Par for the course.

It just must be my "victimization complex" kicking in.

It stings, though, doesn't it, to briefly see yourself clearly, if just for a second. It's okay, though. Breathe. Take a deep one. The moment has passed. Let's get back to the business of dismissing ideas by any and every means available.

What's your OT level? Have you learned of the one they call xenu yet?

I've taken a deep breath. You still sound like you're a sandwich short of a picnic. Now what?

I think he's talking about people getting banned from 2p2 for racism, Holocaust denial, conflation of homosexuality with paedophilia, that kind of thing. Serious business, evidently. End times.

I mean, if he's not talking about that, then I'm in the same boat as you - no idea.

Exactly. It's your picnic, though. It's a pretty sad reflection on today's society when a man cannot simply follow the evidence, and base his judgments on evidence and rationality. If a man follows the evidence, and it unequivocally leads to the foot of the cross, he is persecuted. If a man follows the evidence on the nature of homosexuality, and it leads for him to conclude that homosexuality is a symptom, he is maligned and his character questioned. If a man simply and merely and honestly follows the evidence, and the evidence leads him to unequivocally conclude that psychological practices, in general, are not very effective, he is viewed as an "enemy" by those who hold to their conviction that science can and will solve every and any condition-- including existential ones related to the psyche. I'm beginning to get the feeling that you guys have nothing to offer but distracting noise. If you don't like what someone believes, you don't tackle the source of their belief, but instead you tackle THEM. You don't confront their evidence and logic with evidence and logic of your own, but instead you altogether loudly lift up your voices in order to drown them out with your noise. All smoke, and no fire. It is predetermined belief that is impervious to reasoning and logic and empiricism and accumulated evidence.

I respect truth-seekers -- not fervent, politico-ideological defenders. It's your picnic, as I said, and you might want to keep the troublesome truth-seekers out, who might ruin your little meeting of indoctrinated converts. But only the truth will finally set you free from all of that, in the end. Try on a commitment to truth, for once, and leave the politics and emotion-based creeds behind you.

dogg, did you miss my question? Heres your chance to provide some evidence.

Also, whenever I have asked you for evidence, its usually of the sort like " the heavens themselves announce the presence of god" ( cant remember the exact quote) which is really not evidence of anything.

Neeel, I thought the answer was in the very same paragraph.

Let me ask you a question: Can I be 100% accurate in my assessment of a situation, but my assessment of the situation has an inherently 'immoral' value-attachment?

Yes, or no.

In a godless world, is there objective moral truth?

Irony? Most people who are atheists are so because they've weighed evidence and come to a rational conclusion. Pretty much every believer's explanation for their belief ends with either (1) Faith, which is not evidence or rational (2) some mystical feeling that they have a connection (again, not evidence or particularly rational) or (3) they literally post some argument that shows a complete lack of comprehension of science, logic, etc.

You'll never see an end of atheists asking to hear about your evidence for your beliefs. What you will not get is uncritical acceptance that what you offer is rational. Its when a believer's evidence is challenged that they usually engage in histrionics.

I have always pointed out that there have almost always been believers here who are respected. Those who feel persecuted are usually the ones who don't appreciate that there arguments don't withstand scrutiny.

If someone presented compelling evidence that lead to the foot of the cross he'd be the most respected person on the forum. (probably in the world)

pretty much same as above. Most people are pretty familiar with the studies on homosexuality. Pretty much any person who is anti-gay doesn't have any evidence beyond the teachings in their holy books. And since those books generally contradict real world evidence you can see why they're not given much respect outside the flock.

I'm noticing a pattern here. I know you'll never consider this but the rathar glaring possibility is that you might just be really bad at following the evidence.

And I don't know anyone who thinks science can solve every condition. Matter of fact, science is pretty clear that there are many things they currently cannot solve.



been here for years. Evidence shows that there are believers here who are respected including for the quality of their arguments. The ones who get tackled are the ones who either (1) make ridiculous arguments and are irrational or (2) they aggressive belittle others and get it back.

For instance, and this is important - the kind of person who is always making gross generalizations and rants about atheists and tells people to "grow up".

People continue to try to discuss your evidence and reasoning but you keep turning it into a personal battle when anyone questions what you write.

I sincerely doubt that. And again... this is you belittling everyone who disagrees with you. Then you turn around and cry woe is me if someone treats you like you treat others. I wish I could say this was odd for a person who claims to have found the foot of the cross. Though claiming to be a believer and acting like one aren't synonymous are they?

This is all you patting yourself on the back while belittling everyone else. Wow, this sounds like someone who values evidence, reason and truth.

A couple points. First, while this forum was for a long time dominated more by atheists than theists, I do not think that is the case any longer. With the addition of fretelöo, well named, dereds, and LemonZest over the last few months to semi-regular commenting, and as some of the older atheists have become less active, it seems to me that we have now a more even split (as well as a greater diversity of viewpoints).

Second, I have tried talking with you in the past and have always found it to be very frustrating, so I mostly avoid it now. You seem to always have your outrage level at around a 10, which can make it difficult to maintain a peaceable conversation. You also are very fond of describing my own desires, motivations, and actions to me and invariably in an excruciating negative light.

I would try to correct your description, but it seems to me there is no point. Your description doesn't come from your knowledge of my personality--you don't know me except for a few online interactions--but from generalizations you've made about people with some beliefs like mine based on your memory of when you also held beliefs like them. I'm not going to defeat your memory, and while I could try to show the generalization is incorrect, this never seems to go anywhere. So it doesn't surprise me that people don't read you charitably--your style of posting, regardless of your views, pretty well guarantees that kind of response.

sorry, Im probably being really dense, but I dont know what you mean by an inherently immoral value attachment.

Also, my "question" was just asking for examples of your following post

Can you give me an example of a behaviour which exposes an unspoken belief in some objective moral fabric?

I would have to say there is no objective moral truth.

I want to hear from some others. Zumby? Sommerset?

In a godless world, can there be objective moral truth, or not?

Aside: Orp, I do not lump you in with the generally provocative posters on here, such as sommerset, zumby, kurto, TD, etc. I was not speaking of you.

But kurto's ridiculous suggestion that I turned it personal first is absurd. I spent posts after post last night trying to avoid personal complications with td and sommerset, who only seem interested in that and nothing else.

Depends what you mean by 'objective'.

In all honesty what I would say to you personally is: When everyone that you interact with for a long enough period of time finds you inflammatory and unreasonable, at a certain point, don't you have to at least consider the possibility that it's you? I mean sure, you can continue to take refuge behind "atheists" this and "humanist liberals" that, but at the end of the day, its just you patting yourself on back while continuing to isolate yourself from this community.

Fact of the mater is, you make things personal from the start. You may not say our names, but that doesn't matter, you attack us constantly through positions and ideas we hold... this "who me" stuff when you get it back just doesn't fly for anyone with any kind of reading comprehension.

And yes, I lean towards the idea that they're can be an objective morality.

ok, but again, I will ask you to give me an example of a behaviour which exposes an unspoken belief in some objective moral fabric?

I +1 Orp & Sommerset's comments re Doggg. It would be great if you (Doggg) would take a more amiable approach. I just avoid interacting with you because I feel like you are so judgmental and harsh. I hope this is constructive and not just construed as people getting their hate on for you.

I am interested in hearing your views and debating but I would like to discuss without feeling disrespected and insulted.

I really don't like the fact that you patronize the atheists as children, and hold them to a different standard than you do me.

Go and find the equivalent of me making comments like this in this thread.

Evidence is a b*tch, isn't it?

Edit: Furthermore, they feel like they can recruit you to their side, and that you are susceptible to their wares, and that you are already succumbing. I don't know that I disagree. Hence, I've noticed, you are treated with kid gloves.

Splendour sure wasn't.

Doggg,
I am asking you to be more amiable in your approach. I could make that appeal to a lot of other posters. I am only going to ask someone if I think there is a chance that someone will hear me out.

can you please just give me an example?

1. Why are they so outraged that I am critically examining their beliefs? Isn't a fact that most of their time here is spent critically examining the beliefs of Christians?

2. The fact is that I am not thumping a bible (not always, at least) as I critically examine their beliefs. That would be too easy for them to wave off. This itself is what cannot be tolerated.

First, I'd like sommerset to please explain how in a godless world, there can possibly be some objective sense of morality. I see that zumby sidestepped the question. As an atheist for a long time, I found this idea not credible, and perhaps not even feasible. This really boggles me.

The irony of course is this was a sidestep for you to begin with. Thus I won't answer your question until you answer Neeel's.

Doggg,
Regarding your edit: I think what you interpret as people using "kid gloves" on me is an atmosphere of mutual respect. I try and give people respect during discussion and also expect respect in return. What happens over time (best scenario) is that a rapport and mutual respect is formed.

I can disagree with the atheistic viewpoint and still be reasonable and respectful. Being kind in no way waters down my viewpoint.

Do you watch UFC? I love watching a good UFC fight that is ferocious and the fighters still high five and hug at the end showing their camaraderie and mutual respect, regardless of who wins. This is what I am talking about, good sportsmanship.

It's not a sidestep at all, because if atheists DO profess to believe in an objective morality, then my point is substantially altered.

Plus, his question has already answered in my op, I believe.

It also helps your case that you side with them against me (your fellow believer in Christ) openly.

I'm happy that you are able to make such great friends.

You honestly think that just because someone shares your beliefs they should blindly put up with your nonsense? LOL