Atheism and religious hate

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm not saying the definitions are true. I'm saying that good and evil are bywords for "desirable" and "undesirable."

I have a firm foundation to claim whether or not I find behaviour desirable or undesirable.

So, the meanings are made up, or synonyms for other words, where we reach the exact same start we began at.

You are making an unfounded claim, that this is what the definitions mean.

No, i'm making the claim that I find certain behaviour desirable and other behaviour not desirable.
Based on what I desire.
My foundation for this claim is that I desire it.
I desire it, therefore it is desirable.

[Vazeckta]

As an American, in the United States I cannot see a "secular crusade" as you put it happening in my lifetime. Secularism is growing, yes, but I haven't met many militant atheists. I believe that so long as theists refrain from attacking "anti-theists", then there shouldn't be an issue. Does the prospect worry me? Perhaps, for the sake of any theistic descendants I have. It doesn't plague my every thought, because as I said, I cannot imagine it happening in my lifetime.

[Ostroeuropa]

Why the fuck do you think they are called values.
Because we value them.
We find them desirable.
THATS THE POINT.

Desirable = Good

Why should we find them desireable?

Rational self interest, humanism, etc.
Theres a bunch of different philosophies.
Pick whichever you like. Mine is in my sig.

[New Sapienta]

So, the meanings are made up, or synonyms for other words, where we reach the exact same start we began at.

You are making an unfounded claim, that this is what the definitions mean.

No, i'm making the claim that I find certain behaviour desirable and other behaviour not desirable.
Based on what I desire.
My foundation for this claim is that I desire it.
I desire it, therefore it is desirable.

And why do you find it desirable?

We both know this is going to lead to an unfounded claim at some point.

[The Emerald Dawn]

And GDP growth has no connection to religion.

Yes, that's the hilarious thing. Even if irreligious countries were in the shit economically, you'd still have to prove a link between the two.

And right now we're having a hard time proving that being irreligious doesn't actually IMPROVE your economy for some reason.

[Grimlundt]

LOL
ostoeuropa
YOU said that ethics was based in BIOLOGY
LOL
Now you backtrack and formulate a circular argument

Values vary from culture to culture

[Ostroeuropa]

No, i'm making the claim that I find certain behaviour desirable and other behaviour not desirable.
Based on what I desire.
My foundation for this claim is that I desire it.
I desire it, therefore it is desirable.

And why do you find it desirable?

We both know this is going to lead to an unfounded claim at some point.

The sig explains it.

[Norsklow]

Human Rights are founded in VALUES, deontologically forumated.
There is NO evidentiary basis to these values.
Quite the opposite!
But HUman rights are a wonderful, wonderful invention

I disagree with the concept - there is a lack of making them interdependent with a human duty.
Not on another, but on the 'self' enjoying the right.

[New Sapienta]

Why should we find them desireable?

Rational self interest, humanism, etc.
Theres a bunch of different philosophies.
Pick whichever you like.

All of those assume their is an obejective morality, which there is not.

The only philiosphy obejectivaly correct is Nihlism(which I don't subscribe to)

[Socialist Monarchies]

Anti-Theists are hypocrites, they say religion is so bad yet espouse solutions that are exactly the same as the things they preach against. They aren't upset that people believe in God, they're upset that not everyone doesn't think the same as them. They're no different than the radical muslims/christians they base their claims on, people that others of the same faith have denounced. Religion has nothing to do with how good or bad you are (usually), it's all you and I hate to see people using it as a crutch from which to spout their hateful, ignorant views (that goes for theists and atheists alike).

[Ostroeuropa]

LOL
ostoeuropa
YOU said that ethics was based in BIOLOGY
LOL
Now you backtrack and formulate a circular argument

Values vary from culture to culture

It is.
A species wouldn't last very long unless it had coded into it's DNA a revulsion to killing other members of it's family, and expanding on that, the species.
Theft is an expansion of this basic non-competition concept.

It isn't circular, it's definitive.
If I desire something, it is desirable. That's the definition of desirable.
I know I desire things because i'm the one desiring them. Learn how words work, and try not to use caps in LOL, it makes you look stupid.

[New Sapienta]

And why do you find it desirable?

We both know this is going to lead to an unfounded claim at some point.

The sig explains it.

Where?

I oin't want to transltae that long title.

[Ostroeuropa]

Rational self interest, humanism, etc.
Theres a bunch of different philosophies.
Pick whichever you like.

All of those assume their is an obejective morality, which there is not.

The only philiosphy obejectivaly correct is Nihlism(which I don't subscribe to)

The sig is pretty objective I assure you.
Well if you don't want to translate it thats your problem. I've given you the information.

[Grimlundt]

LOL
Evolution does not care about the *species*
That's a fallacy

[Ostroeuropa]

LOL
Evolution does not care about the *species*
That's a fallacy

This shows an ignorance bordering on creationism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyd6om8I ... re=related

[Mavorpen]

LOL
ostoeuropa
YOU said that ethics was based in BIOLOGY
LOL
Now you backtrack and formulate a circular argument

Values vary from culture to culture

If evolution DOES influence morality, then naturally morality and ethics would value from culture to culture.

[Grimlundt]

So if I kill you and steal your daughters, that's good morality (I spread my genes)?

And if so, why do chimps kill other male chimps but let the women live?

[New Sapienta]

LOL
Evolution does not care about the *species*
That's a fallacy

This shows an ignorance bordering on creationism.

He has some truth.

Evolution does not think, it sin't alive. So it can't try to do something.

Evolution is simply there.

[Grimlundt]

YOU call me ignorant?
LOL
YOU ought to read The Selfish Gene
Your understanding of evolution is fallacious

[Mavorpen]

YOU call me ignorant?
LOL
YOU ought to read The Selfish Gene
Your understanding of evolution is fallacious

And?

[Grimlundt]

Evolution is my genes in competition with yours

When a sick lamb gets eaten, this for the good of the species
It's just competition

[Norsklow]

LOL
ostoeuropa
YOU said that ethics was based in BIOLOGY
LOL
Now you backtrack and formulate a circular argument

Values vary from culture to culture

If evolution DOES influence morality, then naturally morality and ethics would value from culture to culture.

value = vary?

[New Sapienta]

Evolution is my genes in competition with yours

When a sick lamb gets eaten, this for the good of the species
It's just competition

That's natural selection.

Not Evolution.

[Mavorpen]

If evolution DOES influence morality, then naturally morality and ethics would value from culture to culture.

value = vary?

Yeah...

[Ostroeuropa]

This shows an ignorance bordering on creationism.

He has some truth.

Evolution does not think, it sin't alive. So it can't try to do something.

Evolution is simply there.

As explained, a gene which persuaded animal A not to butcher it's offspring would IMMEDIATELY make it more competative. (this gene is practically mandatory.)

A gene which likewise prevents the offspring from trying to murder the parent allows that parent to continue to spread that gene.

A gene which likewise prevents siblings murdering eachother will mean that suddenly a LOT of siblings can co-exist.

And as an afterthought from this, misfires occur. "Notsureifsibling" etc.
And from that, a general "Don't kill other members of species" emerges.