*Sighs Deeply* – By Godless Teen

December 15, 2012 in Answers, General

At the end of my last post, I mentioned that I would not be bringing back the argument. When I say that, I usually mean it. This time, however, I couldn’t resist writing another response to Chris; I’m sick of him trying to slam me for things I’m not going to rebut.

However, after the last post, with many thousands of words in it, I figured that I was going to do something different. Instead of writing a huge post answering every little thing that Chris said, I’m just going to write a single page with my definition of morality, and then go on to ask Chris a few questions for once. That way, I’m not running the risk of typing something up carelessly that then gets interpreted to mean something completely different from what it was supposed to mean.

You can find the page here.

It’s practically pointless to write a few thousand more words trying to rebut every single thing that Chris said in his comments, so I just decided that I’d put up a page that would explain everything he could possibly want to know (which I also did in the email I sent him…). To simply reply to every little period, letter, and thought (as I did in my last post) is, to be frank, just stupid.

However, Chris has been extremely shady in answering questions about his own “moral law”. I’ve asked him multiple questions, as well as put up multiple criticisms of his god and morality that is supposedly derived from that god. However, not only has he not replied to a single one of these statements/questions, he’s even acknowledged that I asked those questions but then refused to answer them- supposedly because my leaving the argument was apparently a legitimate excuse for not having to answer them:

Now, you did ask a lot of questions – but since you’re done I guess I don’t have to deal with them.  However, if you do wish them answered by all means ask in a separate post (to keep things in order) and we can debate them.

Anyway, that was fun!

Too bad you have to stomp off…I actually thought you were better than that…

Yup. Don’t have to deal with them.

Well, Chris, this is your chance to answer some questions.

Although, I’d just like to mention what you said at the end:

Too bad you have to stomp off…I actually thought you were better than that…

Well, dear, that was rather rude. I’m not sure what position you’re in to tell me that I’m a bad person when you’re the one making such rude comments. Also, at least I don’t claim that Christians are, by nature, immoral, or necessarily even the cause of immoral activity in this world… Sure, I believe that Christianity is bad, but Christians are not by nature bad. Even the ones who kill their child for being possessed by demons (though that’s really stretching things): although they still ought to be punished to discourage such behavior, the parents were likely to be legitimately concerned for their child, whom they sincerely thought was possessed by demons. That’s not their fault, necessarily. That’s irrationality’s fault.

That aside, it’s now time for me to ask the questions:

1. So, uh… What evidence did you have for your god existing, again? Because, if I remember correctly, you never even once presented any. Jus’ sayin’.

2. What is your idea of the “moral law”? Why should we follow it?

3. You seem extremely concerned about my idea of what morality is, but hey, can you actually dig up some evidence for why you should seem so concerned? In fact, why are you so concerned? Do you sincerely believe that atheism is the cause for much of the evil (synonymous with “bad actions”) that exists in this world?

4. Do you just go searching through the internet to find what you believe to be vulnerable targets to bully? Cuz, hey, you decided to try and accuse a teenager of having no idea what the hell morality was (except I’ve studied this a lot more than other teenagers have- nice surprise, huh?). Plus, you earlier stated that you had meddled with certain atheists who had seemed rather… Lackluster in ability.

Anyhow… What the heck? I don’t go around trolling blogs and saying

“Logical fallacy, so-and-so”,

“Your moral code is based on an emotion.  Not on anything objective.” (suggestive of me being immoral?),

“So, yes so-and-so, your moral code is nothing more than opinion.  You cannot get passed it.”,

“In the end, yes so-and-so your moral code is based on opinion YOUR opinion.”,

“Too bad you have to stomp off…I actually thought you were better than that…”,

“And, as I showed in the other posts that yes you do assign human values as whim based on YOUR opinion, emotions, and yes, even mood.” (PS  The statement that you claimed to be from me, towards you, that “What I’m showing you is that you do not give humans an inherent value.  To you, a humans value can be gained and lost depending on your mood, opinion, IE morals.  And thus, to you a human ONLY has value if it can feel pain and experience emotion.  Well, what about those humans who can’t feel pain?  Are they fully human to you, or can they be killed without issue?” was a direct quote from you. Yet, you somehow asserted that I made that claim against you, and then insulted me for supposedly saying it…).

So, yeah, I really don’t do that. It kinda pisses me off that you’re saying this, and it really, really pissed me off to see you write all of this stuff on my blog. Like, seriously, I don’t go into your house, take a crap on your carpet, tell you to clean it up, and then claim that you’re a bad person for having crapped on your own carpet.

So, what’s the deal, Chris? Why so interested in my blog? Why don’t you go to other blogs; to other blogs that are far more popular with more famous atheists?

Also, I’d just like to mention… If you think that I’m just some kind of pathetic, weak little teenage kid, I do have access to a few other atheist contacts who can reply to what you have said to me better than I have, and with more of an air of authority… So don’t think you’re superior to me, KK?

 

3 responses to *Sighs Deeply* – By Godless Teen

  1. I’ll get to your questions, however, I will address some things first – just to get them out of the way.

    ME – Too bad you have to stomp off…I actually thought you were better than that…
    YOU – “Well, dear, that was rather rude. I’m not sure what position you’re in to tell me that I’m a bad person when you’re the one making such rude comments.”
    I’m not sure how you get to this conclusion based on what I said – by “better than that” I meant that you were one to actually defend your position and not just stomp off when you fail to do so.
    That’s all.
    That you read more into that speaks to YOU and your thoughts – not mine.
    “ Also, at least I don’t claim that Christians are, by nature, immoral, or necessarily even the cause of immoral activity in this world… “
    Not sure what this is in regards to – this is statement that was unneeded and addresses what?
    Nothing we were talking about.
    “Sure, I believe that Christianity is bad, but Christians are not by nature bad. Even the ones who kill their child for being possessed by demons (though that’s really stretching things): although they still ought to be punished to discourage such behavior, the parents were likely to be legitimately concerned for their child, whom they sincerely thought was possessed by demons. That’s not their fault, necessarily. That’s irrationality’s fault.”
    Okay, no issue there – but again, have no idea what you are trying to address/defend here.

    That out of the way, let’s get to your questions for me – then I’ll address the remainder of your post.

    “1. So, uh… What evidence did you have for your god existing, again? Because, if I remember correctly, you never even once presented any. Jus’ sayin’.”
    No I didn’t present any evidence as we were not talking about it. We were discussing YOUR moral code, NOT the existence of God.
    I’m not, however, going to address this here – it’s a longer topic and really deserves it’s own discussion.
    But again, I didn’t present any during our discussion because we weren’t discussing God – we were discussing YOUR moral code and it’s issues.
    “2. What is your idea of the “moral law”? Why should we follow it?”
    A two part question – or really two questions.
    2A. A moral law is the basis of which right/wrong are determined OBJECTIVELY. That’s is to say, these rules of right/wrong exists whether or not we believe in them, or whether or not we like them. And they exists no matter where we are – IE the moral laws on Earth, exist all over the universe.
    In addition to being OBJECTIVE – they are based on an actual moral authority. Not subjective whim of us fallible humans. But an infallible, perfect, moral authority.
    So what is the moral law that I follow? The one Jesus gave us – 1) Love God, 2) Love your neighbor, 3) Love your enemy.
    In short: love.
    2B. So why should we follow it? Because doing so offers us the fullness of life. Because to truly combat evil in the world, the weapon is love. Hate? Love. Anger? Love. If you, as I believe you do, wish the world to be a better place, the only way is love.
    “3. You seem extremely concerned about my idea of what morality is, but hey, can you actually dig up some evidence for why you should seem so concerned? In fact, why are you so concerned? Do you sincerely believe that atheism is the cause for much of the evil (synonymous with “bad actions”) that exists in this world?”
    Again, multiple questions.
    3A. Why should I be so concerned? Well for one, you believe that I MUST follow it. That alone is good enough reason for me to be concerned. You stated that you believe that this is a must follow by everyone (I’m assuming that includes me).
    So, if I am to follow your moral code, I should know more about it and question what doesn’t make sense or where it lacks.
    3B Why am I so concerned? Well the above as I stated – also to see if you can actually defend your moral code. Shouldn’t you be able to? Isn’t that part of debating, to defend one’s position?
    3C. Do I sincerely believe atheism is the cause for much of the evil in this world? I have to ask, how you even came up with this question. No where have I ever stated, or hinted as such.
    Atheism is no more the cause of problems than theism – it’s sinful humans, period. Simple as that.
    However, again, I have to wonder where you even got this notion from ANYTHING I said.
    “4. Do you just go searching through the internet to find what you believe to be vulnerable targets to bully? Cuz, hey, you decided to try and accuse a teenager of having no idea what the hell morality was (except I’ve studied this a lot more than other teenagers have- nice surprise, huh?). Plus, you earlier stated that you had meddled with certain atheists who had seemed rather… Lackluster in ability.”
    If you think this is bullying, you have an interesting idea of what it is. Not once have I called you a name, said you were stupid, swore at you, yelled…etc.
    Hey, if you don’t want to defend your position, then don’t. But, just because someone actually puts up an offense to your position doesn’t equate bullying.
    You either can defend your moral code BEYOND opinion – that is, to objectivity – or you can’t.
    I’ve shown you can’t.
    Not bullying, GT, and the fact you seem to think this is, again, highlights YOUR thinking.
    Also, I didn’t say you have no idea of what morality is…I’m showing your BASIS of morality is faulty. Quite a difference.
    Instead of just reacting, try to read and understand what someone says – clearly you jump to conclusions, and without much basis.
    As shown above by some of the questions you have asked me.
    Bully? Hardly. A challenger? You bet – you either are up for it, or not.

  2. Now, let’s address your other part of the post.

    You quote me: “And, as I showed in the other posts that yes you do assign human values as whim based on YOUR opinion, emotions, and yes, even mood.” (PS The statement that you claimed to be from me, towards you, that “What I’m showing you is that you do not give humans an inherent value. To you, a humans value can be gained and lost depending on your mood, opinion, IE morals. And thus, to you a human ONLY has value if it can feel pain and experience emotion. Well, what about those humans who can’t feel pain? Are they fully human to you, or can they be killed without issue?”
    YOU – “was a direct quote from you. Yet, you somehow asserted that I made that claim against you, and then insulted me for supposedly saying it…). So, yeah, I really don’t do that. It kinda pisses me off that you’re saying this, and it really, really pissed me off to see you write all of this stuff on my blog. Like, seriously, I don’t go into your house, take a crap on your carpet, tell you to clean it up, and then claim that you’re a bad person for having crapped on your own carpet. So, what’s the deal, Chris? Why so interested in my blog? Why don’t you go to other blogs; to other blogs that are far more popular with more famous atheists?”
    I thought you were interested in debates? You’re not? You don’t want to be challenged about what you think?
    You don’t think your good enough to defend your position?
    If I read your blog correctly, you like to go out and challenge Christians…
    You don’t like it when they come to you for a challenge?
    “Also, I’d just like to mention… If you think that I’m just some kind of pathetic, weak little teenage kid, I do have access to a few other atheist contacts who can reply to what you have said to me better than I have, and with more of an air of authority… So don’t think you’re superior to me, KK?”
    Again, where do you get the notion that I think you’re “some kind of pathetic, weak, little teenage kid?”
    GT you really come to interesting conclusions.
    If you need to go to your atheist friends for support to reply to me, by all means do so.
    And where on earth do you get the notion that I am superior to you? Because I challenge you on your moral code?
    If you aren’t a weak teenage kid, then why whine about someone challenging you? Like a teenage kid would do?
    C’mon GT – either take the challenge on or don’t. But if you do, don’t whine about it if you don’t “win.”

  3. And lastly,

    “However, Chris has been extremely shady in answering questions about his own “moral law”. I’ve asked him multiple questions, as well as put up multiple criticisms of his god and morality that is supposedly derived from that god. However, not only has he not replied to a single one of these statements/questions, he’s even acknowledged that I asked those questions but then refused to answer them- supposedly because my leaving the argument was apparently a legitimate excuse for not having to answer them:”

    Again, we were discussing YOUR moral code. However, you do yourself a disservice here of claiming I’m not willing to discuss my belief of a moral code when you turn right around and quote me saying:

    ” Now, you did ask a lot of questions – but since you’re done I guess I don’t have to deal with them. However, if you do wish them answered by all means ask in a separate post (to keep things in order) and we can debate them.”

    Oh, wait! What’s that last line there?

    “However, if you do wish them answered, by all means ask in a separate post (to keep things in order) and we can debate them.”

    Seems like I’m pretty open to debating them there GT.

    The first part of the sentence is to call you out on stomping away and quitting the discussion – but like I said, ask and I’ll answer.

    You, because you can’t clearly defend your moral code, were trying to push the argument aside – and look at the Christian moral code. This doesn’t support your position, but shows that yours is lacking and you’re having trouble defending it. In my not answering, I am keeping it on topic: your moral code.

    Jumping to conclusions (as i pointed out in the other posts) and misrepresenting your opponent (as shown above) is not a good way to debate.

Please leave a reply!

%d bloggers like this: