Moral Nihilism

182 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sheldon's picture
He's an habitual liar, it's

He's an habitual liar, it's tedious but I shall just as relentlessly highlight his duplicity.

rat spit's picture
More grammar errors. Sheldon.

More grammar errors. Sheldon. How do you expect people to get your meaning, if you can’t even construct a sentence?

Do the moral thing, and spell check your responses before posting.

Sheldon's picture
Do the moral thing and stop

Do the moral thing and stop your pathetic trolling, it really isn't impressive, and you're not very good at it anyway.

Sheldon's picture
"a) misrepresenting me again.

ratspit "a) misrepresenting me again. At no time have I called him a “god”."

Oh really? Lying again, well you asked for it then.

ratspit "Imagine the simplicity of there being just nothing!!! What a perfect universe this would be!!! But ***God chose something. And it was a moral choice. Nothingness crushes and destroys. ***God chose “something” because it was right."

Link: http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/has-anybody-come-acros...

ratspit "I might call him “my ***god” in conventional terms - because I know Him personally and He is a Supreme Being."

Link: http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/theists-define-your-de...

Tue, 03/19/2019 - 22:01
rat spit "Here’s something to think about. In the face of absolute Nothingness - God chose to create “Something”."

Link: http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/has-anybody-come-acros...

ratspit "Until science can convince me that I’m not interacting with a Diety "

Link http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/no-atheist-shall-pass#...

ratspit "I converse with the Supreme Being of the Universe is just incidental to the fact that He is everywhere - ubiquitous."

ratspit. "I am not lying and you are a prick for saying so. "
----------------------------------------------------------

Now I am happy for others to judge if I ever lie on here, and to decide who is being a lying prick here. You tedious arrogant blowhard.

Ad hominem coming back at you ratshit, you lying prick. You've used up all your warnings about ad hominem, you'll get back in kind each time now. .

rat spit's picture
@Sheldon

@Sheldon

Yeah. I’m a liar. I now affiliate with “Rastafarianism”. So from now on you can call me a “Theist” in the sense that I smoke cannabis to get closer to God. Thanks, Sheldon. Some times I get so neck deep in my own lies, I can’t tell what’s morally right and what’s morally wrong.

Sheldon's picture
"@Sheldon

"@Sheldon

Yeah. I’m a liar."

We don't need your affirmation, I have posted the evidence. An admission now you've been caught lying again is meaningless.

Again for everyone to see how blatant a liar you are:

ratspit "a) misrepresenting me again. At no time have I called him a “god”."

ratspit "I might call him “my ***god” in conventional terms - because I know Him personally and He is a Supreme Being."

http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/theists-define-your-de...

Sheldon's picture
ratspiit “agnostic” is an

ratspiit “agnostic” is an alternative to both theist and atheist.

No it isn't, theist is a position of belief in the claim a deity exists, atheism is the lack or absence of that belief, they are mutually exclusive. Agnosticism is an epistemological statement that asserts nothing is known or can be known about something, you constantly make puerile absurd claims to know things about your fictional deity, you've done it in that fucking post you idiot, thus you cannot claim to be an agnostic. Not without making yourself look either extremely stupid or a liar anyway, and lets face it both those ships sailed some time ago on here.

NB ratspit "I effectively ***know that there are Supreme Beings in my head. "

That right there means you are not an agnostic, and means you're also a theist, so you either can't Google a word definition or you're a lying troll, I really don't care which it is, as either way it means you're not worth bothering with except to show others how absurdly dishonest and stupid your claims are. No agnostic can make a claim to any knowledge about their deity, ipso facto you're not an agnostic, and clearly believe in a deity as you have claimed repeatedly on here, and have claimed you are not an atheist in your profile, thus you are BY DEFINITION a theist.

Do buy a fucking a dictionary. Or learn to Google word definitions, and by the way, the phrase supreme being is also commonly understood as referring to god, again Google it you clown.

ratspit "Non-Atheists and Theist are two of the options given at the registration of our accounts. "

Wrong again, dear oh dear. There is no theist option. However you either believe or you do not, knowledge is a different claim encompassed in the idea of agnosticism.

rat spit's picture
@Sheldon

@Sheldon

Now. Okay. A few good points. But what if I just don’t give a shit either way? What if I don’t care if there’s a God or not - and to any atheist I would say “yeah, you could be right” or to any theist I would say the same? It’s called the “I don’t give a shit either way position”?

Sheldon's picture
You lied, again, this

You lied, again, this pathetic wriggle is not going to change that, or your woeful attempts to redefine words to pretend you have not spent months on here claiming to be a theist, over and over again. Show some dignity and admit you're a theist man, this is embarrassing to watch.

rat spit's picture
@Sheldon

@Sheldon

“Wrong again, dear oh dear. There is no theist option. However you either believe or you do not, knowledge is a different claim encompassed in the idea of agnosticism.”

Nylar already pointed this out. Are you asserting that you made this discovery on your own? That’s exactly how it reads?

Sheldon's picture
Nice try, but that smoke

Nice try, but that smoke screen won't work, as the important thing to note is that yet again you have been exposed as a bare faced liar.

You know anyone can access your profile page just by clicking on your name, right?

Dear oh dear...

doG's picture
Deja Vu...I remember now ,how

Deja Vu...I remember now ,how I explained to you the reason for your voices. You are attributing your voices, incorrectly to, a theistic ideation. In others that suffer from your disorder of the brain, that live without pretension of theism, that ideation ends up being famous dead people, or dead family members. This stems from a normal response to refuse an abnormal situation, and symptomatology. I am sorry for stating this ratman. You believe what you want...but your belief is common, and a function of abnormal neuro chemistry...not a deity.

Cognostic's picture
"As if love, affection,

"As if love, affection, compassion are “moral affects”? Seriously? They’re advantageous adaptations. These are emotions which form bonds among members of the same group - usually so that they can survive when they’re being attacked by another group.: AND THAT 'IS' MORALITY.

You obviously missed the video of the dog. You really think the dog doing the dragging was thinking of survival? You really think a father rushing into a flaming building to save his child is thinking of survival. All you can do is cherry pick information while ignoring the bigger picture. BIOLOGY is very concerned with animal morality. It is a huge area of study in academia today.

"As if love, affection, compassion are “moral affects”? Seriously? They’re advantageous adaptations. These are emotions which form bonds among members of the same group - usually so that they can survive when they’re being attacked by another group. " You are as much a biologists as a box of crackers.

"Evolution is genetics. Genetics is evolution. Moral values, she argues, are rooted in a behavior common to all mammals–the caring for offspring. The evolved structure, processes, and chemistry of the brain incline humans to strive not only for self-preservation but for the well-being of allied selves–first offspring, then mates, kin, and so on, in wider and wider “caring circles.” Separation and exclusion cause pain, and the company of loved ones causes pleasure; responding to feelings of social pain and pleasure, brains adjust their circuitry to local customs. In this way, caring is provided, conscience shaped, and moral intuitions strengthened. A key part of the story is oxytocin, an ancient body-and-brain molecule that, by decreasing the stress response, allows humans to develop the trust in one another necessary for the development of close-knit ties, social institutions, and morality." Patricia Churchland (of UC San Diego and the Salk Institute)

FACE THE FACTS - You are not keeping up with modern trends in Genetics or Biology. Your impressions are 50 years behind the times.

rat spit's picture
I’m glad you bring up pain

I’m glad you bring up pain and pleasure because I’m also a hedonist. And so are all animals. And merely wanting to save your kin from experiencing pain because it would bring you guilt (which is just another form of pain) - all of that is pleasure seeking.

Again, you have jumped to a moral conclusion where a very obvious non-moral conclusion exists. The pleasure principle does not need to be rooted in any kind of morality. On the contrary, it leads to all kinds of heinous types of behaviour which are painful to other members of the sentient world. Predation, etc. Things that you Normative Moralists might call “immoral”. So here you’ve gone and contradicted your self. Pain and pleasure do not lead to moral behaviour. They are in fact indicated in a whole belligerence of “immoral” behaviour.

Sheldon's picture
"And merely wanting to save

"And merely wanting to save your kin from experiencing pain because it would bring you guilt (which is just another form of pain) - all of that is pleasure seeking."

Yes I'm sure you're correct because you're a "trained biologist", and besides where is the evolutionary advantage is protecting your offspring....oh wait, wouldn't natural selection select animals who chose this behaviour, thus they evolved to recognise the behaviour as right?/ So the ability to differentiate between right and wrong behaviour in an evolutionary context then, now what is the word that defines that, it's morality isn't it? Well well...of course it could be that each new generations survival is simply learned in an unbelievable piece of fortuitous luck as your suggesting with your claim that "morals are entirely provisional".

"Again, you have jumped to a moral conclusion where a very obvious non-moral conclusion exists. "

So you're saying that in evolutionary terms there are no wrong choices? I think I squeezed out a little piss laughing there.

"The pleasure principle does not need to be rooted in any kind of morality."

Indeed, I see no evolutionary benefit in any animal taking pleasure in nurturing its offspring, no wait a minute I'm seeing a flaw again.

"On the contrary, it leads to all kinds of heinous types of behaviour which are painful to other members of the sentient world. Predation, etc."

You understand to avoid predation would mean death for predators right? Now if a predator evolved a conscience about meat eating how would that pan out for that species? Do take your time.

"Things that you Normative Moralists might call “immoral”."

What? Now you're anthropomorphism, theists always end up here. The evolved ability to differentiate between right and wrong behaviours doesn't imply these are objectively true to all species ffs.

"Pain and pleasure do not lead to moral behaviour. "

In an evolutionary context would moving towards or away from a fire be right? You simply must be trolling now, I do hope so.

"They are in fact indicated in a whole belligerence of “immoral” behaviour."

No they're not, you're anthropomorphising human moral choices which are derived from our evolved intellects ability to make choices that negate our evolved instincts onto animals that haven't evolved that intellect or even the digestive ability to avoid behaviours like predation, this is just too absurd.

rat spit's picture
@Sheldon

@Sheldon

You know what. I can’t copy and paste your ridiculous comments, so I won’t even bother with this reply you’ve given. Only to say.

Learn how to construct sentences. And if a mother takes pleasure in nurturing her young, how is that a moral choice? How is indulging in pleasure an aspect of morality?

And no, in evolutionary terms there are no right or wrong choices. There are only genes which determine your fitness under natural selection. You are committing the naturalistic fallacy AGAIN.

And, this is getting weak, Sheldon. This is the second time in this very thread where you have tried to stop the argument by accusing me of trolling.

Look you git. I subscribe to descriptive evolutionary ethics. You subscribe to the less accepted version called normative evolutionary ethics. I’m not a fucking troll simply because I think your position is flawed.

Sheldon's picture
ratshit "Learn how to

ratshit "Learn how to construct sentences. And if"

Oh dear....

"How is indulging in pleasure an aspect of morality?2

Yeah I just explained it, and can't dumb it down any more, even for a "trained biologist". I'll have one more go then, a parent takes pleasure in nurturing and protecting their offspring, do think species that find pleasure in this are MORE or LESS likely to pass on their genes? Now is natural selection likely to favour parents who find it pleasurable to protect and nurture their offspring? So this behaviour is both a right or moral choice in evolutionary terms, and has evolved through natural selection.

"And no, in evolutionary terms there are no right or wrong choices. "

Yes there really are.

"This is the second time in this very thread where you have tried to stop the argument by accusing me of trolling."

I've tried to stop nothing and maybe if you took the fucking chip off your shoulder and didn't pepper every discourse with childish ad hominem, then you might not be suspected of being a troll or maybe answer a question with some integrity on occasion. Actually it wasn't an accusation either it was inferred, I am happy to accept your replies are just incredibly stupid and ill-conceived. I just thought trolling might be a more likely explanation, and you certainly have form, so your histrionics are risible anyway.

rat spit's picture
@Sheldon

@Sheldon

Sheldon wrote:
“Yes I'm sure you're correct because you're a "trained biologist", and besides where is the evolutionary advantage is protecting your offspring....oh wait?”

In the words of his holiness the perfect grammar hammer - the one and only Sheldon - who never hits autocorrect by mistake - indeed; never has ever made a mistake in his life - “Priceless”

Did you see that? “Is” for “it”. I’m calling you out. This is the second time you’ve failed to construct a proper sentence. And this is the second time I’ve called you out on it.

Sheldon's picture
Grow up ratboy, your puerile

Grow up ratboy, your puerile ad hominem is pathetic.

Wow you spotted a typo before I re-read and corrected it, you seem thrilled about this anyway, which is a bit sad.

"This is the second time you’ve failed to construct a proper sentence. And this is the second time I’ve called you out on it."

Priceless, again. I really do hope for your sake this is trolling with a sad attempt at irony.

However not one word in that disjointed illiterate diatribe addresses my post ratboy, but then this is you all over whenever anyone dares to challenge your absurd superstitious fantasies, or any other claim you make. Again please do grow up, and try to engage in an adult discussion for once, and show some integrity for a change. Waving my post away entirely with ad hominem, and pointing out typos, and suggesting I can't construct a sentence, in a post where your grammar is execrable, isn't impressive, it's the behaviour of a chippy adolescent.

rat spit's picture
Again. The master fails to

@Sheldon

Again. The master fails to see the irony. Sheldon, among all the other intellectually stuck up things you do - denigrating the author along with his argument; pigeonholing and stereotyping anyone who happens to believe in a God; etc - please understand ... you’re a grammar nazi.

Case in point. An earlier sentence of mine should of read “well”. But my autocorrect inserted “we’ll”. You’re response was to - as always - denigrate the author - and quote me with the comment “priceless”

But you don’t notice your self doing this, because you have zero integrity. So, the irony falls on you, my well endowed young man.

Sheldon's picture
Sun, 04/21/2019 - 04:44

Sun, 04/21/2019 - 04:44 (Reply to #137)
Sheldon "I really do hope for your sake this is trolling with a sad attempt at **irony.**"

ratbrain "Again. The master fails to see the irony. "

Wow, just wow. Are you off your meds. again or something? You're the one bringing grammar into this to deflect from post content, not me. FYI I only point out basic grammar errors in arrogant narcissists who relentlessly boast about their intellect, whilst habitually resorting to ad hominem when their claims and arguments are challenged.

Again, and I really do mean, you need to grow up mate.

Now maybe you can answer one of my many questions I have asked, and you have ignored, with your pathetic lies, and grammar nazis impression which has so spectacularly backfired.

Try this one...

"Is natural selection likely to "favour" parents who find it pleasurable to protect and nurture their offspring? That would make this a right choice in evolutionary terms, now what word defines knowing the difference between a right and wrong choice?

rat spit's picture
@Sheldon

@Sheldon

It is the right choice but it is not a moral choice. On a genetic level it’s not a choice at all.

Sheldon's picture
@ratspit

@ratspit

"It is the right choice but it is not a moral choice."

morality
noun
principles concerning the distinction between **right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.

Sheldon's picture
"FACE THE FACTS - You are not

"FACE THE FACTS - You are not keeping up with modern trends in Genetics or Biology. Your impressions are 50 years behind the times."

But, but , but, he's a trained biologist man?

rat spit's picture
@Sheldon

@Sheldon

Yeah, and you’re a trained plumber. Where do you get your information from - the toilet store?

Sheldon's picture
ratbrain "Yeah, and you’re a

ratbrain "Yeah, and you’re a trained plumber."

Another lie...I work in the aviation industry, have done for most of my adult life. Do you ever tire of being wrong?

rat spit's picture
@Sheldon

@Sheldon

“Another lie...I work in the aviation industry, have done for most of my adult life. Do ever tire of being wrong?”

Actually. It’s a mistake. You take great pleasure in calling me a liar. But how am I supposed to know you work as a pilot? Do you ever tire of constructing non-sensical sentences? You’re missing a “you”. I only correct hypocrites.

Sheldon's picture
" You take great pleasure in

" You take great pleasure in calling me a liar. "

You are a shocking liar, maybe you should focus on that, and your appalling hypocrisy in attacking me for calling you on it. I've never claimed to be a pilot, anymore then I have ever claimed to be a pipe Fitter, this is just another childish lie from you to avoid addressing my post content.

rat spit's picture
The same genes which allow

The same genes which allow shoals of fish to move as though they were one? Is this a functional adaptation for survival? Or is it a normative moral adaptation? Same question for Zebras and their stripes? But, uh oh. Here we come to the primates! Must be something different- they have such highly organized social structures! Yeah. Don’t worry. It’s morality. Same as the fish right? it’s morally right to travel in a shoal. Fuck knobs.

Sheldon's picture
You still don't know what

You still don't know what moral means do you?

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.