SA's Morality debate....

<< < (10/14) > >>

Peter Grant (June 24, 2010, 18:01:08 PM):
Naturalism with no ultimate responsibility and free will?

Directing blame never solves anything and free will would make it pointless to even try.
Err, I think you quoted the wrong person... were you ultimately responsible for this mistake :D?

See, there you go attributing blame to distract attention from your lack of any real response.
Teleological (June 24, 2010, 18:28:12 PM):
Naturalism with no ultimate responsibility and free will?

Directing blame never solves anything and free will would make it pointless to even try.
Err, I think you quoted the wrong person... were you ultimately responsible for this mistake :D?

See, there you go attributing blame to distract attention from your lack of any real response.
Goodness me, hope you are not blaming me for the little fun I am having with naturalists and responsibility :o :D... Can I blame you if you have any real responses >:D?
Peter Grant (June 24, 2010, 21:07:58 PM):
Naturalism with no ultimate responsibility and free will?

Directing blame never solves anything and free will would make it pointless to even try.
Err, I think you quoted the wrong person... were you ultimately responsible for this mistake :D?

See, there you go attributing blame to distract attention from your lack of any real response.
Goodness me, hope you are not blaming me for the little fun I am having with naturalists and responsibility :o :D... Can I blame you if you have any real responses >:D?

No, and if it makes you happy. Does it make any difference who is ultimately responsible? Who is closest to the cause? - now that is a more useful question as it will help us find a solution more quickly. Fix the problem and move on.

Also, if we really had free will operant conditioning wouldn't work at all and blaming someone would be even more pointless.
Mefiante (June 24, 2010, 23:57:49 PM):
Atheism on the other hand cannot be blamed for anything, nothing good, noting bad, just a negative proposition towards the belief in God(s).
I dunno, hey. There’s lots of religious freaks who blame Hitler and Stalin and Mao on atheism. They seem to harbour a special love of conflating atheism with because-I-say-so zealotry, and it’s ironic that they fail to see the very obvious parallels between assorted fanatically-held ideologies and religion.



Arguments from ignorance…
Yes, indeed. Nice diversionary pseudo-answer to the actual question that was asked – sort of like citing Michael Behe when asking for evidence supporting ID. Well done, sterling job. Pity for you nobody’s buying it. Still, the sheer range of moral topics your list hints at on which various religions and followers of the same religion have disputes about makes the very telling point that religious input is at the very least irrelevant, and more usually deleterious, to a decent moral code.

So, the real question that demands an answer then is what will religious institutions bring to the table, seeing as they’ve invited themselves to it.

Which reminds me of another thing atheists won’t be bringing to that table: “–ceit” in the flavours of “con–” and “de–”.

'Luthon64
Mefiante (June 26, 2010, 11:49:06 AM):
How very apt (#1 of ?):


How very apt (#2 of ?):


And not just apt in this thread only.

'Luthon64

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page