2009.02.14 13:00 - What Determines Moral Correctness

    Table of contents
    No headers

    Wol Euler was guardian and commenter for this session, filling in for Aurora Kitaj. I missed the first few minutes of the session, but recovered the lines from the autologger.

    Allan Whiteberry: Is Tinkerbell going to land?
    Stargate Tone: ...is my fairy a Tinkerball ?
    Allan Whiteberry: She looks like Tinkerbell.
    Stargate Tone: ahhhh
    Allan Whiteberry: You know wha that is, right?
    Stargate Tone: ok; sry the Tinkerball was not familiar thing to me
    Allan Whiteberry: Where are you from?
    Stargate Tone: but the answer is 'no'; my Tinkerball is not to be landed; she wants to fly quite freely around me :===
    Stargate Tone: my body lives in Finland
    Allan Whiteberry: "bell" not "ball"
    Susi Alcott: hi Scat
    Stargate Tone: ah ..so sry...
    Stargate Tone: Hello Scathach
    Susi Alcott: hi Zen
    Allan Whiteberry: I see. Well Tinkerbell was the companion of Peter Pan. That is an English childrens story, also a Disney animated film
    Stargate Tone: ok; now I understand ...smiles
    Scathach Rhiadra: Hello Susi, Allan, Stargate:)
    Stargate Tone: understand that 'bell' now too :)***
    Scathach Rhiadra: Hello Zen, Wester:)
    Wester Kiranov: hi all
    Zen Arado: Scath
    Susi Alcott: hi Wester
    Stargate Tone: Hello to Wester too :)***
    Stargate Tone: Helinäkeiju is her finish name :)**
    Stargate Tone: but maybe you now gave the name to my this fairy :)***
    Stargate Tone: so I shall call her as the Tinkerbell :)***'
    Allan Whiteberry: It would be easier to remember
    Stargate Tone: Thank You :)***
    Scathach Rhiadra: :)
    Susi Alcott: _/!\_
    Scathach Rhiadra: kind of mesmerising:)
    Stargate Tone: Hello Sam
    Scathach Rhiadra: Hello Samuel
    Samuel Okelly: 
    Samuel Okelly: ( @ @ ) 
    Samuel Okelly: ...o00o.(_).o00o...
    Samuel Okelly: (( HELLO EVERY1! ! ! ! ))
    Samuel Okelly: 
    Zen Arado: Hi Sam
    Allan Whiteberry: Thankyou Stargate
    Wester Kiranov: hi samuel, nice to meet you
    Zen Arado: everyavi?
    Stargate Tone: >Allan; there's 'few' faires from RL/SL ; you take them how you want; to me thery are the real thing :)****
    Wol Euler: hello all, sorry I'm late
    Scathach Rhiadra: Hello Wol:)
    Zen Arado: Hi Wol
    Susi Alcott: hi Wol
    Samuel Okelly: hi wol
    Wester Kiranov: hi wol
    Stargate Tone: Hello Wol
    Allan Whiteberry: Susi, where are you from?
    Wester Kiranov: nice outfit wol
    Wol Euler smiles, thank you.
    Susi Alcott: from planet Earth :)
    Susi Alcott: cute place isn't it :))))))
    Wester Kiranov: oh no, an earthling ;)
    Susi Alcott: sorry for that _/!\_
    Scathach Rhiadra: :)
    Allan Whiteberry: Yes, of course, I was just curious about your name. You appear male, but in English speaking countries, Susi is usually a female name
    Susi Alcott: not having english as my first language
    Susi Alcott: Susi = wolf
    Wol Euler: ah
    Allan Whiteberry: ah,, I see
    Wester Kiranov: that's nice
    Susi Alcott: but many people take me to be female, but I dont usually be able to react if I'm called 'madam' or miss or something like that
    Wol Euler: well, only if htey can't see you surely...
    Susi Alcott: agree
    Susi Alcott: hi Ade
    Stargate Tone: Hello Adelene
    Wol Euler: hello ade,
    Adelene Dawner: Hi all ^.^
    Samuel Okelly: hi ade

    The significance of today's date. 

    Wol Euler: oh, and happy valentine's day everyone.
    Scathach Rhiadra: Hello Adelene
    Susi Alcott: _/!\_ for Valentine's day
    Wester Kiranov: hi adelene
    Stargate Tone: ah yes; it's been wonderfull day to me; wishing that same to be to all here too :)****
    Scathach Rhiadra: :)
    Samuel Okelly: hi pem / fla
    Pema Pera: hi everybody!
    Susi Alcott: hi Pema _/!\_


    A visitor passes through. 

    Wol Euler: hello pema, hello Visitor
    Scathach Rhiadra: Hello Pema
    Susi Alcott: hi Visitor 
    Visitor : hi everybody
    Zen Arado: Hi Adelene, Pema
    Wol Euler: oh, born today, welcome to second life.
    Zen Arado:  Visitor
    Wol Euler: right-click on a cushion and select "sit" from the pie menu
    Visitor : yes
    Zen Arado: who was St Valentine?
    Scathach Rhiadra: was he real?
    Zen Arado: I celebrate his day mindlessly
    Wol Euler: for certain values of "real", yes :)
    Scathach Rhiadra: ah:)
    Zen Arado: does any body know without looking it up?
    Wol Euler: "The day was originally a pagan festival that was renamed after two Early Christian martyrs named Valentine"
    Samuel Okelly: i do zen
    Zen Arado: what has that got yo do with love?
    Wol Euler: apparently Chaucer invented it :)
    Wol Euler: says wikipedia anyway...
    Zen Arado: ty Sam
    Zen Arado: why do we need to be prodded to tell someone we love them ?
    Zen Arado: and only on one day a year?
    Zen Arado: is it just a commercial racket?
    Susi Alcott: hi Fael
    Samuel Okelly: hi fae
    Pema Pera: hi there Fael
    Fael Illyar: Hi Everyone :)
    Stargate Tone: Hrello Fael :)***
    Scathach Rhiadra: Hello Fael:)
    Zen Arado: Hi Fael
    Wol Euler: hello fael
    Wester Kiranov: hi fael
    Zen Arado: sorry - awkward questions
    Scathach Rhiadra: well, the people who need to be prodded, might never tell anyone they love them so it serves some purpose:)
    Pema Pera: like we are prodded every 15 minutes for 9 seconds
    Wol Euler: :)
    Wester Kiranov: :)
    Pema Pera: even though we could do it for 900 seconds
    Scathach Rhiadra: :)
    Scathach Rhiadra: gentle insistant reminders can work wonders:)
    Zen Arado: seems like dragging it out of them :)

    Pema attempts to bring us on course.

    Pema Pera: talking about which, may I gently ask whether anyone wants to share some of their explorations?
    Zen Arado: doubt the efficacy :)
    Pema Pera: or questions or confusions or suggestions?
    Zen Arado: what kind of explorations?
    Pema Pera: the 9-sec explorations
    Pema Pera: or other types we talk about on our web site
    Pema Pera: http://playasbeing.wik.is/
    Zen Arado: sorry I havent looked at it yet
    Pema Pera: it has a lot of material
    Zen Arado: ok I will
    Pema Pera: the basic idea is to poke a few holes in your normal conditioning, say, a few times an hour :)
    Pema Pera: spending a few times dropping it all
    Wol Euler: Zen, we publish these discussions on our website. May we include your name and comments in the record?
    Zen Arado: sure
    Wol Euler: (or has anyone already asked?)
    Wol Euler: ah, ok.
    Pema Pera: rather than half an hour of meditation a day, many short nudgings

    Zen suggests an alternative topic. 

    Zen Arado: I am exploring the difference between relationships in SL and RL
    Zen Arado: are they just shalow in SL?
    Wol Euler: I see no reason why they must be. Do you?
    Zen Arado: and just temporary?
    Fael Illyar: perhaps, in general, tend to be more shallow since people come here expecting it to be just play... but serious ones do exist as well.
    Adelene Dawner: Serious ones do very much exist in SL.
    Scathach Rhiadra: could the same not be said of RL relationships?
    Wol Euler: the divorce statistics suggest that many RL relationships are shallow and temporary.
    Zen Arado: but the impermanent nature of SL might cause more suoerficiality?
    Scathach Rhiadra: well, is not all life impermanent ?
    Fael Illyar: which impermanence do you mean?
    Adelene Dawner nods at Fa.
    Zen Arado: yes and SL is ven more so I think
    Samuel Okelly: SL and RL share one commonality, namely ‚ people
    Zen Arado: well you can move house so easily for instance
    Zen Arado: yes
    Wol Euler: true, sam
    Fael Illyar: what do places have to do with relationships?
    Adelene Dawner: That's true, Zen, but a serious relationship isn't based on that.
    Susi Alcott: hi Storm
    Storm Nordwind: Hi!
    Zen Arado: want to hear all your comments
    Fael Illyar: Hi Storm :)
    Samuel Okelly: hi storm
    Wol Euler: hello storm
    Scathach Rhiadra: Hello Storm
    Stargate Tone: Hello Storm
    Adelene Dawner: One of my most serious relationships right now, with no qualifications, is with someone who lives two time zones away from me ... another is with someone who lives *six* time zones away.
    Pema Pera: Hi Storm!
    Zen Arado: how serious can it get in SL?
    Fael Illyar: The only thing a relationship needs is two people and a way to communicate. SL offers an ample inventory for communication.
    Adelene Dawner nods at Fa.
    Zen Arado: yes Fael
    Fael Illyar: It can get as serious as with any other method of communication.
    Wester Kiranov: The communication part can be just as profound or shallow as in RL, but the physical caring for is more difficult
    Zen Arado: what about the parallel relationship?
    Zen Arado: hi Storm
    Adelene Dawner: As to how serious? Three has the password to my bank account (long story). Dunno how much more serious it gets than that.
    Fael Illyar: yes, physical caring is one form of communication that doesn't quite work here.
    Zen Arado: ah

    Pema leaves, and Storm follows close behind.

    Pema Pera: RL calling, nice seeing you all!
    Wol Euler: bye pema, take care
    Fael Illyar: See you later Pema :)
    Adelene Dawner: cya, Pem
    Storm Nordwind: Bye for now
    Scathach Rhiadra: bye Pema
    Zen Arado: bye Pema
    Pema Pera: bfn!
    Susi Alcott: was nice to see Pema
    Wester Kiranov: bye pema, cu later
    Susi Alcott: _/!\_
    Stargate Tone: bye Pema
    Samuel Okelly: tc pem
    Wol Euler: what do you mean by "parallel relationship", Zen?
    Zen Arado: having a relationship with someone in SL AND a diferent one in RL
    Zen Arado: is that moral?
    Wester Kiranov: it depends
    Susi Alcott: oh hi buddha sry I didn't see your arriving
    Adelene Dawner: Depends on if you think polyamory is immoral in the first place.
    Zen Arado: Hi BUddha
    Wester Kiranov: on what kind of relationships they are
    Adelene Dawner: and if you're lying to one/both of your partners about it.
    Scathach Rhiadra: Hi Buddha:)
    buddha Nirvana: hi :)
    Wol Euler: hello buddha
    Zen Arado: qualifications but is it out of the question ?
    Storm Nordwind: Please excuse me my friends... I have an urgent call!
    buddha Nirvana: hi, hi all :))
    Zen Arado: totally?
    Wol Euler: of course it is not impossible
    Wol Euler: and adultery happens in RL too, or so I have heard.
    Scathach Rhiadra: bye Storm
    Zen Arado: is it adultery?
    Susi Alcott: >Storm _/!\_
    Zen Arado: sorry for pushing this
    Zen Arado: but its important to me
    Scathach Rhiadra: how do you define relationships?
    Fael Illyar: It's similar but somewhat different.
    Adelene Dawner: If you're having a second romantic relationship when you've promised the person you're in the first one with that you wouldn't? I'd say yes.
    Zen Arado: sexual
    Zen Arado: as in RL
    Adelene Dawner: (But I'd also say it's not wise to make that kind of promise in the first place, so...)
    Scathach Rhiadra: ah, what about all the other kinds of relationships?
    Zen Arado: that is the crunch point in RL yes?
    Zen Arado: I can have women friends
    Zen Arado: but if I slleep with them that is diferent ?
    Wol Euler smiles and shrugs. If you are asking whether people can be hurt by what happens in SL, the answer is quite definitely "yes".
    Zen Arado: good
    Fael Illyar: in general, women tend to be more jealous of mental relationship than sexual relationship while men tend to be more jealous of sexual ones.
    Zen Arado: ah yes Fael


    Samuel gives the rudder of the conversation a slight nudge.

    Samuel Okelly: "Without God anything is permissible and everything is now permissible." Dostoevsky
    Zen Arado: the amount of affection you have for the other person
    Scathach Rhiadra: and not everyone in SL confines their definitions of relationship to just the sexual ones:)
    Wol Euler smiles
    Fael Illyar: nor in RL I'd think.
    Adelene Dawner: *nods*
    Zen Arado: there are moral precepts in Buddhism
    Zen Arado: about sexual misconduct
    Samuel Okelly: where do they originate from zen?
    Fael Illyar: perhaps what people have found helps make life less painful for everyone involved?
    Zen Arado: form when people had to live closely in monasteries
    Wester Kiranov: bye for now. see you all later.
    Samuel Okelly: tc wes
    Zen Arado: bye
    Adelene Dawner: cya, Wes
    Wol Euler: bye wester, take care
    Scathach Rhiadra: bye Wester:)
    Samuel Okelly: does the buddhist acknowledge an objective moral truth?
    Zen Arado: never believed that dost quote Sam
    Zen Arado: objective?
    Zen Arado: how can it be objective
    Zen Arado: it is pragmatic
    Zen Arado: to me anyway
    Samuel Okelly: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objective
    Zen Arado: I see where you are coming from Sam
    Zen Arado: moral rules are given by God
    Susi Alcott: _/!\_
    Samuel Okelly: i do not believe we construct reality ... merely our own understanding / perception of it
    Zen Arado: but I think atheists and humanists have high moral standrds too
    Adelene Dawner nods at Zen.
    Wol Euler: mmhmm
    Samuel Okelly: atheist and humanists have their own moral standards
    Zen Arado: I am more of an antirealist Sam
    Zen Arado: Buddhist is too I think
    Adelene Dawner: Atheist and humanists have their own moral standards, which have to be constructed more semsibly because they can't gloss over the rough bits with 'god said so'.
    Zen Arado: or obey commandments out of fear
    Samuel Okelly: in acknowledging a path to achieve nirvana, the buddhist acknowledges an objective truth
    Adelene Dawner: Yep.
    Adelene Dawner: (@ Zen)
    Samuel Okelly: anything goes for the athiest
    Zen Arado: I suppose there are 3 'objective' truths in Buddhism
    Wol Euler: no, sam, that is not true.
    Samuel Okelly: (or any non-deistic belief)
    Fael Illyar: umm... there is no path ... yet there is. But to think you know the path is to miss the path.
    Zen Arado: I admit
    Wol Euler: atheists are not entirely lacking in ethics or morals
    Zen Arado: that there is suffering, impermanence and non self
    Wol Euler: we too believe in being kind tou our neighbours, and honouring our parents
    Zen Arado: if you go into the darkest jungle you will find that the tribes have an ethical code
    Adelene Dawner: Sams's partly right. 'Anything goes' in the sense that there's no external right-and-wrong-jsut-because rules... atheists get to make up their own rules, how they want them. But hte vast majority choose rules for themselves that are rather stricter than 'anything goes'.
    Wol Euler: ok, true, granted.
    Scathach Rhiadra: and in not expecting any reward at the end , atheists can be more selfless in their morals
    Samuel Okelly: wol, my point is that the ethics of the non-theistic belief can only ever be an arrogant condescension..
    Zen Arado: the rules have to be obviously sensibe though
    Samuel Okelly: why is the moral virtue og one any better or more valid than that of another?
    Wol Euler: sam, I find that insulting.
    Adelene Dawner nods emphatically at Sca.
    Scathach Rhiadra nods
    Zen Arado: ye exactly Sam
    Adelene Dawner: Let's slow this down a bit?
    Zen Arado: thats why I see them as pragmatic
    Zen Arado: they help us to live together ell
    Susi Alcott: _/!\_
    Wol Euler nods at Ade and takes a deep breath.
    Zen Arado: sorry
    Samuel Okelly: in what way is that to be considered insulting wol?
    Susi Alcott: _/!\_
    Adelene Dawner: I'm (again, geez) a good example here, if we want to talk about atheist (well, agnostic) ethics. If we want to use mine, that might be useful.
    buddha Nirvana: _/\_
    Adelene Dawner: cya, Buddha


    Is it possible to have a moral code unsupported by belief in a Deity? This question, with variations and excursions, will occupy us for the next two hours. 

    Samuel Okelly: if two people hold opposing views as to the moral value of the same action, who according to the atheist, is "right"?
    Scathach Rhiadra: bye Buddha:)
    Zen Arado: namaste
    buddha Nirvana: bye, ty :)
    Adelene Dawner: depends on the atheist, Sam.
    Wol Euler: bye buddha, take care
    Zen Arado: good question Sam
    Wol Euler: depends on the action, I would say.
    Zen Arado: but I think moral rules are sensible
    Samuel Okelly: It is my contention thatlogically both can not be ‚ ¨�Sright‚ ¨ù
    Zen Arado: so I dont see how they could oppose?
    Adelene Dawner: My point was, you can't genericize it. If they're doing it right, each atheist will answer ethical/moral questions slightly differently.
    Zen Arado: example?
    Wol Euler: just as fervently religious protestants and fervently religious catholics might differ.
    Zen Arado: I only see differences of application
    Zen Arado: but still hold to commandments


    Ade poses a question worthy of debate, sadly also a real-life dilemma involving real people. Unfortunately, it gets pressed aside in the flow of argument.

    Adelene Dawner: Ok, this one came up today. A mutual friend of mine and Three's is suicidal. At what point if any do you stop trying to talk them out of it and have them institutionalized?
    Samuel Okelly: my question is where do the ethics of the atheist come from? it is surely arrogant of anybody to say they alone hold the key to moral virtue?
    Wol Euler: are you suggesting that atheists do that?
    Zen Arado: yes an application of do not kill
    Samuel Okelly: the atheist is saying they do that ... existentialism?
    Zen Arado: moral rules change over time
    Scathach Rhiadra: do not people who 'beleive' they know God's will, not do the same thing?
    Zen Arado: you have to apply the rule to each situation I think
    Samuel Okelly: the difference with thesitic belief is not in the nature of the "belief" but in the acknowledment of something higher
    Zen Arado: yes
    Adelene Dawner: /me, thouroughly lost, keeps quiet.
    Scathach Rhiadra: but you are believing in something higher
    Fael Illyar: acknowledgement of something more powerful or more important than yourself?
    Samuel Okelly: i am NOT suggesting that atheists are unethical because of their atheism merely "despite" their atheism
    Zen Arado: but does it matter where the guidelines come from?
    Fael Illyar: how about society? people in general?
    Wol Euler: I think that many atheists would base their decisions on something greater than themselves too.
    Zen Arado: so long as people submit to them?
    Wol Euler: they just wouldn't name it "god"
    Samuel Okelly: what is greater than the self for the atheist?
    Wol Euler: many things! justice, truth, society, fairness, love
    Wol Euler: kindness, compassion, generosity
    Samuel Okelly: why are they greater?
    Scathach Rhiadra nods @ Wol
    Wol Euler: well, not because god told me they should be.
    Samuel Okelly: what makes "justice" important for the atheist?
    Fael Illyar: where, oh where do you get the idea that an atheist holds him/herself to be all knowing allmighty?
    Samuel Okelly: try answering the point
    Scathach Rhiadra: the same thing that makes it important for anyone
    Wol Euler: because a just world is better than an injust one.
    Wol Euler: better for all, and yes that does not exclude myself.
    Samuel Okelly: the atheist is left with just their own view and wants to impose it on the rest of us
    Wol Euler: but I support justice for you because it is right to do so, not because I fear injustice against myself if I do not.


    Scath asks a question worthy of consideration; it too sadly falls by the wayside.

    Scathach Rhiadra: Samuel, may I ask you a question?
    Samuel Okelly: sure
    Wol Euler: (ade, I would like to discuss the question you raised, as soon as this settles down. Can you stay a while?)
    Adelene Dawner: Sure, Wol.
    Wol Euler: ty :)
    Samuel Okelly: sure
    Samuel Okelly: but ill need time to grab a brew ;-)
    Wol Euler grins. go for it.
    Fael Illyar: wb Zen :)
    Samuel Okelly: brb
    Scathach Rhiadra: the first time you came to a PaB session, you raised this question of non-theists an where they get their ethical values...
    Scathach Rhiadra: and have been raising it ever sinse
    Scathach Rhiadra: do you see any value in what we are about other than the theist v non-theist debate?
    Zen Arado: it is usually a waste of time :)
    Zen Arado: different foundational beliefs
    Zen Arado: I was an evangelical christian for a long time
    Scathach Rhiadra: sorry if I have put you on the spot, but it seems to me to be an ongoing debate
    Zen Arado: so I can see both sides
    Zen Arado: I would have agreed with Sam
    Zen Arado: studying philosophy put paid to my christian beliefs
    Scathach Rhiadra: sorry ifI have put anyone on the spot:)
    Adelene Dawner: (he's afk, Sca)
    Scathach Rhiadra: hmmm
    Zen Arado: I think there is a different argument here Scath
    Fael Illyar: I have an answer for his question of where non-theists get their moral values ... it's just probably not going to be satisfying :)
    Fael Illyar: The same place theists get them from. It's just named differently.
    Scathach Rhiadra: yes, but we seem to keep having this debate:)
    Zen Arado: whether we need a belief to have moral standards
    Wol Euler: sam, are you with us again? I see your head moving :)
    Fael Illyar: head moves in response to people talking if no mouse movement
    Zen Arado: sorry a belief in God I should have said
    Samuel Okelly: back
    Wol Euler: wb
    Zen Arado: what is youanswer Fael?
    Zen Arado: wb
    Fael Illyar: "the same place theists get them from, it's just named differently"
    Adelene Dawner: I know for myself, my ethics are based on wanting to do as little harm to people (including myself) as possible... all the rest of it is a result of what I've observed to be harmful/not harmful. As to why I want to not harm people? I don't know. I just want to. But that personal wanting-to is enough.
    Samuel Okelly: was just reading back ovver chat
    Zen Arado: I think they just evolve from necessity
    Zen Arado: because they change
    Zen Arado: even in the last 50 years there are vast differences in what is morally acceptable
    Samuel Okelly: the question I am asking is not in the nature of what any of us consider to be virtuous, moral and ethical but the origin of this belief
    Zen Arado: my bedrock is pragmatism
    Adelene Dawner: Well, let's turn it around.Why *isn't* 'I want to' good enough for you, Sam?
    Samuel Okelly: "the last 50 years there are vast differences in what is morally acceptable" this assumes that morals are subjectively constructed
    Zen Arado: yours is from God
    Zen Arado: but if we both have a good moral code does it matter?
    Samuel Okelly: who decides what a "good moral code" is?
    Fael Illyar: who else is there to decide but you?
    Adelene Dawner: ^.^
    Wol Euler: assume that you both think your own code is good, and further assume that you are both right.
    Zen Arado: well it is obvious to me that if people kill other people that is bad
    Wol Euler: Does it then matter that these codes have different names?


    The conversation starts heating up, with accusations of misrepresentation on all sides. 

    Samuel Okelly: so if n individual decides thatpaedophilia is right for them its ok?
    Wol Euler: that is not what I said.
    Zen Arado: and you could justify the rest by the harm that results if the code is not followed
    Samuel Okelly: that is precisely the point
    Zen Arado: sexual morals change
    Wol Euler: why do you assume that atheists must be pedophiles? You have raised that several times, as though it were automatic and necessary.
    Adelene Dawner: Hm.
    Zen Arado: you are only talking application Sam
    Samuel Okelly: misrepresentation is insulting wol
    Wol Euler: indeed, I have said that to you too.
    Samuel Okelly: but maybe that is easier for you than adressing the question?
    Wol Euler: so let us both take a step back and a deep reath or two
    Adelene Dawner: I think we can probably all agree that any good moral code is based on wanting not to hurt people, yes? Now: is it possible for someone with a moral code based on that to be okay with pedophilia? Probably not. So that's not a useful example.
    Zen Arado: too much ad hominem?
    Samuel Okelly: "you assume that atheists must be pedophiles" that is a direct insult at me
    Adelene Dawner: (He has a point, Wol)
    Wol Euler: ok, I withdraw that
    Wol Euler: may I ask that we leave that example aside?
    Zen Arado: agree Adelene
    Adelene Dawner: Sounds good. How about polygamy?
    Samuel Okelly: we can substitute it for any social ill
    Adelene Dawner: That seems like a more useful one.
    Samuel Okelly: slavery?
    Samuel Okelly: is slavery wrong today?
    Scathach Rhiadra: I must leave now, who is taking the log for Aurora?
    Samuel Okelly: was it "wrong" yesterdayt?
    Wol Euler: I will, scath.
    Zen Arado: yes slavery was morally aceptable 400 years ago
    Fael Illyar: as far as I know, slavery is not forbidden in the bible.
    Scathach Rhiadra: ok, good night, see you all soon:)
    Zen Arado: even by Christians
    Samuel Okelly: tc scat
    Wol Euler: 'night scath, take care
    Fael Illyar: See you later Scat :)
    Zen Arado: bye cath
    Adelene Dawner: Is slavery intrinsically harmful? I don't see any good arguements that it's not.
    Samuel Okelly: slavery is generally accepted as an unethical act against the dignity of teh person
    Adelene Dawner: *nods*
    Wol Euler: sure
    Zen Arado: it proves the point that moral standards change
    Wol Euler: even among atheists.
    Fael Illyar: Yes, but that is an example of a moral that doesn't sound like it came from God.
    Samuel Okelly: so "WHY"??
    Adelene Dawner: So that too is not a very good example of something that an atheist would *actually* be okay with, that a Christian would not be.

    In a moment of anger and weakness, and in the attempt to defuse those feelings, I gave a flippant answer that clearly struck Sam to the bone, because he quoted it back at us frequently.

    Wol Euler: because it IS so sam.
    Samuel Okelly: lol
    Fael Illyar: I mean, just 400 years ago Christians had slaves.
    Zen Arado: slavery was brutal
    Zen Arado: they threw slaves overboard if they got sick
    Samuel Okelly: and it was wrong then
    Samuel Okelly: it is wrong now
    Samuel Okelly: and it wil be wrong tommorow
    Zen Arado: packed them like sardines
    Wol Euler: in our perspective, yes.
    Samuel Okelly: but for the person who hold asubjective view of ethics it may not be
    Wol Euler: at the time the Old Testament was written, it was not so. God clearly approved of the Israelites taking slaves of the tribes they subdued.
    Zen Arado: bt if we had lived 400 years ago we would have thought it ok Sam
    Wol Euler: give me a few minutes with my Concordance, I will quote you a dozen verses of the OT.
    Zen Arado: agree?
    Zen Arado: because everyone else did
    Samuel Okelly: i refer you to the card on Catholicism i have in the case
    Samuel Okelly: no i do not agree zen
    Adelene Dawner: Morals and ethics change as people figure things out. They didn't understand, back then, as I understand it, that people who were outside their own tribe were 'really people'.
    Zen Arado: well a small minority would have been against it I think
    Wol Euler: I think this is a fruitless argument. We cannot know what "we" might have thought had we lived X years ago, because that person would not have been the personality you are today
    Adelene Dawner: *nods at Wol*
    Wol Euler: your personality was formed by the environment it grew up in.
    Wol Euler: perhaps we would have been Northern anti-slavers. Maybe.
    Zen Arado: I am just saying that that was what people thought then
    Wol Euler: but perhaps we would have been slaveholders like Jefferson himself. Who knows?
    Adelene Dawner: And I'm sure there are things that we do without even thinking about it now, that people a few hundred years in the future will be horrified at. We just don't realize that those things are causing harm, yet.
    Zen Arado: the ethical standards of time periods are well known
    Samuel Okelly: is simply hypocritical for the atheist to critise their eisegesis of the bible as they in turn are seeking to impose their own idea virtue on the rest of us
    Wol Euler: eating factory farmed meat, for instance. (shudders)
    Zen Arado: yes Adelene
    Adelene Dawner: Who's imposing what now, Sam?
    Wol Euler: I am not seeking to impose anything sam. least of all on you.
    Wol Euler: I encourage you in your belief, quite sincerely.
    Zen Arado: they probably wont eat meat for instance
    Samuel Okelly: you want to shape society dont you?
    Samuel Okelly: you want a say in the law making process?
    Adelene Dawner: Or they'll eat synth-meat. That's looking promising. Just like we use robots to do heavy labor now.
    Fael Illyar: Samuel, I find it that Christians are much more active in attempting to impose their ideas and values on the "rest of us" ... but ... well ...
    Samuel Okelly: what determines the moral correctness of the law?
    Zen Arado: the justice system
    Adelene Dawner: Does it hurt people?
    Zen Arado: and popular belief

    Darwin comes up, a little late for his birthday celebrations. 

    Samuel Okelly: the darwinian view of natural selection tells us that "violence" is natural
    Samuel Okelly: survival of teh fittest
    Adelene Dawner: natural is not hte same as moral.
    Zen Arado: yes but moral codes seek to limit our brutality I think
    Fael Illyar: It is natural but that does not mean it's the best way to do things.
    Samuel Okelly: so if someone CAN impose their desire by force what is wrong with that?
    Zen Arado: it is not the desire of an individual
    Adelene Dawner: There's a very strong risk of hurting people by imposing things on them, no matter how careful you are.
    Zen Arado: but of the whole society
    Wol Euler: that is one of your straw men, sam. Nobody here is claiming that that is a good thing.
    Samuel Okelly: in reffering to a higher objective moral truth the atheist is guilty of the most sickening hyporascy
    Fael Illyar: yes, morals are the product of the whole society, not any individual.
    Fael Illyar: that's where they come from.
    Wol Euler: I object to "sickening hypocrisy". that is ad hominem, sam.
    Adelene Dawner nods at Wol.
    Zen Arado: we are ganging up on Sam a bit
    Zen Arado: he has the minority viewpoint
    Adelene Dawner: He's not exactly making it easy *not* to gang up on him. :|
    Zen Arado: he is just arguing his case
    Adelene Dawner: Being offensive gets emotional reactions, though, not logical discourse.
    Samuel Okelly: well try to explain where your morals come from without referring to the transcendental truth and sticking to empirical data and then you will avoid the charge of hypocrisy
    Samuel Okelly: "it just IS"
    Zen Arado: sorry if I introduced a difficult topic
    Samuel Okelly: hardly very existential that one
    Fael Illyar blinks 'who is offering transcendental truths?'
    Adelene Dawner: [14:13] Adelene Dawner: I know for myself, my ethics are based on wanting to do as little harm to people (including myself) as possible... all the rest of it is a result of what I've observed to be harmful/not harmful. As to why I want to not harm people? I don't know. I just want to. But that personal wanting-to is enough.
    Samuel Okelly: [14:24] Wol Euler: because it IS so sam.
    Zen Arado: that is what is called the 'Harm Principle' Adelene
    Wol Euler: I think that good moral behaviour (let's just call it that for now) is correct and right because it offers a better quality of life for all of us.
    Zen Arado: of JS Mill
    Adelene Dawner: Not surprised there's a name for it.
    Zen Arado: it has flaws though
    Adelene Dawner: *shrugs* works well enough for me.
    Zen Arado: who decides what actually constitute harm?
    Samuel Okelly smiles
    Zen Arado: backs Sam's case
    Zen Arado: :)
    Fael Illyar: if you dig deep enough, you can find that sort of flaw from every principle :)
    Adelene Dawner: I do, by necessity, and it's my responsibility to do as good of a job at that as I can.
    Adelene Dawner nods at Fa.
    Zen Arado: sure
    Fael Illyar: it all comes back to "who decides what the criteria are"
    Samuel Okelly: dostoevsky hit the nail on the head
    Wol Euler: well, ok, I grant you that I cannot know that my not hurting you is a good thing. Perhaps you would be benefited by a little violence.
    Zen Arado: its a good principle despite
    Wol Euler: but I believe that you would not be, so I do not hit you.
    Adelene Dawner nods at Wol.
    Wol Euler: and I further believe that it would be bad for _me_ to become the kind of person who resolves disputes by hitting, which reinforces my reluctance.
    Fael Illyar: Believing in God does not evade this sort of flaw :) "Who decides what came from God?"
    Adelene Dawner grins widely at Fael.
    Wol Euler: is that philosophically unsound? I couldn't care less.
    Zen Arado: you can claim justification for wars and killing believing in God
    Samuel Okelly: that fael is a different question but i am glad to see you acknowledge that there IS a god and what's more there is something that is derived from HIM
    Wol Euler: oh yes, god has been involved in quite a lot of bloodshed. Usually on both sides, too.
    Zen Arado: but you could argue that that is a perversion of Gods truth
    Wol Euler: granted!
    Adelene Dawner: Wol: I agree, except I prefer to be the tupe of person who *is* willing to hit, if there's clear evidence that it'd be useful. That's rare enough to be mostly moot, but, ^.^
    Wol Euler: but I could equally argue that it is a perversion of common sense and common decency.
    Wol Euler: ade, granted :)

    Are atheists anti-Christian? 

    Samuel Okelly: i am guessing now the atheist ethics have been found wanting the predicatble misinformed anti-religious anti-christian ranting begins?
    Zen Arado: ah not much of it about in wartime !
    Wol Euler: sam, I am not anti-christian.
    Fael Illyar: ultimately, whatever your morals, it's up to you what you have. Whether you dress them up as coming from God or not :)
    Wol Euler: I encourage your christianity.
    Zen Arado: other side is subhuman of course
    Wol Euler: honestly, no cynicism or hidden digs at all
    Wol Euler: we differ in my view only in one point: You state that non-christians must be immoral, I state that this is not necessarily true.
    Samuel Okelly: im glad to hear that wol as i often feel that my genuine respect for other "beliefs" is not matched
    Fael Illyar: that's what free will is about.
    Fael Illyar: we get to decide ourselves.
    Samuel Okelly: " You state that non-christians must be immoral, " NO I DO NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Adelene Dawner: If your faith is useful to you in staying moral, I definitely encourage it, since discouraging it would be equivalent to encouraging you to harm others. But I'm a bit annoyed at your repeated implications that *everyone* needs that kind of assistance. I was raised Christian, and left when I found that code to be doing more harm than good in my life.
    Wol Euler: sam, I accept that you do not mean to. But it certainly sounds that way, at least to me.
    Wol Euler: perhaps I am oversensitive.
    Fael Illyar: Samuel, your argumentation definitely does give that impression.
    Wol Euler: in which case I apologise, I am trying to be fair.
    Samuel Okelly: that is not an opinion that is a fcat I DO NOT SAY THAT!!
    Zen Arado: in the 18th century you would not dare admit to being an atheist
    Samuel Okelly: for the record i am suggesting that atheists can be moral DESPITE their atheism
    Zen Arado: no one would trust you
    Wol Euler: ah, thank you for taht. My impression was that you felt the opposite.
    Wol Euler: clearly we are communicating badly, and I am at least as guilty of that as you.
    Zen Arado: anyway I have to go
    Zen Arado: thanks for the discussion
    Adelene Dawner: cya, Zen. It was nice having you ^.^
    Wol Euler: bye zen, it was grand. Take care.
    Fael Illyar: See you Zen :)
    Zen Arado: bye


    The source of atheistic morals, or: do we actually disagree? 

    Samuel Okelly: it is also my contention that the LOGICAL source of the atheisitic view of morals is THE SELF i.e. dont do that cos i dont want you to
    Samuel Okelly: tc zen
    Wol Euler: I would rephrase that slightly: I will not do that because I do not want ME to do it.
    Wol Euler: I do not wish to suggest a morality for you.
    Adelene Dawner: *nods at Wol*
    Wol Euler: I am amazed that we can argue so strongly when we appear to be broadly in agreement.
    Adelene Dawner: And I'll go so far as to make the generalization that any atheist (or even, any person) who tries to dictate someone else's morals is kind of an ass.
    Wol Euler: I find pedophelia just as offensive as you do, sam.
    Wol Euler: why should we argue about it?
    Samuel Okelly: that is not in doubt wol
    Samuel Okelly: but the question for all of us is "WHY IS IT WRONG"?
    Fael Illyar: the answer to that question is "Because you decide it is
    Adelene Dawner nods at Fa.
    Samuel Okelly: my faith informs me (admitedly rightly or wrongly) that is against the will of God...
    Wol Euler: it is wrong because it is hurtful and demeaning, because it creates imbalance in the world
    Samuel Okelly: "because it is hurtful and demeaning" same question... why is that wrong?
    Samuel Okelly: if "I" decide it is moral justified am i wrong?
    Fael Illyar: "why is it against the will of God?"
    Adelene Dawner: same reason that 'because it's against the will of god' means it's wrong: because you decided that.
    Wol Euler: exactly.
    Samuel Okelly: on the contrary ade
    Wol Euler: why does god think it is wrong?
    Samuel Okelly: there is a MASSIVE difference
    Adelene Dawner chuckles.
    Samuel Okelly: one is acting on MY will and the other is making reference to an objective moral truth
    Fael Illyar: how do you know the will of god?
    Wol Euler: why does god think it is wrong?
    Samuel Okelly: bla bla bla
    Adelene Dawner: 'objective'?
    Adelene Dawner: o.O?


    A favourite example (apparently). 

    Samuel Okelly: so the atheist will not critisise the peadophile if they say it is "right" for them?
    Adelene Dawner: so it's objectively morally true that it's wrong to *tries to remember the reference, here* eat shellfish?
    Wol Euler: why do we always come back to pedophilia?
    Samuel Okelly: why cant you answer answer the challenge?
    Adelene Dawner skooches away from Sam. "Yes, why DO we always come back to that?" ^.-
    Wol Euler: no sam, the atheist will say that the pedophile is wrong, whatever excuse he might think up
    Samuel Okelly: is there because you do not have a valid answer?
    Fael Illyar: Samuel, that is entirely up to the atheist.
    Fael Illyar: you're asking for an answer that will be both right and wrong, depending on exactly who is the person.
    Samuel Okelly: to say "it is up to the atheist" or at least "theindividual" has serios or at least signifacant LOGICAL conseqyuences
    Wol Euler sighs and looks around. Would anyone here present excuse pedophilia in any real person under any real circumstance?
    Samuel Okelly: either we each construct what is moral or we come to "understand" what is moral and there is an important disticntion
    Adelene Dawner: None that I can think of, Wol.
    Fael Illyar: what is the difference between constructing and "understanding"?
    Wol Euler: fael, for the sake of argument please answer my question
    Fael Illyar: No, I don't excuse pedofilia.
    Wol Euler: thank you.
    Wol Euler: sam?
    Samuel Okelly: searching for a digression wol?
    Wol Euler sighs again. I am attempting to answer the question you keep asking us.
    Samuel Okelly: it appears you are rather disengenusouly avoiding giving an answer
    Fael Illyar: (Wol is tired of you bringing up the pedofilia so is trying to deal with it so it's no longer necessary)
    Wol Euler: I have answered several times. You are disingenuously ignoring my answers
    Samuel Okelly: the point has been mad clearly that ANY SOCIAL ILL can be replaced
    Adelene Dawner: Except no, they can't.
    Adelene Dawner: 'Cause there *are* things that you'd consider social ills, or that most christians would, anyway, that we *wouldn't* all agree on.
    Wol Euler: and vice versa
    Adelene Dawner: *nods*
    Samuel Okelly: what gives the the atheist any right to tell anybody else they are wrong?
    Wol Euler: just as protestants and catholics do not agree on some things.
    Fael Illyar: what gives you the right to tell anybody else they are wrong, Samuel?
    Samuel Okelly: tye atheist is left with themself and only themself
    Adelene Dawner: They don't have that right, Sam. They have the right to point out that something is definitely or potentially harmful, but, as similar as that is, it's not hte same thing.
    Wol Euler: and therefore?
    Samuel Okelly: and indoing so they impose a value judgment
    Wol Euler: as if you don't!
    Adelene Dawner: 'harmful' can be proved or disproved. 'wrong' can't be.
    Wol Euler: sorry, I retract that.
    Samuel Okelly: it appears clear that you are not familiar with the atheism of satre?
    Adelene Dawner purrs at Wol: Take a 9, Luv.
    Wol Euler: or perhaps I am very familiar with it and I reject it, sam?
    Fael Illyar is not familiar with it.
    Adelene Dawner isn't either.
    Wol Euler: sartre was an arrogant and selfish shit, as demonstrated by his treatment of de Beauvoir
    Wol Euler: and his atheism was constructed to enable his pleasures and his conceit.
    Wol Euler: I will grant you that entirely, sam.
    Fael Illyar: all I understand with "atheist" is someone who doesn't accept that there's a bearded guy up in the skies telling people how to act.
    Samuel Okelly: it strikes me that you are arguing in favour of an objective moral truth that is contrary to atheism
    Wol Euler: I am stating that atheists can be moral being too.

    The chat log will prove -- er, something. 

    Samuel Okelly sighs
    Samuel Okelly: thankfully these discussions are recorded
    Adelene Dawner: the only kind of objective moral thing I can point to, at all, is 'I think X'.
    Wol Euler: unless you equate "moral" with "christian"?
    Adelene Dawner: Or 'I see X' or 'I've been told X'
    Samuel Okelly: that supports my initiasl claim ade
    Wol Euler: do you see those two words as absolutely and necessarily equal?
    Samuel Okelly: "i think X"
    Fael Illyar: "I think X" ... such as where X is "God's will is that pedofilia is wrong"
    Wol Euler: whereas you say "I believe X".
    Fael Illyar: for me, it'd just be "I think pedofilia is wrong"
    Adelene Dawner: I think hurting people is wrong. I see that most people agree, but that it's not universal. I've been told that that's the common experience - that it's not a local phenomenon. I've seen that some things I do, that I think will not be harmful, are. I've been told that this is a common phenomenon.
    Samuel Okelly: i say peadophilia is wrong NOT because "I" say it is but because of an understanding / acknowldgment and belief in an ultimate Good
    Fael Illyar: What's the difference?
    Wol Euler: well then, we agree that it is wrong.
    Samuel Okelly: the atheist says it is wrong" because it is what "They" think
    Adelene Dawner nods at Wol "And does it matter why?"
    Samuel Okelly: i think it is very important ade
    Fael Illyar: all difference I can see is an added layer of complexity for choosing to believe so.
    Wol Euler: it contradicts my beliefs too, sam.
    Adelene Dawner: Why is it important, Sam?
    Samuel Okelly: one is an arrogant "I knwo what is best " attitude and the other is a response in humility to something greater than us
    Adelene Dawner: And, given the limited number of hours in a day, why is finding that out more important than spending the time refining what you consider right and wrong?
    Wol Euler: I disagree. I too position myself in regard to something of higher value and endurance than my whim
    Adelene Dawner hmms. "And why is that arrogance/humility difference important?"
    Samuel Okelly: i am not so arrogant as to assume that i can judge the moral value of the entire human race
    Wol Euler: no, you let god do it for you.
    Adelene Dawner: yeees.... but what does it matter if someone else is arrogant in that way (which... we're not, most of us atheists/agnostics...)

    A question is posed, which dominates the rest of the session. Not the question itself, though: we argued about the way we were talking about the question. 

    Samuel Okelly: person A says action X is wrong and person B says action X is right
    Samuel Okelly: which person do we believe?
    Wol Euler points again to protestants and catholics.
    Fael Illyar: too little information to answer your question.
    Adelene Dawner: Is arrogance/humility a useful heuristic there?
    Samuel Okelly sighs
    Wol Euler: people are people, sam. they will always disagree
    Samuel Okelly: that does nothing to help our understanding of ultimate truth
    Wol Euler: I would love to live in a world without disagreement, with no war or lawyers.
    Fael Illyar: Sam, how would you answer your own question?
    Fael Illyar: Wol, wouldn't that be dull?
    Samuel Okelly: as a "theist" i would look to see which person reflected the will of God
    Wol Euler: shhhhh
    Fael Illyar: Samuel, how would you know the will of God?
    Samuel Okelly: but that is hardly surprising
    Adelene Dawner: Just because someone's arrogant doesn't mean they're De Facto wrong... and just because someone's trying to figure out morals on their own doesn't mean they're arrogant. I have a very strong drive to get my ethics as right as I can, and that *requires* that I be *very* humble and willing to pay attention to others' experiences and revise my behavior when it turns out that I've been causing harm.
    Wol Euler nods
    Samuel Okelly: as i said earlier fael, i fully acknowledge the difficulty that that implies but it is a secondary issue which at least begins with an acknowledgment of a god
    Fael Illyar: I find it very relevant here.
    Fael Illyar: how do you know it's God's will and not your opinion?
    Samuel Okelly: but all the time ade it is YOUR view, it is YOUR value judgment
    Wol Euler: how would you resolve the difficulty though?
    Samuel Okelly: an ability to know the "will of God" in no way excuses the selfish origin of the etheistic view
    Adelene Dawner: Except when it's not, Sam. The only thing I bring to the table is, I don't want to hurt people. If someone says that I am or might be hurting them, I stop and listen. That's not my opinion or judgement.
    Wol Euler: how would you resolve the difficulty though?
    Fael Illyar: is it not as selfish to believe you know the will of God?
    Samuel Okelly: it requires humility
    Samuel Okelly: but that is an entirely seperate issue
    Adelene Dawner needs to afk for a few minutes.
    Fael Illyar: What I'm getting at here is how do you know what you do is different from what atheists do?
    Samuel Okelly: avoiding the digression , we shouldnt be surprised that you are unable to give a logical answer as these are challenging questions for any atheist
    Wol Euler: I'm curious though, you posed a question expeting us to answer it in a way that defined the thought process of atheists. How do you answer it, how do you resolve the difficulty?
    Fael Illyar: (Wol, I already asked for that answer and he gave it)
    Wol Euler: no he dodged the issue.
    Wol Euler: [15:15] Samuel Okelly: as i said earlier fael, i fully acknowledge the difficulty that that implies but it is a secondary issue which at least begins with an acknowledgment of a god
    Samuel Okelly: i didnt dodge the issue i acknowledged that knowing the will of God is a seperate issue entirely and has NO baring on establishing the origin of aethistic moral code
    Adelene Dawner: back
    Wol Euler: aha, ok. and how do you then decide the question you asked us?
    Wol Euler: wb ade
    Samuel Okelly: read back wol, i answered that one too
    Samuel Okelly: its really quite simply
    Wol Euler: I am reading back, could you quote it please because I cannot see where you gave an answer.
    Samuel Okelly: for the theist moral virtue comes not from the individual but from God
    Wol Euler: okay.
    Samuel Okelly: for teh aethit it comes from the assertion of the self
    Adelene Dawner: [15:14] Samuel Okelly: as a "theist" i would look to see which person reflected the will of God
    Wol Euler: and you know of this moral virtue how?
    Adelene Dawner: Sam? Give details.
    Samuel Okelly: if we look at this clearly and logicaly.....
    Fael Illyar: could you just admit you can't answer the question?
    Samuel Okelly sighs
    Wol Euler: perhaps he can.
    Wol Euler: Sam?
    Adelene Dawner suggests we shh and let him try.
    Fael Illyar: Ok, I'll wait :)



    Samuel Okelly: without respect i feel no obligation to remain
    Wol Euler: we are attempting to respect you.
    Adelene Dawner: ...but you're not making it easy.
    Samuel Okelly: If cynical dismissive condescension is all you have to resort to then maybe we should finish here
    Wol Euler: no sam, that is not all we have, and it is also not what we are doing.
    Samuel Okelly: [15:24] Wol Euler: perhaps he can.
    Samuel Okelly: [15:23] Fael Illyar: could you just admit you can't answer the question?
    Samuel Okelly: [15:24] Adelene Dawner suggests we shh and let him try.
    Wol Euler: the perhaps was intended to quiet down fael
    Fael Illyar: all I'm asking is that you either answer the question or admit you can't. Please stop dodging it.
    Wol Euler: ade is agreeing with you.
    Adelene Dawner nods at Fa.
    Samuel Okelly: "let him "try".... "perhaps"
    Wol Euler: we are waiting for you to answer the question. Eagerly and with curiosity.
    Adelene Dawner nods at Wol.
    Samuel Okelly: without respect i am happy to leave what i have stated on the chat log
    Wol Euler: my "perhaps" was intended to suggest to Fael that she was jumping the gun, pre-judging your answer
    Samuel Okelly: i was happy to continue
    Wol Euler: please do so.
    Fael Illyar: sorry, seems I'm getting impatient with the dodging.
    Samuel Okelly: but i wont demean myself by responding to sniping jibes
    Samuel Okelly: seesm like atheist struggle with respect
    Samuel Okelly: afterall it is easy to "respect" ppl you agree with
    Adelene Dawner: Are you going to answer the question, Sam? It looks like you're dodging, again.
    Samuel Okelly sighs
    Wol Euler: sam, in fairness I must point out that you say this to us and worse, many times.
    Samuel Okelly: quotes please wol
    Wol Euler: it is judgemental, yes, and I am sorry that I do it. I try not to.
    Wol Euler: "sickening hypocrisy"
    Wol Euler: and there was the earlier one about "arrogance" ...
    Adelene Dawner: Wol, you're helping him change the subject.
    Samuel Okelly: of atheism yes!
    Wol Euler: those are not respectful words, sam.
    Wol Euler: and yes, I am helping you change the subject.
    Samuel Okelly: it is hypocritical
    Samuel Okelly: by definaition that ios exactly what it is
    Adelene Dawner: Sam, has any atheist *here* tried to tell you how to believe? And if not, why are you fussing at *us* about it?
    Samuel Okelly: atheism is defines itself by an abscence of any transendental being
    Wol Euler: answer her question, please.
    Adelene Dawner: so?
    Samuel Okelly: so for the atheist to suggest that the reason why anything is wrong as "it just IS" is hyporacsy
    Wol Euler: answer her question, please.
    Samuel Okelly: for the atheist to suggest that the reason why anything is wrong as "it just IS" is hyporacsy
    Wol Euler: answer Ade's question please.
    Samuel Okelly: respond to my point please
    Wol Euler sighs.
    Samuel Okelly sighs
    Wol Euler: You first, please.
    Wol Euler: I cannot give a respectful and sincere answer without knowing which of us has told you how to believe.
    Samuel Okelly: you are making assumptions that i have not made
    Wol Euler: answer Ade's question please.
    Samuel Okelly: i have made any such claim about anybody here
    Fael Illyar: You keep talking of this person you call 'Atheist' Who is that?
    Wol Euler: then please answer her second question; given that none of us is telling you what to believe, why are you angry at *us* about it?
    Adelene Dawner: ty Wol
    Samuel Okelly: just as you wrongly assume i made such an assertion you are equally wrong to suggest that i am angry at "you"
    Samuel Okelly: supposition on your part does NOT equate to fact
    Adelene Dawner: Well, I said 'fussing at'. I can rephrase that, but the question of why you keep bringing it up still seems like a good one to ask.
    Wol Euler: I might well say that same to you.
    Samuel Okelly: the atheist to suggest that the reason why anything is wrong as "it just IS" is hyporacsy
    Samuel Okelly: THAT is my point that remains unaddressed
    Wol Euler: I apologise for having allowed myself that moment of lightheartedness. I bitterly regret that instant of attempted humour, and promise never again to speak so freely.
    Adelene Dawner: Has anyone here said that? If not, why do you keep bringing it up to us?
    Wol Euler: if you will check back, I did go on to explain in greater detail what that "is" is based on.
    Adelene Dawner: As did I.
    Wol Euler: indeed
    Samuel Okelly: the point wol is NOT in the nature of the ethical value assumed but in the origin
    Adelene Dawner: WHO CARES?
    Wol Euler: and that point is?
    Wol Euler: it seems to me that you assume that beliefs that are not based on God's word are worthless. Is that a fair summary?
    Samuel Okelly: read back over what i have written wol and it is clear what "i believe"
    Wol Euler: it seems to me that you assume that beliefs that are not based on God's word are worthless. Is that a fair summary?
    Wol Euler: yes or no, please
    Wol Euler: because I am really not sure.
    Adelene Dawner: Wol, I'm out. Let me know when you're done (I may be afk) and if I can get my brain doing something other than spinning in little irritated circles, we can talk about suicide and the related ethics.
    Samuel Okelly: why should Ianswer what appears to be an offensive and cynical attempt at bedgering?
    Wol Euler: I have thought many times that we were in agreement.
    Wol Euler: because it is part of conversatoin, and part of life, and a demonstration of the respect that you want us to show you?
    Fael Illyar: I belive Wol is honestly not sure.
    Wol Euler: please respect us too. Turning your back is disrespectful.
    Samuel Okelly: I will not demean myself and respond to any such condescension and I would expect others to do likewise
    Wol Euler: I repaet, I thought several times that we were in agreement. Why do we keep arguing?
    Samuel Okelly: repeating what you have already said only highlights your disissibve approach / tne
    Wol Euler: I truly don't understand what is at the ROOT of this apparent disagreement.
    Samuel Okelly: tone
    Fael Illyar: It's much faster and more reliable to clarify things like what Wol is asking by asking to clarify if the understanding is correct.
    Samuel Okelly: i disagree fael
    Fael Illyar: in your case it is not, because you refuse to answer though.
    Samuel Okelly: because of the disrespect shown i am left wondering if iin doing so it is a simple ploy to cause digression
    Wol Euler: what disrespect? that we have asked for clarification?
    Fael Illyar: well, if so, then you're stepping right into the ploy. What's the point in that?
    Samuel Okelly: as i said earlier i have answered all points raised several times
    Samuel Okelly: the chat log will show this
    Fael Illyar: we clearly haven't understood your answers.
    Fael Illyar isn't quite sure why you keep pointing to the chat log.
    Wol Euler: it is apparent to me that neither Fael nor Ade nor myself have understood you in a few key points, which is why we have raised questions about htem, as the chat log will also show


    We sit in silence for a few moments.

    Wol Euler: it seems to me that we are going in circles. I respectfully suggest that we close the discussion for tonight.
    Samuel Okelly: i agree
    Fael Illyar: Yes, See you later Wol, Samuel :)
    Wol Euler: sam, I feel no animosity and I mean no disrespect.
    Wol Euler: I have no desire to take you away from your belief.
    Samuel Okelly: i think a lot is lost in chat here
    Wol Euler: I merely try to understand.
    Wol Euler: yes, indeed, there is so much of RL conversation that is missing in plain chat.
    Samuel Okelly: i do not bare grudges ... (much ;-)
    Wol Euler: I'm sorry if I came across as angry, and have to admit that at times I was :)
    Samuel Okelly: and i dont take anything personaly here on sl
    Wol Euler: I do try to control my temper, and moderate my tone.
    Samuel Okelly: i guess that is a skill when discussing topics
    Fael Illyar: seems I still have work to do on my patience :)
    Wol Euler: mmhmm, especially when they are topics that close in on our identities.
    Wol Euler: "I AM an atheist"
    Wol Euler: "I AM a catholic"
    Wol Euler: well, no wonder that we get upset.
    Wol Euler smiles
    Samuel Okelly: well i can genuinely say that i look forward to chatting with you both again :)
    Wol Euler: good!
    Fael Illyar smiles.
    Wol Euler: I hope that you will not go away angry, sam.
    Samuel Okelly: tc every1 :)
    Wol Euler: goodnight, take care
    Samuel Okelly: lol
    Samuel Okelly: "angry sam"
    Samuel Okelly: not at all wol
    Wol Euler smiles
    Fael Illyar: Thank you Sam, I look forward to hearing the answer to the question that is now left nagging at me :)
    Samuel Okelly: cheerio for now every2 :)
    Wol Euler: 'night
    Wol Euler: and goodnight fael.
    Fael Illyar: Goodnight Wol :)
    Viewing 1 of 1 comments: view all
    Originally written on 19:28, 16 Feb 2009
    Reading this log makes my stomach turn somersaults. -Adams
    Posted 06:46, 9 Apr 2010
    Viewing 1 of 1 comments: view all
    You must login to post a comment.
    Powered by MindTouch Core