I saw another thread about writing, so I figured I would show something I wrote. What do you think?
>if god isn't real then thing I don't like isn't objectively wrong therefore god has to be real because it's impossible that my preference against it is based in anything but divinely ordained moralitybig dumb
>>24796225Yes. I cannot accept that killing babies is okay, even if everyone in the entire world says it is.
>>24796234it's a slightly more self-aware version of what most religious people do, where they need god to exist to enforce their pre-existing emotional preferences, but they generally don't realize they have the cart before the horse
I don't know why I spend so much time debating atheists on the internet. Atheists are a tiny minority of the world's population and mostly only exist in tiny white pecker cuckold countries because people there want to have sex with children and animals.
>>24796284I don't know if I'd call what you're doing debating, if it makes you feel better
>>24796205You have completely.neglected the fact you are destroying a unique lifeform that can never be recreated can never be repeated and will never exist again after you have killed it.Your argument basically posits that morality doesn't exist if you can't perceive of it, that just isn't true. If just means you are ignorant.
Morality is not a strictly religious concept and it doesn't even have its foundations in religion. Morality is about pragmatic cooperation and recognizing the fact that we can achieve more together, but that the larger the group, the more complex it is, the more likelihood there is for friction.Morality exists whether you observe it or not. How does a baby that can't speak, doesn't understand words, and still shits itself understand that it has been wronged when you take it's bottle? It reaches.it cries. it might grunt and get angry.Because it knows you have wronged it. Because morality exists and is objective and immutable.
>>24796318Prove that taking a baby's bottle is "wrong".
Morality as humans perceive and currently understand it can be broken down into a simple premise. Minimizing friction. You do not take from other.living things unnecessarioy You don't harm other living things unnecessarily. You do not disrespect and demean others, or your environment.When you break any of these rules you have to go out of your way to do it. You are introducing unnecessary friction, causing unnecessary harmSo abortion, the murder of a unique human life before it has even had a.chance to breathe, for reasons of personal convenience in undeniably and objectively an immoral and selfish act.You went out of your way to create a life, disregarded its value, and then destroyed it for your own convenience. By your logic me coming and burning your house down and killing your entire family is completely fine, if you pose an inconvenience to me.
>>24796318>Morality exists whether you observe it or not. How does a baby that can't speak, doesn't understand words, and still shits itself understand that it has been wronged when you take it's bottle? It reaches.it cries. it might grunt and get angry.there are lots of non-supernatural arguments for morality but this isn't a good one
You're unconscious and you're asleep and you don't even know its happening..because God doesn't exist, this means that it doesn't matter if I burn down your house and kill you as long as your asleep for it. Even if you're going to wake up later, because a baby will be born if you don't kill it in the womb. That is the logical conclusion. It will exist. It is in a temporary state of unawareness, it is a human life.So as long as I kill you in your sleep I'm good
