Believers, Non-Believers & Morality

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Can you understand why it would be correct for me to think that?

I understand why you think it is correct because we have discussed it before.

Originally posted by @fmf
I understand why you think it is correct because we have discussed it before.

Do you agree or disagree with my assessment?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Do you agree or disagree with my assessment?

Of course I disagree. I don't believe you have actually forgotten the previous times we have discussed honesty, lying and morality. I think you're pretending. It's your go-to gimmick.

Originally posted by @fmf
Of course I disagree. I don't believe you have actually forgotten the previous times we have discussed honesty, lying and morality. I think you're pretending. It's your go-to gimmick.

Of course you won't ever agree that I'm right about something. You are too proud for that. No surprise there.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Of course you won't ever agree that I'm right about something. You are too proud for that. No surprise there.

You know exactly why I disagree with you on this issue because we have discussed in depth it several times. My "pride" has nothing to do with our disagreement. We simply have different conceptions regarding the source, purpose, and application of morality.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
PART IV
(very truly, honestly sorry for the verbosity...)

Being the hero who explores, dominates, controls, manages and cultivates as king of this paradise.
[I see you cleaning up your yard?
What's the worse that happens: I stay the same, or maybe get a little bit worse because I’m blind with petty jealousy or any other number of anger issues that h ...[text shortened]... t truth is about which others can lie, its transcendent nature eliminates it from having a foil.

But I'm still trying to compute Part 1!!!

Originally posted by @dj2becker
I think you are less likely to be dishonest in cases where you would benefit without causing harm or breaking trust when it is impossible for you to be caught, if you believed your dishonesty was violating divine law.

Divine law didn't prevent you misleading people here, about your second account, did it?

Appears you also have personal preference as to when to be honest or not. Agreed?

Please get your head around the notion that I am not saying we don't make our own choices about honesty and lying. Why is this? Because there is no moral absolute or moral lawgiver. - We are all the sum of our parts, fashioned in the way we were brought up, shaped by our genetics, society, and experiences.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Divine law didn't prevent you misleading people here, about your second account, did it?

Appears you also have personal preference as to when to be honest or not. Agreed?

Please get your head around the notion that I am not saying we don't make our own choices about honesty and lying. Why is this? Because there is no moral absolute or moral la ...[text shortened]... arts, fashioned in the way we were brought up, shaped by our genetics, society, and experiences.

Well it certainly did prevent me from lying about it once I realized it was a mistake. If I had been an atheist and did not believe in Divine law I think I would have been more likely to lie about it because there would have been no way for anyone to prove that I was lying and my lie would not have harmed anyone. Besides, assuming I'm an atheist why would it always be wrong to lie about switching accounts if there are no moral absolutes?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Well it certainly did prevent me from lying about it once I realized it was a mistake. If I had been an atheist and did not believe in Divine law I think I would have been more likely to lie about it because there would have been no way for anyone to prove that I was lying and my lie would not have harmed anyone. Besides, assuming I'm an atheist why would it always be wrong to lie about switching accounts if there are no moral absolutes?

It’s interesting that Ghost was the biggest troll on here accusing me of being you - something he refuses to apologize for - and here he is badgering you for something you did much earlier.

The guy’s morally bankrupt.

Originally posted by @romans1009
It’s interesting that Ghost was the biggest troll on here accusing me of being you - something he refuses to apologize for - and here he is badgering you for something you did much earlier.

The guy’s morally bankrupt.

You have 'accused' me of being another poster - Duchess64 - when you have already been told more than once that the 'accusation' was merely a bit of silly banter started by whodey a few years ago. I don't need an apology but does the fact you haven't given me one yet make you "morally bankrupt"?

Originally posted by @fmf
You have 'accused' me of being another poster - Duchess64 - when you have already been told more than once that the 'accusation' was merely a bit of silly banter started by whodey a few years ago. I don't need an apology but does the fact you haven't given me one yet make you "morally bankrupt"?

You’ve never denied being duchess64. In fact, you pointedly told Becker he had to ask you the question 30 more times before you would answer it. Why you wouldn’t simply say you weren’t duchess64 is beyond me, but if you did say it - and say it unequivocally - I missed it.

On the other hand, I denied being Becker clearly and unambiguously from the moment Ghost (and other trolls) falsely accused me of that. The morally-bankrupt atheist has yet to apologize.

Originally posted by @romans1009
You’ve never denied being duchess64. In fact, you pointedly told Becker he had to ask you the question 30 more times before you would answer it. Why you wouldn’t simply say you weren’t duchess64 is beyond me, but if you did say it - and say it unequivocally - I missed it.

On the other hand, I denied being Becker clearly and unambiguously from the mome ...[text shortened]... and other trolls) falsely accused me of that. The morally-bankrupt atheist has yet to apologize.

You know what was the screen name I used 8 years ago for that practical joke, so you know it is not Duchess64, and you know I haven't impersonated a woman on this site, you even apologized for suggesting that a couple of times [even if you then did renage on that], and you know the FMF-is-Duchess64 thing is a bit of daft banter that whodey started ages ago for the purposes of deflection, you know this because I told you point blank at least twice, and you know that the people on the Debates Forum have told you that I am not Duchess64. Quite clearly, I am not Duchess64 and you've known it for weeks and weeks. And yet you persist with your banter. Why? If, as you say, Ghost of a Duke is morally bankrupt, are you morally bankrupt too?

Originally posted by @fmf
You know what was the screen name I used 8 years ago for that practical joke, so you know it is not Duchess64, and you know I haven't impersonated a woman on this site, you even apologized for suggesting that a couple of times [even if you then did renage on that], and you know the FMF-is-Duchess64 thing is a bit of daft banter that whodey started ages ago for ...[text shortened]... banter. Why? If, as you say, Ghost of a Duke is morally bankrupt, are you morally bankrupt too?

What you have written (at least regarding me) is false. I have not known for “weeks and weeks” (or even hours and hours) that you are not duchess64.

Do you deny refusing to answer that question when it was point-blank asked of you by Becker a few weeks ago?

If people think you’re duchess64, it’s because you encourage that thought.

Originally posted by @romans1009
What you have written (at least regarding me) is false. I have not known for “weeks and weeks” (or even hours and hours) that you are not duchess64.

Do you deny refusing to answer that question when it was point-blank asked of you by Becker a few weeks ago?

If people think you’re duchess64, it’s because you encourage that thought.

The only people who go on and on an on about me being things like a female impersonator, or a paedophile, or Duchess64, or a victim of child sex abuse etc. etc. are the forums' desparately unoriginal and grindingly unfunny jerks. And I don't play along with their dreary "comedy" routines.

Originally posted by @romans1009
What you have written (at least regarding me) is false. I have not known for “weeks and weeks” (or even hours and hours) that you are not duchess64.

You just don't have any integrity when oafing around in service of your infantile banter, do you? Weeks and weeks ago I told you straight, more than once, point blank, that the FMF-is-Duchess64 thing was a false story started by whodey on the Debates Forum. What on earth is the matter with you?