Lady Rarity Pony

This is the Gay thread, which was made so that gay people who like talking about gay stuff can let all the gay out of their system and let it spray on all the other gay people. That way it's an orgy of gay-sharing in which all gays, gay and gay, can take part in.

You bet it is. It's probably the gayest thing you'll come across today. It's almost as gay as Viscra. (Well, not really. No one's even close to being that gay).

Who do you think you are? Walking in here acting all gay and telling everyone they're gay? You're gay. That's final.

Are you saying talking about gay stuff is pointless? What a homo-meany-weirdo-phobic thing to say.

Good post. However, there are a few things here that are slightly off. This, mostly: "Just because morals are invented by humans doesn't mean they don't exist." This is really not true. "Inventing" morals is not the same as, say, inventing a physical object, such as a clock. Should you invent a clock, it would actually be a spatio-temporal object. Morality, on the other hand, is not a spatio-temporal object. While a naturalist may be able to theorize a cause for the feeling we know as "morality", that would not include the actual existence of morality beyond those feelings. It's a bit inconsistent to say you are a moral nihilist and then suggest that morals do objectively exist. I'm sorry but your post is a perfect example of how people continuously comment in these blog posts without understanding what is being discussed. Even Evilshy just stated that there are no absolute morals. Hence why he considers himself a moral nihilist. Hollowshield wasn't discussing whether atheist's behave morally. He was talking about how atheists claim absolute morals don't exist and then behave as if they do exist. Do you even know what "absolute" morality means? It's not about whether people behave "good" or "bad", it's about whether there is even a "good" or "bad" to conform to. You're missing the point and sidestepping the argument.

Everyone commenting here has missed the point. He wasn't saying atheists can't discern right from wrong. He was saying atheism (more like, the naturalistic worldview) can't account for the existence of objective morality. Thus there is no right and wrong within atheism (once again, more specifically the naturalistic aspect) unless you live inconsistent with your own worldview. Of course, you make a bunch of angry responses when atheism is criticized, and everyone sidesteps the point at hand. Go figure.

Americans had a chance to change for the better. (two days ago) But they decided to make One Big Ass Mistake Again. You reap what you sow \ o /

Quit.

I should be getting a new ethernet cable in the coming days. Once I get that I'll be back online (after I renew XBL Gold - obviously)