Seahawks

[Doublejive]

STFU, already. You are becoming as bad as Breaker. No wonder Seahawk fans hated his ass. You're headed to the same place he is.

 

[WizardHawk]

Typical.

Look DJ, I've tried to reach you with reason, but you reject any sort of help or advice from even Harold or other mild mannered Seahawk fans. I've seen the path you are going down before and it has ended in perm bans from the mods. You seemingly don't care and that's fine by me, but accept the repercussions of your own actions and stop blaming anyone else for them. You choose how to react to situations. Own it.

 

[Doublejive]

STFU, already. You are becoming as bad as Breaker. No wonder Seahawk fans hated his ass. You're headed to the same place he is.

 

[Doublejive]

Look DJ, I've tried to reach you with reason, but you reject any sort of help or advice from even Harold or other mild mannered Seahawk fans. I've seen the path you are going down before and it has ended in perm bans from the mods. You seemingly don't care and that's fine by me, but accept the repercussions of your own actions and stop blaming anyone else for them. You choose how to react to situations. Own it.

You are going to what?

 

[ram29jackson]

You got a prob cwood?

one of the greatest movies ever !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

they should show that in beginning psych classes everywhere

 

[Doublejive]

When theists say that atheism cannot exist with morality, secular humanists are quick to say that this is a misconception about atheism. But their objection is misplaced. This claim isn't so much a misconception about atheism as it is about atheists.

Yes, there are some theists who do indeed assert that atheists can't be moral, and secular humanists are right to object, because such a claim is not true. Atheists can in fact be ethical.

However, while it is true that atheists can be moral, it is NOT true that one can logically be an atheist and a moral realist at the same time. This latter claim is the true argument, not the former.

Now, as to why one cannot be an atheist and be a moral realist at the same time, there are two very similar reasons why this is so, the first coming from the great philosopher David Hume, and the second coming from J.L. Mackie.

First the Humean argument. David Hume famously pointed out that one cannot extract an ought-statement from an is-statement. You cannot get an ought from an is, or in more technical terms, one cannot derive a prescriptive fact from a descriptive fact.

Batman, because he failed to point to a metaphysical, transcendent and ontological foundation, cannot make the case that the joker ought to prefer choice A over choice B. The joker, realizing this, throws Batman's assertion back in his face. The joker laughs and points out that the secular humanist's "rules" are a bad joke. And that the only sensible way to live in his world is without rules. To be a nihilist like himself.

Even with all of his strength, Batman cannot make his humanistic assertion true. Within an atheistic framework, it simply doesn't follow.



Therefore, if atheists are to be intellectually consistent, they have to move beyond their short-sighted secular humanism and move into the realm of moral nihilism and sit alongside Ledger's joker.

Now perhaps morality is just a property. Perhaps certain actions, like shoving a pencil into someone's head, has the property of being wrong, and other actions, like saving people from a hospital rigged to explode, has the property of being right.

Forgetting for the moment that morality is not descriptive, but rather is a series of statements of certain actions one ought to do or ought not do, we can turn to J.L. Mackie's take on this.

To say that naturalistic, material objects can stand in a moral relation to one another is absurd. What does it even mean for one object to stand in a moral relationship with another object? It is meaningless.

The ethical skeptic watching this video might feel tempted to ask "Why does God solve the is-ought gap?" and feel as if he won the day. The problem is, that God's commands are not themselves descriptive, but are prescriptive.

Therefore, as an atheist, you must either remain silent like Batman, or speak with cynical greatness like the Joker. Be permitted by Dostoevsky to drink up the sea with Nietzsche.

 

[Doublejive]

Play me?

 

[WizardHawk]

+1 if you read the first sentence of his diatribe that has something to do with religion and seemingly nothing about football and went and stopped reading.

I admit I don't read most long posts as it is, but when it is an example of a poster going well off the deep end and ranting on things entirely not related to the board there is zero chance I read any of it. ZERO.

 

[Doublejive]

+1 if you read the first sentence of his diatribe that has something to do with religion and seemingly nothing about football and went and stopped reading.

I admit I don't read most long posts as it is, but when it is an example of a poster going well off the deep end and ranting on things entirely not related to the board there is zero chance I read any of it. ZERO.

Not the point.

 

[Doublejive]

I bet not 10% of the idiots here could even get it.

 

[BloodType49]

When theists say that atheism cannot exist with morality, secular humanists are quick to say that this is a misconception about atheism. But their objection is misplaced. This claim isn't so much a misconception about atheism as it is about atheists.

Yes, there are some theists who do indeed assert that atheists can't be moral, and secular humanists are right to object, because such a claim is not true. Atheists can in fact be ethical.

However, while it is true that atheists can be moral, it is NOT true that one can logically be an atheist and a moral realist at the same time. This latter claim is the true argument, not the former.

Now, as to why one cannot be an atheist and be a moral realist at the same time, there are two very similar reasons why this is so, the first coming from the great philosopher David Hume, and the second coming from J.L. Mackie.

First the Humean argument. David Hume famously pointed out that one cannot extract an ought-statement from an is-statement. You cannot get an ought from an is, or in more technical terms, one cannot derive a prescriptive fact from a descriptive fact.

Batman, because he failed to point to a metaphysical, transcendent and ontological foundation, cannot make the case that the joker ought to prefer choice A over choice B. The joker, realizing this, throws Batman's assertion back in his face. The joker laughs and points out that the secular humanist's "rules" are a bad joke. And that the only sensible way to live in his world is without rules. To be a nihilist like himself.

Even with all of his strength, Batman cannot make his humanistic assertion true. Within an atheistic framework, it simply doesn't follow.



Therefore, if atheists are to be intellectually consistent, they have to move beyond their short-sighted secular humanism and move into the realm of moral nihilism and sit alongside Ledger's joker.

Now perhaps morality is just a property. Perhaps certain actions, like shoving a pencil into someone's head, has the property of being wrong, and other actions, like saving people from a hospital rigged to explode, has the property of being right.

Forgetting for the moment that morality is not descriptive, but rather is a series of statements of certain actions one ought to do or ought not do, we can turn to J.L. Mackie's take on this.

To say that naturalistic, material objects can stand in a moral relation to one another is absurd. What does it even mean for one object to stand in a moral relationship with another object? It is meaningless.

The ethical skeptic watching this video might feel tempted to ask "Why does God solve the is-ought gap?" and feel as if he won the day. The problem is, that God's commands are not themselves descriptive, but are prescriptive.

Therefore, as an atheist, you must either remain silent like Batman, or speak with cynical greatness like the Joker. Be permitted by Dostoevsky to drink up the sea with Nietzsche.

 

[WizardHawk]

I bet not 10% of the idiots here could even get it.

Not 1% of the people here will read it because this is a football board, not the upset poster going off the deep end ranting about something no one gives a shit about board. That belongs on a different board.

I bet 200 vCash this thread is either moved, locked, or deleted as soon as a real mod actually comes across it.

 

[RoboticDreams]

I bet not 10% of the idiots here could even get it.

Are you on a never ending beer binge, and are just angrier than normal because of it or what?

 

[Banned 10x]

I don't think I've actually seen somebody go from fairly normal to batshit crazy in 2 weeks.

Jive needs the Superbowl to be played now.

 

[Doublejive]

You all crap me up why?


I threw something on left field to see how you would react just like the pointless trolls.

 

[Doublejive]

And you know that you played into it.

 

[RoboticDreams]

Stop trying to distance from your bullshit. Like Wizard said, own it.

 

[WizardHawk]

DJ, even Seahawk fans are trying to ask you to chill out. No one is out to get you. Creating more threads and making more posts that just make you look bitter and angry at the world is not helping you, nor it is helping our already beleaguered reputation on this board.

Do what you want, but if you expect even other Seahawk fans to sit by and watch you trash our base without standing up to you about it you are even crazier than you are coming across to be right now.

 

[seahawksfan234]

When theists say that atheism cannot exist with morality, secular humanists are quick to say that this is a misconception about atheism. But their objection is misplaced. This claim isn't so much a misconception about atheism as it is about atheists.

Yes, there are some theists who do indeed assert that atheists can't be moral, and secular humanists are right to object, because such a claim is not true. Atheists can in fact be ethical.

However, while it is true that atheists can be moral, it is NOT true that one can logically be an atheist and a moral realist at the same time. This latter claim is the true argument, not the former.

Now, as to why one cannot be an atheist and be a moral realist at the same time, there are two very similar reasons why this is so, the first coming from the great philosopher David Hume, and the second coming from J.L. Mackie.

First the Humean argument. David Hume famously pointed out that one cannot extract an ought-statement from an is-statement. You cannot get an ought from an is, or in more technical terms, one cannot derive a prescriptive fact from a descriptive fact.

Batman, because he failed to point to a metaphysical, transcendent and ontological foundation, cannot make the case that the joker ought to prefer choice A over choice B. The joker, realizing this, throws Batman's assertion back in his face. The joker laughs and points out that the secular humanist's "rules" are a bad joke. And that the only sensible way to live in his world is without rules. To be a nihilist like himself.

Even with all of his strength, Batman cannot make his humanistic assertion true. Within an atheistic framework, it simply doesn't follow.



Therefore, if atheists are to be intellectually consistent, they have to move beyond their short-sighted secular humanism and move into the realm of moral nihilism and sit alongside Ledger's joker.

Now perhaps morality is just a property. Perhaps certain actions, like shoving a pencil into someone's head, has the property of being wrong, and other actions, like saving people from a hospital rigged to explode, has the property of being right.

Forgetting for the moment that morality is not descriptive, but rather is a series of statements of certain actions one ought to do or ought not do, we can turn to J.L. Mackie's take on this.

To say that naturalistic, material objects can stand in a moral relation to one another is absurd. What does it even mean for one object to stand in a moral relationship with another object? It is meaningless.

The ethical skeptic watching this video might feel tempted to ask "Why does God solve the is-ought gap?" and feel as if he won the day. The problem is, that God's commands are not themselves descriptive, but are prescriptive.

Therefore, as an atheist, you must either remain silent like Batman, or speak with cynical greatness like the Joker. Be permitted by Dostoevsky to drink up the sea with Nietzsche.

 

[Uhsplit]

WTF is anyones problem with a vid?

My fellow Seahawk fan, since you asked I will respond.
On our page you put up a vid a Bowman being carted off when the popcorn came down on him. In the same post you posted a vid of Michael Jackson smiling and eating popcorn.

I see no need for that as it IS classless. Is that what you want to be known for? Is that what you want us (Seahawk fans) to be known as?