If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Student stabs himself in the hand with a pen to prove the existence of God. It didn't work   (collegiatetimes.com) divider line 439
    More: Strange, stabbing, emergency calls, student groups, stabs, Student stabs, Nicole Schrand, existence, resisting arrest  
•       •       •

15490 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Apr 2011 at 3:04 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



439 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-04-14 03:55:16 AM

InfidelSavant: Sure I can. I don't attack people because I don't like being attacked. People are independent autonomous agents who react unfavourably to being attacked. Plus there are laws against attacking people. That's why the words you say are stupid, and by extension, you are stupid.


So, morality is based on what you, personally, like? Or based on laws, which are a product of human minds and many of which are contradictory? And you call ME stupid? Well, geez, man, with such conclusive evidence, you've sure proved your case. Well, except for completely and totally failing to prove your case, that is.
 
2011-04-14 03:57:07 AM

untaken_name: If you are using this definition, how could atheists possibly be moral*? There is no right and wrong, therefore why would you concern yourself with the principles of right and wrong? It doesn't make any sense.


Who says there is no right or wrong just because we don't believe in a God?

The fact is that morality doesn't come from religion but from society and from our own emotional responses. Our parents teach us right and wrong, and we learn to be good people by noticing that we feel emotionally rewarded when people respond to or reciprocate our generosity. Morality doesn't have to be objective, it is built into us and built into society.

The idea that, without a book full of moral commands, that we should all be selfish, greedy rapists and murders is preposterous. Even chimps and other apes have a better social contract with each other than that, and they certainly don't go to church. Give human beings a little credit, we're at least as good as our hairy cousins.

Besides, I'd say that if the only reason you're refraining from killing and stealing is because the Bible or your pastor told you that God would punish you, maybe you aren't really a very moral person.
 
2011-04-14 03:57:07 AM

untaken_name: Um, care to define "basic humanity" and show me where it exists?



you really need to pick up a book sometimes (no, not that book, you already think you know what's in there).

This is a topic that you could put in the effort learning a lot about if you wished to actually learn about it.


There is a reason that people don't keep slaves today, despite most ancient holy books saying it is fine. Why do you think that is ?
 
2011-04-14 03:57:19 AM
I bet if we all tried hard enough, we could finally prove the existence (or non-existence) of God and lay down the fundamental moral code which guides all of humanity. All we need is more debate, because that always comes to a satisfactory conclusion and convinces all sides of the validity of the winning side.
 
2011-04-14 03:57:52 AM

Chinchillazilla:
Dionysianism is the sexiest religion.

/why isn't it more popular?
//let's bring it back


26.media.tumblr.com

/one religion this atheist could get behind
//not getting into the usual fark atheism flamewar
 
2011-04-14 03:57:54 AM

Gunther: What about that definition prevents atheists from being moral? It doesn't stipulate that moral principles have to come from a deity or anything.


Because it includes the imaginary concepts of right and wrong. There can be no morality without an objective standard of right and wrong, which does not exist. There can only be pseudo-morality, which is completely subjective. You can CALL things moral, but you have no way to PROVE whether they actually are.
 
2011-04-14 03:58:27 AM

untaken_name:
Um, care to define "basic humanity" and show me where it exists?


Nope

Also, if right and wrong exist, define them for me, and show me from where they derive. I don't mean using bs feel-good terms like "basic humanity". I mean show me how the existence of good and evil may be experimentally proved. Thanks.

Nope.

Just because atheists as a group don't believe in right and wrong as concepts handed down by the divine doesn't mean they don't have a concept of right and wrong. Where that concept comes from, how it's defined and what basis it has are questions of philosophy.

I didn't come here to say that atheist morality is complete, well grounded or correct, the variation amongst atheist folks almost guarantees a massive spectrum of moral leanings and foundations anyway.

My comments were more to point out that you were being a complete arsehead by assuming that all atheists are necessarily moral relativists or nihilists. Not that you need my help.
 
2011-04-14 03:59:11 AM
If you are going to try and prove god by somehow causing bodily harm to yourself could you at least have the decency to do it without witnesses and by throwing yourself off a really high cliff in the middle of nowhere? Please?
 
2011-04-14 03:59:36 AM

Gawdzila: Who says there is no right or wrong just because we don't believe in a God?


No, I say there is no right and wrong because no one can prove the existence of right and wrong. They can provide only subjective definitions. Sorry, but as a rational person I don't believe in imaginary concepts. I only believe in what I can prove, or what someone else can prove that I could, with enough time and inclination, replicate. Any other position is irrational.
 
2011-04-14 03:59:37 AM

Necrosis: Chinchillazilla:
Dionysianism is the sexiest religion.

/why isn't it more popular?
//let's bring it back



/one religion this atheist could get behind
//not getting into the usual fark atheism flamewar


This just seems like one to stay out of.
 
2011-04-14 04:00:11 AM

untaken_name: Gothnet: untaken_name: Where do atheist morals come from? I am assuming you mean this definition of "moral", please link the correct definition if I'm wrong:

Same place religious people do, society around them, culture, basic humanity. Oh wait, you thought it came from those ancient books and belief in deities?

LOL. Have you noticed how religion changes over time? How the emphasised parts of a given religious work are different depending on the prevailing culture?

That's right, religious folk impose their moral code onto their religion, not the other way around.


untaken_name: There is no right and wrong

FAIL.

Um, care to define "basic humanity" and show me where it exists?
Also, if right and wrong exist, define them for me, and show me from where they derive. I don't mean using bs feel-good terms like "basic humanity". I mean show me how the existence of good and evil may be experimentally proved. Thanks.


I always assume that "basic humanity" is more or less empathy, being able to put yourself in someone else's shoes and understanding how you would feel. Although really that's somewhat of a learned trait, as children and babies are jerks, but in the end it seems to be one of the traits that comes with being a rational being. Over time those empathetic thoughts get codified (don't kill other people because you wouldn't like other people killing you, don't steal other peoples stuff because you don't like having your stuff stolen, etc.) And, of course, because each culture grows differently, those rules end up changing. A culture that doesn't have hangups on possessions wouldn't talk about stealing. A culture that doesn't have sexual hang ups wouldn't have anything about homosexuality. Things like that.
 
2011-04-14 04:00:15 AM

Gothnet: My comments were more to point out that you were being a complete arsehead by assuming that all atheists are necessarily moral relativists or nihilists.


No, only the honest and rational ones.
 
2011-04-14 04:02:31 AM

Penman: lisarenee3505: Theists profess to "believe" in things they cannot verify.

As do atheists.


A more accurate assessment would be that theists have absolute belief in things that are impossible to verify. This is a different prospect on a fundamental level than having varying degrees of confidence in a theory based on the level of evidence available.

People who accept empiricism also accept implicitly that nothing is ever proven 100%, but the important part is the amount of confidence we have in a conclusion because of supporting evidence. Having 100% confidence despite a lack of evidence (or even contradicting evidence) is a hallmark of religious faith.
 
2011-04-14 04:03:08 AM

untaken_name: No, only the honest and rational ones.


Why?

So far all you have is bluster.

Also, the number of completely honest and totally rational people on the planet can probably be counted on the fingers of one foot.
 
2011-04-14 04:03:28 AM

InfidelSavant: Skyrmion: Fuller: And are you seriously advancing the argument that alchemy can't be dismissed as kooky? I thought it was a pretty safe example..

Alchemy actually gets an unfairly bad rap. It deserves to be thought of as proto-chemistry. (The terms were frequently used interchangeably; Boyle considered himself an alchemist, and other early alchemists knew quite a bit of practical chemistry.) There's really nothing at all weird about Newton having been interested in alchemy.

That's like saying astrology unfairly gets a bad rap. In their time, understandable ignorance. Today, we know damn well it's bunkum.


Not quite. The problem is that there isn't a real historical distinction between "chemistry" and "alchemy". It would be a bit like if we retroactively decided that the study of medicine from before 1700 would be called "almedicine" and only modern medicine would be called medicine. Is "almedicine" bunkum? Well, much of it, but doctors of that age did know a few things.
 
2011-04-14 04:03:53 AM

Tachikoma: /people can practice their religion, but don't condemn me for not going with them to church


I don't. But if you form a church of Atheism it's a big disappointment. Do you thing, pot, but call not the kettle black. I support atheists, but an atheist group seems odd.
 
2011-04-14 04:04:57 AM
img.photobucket.com

Surely Bevets would have some crappy quote that would not explain this in the least bit!
 
2011-04-14 04:05:17 AM

dbaggins: untaken_name: Um, care to define "basic humanity" and show me where it exists?


you really need to pick up a book sometimes (no, not that book, you already think you know what's in there).

This is a topic that you could put in the effort learning a lot about if you wished to actually learn about it.


There is a reason that people don't keep slaves today, despite most ancient holy books saying it is fine. Why do you think that is ?


I actually HAVE put in a lot of time. That's how I know that no one is going to be able to contradict me. If some philosopher had managed to derive objective right and wrong without invoking a deity, it would be the discovery of the century, at least, and if the combined weight of human philosophy hasn't managed it yet, I doubt some random farker is going to manage it.

Why do I think people don't keep slaves today? Why on Earth would I think that? It's not true. Link (new window)
 
2011-04-14 04:05:32 AM

untaken_name: There can be no morality without an objective standard of right and wrong, which does not exist.


Of course objective standards of right and wrong exist, one needs merely define results for positive and negative morality and chart how actions influence those. Nothing subjective about this.
 
2011-04-14 04:06:19 AM

untaken_name: Gunther: What about that definition prevents atheists from being moral? It doesn't stipulate that moral principles have to come from a deity or anything.

Because it includes the imaginary concepts of right and wrong. There can be no morality without an objective standard of right and wrong, which does not exist. There can only be pseudo-morality, which is completely subjective. You can CALL things moral, but you have no way to PROVE whether they actually are.


Let's put aside the positive claim you're making with zero evidence (that "there can be no morality without an objective standard of right and wrong", which isn't something you've shown any evidence for) for now. Plenty of non-religious philosophies claim to have objective standards of right and wrong (Like oh, say... objectivism). Do those just not count because they don't involve the supernatural? That seems awfully arbitrary. How do you even reach that distinction?

Can Buddhists be moral? there's gods in Buddhism, but they don't lay down objective standards of right and wrong.
Can a Deist be moral? They believe in god, but don't believe He handed down a bunch of commandments or anything.

Your view that morality must somehow involve religion is just baffling to me. You treat it as though it should be an obvious fact, but plenty of real-life religions and philosophies separate the two.
 
2011-04-14 04:06:27 AM

The Fark Filter: Stigmata


Bicmata?
 
2011-04-14 04:06:45 AM
I'm an atheist. I'm quite happy with my lack of belief in deities or forced social structure.

But that said, I usually don't get together with a bunch of people and talk about how great it is to be atheist. In fact, I've NEVER done that. I usually just have a BBQ, invite over Atheist and believers alike, and have some ribs and beer. Maybe watch a football game. And don't talk about religion or lack thereof.
 
2011-04-14 04:07:06 AM
Should have gone with the sword, chief.
 
2011-04-14 04:07:57 AM

Gothnet: Why?


Because morality depends upon the existence of right and wrong, which do not exist. Since the concepts upon which morality depends do not exist, it cannot exist. If it cannot exist, people cannot be it. It's really pretty easy to follow.
 
2011-04-14 04:08:36 AM

untaken_name: No, I say there is no right and wrong because no one can prove the existence of right and wrong. They can provide only subjective definitions. Sorry, but as a rational person I don't believe in imaginary concepts. I only believe in what I can prove, or what someone else can prove that I could, with enough time and inclination, replicate. Any other position is irrational.


So there is no set of irrational numbers?
 
2011-04-14 04:09:50 AM

untaken_name: Gunther: What about that definition prevents atheists from being moral? It doesn't stipulate that moral principles have to come from a deity or anything.

Because it includes the imaginary concepts of right and wrong. There can be no morality without an objective standard of right and wrong, which does not exist. There can only be pseudo-morality, which is completely subjective. You can CALL things moral, but you have no way to PROVE whether they actually are.


I may be wrong, but you seem to think that there is no right and wrong. I disagree

easy example

right: having sex
wrong: raping someone

now can you honestly tell me that raping someone is ok?

that's not really subjective. its just wrong any way you look at it
 
2011-04-14 04:10:27 AM

Vangor: Of course objective standards of right and wrong exist, one needs merely define results for positive and negative morality and chart how actions influence those. Nothing subjective about this.


So...link me to the chart, would you? From where are these objective standards derived? Remember that the same action in different places can be considered both moral and immoral, thus rendering your idea of objective morality unlikely. You might be able to chart what certain people in certain situations think is moral or immoral, but you cannot state that action A is always moral or always immoral, because there will always be a circumstance where that is not true.
 
2011-04-14 04:10:33 AM

Shadowknight: I'm an atheist. I'm quite happy with my lack of belief in deities or forced social structure.

But that said, I usually don't get together with a bunch of people and talk about how great it is to be atheist. In fact, I've NEVER done that. I usually just have a BBQ, invite over Atheist and believers alike, and have some ribs and beer. Maybe watch a football game. And don't talk about religion or lack thereof.


You haven't lived until you've had the sort of party where your dad and your uncle Jim have ripped their sister's religion to shreds, leaving her in tears, looking desperately to her husband for support until he agrees with them...
 
2011-04-14 04:10:40 AM

doglover: Tachikoma: /people can practice their religion, but don't condemn me for not going with them to church

I don't. But if you form a church of Atheism it's a big disappointment. Do you thing, pot, but call not the kettle black. I support atheists, but an atheist group seems odd.


If they're getting together just to discuss how god doesn't exist, then sure, but people tend to want to socialize with others who hold similar beliefs in order to minimize friction.

Also, churches tend to be heavily involved in social and community programs, so it's understandable for atheists who want to contribute to form a group that does the same without the religious involvement.
 
2011-04-14 04:11:19 AM

Gunther:
Can Buddhists be moral? there's gods in Buddhism, but they don't lay down objective standards of right and wrong.
Can a Deist be moral? They believe in god, but don't believe He handed down a bunch of commandments or anything.

Your view that morality must somehow involve religion is just baffling to me. You treat it as though it should be an obvious fact, but plenty of real-life religions and philosophies separate the two.


Wouldn't the 8 Fold Path and the four noble truths more or less be laying down an objective standard of right and wrong?

Gawdzila:

A more accurate assessment would be that theists have absolute belief in things that are impossible to verify.



I wouldn't say they believe in things that are -impossible- to verify. If some being came down right in front of me and said "Hey, I'm God. Check this out" and does a number of random God-acts, wouldn't that qualify as verifiable?
 
2011-04-14 04:11:38 AM

untaken_name: Gothnet: Why?

Because morality depends upon the existence of right and wrong, which do not exist. Since the concepts upon which morality depends do not exist, it cannot exist. If it cannot exist, people cannot be it. It's really pretty easy to follow.


Right and Wrong exist because we (mankind) have decided that they exist. They are intellectual concepts. And if they do not exist then that means that everything ever written does not exist.
 
2011-04-14 04:11:48 AM

untaken_name: No, I say there is no right and wrong because no one can prove the existence of right and wrong.


Sure we can. It clearly exists, because our society revolves around the concept.


untaken_name: They can provide only subjective definitions.


So what?


untaken_name: Sorry, but as a rational person I don't believe in imaginary concepts.


Why is a concept imaginary simply because it is subjective? Emotions are subjective, but only a complete idiot would take that to mean that they don't exist.


untaken_name: I only believe in what I can prove, or what someone else can prove that I could, with enough time and inclination, replicate. Any other position is irrational.


It is easy to prove the existence of the concepts of right and wrong.

But you're looking for someone to produce some sort of electrical instrument that measures the amounts of "rightness" and "wrongness" in the fabric of the universe, as if they are entities unto themselves, before you'll acknowledge that they're rational, meaningful concepts? That's completely, dumbfoundingly ridiculous. It ignores the possibility (in fact, the certainty) that "right" and "wrong" do not exist as an objective moral code chiseled in stone, but rather as the complex results of the neurochemistry of emotion coupled with hundreds of thousands of years of human societal evolution and instinct.
 
2011-04-14 04:11:48 AM

tweek46420: untaken_name: Gunther: What about that definition prevents atheists from being moral? It doesn't stipulate that moral principles have to come from a deity or anything.

Because it includes the imaginary concepts of right and wrong. There can be no morality without an objective standard of right and wrong, which does not exist. There can only be pseudo-morality, which is completely subjective. You can CALL things moral, but you have no way to PROVE whether they actually are.

I may be wrong, but you seem to think that there is no right and wrong. I disagree

easy example

right: having sex
wrong: raping someone

now can you honestly tell me that raping someone is ok?

that's not really subjective. its just wrong any way you look at it


Some people have rape fetishes. For them, it's ok. For others, it might not be ok. That's why it's called "subjective".
 
2011-04-14 04:11:49 AM

Gunther: Can Buddhists be moral? there's gods in Buddhism, but they don't lay down objective standards of right and wrong.


Actually...
Link (new window)
 
2011-04-14 04:12:10 AM

untaken_name: Gawdzila: Who says there is no right or wrong just because we don't believe in a God?

No, I say there is no right and wrong because no one can prove the existence of right and wrong. They can provide only subjective definitions. Sorry, but as a rational person I don't believe in imaginary concepts. I only believe in what I can prove, or what someone else can prove that I could, with enough time and inclination, replicate. Any other position is irrational.


You're not a rational person. You're a troll. Otherwise known as a dick.
 
2011-04-14 04:13:03 AM

Mock26: Right and Wrong exist because we (mankind) have decided that they exist.


Um, are you serious? By that logic, God exists, as does Zeus, Thor, the Easter bunny, and single, attractive, non-biatchy women. Give me a break.
 
2011-04-14 04:13:46 AM
It's gotten to the point that you can't tell the trolls from the jokers from the God-botherers around here.
 
2011-04-14 04:14:16 AM

Gawdzila: Why is a concept imaginary simply because it is subjective? Emotions are subjective, but only a complete idiot would take that to mean that they don't exist.


Actually, emotions are the product of chemical reactions that can be understood and reproduced. So of course they exist. Can't say the same about "right" and "wrong".
 
2011-04-14 04:14:30 AM

Gothnet:

You haven't lived until you've had the sort of party where your dad and your uncle Jim have ripped their sister's religion to shreds, leaving her in tears, looking desperately to her husband for support until he agrees with them...


And I am glad that I am not related to such scum as that.
 
2011-04-14 04:14:46 AM

sirbissel: Gawdzila:

A more accurate assessment would be that theists have absolute belief in things that are impossible to verify.


I wouldn't say they believe in things that are -impossible- to verify. If some being came down right in front of me and said "Hey, I'm God. Check this out" and does a number of random God-acts, wouldn't that qualify as verifiable?


Okay, sure, that's true. But then it wouldn't qualify as an article of faith anymore ;)

I guess the more important thing to take away from that statement is that the belief is not a function of the evidence available at all.
 
2011-04-14 04:16:17 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: Actually...


sirbissel: Wouldn't the 8 Fold Path and the four noble truths more or less be laying down an objective standard of right and wrong?


Sure, but the eightfold path wasn't handed down by a deity (It was written by a human spiritual teacher who became Buddha), so by untaken_name's rather bizarre standards of morality, it doesn't count.
 
2011-04-14 04:16:54 AM

InfidelSavant: untaken_name: Gawdzila: Who says there is no right or wrong just because we don't believe in a God?

No, I say there is no right and wrong because no one can prove the existence of right and wrong. They can provide only subjective definitions. Sorry, but as a rational person I don't believe in imaginary concepts. I only believe in what I can prove, or what someone else can prove that I could, with enough time and inclination, replicate. Any other position is irrational.

You're not a rational person. You're a troll. Otherwise known as a dick.


Um, yes, I am a dick. But just because you can't answer my question, or you don't agree with my position, that doesn't make me a troll. And what makes me rational is relying on reason. You can believe in your imaginary sky-concepts of good and evil if you want to, but that doesn't make them any more real than the tooth fairy. Some people believe in that, too.
 
2011-04-14 04:17:04 AM

untaken_name: Some people have rape fetishes. For them, it's ok. For others, it might not be ok. That's why it's called "subjective".


People with rape fetishes don't want to be raped. They like to play at it. It's very different from actual rape.
 
2011-04-14 04:17:25 AM

untaken_name: Mock26: Right and Wrong exist because we (mankind) have decided that they exist.

Um, are you serious? By that logic, God exists, as does Zeus, Thor, the Easter bunny, and single, attractive, non-biatchy women. Give me a break.


God does exist as a concept. So do Zeus, Thor and the Easter Bunny. Do they physically exist? Maybe, maybe not. But the thought of them radiates through the actions, writings, etc. of many, many people. To say that the concept doesn't exist is just blindingly stupid.
 
2011-04-14 04:18:16 AM

Mock26: Gothnet:

You haven't lived until you've had the sort of party where your dad and your uncle Jim have ripped their sister's religion to shreds, leaving her in tears, looking desperately to her husband for support until he agrees with them...

And I am glad that I am not related to such scum as that.


It's called tough-love.
 
2011-04-14 04:18:50 AM

untaken_name: Mock26: Right and Wrong exist because we (mankind) have decided that they exist.

Um, are you serious? By that logic, God exists, as does Zeus, Thor, the Easter bunny, and single, attractive, non-biatchy women. Give me a break.


Far fetched, bad example is, well, far fetched and bad. There is a huge difference between a morality concept like Right and Wrong and the idea of mythical/divine/living creatures.
 
2011-04-14 04:19:25 AM

sirbissel: Wouldn't the 8 Fold Path and the four noble truths more or less be laying down an objective standard of right and wrong?


No, it would be a subjective one, since it was the subjective opinion of one person. That's kind of the whole definition of subjective...
Also, moral codes handed down by "deities" are no more objective, since only the followers of those deities follow those codes (and most don't even do that). But they are subjective because they are all different.
 
2011-04-14 04:19:55 AM

untaken_name: So...link me to the chart, would you?


Charting would be a mental task as the specificity of actions is too expansive to be meaningfully useful as a graphic, yet the human mind works wonderfully with examples including those of experience and reactions of fellow humans.

untaken_name: From where are these objective standards derived?


This was exactly what I discussed in the comment.

untaken_name: Remember that the same action in different places can be considered both moral and immoral, thus rendering your idea of objective morality unlikely.


Regardless of place, those standards remain the same. Others may interpret those differently, but this would be true of your own perception of an objective reality unless all people simultaneously clung to a precisely identical moral construct.

untaken_name: but you cannot state that action A is always moral or always immoral, because there will always be a circumstance where that is not true.


This is not a result of lack of objectivity but lack of specificity.

What you mentioned was a lack of objective standards of right and wrong. Those exist. What you want are immutable standards of right and wrong which are intrinsic in the universe, which is absurd considering morality is a human construct.
 
2011-04-14 04:20:44 AM

untaken_name: Um, yes, I am a dick. But just because you can't answer my question, or you don't agree with my position, that doesn't make me a troll. And what makes me rational is relying on reason.


You're using a definition of morality that is only used by you and crazed religious fundamentalists. Nobody else in the world believes that morality has to come from the supernatural.

So yeah; by your batshiat-insane definition of morality, morality doesn't exist. By a normal, non-retarded definition of morality, it does exist.
 
2011-04-14 04:20:58 AM

Gunther: AverageAmericanGuy: Actually...

sirbissel: Wouldn't the 8 Fold Path and the four noble truths more or less be laying down an objective standard of right and wrong?

Sure, but the eightfold path wasn't handed down by a deity (It was written by a human spiritual teacher who became Buddha), so by untaken_name's rather bizarre standards of morality, it doesn't count.


Buddha was, of course, a deity in the manner that Jesus was a deity.
 
Displayed 50 of 439 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report