Kamala Trump
Verified User
Reread this entire thread. See how stupid dixie is. LOL.
BUmp, muthafucka.
BUmp, muthafucka.
Morality Defined
- Thread starter Kamala Trump
- Start date
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
No, Dixie is actually very smart. This is why Dixie frustrates so many pinheads, they can't imagine someone from Alabama being as smart as Dixie, and it is embarrassing to them when Dixie hands them their ass in debate. It usually happens so fast they don't know what hit them, and when it does, it tends to piss them off a little, so they respond with name-calling and insults. Dixie is used to this, however, and it doesn't bother him in the least.
This thread is a good example of Dixie's debate skills, as you will notice, every point Ass tried to make, Dixie had a legitimate refutation for it. When the dust settled, he essentially had no basis in logic, science, or reasoning, for his position. Since he doesn't claim to believe in the miracles of God, that doesn't leave any options for his theory. He loses.
Now, Dixie has seen your posts, you don't have a whole lot to say about anything, just a little quip now and then, usually like a little "rah-rah" for some other pinhead who's losing a debate, so Dixie's guess is, you are probably a clone. Made for the purpose of trolling and bolstering support for the Great Liberal Cause. Dixie is used to this as well.
Dixie doesn't have a clone account, so he posted this in 'third person' form, to make it similar to the format you are now using.
Last edited:
Kamala Trump
Verified User
You were an idiot in this thread.
Go find your smartest post and I'll tear it apart again.
Basically you believe man learned morality from observing rituals, and that's cretinesque.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
You had me until the last sentence.
Those who use 'god, the great comforter' to provide their moral framework don't, as a rule, do so out of some elitist attitude but rather because it is easier, and man, like water, follows the route of least resistence.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
No, Dixie is actually very smart. This is why Dixie frustrates so many pinheads, they can't imagine someone from Alabama being as smart as Dixie, and it is embarrassing to them when Dixie hands them their ass in debate
Things must have changed since I have been away. Last time I was here you were struggling with the concept of base 10 maths...
Things must have changed since I have been away. Last time I was here you were struggling with the concept of base 10 maths...
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
Yes, but it requires initial FAITH! You can't begin to earn trust until you have FAITH in that trust. That is my point, and you seem to be missing it completely. You have not explained how mankind would have rationally determined morality would or could work, and in order to explain this, you must consider faith and trust.
You are mixing meanings Dixie. You are right, trust does require faith, but faith doesn't mean religious faith.
I have faith that the chair I am sitting in won't give way, but that faith has a different meaning to religious faith.
The faith I have in my chair is based on experiencing repeated and successful sittings. It might give way when I sit down, but I have faith because of my experience.
Religious faith is belief despite what may be experienced. For religious entities exist outside the realm of the material and thus cannot be experienced.
Which further demonstrates that religion is a human creation. If religious entities exist outside the material realm and cannot be experienced, where did the notion come from in the first place?
You are mixing meanings Dixie. You are right, trust does require faith, but faith doesn't mean religious faith.
I have faith that the chair I am sitting in won't give way, but that faith has a different meaning to religious faith.
The faith I have in my chair is based on experiencing repeated and successful sittings. It might give way when I sit down, but I have faith because of my experience.
Religious faith is belief despite what may be experienced. For religious entities exist outside the realm of the material and thus cannot be experienced.
Which further demonstrates that religion is a human creation. If religious entities exist outside the material realm and cannot be experienced, where did the notion come from in the first place?
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
Because that is not a definition of morality, if it were, wolfpacks and street gangs would be moral, and they clearly are not.
In who's opinion?
To a member of a street gang they are moral, and exercise a morality. Just because it doesn't correspond to yours doesn't make it a morality.
As for wolves, they don't have the cognitive powers to think of themselves as moral entities, as far as I am aware. But they have rules with in their packs, codes of conduct.
And what is a moral outlook if not a code of conduct?
This lame definition of what you think morality is, doesn't explain how morality came to be. There is no scientific basis or natural reasoning for an evolving animal to assume the characteristic without initial faith and trust.
Define morality for us Dixie. Humour us.
You can't prove it, you can't give me an example of it, because it is inherently impossible to do so.
Dixie, we went through science and the nature of proof years ago. Literally.
Science can only make predictions. It cannot prove. You can drop a ball a thousand times and it will follow the prediction of gravity, but you will never know what will happen on the 1001th time.
In order for man to have entered into a 'social contract' with other humans, it had to be preceded with faith and trust, otherwise, there is no rationale for such a contradiction to nature.
Have you tried to bring down a wooly mammoth by yourself?
There's a rationale.
BTW did you know that the word 'rationale' was first coined by the philosopher Jeremy Bentham? You do now!
On this, you are not the empirical authority, no matter how much hot air you spew.
This debate is only just warming up Dixie....
In who's opinion?
To a member of a street gang they are moral, and exercise a morality. Just because it doesn't correspond to yours doesn't make it a morality.
As for wolves, they don't have the cognitive powers to think of themselves as moral entities, as far as I am aware. But they have rules with in their packs, codes of conduct.
And what is a moral outlook if not a code of conduct?
This lame definition of what you think morality is, doesn't explain how morality came to be. There is no scientific basis or natural reasoning for an evolving animal to assume the characteristic without initial faith and trust.
Define morality for us Dixie. Humour us.
You can't prove it, you can't give me an example of it, because it is inherently impossible to do so.
Dixie, we went through science and the nature of proof years ago. Literally.
Science can only make predictions. It cannot prove. You can drop a ball a thousand times and it will follow the prediction of gravity, but you will never know what will happen on the 1001th time.
In order for man to have entered into a 'social contract' with other humans, it had to be preceded with faith and trust, otherwise, there is no rationale for such a contradiction to nature.
Have you tried to bring down a wooly mammoth by yourself?
There's a rationale.
BTW did you know that the word 'rationale' was first coined by the philosopher Jeremy Bentham? You do now!
On this, you are not the empirical authority, no matter how much hot air you spew.
This debate is only just warming up Dixie....
Socrtease
Verified User
Ok so let me get this straight:
This:
Is the same as this?
And if a woman aborts the first one, it is the same as if she placed a gun to the head of the second and pulled the trigger?
All because on an incredibly small level both of those have the same genetic structure? Does that first picture feel? I mean anything? Pain joy happiness fear hunger cold wet ANYTHING?
A person who is BRAINDEAD is also genetically a person and if their heart beats and their lungs breathe they are mechanistically alive. But they also feel nothing, no fear, no pain no hunger cold NOTHING. It is why we let hospitals pull the plugs on the brain dead, much to the dismay of you prolifers that think that a breathing woman with a brain that has shrunken and whose optic nerves withered away in her head but you said she could still smile and see and react to people in the room because you knew SHIT about medicine.
At some point, number one developes enough to be equated with number two on a living basis. But just as a brain dead 60 year old is NOT the same as a functioning 60 year old NEITHER is the 2 day old blastocyst equal to the child in picture number two.
This:
Is the same as this?
And if a woman aborts the first one, it is the same as if she placed a gun to the head of the second and pulled the trigger?
All because on an incredibly small level both of those have the same genetic structure? Does that first picture feel? I mean anything? Pain joy happiness fear hunger cold wet ANYTHING?
A person who is BRAINDEAD is also genetically a person and if their heart beats and their lungs breathe they are mechanistically alive. But they also feel nothing, no fear, no pain no hunger cold NOTHING. It is why we let hospitals pull the plugs on the brain dead, much to the dismay of you prolifers that think that a breathing woman with a brain that has shrunken and whose optic nerves withered away in her head but you said she could still smile and see and react to people in the room because you knew SHIT about medicine.
At some point, number one developes enough to be equated with number two on a living basis. But just as a brain dead 60 year old is NOT the same as a functioning 60 year old NEITHER is the 2 day old blastocyst equal to the child in picture number two.
Kamala Trump
Verified User
Nope. It's an elitist attitude. People can understand rationally a morality based on mutual benefit, but the lopsided power structure the theocrats desire cannot be explained convincingly using the same terms, so they prefer irrationality, Ie. God said so.
Socrtease
Verified User
If god said so I want to see it in writing IN his handwriting and a handwriting expert there to verify it. For too long theologians have told the world what is and is not gods word. They told us all that the earth was at the center of the universe, during the plague they told us it was a punishment from god and ONLY prayer would make it go away. Theologians have been wrong about so many earthly things that it boggles the mind. If you want me to believe that god said it then show me where the burning bush is and have him tell me himself.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
Nope. It's an elitist attitude. People can understand rationally a morality based on mutual benefit, but the lopsided power structure the theocrats desire cannot be explained convincingly using the same terms, so they prefer irrationality, Ie. God said so.
Take the Christians, as we know them well.
They recruit amongst the weak and the vunerable, those who have lost their way. They offer 'god', the great father figure in the sky, to provide structure and comforting guidance, in often appears to be, though actually isn't, a chaotic existence.
The morality of the Christians is based on weakness and incapability to define their own moral code.
That they wish to impose their morality upon people with other moral codes is again based on weakness, fear. Fear that if there exists other moral codes, or the ability to create our own moral codes, then the infallability of their own fixed code will be shown, and they will return to being weak, drifting.
Religions are based not on strength, but on fear and ignorance.
Take the Christians, as we know them well.
They recruit amongst the weak and the vunerable, those who have lost their way. They offer 'god', the great father figure in the sky, to provide structure and comforting guidance, in often appears to be, though actually isn't, a chaotic existence.
The morality of the Christians is based on weakness and incapability to define their own moral code.
That they wish to impose their morality upon people with other moral codes is again based on weakness, fear. Fear that if there exists other moral codes, or the ability to create our own moral codes, then the infallability of their own fixed code will be shown, and they will return to being weak, drifting.
Religions are based not on strength, but on fear and ignorance.
Socrtease
Verified User
Wow, I am going to ask to sit next to you in hell. Find a place with lots of empty chairs cause I got friends coming. I hear that if you are Lucky you end up with Ghandi as your tour guide. It'll be fun. There will be so many people we know there that we will spend so much time catching up and shaking hands we will NEVER remember we are in hell.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
'God' is actually two characters.
God, the great comforter and the god of the gaps.
God, the great comforter provides structure and a sense of inner peace by giving guiding morals and a sense that the great fear, death, is not so final.
The god of the gaps is used to explain that that we don't fully understand. We would attribute phenomenon to them, in ancient Greece Zeus brought storms. We now know that isn't true.
As our understanding of the universe has improved, the god of the gaps has eroded to nearly nothing. Darwin took out the last chunks. Now god is barely used to explain anything. There is some wishy-washy idea that god may have started evolution but that is it.
If only man would wake up, overcome the nihilistic reality of existence, come to terms with it and recognise our own moral codes, the god, the great comforter would vanish too, and man would emerge from its childhood.
Kamala Trump
Verified User
Ok. I don't think we really disagree much.
But cultivating fear and ignorance is a power play designed to consolidate strength, just to throw that interaction in there.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
Hell is for people who like doing the things they do in heaven, sitting on clouds, playing harps and talking to god.... The Simpons
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
Ok. I don't think we really disagree much.
But cultivating fear and ignorance is a power play designed to consolidate strength, just to throw that interaction in there.
Yeah, corrupt men can corrupt a moral code that is born from weakness and ignorance to turn it into an awful power, the power of the masses.
It is demagoguery of the worst order, telling those who are weak and ignorant what they want to hear in order to control their massed numbers.
But a few men don't define a religion. To the average religious person gaining power is far from their minds. They simply want straight lines to live by and an easy satisfying explanation to existence...
But cultivating fear and ignorance is a power play designed to consolidate strength, just to throw that interaction in there.
Yeah, corrupt men can corrupt a moral code that is born from weakness and ignorance to turn it into an awful power, the power of the masses.
It is demagoguery of the worst order, telling those who are weak and ignorant what they want to hear in order to control their massed numbers.
But a few men don't define a religion. To the average religious person gaining power is far from their minds. They simply want straight lines to live by and an easy satisfying explanation to existence...
Kamala Trump
Verified User
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
Masses aren't automatically immoral.
Ha ha ha, ok deep philosophy time....
Masses as an entity are neither moral nor immoral. They are amoral, they simply exist. The morality of the masses is only defined by the observer, who must be judge....
Ha ha ha, ok deep philosophy time....
Masses as an entity are neither moral nor immoral. They are amoral, they simply exist. The morality of the masses is only defined by the observer, who must be judge....
Kamala Trump
Verified User
Masses aren't automatically immoral.
Ha ha ha, ok deep philosophy time....
Masses as an entity are neither moral nor immoral. They are amoral, they simply exist. The morality of the masses is only defined by the observer, who must be judge....
Well you know I do not believe in moral relativity. I believe morality is behavior which facilitates cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships. And when someone does not give you this consideration, you do not owe it back to them. The deals off. So for me to judge the overall moral content of an action undertaken by a mass, I would need to know the political runup to the event.