Posted by itskafka [24.243.216.132 - cs24243216-132.austin.rr.com] on 26 February 2003 at 18.44.02 ZuluTime:

brenton_spears : it's not true that atheists would kill their kids at the drop of a hat.....mitch..u are one sore loser.....aquinas taught that the natural law can't be abolished from the heart of man....no wondeer you are getting creamed by the atheists...here....what u should say is that atheists dont't have a reason to be objecting to child-murder should anyone wish to be indulging himself in it..as dostoevsku said..if ythere is no god erything is permissible...

Time it took me to respond: 1m, 20s

itskafka : brenton... you are wrong as well. atheists CERTAINLY have a reason to object to child killing.. it is against the law for one thing and more importantly.. it is beneficial to society (which is where our morals and laws come from in the first place). Morals have come from hundreds of thousands of years of social evolution not from a deific source.

Time it took brenton to respond: 4m, 18s

brenton_spears : so it isnt that they would kill their kids whereas we would not...but that whereas we have a reason to be consistenly objecting to the practice of child-murder on the grounds of its inherent evil...atheists however dont have a reason to be objecting to it apart from recording their dislike of it....the fact that kids on their view live only once isnt a reason....unless it be argued that the value intrinsic to preserving the life of a human provided that it is the only one it will ever have, is objective..furthermore.,.the fact that morality on the atheist view is a product of evolutionary conditioning won't render it objective ...because this begs the question: why the heck should i obey my conditioning?..also can 't this conditioning incline me at times to do evil???

brenton_spears : get real IT..I AM KILLING U
     brenton_spears : i haev DEFEATED ITSA...
     brenton_spears : i haev DEFEATED ITSA...
     brenton_spears : INDON WITNESS MY DEFEAT OF HIM...
     brenton_spears : it is so redolent of my defeat of u
     brenton_spears : now he is silent
     brenton_spears : thats what u get for trying on a REAL CHRISTIAN FOR SIZE..
     brenton_spears : WANT MORE PUNK
     brenton_spears : THERES plenty more from where that came from
     brenton_spears : LOSER
     brenton_spears : Nyahhh nyaahhh..u lose..
     brenton_spears : boioooooo go home..
     brenton_spears : loserrrr
     brenton_spears : now tell me room..who rulessssssss
     brenton_spears : ]i doooo
     brenton_spears : daredevil..
     brenton_spears : the hero

Time it took me to respond: 2m, 03s
     All the above took place in that two minutes

tskafka : brenton.. rubbish.... atheists get their attitudes on the sanctity of life from the same place that theists do. From man. From the very beginnings societies that had respect for and protected the lives of ther members survived and thrived better than those who didn't. That is where societal morals come from and that is consistent with the atheistic vierw of life.. if YOU get your morals from religion you get them from the same source as I because religion and god are constructs of man.

Time it took brenton to respond: 8m, 33s

itskafka : brenton.. if you want substantive discussion you have to give the other time to type his response before you erroneously begin to claim victory. But that is pretty much you tactic isn't it now?

itskafka : brenton.. notice how I give you time to respond.... that is called common courtesy.

brenton_spears : obviously itsaka..on your view my morality is derived from a source not dissimilar to yours...but that statement of yours besides begging the question of the truth of atheism misses the point entirely...the point being that unless you held (whether falsely or othewise) your morality to be objective ...you cannot consistently condemn a person for indulging himself in the act of child-murder...simply because for him such a act might well be moral.....so your 'argument' amounts in fact to a tacit admission that on the atheistic view morality is viciously subjective.(since its being the product of evolutionary conditioning ,as you hold, would not suffice to confer upon it the requisite objectivity) so that the conclusion necessarily follows that you lack a ground (such as alone should be afforded by positing a transcendent base as the ground for a system of ethics)on the basis which to be CONSISTENLY CONDEMNING HEINOUS ACTS SUCH AS CHILD-MUDER

brenton_spears : yessss I HAVE DEFEATED ITSAKA...
     brenton_spears : loserrrrr loserrrr
     brenton_spears : ]boooooo
     brenton_spears : boooooo
     brenton_spears : youuu losseeeeee
     brenton_spears : booooooo
     brenton_spears : go home...
     brenton_spears : get out
     brenton_spears : ]shut up

brenton_spears : ill repost that 2 posts of mine which killed off itska..
     brenton_spears : read and learn..but no direct quoting if u please...

brenton_spears : so it isnt that they would kill their kids whereas we would not...but that whereas we have a reason to be consistenly objecting to the practice of child-murder on the grounds of its inherent evil...atheists however dont have a reason to be objecting to it apart from recording their dislike of it....the fact that kids on their view live only once isnt a reason....unless it be argued that the value intrinsic to preserving the life of a human provided that it is the only one it will ever have, is objective..furthermore.,.the fact that morality on the atheist view is a product of evolutionary conditioning won't render it objective ...because this begs the question: why the heck should i obey my conditioning?..also can 't this conditioning incline me at times to do evil???

brenton_spears : obviously itsaka..on your view my morality is derived from a source not dissimilar to yours...but that statement of yours besides begging the question of the truth of atheism misses the point entirely...the point being that unless you held (whether falsely or othewise) your morality to be objective ...you cannot consistently condemn a person for indulging himself in the act of child-murder...simply because for him such a act might well be moral.....so your 'argument' amounts in fact to a tacit admission that on the atheistic view morality is viciously subjective.(since its being the product of evolutionary conditioning ,as you hold, would not suffice to confer upon it the requisite objectivity) so that the conclusion necessarily follows that you lack a ground (such as alone should be afforded by positing a transcendent base as the ground for a system of ethics)on the basis which to be CONSISTENLY CONDEMNING HEINOUS ACTS SUCH AS CHILD-MUDER
     brenton_spears : a one-two punch and he is dead...
     brenton_spears : that's why he has gone silent

Time it took me to respond: 2m, 11s

itskafka : brenton... once again.. rubbish. My grounds for opposing child killing is that is is not beneficial to society. Blatant killing of a socities citizens is not good for anyone in that society.. I don't need an underlying deific reasoning to know this all I need is rationality and empathy. And as to morality being subjective of course it is. There was a time in this country in the recent past (within 100 years) when it was perfectly moral and right for a 40 year old man to marry and bed a 13 or 14 year old girl. It was socially acceptable and often considered very good for the girl even in xians circles. This is no longer the case.. now the same 40 year old man seeking to marry a 13 year old girl would be considered suspect at best and a pervert by most. Wh was it ok then and not ok now? Because what society views as right (i.e. slavery, etc) can change and thus morals change along with it. This shows very well how morals come from the judgement of MAN not the rules of god.

brenton_spears : itska i choose not to dignify your last posting with a rebuttal..

brenton_spears : what i have said suffices utterly to crush your position totally...

itskafka : brenton... why not? Is my post offensive or do you just not a reasonable response?

brenton_spears : room i instruct you to ignore his reply....

itskafka : brenton.. rubbish... claiming victory and actually acheiving it are two very different things.

brenton_spears : itska..read and learn..it's too late i defeated you already

brenton_spears : you're washed up...

itskafka : Those of you who have brenton ignored will get a kick out of this post of his... brenton_spears : room i instruct you to ignore his reply....

brenton_spears : look my two posts comprise a sufficient rebuttal to his claims...
     brenton_spears : there is no need for me to trouble myself further to flog a horse into whose head i have alread pumped two bullets

itskafka : brenton.. no, they don't. I ahve answered you but you refuse to respond.. in a boxing match when one fighter refuses to come out for the next round that is called a TKO> I'll accept the victory by TKO>.