Questions

Author: TheRealNihilist

Posts

Total: 48
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@ethang5
why not? A pedophile can also be a nihilist.
This in no way helps me understand your position. Him being a nihilist doesn't change anything. Everything starts off morally neutral and we assign what we like to be good or bad. I don't think you are understanding.
Would he be punished if you made the laws?
Yes as in he will be sentenced to a mental health institution where as a society we can rehabilitate him. I think would be reducing recidivism which will lead to him being a functioning member of society. 
he isn't under your moral standard. This is a yes or no question.
Under his moral standard he would be justified.
Under mine no. 
I thought this would be clear. A person would do x because they think it is good. It is no different with a pedophile, The Joker or Hitler. 
It is one of the absolute worst moral systems to have.
Care to demonstrate it?
Because Hitler would only respond to force. Either you surrender, or fight, which means war. 
I guess fight if I was capable but I could never know until I was in the situation.
No.
If it wasn't clear God doesn't follow this foundational premise. Meaning God doesn't abide by these rules. Given the reality we live in every single instance clearly shows the cause and effect to be true yet God doesn't follow it. If it wasn't clear what I am going on about I am basically going to ask it in a question, what cause God? 
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@TheRealNihilist
why not? A pedophile can also be a nihilist.

This in no way helps me understand your position.
Lol. I'm not trying to get you to understand my position. I'm trying to get you to understand your position.

Him being a nihilist doesn't change anything.
Exactly! Which is why he could have the same moral standard as you.

Everything starts off morally neutral and we assign what we like to be good or bad. I don't think you are understanding.
I understand perfectly. You are being unfair and illogical. Both you and the pedophile started off neutral. Both of you chose your pwn moral standard. You freely admit his choice of morality is not morally different than yours, but you admit, if you were in judgement, you would punish the pedophile, (even if it is only sentenced to a mental institution).

On what basis would you judge and punish him? Simply because you think your way is right, though you admit it isn't really "right", and there is no "right".

Though you give everyone the right to chose their own morality, and admit all moral standards to be morally equal, you still would punish someone who did not follow your personal morality. That my confused friend, is fascism.

Would he be punished if you made the laws?

Yes as in he will be sentenced to a mental health institution where as a society we can rehabilitate him. I think would be reducing recidivism which will lead to him being a functioning member of society.
There you go. You have no morality. You have only your tastes. That itself is fine, but when you begin to punish others for violating your personal tastes, it becomes fascism.

Your position on morality makes you unable to judge or condemn any other morality. All you can say is, "It differs from mine". You cannot punish anyone for choosing a different moral standard than you did, all you can do is follow your own.

he isn't under your moral standard. This is a yes or no question.

Under his moral standard he would be justified. Under mine no. 
Then why is he being judged and sentenced under YOUR standard? If he is justified under his standard, as are you under your standard, why do you think you have the right to sentence him?

I thought this would be clear. A person would do x because they think it is good. It is no different with a pedophile, The Joker or Hitler.
That is understood. The problem is one of those people suddenly wanting to judge and sentence others on his own personal opinion of "what is good." Hitler did so and started world war two.

It is one of the absolute worst moral systems to have.
Care to demonstrate it?

It's simple really. In reality, everyone has a different idea of what pleasure and suffering is. If a person thinks suffering is the greatest evil, he will think pleasure is the greatest good.

So today we have western society that lives consumed with chasing pleasure, as the rest of the world drowns in suffering. And they call it morality!

For years I lived in Ghana, west Africa, and I saw Americans casually spend on a pizza, enough money to send a child in Ghana to school for a year, or spend enough on a gaming system, to pay for a life saving operation for a baby.

Everything is geared towards your personal pleasure. When atheists talk about causing no suffering, they mean their own suffering. They still go out and wash their cars with 20 gallons of water as people elsewhere die of thirst.

Suffering is NOT the greatest evil, and true morality has nothing to do with pleasure or happiness. The most moral man who ever lived was described as "a man of sorrow."

Because Hitler would only respond to force. Either you surrender, or fight, which means war.

I guess fight if I was capable but I could never know until I was in the situation.
So there are conditions where you would abandon your moral code. Opposing Hitler meant the most suffering for everyone. Surrendering meant the least.

Any moral standard that has to be abandoned under certain real world conditions, is a poor standard. The moral standard Jesus put forth, is applicable and correct for every possible real world condition, one never needs to abandon it to successfully meet any condition in reality. It is a superior standard to all others.

If it wasn't clear God doesn't follow this foundational premise. Meaning God doesn't abide by these rules.
What rules? You stated no rules, you asked a question.

Given the reality we live in every single instance clearly shows the cause and effect to be true yet God doesn't follow it.
Because you are confusing two different things. Creation and creator. God is not part of nature, thus does not operate under the rules of nature.

If it wasn't clear what I am going on about I am basically going to ask it in a question, what cause God? 
God is uncaused. The law of causality refers to matter. Space. Energy. Created things. God is not constituted of created things. He is not matter. Or energy. He is other. Unique.

Only things that begin need a cause. God never began. He literally has no beginning. (and no end either) He is eternal. This is only one of the 5 qualities of God that are unique to only Him, and identify Him as "other" as God. The other 4 qualities being, omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence, and immutability.

God is a title, not a name. God has a name, and He is a living, real, person.

Many want God to be subject to the laws that govern His creation, but that is as irrational as expecting a carpenter to submit to the laws that govern a chair he's made.

You asked once why I believe the bible is true. Msny,  many reasons, but one of the most convincing reasons is that the concepts and ideas about the nature of God in the bible, are so advanced, so logical, so coherent, complex, that I know it could not be from man, much less men from 6,000 years ago.

This is why the bible has been able to do what no other book has done. It has no equal, no rival, nothing is even close.



TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@ethang5
Exactly! Which is why he could have the same moral standard as you.
Okay. There is also implementation of said ideas. If it wasn't clear this would be comparable to having 1 Bible with different versions from different sects.
Both you and the pedophile started off neutral. Both of you chose your pwn moral standard. You freely admit his choice of morality is not morally different than yours, but you admit, if you were in judgement, you would punish the pedophile, (even if it is only sentenced to a mental institution).
None of this is unfair or illogical. Remember we are talking about morals not logic. 
On what basis would you judge and punish him? Simply because you think your way is right, though you admit it isn't really "right", and there is no "right".
We need rules. I would use that as a justification.
Though you give everyone the right to chose their own morality, and admit all moral standards to be morally equal, you still would punish someone who did not follow your personal morality
You pointed out a fringe example not the norm. The norm would be Religious folk who would feel like they are happy being Christians. I have no problem with that until they harm other people which I would have a problem. 
That my confused friend, is fascism.
Explain.
There you go. You have no morality. You have only your tastes.
This is a morality. It doesn't have to be objective to be a moral standard.
That itself is fine, but when you begin to punish others for violating your personal tastes, it becomes fascism.
When people are expressing there 2nd amendment right to kill people. It becomes fascism. Do tell me how I am wrong. 
Your position on morality makes you unable to judge or condemn any other morality. All you can say is, "It differs from mine". You cannot punish anyone for choosing a different moral standard than you did, all you can do is follow your own.
Neither does your moral system. Not once have you told me how your moral standard is objective nor have you attempted to do so. As far as I am concerned you are in no position to condemn someone else if I go by your standards. 
If he is justified under his standard, as are you under your standard, why do you think you have the right to sentence him?
I don't believe in rights as in things given to you by God. Do change what you said.
That is understood. The problem is one of those people suddenly wanting to judge and sentence others on his own personal opinion of "what is good." Hitler did so and started world war two.
I see no difference between how the constitution was written. Both had ideas that they thought would be best for society and ultimately history goes to show Hitler was not accepted but the constitution was. 
If a person thinks suffering is the greatest evil, he will think pleasure is the greatest good.
Your moral standard doesn't ensure this would be any different.
So there are conditions where you would abandon your moral code.
How am I abandoning my moral code again?
I did state I would fight but if I knew how to fight. Surrendering seems like a less happy position.
Any moral standard that has to be abandoned under certain real world conditions, is a poor standard.
Real world example: "I like video games so I play it."
What rules? You stated no rules, you asked a question.
Cause and effect.
Because you are confusing two different things. Creation and creator. God is not part of nature, thus does not operate under the rules of nature.
You have no justification in reality for this. Nothing has the same standard that you apply to God. Meaning you have a double standard and I don't think it is justified.
God is uncaused. The law of causality refers to matter. Space. Energy. Created things. God is not constituted of created things. He is not matter. Or energy. He is other. Unique.
What are you using science?
that I know it could not be from man, much less men from 6,000 years ago.
You can't prove this.
This is why the bible has been able to do what no other book has done. It has no equal, no rival, nothing is even close.
Islam disagrees and looking the populations between the two, Islam is increasing while Christianity is decreasing. What do you have to say about Islam?
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
None of this is unfair or illogical.
Punishing another for not following your   own personal moral code is unfair.

Remember we are talking about morals not logic. 
Moral application should be logical.

We need rules. I would use that as a justification.
But why your rules? You have no justification.

Though you give everyone the right to chose their own morality, and admit all moral standards to be morally equal, you still would punish someone who did not follow your personal morality

You pointed out a fringe example not the norm.
That is my point, your morality works only for the typical, the majority. A better morality would work for everyone.

I have no problem with that until they harm other people which I would have a problem. 
Even harm is judged differently by different people. What happens when you think its harmful and the other person disagrees?

That my confused friend, is fascism.
Explain.
Fascism is forcing others to live by your rules.

There you go. You have no morality. You have only your tastes.

This is a morality. It doesn't have to be objective to be a moral standard.
I said nothing about objectivity. There is a difference between your tastes and a moral system. If your moral system is your tastes, why should anybody other than you be expected to follow it? Why would you punish the pedophile who didn't follow it? How is he worthy of punishment for not doing what you liked?

When people are expressing there 2nd amendment right to kill people. It becomes fascism. Do tell me how I am wrong. 
The second amendment has nothing to do with killing people, or what we are debating here.

Your position on morality makes you unable to judge or condemn any other morality. All you can say is, "It differs from mine". You cannot punish anyone for choosing a different moral standard than you did, all you can do is follow your own.

Neither does your moral system.
Hold on. Did you just concede my point? Am I right? If not, please say where.

Not once have you told me how your moral standard is objective nor have you attempted to do so.
Because right now I am not talking about my moral system, I'm talking about yours.

As far as I am concerned you are in no position to condemn someone else if I go by your standards. 
That sounds to me like a concession. We can discuss my morality if you want, but please let us settle this point first. Am I right about your morality?

And is your defense that no morality has the right to judge or condemn any other morality?

If he is justified under his standard, as are you under your standard, why do you think you have the right to sentence him?

I don't believe in rights as in things given to you by God. Do change what you said.
No, I will not. I said nothing about God. I'm asking you why do you think you have the right to sentence him? If you do not believe in rights, that is even worse, because you don't even think you need a right to sentence him.

Basically you're telling me you will simply do what you like to others based simply on your tastes.

I see no difference between how the constitution was written. 
Then you contradict yourself again. Hitler cause enormous pain and suffering to millions. If your moral system seeks to avoid suffering, how can it see no difference between what hitler did and a document intended to protect people from harm? Do you think Hitler was justified in attacking other countries?

If a person thinks suffering is the greatest evil, he will think pleasure is the greatest good.

Your moral standard doesn't ensure this would be any different.
Yes it would. My moral system does not see suffering as the greatest evil and knows not all pleasure is moral.

So there are conditions where you would abandon your moral code.

How am I abandoning my moral code again?
Fighting Hitler would cause the greatest harm to the most people.

I did state I would fight but if I knew how to fight. Surrendering seems like a less happy position.
Less happy than world war? Really?

Any moral standard that has to be abandoned under certain real world conditions, is a poor standard.

This has nothing to do with video games. You may not know what a moral standard is.

You have no justification in reality for this.
Sure I do. The logical concept of creator and creation is seen everyday. If God is creator, He cannot be part of creation. I am saying this is logical. We can debate whether it is true after.

Nothing has the same standard that you apply to God.
Of course, nothing is God.

Meaning you have a double standard and I don't think it is justified.
I have different standards for different things, and so do you. For example, I have a different standard for cows than I do for people, and a different standard for children than I do for adults. This is especially true for moral standards.

So your wanting me to have the same standard for different things is illogical, and not something even you do. It is spurious.

What are you using science?
For some of it. For some, logic.

I know it could not be from man, much less men from 6,000 years ago.

You can't prove this.
Sure I can. There is not a single other work of literature before A.D. era that contains the concepts found in the bible.

Islam disagrees
Empirical facts prove Islam wrong. The Koran even validated the bible.

looking the populations between the two, Islam is increasing while Christianity is decreasing.
Not only is this untrue, it would not counter my claims even if it was true.

What do you have to say about Islam?
Nothing. I'm not talking about Islam, and I have no reason to. I'm blowing holes in your nihilist worldview, which is why you want to pivot to Islam.
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@ethang5
God never began
And you know that HOW?

TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@ethang5
I am going to make this simple.

Morality
For you to be in a position to question my morality you would need to appeal to an objective standard. If you don't then your claim that "It is one of the absolute worst moral systems to have." has no bearing. In order for you to even attempt to do that present your moral system but first tell me how it is objective.

God
"TRN: You have no justification in reality for this.
ethang5: Sure I do."

If it wasn't clear nothing you said after this provides a point for God. You say " The logical concept of creator and creation is seen everyday" but then don't bother to acknowledge the double standard you commit with God. 


ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I am going to make this simple.
Simplicity is not stupidity.

Morality
For you to be in a position to question my morality you would need to appeal to an objective standard.

Not true. My objection to your morality was logical, and you conceded. Run away if you want, but I demonstrated by your answers that you were unfair and irrational.

If you don't then your claim that "It is one of the absolute worst moral systems to have." has no bearing.
You asked me to show how. I did. You have not addressed my points. Your moral system is bad by your own standard because it causes suffering for others as you seek to maximize your personal happiness.

In order for you to even attempt to do that present your moral system but first tell me how it is objective.
You have to address the argument up to date, not now run to another debate. I have not claimed objectivity. The state of my morality does not save yours. The questions have been to your morality.

God
"TRN: You have no justification in reality for this.

ethang5: Sure I do."
If it wasn't clear nothing you said after this provides a point for God.
No one was making a point for God. The question was to the qualities of God. The justification was logic. You have not addressed it.

You say " The logical concept of creator and creation is seen everyday" but then don't bother to acknowledge the double standard you commit with God. 
I spoke at length about your silly requirement to have one standard for everything. You cannot address it so you pretend to be obtuse.

Here, I'll post it again.

I have different standards for different things, and so do you. For example, I have a different standard for cows than I do for people, and a different standard for children than I do for adults. This is especially true for moral standards.

So you' wanting me to have the same standard for different things is illogical, and not something even you do. It is spurious.

I think I've demonstrated that your moral system is unfair and irrational, and that you have no defense for why it is so.

If your moral system was coherent, you would not now be running away from questions and pretending not to see arguments against it.

Now that you've stopped answering questions, and I do not want to be interrogated, our time on this subject has come to an end.

Thanks for your time. It was enjoyable.
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@ethang5
@TheRealNihilist


.
TheRealNihilist,

ETHANG5'S QUOTE OF THROWING IN THE TOWEL AND GIVING UP: "Now that you've stopped answering questions, and I do not want to be interrogated, our time on this subject has come to an end. Thanks for your time. It was enjoyable."

Ethang5 reminds me of one of those guys who shout, "somebody hold me back!!" When they don't really want to fight, but are ashamed for people to know that they are yellow.

He keeps begging you to quit. Lol.


.

TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@ethang5
I demonstrated by your answers that you were unfair and irrational.
You appealed to emotion the entire way through meaning instead of "logically" demonstrating my positions were unfair or irrational you did what you said I did, acting unfair and irrational. Here is a list of unfair and irrational comments made by you: 

Subject 1: If we decided that raping babies was moral, would it be moral?

Subject 2: So is there any moral difference between raping babies and nurturing them?

Subject 3: Do you rape babies? 

Subject 4: So is there any moral difference between raping babies and nurturing them?

Subject 5: Would you rape a dead body?

Subject 6: Would you punish him for sex with a 14 year old?

Subject 7: Would you have opposed Hitler or surrendered to him to avoid harm to others?

Your moral system is bad by your own standard because it causes suffering for others as you seek to maximize your personal happiness.
"On what basis would you judge and punish him? Simply because you think your way is right"
I have not claimed objectivity.
To even argue against my position you would have to appeal to objectivity but guess you don't understand that. I know it must be difficult and you are certainly not making it even more probable.
The justification was logic. You have not addressed it.
You can't use logic when logic disagrees. You are basically saying cause and effect works but not for God. Actually illogical. Do I need to remind you of the definition of the word logic because you were far from it in this conversation? 
You cannot address it so you pretend to be obtuse.
Please I answered yes and no from the start yet you had so many nonsensical questions. Your gotcha's were actually terrible. You didn't understand my position yet you carried on make the same mistake over and over again with appeal to emotions.
So you' wanting me to have the same standard for different things is illogical
Yet another misuse of the word illogical. Who would've thought a person crying about liberals being wrong comes out so uneducated.
I think I've demonstrated that your moral system is unfair and irrational, and that you have no defense for why it is so.
It is like talking to a child. When you answer the question. They ask another one. It goes until the grown up decides to stop answering. Realizing how little was learnt from the exchange. I kept repeating the same thing but you still wanted to ask questions about things I have already told you. You might have a reading problem or an understanding problem. It wouldn't be surprising.
If your moral system was coherent, you would not now be running away from questions and pretending not to see arguments against it.
Please refer right at the top. Where I give countless examples of you asking same questions but in different contexts. It kinda gets boring when you don't even try to put up a coherent point against my coherent system.
Now that you've stopped answering questions, and I do not want to be interrogated, our time on this subject has come to an end.
Well all I have to say is this was an actual waste of time. You have shown to be irrational, can't answer simple questions, don't want to justify your beliefs yet you say it to me as if the writing doesn't speak for itself. It is almost as if you are deflecting and can't actually defend your position because of how flimsy they are. I wish you were educated but I think that is asking too much when you have word liberal stuck in your throat for anything good in the world. 
Thanks for your time. It was enjoyable.
Feelings mutual because it was one hell of a laugh. I didn't think someone could ask so many questions but here we are deflection andy just can't stop not realizing the faults as a person and projects it back to me. 
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@BrotherDThomas
ETHANG5'S QUOTE OF THROWING IN THE TOWEL AND GIVING UP: "Now that you've stopped answering questions, and I do not want to be interrogated, our time on this subject has come to an end. Thanks for your time. It was enjoyable."
Pretty funny actually. 
Ethang5 reminds me of one of those guys who shout, "somebody hold me back!!" When they don't really want to fight, but are ashamed for people to know that they are yellow.
Basically an internet tough guy. 
He keeps begging you to quit. Lol.
You can tell with the same question he gives over an over again. 
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Thanks for your time. It was enjoyable.

Feelings mutual...
Lol. Really? It didn't seem so, but OK.
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Hey dee dee,

Now I have another one of you geniuses following me around the board mirror posting. What is it that makes you all think that is a smart thing to do?

But I see I got you to tone down on the bolding, underlinings, and caps. Good! Isn't it easier to post without all that needless clutter?

Basically an internet tough guy. 
I was moved by this. You, the guy barging into threads yelling and screaming trying to bully people with silly bombast, thinks of me as an internet tough guy. Awww.

If you're still in touch with your pal Harikrish, ask him about me. I was formally trained for trolls. I don't get angry, frustrated, or confused. I don't tire and cannot be embarrassed. Nothing a stranger on the internet can do can overly concern me.

I will tell you that mirror posting is considered a kind of spam, and spam is against the CoC.

You must be frustrated if I already have you stalking me and mirror posting. The next few weeks don't look too happy for you dee dee.

But I'm interested in your talks with Jesus. Did you go to Him or did He come to you? Did you shake hands or did you hug? I heard Jesus is a hugger. But you don't seem like the hugging type dee dee. Am I right?

Its so interesting! Tell us all about it.
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@ethang5
Lol. Really? It didn't seem so, but OK.
If I was that annoyed I wouldn't have been answering the same questions over and over again. 

ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@TheRealNihilist
It was not the same question, and your answers contradicted each other.

But I'm glad you enjoyed it.

TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@ethang5
It was not the same question, and your answers contradicted each other.
Clearly don't know what you are talking about but hey see ya.

ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
Lol. Take it easy nihilist.

136 days later

ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
Wow!
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
Wow.