Come on @sid, you owe an answer on this one. It’s been weeks since you made this claim.
Ok…if, as you say, justice is a human perception, then it springs from humans. Correct? Are you intimating that those who are identified as atheist are not human and that only theists are? I’m sure you can understand my confusion as earlier you asserted that justice was a value stolen from theists.
I think there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that @sid is intellectually dishonest, he won’t answer that which he can’t or is unable to.
He will just evade evade evade until the cows come home.
I know I couldn’t do what he is doing here, it would bother me no end, it gives me a feeling of great anxiety, just thinking about being so openly dishonest.
But then, he has the audacity to sit here and pretend he has any form of integrity.
My opinion of @sid after our interaction. → 
Indeed, but all one can do is try, or ignore him, for now I have chosen the former. if he wishes to portray himself here as dishonest that is his problem not mine.
@Sid I have been asking you this repeatedly for some time, ever since you first made the claim:
Can you defend the claim at all, or is it just another anecdotal fallacy?
Here is the claim:
So that’s May 10th, and still no answer as to why you think this, after 37 days of asking.
1 Like
Actually no. It’s also seen in monkeys. For example, when another monkey in the troop kills or rapes a youngling that is not their offspring, the whole troop will partake in flogging or killing the perpetrator. Scientist have documented morality in primates.
You have been TOLD REPEATEDLY that this is NOT A "LFELESS UNIVERSE!
Planet Earth plays host to trillions of living organisms, including at the last count, over 8 billion humans.
You can’t even peddle your fatuous strawman caricatures competently, can you?
Are you going to LEARN RELEVANT FACTS at some point in your miserable life?
Ooh, it’s projection time again, folks!
Bare faced lie. Apparently you’ve failed to notice tne numerous occasions when people have provided rigorously obtained evidence to support their statements, A task you’ve never even attemtpted.
As succinct an encapsulation of your output as one could wish for.
For which we have evidence. The part you keep forgetting.
Which only appear after living organisms capable of experiencing the requisite emotions emerge. What part of this elementary concept tdo you keep failing to understand?
Once again, it’s of benefit to the living organisms in question when they emerge.
Can you put this canard of your into the fucking bin once and for all?
They are of manifest benefit to the requisite living organisms. Once again, are you going to put this canard of yours in the fucking bin where it belongs?
Stop being fucking disingenuous.
It’s not the “universe” that benefits, but the living organisms residing therein.
Can you shove this canard into the fucking bin once and for all?
You have been TOLD REPEATEDLY that none of this implies that “purpose” and “meaning” are intrinsic parts of the fabric of the universe.
Are you going to shove this apologetic duplicity of yours into the fucking bin where it belongs?
I’ve presented here an entire document expounding the evidence for the evolutionary and biological basis of ethical behaviour, and he’s completely ignored it. so he’ll probably ignore your evidence as well.
We’re not dealing with an honest participant in discourse, we’re dealing with a wilful liar for doctrine. One who wilfully and deliberately misrepresents properly constructed postulates, and twists them for mendacious apologetic ends. His only value here is to provide a useful example of mythology fanboy duplicity.
Indeed, I don’t post for his benefit, because I know it will be wasted upon him. I post for the benefit of the people who paid attention in claass, so that they can see that canards and outright lies do not pass here unchallenged.
We’ve already had another thread here, in which a ducplicitous mythology fanboy demanded that we provide him with a century’s worth of scientific research, condensed into a two minute soundbite, in order to have “credibility”, but who, if pressed on the matter, will almost certainly demand that we treat “my mythology says so” as “evidence” for his cartoon magic man. The rampant and fulminating dishonesty endemic to mythology fanboyism stinks like a blocked drain full of amputated animal parts.
The peons who peddle this garbage, manifestly do not possess the functioning neurons required to conduct even elementary levels of proper discourse, let alone anything involving advanced topics such as prebiotic chemistry or cosmological physics. Yet on the basis of a sleazy combination of wilful ignorance and even more wilful mendacity, they think that their bad anaolgies, ex recto fabrications, strawman caricatures and instances of snide condescension, purportedly constitute valid critique of 200 years or more of diligent scientific endeavour. I wouldn’t trust these people to shovel shit from point A to point B unless they were supervised by armed guards.
And as for all the pious and sanctimonius talk of “morality” emanating from these people, oh please, this stopped being even a sad joke years ago. Most of the mythology fanboys I encounter wouldn’t recognise genuine morality if it dropped JDAMs on them from 40,000 feet. The stench of malfeasance emanating from these specimens is on a par with organotellurium compounds, and trust me, you never want to expose yourself to those in a laboratory if you can help it.
1 Like
Justice is a ridiculous concept; and only exists in the minds of those silly enough to believe it is even possible.
And there is the magical thinking.
2 Likes
A tautological and utterly redundant claim if ever there was one. What other kind of universe but a lifeless universe could “go on to produce life” one wonders?
The physical material universe exists, life exists, and natural phenomena exist as objective facts. The only thing there is no evidence exists is any deity or anything supernatural.
Occam’s razor violated by @Sid again.
The bit where he doesn’t get to make the unevidenced assumption a deity using inexplicable magic is a necessary addition.
The original phrase was survival benefit of course, used to describe the evolution of species with those emotions, @Sid likes to clip quotes and thinks we won’t notice the dishonesty involved in how he goes about it.
Yes of course, but the sky fairy using magic is negated by these facts, have a heart mun…he has to find a gap for a deity somewhere, and the way science is going it gets harder and harder.
At some point might he run out of appeals to mystery do you think? I’m guessing not, a god of the gaps polemic is never really going to run out of gaps I suppose.
1 Like
Not in my opinion; my wager would be: that will not happen. It seems they’ve used the same appeal more than a few times already; why stop now?
I had no realistic expectation of course, since he would need to understand how meaningless and irrational appeals to ignorance or mystery are, before he would be motivated to abandon them of course.
And the claim.
Personally, it was applying the qualities of love to the god & doctrine I was raised with that started my journey out of religion. (Long story- not that interesting). I came to the conclusion that I had more ability to love than the god I was apparently suppose to worship.
Do you remember this?
Do you know what happened to the journalist that took this picture?
Perhaps 
this is why you find it difficult to define love.
3 Likes
They made a very good film about him, and the group of journalists he was friends with. The Bang Bang Club…well worth watching.
And your point is well made…
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Don’t you have anything else to say, geez?
Holy shit, this guy can only repeat the same garbage. Maybe he’s really a bot?
Justice (and love etc.) only gives meaning if there is a life form that can define and understand its meaning. Things like justice, love etc. are anthropocentric, and do not make any sense without humans or other forms of life that can define and observe it. Thus, in a universe without life with an analytical capability, these terms do not make any sense, as there is noone present in such a university to even observe or define its characteristics. And in a universe without life, abstract notions like justice are irrelevant. Justice only makes sense as a concept when there is life with species that can understand it. This again points to the sense of justice as an emergent and evolved property, and the implementation of laws etc. as an inherited social construct. There is no a priori reason why this would be god-given.
2 Likes
Cali is finally losing his mind. LOL!! He has regressed through all the higher defensive mechanisms and is now joining the apes in oral rage. LOL! (I feel the pain. Oh, what a wonderful world it would be if we could grind up all the ignorant and feed them to the chickens.)
Hey Cali? Do you think the ‘THICK BLACK TEXT’ is helping any?
Yep!~ Cali has lost his mind. He has given up multisyllabic utterances of Greek and Latin orign for the street slang of a New York taxi driver. ROFLMAO
Now, I could be wrong, but I am betting ‘CAPITALIZATION’ will have the exact same effect as writing in Bold. (EDIT) I also can’t help but wonder if he notices the quotation marks?
Take heart Cali, most of us love and admire your work.
4 Likes
Even if he has understandably resorted to the odd vituperation, I’ve deleted plenty from my responses on here, as I doubt they are any more efficacious in denting the closed religious minds that choose to ignore facts, reason, and logic. I also have a sneaking feeling that some of them, no names, are looking for just such a reaction.
@Calilasseia keep up the good work, plenty of others will be reading, that are seeing the exchange honestly.
1 Like
Why do you think love is sufficient reason to believe a deity exists?
38 days of asking @Sid?
You can also perhaps explain which principle of logic you claim is being violated in this message you sent me? As I have asked you @Sid, and you have ignored this question as well.
An honest poster, with a sound rationale, would not fear answering questions exploring the rationality of their claims. If you’re convinced your claims are rational, and that post suggest you are, then why the refusal to answer?
To help you, HERE is a guide to the most used common logical fallacies.
NB Fallacious arguments are irrational by definition, they are weak or poorly reasoned, as the site explains, and it will help anyone who wishes to understand how to avoid this. FYI I didn’t contribute to the site or to any principles of logic, so your claim that we disagree on what constitutes what is rational is absurd, since something either does or does not adhere to the principles of logic, logic is designed precisely to eliminate such subjective opinions. Logic is a method of reasoning that adheres to strict principles of validation, that is what the word means. FYI no scientific evidence could pass peer review and become part of an accepted scientific theory, if it violated any principle of logic, so if you are disputing peer reviewed scientific evidence (that for example @Calilasseia has shared) you are simply wrong. If you are asserting that claims I have made about the evolution of human emotions are irrational or nor in accordance with the principles of logic, then please demonstrate this, or again I shall have to assume you used the word purely as rhetoric, in a futile attempt to wave away your own use of logical fallacies.
Ask yourself, how often do you go back and check your posts for such errors, how often do you fact check claims for objective evidence to support them, how often do you share that evidence here, or how often are your claims completely unevidenced, like your claims above about love, and about logic, where you offer nothing to evidence or explain why you believe those claims to be true?
You said you came here to learn and because you were curious, well this is a good chance to demonstrate that to be true. You can learn how to create well reasoned, and strong arguments if you do nothing else. Of course if this is not possible for a particular belief, you may want to ask yourself what you should infer from that fact.
I have explained this before to others who imply I am being biased, I don’t disbelieve your claims because I am an atheist, I am an atheist because the claims presented are poorly reasoned, and unsupported by any objective evidence.
Needless to say I will be scrupulously fair, honest and open minded, as I always strive to be, as I care more about whether a believe is true than about any belief, and there is no belief I won’t abandon if either logic or objective evidence demands it, and if I find I have used any logical fallacy I will admit that my argument in that instance was invalid, and edit my post accordingly if I am still able. (there’s a time limit on editing posts)
A refusal to engage will leave only one inference I can make.
1 Like
Define life is an endless debate . It can never be answered definitively because scientific knowledge is always expanding and with it comes an always expanding bigger set of questions that we aren’t even aware of .
I would say that a better way of looking at the question of life is to ask what life is ? That would bring us full circle back to the question of how love, justice etc fit into a philosophy that believes that there is no meaning or purpose . My position is that the burden of proof clearly lays at the feet of the atheist rather than the theist to give a coherent explanation of the qualitative from the position they espouse