Yet another damn terrorist attack

[Elok]

This explains a lot about you .

Actually, he's right: in a debate (as opposed to an argument or discussion), the whole point is to abuse your opponent, or remind yourself and your supporters of how much cleverer than him you are. Paying attention to the substance of his remarks needlessly distracts from that goal, and in fact undermines it by reminding everyone of his inalienable dignity as a human being (and other such tiresome ****). You can, if you wish, cherry-pick some quotes to distort them, but that's largely optional. See any presidential debate for an example.

One of these days, I need to tell you about Elok's Hierarchy of Discourse.

[N35t0r]

:scaredexpect:?

[I AM MOBIUS]

You are one of the most judgmental, self-righteous, mean-spirited posters on this board. The idea that you don't think you know right from wrong (and that's what it means to think your moral philosophy is correct) is preposterous.

For example, if you believe that some moral tenets are "inferior and simple-minded" ones, then you already have a method of judgment which you believe is correct, or else you'd have no way of judging between moral philosophies. And, of course, if you can judge other moral philosophies as "clearly incorrect," the same applies.

Here's the thing, MOBIUS. You believe you already know right from wrong. The question for you is how to apply your sense of morality to the world. That's why you're able to judge certain tenets as being simple-minded or obviously incorrect. But in doing so, you're putting the cart before the horse. You have to figure out why your sense of right and wrong is correct in the first place, why you believe it has any validity at all.

Here's a simple example. You believe that, say, killing an innocent person without justification is wrong (I'm guessing). And few would argue with you about that one, to be sure. But why is it wrong, MOBIUS? If you have an answer to this question, and that answer is more than just, "It works for me," then there are tenets of your moral philosophy about which you believe you are correct.

Wow, all that text to make an essentially black and white and outmoded conclusion...

inferior and simple-minded

I rest my case.

[I AM MOBIUS]

I wonder if you've even been reading this thread. You know all those posts where I mentioned Elok is being unfair and pre-judging Islam in a way he'd never judge Christianity? No, of course you haven't, because YOU DON'T WANT TO LISTEN. Debating would entail listening and not ascribe to someone a position which is 180 degrees opposite from what they've said.

Yep, that's how you started out, until you agreed that Christianity was superior to Islam (naturally, as you converted from one to the other), however in the very next post Elok was enboldened by your 'agreement' by really showing his true colours with his most damning attack on Islam in this thread - one that he specifically addressed to you.

But you completely ignored that, instead effectively defending Jon's wonky morals wrt the ****ed up **** about things like rape and slavery written in the bible. Like drawing the logical conclusion from his inference that with god to specifically tell him that rape was bad - that he wouldn't necessarily know that raping someone was a bad thing...

Like I say, closing ranks...

Maybe you actually secretly agree with Elok? I mean, you did agree with him that Christianity is the superior religion, after all...

[Elok]

This is why I no longer bother arguing with Moby. You can say something as basic, non-controversial, and duh as "the is-ought problem also applies to atheists" and still get nowhere.

EDIT: As Sava (or Nick Naylor from Thank You For Smoking) might say, Moby doesn't argue; he debates. He begins with the assumption that you are wrong, and proceeds from there.

[Jon Miller]

Like drawing the logical conclusion from his inference that with god to specifically tell him that rape was bad - that he wouldn't necessarily know that raping someone was a bad thing...

But I didn't say that at all or imply that or believe that.

And even explicitly said that I didn't think that.

Of course, you and Sava took what I wrote and said that you interpreted the exact opposite of what I said. Which is around the point where I realized you were both just having a bit of fun.

JM

[Imran Siddiqui]

Indeed. It is like they have no interest in understanding the religious mindset whatsoever (my Islamic mother would agree with you, Jon, on God and morality).

[kentonio]

You let the women have opinions?!!?

[Sava]

But I didn't say that at all or imply that or believe that.

And even explicitly said that I didn't think that.

Of course, you and Sava took what I wrote and said that you interpreted the exact opposite of what I said. Which is around the point where I realized you were both just having a bit of fun.

JM

[Elok]

Indeed. It is like they have no interest in understanding the religious mindset whatsoever (my Islamic mother would agree with you, Jon, on God and morality).

I don't think there is such a thing as "the religious mindset." My mindset is quite different from a Southern Baptist's, let alone a Daoist's or a Zoroastrian's.

[I AM MOBIUS]

Busted...

[I AM MOBIUS]

I don't think there is such a thing as "the religious mindset." My mindset is quite different from a Southern Baptist's, let alone a Daoist's or a Zoroastrian's.

Believe me, there's definitely a religious mindset...

[I AM MOBIUS]

[Moby] doesn't argue; he debates. He begins with the assumption that you are wrong, and proceeds from there.

That all depends on the argument. If it is about religion, then clearly I am overwhelmingly likely to assume that you are wrong - again depending on the exact subject.

I hate to break it to you, but your god doesn't exist. Sorry.

In this case getting butt-hurt about Islam, when Christianity is just as guilty of the same sorts of things you're complaining about Islam. The difference basically boils down to semantics...

[Sava]

I hate to break it to you, but your god doesn't exist. Sorry.

I'm much more comfortable saying "There's no evidence your God exists".

People can believe whatever they want, no matter how stupid it is. I just wish there was a little bit more self-awareness. I believe in a lot of stupid things, myself. But I am aware they are stupid/have little to no supporting evidence.

[rah]

Yeah, I'm with Sava, the no evidence is much better. There is no discussing with a person that believes in god when your position is he doesn't exist. There is when your position is that there is a lack of evidence.

OF course I would love to hear the definitive evidence that he doesn't exist.