pominoz said:Mark85's brother, open your own account on here, so that we do can debate you and not think your brother is a bigger dick than he is.
Markt85 said:pominoz said:Mark85's brother, open your own account on here, so that we do can debate you and not think your brother is a bigger dick than he is.
.. he doesnt know about this place. Im debating with him with the full force of Bluemoon behind me.
Goo said:Bigga said:Interesting debate.
Here's my question; what is so difficult to answer about Vic's question that one has to tack religion to it?
I am not an atheist and nor am I religious, so this intrigues me that atheists cannot answer a question without defaulting to a safe ground.
Does the question have no validity? If so, explain on its own merit.
Not sure I understand you fully here, Bigga. As a atheist myself, I can draw upon perfectly good reasoning (scientific and Darwinian) as to why morals, and behavior which suggest morals, exist.
I haven't seen any evidence of a atheistic answer defaulting to a safe ground.
Also interested in your "not religious but not atheist" comment. Just to clarify I assume you're saying you're an agnostic? Everyone who isn't a believer is an agnostic in reality, but the term has problems as it suggest the agnostic is 50-50 over the existence of a God. I am 99.9 recurring per cent sure a God doesn't exist. While technically that makes me an agnostic, I use the term atheist as it gives a more accurate portrayal as to where I stand. Is this you? Or do you mean something else?
Funnily enough Markt85's Vicar brother is also 99.9 recurring per cent atheist as well. He only believes in one God of the thousands and thousands that have been created. So while he's not quite as atheistic as me, he's very very close.
BimboBob said:blueish swede said:Need more information. Are the little children first born Egyptian children?Markt85 said:I am the source of my morality.....I want to kill little children
You are the source of your morality.....you want to protect little children
Who is right?
- 'Cause then it is perfectly fine to slaughter them all, isn't it?
I'm sure that was the Jews mate.
Bigga said:Interesting debate.
Here's my question; what is so difficult to answer about Vic's question that one has to tack religion to it?
I am not an atheist and nor am I religious, so this intrigues me that atheists cannot answer a question without defaulting to a safe ground.
Does the question have no validity? If so, explain on its own merit.
Markt85 said:Bigga said:Interesting debate.
Here's my question; what is so difficult to answer about Vic's question that one has to tack religion to it?
I am not an atheist and nor am I religious, so this intrigues me that atheists cannot answer a question without defaulting to a safe ground.
Does the question have no validity? If so, explain on its own merit.
I think that's the right question Bigga. Attacking religion itself is easy as i am against religion and do not believe in a higher being... but answering the morality points is still tough to do.