John Galt is a Turd

[JohnStOnge]

So rational empathy is bad then?

It's not bad, but you're not going to solve or even perceptibly impact the problem of "mooching" or any other problem by telling everybody they ought to practice rational empathy. I mean really man. C'mon.

[JohnStOnge]

A surprisingly large amount people need to be threatened with the wrath of a non-existant being that some goat herders made up a couple of millennia ago to keep their innate criminal tendencies in check. Like our friend John. Good thing he's a believer, it appears to be all that keeps him from being a baaaad man.

As I've written repeatedly I am an agnostic. But there is actually some truth to what you wrote; with the exception of the fact that you don't know the "non existent" part to be true.

Again: Without that "being" or something else as a premise there is absolutely no basis for not treating others badly except for the need to not do so in order to advance our own interests. And if it advances our interest to treat others badly then there is no reason not to treat others badly.

Atheists can argue otherwise all they want but the arguments will always fail. There is always that next "why is that wrong" question about their premise for saying something is wrong. And in the end there is no answer.

Again: That's not an argument for the existence of God. It's just saying that if the atheists are right there's no intrinsic morality. And that's not really rationally debatable. If you say you're an atheist don't tell me that there's some moral imperative to help the poor, etc.

You really do need that belief in a higher power to sustain things like the concept of "unalienable rights" and the argument that it would be "wrong" for some guy to become a ruthless dictator if he finds himself in position of power sufficient to do that.

[kalm]

So rational empathy is bad then?

It's not bad, but you're not going to solve or even perceptibly impact the problem of "mooching" or any other problem by telling everybody they ought to practice rational empathy. I mean really man. C'mon.

Nobody is calling for government forced rational empathy...c'mon!

The reality is you have generational dependency. But it's much easier to simply blow it off as worthless chattel and pine about it than discuss philosophical solutions.

[Chizzang]

A surprisingly large amount people need to be threatened with the wrath of a non-existant being that some goat herders made up a couple of millennia ago to keep their innate criminal tendencies in check. Like our friend John. Good thing he's a believer, it appears to be all that keeps him from being a baaaad man.

As I've written repeatedly I am an agnostic. But there is actually some truth to what you wrote; with the exception of the fact that you don't know the "non existent" part to be true.

Again: Without that "being" or something else as a premise there is absolutely no basis for not treating others badly except for the need to not do so in order to advance our own interests. And if it advances our interest to treat others badly then there is no reason not to treat others badly.

Atheists can argue otherwise all they want but the arguments will always fail. There is always that next "why is that wrong" question about their premise for saying something is wrong. And in the end there is no answer.

Again: That's not an argument for the existence of God. It's just saying that if the atheists are right there's no intrinsic morality. And that's not really rationally debatable. If you say you're an atheist don't tell me that there's some moral imperative to help the poor, etc.

You really do need that belief in a higher power to sustain things like the concept of "unalienable rights" and the argument that it would be "wrong" for some guy to become a ruthless dictator if he finds himself in position of power sufficient to do that.

You work too hard to sound smart... and still completely miss "the point"

Point:
1) existence just is (period) end of statement
2) The long observable evolutionary history just is (period) end of statement

Conclusion:
Individuals (and species) have value based simply on the two statements above and this is neither conferred nor revocable but springs from it's (and our) long evolutionary development... cooperation and coordination are genetic - they are part of biological and genetic evolution. No third party is required to explain them or defend them... they existed before Jesus invented them and before the Buddha made note...

Spirituality in most of it's forms likes to take credit where biology and evolution stood before...

[kalm]

As I've written repeatedly I am an agnostic. But there is actually some truth to what you wrote; with the exception of the fact that you don't know the "non existent" part to be true.

Again: Without that "being" or something else as a premise there is absolutely no basis for not treating others badly except for the need to not do so in order to advance our own interests. And if it advances our interest to treat others badly then there is no reason not to treat others badly.

Atheists can argue otherwise all they want but the arguments will always fail. There is always that next "why is that wrong" question about their premise for saying something is wrong. And in the end there is no answer.

Again: That's not an argument for the existence of God. It's just saying that if the atheists are right there's no intrinsic morality. And that's not really rationally debatable. If you say you're an atheist don't tell me that there's some moral imperative to help the poor, etc.

You really do need that belief in a higher power to sustain things like the concept of "unalienable rights" and the argument that it would be "wrong" for some guy to become a ruthless dictator if he finds himself in position of power sufficient to do that.

You work too hard to sound smart... and still completely miss "the point"

Point:
1) existence just is (period) end of statement
2) The long observable evolutionary history just is (period) end of statement

Conclusion:
Individuals (and species) have value based simply on the two statements above and this is neither conferred nor revocable but springs from it's (and our) long evolutionary development... cooperation and coordination are genetic - they are part of biological and genetic evolution. No third party is required to explain them or defend them... they existed before Jesus invented them and before the Buddha made note...

Spirituality in most of it's forms likes to take credit where biology and evolution stood before...

"Cooperation and coordination" are just code words for "collectivism" which is another way of describing "egalitarianism" and we all know egalitarianism is what's ruining America.

Spoiler: show

VERY well put and concise post their Chizzy

[Baldy]

"Cooperation and coordination" are just code words for "collectivism" which is another way of describing "egalitarianism" and we all know egalitarianism is what's ruining America.

Um...not even close.

Cooperation and coordination happen when individuals choose with their own free will to work together to achieve a common goal or benefit.
Collectivism is state mandated collective control of production and distribution with out regard to individual freedom or choice.

kalm, you can do better than that.

[kalm]

"Cooperation and coordination" are just code words for "collectivism" which is another way of describing "egalitarianism" and we all know egalitarianism is what's ruining America.

Um...not even close.

Cooperation and coordination happen when individuals choose with their own free will to work together to achieve a common goal or benefit.
Collectivism is state mandated collective control of production and distribution with out regard to individual freedom or choice.

kalm, you can do better than that.

All dog whistle terms for you guys...which was my point.

[Baldy]

All dog whistle terms for you guys...which was my point.

It's only a dog whistle term when someone doesn't know, and the differences between said "points" has to be explained.

[YoUDeeMan]

A surprisingly large amount people need to be threatened with the wrath of a non-existant being that some goat herders made up a couple of millennia ago to keep their innate criminal tendencies in check. Like our friend John. Good thing he's a believer, it appears to be all that keeps him from being a baaaad man.

As I've written repeatedly I am an agnostic. But there is actually some truth to what you wrote; with the exception of the fact that you don't know the "non existent" part to be true.

Again: Without that "being" or something else as a premise there is absolutely no basis for not treating others badly except for the need to not do so in order to advance our own interests. And if it advances our interest to treat others badly then there is no reason not to treat others badly.

Atheists can argue otherwise all they want but the arguments will always fail. There is always that next "why is that wrong" question about their premise for saying something is wrong. And in the end there is no answer.

Again: That's not an argument for the existence of God. It's just saying that if the atheists are right there's no intrinsic morality. And that's not really rationally debatable. If you say you're an atheist don't tell me that there's some moral imperative to help the poor, etc.

You really do need that belief in a higher power to sustain things like the concept of "unalienable rights" and the argument that it would be "wrong" for some guy to become a ruthless dictator if he finds himself in position of power sufficient to do that.

You believe in some intrinsic, "good" or, "right or wrong", but there isn't any such thing. There will ALWAYS be situational ethics involved.

Killing a child is wrong? Forget our human leaders' decisions...God wiped out entire towns in a fit of rage.

We have evolved and so have our morals - in relation to our surroundings. If times are good, we tend to allow others to live peacefully. If materials get scarce...ooops...morals adapt.

[houndawg]

[Chizzang]

As I've written repeatedly I am an agnostic. But there is actually some truth to what you wrote; with the exception of the fact that you don't know the "non existent" part to be true.

Again: Without that "being" or something else as a premise there is absolutely no basis for not treating others badly except for the need to not do so in order to advance our own interests. And if it advances our interest to treat others badly then there is no reason not to treat others badly.

Atheists can argue otherwise all they want but the arguments will always fail. There is always that next "why is that wrong" question about their premise for saying something is wrong. And in the end there is no answer.

Again: That's not an argument for the existence of God. It's just saying that if the atheists are right there's no intrinsic morality. And that's not really rationally debatable. If you say you're an atheist don't tell me that there's some moral imperative to help the poor, etc.

You really do need that belief in a higher power to sustain things like the concept of "unalienable rights" and the argument that it would be "wrong" for some guy to become a ruthless dictator if he finds himself in position of power sufficient to do that.

You believe in some intrinsic, "good" or, "right or wrong", but there isn't any such thing. There will ALWAYS be situational ethics involved.

Killing a child is wrong? Forget our human leaders' decisions...God wiped out entire towns in a fit of rage.

We have evolved and so have our morals - in relation to our surroundings. If times are good, we tend to allow others to live peacefully. If materials get scarce...ooops...morals adapt.

Cluck makes me happy...
You get it / obviously / The idea that God is required for there to be any ideas about cooperation requires one to completely ignore Nature and observable Biological Evolution.

The only people that still believe that old morality nugget dragged out by Theology Apologists are... Theology apologists

Google search Baboon colony Research
and you'll find everything you need to know about Humanity / Morality / Kindness / Nurturing / cooperation competition and social development...

[JohnStOnge]

1) existence just is (period) end of statement
2) The long observable evolutionary history just is (period) end of statement

Conclusion:
Individuals (and species) have value based simply on the two statements above

Surely you can see that there is absolutely no basis for that "conclusion" statement under the atheist premise. I'm not getting why you think you have something there.

[kalm]

1) existence just is (period) end of statement
2) The long observable evolutionary history just is (period) end of statement

Conclusion:
Individuals (and species) have value based simply on the two statements above

Surely you can see that there is absolutely no basis for that "conclusion" statement under the atheist premise. I'm not getting why you think you have something there.

Why does it have to be atheistic? Perhaps cooperation, harmony, and all that Jazz are part of the plan. Just not in a brick and mortar sense.

[Chizzang]

1) existence just is (period) end of statement
2) The long observable evolutionary history just is (period) end of statement

Conclusion:
Individuals (and species) have value based simply on the two statements above

Surely you can see that there is absolutely no basis for that "conclusion" statement under the atheist premise. I'm not getting why you think you have something there.

I'm not an atheist...
I'm also not christian / or Jewish / or Muslim
and there was a lot in my statement beyond just those comments

[houndawg]

Surely you can see that there is absolutely no basis for that "conclusion" statement under the atheist premise. I'm not getting why you think you have something there.

I'm not an atheist...
I'm also not christian / or Jewish / or Muslim
and there was a lot in my statement beyond just those comments

The lists of gods that christians and atheists don't believe in is the same except for one.

[Chizzang]

I'm not an atheist...
I'm also not christian / or Jewish / or Muslim
and there was a lot in my statement beyond just those comments

The lists of gods that christians and atheists don't believe in is the same except for one.

John lives with a fundamentalist christian... in fact he married one
And he pretends like he's completely neutral in regards to one particular Iron Age God vs Observable Science

But he's not... and it's painfully obvious

[houndawg]

The lists of gods that christians and atheists don't believe in is the same except for one.

John lives with a fundamentalist christian... in fact he married one
And he pretends like he's completely neutral in regards to one particular Iron Age God vs Observable Science

But he's not... and it's painfully obvious

Ninety per cent of any post he makes is an attempt to wash the fundamentalism with a veneer of science to appear rational. Its his one trick.

[Chizzang]

Ninety per cent of any post he makes is an attempt to wash the fundamentalism with a veneer of science to appear rational. Its his one trick.

Right... ^
Because Fundamentalist Iron Age Religion can't stand on it's own
It falls down (hard) when simply observed within a neutral framework
and when I say neutral framework I mean observed in the light of what we understand today

Timeless texts from the creator of the universe shouldn't age so drastically and painfully (Right..?)
Shouldn't gods immortal word at least stand up to common sense..?

That's why I go with the idea that the word of god is to discover how the universe works
That is our mission from God / Learn how the universe (actually) works
And those truths are the immortal truths of God

[CID1990]

Surely you can see that there is absolutely no basis for that "conclusion" statement under the atheist premise. I'm not getting why you think you have something there.

I'm not an atheist...
I'm also not christian / or Jewish / or Muslim
and there was a lot in my statement beyond just those comments

What? Another moral agnostic? I thought I was alone.

Or are you something else?


Sent from the center of the universe.

[Chizzang]

I'm not an atheist...
I'm also not christian / or Jewish / or Muslim
and there was a lot in my statement beyond just those comments

What? Another moral agnostic? I thought I was alone.

Or are you something else?


Sent from the center of the universe.

I'm not sure what I am...
I don't attempt to "disprove god" or more plainly stated, I don't claim to know anything about God...

[Ivytalk]

What? Another moral agnostic? I thought I was alone.

Or are you something else?


Sent from the center of the universe.

I'm not sure what I am...
I don't attempt to "disprove god" or more plainly stated, I don't claim to know anything about God...

I know exactly who you are.

You are Professor Haiku.

[Chizzang]

I know exactly who you are.

You are Professor Haiku.

I love a nice Haiku
pregnant with uncertainties
overly confident ignorance is so common

[kalm]

I know exactly who you are.

You are Professor Haiku.

I love a nice Haiku
pregnant with uncertainties
overly confident ignorance is so common

I thought haiku's were 5-7-5?

[Chizzang]

I love a nice Haiku
pregnant with uncertainties
overly confident ignorance is so common

I thought haiku's were 5-7-5?

you thought wrong...



American poets adopted the 5-7-5 format in the 1950's

[CID1990]

5-7-5 accommodates English better.


Sent from the center of the universe.