Robert Tulip wrote:

Movie Nerd wrote:Ant never brought God into this. It was just a simple philosophical problem where we have to figure the ethics of the situation. However, it seems to have been established that the question was posed as a critique of things posted on another thread, where it was argued that to be moral and ethical, you need reason and evidence as opposed to God. So on a deeper level, the comments were still on topic, though upon reading them they confused me too.

The direct implication of the thread title (a quote from my critique of the Ten Commandments as a basis of morality), when set against the absurdly unrealistic trolley game of the opening post, is that we need more than reason and evidence for a sound ethics. What this "more than" might be is precisely what ant refuses to be drawn on, despite repeated requests from the Owner and Moderators.

OK, fair enough. I concede your point. I am afraid my reading comprehension today is not at a place it should be; I will try to keep up with you better.

You guys are a boring joke now.

I ask a question that has nothing to do with god or an argument for the existence of god, or religious morality and all that's being done here is more whining about god.

Flann 5 wrote:

youkrst wrote:Quote:
Your colleague tells the terrorist " if you wont talk I will torture your daughter in front of you till you do"




this colleague guy never read his bible, good ole YHWH would have made the terrorist EAT his own daughter... and sons, and a friend or two for good measure



Jehovah wrote:
And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters; and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend




yes, that must be the ethical thing to do, after all God is perfect, right?

this is why religion is so good for us,

Once again we get typical distortion from Youkrst showing Gods judgements with a studied disregard for context. God had warned from the time of Moses of the consequences of their sins and rebellion. He sent prophets repeatedly like Jeremiah warning and pleading with them to turn from their evil practices.
They stoned and abused the prophets and persisted in wilful evil and rebellion.
So when God after showing much patience finally brings the threatened judgement it's all evil Jehovah's fault not the people who refused to turn and brought it on themselves.Had they repented this would not have come upon them.
Thanks for the lesson in ethics. I would say misrepresentation and distortion of truth is unethical myself.
This is a digression from the thread subject but seems needed.

all that troll can do is fall back on complaints about god.
he, like Robert, are espousers of what is nothing more than empty words.

I used to youkrts trolling here. He is funded by Robert.

And Robert remains impotent with his poetry.

I am sorry you are witness to this, Flann.

LanDroid wrote:

Flann 5 said So when God after showing much patience finally brings the threatened judgement it's all evil Jehovah's fault not the people who refused to turn and brought it on themselves. Had they repented this would not have come upon them.

So if Yahweh threatens to cause parents to eat their children if they don't do certain things and the parents do not take the required actions, then in your Ethical System it is Perfectly Acceptable for Yahweh to enforce that Punishment? Is that the helpful context you're providing? I'm with youkrst on this one.

More of the same.

In a universe where the highly improbable does happen, Robert, rather than implement his ethical system, claims that this situation is impossible in our world, and runs off to hide somewhere.

ant wrote:You guys are a boring joke now.

I ask a question that has nothing to do with god or an argument for the existence of god, or religious morality and all that's being done here is more whining about god.

I'm a boring joke? Seriously Ant, screw you and your attacks against me.

I for one have asked the god aspect of things because it seems you posed the question out of a discussion on another thread that had to do with God. All over the forum, you've championed the existence of God, and you wouldn't have asked this ethical problem if you weren't interested in morality based off what God says versus morality based off of man's reason and evidence. It has to do with the topic, and I was merely asking about the God thing because it was posed, and you go out of your way to stilt the natural growth of the discussion and where it leads.

Just because you started the freaking thread doesn't mean you can control where it goes. Stop attacking people's intelligence and person when they're trying to discuss side points on the topic.

MovieNerd, since it got hopelessly personal again due to some people: as mentioned before in other threads, the reactions of some are not as telling as the absence of reactions & absence of answers... even when some reactions are so emotional whilst proclaiming rational thought in direct contradiction of truly cheap unacceptable vocabulary.
In many way it is amusing that someone consistently reverts to the latter.
Anyway, it is the first forum of this tone that I have ever seen, and I'm not a young person -

lehelvandor wrote:MovieNerd, since it got hopelessly personal again due to some people: as mentioned before in other threads, the reactions of some are not as telling as the absence of reactions & absence of answers... even when some reactions are so emotional whilst proclaiming rational thought in direct contradiction of truly cheap unacceptable vocabulary.
In many way it is amusing that someone consistently reverts to the latter.
Anyway, it is the first forum of this tone that I have ever seen, and I'm not a young person -

I've had dealings with Ant and Flann before, on other threads on this forum. I am getting so sick and tired of this. They've attacked me for supposedly being contradictory about my father, and they've attacked me for other stuff too.

It really pisses me off, to be honest with you.

Yep, seen it - and how you feel is understandable, but just ask how come this language and these infantile personal attacks are needed to be used by any person who claims to be here for a rational civilised discussion...
Don't let it get to you, all this is very useful in eminent self-characterisation (even without the semantic traps and the triggered self-contradictions)...

lehelvandor wrote:Yep, seen it - and how you feel is understandable, but just ask how come this language and these infantile personal attacks are needed to be used by any person who claims to be here for a rational civilised discussion...
Don't let it get to you, all this is very useful in eminent self-characterisation (even without the semantic traps and the triggered self-contradictions)...

My problem is, I've done my best to contribute to the conversation, and he just attacks me with baseless attacks.