Strong Atheism: A Philosophical Justification

2006-07-31 [ceridwen]: The more I read this, the more I start to think that I have all the potential to be a strong athiest, but not the motivation. xP

2006-07-31 [Sedition]: i am a sort of undercover strong athiest,you wouldnt know i was one until you got in a deep debate with me

2006-07-31 [Dil*]: yep, I'm mostly undercover because our public relations is so piss poor.

2006-07-31 [ceridwen]: I just love using God as an excuse/crutch. "'Cause God said so" works every time. xD No one can win an agrument against that.

2006-07-31 [Sedition]: bleh,speaking of public relations,i read a study not to long ago about america's most untrusted minorities,guess who is #1?

2006-07-31 [ceridwen]: ... Rabid bunnies? ... >.>

2006-07-31 [Sedition]: exactly XD

2006-07-31 [M_Sinner]: "Atheists are not less moral than theists. Looking at atheist vs. theist crime rate, atheists actually commit less crimes." -- The page. I'd actually like to see statistics on this one... Burden of proof and all that. ;) I suppose that I could be your first roast victim in here. Let me start with this idea: The "Omnibenevolence" of God. I hadn't actually heard of this until now. I certainly don't think that God is "Omnibenevolent" by todays definition of the word... "I am a jealous God," The instances in Sodom and Gommorah (I reference these because as long as I'm talking about the Christian God, I'm going to assume that the instances in the Bible are true... I'm not posting this-

2006-07-31 [Dil*]: Okay, I'll exhume the statistics on that one, but I'm more leaning towards 'equal crime rate' myself. But some of my atheist buddies disagree, I'll ask them.

2006-07-31 [M_Sinner]: -as "fact" in the sense that you must accept this... ust saying that as long as we're entertaining the notion, entertain the WHOLE notion, not selective parts.), the very existance of hell... from these it seems to me that God can be a vengeful sonofabitch! As far as the Omniscience, this I do believe in... and I do wonder about the idea of "Free Will." (In fact, I've pissed off my friends a few times by proving to them that they don't really have free will.). The way I see it, God knows the outcome of every possible solution for evey possible choice or combination of choices to ever be made. I'm not sure if this limits our will. He just knows what's going to happen in any given--

2006-07-31 [M_Sinner]: situation. Finally (for now) about the idea of there being 10,000 different Christian denominations. I hate people. It's funny how some think that exact adherence to a set of laws is required for salvation. The way I see it is that, assuming that God exists, we're going to fail the expectations of Perfection over and over again, so who the hell says "This is where the bar is."?! Oh well. My point here is that I don't agree with how Christianity has divided up, and I don't really think that any of them have it exactly right. I guess it's kind of a Chris Rock/Dogma thing... "You can change an IDEA... you can't change a religion."

2006-07-31 [kay-chan]: Yeah, I don't believe in God, so 'atheist' is right. And as for 'atheists commit less crimes', last I heard, the US had 60% christians and probably a slew of other religions... so technically, there are less athiests TO commit crimes. :P But maybe statistially that would work out.

2006-07-31 [Dil*]: The thing about free will, read over the logical proof *carefully*, it addreses how we can't have free will if 1. God created the universe. 2. God knows the future. You don't agree with how christianity is divided up, but you probably have a liberal idea of the bible. And omnibenevolence is supposed to be the standard with the xian god. If not, why would one want to follow an imperfect possibly evil being?

2006-07-31 [ceridwen]: Not everyone wants to be good. Evil is pleasing... And sometimes you want a leader. It doens't matter how wrong they are, as long as you have someone to follow, blame, and give you answers.

2006-07-31 [Dil*]: ....*Okay* you guys are really throwing me off. So the xian god isn't good? The xian god is kinda evil and doesn't mind inflicting suffering upon the world. Damn that's immoral.

2006-07-31 [M_Sinner]: Oh, I think that God is "Right" in what he does, but when you think "Omnibenevolence," it gives the idea that god goes around planting flowers, throwing rainbows, and healing the sick... and NOTHING ELSE. The Bible's definition in this case is that "God's will=Good" and "Anything against God's Will (Not necessarilly outside it, just against it)= Evil." So we can't really apply those terms to the argument... because the "Good" that happened in Sodom and Ghommorah certainly aren't "Good" by the standards of Modern society. Basically, you can't force definitions of good and evil on God (but, this is a matter of Faith. If you don't believe in God, people often say that that's the only --

2006-07-31 [M_Sinner]: thing that we can be doing. Will respond to the other points in just a moment. Just want to get this posted.

2006-07-31 [ceridwen]: Morals are overrated. And they are not something set in stone. Morality all depends on you. What I consider moral, you may not. It changes. So... Having a god who does whatever he please may not seem immoral to some. (I hope that made sense.)

2006-07-31 [Dil*]: 1. Do you believe that the bible is the word of god? 2. If so, then all things in the bible should be vigorously obeyed. 3.There's alot of mind-destroying jibberish in the bible, but one still has to obey it if they believe #1 and #2.

2006-07-31 [kay-chan]: Heh... relative morality. Ewwwww. Icky question of 'is morality relative?' and all that good stuff. >.< But yeah, didn't Jesus come about and basically kind of overthrow the old testament?

2006-07-31 [M_Sinner]: I understand your point on free will, and as I said, I don't really know if we have complete free will. I still think about this quite a bit. LMy current idea on the matter is that God knows all the different possibilities of all the different combinations of choices that can be made. That constitutes his "Omniscience." But we make those decisions and follow the course. It would seem that what you're saying is that a psychologist who can deduce what a person is going to do by psychoanalyzing them would deny that person of their free will... I don't know that it does.

2006-07-31 [Dil*]: the new testament also has alot of mind-destroying jibberish. Just less of it.

2006-07-31 [Dil*]: Sine, you don't understand the proof then. The psychologist didn't create the person. If one knows exactly how one would behave, *and* created them, then the person *cannot* have free will, it is a contradiction.

2006-07-31 [kay-chan]: Heh, never said the new testament wasn't as mind-destroying as a lobotomy, just saying that God's will is apparently not rock-solid if he can 'alter' it through his 'only son'. But as for free will, I could get into a debate about determinism... I don't think I will, cuz it doesn't have much to do with God, just saying that free will can also be denied in the absence of religion. :P

2006-07-31 [Dil*]: The free will thing is theoretical with god. I'm a determinist anyways.

2006-07-31 [M_Sinner]: 1. Yes. 2. No. If the word of god must be obeyed (and, keep in mind, as long as we're entertaining this notion that the Bible is true, we must entertain all of it), then how is it that Moses directly disobeyed God (Talk with the rock, and nothing else... Moses whacked it with a stick instead of talking) but was still called "God's Greatest Servant" and was "seen" in heaven by multiple prophets (again, we're entertaining all of it for the time being). Strict adherence is certainl not a requirement. I'll talk more later. My parents want to have "Family Time." I'll leave with this small and unexplored sentiment-- Perhaps "creation" means that God physically created the material and--

2006-07-31 [M_Sinner]: design for the human body of a person, but the psychology and mind is another matter. gotta go. Talk more later.

2006-07-31 [ceridwen]: I'm a bit confused... How is it not rock solid? I was taught he always knew we as humans would mess up. He sent Jesus down to save us, and thus glorify himself. When did he alter his will?

2006-07-31 [kay-chan]: I'm a determinist, too, but I also just wrote a paper about why we shouldn't CARE about determinism. ^.^

2006-07-31 [ceridwen]: ... And I have no idea what determinism really is. O.o

2006-07-31 [kay-chan]: Do you wanna read my paper on determinism? :D The old god was definitely not all-loving (kill your enemies down to the last woman and child, etc), and then Jesus said he was.

2006-07-31 [ceridwen]: ... You can love people and still hurt them. We humans do it all the time. And I would love to read your paper. ^.^

2006-08-01 [kay-chan]: My paper is in my blog, a description of determinism included and everything. ^.^ http://swivelchairstudios.blogspot.com/2006/06/argument-for-determinism.html And in the old testament, God was BLOODTHIRSTY. Every other page practically is dictating the death of people who disobey him, or ordering the death of another people that aren't the Israelites... etc. :( It wasn't very omnibenevolent to me...

2006-08-01 [ceridwen]: ... Eh... I wouldn't say bloodthristy. There was a lot of wars, though. And things were different back then. I'm sure if I still followed the xian faith I could back up the wars with some logical explaination. I have no use for such things anymore, though. *le sigh*

2006-08-01 [Sedition]: logical explanation?what logical,ethical,or even strategic purpose was their to slaying thousands of civilians,and ripping babies out of pregnant women's stomachs?

2006-08-01 [ceridwen]: Ethics are relative, so there could be a purpose for that. But that's not osmething I want to get into. Stratgetic I can explain. It proves a point. Slaying civilains would prove that one has power, that one has control over them. Also, it could be considered punishment. The xian god is considered a just god, at least by the xians. Justice must be served, thus the evil must be punished. It all makes sense, if you want and allow it to.

2006-08-01 [ceridwen]: I have to say it is a very well written paper, [kay-chan], But I am a bit confused when it comes to free choice and voluntariness. I suppose I fail to see the difference. Or better yet, I fail to see the lack of free choice.

2006-08-01 [Cliché]: Ooo! I wanna debate too! Wanna know one of my huge problems with the bible? Other than the obvious of course? The whole thing is baised against women. A woman is responisble for original sin, a women asks for the head of John the Baptist, etc, etc.

2006-08-01 [Sedition]: well thats becuase the people that wrote the bible are from an era were pretty much all societies were patriarch run.

2006-08-01 [kay-chan]: Well, let's leave the debate of determinism out of this comments box; I could give lectures on the subject, but it doesn't relate to this page. ^.^; But yeah, I fail to see the justness of slaughtering people for the reason that they were 'sinners,' and killing women/children and taking virgin women as forced wives is just the sign of a power-hungry ruler, not a benevolent diety.

2006-08-01 [ceridwen]: Like I said, morality is relative. So you may not see how it is just, but apparently the xian god and xians do. And I prefer to think if there is a god, he/she isn't all benevolent. 'Cause that just isn't as fun.

2006-08-01 [kay-chan]: If that is the xian's thought about what justness is, I'm glad I don't worship him... :( And there are arguments against relative morality, but I don't want to list them in the comments box...

2006-08-01 [ceridwen]: ... Oh, please don't take what I say to be the view of xians. I'm no example of thier faith.

2006-08-01 [kay-chan]: Heh, devil's advocate? Most christians now just worship Jesus, really, with 'God loves us all and never kill anyone evar rawr' thing...

2006-08-01 [Dil*]: So they attempted to take the decent crap out of the bible and reject the rest of the scary shit. That's religious moderations for you. Then again, religious moderation is born of scriptural ignorance and secular knowledge as Sam Harris so nicely put it. To Sine: Ohhh, so we're not supposed to obey the bible...entirely..I like the consistency.

2006-08-01 [Fizban]: Omg dil, I love you...sorry I just found the time to read this place. I love the pink unicorn argument!! *envisions a pink unicorn at the gates of heaven, damning people to hell...*...what would the pink unicorns hell be?!...hmmms,...branding irons forever!...people getting (horse) shoes nailed to there feet!!...the equine damnation lol. 

2006-08-01 [Fizban]: I have often tried to use the number of poeple to half assedly predict the probability of a religouns truth. Even though just because one country/govt was capable of encompassing a mass of there country with one beilief and that country happens to be friggen huge, really puts no basis on the probability of the religoun. using logic to out rule the more...strange and considerably wierd religouns is even worse of a system if impossible probaility, because our judgements and opinouns are warped by the relgiouns and culture that is normal to us, thus skewing any real possible way to predict any religouns possibility of existing.

2006-08-01 [M_Sinner]: I want to continue talking here, but I've just gotten some pretty major duties at another site. As such, my posting time on ET will be cut down tremendously and, not to be mean, but I don't really want to spend my short time on here debating. For me it's more of a passtime than something that I really enjoy. That said, it seems that he ball's gotten rolling, so enjoy everyone! Happy hunting debating.

2006-08-02 [Dil*]: I wish there was more than one of me, I'm on so many sites. I'm supposed to be making a geek chick website, I've grossly neglected my ET duties, I'm building this page, I'm building a NIN fans page, I'm on the church of reality, I dove out of a debate about subjective/objective morality..partially because the other person kept on being a dick (mean intellectual). I kinda challenged someone on the proof, and I've probably forgotten something. That is my fictional (not so real life)...my real life..don't want to think about that..so many..things...gah.

2006-08-02 [kay-chan]: Yeah... I have a job, a summer class, work at home to do (painting), and three comics to keep up... So I don't comment much on these debate-y sort of sites. ^.^;

2006-08-03 [Child of God]: So where would you prefer to continue our discussion? Here in the comments or somewhere more specific? I still have to make supper and such before work but I have Friday night and Saturday night off to kill online.

2006-08-03 [Dil*]: comments.

2006-08-03 [ceridwen]: It's funny. I actaully went to church tonight. Southren Baptist xian... I wasn't forced to either. I'm not sure why. Maybe to spite myself, or to confirm most of what's on this page and why I never want to go back. But part of me still believes that there is a god, and that it's the xian one. Heh... I'm an agnostic theist who can't quit going to an xian church. (Sorry if that was a bit off-topic. I thought it fit somehow... with my weird circular logic.)

2006-08-03 [Fizban]: eh...having a belief is more important then the actual belief in my opinoun lol >_<...all religouns say practically the same things anyway, aside from the more abstract ones, such as the godless ones, or the philosophies such as atheism.

2006-08-03 [Fizban]: Experiencing religouns even if you dont or arent sure you believe in them are good anyway lol.

2006-08-03 [ceridwen]: ...Well, to me Christainity is a relationship and not a religion. It can be purely religious, but it's not really supposed to be. It supposed to be about the relationship between one and God. And then you have fellowship. But people mess things up. But I'm slightly brainwashed... I had all of this bored ito my brian, but over the past few years I've been figuring things out for myself. It's a very odd to place to be at.

2006-08-03 [Fizban]: the relationship is one with god, the idea that there is a god to have a relationship with, coincides with the religoun. Christianity, you-god...the jewish faith you-god, the islamic faith you-allah budhism you-buddha and such, transcendentalism you-and everything in the universe (lol)....ect, ect...although thats a philosophy, ect...

2006-08-03 [ceridwen]: ... Wow. I feel stupid.

2006-08-03 [Fizban]: why? >_>

2006-08-03 [ceridwen]: Oh... because I somehow didn't realize that all religions are basicly the same. The whole you-god thing. The only thing different is the way they set up their dogma. Geh...

2006-08-03 [Dil*]: The way they set up their dogma isn't that different either.

2006-08-03 [Fizban]: lol...yeah, alot of them have the same *you believe int his you get our set of rewards, you dont and you get our set of punishments* Tahts why I love transcendentalism...there are no rewards or punishments dictating people. Because aside from coincidental events,...nature and the rest of the universe doesnt deal bad to bad people and good to good ones...shit happens and wonderful stuff happens to everyone. There is no arrogant self righteous stuff...what is, just is.

2006-08-03 [ceridwen]: ... Geh... I constantly feel ignorant when I talk to people like you guys. 'Cause you know what you're talking about. xP

2006-08-03 [Fizban]: Well, I am not speaking for DIL when i say this...but I dont really know my stuff...I know just as much as everyone else. But ya gotta take that and put it together is all.

2006-08-03 [Dil*]: well, both muslim and xian religions have their whole: kill the heretics and burn and hell thing. Jews aren't that far removed from xians as they basically have the same god.

2006-08-03 [ceridwen]: ... Geh... The burn in hell thing you've got right, but not killing the heretics. Even though I don't believe in either faith anymore, I'll still defend them a bit. Aside from the crazy extremist, most would rather convert a heretic than kill them. And the biggest difference between xians and Jews is Christ. Xians believe Christ is the messiah that was prophesied about in the Old Testament. Jews on the other hand are still waiting for the messiah. And xians study the entire bible where Jews use the Torah... So in a way it's the same God, but not exactly the same belief.

2006-08-03 [Fizban]: Yeah hun...we know lol. But the conversions in extreme times always lead to extreme actions such as burning and killing. If we were in an extreme situation involving religouns everyone knows that would be a wanted option. History repeats, and religouns are broken records in my book.

2006-08-03 [ceridwen]: Geh... Sorry. I think I might just read comments for a while until I can come up with something intelligent to say. O.o

2006-08-03 [Dil*]: muslims kill heretics, for sure, I doubt I can live in a predominately muslim country without being murdered. The xians had their whole burn the heretics thing too, just at a different time in history.

2006-08-03 [ceridwen]: Oohh... Top ten signs. >.< I love it. But what's sad is a know a lot of people like that. Luckily, even when I was a xian I never had all ten signs. xP Meh... It crakced me up, though. I'm glad it's on the page.

2006-08-03 [Dil*]: I don't have the energy/rage to write about creationism right now..sigh. Maybe I'll visit some creationists sites and piss myself off. wait..

2006-08-03 [Dil*]: One of my favs: "Those who glorify him [christian god] as a god of love set too little value on love itself. Did this god not want to be a judge as well? But to love is to go beyond reward and punishment" - Nietzsche

2006-08-04 [Fizban]: Nietzshce...he's so funny. Lol...he has a great quote about the death of god, I dont know the exact quote, just that it was of that. And people all hated him then, becasue they are dumb, because they thought that he didnt beleive there was a god at all, and was an evil athiest or something. Stupid people...if he was an athiest, logically speaking, there would never have been a god to die. And second of all...the guy was talking about how all the stupid people have let the faith in religoun die...if I remember correctly ofcourse.

2006-08-05 [Dil*]: No, he meant that God (the concept) was dead because logic/reason and science had killed him. but in that short skit that went along with it, the madman who first shouts that god is dead says something like: "Oh wait, this isn't the time yet.." meaning that it wasn't quite time for the world to deal with the death of god..or it hasn't become apparent to everyone that god was dead. He was an atheist, a hardcore one at that, he was also an existentialist. His writings on christianity are some of the most hateful things I've ever read. He *really* hated christianity.

2006-08-05 [Fizban]: Lol...well then my teacher, thought differently of the man then others.
Whats so bad about christianity? Did he hate the idea, or the people behind it?

2006-08-05 [Fizban]: With his ideals and morals, the Nietsche superman, above other men, thus above there moral constraints, ect...(haven't really studied him, so I don thave the greatest knowledge of him)...He, well...was quite extreme in general. So I wouldn't be surprised to see a bunch of extremist ideas and writings upon christinaity.

2006-08-06 [Dil*]: He is one of the most important philosophers of the modern era of philosophy. Maybe you should read a little more about him..if we're going to discuss him...(I should too, really, but I have the general idea). He despised christianity because he was convinced it was a religion of nihilism and of slave morality. (which included pity and humbleness).

2006-08-06 [Dil*]: Oh, and I hear alot of you are moral relativists..what reasons do you have to back it up? Sorry, but I have to attack everyone on this one because even though I am a moral relativist/subjectivist, but most people have poor reasons for being moral relativists. I used to have piss-poor reasons for being a moral relativist.

2006-08-06 [Cliché]: Hey, for your moral highgrounds section, I have a little anecdote. A boy once asked me why I didn't just do whatever I wanted since I didn't believe god would punish me. My response was, "I still have a conscience, moron. For example, I may want to cause you extreme pain right now, but I won't. Not because god stops me, but because I stop me. Not to mention that's what laws are for."

2006-08-06 [Fizban]: lol...people won't have a conscious without the thought of punishment...that idea is horrible, but soo many people have it.

2006-08-06 [Cliché]: Nah, I punish myself for stuff that isn't even punishable. I think I just have an overeager sense of guilt.

2006-08-06 [Fizban]: Oh crap...bad Cliche, bad! Having too much guilt can be just as bad for you, as having no guilt can be bad for those around you.
They are both detrimental extremes.

2006-08-06 [Cliché]: Oh, it is bad. That's why I never do nothin' wrong. I've gotten better on not dwelling on things. I've made "roll with the punches" my new philosophy on life.

2006-08-06 [Fizban]: Hmmmms...

Eh, I should read about Nietsche....I am hoping to read about him in school lol...

2006-08-07 [Dil*]: you read nietzsche in university philosophy.

2006-08-08 [Fizban]: I figured he would have to be somewhere lol.

I will be lazy and wait till then...

or I could get ahead...or not.

2006-08-08 [Dil*]: I'll be honest, it is a difficult read. Many metaphors and in old english...or latin words thrown in. (thus spake zarathustra or beyond good and evil)

2006-08-08 [kay-chan]: I only took one Phil class in college so far... Bleah. We never really touched Nietzsche, but it was only introduction to phil and yeah. :P

2006-08-08 [Dil*]: I'm not that smart. Really. 

I just have interests in odd places.

2006-08-08 [kay-chan]: Yeah, yeah. SURE DIL. XD Nah, I run my friends under the table with anything concerning anatomy or forensic science; it just matters what you're interested in, and how dedicated you are to learning about it. :P

2006-08-08 [Dil*]: I have a decent grasp of science, oddly, I'm best at geology. Why? Because rocks rock.

2006-08-08 [kay-chan]: Hee! That was punny. ^.^

2006-08-08 [Fizban]: ugh...rocks are too boring to catch my interest...now the innerworkings of the human immune system! that rocks my socks...

2006-08-08 [Dil*]: bleh, biology...

I liked chem better. hehe, chemicals.

2006-08-08 [Cliché]: I wanna be a chem minor, actually. I love the stuff.

2006-08-08 [Dil*]: yeah, chemistry is so fun. Geesh, I'm a geek <3

2006-08-09 [ceridwen]: Pheh... Sciences. Sociology is more up my alley. xP

2006-08-09 [kay-chan]: Chem would have been fun but I had a horrible teacher whom I hate... So that turned me off to the messy science forever. >.< (I got it just fine but in order to pass his tests you had to practically have a degree in it.)

2006-08-09 [Fizban]: my teacher sucked oppositely, he was soo relaxed and careless it was ridiculus.

he acted like, because we were the honors class that we would be able to magically learn everything he didnt teach us...I am surprised I got an 85 on the damned reagents for the thing, cause I feel like I didnt learn anything in that class...

I loved the matierials and subjects though...it was fun.

2006-08-09 [kay-chan]: Lab was my favorite part, even though I was officially cursed. :D I learned more from lab than the class.

2006-08-09 [Cliché]: You were cursed? I gave myself second degree burns!

2006-08-09 [Fizban]: OMG! damn!...I had an idiot in my lab class, so me, my partner, and this jackass got stuck together for half of the year...

So basically, since my partner and I already worked everything out in how we balanced doing all the work..(she woudl do the math, I would do the write ups!! lol...I hate math...>_<...)

We basically made him our lab hand XD...he handled the acids, and he handled the upclose fire...he handled everything we didn't feel like risking ourselves on...hehehehe.

I assume you spilled acids on you Cliche?

2006-08-09 [Cliché]: Nope, plain old boiling water. I still have the scars to prove it!

2006-08-10 [Fizban]: ooh...well thats just boring. lol

2006-08-10 [Cliché]: Hey! It fuckin' hurt! And it was in a beaker, if that makes it more sciency.

2006-08-10 [Fizban]: not really...XD

2006-08-10 [kay-chan]: Ha, maybe a little... Well, I wasn't that cursed, but every single lab for both semesters, the entire year, something went wrong that wasn't my fault that messed up my experiment. Same in biology. Gaaaah.

2006-08-10 [Dil*]: where are the theists?

And own up, who's a moral relativist here?

2006-08-10 [Fizban]: >_>...That sucks...The only lab all year long that my class could do that didnt have some quirk with the materials...

was the one where we genetically altered E-coli bacteria into being resistant to the antibiotic used against it >:) hehehe..that was fun.

Then we made it glow under a florescent light...that was fun too...hahaha ^_^

2006-08-10 [kay-chan]: We accidentally did that... We had to try and kill the E. coli bacteria and we ended up making it resistant to mouthwash. :P Anywho... I'm not a moral relativist because in some cultures they kill people for stupid reasons and I can't think we can look at that and go 'oh, it's just their culture, it's all relative, so in some way that's alright.'

2006-08-10 [Fizban]: yeah...like the girl that got kidnapped in some middle eastern country, who was returned..

they had to kill her because she ~could~ have been raped...thus she would be unpure now, and have to die.

OMFG I HAVE NEVER WANTED TO NUKE A COUNTRY IN MY ENTIRE LIFE...BUT I WANT TO NUKE ANY PARENT THAT THINKS ITS OKAY TO KILL THERE CHILDREN....AT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2006-08-10 [Fizban]: then again I bet the didnt think it was okay...but they did it anyway, cuase there religouns and culture and bullshit said so.

Thats horrible...but I dont care you still dont kill your kids...thats insane....a culture like that is insane.

2006-08-10 [kay-chan]: So who else ISN'T a moral relativist? :P

2006-08-10 [Dil*]: I'm a moral relativist.

But I believe, yes, believe we must make some assumptions to exist.

2006-08-10 [kay-chan]: So are you a total moral relativist, or do you draw the line at some point? We're all moral relativists so some extreme (oh, they worship cows... well, that's kinda wierd but it's part of their culture) but I think on some subjects there is a base morality that's universal-like on the subject of killing other human beings.

2006-08-11 [ceridwen]: I'm a moral relativist... And an agnostic theist... for the time being.

Moral relativism just makes sense to me. No one can tell you what is right or wrong to you... I could go more in depth, but I'm friggen tired right now. >.<

2006-08-11 [Dil*]: It's complicated, I'll explain later.

2006-08-11 [kay-chan]: Now is later! *poke*

2006-08-11 [Dil*]: but I haven't even focused my thoughts..really, in some ways, moral relativism is completely flawed. 

I'm more of a moral subjectivist.

2006-08-12 [kay-chan]: Stop changing your stance on the issue! Grrr! XD Yeah, I change my mind all the time on important issues... And then I'm called a hypocrite cuz I'm advocating a stance I was against earlier. S'BITE ME. :D

2006-08-12 [Dil*]: I'm sorry, the issue itself is very confusing. I was a moral relativist/subjectivist for the early part of my life.

2006-08-13 [Dil*]: Okay guys, bare with me:

Moral Relativism=Incorrect to follow. Use it to examine the radical differences between diff. cultures. It makes one examine their own culture to see if our morality is in fact based upon mere tradition.

I consider Utilitarianism to be a decent system to follow. Read more about it..yourselves. It's advocating a form of moral objectivism that is very hard to defend.

Moral relativism is incorrect because it states that if a certain culture endorses a set of morals, the people living in that said culture must (or have a tendancy) to think that set of morals is the correct set to follow. If one was living in such a culture adheres to the morality of that culture, they are indeed moral according to moral relativism. But I disagree with culture based morality because of the reformer's dilemma. Reformer's dilemma:
Quote:"
CR: An act is morally right if and only if it is permitted by the moral code of the society of its agent at the time of its performance.

What are the three assumptions required in the construction of CR? Be able to explain why each of them is required to get CR up and running.

The Cultural Differences Argument

1. Different societies have different moral codes.
2. If different societies have different moral codes, then CR is an acceptable normative theory.
3. Therefore, CR is an acceptable normative theory. [1,2 MP]

The Reformer's Dilemma

D3. S is a moral reformer =df. S is a person who claims that some part of his own society's moral code is incorrect; S claims that acts declared to be wrong by that code are in fact right, or vice versa.

1. If CR is an acceptable normative theory, then every moral reformer is mistaken.
2. It's not the case that every moral reformer is mistaken.
3. Therefore, it's not the case that CR is an acceptable normative theory. [1,2 MT]"

So it is not necessarily the culture that determines morality, it is the individual. Enter moral subjectivism.

Moral subjectivism states taht morality is determined on an individual's values. Individual values=individual preferences. Preferences are not equal to beliefs/opinions. That's why I disagree with people who say morality is a mere opinion. Preference can be based upon beliefs, but not always.

---->But!

We still haven't found the objective system of morality. Morality can be objective given a set, of set values. But if there are no real objective values (correct preferences to hold), there can never really be an objective morality. There are no objective facts about how to behave in reality. Some libertarians argue for an objective morality and objectivists claim to have found the objective morality, but the key difference between so-called facts about morality and facts about reality is that scientific facts are true no matter what, because science describes. While morality subscribes. (tells us how to behave in reality as opposed to describing what reality is). There is no set/correct way to behave in reality, therefore there is no set/correct prescription. Anyone claiming otherwise better bring forth the meaning of life while their at it.

Visit some links I'm going to provide for gaining your own wisdom about morality. The libertarian link has an excellent arguement for objective morality. You can read it and argue against the moral subjectivists like me.

outlines stances: http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~alatus/phil1200/RelativismObjectivism.html

libertarian article on objective morality (claiming facts about morality): http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux8.html (this link is soo good I almost converted to being a moral objectivist)

2006-08-14 [Fizban]: "key difference between so-called facts about morality and facts about reality is that scientific facts are true no matter what."

Sometimes...and sometimes not. However the scientific process is what I revere most. However there is a shaky shaky line between...fact and hypothesis.

2006-08-14 [Dil*]: do you understand prescription vs. description? That's the key difference..really.

values are inside our minds, natural process proceed regardly of what's insides our minds. without us, there would be no values, but natural processes would still occur in the same manner regardless if the human race existed or not.

2006-08-17 [kay-chan]: Ugh... It is so late at night (early in the morning?) that I have a natural buzz going on. This is how I should read ALL my philosophy. But yeah... I read a book with a really good argument against CR, I'll put that here later. Plus I'll reread moral objectivism... I was really interested in the first paragraph and then got distracted by a blinking light. (REALLY late at night.)

2006-08-20 [Dil*]: The Reformmer's dilemma kills the arguement of cultural relativism...outright.. We don't need more logical proofs.

2006-08-23 [Da Funkmasta' RAG]: I havent really been reading the comments but I read the page descrip. I guess my interpretation of logic is slightly different than yours dil. I learned in my old logic class exactly what I had felt was not right in the past. Just because there is no proof that something exists, doesnt mean that the entity doesnt exist. My prof explained it using really nifty circles that overlap...but I cant really draw them here...nor would I because I am lazy. However, just know that if you ever come across nifty circles in a logic class that might be what I was talking about. Anyways, maybe humans are like the mentally retarded kids trying to fit the square into the circle hole on the box. Maybe god isnt benevolent or whatnot. He could be crazy...I mean if he is there then he was the only fucking thing around for who knows how long. I know that if I were him I would talk to myself and "make up" people to talk to...maybe we are all in its imagination. There are an infinite number of possiblities that you seem unwilling to even play with or ponder. Some thoughts can be fun just to think...I dunno. I could be wrong...I usually am when it comes to anything important. I try to be lighthearted in my approach to reality.

2006-08-24 [Dil*]: Err, okay.

2006-08-24 [Fizban]: >_>...I don't think [Dil*] is being unplayful here, look she just likes pink unicorns more then the god gone wild idea XD

2006-08-24 [ceridwen]: He kinda said what I've said before. I believe in a god... and he/she is a real asshole. xP

I suppose I'm not the sort of person you can really agrue with aoubt this. I either cave and adjust my ideas, or I'm set in my ways, which I'm fully aware defy logic. >.<

2006-08-24 [Dil*]: Did you read dil's razor? It addresses the various characteristics of a 'creator' and how the inability to define it is proof against it's existence.

2006-08-25 [ceridwen]: Yes, yes... I understand that. It's not very probable that there is a god, or that it's the one I believe in. I don't care. I still believe. And... as far as creator, I'm not sure I want to call a god that... S/he may not have created us, or the earth, but have supreme control still. I know it's not logical, but that's how I work.

2006-08-25 [Fizban]: hey, since we don't know for sure, anythings possible.

2006-08-25 [Tekkon KinKreet]: wow... i could follow about half of that.... hmmm... i'm not very smart or i'm really tired... its five in the after noon... i work third shift... and i haven't been to sleep yet.... maybe i'll try another time.... later!

2006-08-26 [Franc28]: It seems to me like there are some steps missing on Dil's Razor. You go right from "there are all these conceptions of God" to "none can be right." It seems to me like there are many conceptions of the emergence of life, but only one can be right. You are missing a step, viz, "there is no method that resolves these differences."

2006-08-26 [lacklustre]: Hmmm...I've been observing this for a while. As for creation, we weren't there but I am fairly certain we weren't there when the accidents spawned the dna sequences that led to early human cells and organisms.

2006-08-26 [Dil*]: Franc, all hypothesis are on equal grounds resulting in infinite possibilities making the possibilities very slim.

"There is no method that resolves these differences" is basically under 'burden of proof'.

2006-08-26 [Franc28]: Oh all right, I see. You could make that a little clearer.

2006-08-26 [ceridwen]: Heh... You need fuel for creationism/intelligent design. Well, I suppose I can play devil's advocate and strike up a friendly agruement. Or I could dig up some of my messages...

2006-08-26 [ceridwen]: OK... I don't know if this will get you going or not, but I'll take a shot.

Creationism - God made it that way. It's simple. It makes sense. Why not believe in it? There is some scientific backing for it, it's just not as widely accepted as the backing for evolution. And logic? It makes more sense that evolution. I evolved from some ooze. Well... Who the hell made that ooze? It didn't just pop out of no where and decide that it was going to be the beginning of all life. Something had to have made that ooze. That entity made something, and thus is a creator.

So creationism works. Hell, it even goes hand and hand with evolution. Slowly the primate evolved into a human. Why? Because the creator saw a need for it to. And then the creator started to mold that creature so it could survive. Why did some of the other become extinct? Because the creator didn't like them. Or he just became apathetic.

So really... the idea isn't all that crazy. It's just as insane as evolution.

2006-08-26 [Franc28]: "God made it that way. It's simple. It makes sense. Why not believe in it?"

It's easy to just cram enormous amounts of conceptual dead weight in a single sentence and use that as your slogan. "God did it." That's easy to say, but if you try to explain at all what it's supposed to mean, you fall into a never-ending ontological labyrinth of frustration and despair (as the modus operandi problem nicely demonstrates).

An atheist can equally cram everything in one simple sentence- "it happened by evolution"- but this, once again, does not make biological evolution conceptually simple. And this is not a simplicity contest. But evolution definitely seems a lot simpler ontologically than "God did it." At least evolution does not involve things we can't observe, measure, or even comprehend. If you try to understand it, it's understandable, you can look at it from all sorts of angles, and you can make predictions based on it. Creationism really serves no purpose except give the Christian hedonists one more way to feel special. "Look, we were all created specially in the image of something really cool, and we're like really really important!" Human beings are not important in the grand scheme of the universe, and it's ridiculous to think otherwise.

2006-08-26 [Sedition]: ive been only watching the discussion for awhile but i figured i would throw in a quick question for ceridwen;If god created everything,what purpose would there of been for the slow process of evolution?would it not of been simpler to just pop everything there in just one instant?that obviuosly didnt happen,so whats your retort?

2006-08-26 [Fizban]: I diagree with your opinoun greatly [ceridwen]. Simplicity is when something can be explained and understood for me. As [Franc28] stated Evolution has evidence supporting it. Manmade claims and things, such as the bible, and man made traditions (as all are)...are the only so called proofs for a creator.

Also, that ooze doesn't need a creator...because it wasnt just put there, it formed there...just like the planets got placed here due to the forces of the universe.

If you imply that there must be a creator for things to be made, then that same form of logic applies to everything...including that creator. So who created the creator is the question that comes of that form of thinking.

2006-08-26 [ceridwen]: My retort is "..." Yeah. I was just trying to get a discussion started on it. I personally don't believe in either creationism or evolution. But... I like debating. So... I'll try.

Heh... Ok, I'm talking about intelligent design, not Christianity. So... in my mind, the creator (or 'god') is not perfect. So let’s say Earth was his first go at all this. He didn't know that the animals wouldn't survive just like that. So he made modifications. He watched. Modified some more.... and so on, until he was satisfied.

Heh. Creationism exists outside of Christianity. Most religions have some sort of god who created everything. So, really, it can be looked at from many different angles, just like evolution. If you try to understand intelligent design, it's understandable. It just requires a little more faith that's all.

"... you fall into a never-ending ontological labyrinth of frustration and despair..." I don't deny that. I don't advocate either sides of this debate. I'm just trying to challenge them, that’s all.

2006-08-26 [ceridwen]: Geh... I realize you disagree, [Fizban]. Even I disagree. And alas, you've got me. Since I don't personally believe this, and have always grappled with who created the creator thing, I am done. I was hoping no one would bring that up. It killed the whole thing. xP

Though... I still wonder... Where did the universe come from? I mean... really. You can't honestly say it doesn't boggle mind... can you? Sure maybe you've settled for it's just there... But that's not enough. It had to have had a beginning... Sorry... It's just one of those things that gets to me.

2006-08-26 [Sedition]: I find your awnser very empty and lacking in pluasible logic.so your saying a god could of created everything,but didnt know what he was doing?it sounds like a poor way of filling pot holes with sand.there is still the problem with who created the creator as everything has a beginning.Anything that requires faith to believe in is obviuosly a logiclly flawed veiw point with little or no real evidence supporting it,and thats just silly.

2006-08-26 [Franc28]: I wouldn't quite go so far as to say that simplicity is a function of understanding, as there are some people who will never understand simple algebra, and yet for others it is second nature. But certainly the grasp we can get on a topic, at an absolute level, is indicative of a certain degree of complexity. If we can get no grasp whatsoever on "God did it", however simple it appears semantically, then it seems safe to say that its complexity, as a belief, is superlatively greater than anything science has discovered- even if it takes less time to believe in.

2006-08-26 [ceridwen]: Yes. It is filling pot holes with sand. What do you expect from me? xP

So... evolution is flawed, and is silly. It requires faith. Hell, almost everything requires faith. But... I really don't want to go into that topic. People never seem to understand my point of view.

2006-08-26 [ceridwen]: Wait a minute... I didn't say that that god created everything, did I? Didn't think so. We already know our galaxy isn't the only one... Or at least it's a widely accepted notion. So... this god created Earth. Some other god could have created everything else. I know... it sounds crazy to you. But... it is possible. Maybe not probable, but possible. And if you go on probability alone, you're a fool. There's a reason we created the word 'exception'.

2006-08-26 [Franc28]: "But... it is possible."

How have you come to that conclusion? Being able to imagine something doesn't make it possible. For instance, I can imagine that Thomas Jefferson did not exist (as a hypothetical), but it is not possible. The probability of Thomas Jefferson existing is 1 (obviously).

2006-08-26 [Sedition]: evolution is not a means of describing how the world began,its a means of explaining how we came to be here even though i species did not previuosly exist in the past as it is now by linking the adaptation of similair yet more primitive species that have come and gone and have shown traits alarmingly similair to our own.its not about who created the universe or why we are here.its just a theory of how we came from point a to point b in a constantly changing environment.the reason evolution is taken more seriuosly by people is becuase evidence is constantly being found to support the theory,its a reasonable claim,and the evidence being found for it is physical and tangible.these things can be tested.you cant really test weither god created the universe or not,its all based on faith,and faith is illogical and panders to those that wish something were true even though nothing supports the idea that it is.evolution isent rock solid,but the cool thing about a theory as opposed to religuos dogma is that a theory can be changed and altered as facts arise,and although we may never know how it all particularly -started-,we will get a good idea of how we got to were we are today from an accepted idea of what our humble beginnings were.

2006-08-27 [Dil*]: hm, I won't jump in here, looks like someone is getting swamped.

2006-08-27 [ceridwen]: Lol.. That person would be me. And I have conceded. I'm too ill to try and back up something I don't really care about.

2006-08-28 [Stratakus]: I enjoy being an Apathetic Agnostic. It's such a simple Philosophy. "Don't Know, Don't Care. What's for dinner?"

2006-08-28 [Stratakus]: Or even better! "Don't Know, Don't Care, In the end... I'm still awsome." Yeah... That one works better.

2006-08-28 [Sedition]: agnostics are too indecisive for my liking.

2006-08-28 [Dil*]: Then you must be a weak atheist.

2006-08-28 [Cliché]: It's funny, I'm a strong atheist, but I'm so tired of justifying myself that I don't even want to bother anymore.

2006-08-28 [NOOOPE]: Dude, this page is awesome. I would throw in my 2 cents but it would take forever. Heh heh. But still. I'm an aspiring buddhist... so I'm not in the list-o God thinkers. *tear*

2006-08-28 [crazycatman]: Franc28, please don't have a go at me I'm not actually disagreeing with you. But I'd like to say that nothing can have a probability of 1 or 0. Including things like the grass will be purple tomorrow, it is highly improbable but not impossible.

This is the problem when dealing with creationism/evolution/tomorrows lunch. Everything is possible and noone can say for a FACT that something can or can't happen, or that something has or hasn't already happened.

My post is gonna get slightly more weird now but fot the example of Thomas Jefferson it's possible that he is a ficticious character made up by historians and governments, if you've read 1984 you'll know it is physically possible to change the past for your own gain. I'm not saying this has happend, it's pretty unlikely lol.

In the end all things are possible although many are very inprobable. Unfortunately modern science hasn't got to the stage that it can controll all variables completely enough to make anything fact. We can only test and repeat enough times to make the chance of a flaw in our experiment so small it's negligable.

Stupid world not being black and white, life would be so much easier lol

2006-08-28 [crazycatman]: On a separate topic but not wholly unrelated I suggest "The Source" by James A Mitchener as a good read on the subject of religion and it's evolution in humanity. It makes all religious types sound like snivelling cowards, which is always good fun hehe

2006-08-28 [Franc28]: "Franc28, please don't have a go at me I'm not actually disagreeing with you. But I'd like to say that nothing can have a probability of 1 or 0. "

What is the probability that you exist?

If you don't answer "1", you have a serious psychological problem that I really can't solve here.

2006-08-28 [crazycatman]: hahaha, probably

but in theory it can't be 1

2006-08-28 [Franc28]: "In theory", communism works.

2006-08-28 [crazycatman]: true, but that's got a lot more to do with human nature than the the probability scale

2006-08-28 [Franc28]: Talk about not getting an analogy.

2006-08-28 [crazycatman]: lol I know what you meant

2006-08-28 [Dil*]: "In theory", communism doesn't work. heh. The theory is flawed because it doesn't take into account many things.

2006-08-28 [Franc28]: Well, true. It was just an example.

2006-08-28 [Dil*]: A crap one :P

What crazy is getting at is that nothing is 'for sure' 100%, but in the mean time...we work with what we've got. And evolution's got so much more than creationism...

Some argue creationism is compatable with evolution because they think maybe god is the first cause' but occam's razor denies this on logical grounds. 

But logic is not infallible.

2006-08-28 [crazycatman]: True, and as you say logic is not infallible, so unfortunately one has to accept the possibillty that a "creator" does exist, but not in the usual creationist sense - we can say the world was not created in 7 days 100 000 years ago, we have enough evidence to be more than 95% sure, and for most experiments that's enough. Until we can get more information about how the universe began it's arrogant to say the idea a god started it is completely impossible. Even if it seems unlikely.

I personally believe it's infinite and has no start or end, it can't not exist, for nothing to exist there has to be something else for "nothing" to occupy. Therefore on a logical basis the Universe is not constrained by time or space. Time being a human concept, and space being relative - who is to say there has to be an end.

2006-08-28 [Dil*]: it's hard to argue against deism, but it's easy to argue against theism because it assumes there are qualities to a creator and that creator actually gives a shit about us puny earthlings.

2006-08-28 [crazycatman]: I was wondering if you actually accepted that there was a difference :P I'm glad you do ^_^

2006-08-28 [Fizban]: Time, the conept was a human creation. That doesn't mean it's not an applicable facet of this universe. Thats like saying a tree is a human creation, just because we named it, or that we created gravity by discovering it. 

Also, you seem to indicate that there is never a logic that points to the existence to god.
As though, there can only be one form of logic, and all else is illogical, because for people to think that there is a god is illogical, and not merely another form of logic.

What is one man's flaw in a logical stand point, is another mans focal point. What is a flaw and is not, is entirely opinoun.

I know I am stating the obvious here, but I feel poeple often loose sight of that.

2006-08-28 [Dil*]: Logic is fallible in some cases, but infallible in others.

It's because there can be too many variables to take into account like crazycatman said.

but a good logical proof is VERY likely to be true. It is much more credible than alot of xian stuff. And a logical proof with empirical evidence thrown in is almost always true.

2006-08-28 [crazycatman]: yes, but we know far more about gravity and trees, Universal time is something we know very little about, only that it moves forward, not why. We have also started to prove that our current views of time are flawed, for example people have bugun to prove that it can slow down, and speed up. We know it can't stop, but that in theory it should be able to go backwards. Time is a human concept that we attempt to apply to the universe, who says that the mechanics of it work the same everywhere?

I have just logically proved that a god can exist in a post before....

2006-08-28 [Franc28]: Uh, no. You haven't proven anything except that you have no idea what "time" means.

2006-08-28 [crazycatman]: not in that post, earlier.

I knew what I was trying to say about time, but can't write it down, that's gonna take many ammendments to get right lol

2006-08-28 [Fizban]: "and we can only judge it by the burning of stars, but that doesn't mean time has to exist, only that fuel runs out, does that necessarily happen at a certain rate as a universal norm."

It's irrelevent whether or not time ~has~ to exist...you dont ~have~ to exist.

All our theories can be wrong, and that wouldn't undo time.

time is "A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future."

We can measure the demension of length, demension of width, demension of depth,...all measurable facets of this universe.  And then you have the demension of Time, yet another measurable facet of this universe.

Width doesnt have to exist by that logic, there doesn't have to be depth is how I am seeing your statements.

There doesn't have to be the air you breath, that doesn't mean its not there.

2006-08-28 [crazycatman]: ah whatever I can't get what I mean to say right, I'll just leave it before I manage to sound even more daft.

2006-08-28 [ceridwen]: "It is much more credible than a lot of xian stuff."

Geh. Why most everyone attack the xians. I understand that some are quite militant, and it's a large religion, but come on. Pick on Mormons or Hindus. Really, Christianity is much more credible than Hinduism...

Heh... Deism is difficult to argue against, but a agnostic theist is hard to argue against. See... I understand that it's improbable and illogical that there is a god, or gods, but I still like the idea of it. And I don't adhere to religion mumbo-jumbo.

...Why is it that when someone believes in a god, people assume that they must adhere to some major religion? (Just a thought...)

2006-08-28 [Franc28]: "Why most everyone attack the xians."

Because that is what we know.

2006-08-28 [ceridwen]: Heh... I suppose. It gets on my nerves after a while though. I mean, I don't really like to defend them, but... They're not as bad or insane as people make them out to be.

2006-09-02 [Fizban]: You like to defend them, but I find that you are doing the same thing.

oh no, xians are that bad at all...quick quick, look at someone else, I am now just going to say are worse the xians who you should be critiscizing is everyone else!! rah-rah-rah.

2006-09-02 [Dil*]: Franc says it the best (echoes franc's previous post)

2006-09-02 [ceridwen]: Gosh... I wasn't saying the Mormons or Hindus are any worse. I was getting annoyed at everything being aimed at the xians. Yes, Mormon was a bad choice because it's somewhat xian, thought most xian don't like to acknowledge that.

Yes, you have torn me and my arguement apart. You win. Congratulations.

2006-09-02 [Franc28]: No religion is correct, basically.

2006-09-02 [crazycatman]: "collectivist beliefs" man :P

2006-09-03 [Fizban]: I have torn you? Are you and your arguement one in the same, or are you being dramtic :P

Because I wasn't aiming anything at you that wouldnt go to your argument first.

It's not that important...oh well-ness.

2006-09-03 [Dil*]: We just happen to know and live with xians, so there you go, it's not that personal...

2006-09-03 [ceridwen]: Sorry... I was in a bad mood. I shouldn't comment when I'm pissed off. >.<

I know it's nothing personal, it's just rather odd for me. I don't like to tear thier faith apart, seeing as I once shared it, and are friends with so many xians. Sorry for my melodrama.

2006-09-03 [Dil*]: I am friends with moderate xians.

2006-09-03 [Cliché]: Me too. Well, only one now. The other one found out I was an athiest and not born through traditional means and basically told me I shouldn't exist, so we kinda grew apart. ^.^

2006-09-03 [Fizban]: LOL...that's not funny that's horrible, but hey....oy vey.

My brother is so big in the christian faith he was sent as a missionary to Africa (Ghana) last year...he was 16 years old.

Lol, my father has worked on weekends taking on responsibilities of christian church since as long as I can remember. Anything from babysitting the children during sunday school that are just too young to be taught, to helping to make descisions on there savings and accounting for managing the church's money.

this is my fraternal twin brother dan...

my older brother Jay...he is a complete and total atheist. He doesn't care to disprove, he just doesn't care to believe...

I am christian at heart, but not in head. My brain tells me in all every way possible, that christianity is a load of bull...

So...I am a transcendental...

which, now that I think of it...means I am an atheist I guess. That feels wierd to think and talk about that XD

2006-09-03 [Franc28]: "My brain tells me in all every way possible, that christianity is a load of bull..."

You should listen to your brain more. It seems to know what it's talking about.

2006-09-03 [Fizban]: I do...thats why I am a transcendental, and why I haven't gone to church in about 8 years...lol.

2006-09-03 [Cliché]: Hey Fizzy, if it's not funny, why did you say "LOL" like that? Little contradictory there. ;)

2006-09-03 [Fizban]: because..well...it was just a bit funny that someone would stop talking to someone else because of something so idiotic in my opinoun...

but...it was a horrible event in general...

2006-09-03 [Cliché]: Nah. It's all good. And I happen to find it hilarious.

2006-09-03 [Franc28]: Um... how can one wish that another not exist? That's rather bizarre... you can wish someone dead, but to simply not exist? What does that even mean?