Lesbians leading the way in eugenics

[giblets]

Ben's argument:
1. People suck
2. ?
3. Therefore God exists!

[Heraclitus]

Ben's argument:
1. People suck
2. ?
3. Therefore God exists!
4. ?
5. Therefore I should be a good person

ftfy

[Ben Kenobi]

Actually:

1. People suck.

2. How do I know they suck? Because I know of the Good.

3. Where does the Good come from if people suck?

4. the Good must come from God.

[Maniac]

That's circular logic.

[Heraclitus]

That's circular logic.

pssshhh

[giblets]

Yep, no naturalistic explanations for morality. /sarcasm

[loinburger]

There is a 0% probability that you will change Ben's mind about secular humanism in any way shape or form

[Ben Kenobi]

Yep, no naturalistic explanations for morality

So it's ok to kill people and eat them? Animals do that all the time. People make tasty snacks that can fill you right up.

[loinburger]

His only reason for engaging in these discussions is to troll people. Don't waste your time.

So it's ok to kill people and eat them? Animals do that all the time. People make tasty snacks that can fill you right up.

[giblets]

I don't understand why he has a compulsive desire to troll, so God must have done it. Hallelujah!

[Ben Kenobi]

His only reason for engaging in these discussions is to troll people. Don't waste your time.

I remember how angry you got in one of these discussions when I missed a post and the thread had fallen off the front page.

This actually was an interesting discussion. Sadly you guys are outta ammo.

Why is it when animals act in a moral fashion, it's an argument from nature, but when they act in an immoral fashion, it's not an argument against morality from nature?

Nature is beyond morality. It just is. Arguing that morality is from nature, is no different from saying that Chlorine is a virtuous element.

[loinburger]

I remember how angry you got in one of these discussions when I missed a post and the thread had fallen off the front page.

That was when I still thought you were engaging in honest dialogue. I think it's been a long time since anybody's made that mistake.

[Ben Kenobi]

I haven't changed. You have.

I'm not sure how my response is in anyway a troll. It's a straight up challenge. You either deal with it or go to your fallback of "it's a troll."

No skin off my nose.

FWIW, if I disagree with you, I explain why, and try to talk through it. I've never called you a troll for arguing. I always argue back.

[loinburger]

I'm not sure how my response is in anyway a troll.

Either you're lying or you're retarded.

[giblets]

I remember how angry you got in one of these discussions when I missed a post and the thread had fallen off the front page.

This actually was an interesting discussion. Sadly you guys are outta ammo.

Why is it when animals act in a moral fashion, it's an argument from nature, but when they act in an immoral fashion, it's not an argument against morality from nature?

Nature is beyond morality. It just is. Arguing that morality is from nature, is no different from saying that Chlorine is a virtuous element.

Hahaha, good troll. You argued God must exist because you have a sense of right and wrong, then after I point out that evolution can explain a sense of right and wrong, you switch over to saying morality somehow transcends the natural world.

Ben's new argument:
1. People suck
2. as a matter of fact
3. Facts are established by decree
4. God exists