In defending your original premise, you stated that there was nothing intrinsically wrong with these things. Did I misunderstand?
Guys here is my theoryā¦
Iām an Atheist who proved that God canāt exist.
I stated that intrinsic value is intrinsic to humans, not to the outside world. There is a reason some values are shared by more animals and humans, like for example incest being taboo, but the value only resides in humans (or the animal in question).
This is not to say that I do not think it is bad, it just means that value is something human. Donāt you see? This was never a discussion about morality or a defense of acts that people think are immoral, I do many things just because of my principles alone - I donāt eat meat, I only use second hand stuff because I do not want to take part in consumerism, I do not lie because I do not want to hurt people around me.
Saying that there is no absolute morality in the world is not the same thing as defending immoral acts. This is a kind of strawman interpretation. If anything it means that I will not just blindly follow hollow moral codes without questioning and betray the underlying principles of my own morality. You see I am a human, so morality and empathy are in me too.
I wonder why you people reason that I defend immoral acts when I say there is nothing outside of humans that contain value, is it because you believe in some kind of moral code out there? What proof then have you of that?
I think it doesnāt matter if itās intrinsic to the universe or not. Our reality is a human reality. Whether rocks or silicon atoms in a plasma state or 19th dimensional consciousnesses have different opinions on murder and child rape is something of absolutely no interest to me.
Also please remember that a fair portion of the readership here have experienced some pretty shitty stuff. Suggesting that thereās nothing actually wrong with what happened to them and only human morality makes it seem as if there is is a pretty crappy thing to do. It might seem academic to @wonderdunk and his chickens, but many others arenāt so lucky.
1 Like
I will get to reading that later I think but my position on god is basically that it makes as much sense to argue if there are invisible elves living in my lawn whose presence cannot be observed in any possible way. Itās just irrelevant.
Numerator divided by denominator means numerator is cut into denominator times. Numerator divided by 3 ( Denominator is 3 ) then it means Numerator is cut into 3 equal parts.
1/0 means 1 cut into 0 parts. It means 1 disappears. It means God exists.
But it is impossible to cut Numerator into zero parts so " Gods cannot exist ".
Ok maybe we are getting somewhere, now aside from obvious statements that we will probably all agree about, how do you feel about a more ambiguos statement, that many believe in, but people have many different opinions about how to realize? Take for example āequalityā. The idea that all men (and women) should be equal. What are your thoughts on that?
Shadows do not talk. If God created us, the million dollar question is, why do we need parents?
Do I think that a certain type of human should have dominion over other types of humans merely by virtue of the type? No.
1 Like
Good to know that ānoā is the answer to that irritating social order question.
2 Likes
Yes but how would you realize that? Is the world like that now?
We wake up with something in our Brain/Mind and I suppose we live as if it were to be The Reality.
Everything = Universe = World = Finite changing physical existence.
Everything is nothing but existence. Which existence? - Sagar Gorijala.
Do you mean, did I need this explained to me somehow? No. Itās simple empathy, being able to imagine an existence outside oneās own. Perhaps the empathy-challenged do need it spelled out for them.
No I mean - how do you make it come true. What in the world is not like this and how would you change it so that this principle becomes true.
You determine what you can do and then you do it. ??? Iām sorry, I guess I donāt understand the question.
I am asking how you take this general principle and put it into action and why. Do you know any examples of groups holding dominion over other groups by virtue of type? Take the rich and the poor for example and men and women. Do you think they are equal as it is now? And how would they become equal under your own definition, that one group with a certain type will not hold dominion over the other group by virtue of its type?
In any case, Iām out. My point is as above: careful what you attempt to justify in pursuit of your point. This is a forum of real people who have had real experiences, and playing devilās advocate over child rape is losing sight of your surroundings in service to your argument.
I understand that you were directly asked. That isnāt the case for the person you thanked for furthering your argument.
I really donāt find this conversation interesting and didnāt come here to debate it. Good night.
Well that was a monumental waste of my time. Thank you and good night. And also thank you for proving my point that you really did not understand what I was saying 
Cheers!