Would Atheists Drink Their Dads Sperm
-
- Posts: 1057
- Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:07 am
Would Atheists Drink Their Dads Sperm
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
- tattuchu
- a dickload of cocks
- Posts: 21819
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:59 pm
- About me: I'm having trouble with the trolley.
- Location: Marmite-upon-Toast, Wankershire
- Contact:
Re: Would Atheists Drink Their Dads Sperm
You mean for free? Or will I be getting paid for it? And will I have to actively procure it directly? Or will it be provided to me ready for consumption? I really need details.
People think "queue" is just "q" followed by 4 silent letters.
But those letters are not silent.
They're just waiting their turn.
But those letters are not silent.
They're just waiting their turn.
- Hermit
- Posts: 25806
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
- About me: Cantankerous grump
- Location: Ignore lithpt
- Contact:
Re: Would Atheists Drink Their Dads Sperm
Same old, same old argument: "Morals ... are grounded and anchored and based and founded upon a higher moral agent that instil them to us." Without a god there are no morals.
Apart from the resort to the yuck factor and the blatant quotemining I quite like that clip. It's about as good as theists get at defending an indefensible position, which in this case it can be summarised thus: No morals possible without God. We have morals. Therefore God.
The author says "This video exposes a key flaw in the logic of contemporary atheism". It doesn't. It misrepresents Harris, Krauss and Dawkins, and then proceeds to repeat a timeless flaw of theism instead.
Apart from the resort to the yuck factor and the blatant quotemining I quite like that clip. It's about as good as theists get at defending an indefensible position, which in this case it can be summarised thus: No morals possible without God. We have morals. Therefore God.
The author says "This video exposes a key flaw in the logic of contemporary atheism". It doesn't. It misrepresents Harris, Krauss and Dawkins, and then proceeds to repeat a timeless flaw of theism instead.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
- cronus
- Black Market Analyst
- Posts: 18122
- Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:09 pm
- About me: Illis quos amo deserviam
- Location: United Kingdom
- Contact:
Re: Would Atheists Drink Their Dads Sperm
Important to protect the names of atheism's spiritual elite.Hermit wrote:Same old, same old argument: "Morals ... are grounded and anchored and based and founded upon a higher moral agent that instil them to us." Without a god there are no morals.
Apart from the resort to the yuck factor and the blatant quotemining I quite like that clip. It's about as good as theists get at defending an indefensible position, which in this case it can be summarised thus: No morals possible without God. We have morals. Therefore God.
The author says "This video exposes a key flaw in the logic of contemporary atheism". It doesn't. It misrepresents Harris, Krauss and Dawkins, and then proceeds to repeat a timeless flaw of theism instead.
What will the world be like after its ruler is removed?
- Hermit
- Posts: 25806
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
- About me: Cantankerous grump
- Location: Ignore lithpt
- Contact:
Re: Would Atheists Drink Their Dads Sperm
Not to me it's not. I do hate intentionally misleading quote mining, though. It's as bad as any other form of lying.Crumple wrote:Important to protect the names of atheism's spiritual elite.Hermit wrote:Same old, same old argument: "Morals ... are grounded and anchored and based and founded upon a higher moral agent that instil them to us." Without a god there are no morals.
Apart from the resort to the yuck factor and the blatant quotemining I quite like that clip. It's about as good as theists get at defending an indefensible position, which in this case it can be summarised thus: No morals possible without God. We have morals. Therefore God.
The author says "This video exposes a key flaw in the logic of contemporary atheism". It doesn't. It misrepresents Harris, Krauss and Dawkins, and then proceeds to repeat a timeless flaw of theism instead.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
- cronus
- Black Market Analyst
- Posts: 18122
- Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:09 pm
- About me: Illis quos amo deserviam
- Location: United Kingdom
- Contact:
Re: Would Atheists Drink Their Dads Sperm
I know.Hermit wrote:Not to me it's not. I do hate intentionally misleading quote mining, though. It's as bad as any other form of lying.Crumple wrote:Important to protect the names of atheism's spiritual elite.Hermit wrote:Same old, same old argument: "Morals ... are grounded and anchored and based and founded upon a higher moral agent that instil them to us." Without a god there are no morals.
Apart from the resort to the yuck factor and the blatant quotemining I quite like that clip. It's about as good as theists get at defending an indefensible position, which in this case it can be summarised thus: No morals possible without God. We have morals. Therefore God.
The author says "This video exposes a key flaw in the logic of contemporary atheism". It doesn't. It misrepresents Harris, Krauss and Dawkins, and then proceeds to repeat a timeless flaw of theism instead.
What will the world be like after its ruler is removed?
Re: Would Atheists Drink Their Dads Sperm
No. But I might drink my dad's.
Libertarianism: The belief that out of all the terrible things governments can do, helping people is the absolute worst.
- Forty Two
- Posts: 14978
- Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
- About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
- Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
- Contact:
Re: Would Atheists Drink Their Dads Sperm
One feature which is assumed by the person making the video, but I think is not a fair assumption or to be taken as given, is the notion that morality is not the only basis for doing or not doing things. I have no need of a morality to be disinclined to drink sperm, from whatever source.
My answer is pragmatic, not moral. I don't want to drink anyone's sperm, whether it's moral or immoral to do so. I don't want to because (a) it seems like it would be unpleasant to do so (the yuck factor, perhaps - but, "yuck" doesn't seem like a bad reason not to do something. I don't eat brussels sprouts for the same reason - fucking, yuck), and (b) there is no pragmatic reason why I should.
However, put a gun to my head, put me under torture, or lodge a credible threat against a loved one, or offer me large amounts of money, and I might consider doing a lot of yucky things.
In my view, morality is a creature of the human mind. Acts or things are not themselves moral or immoral. They are moral or immoral under given circumstances. Is killing moral? What about to save one's life or one's child's life? Is it moral then? Or, just a necessary immorality? What's the difference? And, on what basis do we even suggest that a self-defense or defense-of-others killing is moral - often that's taken as a given, but there are people who view all killing, even in self-defense, as immoral -- take some of the Amish sects, who think God says they can't defend themselves.
This whole thing about morality having to come from God is also addressed by the question -- is a thing/action good because it's good, or is it good only because God says it's good? In the former case, we have no need of god, and in the latter case, there is no rational morality because the same action can be good in one instance and bad in another simply because God says so. Like, well, dashing the babies of your enemies on rocks, right? It's bad if the Amalekites do it, but good if the Israelites do it....
My answer is pragmatic, not moral. I don't want to drink anyone's sperm, whether it's moral or immoral to do so. I don't want to because (a) it seems like it would be unpleasant to do so (the yuck factor, perhaps - but, "yuck" doesn't seem like a bad reason not to do something. I don't eat brussels sprouts for the same reason - fucking, yuck), and (b) there is no pragmatic reason why I should.
However, put a gun to my head, put me under torture, or lodge a credible threat against a loved one, or offer me large amounts of money, and I might consider doing a lot of yucky things.
In my view, morality is a creature of the human mind. Acts or things are not themselves moral or immoral. They are moral or immoral under given circumstances. Is killing moral? What about to save one's life or one's child's life? Is it moral then? Or, just a necessary immorality? What's the difference? And, on what basis do we even suggest that a self-defense or defense-of-others killing is moral - often that's taken as a given, but there are people who view all killing, even in self-defense, as immoral -- take some of the Amish sects, who think God says they can't defend themselves.
This whole thing about morality having to come from God is also addressed by the question -- is a thing/action good because it's good, or is it good only because God says it's good? In the former case, we have no need of god, and in the latter case, there is no rational morality because the same action can be good in one instance and bad in another simply because God says so. Like, well, dashing the babies of your enemies on rocks, right? It's bad if the Amalekites do it, but good if the Israelites do it....
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar
- JimC
- The sentimental bloke
- Posts: 73119
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
- About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Would Atheists Drink Their Dads Sperm
Forty Two wrote:
This whole thing about morality having to come from God is also addressed by the question -- is a thing/action good because it's good, or is it good only because God says it's good? In the former case, we have no need of god, and in the latter case, there is no rational morality because the same action can be good in one instance and bad in another simply because God says so. Like, well, dashing the babies of your enemies on rocks, right? It's bad if the Amalekites do it, but good if the Israelites do it....
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!
And my gin!
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests