Without God(s), what is the point?!

[KWED]

You think everyone on earth recieves love? Seriously? You have never heard of parents killing and abusing thier own kids? You don't know about children being abandoned because they are the wrong gender? Do you live under a rock?

It is true that some people aren't loved by everyone, or even that they don't get much love at all, but you claimed that there were people that "no human loves".
I love everyone.
There you go.

 

[Link]

It is true that some people aren't loved by everyone, or even that they don't get much love at all, but you claimed that there were people that "no human loves".
I love everyone.
There you go.

Aww, you love me.

 

[KWED]

I never said life can't have value to the atheist.

You claim that life without god is meaningless or has no value. You are wrong.

But his value system doesn't support his own value.

Of course it does. I value my friends. That value is based on the fact that I can, and do assign value.

Taken to it's logical conclusion, life without a deity is just a cosmic accident.

Correct.
Why do you have a problem with that? Why does it matter?

 

[KWED]

The one with human DNA.

Which one it that, counting from the left?

 

[KWED]

I don't have value because I learned anything. Facepalm!

You misunderstand.
You said that dogs aren't moral beings because they learn good and bad from an higher authority through reward and punishment.
But you have learned your moral framework from an higher authority through reward and punishment.

So by your own argument, either you are not a moral being, or dogs are moral beings. Which is it?

Morality isn't about reaction to stimulu.

That is a part of how morality develops.
You feel bad when you are abused, so your innate empathy means that you understand that others feel the same, so you therefore know that making people feel bad by abusing them is "wrong" because you don't want it to happen to you.

Of course, you will completely fail to understand this.

 

[KWED]

A cell doesn't develop into a human without artificial assistance.

So potential to be "human" only counts when there is no artificial assistance.
So if a mother needs any sort of medical intervention while pregnant, that foetus is no longer "human"?

And BTW lots of later stage abortions happen so I assume you are against those?

Naughty! I know we have been through this before.
95% of abortions are within 12 weeks. Only 1% are after 20 weeks.
0.1% are after 24 weeks and they are all due to medical emergency.

Why are anti-abortionists so prepared to be dishonest in their arguments? As @Sheldon said, more Lies for Jesus.

 

[KWED]

Aww, you love me.

Someone has to.

 

[Link]

Someone has to.

Haha, that kind of love no one cares for it. Its almost valueless.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Only 1% are after 20 weeks.

That's still thosands. Over 100,000 unique human beings are killed in second and third trimester abortions each year — nearly 274 babies each day.

 

[Wildswanderer]

But you have learned your moral framework from an higher authority through reward and punishment.

Not! I leaned about my value by being loved by the ruler of the universe... not by being whipped when I did wrong.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Correct.
Why do you have a problem with that? Why does it matter?

Because a universe fart can't be valuable.

 

[Wildswanderer]

It is true that some people aren't loved by everyone, or even that they don't get much love at all, but you claimed that there were people that "no human loves".
I love everyone.
There you go.

No you don't. Claiming you love people you will never meet isn't actually doing anything.

 

[Trailblazer]

Do you have any objective evidence, or is bias for a belief you favour all you can offer?

My life has meaning to me, and to those I care about and who care about me. This can be easily demonstrate with a lifetime of objective evidence, not anecdotal subjective claims.

No, there is no objective evidence that life does not have much purpose without God, since there is no objective evidence that God even exists.

I never claimed that life can have no meaning without God.
Regardless of whether God exists or not, my life has meaning to me, and to those I care about and who care about me. This can be easily demonstrated with a lifetime of objective evidence, not anecdotal subjective claims.

 

[ppp]

Not that I've seen... Unless you define morality as what is convenient for the individual.

Then you aren't paying attention. And the whole "convenient to the individual" thing is just a false position that you have invented for your personal convenience.

 

[ppp]

Morality isn't about reaction to stimulu.

Given action X, what is it that determines whether X is moral?

 

[Sheldon]

Wildswanderer said: ↑
Dogs aren't capable of moral reasoning. They react to stimulus. My dog learns that if she barks I'll open the door. If she shakes hands, she gets praised, etc. That's got nothing to do with morality, in fact it's completely self centered.

All social mammals have a sense of morality. And different social groups within a species have variations in their standards of what is and is not moral. Including humans. There is a huge amount of study and literature on the subject.

 

[Sheldon]

I believe aside from the morality to each other in a species you mention, there is also Quranic notion that all things also have a moral choice to submit to God willingly or unwillingly. Some things opt to hate to submit to God and hence do what God states similar to how Satanic Jinn would obey Sulaiman (a) during his rule. The earth has a noble spirit and reality, and when tested to submit to God willingly, it obeyed, and when tested with taking Authority for itself - it refused to take it but rather submitted to God's Authorities.

The moon and sun also have noble spirits, but somethings obey God unwillingly, and hence are spiritually corrupt.

Of course, this is in the unseen realm and hidden language of all things, but everything has to decide between love and hate. Somethings hate submitting to God and somethings love it.

That's just subjective belief, the literature @Policy is talking about is supported by objective scientific evidence.

 

[Sheldon]

Policy said: ↑
All social mammals have a sense of morality.

Not that I've seen... Unless you define morality as what is convenient for the individual.

Morality
noun

1. principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.

In any social group not being able to understand what is and is not acceptable behaviour would end pretty badly for any individual. Like your dog not being able to learn how to teach you to open the door when it had a full bladder. The real irony is your disdain for that dog. Hitler didn't seem able to learn how to modify his behaviour for the mutual benefit of others, yet you think he was better than your dog. I have to be honest I'd not have anything near me I considered "worse than Hitler", but then your claims are pretty bizarre.

 

[Sheldon]

Do your toenails form organs and limbs if you don't cut them?

Did I claim they did?

Dumbest argument ever.

I think you mean so far, but then language is not easy for the superstitious.

 

[Sheldon]

So will a prisoner. That doesn't make him moral it's just a survival instinct.

Yes it's clear from your posts that you don't understand what moral means, and the idea it's not an aid to survival proves that.

I'll go slowly then, imagine a gorilla that hadn't a clue what any of the other gorillas would find acceptable behaviour within the social group, would this make it more or less likely to survive? Do take your time with this one. It's a bit more complex than recognising when a dog is helping you understand it's bladder is full.