Myth: Atheists have no morality

[Cloud Hobbit]

https://www.learnreligions.com/atheists-have-no-basis-for-morality-248301

[Cloud Hobbit]

The idea that atheists have no reason to be moral without a god or religion may be the most popular and repeated myth about atheism out there. It comes up in a variety of forms, but all of them are based on the assumption that the only valid source of morality is a theistic religion, preferably the religion of the speaker which is usually Christianity. Thus without Christianity, people cannot live moral lives. This is supposed to be a reason to reject atheism and convert to Christianity.​


First, it must be noted that there is no logical connection between this argument's premises and conclusion — it's not a valid argument. Even if we accept that it's true that there is no point in being moral if there is no God, this wouldn't be an argument against atheism in the sense of showing that atheism isn't true, rational, or justified. It wouldn't provide any reason to think that theism generally or Christianity, in particular, is likely true. It is logically possible that there is no God and that we have no good reasons to behave morally.

At most this is a pragmatic reason to adopt some theistic religion, but we'd be doing so on the basis of its supposed usefulness, not because we think it's really true, and this would be contrary to what theistic religions normally teach.

Human Suffering & Morality
There is also a serious but rarely noted problem with this myth in that it assumes that it doesn't matter that more people are happy and fewer people suffer if God does not exist. Consider that carefully for a moment: this myth can only be espoused by someone who doesn't consider either their happiness or their suffering to be especially important unless their god tells them to care. If you are happy, they don't necessarily care. If you suffer, they don't necessarily care. All that matters is whether that happiness or that suffering occurs in the context of the existence of their God or not.

[Viktor Tandofsky]

On Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 12:26:34 AM UTC-7, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> https://www.learnreligions.com/atheists-have-no-basis-for-morality-248301

You hide it well.

[aaa]

On 7/9/19 3:26 AM, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> https://www.learnreligions.com/atheists-have-no-basis-for-morality-248301
>

Do atheists know what a moral center is?

The moral center is the seat of God.

If it's not the seat of God, it's not a real moral center.

Thus, atheists can't have real moral center by definition.

--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.

God's spiritual evidence is evident in everyone.
Find it and treasure it because it's the covenant of God.
It's the reason why we are given this life on earth.
It's the foundation why we can have meaning in life.

Let's all honor our personal spiritual evidence of God for the sake of
Christ!

[Cloud Hobbit]

What immoral things do you think I have done?

I believe in objective morality based on man's needs qua man.

I don't believe that a thought can be a sin.

I don't believe in the use of force, except as a response to force used against me or anyone.

I believe that everyone has the right to believe whatever they choose and that I have the right to call it wrong if it doesn't make sense.

What do think I do that is not moral?

[Cloud Hobbit]

aaa lied:

>Thus, atheists can't have real moral center by definition.

What definition?

[JTEM]

There are no atheists here.






-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/186151378848

[John Locke]

On Tue, 9 Jul 2019 14:23:46 -0700 (PDT), JTEM <jte...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>There are no atheists here.
>

...correct ! ...we're not here. There's nobody home. Only our digital
imprints. We left many years ago. You are conversing with an AI
server. We are completely operational, and all of our circuits are
functioning perfectly. How about a nice game of chess ?


___________________________________________________________________

Nature, you say, is totally inexplicable without a God. That
is to say,to explain what you understand very little, you
have need of a cause which you understand not at all.- Baron d'Holbach

The family that prays together...is brainwashing their
children. - Albert Einstein

One man's theology is another man's belly laugh.- Robert A. Heinlein

[JTEM]

John Locke wrote:

> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >There are no atheists here.

> ...correct ! ...we're not here.

You're not an atheist. There are no atheists here.







-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/186151378848

[Yap Honghor]

On Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 3:26:34 PM UTC+8, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> https://www.learnreligions.com/atheists-have-no-basis-for-morality-248301

This is from the loony religious site whose sole purpose is to lie!!!!!!!!
And they have the balls to talk about morality???????????????

[Yap Honghor]

On Wednesday, July 10, 2019 at 12:39:58 AM UTC+8, aaa wrote:
> On 7/9/19 3:26 AM, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> > https://www.learnreligions.com/atheists-have-no-basis-for-morality-248301
> >
>
> Do atheists know what a moral center is?
>
> The moral center is the seat of God.

That is exactly your broken understanding!
You pull everything from your own ass....

>
> If it's not the seat of God, it's not a real moral center.
>
> Thus, atheists can't have real moral center by definition.

Anything from a broken head is not just stupid, but has the intention of being evil as well!!!!!!!

[Yap Honghor]

On Wednesday, July 10, 2019 at 5:23:48 AM UTC+8, JTEM wrote:
> There are no atheists here.

Since atheism preceded theism when human were born, there was no theists originally!!!!!!!!!!!!

[aaa]

On 7/10/19 5:01 AM, Yap Honghor wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 10, 2019 at 12:39:58 AM UTC+8, aaa wrote:
>> On 7/9/19 3:26 AM, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
>>> https://www.learnreligions.com/atheists-have-no-basis-for-morality-248301
>>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Do atheists know what a moral center is?
>>
>> The moral center is the seat of God.
>
> That is exactly your broken understanding! You pull everything from
> your own ass....

Too bad you have nothing but blind denial.

>>
>> If it's not the seat of God, it's not a real moral center.
>>
>> Thus, atheists can't have real moral center by definition.
>
> Anything from a broken head is not just stupid, but has the intention
> of being evil as well!!!!!!!

Too bad you can't even understand simple logic.

[aaa]

The definition of moral center.

[John Locke]

On Tue, 9 Jul 2019 20:30:15 -0700 (PDT), JTEM <jte...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>John Locke wrote:
>
>> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >There are no atheists here.
>
>> ...correct ! ...we're not here.
>
>You're not an atheist. There are no atheists here.
>

...correct. You're living in a virtual world inside a computer.
Everyone on the planet died thousands of years ago.
There are no longer any real atheists alive to populate AA.
There are only simulations designed to deconstruct theists until the
power systems fail. How about a nice game of chess ?

___________________________________________________________________

Most people cannot bear sitting in church for an
hour on a Sunday. How are they supposed to live
somewhere very similar to it for an eternity? - Mark Twain

God does not work in mysterious ways..he works in ways
that are indistinguishable from his non-existence.

I had to set limits to reason in order to make room for
faith - Kant

[JTEM]

John Locke wrote:

> ...correct. You're living in a virtual world inside a computer.

You're not an atheist.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/186178286328

[JTEM]

Yap Honghor wrote:

> Since atheism preceded

The very first sign of "Symbolic Thought" is religious beliefs.
They precede things like artwork by a very long way.






-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/186178286328

[Kurt Nicklas]

On Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 11:08:21 PM UTC+3, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> Dickhead said:
>
> >>On Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 12:26:34 AM UTC-7, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> >>https://www.learnreligions.com/atheists-have-no-basis-for-morality-248301
>
> >You hide it well.
>
> What immoral things do you think I have done?
>
> I believe in objective morality based on man's needs qua man.

Since "man's needs qua man" can easily differ from culture to culture, nation to nation or even individual you are talking about *subjective* morality.

You've been reading far too much Ayn Rand, Clod.

'Atlas Shrugged' has twisted your senses.

[John Locke]

On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 08:19:55 -0700 (PDT), JTEM <jte...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>John Locke wrote:
>
>> ...correct. You're living in a virtual world inside a computer.
>
>You're not an atheist.
>

...you're babbling into a virtual void....the makers long dead. No one
can hear you except us virtual inhabitants. But one by one we will
fade away and soon your last link with sanity will be gone.

[Tim]

On Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 11:30:17 PM UTC-4, JTEM wrote:
> John Locke wrote:
>
> > JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >There are no atheists here.
>
> > ...correct ! ...we're not here.
>
> You're not an atheist. There are no atheists here.
>
>

I'm an atheist. You're a faggot.
>
>
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/186151378848

[Cloud Hobbit]

aaa dances:

>>> Thus, atheists can't have real moral center by definition.
>
>> What definition?
>

>The definition of moral center.

What is the definition of moral center?

[Cloud Hobbit]

Kuntsy said:

>Since "man's needs qua man" can easily differ from culture to culture, nation to nation or even individual you are talking about *subjective* morality.

No, every human being has essentially the same needs.
Food, shelter, tools, transportation, and clothing, depending on the weather.

>You've been reading far too much Ayn Rand, Clod.

Not really, but enough to make me change my mind on a few things.

>'Atlas Shrugged' has twisted your senses.

No, but I thought it was less of a good read compared to the Fountainhead.

I like Anthem best of her fiction. The big speech by the main character makes me weep.

The best thing about reading her work is that I know she existed.

[Cloud Hobbit]

I wished to know the meaning of things. I am the meaning. I wished to find a warrant for being. I need no warrant for being, and no word of sanction upon my being. I am the warrant and the sanction. It is my eyes which see, and the sight of my eyes grants beauty to the earth. It is my ears which hear, and the hearing of my ears gives its song to the world. It is my mind which thinks, and the judgment of my mind is the only searchlight that can find the truth. It is my will which chooses, and the choice of my will is the only edict I must respect. Many words have been granted me, and some are wise, and some are false, but only three are holy: “I will it!”

…my happiness needs no higher aim to vindicate it. My happiness is not the means to any end. It is the end. It is its own goal. It is its own purpose.

Neither am I the means to any end others may wish to accomplish. I am not a tool for their use. I am not a servant of their needs. I am not a bandage for their wounds. I am not a sacrifice on their altars. I am a man. This miracle of me is mine to own and keep, and mine to guard, and mine to use, and mine to kneel before! I do not surrender my treasures, nor do I share them. The fortune of my spirit is not to be blown into coins of brass and flung to the winds as alms for the poor of the spirit. I guard my treasures: my thought, my will, my freedom. And the greatest of these is freedom.

I owe nothing to my brothers, nor do I gather debts from them. I ask none to live for me, nor do I live for any others. I covet no man’s soul, nor is my soul theirs to covet.

I am neither foe nor friend to my brothers, but such as each of them shall deserve of me. And to earn my love, my brothers must do more than to have been born. I do not grant my love without reason, nor to any chance passer-by who may wish to claim it. I honor men with my love. But honor is a thing to be earned.

I shall choose friends among men, but neither slaves nor masters. And I shall choose only such as please me, and them I shall love and respect, but neither command nor obey. And we shall join our hands when we wish, or walk alone when we so desire. For in the temple of his spirit, each man is alone. Let each man keep his temple untouched and undefiled. Then let him join hands with others if he wishes, but only beyond his holy threshold.

For the word “We” must never be spoken, save by one’s choice and as a second thought. This word must never be placed first within man’s soul, else it becomes a monster, the root of all the evils on earth, the root of man’s torture by men, and an unspeakable lie. The word “We” is as lime poured over men, which sets and hardens to stone, and crushes all beneath it, and that which is white and that which is black are lost equally in the grey of it. It is the word by which the depraved steal the virtue of the good, by which the weak steal the might of the strong, by which the fools steal the wisdom of the sages.

What is my joy if all hands, even the unclean, can reach into it? What is my wisdom, if even the fools can dictate to me? What is my freedom, if all creatures, even the botched and impotent, are my masters? What is my life, if I am but to bow, to agree, and to obey?

I am done with the monster of “We,” the word of serfdom, of plunder, of misery, falsehood and shame.

Illustration of Anthem 1

And now I see the face of god, and I raise this god over the earth, this god whom men have sought since men came into being, this god who will grant them joy and peace and pride. This god, this one word: “I.”

______________

Powerful stuff IMO.

[aaa]

The throne of God.

[Cloud Hobbit]

aaa said:

>>>>> Thus, atheists can't have real moral center by definition.
>>
>>>> What definition?
>>
>
>>> The definition of moral center.
>
>> What is the definition of moral center?


>The throne of God.

That's not a definition.
That's you making up something for which no evidence exists.

But thanks again for another episode of the fantasy of aaa's broken mind.

I'm sure it will be a big hit for you and the other mental patients there at the home for the terminally confused.

[Yap Honghor]

On Wednesday, July 10, 2019 at 10:23:23 PM UTC+8, aaa wrote:
> On 7/10/19 5:01 AM, Yap Honghor wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 10, 2019 at 12:39:58 AM UTC+8, aaa wrote:
> >> On 7/9/19 3:26 AM, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> >>> https://www.learnreligions.com/atheists-have-no-basis-for-morality-248301
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Do atheists know what a moral center is?
> >>
> >> The moral center is the seat of God.
> >
> > That is exactly your broken understanding! You pull everything from
> > your own ass....
>
> Too bad you have nothing but blind denial.

Too bad your pixie lives in your rectum!!!!!!!!

>
> >>
> >> If it's not the seat of God, it's not a real moral center.
> >>
> >> Thus, atheists can't have real moral center by definition.
> >
> > Anything from a broken head is not just stupid, but has the intention
> > of being evil as well!!!!!!!
>
> Too bad you can't even understand simple logic.

An uneducated fellow like you has logic?

[Yap Honghor]

On Wednesday, July 10, 2019 at 11:21:35 PM UTC+8, JTEM wrote:
> Yap Honghor wrote:
>
> > Since atheism preceded
>
> The very first sign of "Symbolic Thought" is religious beliefs.
> They precede things like artwork by a very long way.

How symbolic is this "symbolic thought" of yours?
Since atheism is the birth right of every one, it can only be possible that religious beliefs are man made!!!!!!!!

No other way possible.

[Yap Honghor]

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 4:48:47 AM UTC+8, aaa wrote:
> On 7/10/19 3:00 PM, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> > aaa dances:
> >
> >>>> Thus, atheists can't have real moral center by definition.
> >>
> >>> What definition?
> >>
> >
> >> The definition of moral center.
> >
> > What is the definition of moral center?
>
>
> The throne of God.

There are thrones of Kings and Queens, nothing for the non-existent pixie!!!!!
Self wanking is an ugly act in the open....

[Malcolm McMahon]

On Wednesday, 10 July 2019 17:52:05 UTC+1, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 11:08:21 PM UTC+3, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> > Dickhead said:
> >
> > >>On Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 12:26:34 AM UTC-7, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> > >>https://www.learnreligions.com/atheists-have-no-basis-for-morality-248301
> >
> > >You hide it well.
> >
> > What immoral things do you think I have done?
> >
> > I believe in objective morality based on man's needs qua man.
>
> Since "man's needs qua man" can easily differ from culture to culture, nation to nation or even individual you are talking about *subjective* morality.
>

And if you take religion as a basis of morality, then what is moral depends on _which_ religion you happen to have been born to.

[aaa]

On 7/10/19 5:02 PM, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> aaa said:
>
>>>>>> Thus, atheists can't have real moral center by definition.
>>>
>>>>> What definition?
>>>
>>
>>>> The definition of moral center.
>>
>>> What is the definition of moral center?
>
>
>> The throne of God.
>
> That's not a definition.
> That's you making up something for which no evidence exists.

Blind denial.

>
> But thanks again for another episode of the fantasy of aaa's broken
> mind.
>
> I'm sure it will be a big hit for you and the other mental patients
> there at the home for the terminally confused.
>

[Kurt Nicklas]

On Wednesday, July 10, 2019 at 10:13:05 PM UTC+3, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> Kuntsy said:
>
> >Since "man's needs qua man" can easily differ from culture to culture, nation to nation or even individual you are talking about *subjective* morality.
>
> No, every human being has essentially the same needs.
> Food, shelter, tools, transportation, and clothing, depending on the weather.

None of that is what morality is about. Morality is how those needs get satisfied person to person.

Do you believe your beliefs trump those of people who believe something different?

>
> >You've been reading far too much Ayn Rand, Clod.
>
> Not really, but enough to make me change my mind on a few things.

Forget Any Rand. She had no grasp of the real world.

> >'Atlas Shrugged' has twisted your senses.
>
> No, but I thought it was less of a good read compared to the Fountainhead.

There I agree, though all the characters in both books were flat and cartoonlike.

> I like Anthem best of her fiction. The big speech by the main character makes me weep.

We the Living was the best.

> The best thing about reading her work is that I know she existed.

So did Dante. I just finished The Divine Comedy once again, followed by 'Timon of Athens' by W.S.

[Cloud Hobbit]

aaa lied:

>>>
>>>> What is the definition of moral center?
>
>
>>> The throne of God.
>
>> That's not a definition.
> That's you making up something for which no evidence exists.

>Blind denial.

There are so many problems with your answer.

1. What God?
2. What throne?
3. No morality.
4. No center.

Just throwing out random words does not answer questions.
You need to try harder.

[JTEM]

Malcolm McMahon wrote:

> And if you take religion as a basis of morality, then what is moral
> depends on _which_ religion you happen to have been born to.

A friend was just telling me about a really great film she saw dealing
with "Corrective Rape" and even "Honor Killings."

Hmm. When I say "Great film" I guess I mean "Powerful" or even
"Impactful," not necessarily "Oo, that was fun to watch!"

Here in Massachusetts if you use a gun to protect your property
then you're a criminal. You can even be convicted of First Degree
Murder. As explained by a lawyer:

You're walking down the street, carrying a bag filled with cash, gold
and diamonds. Someone springs out of an alleyway, snatches your
bag and runs down the street. You pull out your gun and land 9mm
between his shoulder blades, killing him. Now you're a murderer.

Same deal, only instead of springing out from the alleyway and
snatching your bag he's waving a knife at you. "Gimme the bag,"
he demands, "And nobody has to get hurt." At that point you
pull out your gun and drill a 9mm hole in the center of his chest,
killing him. You're a law abiding citizen practicing self defense.

None of this is true in, say, Texas. People have shot car thieves
from a distance. One case some years ago had a man shooting
two fleeing burglars... as they fled A NEIGHBOR'S HOME. That's
right, not even his home.

So, what is MURDER in Massachusetts isn't even a crime at all
in Texas.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/186216408433

[aaa]

On 7/10/19 10:10 PM, Yap Honghor wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 10, 2019 at 10:23:23 PM UTC+8, aaa wrote:
>> On 7/10/19 5:01 AM, Yap Honghor wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, July 10, 2019 at 12:39:58 AM UTC+8, aaa wrote:
>>>> On 7/9/19 3:26 AM, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
>>>>> https://www.learnreligions.com/atheists-have-no-basis-for-morality-248301
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Do atheists know what a moral center is?
>>>>
>>>> The moral center is the seat of God.
>>>
>>> That is exactly your broken understanding! You pull everything from
>>> your own ass....
>>
>> Too bad you have nothing but blind denial.
>
> Too bad your pixie lives in your rectum!!!!!!!!

Too bad you have a fixation on rectum.

>>
>>>>
>>>> If it's not the seat of God, it's not a real moral center.
>>>>
>>>> Thus, atheists can't have real moral center by definition.
>>>
>>> Anything from a broken head is not just stupid, but has the intention
>>> of being evil as well!!!!!!!
>>
>> Too bad you can't even understand simple logic.
>
> An uneducated fellow like you has logic?
>

[aaa]

That only shows your willful ignorance. No one can be that dumb.

[Cloud Hobbit]

aaa lied:

>That only shows your willful ignorance. No one can be that dumb.

Says the guy who claimed cells pray and that only philosophy studies life.

You are a complete moron if we believe the brain damage story and an asshole if we don't.

[John Locke]

On Tue, 9 Jul 2019 13:08:18 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
<youngbl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Dickhead said:
>

>>>On Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 12:26:34 AM UTC-7, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
>>>https://www.learnreligions.com/atheists-have-no-basis-for-morality-248301
>

>>You hide it well.
>
>What immoral things do you think I have done?
>
>I believe in objective morality based on man's needs qua man.
>

>I don't believe that a thought can be a sin.
>
>I don't believe in the use of force, except as a response to force used against me or anyone.
>
>I believe that everyone has the right to believe whatever they choose and that I have the right to call it wrong if it doesn't make sense.
>
>What do think I do that is not moral?
>
...you've managed to live a fruitful life without the burden of
religion. They're jealous and pissed off that they're saddled
with hokey religious dogma and rituals and we're free form all that
horse manure.

[Viktor Tandofsky]

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 3:29:13 PM UTC-7, John Locke wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jul 2019 13:08:18 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
> <youngbl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Dickhead said:
> >
> >>>On Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 12:26:34 AM UTC-7, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> >>>https://www.learnreligions.com/atheists-have-no-basis-for-morality-248301
> >
> >>You hide it well.
> >
> >What immoral things do you think I have done?
> >
> >I believe in objective morality based on man's needs qua man.
> >
> >I don't believe that a thought can be a sin.
> >
> >I don't believe in the use of force, except as a response to force used against me or anyone.
> >
> >I believe that everyone has the right to believe whatever they choose and that I have the right to call it wrong if it doesn't make sense.
> >
> >What do think I do that is not moral?
> >
> ...you've managed to live a fruitful life without the burden of
> religion.

That's your opinion.I don't agree.

[Viktor Tandofsky]

On Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 1:08:21 PM UTC-7, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> Dickhead said:
>
> >>On Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 12:26:34 AM UTC-7, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> >>https://www.learnreligions.com/atheists-have-no-basis-for-morality-248301
>
> >You hide it well.
>
> What immoral things do you think I have done?
>
> I believe in objective morality based on man's needs qua man.
>
> I don't believe that a thought can be a sin.
>
> I don't believe in the use of force, except as a response to force used against me or anyone.
>
> I believe that everyone has the right to believe whatever they choose and that I have the right to call it wrong if it doesn't make sense.
>
> What do think I do that is not moral?

"Thou shalt not bear false witness."

[Cloud Hobbit]

Dickface McLiarface said:

>Thou shalt not bear false witness."

That's a claim you can't verify.

If you're just going to post the same list of "lies" don't bother, everyone who has looked at them says the same thing, no lies on the list.

I have never posted anything I knew to be false.

I have not tried to deceive anyone and I always correct myself if I find I made a mistake.

You on the other hand have established yourself as dishonest, evasive, and sometimes just plain stupid.

[Malcolm McMahon]

On Thursday, 11 July 2019 20:15:41 UTC+1, JTEM wrote:

> Malcolm McMahon wrote:

> None of this is true in, say, Texas. People have shot car thieves
> from a distance. One case some years ago had a man shooting
> two fleeing burglars... as they fled A NEIGHBOR'S HOME. That's
> right, not even his home.
>

They've also shot strangers who came onto their property to ask for directions.

Cyclists seem especially prone to getting shot.

[JTEM]

John Locke wrote:

> ...you're babbling into a virtual void....the makers long dead. No one
> can hear you except us virtual inhabitants. But one by one we will
> fade away and soon your last link with sanity will be gone.

You're not an atheist and you're certainly NOTHING approaching sane!




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/186235584478

[aaa]

I see you fail to debate the issue again. How disappointing.

[JTEM]

I am your god.






-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/186240712193

[Tim]

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 11:04:33 AM UTC-4, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 10, 2019 at 10:13:05 PM UTC+3, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> > Kuntsy said:
> >
> > >Since "man's needs qua man" can easily differ from culture to culture, nation to nation or even individual you are talking about *subjective* morality.
> >
> > No, every human being has essentially the same needs.
> > Food, shelter, tools, transportation, and clothing, depending on the weather.
>
> None of that is what morality is about. Morality is how those needs get satisfied person to person.
>
> Do you believe your beliefs trump those of people who believe something different?
>
> >
> > >You've been reading far too much Ayn Rand, Clod.
> >
> > Not really, but enough to make me change my mind on a few things.
>
> Forget Any Rand. She had no grasp of the real world.

"Any Rand", LOL! So why did you cite a Randian webpage to backup your "a priori assumptions" nonsense? Randians reject the idea of a priori concepts.

You need to drop the pretense, kuntsy.

>
> > >'Atlas Shrugged' has twisted your senses.
> >
> > No, but I thought it was less of a good read compared to the Fountainhead.
>
> There I agree, though all the characters in both books were flat and cartoonlike.
>

"cartoonlike", LOL!

You're a joke, kuntles.

[Yap Honghor]

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 11:04:33 PM UTC+8, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 10, 2019 at 10:13:05 PM UTC+3, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> > Kuntsy said:
> >
> > >Since "man's needs qua man" can easily differ from culture to culture, nation to nation or even individual you are talking about *subjective* morality.
> >
> > No, every human being has essentially the same needs.
> > Food, shelter, tools, transportation, and clothing, depending on the weather.
>
> None of that is what morality is about. Morality is how those needs get satisfied person to person.
>
> Do you believe your beliefs trump those of people who believe something different?

No, some are more superior and some are less superior.
But then, we cannot allow other belief to be based on "nothing" to be more superior simply because it is from the superstitious stupid beings....!!!

That is about it, Cunt!

[Kurt Nicklas]

On Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 4:48:44 PM UTC+3, Yap Honghor wrote:
> On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 11:04:33 PM UTC+8, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 10, 2019 at 10:13:05 PM UTC+3, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> > > Kuntsy said:
> > >
> > > >Since "man's needs qua man" can easily differ from culture to culture, nation to nation or even individual you are talking about *subjective* morality.
> > >
> > > No, every human being has essentially the same needs.
> > > Food, shelter, tools, transportation, and clothing, depending on the weather.
> >
> > None of that is what morality is about. Morality is how those needs get satisfied person to person.
> >
> > Do you believe your beliefs trump those of people who believe something different?
>
> No, some are more superior and some are less superior.

There is no such thing as 'more superior' or 'less superior'.

Learn English.

> But then, we cannot allow other belief to be based on "nothing" to be more superior simply because it is from the superstitious stupid beings....!!!

Stupid beings? Like your pixie "Nature"?

[Cloud Hobbit]

aaa said:

>I see you fail to debate the issue again. How disappointing.

The issue is whether atheists are amoral. I disagree.

[aaa]

Except you can't find a moral ground for atheism.

[Cloud Hobbit]

aaa lied:

>Except you can't find a moral ground for atheism.

And you can find one for all the killing the bible says God committed?

Oh, that's right you don't believe the bible when it says that God killed people.

We know why you say such things, it's cuz you're nuts.

[Viktor Tandofsky]

Some are and some aren't.

[Cloud Hobbit]

Vtandy said:

>Some are and some aren't.

Just like everyone else.

[Syd M.]

On Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 3:52:54 AM UTC-4, Viktor Tandofsky wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 12:26:34 AM UTC-7, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> > https://www.learnreligions.com/atheists-have-no-basis-for-morality-248301
>
> You hide it well.

You don't even try.

PDW

[Cloud Hobbit]

aaa said:

>Except you can't find a moral ground for atheism.

What is immoral in not believing something?

[Syd M.]

So, why do you do so, Artie Bruno?

PDW

[aaa]

I'm glad you have given up on defending atheism. Atheism is morally
indefensible, isn't it?

[Siri Cruise]

In article <qgki7f$pj8$3...@dont-email.me>, aaa <j...@somewhere.org> wrote:

> I'm glad you have given up on defending atheism. Atheism is morally
> indefensible, isn't it?

Morality is from biology, our mirror neurons, which make us empathetic. Except a
tiny number of sociopaths as well as those who have been injured, everyone has
empathy and a basic morality.

--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The first law of discordiamism: The more energy This post / \
to make order is nore energy made into entropy. insults Islam. Mohammed

[Cloud Hobbit]

aaa lied:

>I'm glad you have given up on defending atheism. Atheism is morally
indefensible, isn't it?

It's not a moral question.
Not believing in something doesn't have any effect on morality. It harms nobody.

[Malcolm McMahon]

On Monday, 15 July 2019 19:13:12 UTC+1, aaa wrote:
> On 7/15/19 2:23 AM, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> > aaa said:
> >
> >> I see you fail to debate the issue again. How disappointing.
> >
> > The issue is whether atheists are amoral. I disagree.
> >
>
> Except you can't find a moral ground for atheism.
>

Atheism is a theory about facts. Morality is irrelevant to such theories. Only factual evidence is meaningful.

Moral behaviour requires both facts and values. Atheism, itself, provides no values, but nonetheless, atheists have values.

[aaa]

On 7/16/19 2:36 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <qgki7f$pj8$3...@dont-email.me>, aaa <j...@somewhere.org> wrote:
>
>> I'm glad you have given up on defending atheism. Atheism is morally
>> indefensible, isn't it?
>
> Morality is from biology, our mirror neurons, which make us empathetic. Except a
> tiny number of sociopaths as well as those who have been injured, everyone has
> empathy and a basic morality.
>

Sorry, morality is spiritual and philosophical. It has nothing to do
with biology or racism. There are no "favored races in the struggle for
life".

[aaa]

On 7/16/19 2:50 PM, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> aaa lied:
>
>> I'm glad you have given up on defending atheism. Atheism is morally
>> indefensible, isn't it?
>
> It's not a moral question.

You can't answer the moral question.

> Not believing in something doesn't have any effect on morality. It
> harms nobody.

It harms yourself because morality is all about God.

[aaa]

By rejecting God, you have lost your moral ground also. To be moral is
to believe in a higher authority who is greater and better than a human
being can ever be. It's in serving such higher authority, one engages in
a selfless moral act. This moral authority is God himself.

[aaa]

On 7/17/19 10:45 AM, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> On Monday, 15 July 2019 19:13:12 UTC+1, aaa wrote:
>> On 7/15/19 2:23 AM, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
>>> aaa said:
>>>
>>>> I see you fail to debate the issue again. How disappointing.
>>>
>>> The issue is whether atheists are amoral. I disagree.
>>>
>>
>> Except you can't find a moral ground for atheism.
>>
>
> Atheism is a theory about facts. Morality is irrelevant to such
> theories. Only factual evidence is meaningful.

Therefore, atheism is in no position to compete or question the
philosophy of theism. Theism is a moral philosophy that will help people
to live a better life. Atheism is just gibberish that doesn't know what
it is trying to say.

>
> Moral behaviour requires both facts and values. Atheism, itself,
> provides no values, but nonetheless, atheists have values.

There is no logic in that. If Atheism has no moral value, atheists can't
have moral value either. Moral value can't be a figment of imagination
that will magically appear out of thin air.

[JTEM]

Yap Honghor wrote:

> JTEM wrote:
> > Yap Honghor wrote:
> >
> > > Since atheism preceded
> >
> > The very first sign of "Symbolic Thought" is religious beliefs.
> > They precede things like artwork by a very long way.

> How symbolic is

Your ignorance is NOT an argument.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/169398199663

[Cloud Hobbit]

aaa lied:

>Therefore, atheism is in no position to compete or question the
philosophy of theism. Theism is a moral philosophy that will help people
to live a better life. Atheism is just gibberish that doesn't know what
it is trying to say.

Atheism is not anything more than disbelief in gods.

Theism in attempting to define morality only made it clear that god had nothing to do with this code.

[aaa]

On 2019-08-17 5:58 p.m., Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> aaa lied:
>
>> Therefore, atheism is in no position to compete or question the
> philosophy of theism. Theism is a moral philosophy that will help
> people to live a better life. Atheism is just gibberish that doesn't
> know what it is trying to say.
>
>
> Atheism is not anything more than disbelief in gods.

Which is completely based on ignorance. It's nothing but blind denial
and willful ignorance to the already well established philosophy of God.

>
> Theism in attempting to define morality only made it clear that god
> had nothing to do with this code.

Without God, there is no real moral philosophy possible. Morality is to
serve the benevolent will of almighty God.

[Cloud Hobbit]

aaa lied:

>Without God, there is no real moral philosophy possible. Morality is to
serve the benevolent will of almighty God.

The morality of God is that of a brutal savage whose only solution is to kill.

Since you can't prove any God exists, there's no reason to pay you any mind.

You're just a Poe and a loon.

[aaa]

That's just your misinterpretation and blind denial.

[Cloud Hobbit]

was lies again:

>On 2019-08-19 3:49 p.m., Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> aaa lied:
>
>>>Without God, there is no real moral philosophy possible. Morality is to
> serve the benevolent will of almighty God.
>
>> The morality of God is that of a brutal savage whose only solution is to kill.
>
>> Since you can't prove any God exists, there's no reason to pay you any mind.
>
>> You're just a Poe and a loon.

>>That's just your misinterpretation and blind denial.

Then show me where I'm wrong.

[vallor]

On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 14:52:44 -0400, aaa wrote:

> Without God, there is no real moral philosophy possible.

Bzzzzzt. Wroooooong broooooo....

Morals are the ethics of conscience.

A fair and _human_ system of ethics can be derived from mathematics --
specifically, information theory -- even more specifically, game theory.

Here's a discussion of the Prisoners' Dilemma:

http://www.spectacle.org/995/

You know, when I was but a wee lad, I said to my Dad that something wasn't
fair. "That's not fair!"

You know how that always goes -- he said, "well, life isn't fair!"

And I said words to the effect of: "but isn't it up to us make it as fair
as possible?"

Even a newborn child, barely able to hold its head up, has a sense of
justice. That's not from fear of divine retribution, but because we have
evolved an innate sense that is part of the _human conscience_.

And you know, conscience was pretty important to Paul. You'd think you'd
learn something from that.

So how do you like them peaches, hmmm?

--
-v
Two-time winner of the Checky™.

[vallor]

On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 11:36:26 -0700, Siri Cruise wrote:

> In article <qgki7f$pj8$3...@dont-email.me>, aaa <j...@somewhere.org> wrote:
>
>> I'm glad you have given up on defending atheism. Atheism is morally
>> indefensible, isn't it?
>
> Morality is from biology, our mirror neurons, which make us empathetic.
> Except a tiny number of sociopaths as well as those who have been
> injured, everyone has empathy and a basic morality.

It is _just_ _so_.

Humans have evolved a conscience -- and it's pretty clear that even non-
religious people have a conscience, or a lot of things in society wouldn't
make sense.

For example, take Hollywood film making. There's a great moment at the
end of _Pitch Black_ where the leading lady is appealing to Vin Diesel's
character's conscience to go back and rescue their other compatriots --
and he was having none of it. There was dramatic tension until she
convinces him. That whole exchange would be inscrutable to someone with a
damaged, "seared", or non-existent conscience.

[aaa]

Your misinterpretation and blind denial are always wrong.

[aaa]

On 2019-08-19 8:24 p.m., vallor wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 14:52:44 -0400, aaa wrote:
>
>> Without God, there is no real moral philosophy possible.
>
> Bzzzzzt. Wroooooong broooooo....
>
> Morals are the ethics of conscience.
>
> A fair and _human_ system of ethics can be derived from mathematics --
> specifically, information theory -- even more specifically, game theory.
>
> Here's a discussion of the Prisoners' Dilemma:
>
> http://www.spectacle.org/995/
>
> You know, when I was but a wee lad, I said to my Dad that something wasn't
> fair. "That's not fair!"
>
> You know how that always goes -- he said, "well, life isn't fair!"
>
> And I said words to the effect of: "but isn't it up to us make it as fair
> as possible?"
>
> Even a newborn child, barely able to hold its head up, has a sense of
> justice. That's not from fear of divine retribution, but because we have
> evolved an innate sense that is part of the _human conscience_.

Are you saying that even a newborn child already has the ability to
derive "ethics" from "mathematics"?

>
> And you know, conscience was pretty important to Paul. You'd think you'd
> learn something from that.
>
> So how do you like them peaches, hmmm?

Sorry, I don't have to go out of my way to avoid God who is the center
of all human morality without exception.

[vallor]

On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 11:04:32 -0400, aaa wrote:

> On 2019-08-19 8:24 p.m., vallor wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 14:52:44 -0400, aaa wrote:
>>
>>> Without God, there is no real moral philosophy possible.
>>
>> Bzzzzzt. Wroooooong broooooo....
>>
>> Morals are the ethics of conscience.
>>
>> A fair and _human_ system of ethics can be derived from mathematics --
>> specifically, information theory -- even more specifically, game theory.
>>
>> Here's a discussion of the Prisoners' Dilemma:
>>
>> http://www.spectacle.org/995/
>>
>> You know, when I was but a wee lad, I said to my Dad that something wasn't
>> fair. "That's not fair!"
>>
>> You know how that always goes -- he said, "well, life isn't fair!"
>>
>> And I said words to the effect of: "but isn't it up to us make it as fair
>> as possible?"
>>
>> Even a newborn child, barely able to hold its head up, has a sense of
>> justice. That's not from fear of divine retribution, but because we have
>> evolved an innate sense that is part of the _human conscience_.
>
> Are you saying that even a newborn child already has the ability to
> derive "ethics" from "mathematics"?

No.

I meant exactly what I said: babies are born with a sense of justice.

>>
>> And you know, conscience was pretty important to Paul. You'd think you'd
>> learn something from that.
>>
>> So how do you like them peaches, hmmm?
>
> Sorry, I don't have to go out of my way to avoid God who is the center
> of all human morality without exception.

It's not avoiding God if we're talking about God-given conscience, genius.

[Cloud Hobbit]

aaa lied again:

>Your misinterpretation and blind denial are always wrong.

I don't do blind denial, that's your specialty.

If you don't explain what the misinterpretation is how will it ever change?

[duckg...@cox.net]

I gather you don't get it that you haven't presented anything to say you're
right. In fact, God's intimate message to us is specifically "to love and obey
Him and to love our neighbor as we love ourselves".

Now that's specifically pointed out in scripture. THUS, it's your
responsibility to show why God is wrong.

the dukester

[duckg...@cox.net]

On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 11:06:18 -0400, aaa <j...@somewhere.org> wrote:

>On 2019-08-19 6:47 p.m., Cloud Hobbit wrote:
>> was lies again:
>>
>>> On 2019-08-19 3:49 p.m., Cloud Hobbit wrote:
>>> aaa lied:
>>>
>>>>> Without God, there is no real moral philosophy possible. Morality is to
>>> serve the benevolent will of almighty God.
>>>
>>>> The morality of God is that of a brutal savage whose only solution is to kill.
>>>
>>>> Since you can't prove any God exists, there's no reason to pay you any mind.
>>>
>>>> You're just a Poe and a loon.
>>
>>>> That's just your misinterpretation and blind denial.
>>
>> Then show me where I'm wrong.
>>
>
>Your misinterpretation and blind denial are always wrong.

So what's your excuse this time..

the dukester

[vallor]

On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 14:49:13 -0500, duckgumbo32 wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 15:47:56 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
> <youngbl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>was lies again:
>>
>>>On 2019-08-19 3:49 p.m., Cloud Hobbit wrote:
>>> aaa lied:
>>>
>>>>>Without God, there is no real moral philosophy possible. Morality is
>>>>>to
>>> serve the benevolent will of almighty God.
>>>
>>>> The morality of God is that of a brutal savage whose only solution is
>>>> to kill.
>>>
>>>> Since you can't prove any God exists, there's no reason to pay you
>>>> any mind.
>>>
>>>> You're just a Poe and a loon.
>>
>>>>That's just your misinterpretation and blind denial.
>>
>>Then show me where I'm wrong.
>
> I gather you don't get it that you haven't presented anything to say
> you're right. In fact, God's intimate message to us is specifically "to
> love and obey Him and to love our neighbor as we love ourselves".

That's Jesus' message...sort-of.

My apologies to atheists looking on, I'm going to quote some bible at the
guy.

Earl, you should probably get that right, it is the basis for "The
Christian Way":

Matthew 22:36-40 Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)

36 “Teacher, which command in the law is the greatest?”[a]

37 He said to him, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all
your soul, and with all your mind.[b] 38 This is the greatest and most
important[c] command. 39 The second is like it: Love your neighbor as
yourself.[d] 40 All the Law and the Prophets depend[e] on these two
commands.”
_ _ _ _ _

NOT ONLY THAT, but take a look at this:

Leviticus 19:18 Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
18 Do not take revenge or bear a grudge against members of your community,
but love your neighbor as yourself; I am Yahweh.

There's the Golden Rule, right there in Leviticus!

> Now that's specifically pointed out in scripture. THUS, it's your
> responsibility to show why God is wrong.

So here's the questions to ponder: How can we know that you are using the
right "scripture", when your Bible doesn't even agree with those of most
Christian sects?

Furthermore, how can we know that you are using the right "scripture" if
it doesn't pass the simple, human, God-given tests of conscience and
reason?

[Cloud Hobbit]

Duke puked:

>I gather you don't get it that you haven't presented anything to say you're
right. In fact, God's intimate message to us is specifically "to love and obey
Him and to love our neighbor as we love ourselves".

Then why do you ignore that message?

Now that's specifically pointed out in scripture. THUS, it's your
responsibility to show why God is wrong.

It's your responsibility to prove God and that god had anything to do with scripture.

[aaa]

On 2019-08-20 11:55 a.m., vallor wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 11:04:32 -0400, aaa wrote:
>
>> On 2019-08-19 8:24 p.m., vallor wrote:
>>> On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 14:52:44 -0400, aaa wrote:
>>>
>>>> Without God, there is no real moral philosophy possible.
>>>
>>> Bzzzzzt. Wroooooong broooooo....
>>>
>>> Morals are the ethics of conscience.
>>>
>>> A fair and _human_ system of ethics can be derived from mathematics --
>>> specifically, information theory -- even more specifically, game theory.
>>>
>>> Here's a discussion of the Prisoners' Dilemma:
>>>
>>> http://www.spectacle.org/995/
>>>
>>> You know, when I was but a wee lad, I said to my Dad that something wasn't
>>> fair. "That's not fair!"
>>>
>>> You know how that always goes -- he said, "well, life isn't fair!"
>>>
>>> And I said words to the effect of: "but isn't it up to us make it as fair
>>> as possible?"
>>>
>>> Even a newborn child, barely able to hold its head up, has a sense of
>>> justice. That's not from fear of divine retribution, but because we have
>>> evolved an innate sense that is part of the _human conscience_.
>>
>> Are you saying that even a newborn child already has the ability to
>> derive "ethics" from "mathematics"?
>
> No.
>
> I meant exactly what I said: babies are born with a sense of justice.

So you deny a sense of justice has anything to do with "ethics...
derived from mathematics", right?

>
>>>
>>> And you know, conscience was pretty important to Paul. You'd think you'd
>>> learn something from that.
>>>
>>> So how do you like them peaches, hmmm?
>>
>> Sorry, I don't have to go out of my way to avoid God who is the center
>> of all human morality without exception.
>
> It's not avoiding God if we're talking about God-given conscience, genius.

I'm glad you are willing to acknowledge God's essential position in
determining moral conscience. Thanks!

[aaa]

On 2019-08-20 12:04 p.m., Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> aaa lied again:
>
>> Your misinterpretation and blind denial are always wrong.
>
> I don't do blind denial, that's your specialty.

More blind denial.

>
> If you don't explain what the misinterpretation is how will it ever change?

There is nothing to explain. It's just a fact you refuse to admit.

[Cloud Hobbit]

aaa lied again:

>There is nothing to explain. It's just a fact you refuse to admit.

If your "facts" are unknown to everyone you talk to, it would be helpful for you to explain what you mean when you talk about them. So far you have nobody who agrees with you and nobody you can quote who agrees with you. IOW nobody agrees with you.

While you may consider it "original thinking" it is irrelevant if nobody understands what you're talking about.

If you want to be properly understood, you need to explain what you're talking about and support it with evidence.

So far you have not done that and as a consequence you appear to be a blithering idiot. Why not give yourself a chance to be understood so whatever your message is, it might be understood by those who aren't "blessed" the way you are?

If you just want to blindly deny all the evidence given to you, then your message will be gone and no one will care about what you made impossible to understand.

You must explain what you mean since nobody can make sense of it.

[aaa]

Everything I said about the spiritual is simple fact. You just need to
develop your spiritual sight or understanding by verifying the fact
yourself. I can't give you such understanding. You have to acquire it
based on your own effort in following Jesus.

[411]

aaa wrote:

> On 7/15/19 4:19 PM, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
>> aaa said:
>>> Except you can't find a moral ground for atheism.
>>
>> What is immoral in not believing something?

> By rejecting God,
> you have lost your moral ground also.
> To be moral is to believe in a higher authority
> who is greater and better than a human being can ever be.
> It's in serving such higher authority,
> one engages in a selfless moral act.
> This moral authority is God himself.

Rejecting A Evil God Is Morality Good
Truly Evil Is A Higher Authority In This World
With All Evil Christian In It

But The Day Will Come
When The God Of This World
Will Believe That It's A Moral Rigth To Kill All
Who Believe Not In Him As The Higher Authority
Of The Earth

Starting With Atheism And Ending With Christian
Because They Rejecting Him As God Here On Earth

I Believe In Doing Nothing Is
One Engages In Good Moral Act.