Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×
User Journal

Journal Marxist Hacker 42's Journal: The slashdot equivalent of a moral earthquake 13

Pudge (yes, the pudge that many of us have had a problem with) finally engaged in an argument I can agree with him on. MORE THAN THAT, he posted what I have to say, after 3 hours of listening to it, the definitive link for our side.


The debate might have started out "Is faith reasonable"? But it quickly turned out to be a disproof of quantum randomness and a disproof of the problem of evil.

In the end, Prof. Craig utterly destroyed the idea that Uranium emitting an Alpha Particle destroys the idea of God. And he ridiculed the problem of evil so completely that from now on I'm going to laugh at atheists that bring it up.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The slashdot equivalent of a moral earthquake

Comments Filter:
  • None at all. Except for those we give it. We are its human attributes. Your god did not create good and evil. Man did. Man created morality. So now it exists in god, through man. Your god is only as moral as man, no more, no less. And I don't know about you, but everything I see, hear, and feel, 'good' or 'bad', is 'god'. You won't hear me deny the existence of that.

    As for looking for the definition of 'good' in ancient tribal tradition... Uh, no. They have no corner on that market. In fact, that is the ru

    • It isn't God who has human attributes, it is humans that have God attributes.

      That's the real problem- you're looking at the issue entirely backwards. God created morality and left it for *us* to discover, just like we've "discovered" physics. Did mankind invent the law of gravity in your world as well? All of the moral rules are just like gravity. They are true, because they work.

      Human beings are not bonobos or chimps, so all of your research into that is worthless.

      Your fear of authority betrays the rea

      • :-) Actually, I was pretty tight with my father, but seven years of Catholic school is another matter. Maybe that;s why I believe biology trumps theology, which (theology) is something that should be taught to more developed brains in college where there can be a real discussion. Brainwashing little kids with that stuff is abusive. Teaching respect does not require a god, religion, or any of that, as convenient as they may be.

        Anyway, none of any of this belies the fact that we don't need 'purpose'. We are p

        • The problem is, practically, without a purpose, there is no real reason to be against any behavior at all.

          If there is no purpose to human life, genocide becomes the reasonable way to deal with a famine.

          If there is no purpose to human life, there is no reason not to commit suicide the second you find out life is unfair.

          If there is no purpose to human life, have all the sex you can, but be sure to murder your partners lest they become pregnant and give you a burden.

          If there is no good, then there can be no ev

          • I'm sorry, but the conclusions that you draw are simply unsound. Things don't have to be that way at all. It is best that I defer [slashdot.org].

            • The conclusions I have drawn have been proven historically repeatedly. Those who are not able to understand history *are* doomed to repeat it.

              • History has only shown that we're not quite human yet. Biological instinct still rules our behavior, and everything we have invented is a reflection of that, our technology, mysticism, all of it. And it all boils down to the alpha male ruling the nest. That is what is reflected in your repetition of history. Evolution is a very slow process.

                One thing I forgot to add in a previous post:

                I can accept the possibility that morals are there for us to discover, but not in a million years would I believe they are t

                • But that IS human- Alpha male is a part of being human. Just because you don't like where the data points, doesn't change the reality of where the data points.

                  And "impose on others"- is just helping them to be truly human. It is only when they are *NOT* truly human that you get into trouble with morality (for instance, homosexuality).

  • And he ridiculed the problem of evil so completely that from now on I'm going to laugh at atheists that bring it up.

    You should laughing at them anyway, as they're just as dogmatic as anything they rail against.

    Also, the 'problem of evil' argument coming from a non-believer is, at best, concern trolling, and should be treated as such.
    • By far the more amazing part was pudge posting something I agreed with.

      But it never occurred to me that the problem of evil is a troll. I always took it at face value that the atheist in question actually had enough of a moral conscience to be worried about evil in the world.

      Reminds me of this startling revelation in the last gasp of Benedict's papacy:
      http://moynihanreport.itvworking.com/category/benedict-xvi [itvworking.com]

      When Dr. Robert Moynihan reprinted a story from a tabloid in Inside The Vatican, all hell broke loo

      • I always took it at face value that the atheist in question actually had enough of a moral conscience to be worried about evil in the world.

        By definition, he can't. To an atheist, evil is a man-made construct and therefore about as important to a theological discussion as anything else that's secular.

No amount of careful planning will ever replace dumb luck.