I know numerous athiests whose morals appear far superior and more consistent compared to how I've observed some people talk and act with religious-based morals.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
You can tell a man from what he has to say - Neil & Tim Finn
They love you so badly for sharing their sorrow, so pick up that guitar and go break a heart - Kris Kristofferson
Actually, this is one of the better and more moral professors I've ever had. The reason why he didn't want to explain it was because he thought he might get confused.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane.
EVERYONE has their own set of morals and values regardless of what society they live in, their culture, and their religion or their lack there of. People who are religious would probably have a different moral outlook on issues such as gay marriage, abortion, drugs, and anything else that their particular religion deams "right or wrong" than an athiest who bases their morals off their own personal logic. Religious people also have logic, though, although they believe that logic can be defied by a higher power. A person that bases their whole opinion off logic will never win an argument with someone who believes logic can be defied by a higher power, and vise versa. Unethnical would be a religious person trying to logically debate the existance vs. non-existance of a higher power just as it would be unethnical for an athiest to pray for an answer to a debate. It is pointless for people believing in a higher power to argue with an athiest because there will always be that 1 major informal fallacy with that 1 seperate truth in the minds of both parties........
EVERYONE has their own set of morals and values regardless of what society they live in, their culture, and their religion or their lack there of. People who are religious would probably have a different moral outlook on issues such as gay marriage, abortion, drugs, and anything else that their particular religion deams "right or wrong" than an athiest who bases their morals off their own personal logic. Religious people also have logic, though, although they believe that logic can be defied by a higher power. A person that bases their whole opinion off logic will never win an argument with someone who believes logic can be defied by a higher power, and vise versa. Unethnical would be a religious person trying to logically debate the existance vs. non-existance of a higher power just as it would be unethnical for an athiest to pray for an answer to a debate. It is pointless for people believing in a higher power to argue with an athiest because there will always be that 1 major informal fallacy with that 1 seperate truth in the minds of both parties........
i like your first sentence. also.. not all atheist are the same...like any other ''group''.
Your analogy is a bit off I'm afraid! I mean, are you equating “wings” with “god” somehow? What is the connection? Wings are not something a penguin has to believe in, its just there, physically, whether they use it or not. Can’t say the same about God though can you? There is no proof that he/she/it even exists, physically or otherwise!
The question was whether we needed to have God in order to have morals. A penguin does not need to have functional wings in order to be a bird. Would it be an advantage to the penguin if it could fly? Its survived pretty well without the need to. And so too half of the world's human population, without God. The question was not whether one can prove God exists, but whether, even if he DID exist, we would need him in order to be moralistic. And the answer is no.
Anyway, I don't believe in bird wings.
'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'
hey harmless.... what about the atheists who do belive in god...lol..
Woe betide them. They are all going to HELL for not adhering to their own inherent moral code!
'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'
you answered your own question, no true answer will come from it...
unethical..
like trying to get everyone in the world to believe in God
There's nothing unethical about stating your position on anything and attempting to back it up with facts. Who knows, maybe some day a true answer WILL come of it.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
There's nothing unethical about stating your position on anything and attempting to back it up with facts. Who knows, maybe some day a true answer WILL come of it.
im not arguing with you, because i believe i have before.. and you have a hard time understanding the difference between fact and opinion
Why is that unethical? Religious people debate the existance of a higher power all the time?
Because a person that believes logic can be defied by a higher power has no legitimate reason to try and prove the existance of the higher power using a logical debate. It would end up in a conflict of beliefs. In the Christian religion, it would be blasphemous to even accept the possibility that God does not exist.............and what is the point in debating the existance of god if you are not willing to accept the possibility that God does not exist?
it is unethical to get everyone in the whole world to BELIVE IN YOUR GOD!
It's not unethical to discuss your beliefs and to stand behind them, however. If I am able to persuade you to my side of a "debate" that's because you decide to agree, not because I "forced" you in any way. To imply otherwise is ascribe wayyy too much power to some people and wayy too little to others. To imagine such a power imbalance is to not recognize the equality of people.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Comments
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Those teachers nowadays. No morals anymore...
They love you so badly for sharing their sorrow, so pick up that guitar and go break a heart - Kris Kristofferson
Actually, this is one of the better and more moral professors I've ever had. The reason why he didn't want to explain it was because he thought he might get confused.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Kantian_Philosophy_%28Schopenhauer%29
your insane. come back to reality.
i like your first sentence. also.. not all atheist are the same...like any other ''group''.
Unless you need to hit a curveball...
-- Willy Wonka
The question was whether we needed to have God in order to have morals. A penguin does not need to have functional wings in order to be a bird. Would it be an advantage to the penguin if it could fly? Its survived pretty well without the need to. And so too half of the world's human population, without God. The question was not whether one can prove God exists, but whether, even if he DID exist, we would need him in order to be moralistic. And the answer is no.
Anyway, I don't believe in bird wings.
- the great Sir Leo Harrison
Woe betide them. They are all going to HELL for not adhering to their own inherent moral code!
- the great Sir Leo Harrison
hell is underated
Why is that unethical? Religious people debate the existance of a higher power all the time?
you answered your own question, no true answer will come from it...
unethical..
like trying to get everyone in the world to believe in God
Are you saying for someone to believe in and stand behind their beliefs, in discussion and debate, is unethical?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
im not arguing with you, because i believe i have before.. and you have a hard time understanding the difference between fact and opinion
what im saying is listed at the bottom of what i said
lol?
please do not analyze straight thought
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
it is unethical to get everyone in the whole world to BELIVE IN YOUR GOD!
I dislike proselytizers as much as anyone, but I wouldn't say they're unethical ... just annoying as hell.
p.s. What did we argue about? I thought that I usually agreed with you ... maybe I'm confusing you with someone else.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
maybe it wasnt you
people say they belive just like people say they are republicans...
anyone can say anything..