As you can tell from my first reply below, Atheists were utterly desperate to avoid the key issue when it came to the video Dr. Josh & Matt Dillahunty vs Cliffe & Stuart on Slavery in the Bible posted by the “Modern-Day Debate” Youtube channel.
A certain @Mehki227 commented as follows when I noted that the Atheists failed to begin at the beginning—adding more proof to Ammi’s Law which is that Atheists will begin with conclusions 100% of the time—by impotently complaining about slavery but not bothering to tell us what, on their worldview, is wrong with some accidentally existing apes enslaving other accidentally existing apes within an accidental existence wherein there’s no universal imperative against some accidentally existing apes enslaving other accidentally existing apes.
@Mehki227 noted
Who cut and paste that already, and you’re wrong. Haven’t seen one debate where a theist, apologist, or creationist won anything😂
I, @kenammi355, replied
Friend, you’re like 100% of Atheists in this comments section (and all of the one wherein I pose the same questions): you’re just playing a game of distract, distract, distract in order to avowing the issue.
“cut and paste”: genetic fallacy.
“Haven’t seen one debate where a theist, apologist, or creationist won anything”: your myopic subjective experience isn’t a standard.
@fastfootedone chimed in with
people who are full of rage are the types you would expect to quit
@kenammi355
Indeed, that’s Atheism 101 ;o)
@ScubaSctimpy
1. accident implies intent to do something else. it’s not an accident there was no intent period.
2. from a logical perspective, it causes harm to the species as a whole. that demonstrable just in the state of the world. every MEDC at one time had slaves, and most LEDC were nations those slaves were taken from. there are relatively few MEDC and relatively many LEDC. it’s almost like slavery had a direct long lasting positive impact for relatively few and a direct long lasting negative impact for the majority of our species. theres also game theory to consider, which demonstrates that long term it is a mathematical inevitability that honest fair but firm interactions between people has the greatest net positive for all involved.
3. but even without the logical side of things we are a species with empathy. i don’t want to be enslaved, i know that generally speaking others don’t want to be either. it would therefore be immoral to take slaves. it’s that simple.
@kenammi355
Friend, it’s too bad you didn’t read this thread since you’re just repeating the well-within-the-box-Atheist-group-think-talking-points that I already debunked.
1. I see you want to focus on word games.
Very well then, what, on your worldview, is wrong with some undesigned/uncreated/having come about due to happenstance apes having enslaved other undesigned/uncreated/having come about due to happenstance apes within an undesigned/uncreated/having come about due to happenstance existence wherein there’s no universal imperative against some undesigned/uncreated/having come about due to happenstance apes having enslaved other undesigned/uncreated/having come about due to happenstance apes?
2. That’s not the “logical perspective” but is a merely asserted ethical one.
It’s also not logical since you began by merely jumping to a merely asserted conclusion of a mere assertion based on mere hidden assumptions.
You assert it’s wrong because, “it causes harm to the species as a whole” but that’s inconsistent on your worldview (yet, on your worldview there’s no universal imperative to be consistent which is why Atheist are consistently inconsistent) on your worldview “harm” is not only subjective but can be very, very good since it rids us of the less fit, and there’s no universal imperative to avoid harm nor avoid harming an undesigned/uncreated/having come about due to happenstance species as a whole—or part.
Also, on your worldview harm is just an undesigned/uncreated/having come about due to happenstance’s bio-organism’s emotively subjective interpretation of undesigned/uncreated/having come about due to happenstance byproducts of undesigned/uncreated/having come about due to happenstance neural reactions within their undesigned/uncreated/having come about due to happenstance brains.
3. Rewrite, “…we are a undesigned/uncreated/having come about due to happenstance species with undesigned/uncreated/having come about due to happenstance empathy” and no universal imperative to adhere to the undesigned/uncreated/having come about due to happenstance byproducts of being undesigned/uncreated/having come about due to happenstance.
So, empathy is, at best, an emotively subjective personal preference du jour much like your favorite flavor of ice cream.
As for, your emotively subjective, “i don’t want to be enslaved, i know that generally speaking others don’t want to be either” it’s an utterly non sequitur to jump to, “it would therefore be immoral to take slaves” since I could just as easily argue, “i don’t want to be enslaved, i know that generally speaking others don’t want to be either it would there be a great idea to enslave others so they don’t enslave me first and since they don’t like it they will do what I say.
@trekkiejunk
When all religious people can agree on what that singular moral code is… come talk to me.
@kenammi355
Friend, you’re like 100% of Atheists in this comments section (and all of the one wherein I pose the same questions): you’re just playing a game of distract, distract, distract in order to avowing the issue.
Now, your comment is incoherent on so many levels I will pick one to elucidate: why would “all religious people can agree on what that singular moral code” since morality is subjective, relative, situational, intrinsic, tentative, etc., by definition?
What all people, at all times, in all places, and of all theologies or lack thereof have is a singular ethic which is objective, absolute, universal, extrinsic, etc., by definition.
But, of course, those are just word followed by concepts and it’s the concepts that count since, for example, what I termed “ethics” is termed “universal morals” or “absolute morals” by some so call them 1 and 2 or A and B or whatever, that’s not the point, the concepts are the point, the phenomena.
That’s part of why, in a way, you besmirch anyone who dares to disagree with you: at some level, you discern that there’s truth to which we must adhere even though on your worldview truth is accidental, as is our ability to discern it, there’s no universal imperative to adhere to it, nor to demand that others adhere to it.
@trumpbellend6717
Lol how ironic someone who believes our moral status the result of a talking snake convincing a rib woman and mud figurine man to eat a magic fruit against the wishes of an invisible being who thinks it moral to execute our unruly rebellious children who disobey their parents ( sounds like most teenagers to me ) is whinging about “reasoned discourse” 🤭😅🤣🤣
@kenammi355
Friend, you’re like 100% of Atheists in this comments section (and all of the one wherein I pose the same questions): you’re just playing a game of distract, distract, distract in order to avowing the issue.
“how ironic” I don’t know since you didn’t say.
See, you began with an assertion to which you jumped as a conclusion based on hidden assumptions. See, you appear to have implied (since they didn’t get around to saying it) that there’d be something wrong with, “someone who believes our moral status the result of a talking snake convincing a rib woman and mud figurine man to eat a magic fruit against the wishes of an invisible being who thinks it moral to execute our unruly rebellious children who disobey their parents” but neglected THE most important part: what, on your worldview, would be wrong with an accidentally existing ape believing that within an accidental existence wherein there’s no universal imperative for an accidentally ape to not believe that?
Only after elucidating that can you complain about it viably.
I could easily say that you believe that you’re a talking ape and came about as a mud figurine due to rain falling on rocks and magically coming to life.
As for, “moral to execute our unruly rebellious children who disobey their parents ( sounds like most teenagers to me )” is incoherent, you appear to be copying and pasting Atheist group-think talking-points. I’d love to correct you on that but first, again, what, on your worldview, would be wrong with an accidentally existing ape believing that the scenario you misunderstand being “moral” within an accidental existence wherein there’s no universal imperative for an accidentally ape to not believe that?
Only after elucidating that can you complain about it viably.
@thiagoviana5355
I know of no apes that want to be enslaved, therefore, by using empathy alone, we can declare that it is bad to enslave apes.
@kenammi355
I’m going to guess that you don’t know any apes nor that you know what apes want or don’t want so you’re proposing a dual level fantasy premise.
Yet, let’s to with your imagination: you’re not grasping the difference between “moral” ontology vs. “moral” epistemology and, more to the point, that you’re just piling assertions atop another since your premise is that adhering to empathy is a universal imperative but neglected no mention the most important part: why and how, on your worldview.
Moreover, you’re also implying that your implied hidden assumption is that it’s a universal imperative to adhere to the interpretations of accidental bio-chemical neural reactions within the accidentally existing brains of accidentally existing apes within an accidental existence wherein there’s no universal imperative to adhere to the interpretations of accidental bio-chemical neural reactions within the accidentally existing brains of accidentally existing apes.
@stevenbatke2475
you’re trying to turn the moral question of slavery, back on to atheists. But the god of the bible doesn’t have a problem with slavery, so friend, you’re in the exact same boat as the rest of us.
We evolved, along with our morality, you know this to be true. I understand that bronze aged people considered slavery to be morally acceptable practice. I’m sure you understand this too.
The real key issue and question is: why does an unchanging god, with morality higher than ours, appear to conveniently have the same morality as the men that wrote the words He is supposed to have said?
If your god doesn’t condemn slavery, how can you?
@kenammi355
Friend, you’re like 100% of Atheists in this comments section (and all of the one wherein I pose the same questions): you’re just playing a game of distract, distract, distract in order to avowing the issue.
There’s no, “you’re trying to turn the moral question of slavery” sine there’s two sides to this coin considering that some Atheists merely assert that it’s wrong (whatever they may mean by “slavery”) but are literally incapable of justifying that emotively subjective personal preference, on their worldview—I mean, have you not read this thread?
So, when do you think that we stopped evolving?
But I get your meaning, you’re appealing to utterly arbitrary subjectivity since, “We,” accidentally, “evolved, along with our,” accidental, “morality” and yet, where’s the universal imperative to adhere to the accidental accidents, on your worldview.
And you utterly prove my point about your appeal to subjectivity by stating, “bronze aged people considered slavery to be morally acceptable practice” thus, you disqualified yourself from opining that they did anything wrong: and that has been my point all along so you agree with me: Atheists cannot rightly condemn bronze aged “slavery.”
@stevenbatke2475
I haven’t suggested that bronze aged people did anything wrong. They did what they did with what they had. Is it wrong by our standard now? Yes. Even you would agree.
I am suggesting that God, the unchanging creator of the universe, doesn’t think slavery is wrong, then or now.
What does that say about God?
And save your “friend, you’re like 100% of, blah, blah, blah” spiel. It’s disingenuous.
Again, can you say, in your worldview, that slavery is wrong?
@kenammi355
Friend, you’re like 100% of Atheists in this comments section (and all of the one wherein I pose the same questions): you’re just playing a game of distract, distract, distract in order to avowing the issue.
You clearly don’t like being reminded of verifiable facts but such is the case—as it has been every single time I’ve ever made an attempt to discuss this with Atheists.
So, I’ve seen it 1,001 times: you ignore, avoid, pull styled tu quoque, and refuse to play the game once I put the goal post back to where it was.
So, at least you admit that it’s all subjective thus, on your worldview: there’s nothing whatsoever with “slavery” (whatever that means) in the Bible!!!
Now, there’s also nothing wrong with slavery on Atheism, ever.
So, on your worldview there’s nothing wrong with logical fallacies nor slavery nor an accidentally existing apes believing in whoever the god might be who has always considered slavery to be a-okay so about what are you complaining?
@Dethas1991
i’m sure every one reading this comment section will come to the same conclusion 😛
This “issue” exist only in your mind and the way you present it should give you clue on who is actually childish here 😉
@kenammi355
Friend, you’re like 100% of Atheists in this comments section (and all of the one wherein I pose the same questions): you’re just playing a game of distract, distract, distract in order to avowing the issue.
But your tactic is unique so kudos: you merely waved your hand and declared that THE key issue is a non-issue. But, of course, you didn’t argue your way to that conclusion but proved that one of Ammi’s Laws is correct: Atheists will begin with conclusions 100% of the time. You merely asserted.
Fascinatingly, you appeal to your fantasy and couple that with an argumentum ad populum coupled with a genetic logical fallacy coupled with incoherence.
It’s a good thing for you that on Atheism there’s literally nothing wrong with merely asserting, nor appealing to fantasy, nor logical fallacies, nor incoherence, not “slavery.”
“i’m sure”: fantasy.
“every one…will come to the same conclusion”: ad populum based on fantasy.
“only in your mind”: genetic fallacy.
“This ‘issue’ exist only in your mind”: incoherence since just because someone was the first to think of something doesn’t make it illegitimate. And yet, the issue I raised is a commonly raised one even if in other words.
I realize that you attempted to run away from a literal incapability to deal with THE key issue by merely waving your hand but your hand waving is impotent.
@skindred1888
sorry what ? Depends on what you mean by wrong…I take it your understanding of wrong is that it somehow goes against a god ?
Which is ridiculous.
Would you like to be enslaved ?
@instantsiv
It amazes me the lengths atheists will go to defend the indefensible because evolution says so.
Is it a fact that the racist creator of evolution, who wrote that he hoped for the extermination of the savage races, had a cousin who created eugenics?
@skindred1888
…You’re starting off your question with the notion that atheists somehow don’t have any base to say that something is right or wrong…for whatever reason.
It’s classic Christian cult talk that think anyone that doesn’t follow their gods laws…must be evil.
It’s kinda pathetic
@instantsiv
Which comment were you responding to?
@kenammi355 replying to @skindred1888
You hit your own nail on your own head: you realize that on your worldview it’s all subjective so you can’t claim that “slavery” is wrong in and of itself so you ask me about my subjectivism, “Would you like to be enslaved ?” You don’t seem to understand that our emotively subjective personal preferences don’t say a single word about whether an action is or isn’t right or wrong but only tells us about how we feel.
You might as well tell me which ice-cream flavor you like and ask me which one I like: it wouldn’t tell us anything about ice-cream, it would only tell us which one we prefer du jour.
@nakkadu backing up to reply to my comment about accidentally existing apes
this is addressed time and time again….what is wrong with slavery in your world view?
@kenammi355
The question is to “Matt, and his Atheist comrades…what, on your worldview, is wrong with some accidentally existing apes having enslaved other accidentally existing apes within an accidental existence wherein there’s no universal imperative against some accidentally existing apes having enslaved other accidentally existing apes?”
@sonyadonnegan1983
I’m not one of his comrades. I’m just pointing out that MDD has turned into a dumpster fire channel now which is why they are milking MD clips.
@kenammi355
I’d go with you on that. Yet, it’s still a verifiable fact (verifiable time and time and time (and time [and time]) again (and again (and again [and again]) that Atheists are literally incapable of answering the key question and thus, discredit their impotent complaints.
@Big-Papa-Smurf
This is a commonly addressed philosophical question. The difference is secularists are willing to engage with it honestly. In the absence of a universal moral framework, morality becomes subjective and varies from person to person or society to society. The overwhelming consensus in contemporary ethical and moral discourse is that slavery is objectively wrong and morally indefensible. Therefore, it is illogical to argue that a deity, having created humanity with complete foreknowledge of all future events, would provide justification for the institution of slavery. Boom. Simple.
@kenammi355
Ergo, your answer to “Matt, and his Atheist comrades…what, on your worldview, is wrong with some accidentally existing apes having enslaved other accidentally existing apes within an accidental existence wherein there’s no universal imperative against some accidentally existing apes having enslaved other accidentally existing apes?” is, “The overwhelming consensus in contemporary ethical and moral discourse is that slavery is objectively wrong and morally indefensible.”
Thus, it’s a case of “Thus saith contemporary ethical and moral discourse.” And that, of course, being premised upon the unjustified hidden assumption that we ought to comport ourselves as per contemporary discourse amongst some accidentally existing apes within an accidental existence wherein there’s no universal imperative to comport ourselves as per contemporary discourse amongst some accidentally existing apes.
Then there’s the admission that it’s all subjective–which is asserted as an objective fact.
And, it’s an argumentum ad populum: what, on Matt, and his Atheist comrades’ worldview, is wrong with accidentally existing apes committing logical fallacies within an accidental existence wherein there’s no universal imperative against accidentally existing apes committing logical fallacies.
So, in a decade or century you might find yourself saying it’s a-okay since
“The overwhelming consensus in contemporary ethical and moral discourse” is that it’s a-okay.
But now, since that’s per the zeitgeist whereby “contemporary…discourse” thus saith, that means the Atheist has disqualified themselves from condemning “slaver” (whatever that means) in the Bible since, after all, “The overwhelming consensus in” ancient “ethical and moral discourse is that slavery is objectively” a-okay “and morally” defensible.
@nakkadu
I’ve already responded to this. Atheists have many perfectly logical answers to this question. What is wrong with slavery in your world view?….I’ve not heard a good answer.
@Big-Papa-Smurf
If all of humanity is agreement that slavery is moral and just then they are probably existing in a social dynamic that is completely different from ours. It wouldn’t make any sense for me to assume it is unjust knowing more information. While it’s true that moral standards can evolve and vary across cultures and time periods, it doesn’t necessarily follow that all moral claims are equally valid or that there’s no basis for ethical judgment.
The assertion that contemporary ethical discourse is subjective doesn’t negate the possibility of objective moral truths or principles that transcend cultural or historical contexts. Moreover, the acknowledgment of subjectivity in morality doesn’t render all moral claims equal. It simply recognizes that our understanding of morality is influenced by various factors, including cultural, social, and individual perspectives. The fact that moral views can change over time doesn’t necessarily invalidate them but rather reflects an ongoing process of moral reflection and improvement.
In the case of condemning slavery, one can argue that certain fundamental principles, such as respect for individual rights and dignity, serve as a basis for moral judgment. While specific moral judgments may evolve, the underlying principles can provide a consistent framework for evaluating moral claims.
In summary, acknowledging the subjectivity of contemporary ethical discourse doesn’t necessarily undermine the possibility of objective moral truths or principles, but it does not assert that there are either. It’s essential to distinguish between the evolving nature of moral views and the potential for a foundation of moral principles that transcends subjective perspectives.
@valroniclehre193
Because I care about them. Don’t you? You might not like it, but that’s all we have. The flaws you will no doubt point out with that position, is in fact the world we obviously live in. Lets make it better, simply for the sake of making it better. If your god steps in and helps, great, if not, or if he says to do otherwise, then your imaginary friend should not be followed.
@kenammi355
Friend, when you appeal to subjectivism you prove my point. What’s wrong with it well, “I care about them” so that’s your emotively subjective personal preference du jour much like you may care for one ice cream flavor over another one.
See, you then ask, “Don’t you?” and if I were to reply, “No” then that’s the end of it: one accidentally existing ape says they care and another one says they don’t, “You might not like it, but that’s all we have” since on your worldview both of those accidentally existing apes would just be emotively subjectively interpreting the accidental byproducts of an accidental mixture of accidentally existing chemicals in their accidental brains which, BTW, are acting as per the accidentally predetermined accidental laws of nature.
Thus, on your worldview, “the world we obviously live in” is accidental and there’s no universal imperative to do or not do anything which is why you are forced to appeal to your emotively subjective personal preferences–which are impotent.
You recommend, “Lets make it better” but there’s no way to judge better or worse, on your worldview: maybe better is ridding ourselves of those who are not fit enough to prevent themselves from being enslaved.
As for, “your imaginary friend should not be followed” it’s fascinating that when it came to expressing your childish hatred of God, you instantly went from full blown emotively subjective to dogmatically absolutist, “…SHOULD NOT BE…”
@kenammi355 to @nakkadu
Wow, of all the games people play in desperation to run away from that key issue. Ok, if that’s the way you want to play it then: there are many perfectly logical answers to your question.
@valroniclehre193
“Friend, when you appeal to subjectivism you prove my point.” No I don’t. You don’t have point here beyond an unsupported claim.
Not intentional or objective enough for you?
Suffering is subjective. It seems motivating enough. Accidental ape or not pain still hurts. And I still care.
Being accidental physical apes, in no way cheapens any part of that. Being created with a soul wouldn’t make it any more valuable either.
We are who we are, whatever the form. Could be video game characters and still have the same value if we still laughed and loved.
Riddle me this, and please don’t evade the question.
What if god gave you a direct command as the arbiter of righteousness to do something, but to perform this command would land you in hell, and to disobey would get you into heaven, and no other people would be affected, what would you do?
Let me be clear. The hypothetical is about you, not your god.
“He wouldn’t…” No. Stop that evasion, and any other that bubbles to the top of your mind. I don’t care. Fully and truly your religious phantasms don’t matter to me, but you do. I’m asking about you.
So would you follow his order and go to hell? Or disobey and go to heaven?
You seem semantically clever… I’m sure you see where I’m going with this.
@kenammi355
Well, typical of Atheists you appear to either not be aware of your worldview’s implications and/or ignore them just so you can keep arguing and so you don’t like to apply your worldview’s implications to your worldview: you made a bed, I’m just asking if you’ll sleep in it, you flatly refuse. I mean look at how desperate you are to move the goalpost round and round and round just to avoid the key issue which I noted Atheist avoid.
So, let’s try this in order to make you face your worldview’s implications:
You emotively subjectively complain, “You don’t have point here beyond an unsupported claim” but you began with a conclusion since on your worldview there’s no universal imperative to support claims.
You emotively subjectively complain about, “hurts” but you began with a conclusion since on your worldview there’s no universal imperative to not cause pain.
And, BTW, on your worldview hurt is merely an accidentally existing bio-organism’s emotively subjective interpretation of the accidental byproducts of accidental neural-chemistry all of which function as per accidental laws of thermodynamics.
You keep missing the point since it’s not about, “Suffering is subjective. It seems motivating enough…Being accidental physical apes, in no way cheapens…” but on your worldview there zero reason to be concerned about such clumps of cells. Thus, you have to beg, borrow, and steal from mine in order to even complain about it. Again, you’re not consistent, you’re just expressing feelings (more interpretations), and it’s a good thing for you that on your worldview there’s no universal imperative to be consistent, not move the goalpost, etc.
I’m disinterested in your category violating incoherent fantasy scenarios—and keep in mind that on your worldview there’s no universal imperative for me to engage your category violating incoherent fantasy scenarios: I know that you utterly hate your worldview’s implications but then a best practice would be to give up your worldview, not to pounce on me for merely making you face your worldview’s implications.
Your ultimate answer to the key question is, “No” and that but you have somehow developed an emotively subjective personal preference for your emotively subjective interpretations of the byproducts of bio-chemical reactions and so, all of humanity ought to do what you say because well, thus saith valroniclehre.
@valroniclehre193
You’re just repeating the same mistake and projecting it onto me.
You seem to require something authoritative and outside the domain of human experience to act as a foundation of all things. I don’t need anything like that in order to determine morals, or act on them.
Nor do either of us have access to it.
The truth is, you (rather a clever and biased philosopher) made up a hole that nobody can see, and filled it with your imaginary god. It’s the same trick as “How do you know anything to be true?”. This breed of argument assumes much and solves little.
I’m not missing the point. The point is you are making an assumption of what morality needs, to justify an assumption about theology. You’re “under your worldview…” followed by an inaccurate, dismissive, reductionist, strawman of something I don’t believe isn’t particularly motivating.
You associate randomness with a lack of value for no reason I can see. You associate chemical with a lack of accuracy witch seems unjustified, and you associate moral imperatives with some kind of objectively determined objective, which your god couldn’t provide even if it was real. Not that I see authority as a moral imperative anyway.
Your misunderstanding of my position is willful and nearly perfect.
@kenammi355
You’re just repeating the same mistake and projecting it onto me. Once again, you’re like 100% of Atheists in this comments section (and all of the one wherein I pose the same questions): you’re just playing a game of distract, distract, distract in order to avowing the issue.
I understand that your ultimate is that you have an emotively subjective personal preference whereby you decided that you don’t like “slavery.”
That’s not something you got from your worldview: you actually begged, borrowed, and stole it from mine.
You can’t say that there’s anything wrong with “slavery” but can only tell us about how you feel about it (meaning, how the simulacrum you call “you” emotively subjectively interprets byproducts of chemical reactions that are predetermined) but that’s NOT the issue: that’s just a “My dear diary, today I feel…” level assertion.
In other words, you declare your feelings about “slavery” based on randomness and then tell me that you feel as if randomness results in value for no reason I can see.
I’m afraid you misunderstood since you ignored my question about universal imperatives: I don’t in the least bit “associate chemical with a lack of accuracy” but am pointing out that, on your worldview, there’s no universal imperative to adhere to the accidental byproducts of accidental mixtures chemicals and their accidental reactions.
Unlike you, I’m not a failed mind reader so I can’t say, “Your misunderstanding of my position is willful” but it may be nearly perfect and is a misunderstanding. You made a bed but you don’t seem to want to sleep in it and I just keep seeing if you will do so.
@valroniclehre193
I’m not evading. You disagree with my moral axiom and I disagree with yours.
My axiom is based on the experience of people and yours seems based on your understanding of a gods will.
Either way, we are stuck with our own inferences. You presume to rise above this but you can’t. Even if your religion was true, you couldn’t.
You never answered my hypothetical. What would you do if god ordered you to do something, that would put you in hell forever, where disobeying would land you in heaven?
@kenammi355
Of course you’re evading and moved the goalpost, in fact (not that there’s anything wrong with logical fallacies on your worldview and according to which facts are accidental) since the issue is about how accidental apes enslaving is wrong ON YOUR WORLDVIEW and not according to your emotively subjective personal preference du jour. The only answer you can give is: on my worldview, there’s literally nothing wrong with it but my interpretation of chemical byproducts on the level of telling me which ice-cream flavor is the best.
Now, you appear to have a problem elucidating complete thoughts since you juxtapose our views and have an emotively subjective preference for yours but don’t get around to saying what, on your worldview, is wrong with mine.
Your “axiom is based on the experience of people.”
My “axiom is based on the experience of people” and, “understanding of a gods will.”
The issue with your inference (implication, actually) is that yours is based on that all of humanity ought to adhere to thus saith valroniclehre because you feel like it.
Why should anyone adhere to an accidentally existing ape’s subjective interpretations of accidental byproducts of accidental chemical reactions that are predetermined by accidental laws of thermodynamics?
And, BTW, I did answer.
@trumpbellend6717
You know although you clearly struggle with this whole “logic thing” there can be no disputing your linguistic abilities. Seldom have I encountered someone fluent in SO many dialects of GIBBERISH 🤣😅
@kenammi355
Replacing reasoned discourse with childish taunting: an Atheist 101 tactic I’ve see 1,001 times.
@josephmother2659
”you can’t say there’s anything wrong with slavery” if you think he can’t say it, then I will. Owning other humans as property is wrong by nearly every moral framework (of which there are many), one of the exceptions being the Christian worldview. Morality is subjective to every person that has ever existed; if you want to claim god is the arbiter of morality, you must first demonstrate that he exists which has not been done by any Christian or atheist or Muslim or Jew or anybody.
@kenammi355
Please, please tell me you’re not an Atheist but are just trolling to make them look bad—please.
I suppose I’ll note what I would say to a real Atheist: you’re like 100% of Atheists in this comments section (and all of the one wherein I pose the same questions): you’re just playing a game of distract, distract, distract in order to avowing the issue.
Now, you appear to be unfamiliar with context and categories since this was not about me denying that an Atheist is incapable of pounding keys so as to write words to the effect of that “slavery” is wrong: I mean, please, is that the level at which you’re functioning?
The point was well, actually, you elucidated perfectly since first you claim that you will say there’s something wrong with “slavery,” you then merely assert based on your own self-appointed (pseudo and impotent) authority that, “Owning other humans as property is wrong” (which, BTW, means that you’re only referring to one definition of “slavery”) but then you utterly collapse your very own assertion by admitting that on your worldview, “Morality is subjective.”
And you’re not the only Atheist to have done that. I mean, I couldn’t make this up. If “Morality is subjective” then there’s nothing wrong with “slavery” by definition.
Also, don’t miss this key point: even if you merely emotively subjectively proclaim, “Owning other humans as property is wrong” you’re not telling us that “slavery” is ontologically wrong but are just telling us how you feel about it based on your personal preferences du jour since, “Morality is subjective.”
You might as well demand that your favored flavor of ice-cream flavor is the only good one or tell us, “My dear diary, today I feel…”
As for, “you must first demonstrate that he exists” actually, the “first” is your step to take: the very first step is for you to justify demanding demonstrations, on your worldview. If you can’t do that then it’s a non-issue and you can’t viably complain about it.
@trumpbellend6717
MORALITY” and “right and wrong” are words that are relative to the actualization of a desired goal or outcome, absent said goal, the terms right and wrong become meaningless.
My “goal” is the actualization of a healthy flourishing coperative society based upon our common desires with respect to wellbeing and the values it incorporates, empathy, respect, equality, altruism, reprocity. That is why one “ought” to treat another’s as you would like to be treated, One “ought not steal if you wish to live in a society were property is not stolen. One “OUGHT” not murder if they want to live in a society were people are not murdered. This is our “reference point” or standard.
One “should” or “ought” do something if Its conducive with the actualisation of a situation that conforms with one’s values. These “values” themselves are subjective by definition however it is entirely possible to make Objective declarations or decisions ‘Within a pre-agreed framework of subjective values’.
Values are socially approved desires and goals that are internalised through the process of conditioning, learning or socialisation and that become subjective preferences, standards and aspirations a shared idea about how something is ranked in terms of desirability, worth or goodness
Why ‘OUGHT’ one do what your subjective God desires ?? 🙄🤔
@trumpbellend6717
A simple question for you dear…… do YOU regard slavery as immoral and why ??
@kenammi355
I will obviously no longer reply to the thread wherein you collapsed with a mere assertion of “GIBBERISH” peppered with you being childish.
I know you’re desperate to leave your collapsed worldview in the rubbish-bin of ideas and go on the attack but you still don’t seem to grasp the position into which you’ve put yourself by relying on that failed worldview.
“words that are relative to the actualization of a desired goal or outcome…”: mere assertion.
“said goal”: the only goal your worldview can assert is pure subjectivism which robs you of the ability to condemn anyone of or for anything.
“My ‘goal’ is…”: and there you have it. I never asked about your emotively subjective personal preference du jour, I asked about your worldview and so you keep having to dance around since there’s no such concept on your worldview as that anything at all is actually, ontologically, right and wrong—by any other name.
“a healthy flourishing coperative society based upon our common desires”: refers to what those accidentally existing apes who you selectively subjectively take into consideration are asserting.
Thus, that’s just one reason why you can’t just jump from an argumentum ad populum to an ought: there are no oughts on your worldview–nor on your emotively subjective personal preferences du jour.
“if you wish”: indeed, and that’s a big IF. Ergo, if some don’t wish to then you’re on the outs since their emotively subjective personal preference is on the exact same level as theirs and now well, I suppose it’s a matter on may the fittest win.
So, you merely piled up even more assertion than you have been all along and conclude that thus saith trumpbellend, and those who you select to appeal to, “is our ‘reference point’ or standard” which is incoherent and impotent.
“if Its conducive…with one’s values”: again, you keep hitting your own nail on the head, it’s all purely subjective, “if” and “one’s.” But of course, you know this since you just come out in the open with, “These ‘values’ themselves are subjective by definition” and then you punt to that you and yours can simply declare that your say so goes. Well, sure, anyone can make any claim: what of it?
“subjective preferences”: indeed. But you seem to not want to close that loop where it logically leads you which is that you have literally debunked yourself, you’ve disqualified yourself from condemning “slavery” or God or the Bible me if I do nothing but flounder, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.
I’m unaware of possessing a, “subjective God” but the creator sets the rules.
As for, “do YOU regard slavery as immoral and why ??” well, I’m not like the Atheists who are fire and brimstone preachers who instantly launch into a discussion, a condemnatory one at that so I’d have to know to what you’re referring by “slavery” and well, I’m unsure how that matters actually since you as about if it’s “immoral” after asserting that it’s all 100% subjective and also, you can’t condemn me if I say it is or it’s not or am illogical, etc., etc., etc., etc.
@kenammi355 to @Big-Papa-Smurf
Friend, you’re just telling me more stories, just piling up more assertions atop assertions and you, on your worldview, will never be able to do otherwise since you’re just begging, borrowing, and stealing from my worldview because:
On your worldview there’s no universal imperative to adhere to that which “all of humanity” approves of or disapproves of.
On your worldview there’s no universal imperative to adhere to that which makes sense or doesn’t.
On your worldview there’s no universal imperative to adhere to (“the possibility of”) “objective moral truths or principles.”
On your worldview there’s no universal imperative to adhere to “fundamental principles” or “respect for individual rights and dignity” or “to distinguish between the evolving nature of moral views” nor your incoherent jump from subjectivism to objectivism since there’s on your worldview there’s no universal imperative to adhere to logic.
@kenammi355 to @gregory06
That’s irrelevant to the key question away from which Atheists are running as fast as possible: Matt, and his Atheist comrades, consistently fail to tackle the key issue: what, on your worldview, is wrong with some accidentally existing apes having enslaved other accidentally existing apes within an accidental existence wherein there’s no universal imperative against some accidentally existing apes having enslaved other accidentally existing apes?
@marouanpater2334
Ask the enslaved existing apes
@kenammi355
Exactly: you’re literally incapable of replying–just like 100% of Atheists.
@EMDS04
no you’re just very incoherent and your point makes no sense
@sincereflowers3218
I cannot speak for anyone else, but in my godless worldview, I personally would not like to be enslaved. It may even ruin my day. As such, it stands to reason that no one else would want to be enslaved by me. Having to explain this to what I assume is a grown adult is upsetting to me. You don’t need God to feel as if you have been wronged. You don’t need God to know when you’ve done wrong. If you do… I mean I am not casting aspersions, but that’s a serious personal issue.
@gabriellps2 to @sincereflowers3218
ok, thats your worldview, but is subjective to you, that doest mean thats right. If a guy wants to slave the entire world thats his worldview and theres absolute nothing in a subjective moral worldview that would justify that being wrong
@sincereflowers3218
Okay? That still doesn’t mean that Religion is an objective measure of morality. God doesn’t exist. People for no reason at all besides being weak get raped to death or robbed and shot and the Religious person closes their eyes and prays as if it has ever once helped. Blaming Satan is also a common tactic. Religion is childish and destructive.
@gabriellps2
yeah, i can tell people are evil cause i have a god that tells me that i need to love and forgive every other human, u dont have that, so those are not evil acts on your worldview, are just people doing their subjective meaning to their lives
@sincereflowers3218
but your God doesn’t do anything. Evil is constantly winning in this world. You as a believer lay that at the feet of some abstract primordial evil or man’s sins, but your God is timeless, omnipotent, and omnipresent. God is also a narcissist on a galactic level, proclaiming himself the greatest among all beings by virtue of power alone. So if he is all these wondrous things, he is also complicit in evil, because it is within his power not only to stop it, but reveal it. He does not. Children are kidnapped and raped in this world by the people who run country’s. God knew that would happen. He created and nursed evil, gave it a convenient face and name, and left man to its whims while he does nothing.
Now. All of that is granting you that there is a God at all, which is a silly thing to believe. I understand though, that the fact that you are essentially born without inherent value or purpose and are ascribed this by the circumstances of your environment may make you a little sad. It’s a cold and purposeless universe we inhabit, but men are more powerful than God’s. We observe and assign value, we create God’s to believe in and thus limit our consciousness.
Religion is a rock around man’s neck. One of many.
@gabriellps2
you wrote a huge text and didn’t adress the main thing that i asked you and double down and this nonsense. if you say that life has no purpose at all, how come those things like baby rape are wrong? where do u get this idea that doing something in a purposeless life is wrong?
@kenammi355 to @EMDS04
Then let’s simplify: on Atheism there’s nothing wrong with slavery.
@kenammi355 to @sincereflowers3218
Well said since you admitted that, on your worldview, there’s literally nothing wrong with slavery but you emotively subjectively don’t like it: much like you might say you don’t like a certain flavor of ice-cream.
Perhaps, “You don’t need God to feel as if you have been wronged” but you do need one to make the thing in and of itself wrong. See, otherwise you have some people saying, “My emotively subjectively opinion based on interpreting accidental bio-chemistry is that I personally don’t like it” and another group saying, “I just had a great idea: I will enslave people to benefit me and mine!”
And both are just stating likes and dislikes.
Thus, the question becomes: why should all accidentally existing apes adhere to the emotional outbursts of the accidentally existing ape who goes by “sincereflowers”?–but before answering, keep in mind that you admitted there’s nothing ontologically wrong with slavery, on your worldview.
@skindred1888
ahhh you’re just copy and pasting bull[****] I see 😂😂
@kenammi355
Please mind your manners and please take that cheap and used to death Atheism 101 tactic elsewhere: you realize you’re literally incapable of dealing with issues that are inconvenient to your worldview and so you opt for childish taunting–seen it 1,001 times.
@skindred1888
buddy, I’m not the one that believes in magic because I can’t cope with death
@skindred1888
na, because childish taunting against morons that believe in magic is fun sometimes, nothing to do with dealing with issues.
Away and pray to magic man that he’ll give you some understanding.
This is basic religion stuff…I’m right, you’re wrong because my religion says you’re wrong. It’s pathetic.
@kenammi355
You realize you’re literally incapable of dealing with issues that are inconvenient to your worldview and so you opt for childish taunting–seen it 1,002 times now.
Friend, you’re like 100% of Atheists in this comments section (and all of the one wherein I pose the same questions): you’re just playing a game of distract, distract, distract in order to avowing the issue.
So then, you turn to your fantasy imagination based on ignorance and prejudice to move the goalpost to something about me being unable to cope with death. Yet, on your worldview there’s literally nothing wrong with an accidentally existing ape believing in magic because it can’t cope with death: right? I know that during rare moments of clarity you realize that which must be why you merely vaguely implied there’s something wrong with it–according to your emotively subjective personal preference du jour–but didn’t get around to elucidating how or why, on your worldview–since you can’t since it’s not.
I appreciate that you admit you’re not here to discuss the issue–since you’re literally incapable of doing so–which is why you are just monkeying around.
Ironically, you’re arguing “I’m right, you’re wrong because my emotively subjective interpretation of accidental chemical reactions within my accidentally existing ape brain that are predetermined says you’re wrong. It’s pathetic.”
That brought the discussion to and end as no more replies were forthcoming.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.
You can comment here and/or on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.
Leave a Reply