Freedom From Atheism Foundation

[dreama1]

Originally Posted by Lron [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

On what planet, in what solar system and in which galaxy would locking a child in a basement and torturing it for decades ever be considered "moral"?

Go back 300 years, hell go to some countries right now.

Originally Posted by Lron [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Science can prove with empirical evidence what is good for human well being.

got prof?

There is no 'science of morality.' That is complete bullshit. Morality is largely a social phenomenon with some biological underpinnings.

Originally Posted by Lron [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If you dont define human morality as "what can maximize human freedom and minimize human suffering" then you are not defining morality correctly and there is no need to argue with you.
.

"what can maximize human freedom and minimize human suffering" is the most absurd & vague statement I have ever heard in my life. Let me guess, sam harris?

[Ikonoclastia]

Originally Posted by dreama1 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Go back 300 years, hell go to some countries right now.



got prof?

There is no 'science of morality.' That is complete bullshit. Morality is largely a social phenomenon with some biological underpinnings.



"what can maximize human freedom and minimize human suffering" is the most absurd & vague statement I have ever heard in my life. Let me guess, sam harris?

If it was good for our species survival to burn every 3rd baby alive then our society would have evolved to burn every 3rd baby alive.

Any detractors would have long ago been bred out of the gene pool as they suffered from the negative effects of not burning.

In big cities we walk past families and individuals all the time who often starve or freeze to death on the streets.

Both are horrid things. One you accept as moral one you wouldn't. Morality is fickle like human kindness.

[Rhuma7]

I would like to remind those in this thread that...You wouldn't argue micro-economics with a 2 year old because they dont have the mental capacity to give an educated response nor should you expect one.

Arguing with religious folk would fall under the same analogy and you should be ashamed of yourself for even trying.

Religious people are brought up on it and have been fed it since before they could even read a bedtime story, never even mind the bible.

You will NEVER, EVER change their way of thinking.

[stonez138]

keep trying.

[Glenzig]

No need.

[stonez138]

You're not going to convince me you're really dumb enough to believe they're only talking about physically hurting someone.

[Glenzig]

I'm telling you that the way it was said leaves it up to interpretation. I don't think anyone is actually that dumb. But there is a big difference between saying don't hurt anyone the way you wouldn't want to be hurt, and treat others as you would like to be treated. I could take absolutely no action at all toward you and not have hurt you. But treating others as we want to be treated is a proactive approach.

[dreama1]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence BUT more importantly it is not evidence of presence, either.

[Lojik]

If I name my son God would people still debate his existence?

[Emsee]

Bottom line is you put invisible lines in your head and are the premise of what is wrong with this world. Who gives a fuck what you think is right or wrong. You are not nor will ever be the epitome nor truth of what is or what will ever be.

Way to reach on the obscure lines of morality, I doubt anyone disagrees with that fact. You are nothing more than the disdained minority claiming victim rhetoric by nothing more than hyperbole indications, that have very little to do with anything that could be viewed as truth, anywhere.