed instead of either twisting peoples words or trying to create a tangent. Banning him or not banning him is pointless.

EvilGrey · Post by **EvilGrey** » 2003-06-18 10:09pm

LadyTevar wrote:
Darth Wong wrote: I don't even know why we bother arguing with this prick; we've made the same points over and over, and he doesn't even TRY to address them. He's just jerking us around, and I think he knows perfectly well that he's just wasting our time; look at how he puts smileys after every goddamned thing he says. Why don't we just ban the little fuckwad?
That's what I was saying to SirNitram. EvilGrey is the little boy throwing stones at the wasp's nest, just to see them riled up. It doesn't matter how often we prove he's wrong and an idjit, he'll keep coming back with stupid posts *because* we'll respond.

Since he's not engaging in proper debate, but simply enjoying yanking people's chians, I say Ban him.

LOL! Ban me if you wish, I don't really care. You are simply angry because you cannot debate at my level because your understanding of philosophy is severely limited. That's quite unfortunate too, as I would never claim myself to be particularly knowledgeable about philosophy.