- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: NSIAP: Bill Nye's Degenerate "My Sex Junk" children's singalong (NSFW)
Posted on 4/29/17 at 6:57 am to DisplacedBuckeye
Posted on 4/29/17 at 6:57 am to DisplacedBuckeye
With no moral compass like the 10 commandments, isn't it possible for ones moral code to include that random murder is just fine?
Posted on 4/29/17 at 6:59 am to roadGator
Sure, but it's possible it could include killing with them.
It's also possible to not include killing without them.
It's also possible to not include killing without them.
Posted on 4/29/17 at 7:00 am to Scruffy
quote:
That is the face of the progressives' anti-science wing.
Realityphobes
Posted on 4/29/17 at 7:21 am to cokebottleag
WTF did I just watch???
Posted on 4/29/17 at 8:19 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:I thought you harped on cherry-picking in an earlier post. There's a reason why I said more than "yes and no", because I wanted to explain my answer rather than having my answer explained to me. You might be satisfied without explaining nuance but there is a lot of nuance to life and a lot of it needs explanation in order to have clarity of understanding.
This is the only part that matters to my point. It's why you do it. It's why you all do it.
I don't care what people think about me. I do care that the message of the cross is proclaimed. That's why I had to clarify my answer, but you found a way to ignore it anyway and interpret it how you wanted to.
quote:Incredible. So, in a public discussion forum where people are encouraged to participate in discourse, you don't want a poster to make points about their worldview (like everyone else does) because you don't want to debate the finer points of said worldview and its relevance to life and practice? Everyone else is essentially doing the same thing when they post, they just aren't getting into the nitty-gritty of their underlying assumptions that cause them to make their comments.
That isn't what I said. I don't care about your beliefs and I won't have a debate with you about them. I'm also not going to let you drive the discussion in that direction. It isn't your fault. I realize your beliefs don't allow you to refrain from that. I just don't feel the need to participate
Instead of ignoring me completely, you respond with cryptic, short answers which aren't really answers and then go on to say it's because you don't want me to drive the discussion. What? Is that how intellectual discussions are supposed to work? I'd have more respect for someone ignoring me completely than playing that game (not that you care). Regardless. I will continue on because if anyone else reads these responses, I'd like for them to see that someone who holds to my worldview is perfectly capable of advancing their belief system in a rational way and that I'm more than happy to attempt an answer for charge you have, as that's how discussion is supposed to work.
quote:I seem to have hit a nerve, yet instead of shooting back a cogent rebuttal, you simply state that you don't like what I'm saying. Where is your defense? That's what I've been harping on as you say I'm wrong and then leave it at that. If you didn't care, you would ignore it like you've ignored the vast majority of what I've written. You seem to care enough to respond but you don't care enough to really respond; to give a cogent defense of why you are right and why I am wrong. It's why I said it's "strange". You care but you don't care.
It's a great place to be. I'm completely fine with you believing what you want to believe, right up to the point where you claim that those beliefs give you objective morality that only your religion is capable of providing
quote:You have a strange (there it is again) way of expressing your non-participation by continue to participate, just without anything substantive to say. I'm not seeking any validity from you. I'm trying to have a discussion.
That's how not participating works. I won't give you the validity you seek.
quote:My arguments weren't rebutted then, either, if I recall correctly. You continue participation in a discussion without really discussing anything. It's difficult to make progress that way.
Indeed, and it went nowhere last time
quote:If God exists, He does so whether you or I believe He does or not. That's what objectivity means: you don't have to believe it in order for it to be valid.
Christianity only offers this in conjunction with faith. That alone removes objectivity from your views. It's dishonest to continue to make this claim.
The argument I've been trying to make is this: you have a view on morality and I have a view on morality. If you are right, then there cannot be an objective moral standard. If I am right, then there is an objective moral standard.
If I'm wrong and there is no God, then no matter what else anyone believes, morality would be completely subjective and there would be no basis to judge one standard as better or worse than another except through the concept of "might makes right", which is what I said previously and to which you took exception. So as I see it, you have no rational basis for saying I (or anyone else, for that matter) is objectively wrong.
Posted on 4/29/17 at 9:06 am to FooManChoo
quote:
I thought you harped on cherry-picking in an earlier post.
Cherry-picking data.
quote:
make points about their worldview
Make all the points you like. I don't need to address them.
I simply have no interest in convincing you away from your beliefs. It's weird that this bothers you.
quote:
Is that how intellectual discussions are supposed to work?
Once again and as many times as necessary, I have zero interest in discussing your beliefs. We both know there is nothing I can say to change those beliefs and I'll not waste my time.
quote:
I seem to have hit a nerve
This is the least accurate thing you've posted so far.
quote:
you simply state that you don't like what I'm saying
Nah. I'm indifferent.
quote:
non-participation
Where did I say I wouldn't participate in the discussion?
(I didn't)
quote:
If God exists, He does so whether you or I believe He does or not. That's what objectivity means: you don't have to believe it in order for it to be valid.
The existence of a god is separate from the morality of Christianity. If Christianity is given any seriousness, it's entirely possible that a god or gods exist that have nothing to do with your particular religion. It wouldn't even need to be a god.
quote:
If I'm wrong and there is no God, then no matter what else anyone believes, morality would be completely subjective and there would be no basis to judge one standard as better or worse
Incorrect. There are numerous possibilities that don't involve your chosen god.
Posted on 4/29/17 at 10:38 am to LSUTigersVCURams
quote:
This is very good. The more degenerate the institutions of the republic become, the more clear the pathway for Caesar shall be.
Indeed. I also agree that the degenerate contempt that Democrats have for the way things are supposed to work are going to lead to the demise of the US Republic and the rise of a Dictatorship. However, that Dictatorship will probably be a Leftist/Democrat/Globalist dictatorship.
This process could take AT LEAST one-hundred years, IMHO, so it will be gradual.
Posted on 4/29/17 at 2:10 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
"Incorrect. There are numerous possibilities that don't involve your chosen god."
Such as?
Posted on 5/1/17 at 11:42 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:What data were you referring to when you previously said "Only if you believe in the mythology. Cherry-picking, or worse, using religion for control of other people is far worse than anything atheism has ever or will ever do." Your statement was in response to this quotation of mine, "It does, because it recognizes a singular law-giver that is above humanity that will hold all people accountable to it."
Cherry-picking data.
quote:Isn't that the point of a back-and-forth discussion like this one? Point and counter-point? If you don't want to do that then what is your goal in responding?
Make all the points you like. I don't need to address them.
quote:It doesn't bother me, it's just strange that you continue to say you don't care while going out of your way to respond. Seems to be contradictory. I'm actually not concerned with changing your mind, either. If it happens then great, but I'm more concerned with others reading this exchange and hoping to provide some insight into my beliefs and how they can be used to rationally address what is wrong with society as well as show the folly of irrational worldviews that they might hold to, themselves.
I simply have no interest in convincing you away from your beliefs. It's weird that this bothers you.
quote:As I've said before, it appears to be contradictory to say you don't care about discussing my beliefs and that it is a waste of time while taking the time to respond to me and say over and over that you don't care what I believe. At the very least I would think you would want to show others how seriously wrong I am.
Once again and as many times as necessary, I have zero interest in discussing your beliefs. We both know there is nothing I can say to change those beliefs and I'll not waste my time.
quote:You seem to be bothered by my "claim that [my] beliefs give [me] objective morality that only [my] religion is capable of providing" to the point of needing to continue to respond to it even though you aren't offering any specific rebuttal other than to say I'm wrong. If my truth claims aren't hitting a nerve, then good, but your reaction would suggest otherwise.
This is the least accurate thing you've posted so far.
quote:You claim indifference yet you are making quite the effort to say that I'm wrong. That doesn't compute unless you are being contrarian for the sake of contrarianism and you have to have the last word regardless of how you personally feel about an issue. You also stated previously (I just quoted it in the previous section) that you are fine with what I believe up until the point of my claim of exclusive moral objectivity. That doesn't sound like indifference.
Nah. I'm indifferent.
quote:I said that you aren't offering any response and you said "That's how not participating works." If you didn't mean non-participation from that statement, you have a strange way of expressing it. Maybe you'd like to clarify what you meant?
Where did I say I wouldn't participate in the discussion?
(I didn't)
quote:The morality as provided in Christianity is directly tied to the God of Christianity which has certain attributes, such as immutability, omnipotence, and moral purity or purity in character. The morality of the religion reflects the God of the religion.
The existence of a god is separate from the morality of Christianity. If Christianity is given any seriousness, it's entirely possible that a god or gods exist that have nothing to do with your particular religion. It wouldn't even need to be a god.
An objective moral code would require a god to exist that not only creates a moral law/code but upholds and enforces it, otherwise such a moral code might technically be objective from a human perspective but it doesn't matter if it's obeyed since there is no repercussions for not doing so and talking about one would then be meaningless.
A god or sentient being would be needed in order to create and enforce a moral law. Some sort of force couldn't do it as it would require sentience of some kind or another as a prerequisite.
quote:What other possibilities are you referring to that would allow for an objective moral standard that people should live by?
Incorrect. There are numerous possibilities that don't involve your chosen god.
Posted on 5/1/17 at 12:17 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
I don't when I don't care if you agree with me or not. I could write you a novel, and you won't change your mind.
If you really wanted people to believe that you would actually say something substantive if you thought it would sway people's opinion, you'd acknowledge (at least to yourself) that the person to whom you're responding isn't the only person reading your posts.
A spectator can only assume that the extent of your ideas and thought processes do not go beyond simply saying "you're wrong."
I know you don't care, fwiw.
Posted on 5/1/17 at 12:59 pm to cokebottleag
I watched the episode and for the life of me I cant figure out how you can have science show on sex/gender and not mention reproduction once
my quote on the show from M/TV board;
the show is just BAD!!! It was the least scientific science show I have ever seen. It is a poor attempt to copy Penn & Teller: bullshite (which is awesome)
I actually enjoy seeing opposing views, it makes you think. But this is just some "famous" guy yelling at you and using modern day actors/comedians to try and influence you to a political point of view.
If I want to watch a science show ill just rewatch the Neil deGrasse Tyson show
my quote on the show from M/TV board;
the show is just BAD!!! It was the least scientific science show I have ever seen. It is a poor attempt to copy Penn & Teller: bullshite (which is awesome)
I actually enjoy seeing opposing views, it makes you think. But this is just some "famous" guy yelling at you and using modern day actors/comedians to try and influence you to a political point of view.
If I want to watch a science show ill just rewatch the Neil deGrasse Tyson show
Posted on 5/1/17 at 1:10 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
you are making quite the effort
You think so?
Responding to you takes little time, and I will not get into your beliefs. I'm happy to discuss anything you like, so long as you don't rely on your beliefs or your chosen mythology to make your points. Refrain from that, and we can move forward.
Posted on 5/1/17 at 2:26 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:Reading my posts, selecting out choice words and phrases, and crafting a response does take some effort, and you are doing it time and time again, all to say that you don't care. Yeah, it might not be a huge time waste to you but you are taking some time and putting forth some effort to offer nothing constructive to the discussion. Even those things which you take issue to you aren't offering any substantive response or rebuttal. So again, what do you hope to accomplish by continuing to respond without offering a response?
You think so?
Responding to you takes little time, and I will not get into your beliefs.
quote:That's quite the condition you are putting on me. I reject that condition as I don't require you to change your beliefs or worldview in order for me to interact with you.
I'm happy to discuss anything you like, so long as you don't rely on your beliefs or your chosen mythology to make your points. Refrain from that, and we can move forward.
Every person has a worldview that shapes how they see things and interpret their experiences and the information they process. There are certain presuppositions that go into worldviews, such as the reliability of our senses, the universal consistency of the laws of logic, etc. One of those fundamental assumptions is whether or not there is a higher power that has created or influenced the universe (including humans) and our responsibility (or lack thereof) to it.
A person who believes in the supernatural, the immaterial, and a deity or higher power is going to look at the world, natural laws, morality, and human interaction differently than a person who believes in the natural only, the material only, and no deity's or higher power's existence. What you are essentially doing is asking me to discard my worldview and accept your own in order for you to have a discussion. I cannot do that and I wouldn't ask you to discard your own worldview in order to have a discussion with me. What I am seeking to do is show you (and others) how your worldview is inconsistent and irrational while mine is consistent and rational. If you want to condescend to me and have that discussion, I'm all for it.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News