Kagan admits that : "he is at a loss to explain morality". Kagan talks alot but of you listen to what he says, he offers no foundation at all. Kagan is a utilitarian and offers nothing after that theory.
@Kai84719 Since you say you listened carefully, can you provide the exact time where Kagan says verbatim "he is at a loss to explain morality" of himself? Or is it accurate to say you are actually lying?
Kagan does say he is at a loss to explain what is special about human's most highly refined capabilities (like calculus, poetry, orchestral music, fine art, etc.) if you don't already accept that those things are special. Is that what you are finding so difficult to grasp?
@mavaddat As I said already but I will help you again. If one watches and listens carefully to Kagan, he admits over and over that he has no sufficient grounding for his claims of morality. Kagan is a utilitarian, read his works, he is upfront about that and then read up on the many problems with this type of morality.
@Kai84719 Actually, he says exactly the opposite: He claims that morality does have a sufficient grounding in the pains and pleasures of sentient beings (including human beings).
Since you cannot even do something so basic as to support your own claim that Dr. Shelly Kagan claims verbatim, "he is at a loss to explain morality" speaking of himself in the third person, I will assume you are simply lying for Jesus.
Lol Kagan is a great speaker & basically the ''underground'' Peter Singer in philosophy.
I wonder if he is vegetarian or vegan, his shoes are vegan & i don't see any leather belts. He certanly talks like he is....least in the context of the question posed.
WLC really did meet his match in this debate. Bill needs to focus on debating misinformed new atheists and needs to stay away from Philosophers, particularly those well versed in ethicas and moral philosophy.
Finally. Kagan has been saying so many of the thing I, a layman with a small fraction of Kagan's intellect, have been saying to so many who repeat Craig's arguments. He catches Craig trying to move the goal post and calls him on it, all while remaining calm and eloquent.
@danplyler William Lane Craig did not have any more responses on this specific topic, but he did ask his own questions and give responses to other questions. I did edit those out, because they were not on this topic. The original video is linked in the beginning, but I think that's been removed. Just search YouTube for "Shelly Kagan and William Lane Craig". You'll find the whole debate.
@TheMortalhuman Oh, but they dont crumble. Sorry to break it to you, buddy, but Kagan's arguments have been torn apart by Craig and other philosophers in print many times, but this wasnt a real debate (Craig was ordered not to use his usual knock-down debate style by the Veritas Forum).
Kagan is an extremist consequentialist who thinks morality doesnt exist, (since any evil can be justified for ultimate wellbeing of the race or species) Mills social contract theory has also been demolished
@relarerfhjk So Craig had to use reasoned argument? No wonder his performance was unimpressive. Curse the Veritas forum. At least they gave Craig an excuse for losing.
@TheMortalhuman Craig wins every debate he engages in,which is why atheists resort to bringing up this armchair chat as their only example of an occasion when Craig didn't demolish his opponent, because that is all you guys have.Talk about desperate.
Craig has shredded Kagan's ideas in print,but he was told to back off from his usual knock-down style here.
You didnt know Mills old social contract theory (which is all Kagan was proposing here) has been ripped apart by most moral philosophers?
@TheMortalhuman And secondly, Craig always uses reasoned argument, which is why he has had well over 200 academic pieces on his cosmological, and moral arguments (and his contributions to philosophy of time) published in peer-reviewed journals of philosophy, and has been praised as an excellent academic by leading atheist philosophers such as Quentin Smith. You dont know what your talkiing about
@relarerfhjk Can you refer me to any articles that Craig has written about morality that have been published in ethics journals (not theological journals or journals in religious studies)? Even one?
@mavaddat Is that right? Is it true that he has not been published in any non-religious ethics journals? Are the "peers" that "reviewed" his writing just fellow christian believers? I hope for relarefhjk that at least a couple of the 200 academic pieces he mentioned have been published in real ethics journals. I'm happy to learn that this is not true, but I would not be surprised if it is.
@TheMortalhuman My own investigation into his CV (publications) suggests that he has never published a single article in any ethics journal. His own serious philosophical work has been about the philosophy of time (specifically, about Newton's metaphysical notion of absolute time being immune from Einstein's theories of relativity).
As far as I can tell, Dr. Craig does not publish his theism-based arguments for morality in any serious, critical journal.
@TheMortalhuman No, Craig has had over 200 pieces published in some of of the best peer-reviewed journals of philosophy in the world.
Ehrman lost the debate, as he produced Hume's old fallacy that mriacles can never be historically proven;yet probability theorists say you cant consider the inherent improbability of any explanation of the facts (such as the empty tomb) without also factoring in the probability that all the facts would as they are if that was NOT the explanation!!
@relarerfhjk Which peer-reviewed ethics journals has Craig been published in? I'd like to look them up. Mavaddat asked you this 3 weeks ago and you have not replied to him. I am happy to learn that he has been published in a reputable ethics of philosophical journal, and if you say he has, I suppose you must know which articles and which journals.
I don't agree with your evaluation of the Ehrman-Craig debate. Craig would not say if the embellished gospels were less reliable. He dodged.
@TheMortalhuman He has been published in many of the best peer-reviewed journals of philosophy, in addition to obtaining a PHD in philosophy and co-authoring books with some of the best including Richard Thaler and Quentin Smith;his works have been praised by leading atheist philosophers like Smith, Singer and Kagan himself. There is absolutely no doubt about his excellent credentials as a philosopher. You make yourself look ignorant by denying it
@relarerfhjk If you read what I have said, I have not denied his credentials, I have asked where he has been published. The "over 200 pieces" you claim he has had published in the best peer-reviewed journals does not appear to be quite true, He has published many articles, but most of them are in religiously affiliated publications. It is clear that he is an intelligent man, and he is doing the best he can with a false premise, but doing so has made him and his followers dishonest.
@relarerfhjk I disagree with your assessment, and I don't share your opinion. His arguments are seriously flawed ( for instance he uses biblical testimony as evidence without first establishing the credibility of the bible) and he automatically describes god as the christian God without explaining why it could not be any of the other 10,000 gods that have been worshiped. Please watch his debate with Ehrman where he would not answer direct questions on the reliability of the gospels.
@TheMortalhuman Craig doesnt use "biblical testimony";the gospels werent part of the Bible they were historical records of independent oral traditions relating to the events of Jesus's life,they were only included in the Bible centuries later.All historians agree on their credibility as historical documents. e.g atheist historian Gerd Ludeman admits that its a historical fact that Jesus's tomb was found empty and that some of his disciples witnessed him alive after his crucifixion
Respond to this video... All historians agree on their credibility as historical documents? What rubbish. Even christian websites acknowledge that there is disagreement about the credibility of the gospels amongst historians.
Ludeman writings were based on biblical testimony, not historical facts, and his conclusion based on that testimony was that Jesus did not rise from the dead, and he wrote that while he was a christian!
@relarerfhjk Is it true that he has not published any of his articles in any non-religious ethics journals? Are the peers that reviewed his articles all believers?
@TheMortalhuman Not its not true that he hasnt published in any non-religious journals. He has published in everything from the British journal for the Philosophy of Science to American Philosophical Quarterly, to the Journal of Philosophy. When I say he has published over 200 pieces in philosophical journals I was referring to non-theistic peer-reviewed academic journals of philosophy
@relarerfhjk I've just looked up his list of published papers and while impressive, it is true that nearly all of them are theological journals, christian magazines, and other evangelical publications. He does have some articles published in the publications you've mentioned, but not many.
@38135539 Yes, that is definitely morally wrong. Video-taping this cheesy movie off the television is just wrong.
If you mean is it wrong for an alien species to destroy another species, then yes, that is also wrong. Why is it wrong? Simple: It is wrong to inflict unnecessary pain on another being that is capable of suffering. Why is it wrong to inflict pain on others? Because every rational being capable of suffering agrees that they don't want it to happen to them.
@mavaddat That makes no sense at all. If you know it wont happen to you, then there is no reason its wrong on that worldview. If you have to dupe yourself into thinking you are the person suffering in order to think causing them suffering is wrong, then historical genocide wasnt wrong, since they are all dead so it doesnt matter (and the Universe doesnt care).The Golden Rule is an horrendous basis for morality, since as soon as humans get enough power it no longer applies
@relarerfhjk You're confusing people failing to act morally with the failure of secular morality to have justification.
If you'd think critically, you'd see all the "problems" you identify with secular morality carry over onto theistic morality. This is because you aren't invoking philosophical. You're pointing to psychological problems that humans have whether they think their morality comes from God or not. Indeed, these problems are more prevalent when people think God's on their side.
@mavaddat I'm not confusing the two, the one is the result of the other. Because there is ano atheist basis for morality, people who get power and act in a certain way, are actually behaving perfectly rationally. on an atheist worldview. There is no objective right and wrong, since neither Kagan (nor any other atheist) has EVER been able to explain what gives all human beings equal moral value! His argument (and Sam Harris's wellbeing argument) isnt a moral argument sine it cant explain this
@relarerfhjk Responding to your post to this guy. Are you saying that all people who have ever been in power and acted morally wayward were atheists? What about the Crusades? The Inquistition? Here are two premises. "People are equally valuable", "People are not equally valuable" Even if we assume that atheism can't account for people equally valuable, that would not mean that atheism accounts for the idea that people are not equally valuable. Your statements are false about atheism.
On the first day of my moral philosphy class in college, the professor said "morality does not come from religion or the law." Everytime I watch Craig debate the issue, this asertion is further strenghened
@chansetwo Your Professor ought to have been fired for incompetence for making such a dreadfuly philosophically inept and logically invalid statement. The statement "morality doesnt come from God or the law" incorporates about ten logical fallacies. Firstly, He can;t prove it doesnt come from God, (since to do this your Professor would have to prove God doesnt exist) he cant explain how objective morality exists if there is no God, so to assert it doesnt come from God is a contradiction etc etc
@relarerfhjk Your strawman fallacy is not going to work. Neither SHE, nor I mentioned god. My making up an argument and then trying to refute it, you're just arguing with yourself like a fool.
@chansetwo Then what was the point posting that? Because Craig has never argued morality comes from religion. So whats the relevance? If you knew anything about the arguments you wouldnt have posted something so stupid.
Why did you say "every time I watch Craig debate the issue this assertion is further strengthened"? when Craig has never, ever, asserted morality comes from religion.(he says objective moral truths exist because they are grounded in God's moral character)
@relarerfhjk "he says objective moral truths exist because they are grounded in God's moral character" Craig still asserts Christianity as truth.You're asserting that God's moral character is GOOD without accounting for it. What makes his character good? So you fail in the same way you claim atheists fail. You suffer from the trickle down fallacy, if there is something "GOOD" then there must be something "GREATER" to account for it. That is false. I can imagine a better God than the Christan God
@Fishqueen1972 Wrong. He doesnt assert you have to believe Christianity to know moral truths. you clearly skipped your philosophy class! Because if you had attended, you would know the difference between moral epistemology (how you come to know moral truths) and moral ontology (what moral truths are grounded in). He doesnt claim you have to believe in God to KNOW moral truths, rather he claims that the ery existence of those moral truths is evidence for the existence of God!!
@Fishqueen1972 Furthermore, your interpretation is wrong. The point is that there must be a source of goodness outside of ourselves,and an explanation of moral values, for there to be any objective good indepndent of human opinion (and any perfect standard for it to measure against) That source cant be nature, since objects in nature are morally neutral but God, as the greatest conceivable being is necessarily good if objective moral truth (right and wrong) are created by Him
@relarerfhjk God is an immaterial mind). You seem to be describing God existing in 2 parts. (His nature & his mind). I think you said that his mind only acts in accordance with his perfectly good nature. What makes his nature good? And if God can only act according to his nature then how is he freewilled? You are describing a robot so there is no need for a free acting mind outside of nature. If his nature alone can account for it then so can Universes where creatures like us evolve to exist..
@Fishqueen1972 Its not "two parts" I am talking about the nature of God who is an immaterial, timeless, all-powerful, all-good mind
"what makes his nature good" This is the old Euthyphro dilemma; the answer is that it is the fact that God abhors cruelty and loves humanity that makes cruelty to humanity bad and love for others "good"; without God investing us all with intrinsic moral worth, cruelty would still be cruel but it wouldnt be objectively "wrong" to be cruel to others
@relarerfhjk Craig has argued many times that that his moral epistemology is derived from the" word of god as revealed in the bible". That is a theological (religious) position. I suggest you do some research before opening your mouth. I said my position is strengthemed when watching Craig because his arguments are completely vacuous; that includes his silly argument regarding devine command "theory". It is utter nonsense.
@chansetwo No, he hasnt. Craig has argued that we can all know moral truths without reference to God because they are objective (as they are grounded in God's nature) i can send you the links where he said this, repeatedly, so dont tell lies and distort other peoples arguments.
His arguments only demonstrate that there is absolutely no atheist foundation for moral truth or human value; if thats "vacuous" you havent even understood the arguments!
@relarerfhjk I'm not distorting anything. Craig has said many times when asked about moral epistemology, that it is revealed through gods word in the bible. All you're doing is denying that he said it, and changing the subject to moral ontology as if they're the same thing. That's called "bait and switch" None of these arguments of Craig's has any merit.. These dirty tactics people like you and Craig employ are not working.
@chansetwo Your distorting Craig's arguments. He wrote on Reasonable Faith "We can all know moral truths wihout reference to God; the point is that for moral truths to be objective, they need a transcendent anchor" .
I'm not "changing the subject" I was explaining that we can KNOW moral truths without believing in God but those truths wouldnt exist unless they were grounded in God.
Craig's arguments have never been effectively refuted by a single atheist (and he has debated many of the best)
@relarerfhjk All you just did was repeat the comment I just rebutted. Craigs rediculous arguments are neither taken seriously by professional moral philosophers outside religious circules, nor are they worth the 30 seconds to write this response. Ok, if you don't think his moral epistemology is derived from god's word through the bible as he says it is, then explain to me his methodology for moral epistemology. You can start with gay rights, abortion and doctor assisted suicide.
@chansetwo Craig's arguments are neither taken seriously" now you proved your ignorance! Craig's arguments ARE taken seriously by moral philosophrs he has been praised by leading atheist philosophers such as Quentin Smith and Shelly Kagan himself! He has also had well over 200 articles published in leading peer-reviewed journals of philosophy. you dont have a clue what your talking about.
The Bible outlines moral DUTIES, not the objective values they are grounded in!
@relarerfhj How do the number of books and papers he's written or compliments of him by two philosophers say anything about the opinion of him in the community of moral philosophers? Answer: it does not; that is a non-sequetor. All you have done is waste 2 minutes of my time, and show you don't have the critical thinking ability of a high school debater. Kagan destroyed him in this debate and exposed his arguments for the sophistry that they are. Any competent moral philosopher can do the same
@relarerfhjk Professor Kagan just explained objective morality. If God is an "IS" and not an "OUGHT". Well, then who objectively claims that God GIVING us value makes it so? That would definitely be a matter of opinion.And so you are not REALLY valuing people, but valuing God.Our intrinic value that God places upon us could be because he is going to eat our souls after we die. How would that give reason to value people? Can God declare we have no value? if not, human value comes from elsewhere
@Fishqueen1972 Kagan couldnt give ny basis for objective moral values, since he couldnt explain why humans have equal, inherent moral worth! Complex neurosystems may be potentially useful but that doesnt make them morally good,and,and if our mental capacities define our moral worth, then mentally-ill/brain-damaged people have less "moral worth" than the mentally-able and intelligent!
We value God as the fulfilment of human existence,as the greatest conceiable being he is the paragon of goodness
@relarerfhjk What you fail to understand if that God is an "IS" not an "OUGHT, then God's existence is arbitrary thus making his creation arbitrary. What account's for God's intrinsic worth? You are asserting a value to God which is SUBJECTIVE and your opinion. And so really you are not really valuing people but valuing God. Kagan did account for value for ALL creatures with the idea of unnecessary suffering if you watched the whole debate. Kagan is actually a vegetarian.
@Fishqueen1972 But His existence isnt arbitrary and neither are the moral values that emanate from His nature, because as the greatest conceivable being He is necessarilly the perfect locus of goodness, (and its better to be the paragon of goodness then to conform to it) and as the greatest conceivable being, there is no possible world in which He could sanction anything contrary to His essentially loving nature. There is no contradiction between valuing God and valuing all his creations equally
@relarerfhjk Tell that to those who have killed in God's name. You missed my point. I am not claiming that God's existence is arbitrary. I am saying that the same arguments you are making against the value of people in a naturalistic world can also be applied to your God since there is nothing above him giving him intrinsic value. To assert that God has value because he is the greatest conceivable being is subjective. Not objective. The term "conceivable" in describing him proves that.
@Fishqueen1972 Ah,but only Christians have any basis for saying that what those who killed in God's name did,was objectively wrong because God gives us a foundation for objective moral moral values.As an atheist, you have no such foundation so you cant say what they did was objectively wrong.
Its not "subjective" to describe God as the greatest being its the same as saying a symphony recording is judged by its fidelity to the live orchestra (which is the perfect standard or explanatory ultimate)
@relarerfhjk And to further the point. The fact is we CAN reflect on the value of brain-damaged people and evaluated their suffering. That is the whole point of recognizing the difference between those who can make moral choices and those who cannot. If a brain damaged person can no longer make a moral choice then we must imagine being in their shoes.Are you claiming that if a brain damaged person is suffering that it would be objectively wrong to allow them to die to ease their suffering?
@Fishqueen1972 Easily refuted. Its a contradiction to say we "reflect on their value" since the whole point is there is no naturalistic basis for saying they have equal value,The fact we CAN treat people equally doesnt mean we ought to...unless they have equal inherent worth. And if neurosystems define worth, then we clearly arent equally valuable, since our neurosystems have ZERO INHERENT VALUE (they only have POTENTIAL usefulness)
@relarerfhjk "There is no naturalistic basis for saying they have equal value." It can also be said, there is no naturalistic basis for saying they don't have equal value either. You and Craig are envoking your own subjective opinions about the concept of a neutral naturalistic world, by putting a reductive negative spin on it. And the naturalistic world is only neutral in the sense that it doesn't play favorites. That doesn't take away from the objective facts about the naturalistic world.
@Fishqueen1972 But there is no naturalistic reason to think humans have inherent value, the onus is on the naturalist to explain why humans have equal intrinsic moral worth. Kagan cant do that, so his entire argument fails.
We are not putting a "reductive spin" on it; we are calling a spade a spade; in science, nature is morally neutral it doesnt have moral "value" and its absurd to say neurosystems make human beings "morally valuable"
@relarerfhjk You are committing fallacies with the definition of your terms. When you say "neurosystems" you are describing them as objects. When we say "neurosystems" we are describing what brings about subjective experience. This is something that a car can't have. Human beings aren't valuable because of their intrinsic worth. I can call a spade a spade as well and say that if you want to compare yourself to an object owned & given worth intrinsically then by all means do so, but..cont
@relarerfhjk You say there is no naturalistic reason to say that people are equally valuable. Well, there is no naturalistic reason to say that people are NOT equally valuable either. People are not objects. There are objective truths about our subjecive experience that is not a matter of opinion. If we cut off our hands then we feel pain. This is true for everyone. To claim you need a God to say well, "you guys are really really special" so don't cut off someone elses hand is dumb.
@Fishqueen1972 you are right...people are not objects...people are biological machines according to you....now you said.... You say there is no naturalistic reason to say that people are equally valuable. Well, there is no naturalistic reason to say that people are NOT equally valuable either....
...you are right....now....hwo we are equal???explain to me how from naturalistic perspective you can state such thing as people are equal???
@giska1000 Let me spell this out to you. A rock is a rock. It is an object. Rocks don't have the subjective experience quality. Neurosystems cause subjective experience. Subjective experience allows for self intrisic value. This is an objective fact about all those things with the subjective experience trait. From the naturalistic point of view, if there is no neurosystem then there is no subjective experience. So the neurosystem is equally valuable to all those with subjective experience.
@Fishqueen1972 yeah..you forgot 1.we came from these rocks...supposedly...lol 2.we are biological machines that ,,dance according to our dna,, and 3.if this is true.... Subjective experience allows for self intrisic value.
...why then you think that for example my sub, ,,experience,,, for self instrict value is to kill gays ...is inferior to your sub, ,,experence for self instrict values,, not to kill gays???
@giska1000 If God created our DNA for us to dance to it then what difference does it make? It doesn't matter how our subjective experience was created. The fact is that subjective experience exists. You are the one equating us with the value of car. In your example, the moral dilemna is unncessary killing. You could fill in any group you want. The fact is, you are straight & would feel it unnecessary for a gay person to kill you just because you are straight. And so it would be true vice versa.
@Fishqueen1972 If God created our DNA ...3.5 Bilion long information with content and instructions for every single cell in your body....that is your BIOLOGICAL physical creation....but then...it is clear that IF God created your physical body...i.e YOU..than He also created your immatrial,spiritual you...(conscioousness,self awernes,creativity,ability to rationalize,think,love,support and be compassionate,be moral,good person,have will to choose...etc..) and then we come to your second part..
@giska1000 You are going off on a different rant. As a naturalist, I don't believe in an immaterial mind which needs to be created. First off, immaterial things don't need a cause or creator but that is a different argument. I don't believe there is an immaterial mind. The mind & brain are one in the same. We aren't arguing the existence of God. We are arguing whether or not the atheist can account for objective values
@Fishqueen1972 you dont believe in an immaterial mind i know...but look,immaterial things are prooof for an immaterial dimension :) ....and..when you say mind and brain are the one and the same...ohhh..its because you are ignorant of science...i could send you videos ..at least some of them from leading research experts on mind and consciousness...they say mind and brain clearly are not the same...and we can debate on this whole day if you want....but..lets go back to your moral objectivity...
@giska1000 I would say you are ignorant of science and neurology. The body mind dilemna is only argued from a view of philosophy. No philosophers agree on that and philosophy is not emperical science. Besides, believing the mind is contingent upon the brain in no way shows that naturalists can't provide moral justification. And like I said, if a mind is non-material then there is no need for a God to create. Fact, describing it as something created gives it physical properties.
@Fishqueen1972 well you would say alot of other things so i am not offended anyway,but precisely because i love and study science just like my almost whole family full of professors and experts from microbiology to archaeology...friends,cousens etc..i know what is neurology...and when you state something as ,,the body-mind dilemma is only argued from philosophy view,, THIS shows who is ignorant here.....and then your ignorance goes further and you state ,,mind,if non material shows that there...
@giska1000 I mispoke about the mind body philosophy thing. What I meant to say, those people who argue that the mind is distinct from the brain argue it based on philosophy, not science. The scientific evidence from the neurologist standpoint shows that the brain & body are one in the same. That is what the scientific evidence shows which is why it is not surprising that you sent me a video of a philosopher.
@Fishqueen1972 well....brain and the body are the same but MIND AND CONSCIOUSNESS and brain are not...btw..even amongst the most hardcore scientists-naturalists...this still remains mystery...because consciousness itself and self awarness is not dependent on brainfunctions...(i have even videos concerning this subject).....
@giska1000 Here is the thing. Those things which have complex brains have minds. Those things which do not have complex functioning minds do not. This should be a clue. Whether or not some person claims to know that the mind & body is distinct or whether or not someone claims that there is still mystery is irrevelant to the fact that scans show the subsconscious mind makes decisions before the conscious mind is aware of it. Meds can even altar a person's mood w/seratonin. This is physical.
@Fishqueen1972 Here is the thing. Those things which have complex brains have minds. Those things which do not have complex functioning minds do not
...you have a contradiction here...:) Meds can even altar a person's mood w/seratonin. This is physical.
...no they cant...you know how many patients who suffer from depression or anxiety cannot be helped even if they used and tried ALL medicatons??and even in those who got little better..its temporary and actually majority of them...
@Fishqueen1972 ...,,feel better,, because of placebo subjective self convincing effect???you should actually try to study this issue and thencome and comment on this...meds can help to some...in very short time....but they cant help toalot of others...
@Fishqueen1972 ...is no need for God,, is like saying..well ...if there are hands,then there is no need for spoon....(so spoon does not exist)...i mean..first of all,IMMATERIAL....something IMMATERIAL is proof for transcendent being...that is something what even peter atkins will tell you....and even if you say ,,there is no need fot a Gd,, ...it doesent mean that there is no God....actually..thats is precisely the problem...NO NEED FOR GOD...is problem here....remember ,,no need for God,, is...
@Fishqueen1972 ...no.1 cause of atheism beside religion....so you are right...there is no need for God at all from your sub. perspective...but does this mean that simply because you think that there is no God it is true???and your last sentence blew me away...not everyhing created has physical proprties...and i wont go even further into this statement...-.-
@Fishqueen1972 ..of comment....your second part of comment is against logic because i speak from homophobic position....if i am homophob...like for example there is ALOT of homophobs in world....that means that MY SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE tells me that these people need to be klled because they are inferior and i am disgusted by them...and now..look..lets say i am king of some country...or president....well...my subjective experience,plus my position and status...well...why would i say...ahhh no..
@giska1000 Because to be disgusted is not a good enough reason to kill someone. I could be disgusted by your face and if I think like you then I would have reason to kill you. The fact of the matter is, in a world like that then no one would be safe. Not even you. If you value yourself, then you would HAVE to reject a world like that. It wouldn't be a matter of your opinion. It would be a necessity to your own well being.
@Fishqueen1972 ohh dont tell me....well...being disgusted isnt only reason...i named few other reasons too....its not the only reason why homophobs killing gays ...disgust isnt only reason...because you can be digusted by your own parents,some cousens,fake ,,friends,, etc...so i named you reasons or my opinion from a homophobic perspective..why homophobs hate and kill gays anyway??and why would you say they re wrong while you are ot wrong??is it something based on another experience...or???
@giska1000 Because ALL of your reasons are not adequate reasons. The gay person does not harm your wellbeing. The only justification your have to kill a gay person is self defense. This would be true if the roles were reversed. This isn't rocket science. Besides, we all have self intrinisic value. If you kill a gay person, that doesn't change his value. He will value his life up until the time you kill him. Your opinion can't change that.
@Fishqueen1972 lol first of all i dont wanna be disrespectful,or sound like sexist..but..you know whats worse than an atheist????....a female atheist...XD ;/ ....now look...you ned to explain to me...if i simply have subjective experience that gay is disgusting,he causing me to be uncomfortable,i believe that he is wicked,freak of nature,mistake of n.selection...etc..and i FEEL ..i have subjective experience and tendency to eliminate this person...what can stop me??dont tell me about values...
@giska1000 LMAO...Are you a god believer? I think what ever it is you are arguing against me about applies to you as well. First off, you are devaluing me because I am female atheist and this is coming from someone who claims to only have justification for equality and morality. I don't have to stop you from doing anything. The God believing Muslims kill gays all the time. And Christians used to burn women alive. You are confusing the failure for humanity to recognize objective moral values.
@Fishqueen1972 i am God believer and i said this because really...there is nothing worse than female atheist..with male atheist,at least you can have reasonable discussion..but with female atheists..i NEWER..ever saw any reasonable statement which came from them,this is phenomenom.....this is true....and for example if you see your comments,and then compare them with comments of other atheist...MALE atheist..you ll see difference between you and him.....then again...i can even show you from ..
@giska1000 Look up a list of fallacies. Normally when someone cannot adequately attack a persons arguments, then they resort to attacking the person instead of the argument. This shows me that I have won because you can't refute anything I have said. Keep on attacking my gender & my atheism instead of my arguments.
@Fishqueen1972 lol i dont attack yur gender or atheism...i just said that worst thing in a debate is female atheist opponent..because TRUST me...the things that female atheists can state or say....are....priceless...lol...xD btw you constantly confirming my point like n previous comment,but idk how to show you that anymore....so..YES you are right,christian,muslim,hebrew,atheist....no one is morally sperior here....because we ar eALL fallen biased selfish humans.....
@Fishqueen1972 ...and EVERY war,sorrow,inquisition etc made in history of mankind was BECAUSE of a man.....man who made subjective ,,moral,, judgment....look what pope did...immediately,just when he left Scriptures he became heretic,fell of a church,and brought his own ,,moral,, judgment,laws,teachings and thats how you got great schism in 1054 and thats how catholicism came to birth...and thats how catholicism expanded from an middle patriarchia in roe to no.1 church...,,church,, in the world..
@Fishqueen1972 ...by wars,conquests,,,holy wars,, ...crusades or whatever...inquisitions...hatred..etc..WHAT cem good out of catholicism???tell me,because catholicism is clear example of how humans are incapable of making subjective moral judgment...one man is enough to change the world....
@Fishqueen1972 ...your own post how ignorant you are...you again coming with what muslims do and what christians do...i newer said christians are moral,atheists are immoral..im just saying,if there is God..then there should be an objective morality for everyone....and about cristians who burned women..i alredy know you talk about catholics...catholics are everything but christians..especially catholic church,most catholics are pagans,making images,worshipjg statues,pope...etc....
@Fishqueen1972 ...but even if they are,and they are indeed antichristians...still...if you apply that they ARE christians...it does not mean that God is immooral and wrong because christians burned women...no..what you need to do is to go and see if there is any verse,or is there any statement made by Christ about burning women,witches or anything like that??....dont blame God of what people do...but blame people of what people do.....
@giska1000 I never blamed God for what people do. The argument is this. Naturalism cannot account for objective moral values. I have given plenty of accounts for it and you have strayed off into a different argument which is another fallacy by the way. God believers give their account of objective morality & naturalists give their account. If you want say that your version is superior then fine. That is your right. But to claim that atheist cannot give any account is just plain false.
@giska1000 To continue, you are confusing the failure for humanity in general to reckognize objective moral values with the idea that atheists can't provide justification for them. The Christian or the Muslim isn't any more equipped than the atheist to have better moral judgements.
@Fishqueen1972 you are confusing the failure for humanity in general to reckognize objective moral values with the idea that atheists can't provide justification for them. The Christian or the Muslim isn't any more equipped than the atheist to have better moral judgements
...thank you for proving my point...i still trying to teach you that as we are made in the image of God...WE ALL share a common morality and common values....and its true...we all share a common moral codex and value...
@Fishqueen1972 ..and there is even ,,golden rule,, in every society ...what you want others to do to you,you shall do that to them....and...why we even have jails and why in every civilisation we punished people for ,,wrong doing,,??...this all goes in favour of God...because it is His claim that we are moral beings with value,because we are made in His image...but it goes even further...surely we have moral basis and codex,but as fallen mankind...we need God to give us specific moral law...
@giska1000 Ok. You have given your justification for your believe system God. I am not going to argue against it other than I think it poses some problems given the fact that no one can agree to which God or book to follow. And I think in the past that The Bible & Koran have actually given justification for some cruel & wicked acts done which would not have been done without the belief in God. However, that in no way proves that atheists cannot provide moral justification for human value.
@Fishqueen1972 than I think it poses some problems given the fact that no one can agree to which God or book to follow
...ok...why most educated,greatest scientist in history,historians,archaeologists,philosophers etc...were all...ALL christians??why i came to Judeo Christianity??surely,europe is no.1 secular continent..matter of fact we invented secularism....why we are christian continent??you need to ask yourself...well...MAYBE..just MAYBE..we,or at least some of us searched and studied
@giska1000 First off, they were not all Christians. Does Einstein come to mind? So no they were not all Christians. And before secularms, most non-Christians were killed because they were charged with heresy. Christianity became prominent through bloody force. Just ask the former Romans before Christianity turned the Roman empire into a theocracy. All the gays were killed & those who didn't conform to Christianity were killed. But I am not going to allow you to bring up another debate.
@Fishqueen1972 lolol einstein was at least deist...and there are even statements on him about God...now i dont know what you think you are,but when i said i will provide you a list...i really mean A LIST....of people who are greater scientists than einstein was....ok???;))) and then again you go with your bragging about ,,romans,catholics...,, ...blablabla.....i mean...wth...this is reason why its not really good to debate female atheists....as much as you try...it wont go into their heads -.-
@giska1000 Einstein was a pantheist, not a deist. Einstein referred to the Universe as God. And I have no objection to that belief at all. In a sense, I am also a pantheist because I believe The Universe was the cause of my existence.
@Fishqueen1972 hahahahaah einstein WAS DEIST....he believedin some God but not personal one....you believe that universe created you???lol..ok...good for you....-.-
now i want to see where you got that information that protestantshad history ofburning witches???and again,you refering this to ,,some,, protestant and ,,some pastors,, right???
oh and bible says kill the witch???:O ehhhh....listen....this isridiculous...because youa re either some christianwho doing this satire to ...
@Fishqueen1972 ...in completely different times and yet.....they are all consistent and whole scriptures are in harmony because these people were inspired by Holy Ghost and God clearly gave us moral law,history of universe,archaeology and science in this holy book...all wisdom we can ask for is in that book and more i read it and studying it, the more i can see it...so thanks to 10 commandments and thanks to what Christi said...you today my friend live in civilized world in which....
@giska1000 No it is not thanks to the 10 commandments or what Christ said...lol The 10 commandments mentions nothing about slavery or rape. The 10 commandments says to worship God which has caused the unjustified killing of non-worshippers. The 10 commandments says not to covet thy neighbors goods which is completely against the idea of capitalism.
@Fishqueen1972 ...you are not stoned or hanged if you commited adultery,your hands are not cut off if you streal,no one will kill you if you lie,you dont go and eat your neighbour but yu should love your neighbour....etc..etc...you have freedom ,right for life,equality and pursuit of happines,moral values,individual value etc...all that came from God ...from the Bible...without Bible you woud be lost,and ohh i wish so bad that you were born in some other society where other holy books like quran
@Fishqueen1972 ...created whole constitution of an civilisation...where they degrading women,killink every non religious,or non muslim man etc....doing all kinds of wicked things...or in atheistic japan,or in communist china..or former societ union...nazi germany....or any non christian part of the earth where their laws are based on non biblical ,,morality,, ...then you would see what you talking about and how wrong ...how rong you are...
@Fishqueen1972 ..then again...you go to tell how all gays,rays,flays and other ays were killed etc..but look again..you talking about CATHOLIC CHURCH here ...again..-.- ...why dont you tal about original church old 2000 years???ortodox church???or why dont you talk abot other churches who escaped freom POPE and again brought up SCRIPTURES s ONLY authority...not man(pope) but SCRIPTURES...THE BIBLE...dd protestants,lutherans and others killed,burned,raped etc??NO..why??because they eliminated...
@giska1000 Actually, protestants also have a history of witch burning. Maybe not as prevelant as the historical Catholics, but they still have a history of delusional beliefs regarding witches. And some protestants reverands in recent modern times still hold these superstitious beliefs & say that the witch burning practice should return. Look at the Salem witch trials, those were not Catholics. The Bible says "Kill a witch".
@Fishqueen1972 ..represent atheists as complete noobs...or you are an really,really.....really...reallymisinformed atheist...which oen is is??cmon be honest?? But we don't. All we have are various books recorded by man who you claim are wicked which is open to subjective interpretation. And these books have been repeatly been used by man to have power over others.
...and we have the Bible...book written by over 40 men....prophets...from kings to servants....in 3 different continents...
@Fishqueen1972 ...a MAN ...who had subjective moral judgment just liek you have....all these things show that my point about ,,moral,, judgment of man is wicked....so you..we all NEED direction ...we need t be instructed from God to know what is right and what is wrong,because without God,you are left on your own,with some moral basics and codex and the rest is based upon YOU and your subjectivity...now..we know what happens when you give to man a power.....-.-
@giska1000 You may have a point if there was a God who made is commands unambiguously to everyone for always and all times. But we don't. All we have are various books recorded by man who you claim are wicked which is open to subjective interpretation. And these books have been repeatly been used by man to have power over others. Your argument reeks of hypocrisy. And religion is a mirror image of those things for which you criticize about people. We secular humanists can see that.
@Fishqueen1972 And religion is a mirror image of those things for which you criticize about people. We secular humanists can see that.
...you constantly atrtacking religion,but what religionhas to do with christiaity??Judeo Christianity is FAITH...antireligious faith....now dont you want me to quote you the Bible or..just Christ from scriptures about religions and people who invented religions???because you attacking me,a non religious man,for wat religions and religious people are.....
@giska1000 I am not attacking you. I am attacking your argument. Reread what I wrote. Jesus wrote about the Good Samaritan.Ok.Well the good samarian existed before the Bible was written. For whatever, good you seek in the Bible, you have to cherry pick. If you want to believe in a God who says, "You are really really special" Fine. If that is what gives you your self esteem. But to claim that morality comes from commandments is false. God cannot command that murder is good & then it makes it so
@Fishqueen1972 ahhaha i have to cherry pick??? no dear lady...i dont have to cherry pick...whole bible is authoriy,old testament for jews and new testament and old testament for christians...whole biblical system is in western civilisation till this very day...not because we cherry pick,but because its the most reasonable way of life.....in old testament you have laws for hebrews and israel country....andthere you also have 10 commendments that are all practices in world today...and in new ...
@Fishqueen1972 ...testament,after alw was fulflled God gave that ultimate perfect law of love....forgivness,mercy and truth.....btw OH YOU ARE GENIUS...how did you knew that good samaritan existed before he bible???? -.- btw..do you even know who were samaritans(who are samaritans)?
@Fishqueen1972 . If you want to believe in a God who says, "You are really really special" Fine. If that is what gives you your self esteem. But to claim that morality comes from commandments is false. God cannot command that murder is good & then it makes it so
...i d not believe in God because it will give me self esteem,or power,or any benefit of this world...i love Him because He loved me first....and i hope that one day you ll experience that love of God....and one more thing...
@Fishqueen1972 ..God newer said ahh go and kill for fun...and He definitely newer would say that....He would say go and kill...but remember....killig in not the same as murder.....
@giska1000 God CAN"T say murder is good. Do you understand? Morality does not come from God. To say that morality was created by God means that God if with his freewill wanted to change the laws of morality could. God cannot say that murder and rape is good. This shows that morality comes from somewhere else.
@Fishqueen1972 listen...i am sure that you are 100% confused...1.who are you to say what God can and what He cant???2.where did you came upo with Morality does not come from God in sentence after ,,God cant say murder is good,,???its contradiction in just 2 sentences....3.God is Law...He is that line and PRINCIPLE who differenciate between existence,nonexistence,morality,immorality,logic,ilogic,order,chaos...etc.....so God is unchanged..He is ETERNAL LAW and Principles in which everything works
@giska1000 And to further show the error of your argument. You describe God in two parts (unchanging nature) & (his mind). HIs unchanging nature is what dictates his mind. So his mind is nothing more than a messenger of his nature. If that is the case then there is no reason for worship or admiration of a such an entity. he would basically be a reality creating computer spewing out information. Unless God has the ability to choose evil over good, then his judgements are arbitrary.
@Fishqueen1972 .....and God newer said nor will say murder and rape are good.....He is merciful...so..whenh you say His judgment of people for sin,its not murder...its killing...its punishing the ones that misused and abused their own free will to bring disorder into order....and finally,no..all this shows that morality only can come from God(absolute) and this also shows that you are extremly confused...idk what to say ...:/
@giska1000 lol...you still don't get it. If one person believes a specific fact about morality such as "women should where burkas" because God says so then that is there version of absolute morality derived from God. What do you say to those people if you disagree? They are using the same argument that you are using. To reply by saying well "God doesn't think that". Neither premise is provable. You have to appeal to something other than what God thinks such as reason.
@Fishqueen1972 lol...you still don't get it. If one person believes a specific fact about morality such as "women should where burkas" because God says so then that is there version of absolute morality derived from God.
...i fail to see where God in the Bible said women should wear burkas...btw it is written that women shouldl dress modest,appropriate....not like women dressing themselves today...like prostitutes,like males and all kinds of other ,,styles,, which was brought by communism...
@Fishqueen1972 What do you say to those people if you disagree? They are using the same argument that you are using. To reply by saying well "God doesn't think that". Neither premise is provable. You have to appeal to something other than what God thinks such as reason.
...no we should study every Holy Book...and se which one is only trust worthy and reliable...and that is Bible..so we should go back to see what Bible has to say...because Bible is ONLY book that adresses EVERY issue concerning
@giska1000 That is just your subjective opinion regarding the Bible. You can't prove the Bible is the word of God. You just assert. Just like the Muslims assert the Koran is the word of God. If everything about the Bible for which you claim proves that it is the word of god was the same except the moral teachings were different then would we all believe something different? If it said that red headed people were the devil's children & they should be extreminated would that hold true?
@Fishqueen1972 That is just your subjective opinion regarding the Bible. You can't prove the Bible is the word of God. You just assert. Just like the Muslims assert the Koran is the word of God
...seriously...are you dumb in any other area???of course that this is not my ,,subjective assertion,, ...it can all be STUDIED and examined..whole historicity,archaeology and science,prophecies,claims,philosophy,theology etc...al this can be rigorously studied and examined...especially when it comes ..
@Fishqueen1972 ..to life,ministry,death,burial and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth....now...EVERY SINGLE field will show you the most powerful and biggest amount of evidence,and i can send you top scholars an all of this and their debates and videos of lectures in which they prove undeniably these facts....now...it only takes you LITTLE BIT to discredit quran...lets examine quran from just one small historical perspective ok??...quran originated from bible,it claims that its ,,update,, ...
@Fishqueen1972 ..of the Bible....now...i ll just point out this fallacy..in quran you ll find that Triunity of God is Father,Christ and Mary....which is FALSE...muhammad was confused because he was influenced by local nestorian sect that lived in arabian peninsula in that time so he wrote COMPLETE NONSENSE...one mistake..now...look at this historical mistake...in quran,Virgin Mary is SISTER OF MOSES AND ARON?????do you see this ENORMOUS mistake???now we can continue and continue....its so easy..
@Fishqueen1972 ..to disprove quran from any perspective you want...like..quran claims God is not Father..which is obvious contradiction...quran claims Jesus was not crucified but it ,,appeared to them that He was crucified,, ...and so on and so forth...so many LAUGHABLE FALLACIES in quran....there is more fallacies and mistakes in quran than there is number of ayets in whole book and hadith together....so....you can dismiss quran just like any other ,,holy book,, and religion very easily...
@Fishqueen1972 If it said that red headed people were the devil's children & they should be extreminated would that hold true?
...logical fallacy here...if Gd exists..then He cannot contradict Himself...because He is eternal in His love,grace,mercy etc..just one verse about something like this you wrothe would disprove that God exist....now..alah is not god for bilisons of reasons,if anything its an evil spirit of fallen angel at its best. because he precisely dictated in quran to kill pigs..
@Fishqueen1972 ..i.e jews..and christians i.e infidels,and pagans(devis children) etc...quran if full of killing for no reason....murder is all over quran...Bible is completely different because Bible when it talks about killing,it talks about defense from opressors or about spiritual death....judgment of sinful people and their spiritual demise...you wont find anywhere in the Bible one verse in which anyone is condemned for no reason..just for fun...killing in the Bible is either defense...
@Fishqueen1972 ...man,his nature,his fall,his life and SIN...there is no other book which do this except the bible...every other book is something written on purpose for what people want to hear....but Bible DIRECTLY strikes in the heart of sin and describe us and the very depth of our heart and human wicked nature....
@giska1000 "Human wicked nature"...lol I live this. Did human's create their own nature? Did human's create themselves. If God created humans in his own image and human are naturally wicked then it logically follows that God is wicked. You can't have it both ways. If you can't account for why a human being would want to purposely be wicked outside the nature which created them then your story is flawed. No one can create themselves or their own intrinsic nature.
@Fishqueen1972 Did human's create their own nature? Did human's create themselves. If God created humans in his own image and human are naturally wicked then it logically follows that God is wicked.
....-.- God created everything....everything rested upon good principles...free will is part of humans...humans misused..abused free will and choosed to do opposite from what they ought to be and do..and thats how they became wicked,fallen and sinful...and ultimtely separated from God.....
@giska1000 So freewill is the cause of it? So if God started over and gave humans freewill then they would automatically abuse it? Sounds like a principle of freewill is bad. It would seem that anything with freewill would be determined to abuse it. It is not like humans asked to be created with freewill. If God is omniscient then he would have known what humans would do with freewill before he created them. Yet, he created them anyway. By the way, what was God doing before he created us?
@Fishqueen1972 Sounds like a principle of freewill is bad. It would seem that anything with freewill would be determined to abuse it.
.....wrong..God,angelsarchangels etc...so many entities newer misuse free will....you dont misuse free will because someone told you so...you misuse it because you choose to do so....look it at this...its like saying everyone with free will are doomed to kill people...well...DUH...if you choose..but what about you and me???and bilions of other people...??
@giska1000 But you have not accounted for why one person chooses to kill people while others don't?Is it just random? If one person chooses to kill then they were given a soul with a property for killing.If a different person chooses not to kill then they were given a soul with a property to sustain from killing. Like I said, we don't create ourselves.I don't actually believe in freewill except in instances of self reflection and that is even questionable.
@Fishqueen1972 But you have not accounted for why one person chooses to kill people while others don't?
...it is matter of choice..if evolution was true and if all this was random..then surely we wouldnt be able,nor you are able to say why ppl choose to do anything...because we just ,,dance according to our genes,, ...now..look this...i wont take you but me as an example..i am an well educated man,i live in europe and i surely know that it is wrong to kill another person....
@giska1000 "It's a matter of choice." Choices are either based on reason, determined, or they are random. If two people are presented with the same situation & has the same knowledge. If they make two very different choices then there is no account for it other than one was created differently (determined) or it is just random. You have to exclude reason as the answer since they were faced with the same situation & knowledge. If one has better reason capabilities then that is not choice.
@Fishqueen1972 killing people,i have even interviews of some ofthe worst s.killers in history of the world who killed because they WANTED SO...perfectly normal,educated healthy people who wanted to kill either for money or for fun or just to experiment....they said they KNOW its wrong but stll they wouldnt change a thing...they would still keep doing it....there is nothing what can stop you from killing another person...its matter of choice ....
@giska1000 But you still have not account for why one person would want to and one person would not. To say well there are two choices is not an answer. Those serial killers you are speaking of were psychopaths. They do not have the ability for compassion or empathy. There is something different about their brains. I have just accounted for it. You have not.
@Fishqueen1972 But you still have not account for why one person would want to and one person would not.
....because its up to person to choose....everyone have ther own choice and hence..responsbility for choice they made....and thats wgy i asked you before can i ask you a question...because wanted to ask you,what do you think..isnt it amazing how we are all beings???you cannot take human beng and ,,study them,, with microscope or telescope or any other method and then ,,knew,, them.....no
@Fishqueen1972 Choices are either based on reason, determined, or they are random.
...but they are still choices and they are based on something right??you still choose that...and either you used reason,or was determined or randomness..still it is a choice brought by human being...it newer ,,popped out,, somewhere from sky or your body...choice was brought up by you...your reason or your emotions or anger,or bad mood,or good mood..etc...
@Fishqueen1972 If two people are presented with the same situation & has the same knowledge. If they make two very different choices then there is no account for it other than one was created differently (determined) or it is just random.
....first of all there are no such 2 perspns because we are all unique..but still even f this was true..they are still responsible for choice they made...they had multply options but they rather choosed one that they wanted to...not the one that was forced...
@Fishqueen1972 But why did they choose one over the other? You are not answering the question.
...because they had their own reasons not to choose othervise...there is x reasons...for example...maybe because person b intentionally choosed to choose opposte from person a because of pride....because person b wanted to be ,,original,, and not to follow person a and his choice....or for example...you know rchard dawkns and hitchens are both athests,both are educated and both share opnion on ...
@Fishqueen1972 ..alot of things..but the difference between these 2 s hitch dont wanna see whole religion beng dead..because it is more fun to dscuss wth themn and if religion dies...the t wont be fun anymore if 100% of the world become atheists..so there is no reasonable ...reason....for whch 2 persons of the same knowledge or status or opinon would make 2 completely different choice...its all matter of your 2nde choce of preference or any other reason you can find to make man choice....
@Fishqueen1972 ...or depressive person..ANY person with certain brain damage or disease cannot be from your perspective condemned neither for raping,nor for murder..because his brain made him do so...you believe brain is all there is...and brain control you...so how can you condemn person with damaged brain for killing other man??why you think he is responsible ???
@giska1000 Ok please address this. Let me ask you something. If you knew that a person killed someone and laughed about it then you would automatically consider that person an evil doer. What if you found out that the person had a tumor in the region of the brain which controls behavior and emotion? Would you then have a different opinion on the situation?
@Fishqueen1972 ..NOT because simpy i think its against law or its not good for society or someething like that but because I IN MY WELL BEING KNOW that this is wrong and i would feel bad and guilty consciense if i do such thing...i would feel so bad deep down in my soul i know it,once i hit my younger brother and after that i felt so bad that i literally cried few minutes because i knew i shouldnt do this....no one said to me something bad...but anyway I ..ME MYSELF was so depressed that ...
@giska1000 Let me ask you something. If you knew that a person killed someone and laughed about it then you would automatically consider that person an evil doer. What if you found out that the person had a tumor in the region of the brain which controls behavior and emotion? Would you then have a different opinion on the situation?
Kagan admits that : "he is at a loss to explain morality". Kagan talks alot but of you listen to what he says, he offers no foundation at all. Kagan is a utilitarian and offers nothing after that theory.
Kai84719 2 days ago
@Kai84719 Since you say you listened carefully, can you provide the exact time where Kagan says verbatim "he is at a loss to explain morality" of himself? Or is it accurate to say you are actually lying?
Kagan does say he is at a loss to explain what is special about human's most highly refined capabilities (like calculus, poetry, orchestral music, fine art, etc.) if you don't already accept that those things are special. Is that what you are finding so difficult to grasp?
mavaddat 1 day ago
@mavaddat As I said already but I will help you again. If one watches and listens carefully to Kagan, he admits over and over that he has no sufficient grounding for his claims of morality. Kagan is a utilitarian, read his works, he is upfront about that and then read up on the many problems with this type of morality.
Kai84719 1 day ago
@Kai84719 Actually, he says exactly the opposite: He claims that morality does have a sufficient grounding in the pains and pleasures of sentient beings (including human beings).
Since you cannot even do something so basic as to support your own claim that Dr. Shelly Kagan claims verbatim, "he is at a loss to explain morality" speaking of himself in the third person, I will assume you are simply lying for Jesus.
mavaddat 1 day ago
I can't believe that Craig even showed up to argue ethics with Kagan.
He must have some kind of death wish.
jamesejudy3 2 months ago
Jamesejudy3
Lol Kagan is a great speaker & basically the ''underground'' Peter Singer in philosophy.
I wonder if he is vegetarian or vegan, his shoes are vegan & i don't see any leather belts. He certanly talks like he is....least in the context of the question posed.
TheTvrulesthenation 2 months ago
I think William Craig is normally on top of his game, but against Kagan he just looks like another country bumpkin creationist.
oneznzeroz 3 months ago
shelly absolutely spanked him in this debate.
CheekyVimto08 4 months ago 3
WLC really did meet his match in this debate. Bill needs to focus on debating misinformed new atheists and needs to stay away from Philosophers, particularly those well versed in ethicas and moral philosophy.
myroseaccount 4 months ago
I'd never heard of Shelly Kagen before, ..a very refreshing speaker.
bonnie43uk 5 months ago 8
Finally. Kagan has been saying so many of the thing I, a layman with a small fraction of Kagan's intellect, have been saying to so many who repeat Craig's arguments. He catches Craig trying to move the goal post and calls him on it, all while remaining calm and eloquent.
DarkEmergence 6 months ago
Wish we could here Bill Craig's responses and questions. Ha that been edited out or no?
danplyler 7 months ago
@danplyler William Lane Craig did not have any more responses on this specific topic, but he did ask his own questions and give responses to other questions. I did edit those out, because they were not on this topic. The original video is linked in the beginning, but I think that's been removed. Just search YouTube for "Shelly Kagan and William Lane Craig". You'll find the whole debate.
mavaddat 7 months ago 7
Excellent reply. I keep seeing Craig's arguments crumble in every video I watch.
TheMortalhuman 8 months ago
@TheMortalhuman Oh, but they dont crumble. Sorry to break it to you, buddy, but Kagan's arguments have been torn apart by Craig and other philosophers in print many times, but this wasnt a real debate (Craig was ordered not to use his usual knock-down debate style by the Veritas Forum).
Kagan is an extremist consequentialist who thinks morality doesnt exist, (since any evil can be justified for ultimate wellbeing of the race or species) Mills social contract theory has also been demolished
relarerfhjk 8 months ago
@relarerfhjk So Craig had to use reasoned argument? No wonder his performance was unimpressive. Curse the Veritas forum. At least they gave Craig an excuse for losing.
TheMortalhuman 8 months ago
@TheMortalhuman Craig wins every debate he engages in,which is why atheists resort to bringing up this armchair chat as their only example of an occasion when Craig didn't demolish his opponent, because that is all you guys have.Talk about desperate.
Craig has shredded Kagan's ideas in print,but he was told to back off from his usual knock-down style here.
You didnt know Mills old social contract theory (which is all Kagan was proposing here) has been ripped apart by most moral philosophers?
relarerfhjk 8 months ago
@TheMortalhuman And secondly, Craig always uses reasoned argument, which is why he has had well over 200 academic pieces on his cosmological, and moral arguments (and his contributions to philosophy of time) published in peer-reviewed journals of philosophy, and has been praised as an excellent academic by leading atheist philosophers such as Quentin Smith. You dont know what your talkiing about
relarerfhjk 8 months ago
@relarerfhjk Can you refer me to any articles that Craig has written about morality that have been published in ethics journals (not theological journals or journals in religious studies)? Even one?
mavaddat 8 months ago
@mavaddat Is that right? Is it true that he has not been published in any non-religious ethics journals? Are the "peers" that "reviewed" his writing just fellow christian believers? I hope for relarefhjk that at least a couple of the 200 academic pieces he mentioned have been published in real ethics journals. I'm happy to learn that this is not true, but I would not be surprised if it is.
TheMortalhuman 8 months ago
@TheMortalhuman My own investigation into his CV (publications) suggests that he has never published a single article in any ethics journal. His own serious philosophical work has been about the philosophy of time (specifically, about Newton's metaphysical notion of absolute time being immune from Einstein's theories of relativity).
As far as I can tell, Dr. Craig does not publish his theism-based arguments for morality in any serious, critical journal.
mavaddat 8 months ago
@TheMortalhuman No, Craig has had over 200 pieces published in some of of the best peer-reviewed journals of philosophy in the world.
Ehrman lost the debate, as he produced Hume's old fallacy that mriacles can never be historically proven;yet probability theorists say you cant consider the inherent improbability of any explanation of the facts (such as the empty tomb) without also factoring in the probability that all the facts would as they are if that was NOT the explanation!!
relarerfhjk 7 months ago
@relarerfhjk Which peer-reviewed ethics journals has Craig been published in? I'd like to look them up. Mavaddat asked you this 3 weeks ago and you have not replied to him. I am happy to learn that he has been published in a reputable ethics of philosophical journal, and if you say he has, I suppose you must know which articles and which journals.
I don't agree with your evaluation of the Ehrman-Craig debate. Craig would not say if the embellished gospels were less reliable. He dodged.
TheMortalhuman 7 months ago
@TheMortalhuman He has been published in many of the best peer-reviewed journals of philosophy, in addition to obtaining a PHD in philosophy and co-authoring books with some of the best including Richard Thaler and Quentin Smith;his works have been praised by leading atheist philosophers like Smith, Singer and Kagan himself. There is absolutely no doubt about his excellent credentials as a philosopher. You make yourself look ignorant by denying it
relarerfhjk 7 months ago
@relarerfhjk If you read what I have said, I have not denied his credentials, I have asked where he has been published. The "over 200 pieces" you claim he has had published in the best peer-reviewed journals does not appear to be quite true, He has published many articles, but most of them are in religiously affiliated publications. It is clear that he is an intelligent man, and he is doing the best he can with a false premise, but doing so has made him and his followers dishonest.
TheMortalhuman 7 months ago
@relarerfhjk I disagree with your assessment, and I don't share your opinion. His arguments are seriously flawed ( for instance he uses biblical testimony as evidence without first establishing the credibility of the bible) and he automatically describes god as the christian God without explaining why it could not be any of the other 10,000 gods that have been worshiped. Please watch his debate with Ehrman where he would not answer direct questions on the reliability of the gospels.
TheMortalhuman 8 months ago
@TheMortalhuman Craig doesnt use "biblical testimony";the gospels werent part of the Bible they were historical records of independent oral traditions relating to the events of Jesus's life,they were only included in the Bible centuries later.All historians agree on their credibility as historical documents. e.g atheist historian Gerd Ludeman admits that its a historical fact that Jesus's tomb was found empty and that some of his disciples witnessed him alive after his crucifixion
relarerfhjk 7 months ago
Respond to this video... All historians agree on their credibility as historical documents? What rubbish. Even christian websites acknowledge that there is disagreement about the credibility of the gospels amongst historians.
Ludeman writings were based on biblical testimony, not historical facts, and his conclusion based on that testimony was that Jesus did not rise from the dead, and he wrote that while he was a christian!
TheMortalhuman 7 months ago
@relarerfhjk Is it true that he has not published any of his articles in any non-religious ethics journals? Are the peers that reviewed his articles all believers?
TheMortalhuman 7 months ago
@TheMortalhuman Not its not true that he hasnt published in any non-religious journals. He has published in everything from the British journal for the Philosophy of Science to American Philosophical Quarterly, to the Journal of Philosophy. When I say he has published over 200 pieces in philosophical journals I was referring to non-theistic peer-reviewed academic journals of philosophy
relarerfhjk 7 months ago
@relarerfhjk I've just looked up his list of published papers and while impressive, it is true that nearly all of them are theological journals, christian magazines, and other evangelical publications. He does have some articles published in the publications you've mentioned, but not many.
TheMortalhuman 7 months ago
@38135539 Yes, that is definitely morally wrong. Video-taping this cheesy movie off the television is just wrong.
If you mean is it wrong for an alien species to destroy another species, then yes, that is also wrong. Why is it wrong? Simple: It is wrong to inflict unnecessary pain on another being that is capable of suffering. Why is it wrong to inflict pain on others? Because every rational being capable of suffering agrees that they don't want it to happen to them.
mavaddat 9 months ago
@mavaddat That makes no sense at all. If you know it wont happen to you, then there is no reason its wrong on that worldview. If you have to dupe yourself into thinking you are the person suffering in order to think causing them suffering is wrong, then historical genocide wasnt wrong, since they are all dead so it doesnt matter (and the Universe doesnt care).The Golden Rule is an horrendous basis for morality, since as soon as humans get enough power it no longer applies
relarerfhjk 9 months ago
@relarerfhjk You're confusing people failing to act morally with the failure of secular morality to have justification.
If you'd think critically, you'd see all the "problems" you identify with secular morality carry over onto theistic morality. This is because you aren't invoking philosophical. You're pointing to psychological problems that humans have whether they think their morality comes from God or not. Indeed, these problems are more prevalent when people think God's on their side.
mavaddat 9 months ago
@mavaddat I'm not confusing the two, the one is the result of the other. Because there is ano atheist basis for morality, people who get power and act in a certain way, are actually behaving perfectly rationally. on an atheist worldview. There is no objective right and wrong, since neither Kagan (nor any other atheist) has EVER been able to explain what gives all human beings equal moral value! His argument (and Sam Harris's wellbeing argument) isnt a moral argument sine it cant explain this
relarerfhjk 9 months ago
@relarerfhjk Responding to your post to this guy. Are you saying that all people who have ever been in power and acted morally wayward were atheists? What about the Crusades? The Inquistition? Here are two premises. "People are equally valuable", "People are not equally valuable" Even if we assume that atheism can't account for people equally valuable, that would not mean that atheism accounts for the idea that people are not equally valuable. Your statements are false about atheism.
Fishqueen1972 8 months ago
On the first day of my moral philosphy class in college, the professor said "morality does not come from religion or the law." Everytime I watch Craig debate the issue, this asertion is further strenghened
chansetwo 9 months ago
@chansetwo Your Professor ought to have been fired for incompetence for making such a dreadfuly philosophically inept and logically invalid statement. The statement "morality doesnt come from God or the law" incorporates about ten logical fallacies. Firstly, He can;t prove it doesnt come from God, (since to do this your Professor would have to prove God doesnt exist) he cant explain how objective morality exists if there is no God, so to assert it doesnt come from God is a contradiction etc etc
relarerfhjk 9 months ago
@relarerfhjk Your strawman fallacy is not going to work. Neither SHE, nor I mentioned god. My making up an argument and then trying to refute it, you're just arguing with yourself like a fool.
chansetwo 9 months ago
@chansetwo Then what was the point posting that? Because Craig has never argued morality comes from religion. So whats the relevance? If you knew anything about the arguments you wouldnt have posted something so stupid.
Why did you say "every time I watch Craig debate the issue this assertion is further strengthened"? when Craig has never, ever, asserted morality comes from religion.(he says objective moral truths exist because they are grounded in God's moral character)
relarerfhjk 8 months ago
@relarerfhjk "he says objective moral truths exist because they are grounded in God's moral character" Craig still asserts Christianity as truth.You're asserting that God's moral character is GOOD without accounting for it. What makes his character good? So you fail in the same way you claim atheists fail. You suffer from the trickle down fallacy, if there is something "GOOD" then there must be something "GREATER" to account for it. That is false. I can imagine a better God than the Christan God
Fishqueen1972 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 Wrong. He doesnt assert you have to believe Christianity to know moral truths. you clearly skipped your philosophy class! Because if you had attended, you would know the difference between moral epistemology (how you come to know moral truths) and moral ontology (what moral truths are grounded in). He doesnt claim you have to believe in God to KNOW moral truths, rather he claims that the ery existence of those moral truths is evidence for the existence of God!!
relarerfhjk 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 Furthermore, your interpretation is wrong. The point is that there must be a source of goodness outside of ourselves,and an explanation of moral values, for there to be any objective good indepndent of human opinion (and any perfect standard for it to measure against) That source cant be nature, since objects in nature are morally neutral but God, as the greatest conceivable being is necessarily good if objective moral truth (right and wrong) are created by Him
relarerfhjk 8 months ago
@relarerfhjk God is an immaterial mind). You seem to be describing God existing in 2 parts. (His nature & his mind). I think you said that his mind only acts in accordance with his perfectly good nature. What makes his nature good? And if God can only act according to his nature then how is he freewilled? You are describing a robot so there is no need for a free acting mind outside of nature. If his nature alone can account for it then so can Universes where creatures like us evolve to exist..
Fishqueen1972 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 Its not "two parts" I am talking about the nature of God who is an immaterial, timeless, all-powerful, all-good mind
"what makes his nature good" This is the old Euthyphro dilemma; the answer is that it is the fact that God abhors cruelty and loves humanity that makes cruelty to humanity bad and love for others "good"; without God investing us all with intrinsic moral worth, cruelty would still be cruel but it wouldnt be objectively "wrong" to be cruel to others
relarerfhjk 7 months ago
@relarerfhjk Craig has argued many times that that his moral epistemology is derived from the" word of god as revealed in the bible". That is a theological (religious) position. I suggest you do some research before opening your mouth. I said my position is strengthemed when watching Craig because his arguments are completely vacuous; that includes his silly argument regarding devine command "theory". It is utter nonsense.
chansetwo 8 months ago
@chansetwo No, he hasnt. Craig has argued that we can all know moral truths without reference to God because they are objective (as they are grounded in God's nature) i can send you the links where he said this, repeatedly, so dont tell lies and distort other peoples arguments.
His arguments only demonstrate that there is absolutely no atheist foundation for moral truth or human value; if thats "vacuous" you havent even understood the arguments!
relarerfhjk 8 months ago
@relarerfhjk I'm not distorting anything. Craig has said many times when asked about moral epistemology, that it is revealed through gods word in the bible. All you're doing is denying that he said it, and changing the subject to moral ontology as if they're the same thing. That's called "bait and switch" None of these arguments of Craig's has any merit.. These dirty tactics people like you and Craig employ are not working.
chansetwo 8 months ago
@chansetwo Your distorting Craig's arguments. He wrote on Reasonable Faith "We can all know moral truths wihout reference to God; the point is that for moral truths to be objective, they need a transcendent anchor" .
I'm not "changing the subject" I was explaining that we can KNOW moral truths without believing in God but those truths wouldnt exist unless they were grounded in God.
Craig's arguments have never been effectively refuted by a single atheist (and he has debated many of the best)
relarerfhjk 8 months ago
@relarerfhjk All you just did was repeat the comment I just rebutted. Craigs rediculous arguments are neither taken seriously by professional moral philosophers outside religious circules, nor are they worth the 30 seconds to write this response. Ok, if you don't think his moral epistemology is derived from god's word through the bible as he says it is, then explain to me his methodology for moral epistemology. You can start with gay rights, abortion and doctor assisted suicide.
chansetwo 8 months ago
@chansetwo Craig's arguments are neither taken seriously" now you proved your ignorance! Craig's arguments ARE taken seriously by moral philosophrs he has been praised by leading atheist philosophers such as Quentin Smith and Shelly Kagan himself! He has also had well over 200 articles published in leading peer-reviewed journals of philosophy. you dont have a clue what your talking about.
The Bible outlines moral DUTIES, not the objective values they are grounded in!
relarerfhjk 7 months ago
@relarerfhj How do the number of books and papers he's written or compliments of him by two philosophers say anything about the opinion of him in the community of moral philosophers? Answer: it does not; that is a non-sequetor. All you have done is waste 2 minutes of my time, and show you don't have the critical thinking ability of a high school debater. Kagan destroyed him in this debate and exposed his arguments for the sophistry that they are. Any competent moral philosopher can do the same
chansetwo 7 months ago
@relarerfhjk Professor Kagan just explained objective morality. If God is an "IS" and not an "OUGHT". Well, then who objectively claims that God GIVING us value makes it so? That would definitely be a matter of opinion.And so you are not REALLY valuing people, but valuing God.Our intrinic value that God places upon us could be because he is going to eat our souls after we die. How would that give reason to value people? Can God declare we have no value? if not, human value comes from elsewhere
Fishqueen1972 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 Kagan couldnt give ny basis for objective moral values, since he couldnt explain why humans have equal, inherent moral worth! Complex neurosystems may be potentially useful but that doesnt make them morally good,and,and if our mental capacities define our moral worth, then mentally-ill/brain-damaged people have less "moral worth" than the mentally-able and intelligent!
We value God as the fulfilment of human existence,as the greatest conceiable being he is the paragon of goodness
relarerfhjk 8 months ago
@relarerfhjk What you fail to understand if that God is an "IS" not an "OUGHT, then God's existence is arbitrary thus making his creation arbitrary. What account's for God's intrinsic worth? You are asserting a value to God which is SUBJECTIVE and your opinion. And so really you are not really valuing people but valuing God. Kagan did account for value for ALL creatures with the idea of unnecessary suffering if you watched the whole debate. Kagan is actually a vegetarian.
Fishqueen1972 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 But His existence isnt arbitrary and neither are the moral values that emanate from His nature, because as the greatest conceivable being He is necessarilly the perfect locus of goodness, (and its better to be the paragon of goodness then to conform to it) and as the greatest conceivable being, there is no possible world in which He could sanction anything contrary to His essentially loving nature. There is no contradiction between valuing God and valuing all his creations equally
relarerfhjk 8 months ago
@relarerfhjk Tell that to those who have killed in God's name. You missed my point. I am not claiming that God's existence is arbitrary. I am saying that the same arguments you are making against the value of people in a naturalistic world can also be applied to your God since there is nothing above him giving him intrinsic value. To assert that God has value because he is the greatest conceivable being is subjective. Not objective. The term "conceivable" in describing him proves that.
Fishqueen1972 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 Ah,but only Christians have any basis for saying that what those who killed in God's name did,was objectively wrong because God gives us a foundation for objective moral moral values.As an atheist, you have no such foundation so you cant say what they did was objectively wrong.
Its not "subjective" to describe God as the greatest being its the same as saying a symphony recording is judged by its fidelity to the live orchestra (which is the perfect standard or explanatory ultimate)
relarerfhjk 8 months ago
@relarerfhjk And to further the point. The fact is we CAN reflect on the value of brain-damaged people and evaluated their suffering. That is the whole point of recognizing the difference between those who can make moral choices and those who cannot. If a brain damaged person can no longer make a moral choice then we must imagine being in their shoes.Are you claiming that if a brain damaged person is suffering that it would be objectively wrong to allow them to die to ease their suffering?
Fishqueen1972 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 Easily refuted. Its a contradiction to say we "reflect on their value" since the whole point is there is no naturalistic basis for saying they have equal value,The fact we CAN treat people equally doesnt mean we ought to...unless they have equal inherent worth. And if neurosystems define worth, then we clearly arent equally valuable, since our neurosystems have ZERO INHERENT VALUE (they only have POTENTIAL usefulness)
relarerfhjk 8 months ago
@relarerfhjk "There is no naturalistic basis for saying they have equal value." It can also be said, there is no naturalistic basis for saying they don't have equal value either. You and Craig are envoking your own subjective opinions about the concept of a neutral naturalistic world, by putting a reductive negative spin on it. And the naturalistic world is only neutral in the sense that it doesn't play favorites. That doesn't take away from the objective facts about the naturalistic world.
Fishqueen1972 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 But there is no naturalistic reason to think humans have inherent value, the onus is on the naturalist to explain why humans have equal intrinsic moral worth. Kagan cant do that, so his entire argument fails.
We are not putting a "reductive spin" on it; we are calling a spade a spade; in science, nature is morally neutral it doesnt have moral "value" and its absurd to say neurosystems make human beings "morally valuable"
relarerfhjk 8 months ago
@relarerfhjk You are committing fallacies with the definition of your terms. When you say "neurosystems" you are describing them as objects. When we say "neurosystems" we are describing what brings about subjective experience. This is something that a car can't have. Human beings aren't valuable because of their intrinsic worth. I can call a spade a spade as well and say that if you want to compare yourself to an object owned & given worth intrinsically then by all means do so, but..cont
Fishqueen1972 8 months ago
@relarerfhjk cont...don't claim that view of self worth is objectively superior to mine.
Fishqueen1972 8 months ago
@relarerfhjk You say there is no naturalistic reason to say that people are equally valuable. Well, there is no naturalistic reason to say that people are NOT equally valuable either. People are not objects. There are objective truths about our subjecive experience that is not a matter of opinion. If we cut off our hands then we feel pain. This is true for everyone. To claim you need a God to say well, "you guys are really really special" so don't cut off someone elses hand is dumb.
Fishqueen1972 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 you are right...people are not objects...people are biological machines according to you....now you said.... You say there is no naturalistic reason to say that people are equally valuable. Well, there is no naturalistic reason to say that people are NOT equally valuable either....
...you are right....now....hwo we are equal???explain to me how from naturalistic perspective you can state such thing as people are equal???
giska1000 8 months ago
@giska1000 Let me spell this out to you. A rock is a rock. It is an object. Rocks don't have the subjective experience quality. Neurosystems cause subjective experience. Subjective experience allows for self intrisic value. This is an objective fact about all those things with the subjective experience trait. From the naturalistic point of view, if there is no neurosystem then there is no subjective experience. So the neurosystem is equally valuable to all those with subjective experience.
Fishqueen1972 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 yeah..you forgot 1.we came from these rocks...supposedly...lol 2.we are biological machines that ,,dance according to our dna,, and 3.if this is true.... Subjective experience allows for self intrisic value.
...why then you think that for example my sub, ,,experience,,, for self instrict value is to kill gays ...is inferior to your sub, ,,experence for self instrict values,, not to kill gays???
giska1000 8 months ago
@giska1000 If God created our DNA for us to dance to it then what difference does it make? It doesn't matter how our subjective experience was created. The fact is that subjective experience exists. You are the one equating us with the value of car. In your example, the moral dilemna is unncessary killing. You could fill in any group you want. The fact is, you are straight & would feel it unnecessary for a gay person to kill you just because you are straight. And so it would be true vice versa.
Fishqueen1972 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 If God created our DNA ...3.5 Bilion long information with content and instructions for every single cell in your body....that is your BIOLOGICAL physical creation....but then...it is clear that IF God created your physical body...i.e YOU..than He also created your immatrial,spiritual you...(conscioousness,self awernes,creativity,ability to rationalize,think,love,support and be compassionate,be moral,good person,have will to choose...etc..) and then we come to your second part..
giska1000 8 months ago
@giska1000 You are going off on a different rant. As a naturalist, I don't believe in an immaterial mind which needs to be created. First off, immaterial things don't need a cause or creator but that is a different argument. I don't believe there is an immaterial mind. The mind & brain are one in the same. We aren't arguing the existence of God. We are arguing whether or not the atheist can account for objective values
Fishqueen1972 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 you dont believe in an immaterial mind i know...but look,immaterial things are prooof for an immaterial dimension :) ....and..when you say mind and brain are the one and the same...ohhh..its because you are ignorant of science...i could send you videos ..at least some of them from leading research experts on mind and consciousness...they say mind and brain clearly are not the same...and we can debate on this whole day if you want....but..lets go back to your moral objectivity...
giska1000 8 months ago
@giska1000 I would say you are ignorant of science and neurology. The body mind dilemna is only argued from a view of philosophy. No philosophers agree on that and philosophy is not emperical science. Besides, believing the mind is contingent upon the brain in no way shows that naturalists can't provide moral justification. And like I said, if a mind is non-material then there is no need for a God to create. Fact, describing it as something created gives it physical properties.
Fishqueen1972 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 well you would say alot of other things so i am not offended anyway,but precisely because i love and study science just like my almost whole family full of professors and experts from microbiology to archaeology...friends,cousens etc..i know what is neurology...and when you state something as ,,the body-mind dilemma is only argued from philosophy view,, THIS shows who is ignorant here.....and then your ignorance goes further and you state ,,mind,if non material shows that there...
giska1000 8 months ago
@giska1000 I mispoke about the mind body philosophy thing. What I meant to say, those people who argue that the mind is distinct from the brain argue it based on philosophy, not science. The scientific evidence from the neurologist standpoint shows that the brain & body are one in the same. That is what the scientific evidence shows which is why it is not surprising that you sent me a video of a philosopher.
Fishqueen1972 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 well....brain and the body are the same but MIND AND CONSCIOUSNESS and brain are not...btw..even amongst the most hardcore scientists-naturalists...this still remains mystery...because consciousness itself and self awarness is not dependent on brainfunctions...(i have even videos concerning this subject).....
giska1000 8 months ago
@giska1000 Here is the thing. Those things which have complex brains have minds. Those things which do not have complex functioning minds do not. This should be a clue. Whether or not some person claims to know that the mind & body is distinct or whether or not someone claims that there is still mystery is irrevelant to the fact that scans show the subsconscious mind makes decisions before the conscious mind is aware of it. Meds can even altar a person's mood w/seratonin. This is physical.
Fishqueen1972 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 Here is the thing. Those things which have complex brains have minds. Those things which do not have complex functioning minds do not
...you have a contradiction here...:) Meds can even altar a person's mood w/seratonin. This is physical.
...no they cant...you know how many patients who suffer from depression or anxiety cannot be helped even if they used and tried ALL medicatons??and even in those who got little better..its temporary and actually majority of them...
giska1000 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 ...,,feel better,, because of placebo subjective self convincing effect???you should actually try to study this issue and thencome and comment on this...meds can help to some...in very short time....but they cant help toalot of others...
giska1000 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 ...is no need for God,, is like saying..well ...if there are hands,then there is no need for spoon....(so spoon does not exist)...i mean..first of all,IMMATERIAL....something IMMATERIAL is proof for transcendent being...that is something what even peter atkins will tell you....and even if you say ,,there is no need fot a Gd,, ...it doesent mean that there is no God....actually..thats is precisely the problem...NO NEED FOR GOD...is problem here....remember ,,no need for God,, is...
giska1000 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 ...no.1 cause of atheism beside religion....so you are right...there is no need for God at all from your sub. perspective...but does this mean that simply because you think that there is no God it is true???and your last sentence blew me away...not everyhing created has physical proprties...and i wont go even further into this statement...-.-
giska1000 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 ...answer my question about homophob with immune position or an homophob from royal family...???
giska1000 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 ..of comment....your second part of comment is against logic because i speak from homophobic position....if i am homophob...like for example there is ALOT of homophobs in world....that means that MY SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE tells me that these people need to be klled because they are inferior and i am disgusted by them...and now..look..lets say i am king of some country...or president....well...my subjective experience,plus my position and status...well...why would i say...ahhh no..
giska1000 8 months ago
@giska1000 Because to be disgusted is not a good enough reason to kill someone. I could be disgusted by your face and if I think like you then I would have reason to kill you. The fact of the matter is, in a world like that then no one would be safe. Not even you. If you value yourself, then you would HAVE to reject a world like that. It wouldn't be a matter of your opinion. It would be a necessity to your own well being.
Fishqueen1972 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 ohh dont tell me....well...being disgusted isnt only reason...i named few other reasons too....its not the only reason why homophobs killing gays ...disgust isnt only reason...because you can be digusted by your own parents,some cousens,fake ,,friends,, etc...so i named you reasons or my opinion from a homophobic perspective..why homophobs hate and kill gays anyway??and why would you say they re wrong while you are ot wrong??is it something based on another experience...or???
giska1000 8 months ago
@giska1000 Because ALL of your reasons are not adequate reasons. The gay person does not harm your wellbeing. The only justification your have to kill a gay person is self defense. This would be true if the roles were reversed. This isn't rocket science. Besides, we all have self intrinisic value. If you kill a gay person, that doesn't change his value. He will value his life up until the time you kill him. Your opinion can't change that.
Fishqueen1972 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 lol first of all i dont wanna be disrespectful,or sound like sexist..but..you know whats worse than an atheist????....a female atheist...XD ;/ ....now look...you ned to explain to me...if i simply have subjective experience that gay is disgusting,he causing me to be uncomfortable,i believe that he is wicked,freak of nature,mistake of n.selection...etc..and i FEEL ..i have subjective experience and tendency to eliminate this person...what can stop me??dont tell me about values...
giska1000 8 months ago
@giska1000 LMAO...Are you a god believer? I think what ever it is you are arguing against me about applies to you as well. First off, you are devaluing me because I am female atheist and this is coming from someone who claims to only have justification for equality and morality. I don't have to stop you from doing anything. The God believing Muslims kill gays all the time. And Christians used to burn women alive. You are confusing the failure for humanity to recognize objective moral values.
Fishqueen1972 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 i am God believer and i said this because really...there is nothing worse than female atheist..with male atheist,at least you can have reasonable discussion..but with female atheists..i NEWER..ever saw any reasonable statement which came from them,this is phenomenom.....this is true....and for example if you see your comments,and then compare them with comments of other atheist...MALE atheist..you ll see difference between you and him.....then again...i can even show you from ..
giska1000 8 months ago
@giska1000 Look up a list of fallacies. Normally when someone cannot adequately attack a persons arguments, then they resort to attacking the person instead of the argument. This shows me that I have won because you can't refute anything I have said. Keep on attacking my gender & my atheism instead of my arguments.
Fishqueen1972 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 lol i dont attack yur gender or atheism...i just said that worst thing in a debate is female atheist opponent..because TRUST me...the things that female atheists can state or say....are....priceless...lol...xD btw you constantly confirming my point like n previous comment,but idk how to show you that anymore....so..YES you are right,christian,muslim,hebrew,atheist....no one is morally sperior here....because we ar eALL fallen biased selfish humans.....
giska1000 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 ...and EVERY war,sorrow,inquisition etc made in history of mankind was BECAUSE of a man.....man who made subjective ,,moral,, judgment....look what pope did...immediately,just when he left Scriptures he became heretic,fell of a church,and brought his own ,,moral,, judgment,laws,teachings and thats how you got great schism in 1054 and thats how catholicism came to birth...and thats how catholicism expanded from an middle patriarchia in roe to no.1 church...,,church,, in the world..
giska1000 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 ...by wars,conquests,,,holy wars,, ...crusades or whatever...inquisitions...hatred..etc..WHAT cem good out of catholicism???tell me,because catholicism is clear example of how humans are incapable of making subjective moral judgment...one man is enough to change the world....
giska1000 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 ...your own post how ignorant you are...you again coming with what muslims do and what christians do...i newer said christians are moral,atheists are immoral..im just saying,if there is God..then there should be an objective morality for everyone....and about cristians who burned women..i alredy know you talk about catholics...catholics are everything but christians..especially catholic church,most catholics are pagans,making images,worshipjg statues,pope...etc....
giska1000 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 ...but even if they are,and they are indeed antichristians...still...if you apply that they ARE christians...it does not mean that God is immooral and wrong because christians burned women...no..what you need to do is to go and see if there is any verse,or is there any statement made by Christ about burning women,witches or anything like that??....dont blame God of what people do...but blame people of what people do.....
giska1000 8 months ago
@giska1000 I never blamed God for what people do. The argument is this. Naturalism cannot account for objective moral values. I have given plenty of accounts for it and you have strayed off into a different argument which is another fallacy by the way. God believers give their account of objective morality & naturalists give their account. If you want say that your version is superior then fine. That is your right. But to claim that atheist cannot give any account is just plain false.
Fishqueen1972 8 months ago
@giska1000 To continue, you are confusing the failure for humanity in general to reckognize objective moral values with the idea that atheists can't provide justification for them. The Christian or the Muslim isn't any more equipped than the atheist to have better moral judgements.
Fishqueen1972 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 you are confusing the failure for humanity in general to reckognize objective moral values with the idea that atheists can't provide justification for them. The Christian or the Muslim isn't any more equipped than the atheist to have better moral judgements
...thank you for proving my point...i still trying to teach you that as we are made in the image of God...WE ALL share a common morality and common values....and its true...we all share a common moral codex and value...
giska1000 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 ..and there is even ,,golden rule,, in every society ...what you want others to do to you,you shall do that to them....and...why we even have jails and why in every civilisation we punished people for ,,wrong doing,,??...this all goes in favour of God...because it is His claim that we are moral beings with value,because we are made in His image...but it goes even further...surely we have moral basis and codex,but as fallen mankind...we need God to give us specific moral law...
giska1000 8 months ago
@giska1000 Ok. You have given your justification for your believe system God. I am not going to argue against it other than I think it poses some problems given the fact that no one can agree to which God or book to follow. And I think in the past that The Bible & Koran have actually given justification for some cruel & wicked acts done which would not have been done without the belief in God. However, that in no way proves that atheists cannot provide moral justification for human value.
Fishqueen1972 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 than I think it poses some problems given the fact that no one can agree to which God or book to follow
...ok...why most educated,greatest scientist in history,historians,archaeologists,philosophers etc...were all...ALL christians??why i came to Judeo Christianity??surely,europe is no.1 secular continent..matter of fact we invented secularism....why we are christian continent??you need to ask yourself...well...MAYBE..just MAYBE..we,or at least some of us searched and studied
giska1000 8 months ago
@giska1000 First off, they were not all Christians. Does Einstein come to mind? So no they were not all Christians. And before secularms, most non-Christians were killed because they were charged with heresy. Christianity became prominent through bloody force. Just ask the former Romans before Christianity turned the Roman empire into a theocracy. All the gays were killed & those who didn't conform to Christianity were killed. But I am not going to allow you to bring up another debate.
Fishqueen1972 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 lolol einstein was at least deist...and there are even statements on him about God...now i dont know what you think you are,but when i said i will provide you a list...i really mean A LIST....of people who are greater scientists than einstein was....ok???;))) and then again you go with your bragging about ,,romans,catholics...,, ...blablabla.....i mean...wth...this is reason why its not really good to debate female atheists....as much as you try...it wont go into their heads -.-
giska1000 8 months ago
@giska1000 Einstein was a pantheist, not a deist. Einstein referred to the Universe as God. And I have no objection to that belief at all. In a sense, I am also a pantheist because I believe The Universe was the cause of my existence.
Fishqueen1972 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 hahahahaah einstein WAS DEIST....he believedin some God but not personal one....you believe that universe created you???lol..ok...good for you....-.-
now i want to see where you got that information that protestantshad history ofburning witches???and again,you refering this to ,,some,, protestant and ,,some pastors,, right???
oh and bible says kill the witch???:O ehhhh....listen....this isridiculous...because youa re either some christianwho doing this satire to ...
giska1000 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 ...in completely different times and yet.....they are all consistent and whole scriptures are in harmony because these people were inspired by Holy Ghost and God clearly gave us moral law,history of universe,archaeology and science in this holy book...all wisdom we can ask for is in that book and more i read it and studying it, the more i can see it...so thanks to 10 commandments and thanks to what Christi said...you today my friend live in civilized world in which....
giska1000 8 months ago
@giska1000 No it is not thanks to the 10 commandments or what Christ said...lol The 10 commandments mentions nothing about slavery or rape. The 10 commandments says to worship God which has caused the unjustified killing of non-worshippers. The 10 commandments says not to covet thy neighbors goods which is completely against the idea of capitalism.
Fishqueen1972 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 ...you are not stoned or hanged if you commited adultery,your hands are not cut off if you streal,no one will kill you if you lie,you dont go and eat your neighbour but yu should love your neighbour....etc..etc...you have freedom ,right for life,equality and pursuit of happines,moral values,individual value etc...all that came from God ...from the Bible...without Bible you woud be lost,and ohh i wish so bad that you were born in some other society where other holy books like quran
giska1000 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 ...created whole constitution of an civilisation...where they degrading women,killink every non religious,or non muslim man etc....doing all kinds of wicked things...or in atheistic japan,or in communist china..or former societ union...nazi germany....or any non christian part of the earth where their laws are based on non biblical ,,morality,, ...then you would see what you talking about and how wrong ...how rong you are...
giska1000 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 ..then again...you go to tell how all gays,rays,flays and other ays were killed etc..but look again..you talking about CATHOLIC CHURCH here ...again..-.- ...why dont you tal about original church old 2000 years???ortodox church???or why dont you talk abot other churches who escaped freom POPE and again brought up SCRIPTURES s ONLY authority...not man(pope) but SCRIPTURES...THE BIBLE...dd protestants,lutherans and others killed,burned,raped etc??NO..why??because they eliminated...
giska1000 8 months ago
@giska1000 Actually, protestants also have a history of witch burning. Maybe not as prevelant as the historical Catholics, but they still have a history of delusional beliefs regarding witches. And some protestants reverands in recent modern times still hold these superstitious beliefs & say that the witch burning practice should return. Look at the Salem witch trials, those were not Catholics. The Bible says "Kill a witch".
Fishqueen1972 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 ..represent atheists as complete noobs...or you are an really,really.....really...reallymisinformed atheist...which oen is is??cmon be honest?? But we don't. All we have are various books recorded by man who you claim are wicked which is open to subjective interpretation. And these books have been repeatly been used by man to have power over others.
...and we have the Bible...book written by over 40 men....prophets...from kings to servants....in 3 different continents...
giska1000 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 ...a MAN ...who had subjective moral judgment just liek you have....all these things show that my point about ,,moral,, judgment of man is wicked....so you..we all NEED direction ...we need t be instructed from God to know what is right and what is wrong,because without God,you are left on your own,with some moral basics and codex and the rest is based upon YOU and your subjectivity...now..we know what happens when you give to man a power.....-.-
giska1000 8 months ago
@giska1000 You may have a point if there was a God who made is commands unambiguously to everyone for always and all times. But we don't. All we have are various books recorded by man who you claim are wicked which is open to subjective interpretation. And these books have been repeatly been used by man to have power over others. Your argument reeks of hypocrisy. And religion is a mirror image of those things for which you criticize about people. We secular humanists can see that.
Fishqueen1972 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 And religion is a mirror image of those things for which you criticize about people. We secular humanists can see that.
...you constantly atrtacking religion,but what religionhas to do with christiaity??Judeo Christianity is FAITH...antireligious faith....now dont you want me to quote you the Bible or..just Christ from scriptures about religions and people who invented religions???because you attacking me,a non religious man,for wat religions and religious people are.....
giska1000 8 months ago
@giska1000 I am not attacking you. I am attacking your argument. Reread what I wrote. Jesus wrote about the Good Samaritan.Ok.Well the good samarian existed before the Bible was written. For whatever, good you seek in the Bible, you have to cherry pick. If you want to believe in a God who says, "You are really really special" Fine. If that is what gives you your self esteem. But to claim that morality comes from commandments is false. God cannot command that murder is good & then it makes it so
Fishqueen1972 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 ahhaha i have to cherry pick??? no dear lady...i dont have to cherry pick...whole bible is authoriy,old testament for jews and new testament and old testament for christians...whole biblical system is in western civilisation till this very day...not because we cherry pick,but because its the most reasonable way of life.....in old testament you have laws for hebrews and israel country....andthere you also have 10 commendments that are all practices in world today...and in new ...
giska1000 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 ...testament,after alw was fulflled God gave that ultimate perfect law of love....forgivness,mercy and truth.....btw OH YOU ARE GENIUS...how did you knew that good samaritan existed before he bible???? -.- btw..do you even know who were samaritans(who are samaritans)?
giska1000 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 . If you want to believe in a God who says, "You are really really special" Fine. If that is what gives you your self esteem. But to claim that morality comes from commandments is false. God cannot command that murder is good & then it makes it so
...i d not believe in God because it will give me self esteem,or power,or any benefit of this world...i love Him because He loved me first....and i hope that one day you ll experience that love of God....and one more thing...
giska1000 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 ..God newer said ahh go and kill for fun...and He definitely newer would say that....He would say go and kill...but remember....killig in not the same as murder.....
giska1000 8 months ago
@giska1000 God CAN"T say murder is good. Do you understand? Morality does not come from God. To say that morality was created by God means that God if with his freewill wanted to change the laws of morality could. God cannot say that murder and rape is good. This shows that morality comes from somewhere else.
Fishqueen1972 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 listen...i am sure that you are 100% confused...1.who are you to say what God can and what He cant???2.where did you came upo with Morality does not come from God in sentence after ,,God cant say murder is good,,???its contradiction in just 2 sentences....3.God is Law...He is that line and PRINCIPLE who differenciate between existence,nonexistence,morality,immorality,logic,ilogic,order,chaos...etc.....so God is unchanged..He is ETERNAL LAW and Principles in which everything works
giska1000 8 months ago
@giska1000 And to further show the error of your argument. You describe God in two parts (unchanging nature) & (his mind). HIs unchanging nature is what dictates his mind. So his mind is nothing more than a messenger of his nature. If that is the case then there is no reason for worship or admiration of a such an entity. he would basically be a reality creating computer spewing out information. Unless God has the ability to choose evil over good, then his judgements are arbitrary.
Fishqueen1972 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 .....and God newer said nor will say murder and rape are good.....He is merciful...so..whenh you say His judgment of people for sin,its not murder...its killing...its punishing the ones that misused and abused their own free will to bring disorder into order....and finally,no..all this shows that morality only can come from God(absolute) and this also shows that you are extremly confused...idk what to say ...:/
giska1000 8 months ago
@giska1000 lol...you still don't get it. If one person believes a specific fact about morality such as "women should where burkas" because God says so then that is there version of absolute morality derived from God. What do you say to those people if you disagree? They are using the same argument that you are using. To reply by saying well "God doesn't think that". Neither premise is provable. You have to appeal to something other than what God thinks such as reason.
Fishqueen1972 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 lol...you still don't get it. If one person believes a specific fact about morality such as "women should where burkas" because God says so then that is there version of absolute morality derived from God.
...i fail to see where God in the Bible said women should wear burkas...btw it is written that women shouldl dress modest,appropriate....not like women dressing themselves today...like prostitutes,like males and all kinds of other ,,styles,, which was brought by communism...
giska1000 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 What do you say to those people if you disagree? They are using the same argument that you are using. To reply by saying well "God doesn't think that". Neither premise is provable. You have to appeal to something other than what God thinks such as reason.
...no we should study every Holy Book...and se which one is only trust worthy and reliable...and that is Bible..so we should go back to see what Bible has to say...because Bible is ONLY book that adresses EVERY issue concerning
giska1000 8 months ago
@giska1000 That is just your subjective opinion regarding the Bible. You can't prove the Bible is the word of God. You just assert. Just like the Muslims assert the Koran is the word of God. If everything about the Bible for which you claim proves that it is the word of god was the same except the moral teachings were different then would we all believe something different? If it said that red headed people were the devil's children & they should be extreminated would that hold true?
Fishqueen1972 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 That is just your subjective opinion regarding the Bible. You can't prove the Bible is the word of God. You just assert. Just like the Muslims assert the Koran is the word of God
...seriously...are you dumb in any other area???of course that this is not my ,,subjective assertion,, ...it can all be STUDIED and examined..whole historicity,archaeology and science,prophecies,claims,philosophy,theology etc...al this can be rigorously studied and examined...especially when it comes ..
giska1000 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 ..to life,ministry,death,burial and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth....now...EVERY SINGLE field will show you the most powerful and biggest amount of evidence,and i can send you top scholars an all of this and their debates and videos of lectures in which they prove undeniably these facts....now...it only takes you LITTLE BIT to discredit quran...lets examine quran from just one small historical perspective ok??...quran originated from bible,it claims that its ,,update,, ...
giska1000 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 ..of the Bible....now...i ll just point out this fallacy..in quran you ll find that Triunity of God is Father,Christ and Mary....which is FALSE...muhammad was confused because he was influenced by local nestorian sect that lived in arabian peninsula in that time so he wrote COMPLETE NONSENSE...one mistake..now...look at this historical mistake...in quran,Virgin Mary is SISTER OF MOSES AND ARON?????do you see this ENORMOUS mistake???now we can continue and continue....its so easy..
giska1000 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 ..to disprove quran from any perspective you want...like..quran claims God is not Father..which is obvious contradiction...quran claims Jesus was not crucified but it ,,appeared to them that He was crucified,, ...and so on and so forth...so many LAUGHABLE FALLACIES in quran....there is more fallacies and mistakes in quran than there is number of ayets in whole book and hadith together....so....you can dismiss quran just like any other ,,holy book,, and religion very easily...
giska1000 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 If it said that red headed people were the devil's children & they should be extreminated would that hold true?
...logical fallacy here...if Gd exists..then He cannot contradict Himself...because He is eternal in His love,grace,mercy etc..just one verse about something like this you wrothe would disprove that God exist....now..alah is not god for bilisons of reasons,if anything its an evil spirit of fallen angel at its best. because he precisely dictated in quran to kill pigs..
giska1000 8 months ago
Comment removed
giska1000 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Fishqueen1972 ..i.e jews..and christians i.e infidels,and pagans(devis children) etc...quran if full of killing for no reason....murder is all over quran...Bible is completely different because Bible when it talks about killing,it talks about defense from opressors or about spiritual death....judgment of sinful people and their spiritual demise...you wont find anywhere in the Bible one verse in which anyone is condemned for no reason..just for fun...killing in the Bible is either defense...
giska1000 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 ...man,his nature,his fall,his life and SIN...there is no other book which do this except the bible...every other book is something written on purpose for what people want to hear....but Bible DIRECTLY strikes in the heart of sin and describe us and the very depth of our heart and human wicked nature....
giska1000 8 months ago
@giska1000 "Human wicked nature"...lol I live this. Did human's create their own nature? Did human's create themselves. If God created humans in his own image and human are naturally wicked then it logically follows that God is wicked. You can't have it both ways. If you can't account for why a human being would want to purposely be wicked outside the nature which created them then your story is flawed. No one can create themselves or their own intrinsic nature.
Fishqueen1972 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 Did human's create their own nature? Did human's create themselves. If God created humans in his own image and human are naturally wicked then it logically follows that God is wicked.
....-.- God created everything....everything rested upon good principles...free will is part of humans...humans misused..abused free will and choosed to do opposite from what they ought to be and do..and thats how they became wicked,fallen and sinful...and ultimtely separated from God.....
giska1000 8 months ago
@giska1000 So freewill is the cause of it? So if God started over and gave humans freewill then they would automatically abuse it? Sounds like a principle of freewill is bad. It would seem that anything with freewill would be determined to abuse it. It is not like humans asked to be created with freewill. If God is omniscient then he would have known what humans would do with freewill before he created them. Yet, he created them anyway. By the way, what was God doing before he created us?
Fishqueen1972 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 Sounds like a principle of freewill is bad. It would seem that anything with freewill would be determined to abuse it.
.....wrong..God,angelsarchangels etc...so many entities newer misuse free will....you dont misuse free will because someone told you so...you misuse it because you choose to do so....look it at this...its like saying everyone with free will are doomed to kill people...well...DUH...if you choose..but what about you and me???and bilions of other people...??
giska1000 8 months ago
@giska1000 But you have not accounted for why one person chooses to kill people while others don't?Is it just random? If one person chooses to kill then they were given a soul with a property for killing.If a different person chooses not to kill then they were given a soul with a property to sustain from killing. Like I said, we don't create ourselves.I don't actually believe in freewill except in instances of self reflection and that is even questionable.
Fishqueen1972 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 But you have not accounted for why one person chooses to kill people while others don't?
...it is matter of choice..if evolution was true and if all this was random..then surely we wouldnt be able,nor you are able to say why ppl choose to do anything...because we just ,,dance according to our genes,, ...now..look this...i wont take you but me as an example..i am an well educated man,i live in europe and i surely know that it is wrong to kill another person....
giska1000 8 months ago
@giska1000 "It's a matter of choice." Choices are either based on reason, determined, or they are random. If two people are presented with the same situation & has the same knowledge. If they make two very different choices then there is no account for it other than one was created differently (determined) or it is just random. You have to exclude reason as the answer since they were faced with the same situation & knowledge. If one has better reason capabilities then that is not choice.
Fishqueen1972 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 killing people,i have even interviews of some ofthe worst s.killers in history of the world who killed because they WANTED SO...perfectly normal,educated healthy people who wanted to kill either for money or for fun or just to experiment....they said they KNOW its wrong but stll they wouldnt change a thing...they would still keep doing it....there is nothing what can stop you from killing another person...its matter of choice ....
giska1000 8 months ago
@giska1000 But you still have not account for why one person would want to and one person would not. To say well there are two choices is not an answer. Those serial killers you are speaking of were psychopaths. They do not have the ability for compassion or empathy. There is something different about their brains. I have just accounted for it. You have not.
Fishqueen1972 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 But you still have not account for why one person would want to and one person would not.
....because its up to person to choose....everyone have ther own choice and hence..responsbility for choice they made....and thats wgy i asked you before can i ask you a question...because wanted to ask you,what do you think..isnt it amazing how we are all beings???you cannot take human beng and ,,study them,, with microscope or telescope or any other method and then ,,knew,, them.....no
giska1000 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 Choices are either based on reason, determined, or they are random.
...but they are still choices and they are based on something right??you still choose that...and either you used reason,or was determined or randomness..still it is a choice brought by human being...it newer ,,popped out,, somewhere from sky or your body...choice was brought up by you...your reason or your emotions or anger,or bad mood,or good mood..etc...
giska1000 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 If two people are presented with the same situation & has the same knowledge. If they make two very different choices then there is no account for it other than one was created differently (determined) or it is just random.
....first of all there are no such 2 perspns because we are all unique..but still even f this was true..they are still responsible for choice they made...they had multply options but they rather choosed one that they wanted to...not the one that was forced...
giska1000 8 months ago
@giska1000 But why did they choose one over the other? You are not answering the question.
Fishqueen1972 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 But why did they choose one over the other? You are not answering the question.
...because they had their own reasons not to choose othervise...there is x reasons...for example...maybe because person b intentionally choosed to choose opposte from person a because of pride....because person b wanted to be ,,original,, and not to follow person a and his choice....or for example...you know rchard dawkns and hitchens are both athests,both are educated and both share opnion on ...
giska1000 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 ..alot of things..but the difference between these 2 s hitch dont wanna see whole religion beng dead..because it is more fun to dscuss wth themn and if religion dies...the t wont be fun anymore if 100% of the world become atheists..so there is no reasonable ...reason....for whch 2 persons of the same knowledge or status or opinon would make 2 completely different choice...its all matter of your 2nde choce of preference or any other reason you can find to make man choice....
giska1000 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 ...or depressive person..ANY person with certain brain damage or disease cannot be from your perspective condemned neither for raping,nor for murder..because his brain made him do so...you believe brain is all there is...and brain control you...so how can you condemn person with damaged brain for killing other man??why you think he is responsible ???
giska1000 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@giska1000 Ok please address this. Let me ask you something. If you knew that a person killed someone and laughed about it then you would automatically consider that person an evil doer. What if you found out that the person had a tumor in the region of the brain which controls behavior and emotion? Would you then have a different opinion on the situation?
Fishqueen1972 8 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 ..NOT because simpy i think its against law or its not good for society or someething like that but because I IN MY WELL BEING KNOW that this is wrong and i would feel bad and guilty consciense if i do such thing...i would feel so bad deep down in my soul i know it,once i hit my younger brother and after that i felt so bad that i literally cried few minutes because i knew i shouldnt do this....no one said to me something bad...but anyway I ..ME MYSELF was so depressed that ...
giska1000 8 months ago
@giska1000 Let me ask you something. If you knew that a person killed someone and laughed about it then you would automatically consider that person an evil doer. What if you found out that the person had a tumor in the region of the brain which controls behavior and emotion? Would you then have a different opinion on the situation?
Fishqueen1972 8 months ago