How do you explain Laws of Logic and Morality?

It’s kind of like there’s a box. And inside that box is a rabbit. And if you shake the box, the rabbit falls out. And when that happens, the box is empty. That’s how I see it. But, it’s running really late now. Can I go? Got a meeting at the office. Can’t be late.

I like drunk Sheldon! :kissing_heart:

Edit: okay! I’m going now. Where are my keys? Sheldon! Do you have my keys again?

How are you defining empty? Sans rabbit?
Have you availed yourself of every available detection method and/or device??
Are you certain the rabbit did not drop something on the way out?
Do you believe in nothing??
If you ignore the “known”, will the nothing replace you?
Do you know the chord changes to “existential blues”?
Are you cornfused yet?

Edit (don’t make me come over there and slap your faith)

Moved to random fun…my apologies… :innocent:

All this and more will be revealed when rat spit - the human tornado - returns from his Christian Discussion Forum discovery mission.

Hey Scritsky, can I say I’m a representative of the Atheist Republic doing reconnaissance work while on my mission.

I ask you in particular because you’re clearly the most “atheist” among the atheists. You’re the alpha atheist. Clearly … clearly.


LOL…I think we can all operate from the above definition. —LOL


To be Frank (or Franklin if you prefer),
“It’s been years since it’s been clear”.

1 Like

Surely! You’re referring to:

… Little darlin’, I feel that ice is slowly melting
Little darlin’, it seems like years since it’s been clear

See? See? I can hang. I’m cool.

1 Like

I thought you said you were leaving, what’s taking you so long? Just asking.

1 Like

Hey guys I would love to hear y’all’s answers to these 7 questions.

(Edited by Mod - I moved the body of this post to a separate and new thread as it is stand-alone and not directly related to the OP.)


@Jray, I’ve moved your post into a new thread.

1 Like

I would add that objective would also be immune to context whereas subjective would be dependent on context. So killing would be wrong all the time as in Thou shall not kill anytime if it were an objective moral. Whereas if Morals were subjective it might be: Thou Shall not kill except in these circumstances. Have I got that right?


Exactly right, and @christianapologist not only offered inaccurate definitions, which he then misapplied, he made strident sweeping claims he never attempted to evidence, even after being asked to do so repeatedly.

Most pointedly he failed to offer even a single example of absolute or objective morality. The one attempt he made was the act of torturing a child, and when it was explained that his own bible depicted the deity he believes to be real doing just that, of course he immediately moved the goal posts with a special pleading fallacy, further suggesting he doesn’t understand what objective or absolute morality means, which is odd as several posters had explained it precisely to him, as you just did of course.

I’ve re-read the exchange several times, and it is perfectly clear his arguments are circular, and constantly shift between contradictory claims, suggesting again he doesn’t have a reasonable grasp of moral complexity, or how moral choices can only be based on a subjective view of what is and is not moral. Good and bad are subjective perceptions, and the best we can hope for is a broad consensus, but they would remain subjective of course, and like so many people who try to argue that morality is objective, he wrongly conflated a moral consensus (even a universal one) with objective morality, but of course they are not the same, and these are argumentum ad populum fallacies.

1 Like

Note the attempt to ring fence his first claim from critical scrutiny, by making it vague to the point where it becomes unfalsifiable. Nothing new there of course such irrational arguments abound, and here comes the fallacy that makes it irrational:

So prima facie he sets up an unfalsifiable concept, and then creates an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, by implying his claim ( a deity exists) is true because atheism fails to offer a rational argument disproving it.

Of course on top of this @christianapologist is using a false equivalence fallacy, since materialism has nothing whatsoever to do with atheism. And of course anyone with any grasp of logic will know why it is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, since atheism need explain nothing, as it is solely a lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities. One wonders what exactly his lack of belief in mermaids explains? One assumes nothing, does @christianapologist then rationally imply mermaids are real? If not then a special pleading fallacy is inevitable.


Now I think that this young man is remarkably wise beyond his years, but I shan’t insult anyone’s intelligence and claim that is a completely objective view… :face_with_raised_eyebrow: :wink:

Frank Turek has on many occasions given me a headache that required self medication with alcohol, but please watch this video, it’s a very good discussion and debate. Turek seems not to have learned what common logical fallacies are, and I am dubious he fully understands what objective means, but he was suffering from jet lag, apparently…

Seriously it is well worth a watch.

1 Like

Garbage. This is only asserted to have happened, and in a mythology littered with ridiculous assertions into the bargain.

I seem to remember providing a large body of evidence pointing to this conclusion last time you wandered into this fatal terrain (Sun Tzu reference in case you didn’t recognise it). Did you ever bother READING any of it?

EDIT: I also notice that you never once attempted even to acknowledge the existence of the issues I expounded upon at length in my opening gambit some time ago, let alone present something resembling a proper response to said issues. Your assertions about being willing to engage in discourse here have thus been roundly falsified. Not that I expected anything different, given my long familiarity with the mythology fanboy aetiology.

Oh, and if you are subsequently discovered to have been misleading persons outside this forum about the discourse in this thread, I and others here will view this brand of rampant duplicity very darkly indeed.