Hi. My name is Qchan

[Desdinova]

Qchan.  I don't need to win an argument with you to make me feel like I shit golden turds.  Frankly, I really don't care.  What does bother me is when people post a bunch of bullshit and try to act like they are giving everyone some life lesson and we should all stand in awe of their superior logic and intellect.  Sorry dude, you just come off that way.

[Qchan]

Sorry if I hurt your feelings, by jumping you about your hypothetical train, but it really was a dumb scenario, and we had just had someone beat us over the head with a holocaust hypothetical, and I was in no mood for another one. That being said, you can't wear your heart on your sleeve around here. Some people are nice, others are rude. You just have to roll with the punches, and try not to be hostile yourself.

Anyway, welcome! And maybe tell us a little about yourself.

How was it a dumb scenario? I didn't even make up the scenario:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUsGDVOCLVQ


Second of all, do you watch anime at all? Ever hear of Gundam? Hear me out. I'm making a point here. Gundam is an anime based on political warfare, espionage and conflict. There are always two sides in Gundam. The Earth Federation and The Principality of Zeon. Earth being the allied nations of earth and Zeon being the allied space colonies. In Gundam, it usually always follows behind a character allied with the Earth Federation. Gundam grasps the ideology of morality very well. It shows how both sides want peace. It follows closely behind the friends and families of both sides so you can relate to both. Neither side is defined as "evil". Suddenly, someone from the Earth Federation would act independently and spark a war between both sides. Eventually, the one responsible would get killed, but the war would still continue. The people fighting the war are still classified as good people, but in the spark of the war, they've lost family and friends - and all they know is anger and revenge. Misunderstandings on the positions of both side circulate and peace between the two sides becomes more and more distant. Some soldiers only fight because they are ordered to fight or because they hold loyalty to a person or group. Other soldiers fight just to feed their families due to the instability of the war. So, my question is... Where is the morality?

My point is that morality isn't scientific. Morality conflicts with the laws of self preservation. Morality makes people unpredictable.

Christians always say that the foundation of morality is God himself. However, what do atheists say is the foundation of morality? Nothing! Because morality doesn't make scientific sense. Use my Gundam example above. Harm and pain is being distributed everywhere, because it's war. However, where is the morality or lack thereof in war? War is entirely fueled by emotions, and morality is specifically linked to emotions. What is right and what is wrong is triggered by how you feel and not by how you think. Your feelings cannot be measured or quantified. The concept of morality is a logic loop-hole and so many atheists fall for it.

[Solomon Zorn]

The given choices in your version were ludicrous. That's what made it dumb. That and the fact that when you originally posted the scenario, it was in response to a discussion of whether harm is quantifiable. I don't see how it applies. In fact I get absolutely nothing from any of those hypothetical trolley scenarios. You act like they are supposed to be profound, but I don't see it. Like I said before, it's a no-win scenario. Big deal. People react from the gut? No kidding. What do you want me to say? I don't disagree with you about "morality" or "values," I just don't like improbable hypotheticals.

[Qchan]

The given choices in your version were ludicrous. That's what made it dumb. That and the fact that when you originally posted the scenario, it was in response to a discussion of whether harm is quantifiable. I don't see how it applies. In fact I get absolutely nothing from any of those hypothetical trolley scenarios. You act like they are supposed to be profound, but I don't see it. Like I said before, it's a no-win scenario. Big deal. People react from the gut? No kidding. What do you want me to say? I don't disagree with you about "morality" or "values," I just don't like improbable hypotheticals.

Just because you cannot make the connection doesn't mean other people cannot. The Trolley Problem is a question on morality, which is relevant to the idea of whether or not morality is quantifiable. You and I agree, regardless if you can make the connection or not, so you should be fine. Other people understood it, so obviously the example was not made for you.

[Solomon Zorn]

Well hopefully you're feeling a little more welcome now, and we can move the discussion back to the Morality thread.

And I renew my suggestion that you tell us a little about yourself.

[Mike Cl]

My name is Qchan. I'm here because I'm interested in other humans and how they think. Nice to meet all of you.

And nice to meet you.  You do seem to be a 'chan' (little--right) breath of fresh air.  I now don't think you meant it that way, but you sort of came off as a sniper at first.  Hope you stick around.

[Qchan]

And nice to meet you.  You do seem to be a 'chan' (little--right) breath of fresh air.  I now don't think you meant it that way, but you sort of came off as a sniper at first.  Hope you stick around.

Because I question things told to me and I research it. When people repeat the things in which I know better, I question those people. That is all.

[GrinningYMIR]

Hmmm

[Mike Cl]

Because I question things told to me and I research it. When people repeat the things in which I know better, I question those people. That is all.

I like that.  But when you question you seemed to come from 'on high' as the expert.  And that can leave some a bit chilly--especially if you don't share a little of what it is you think about the subject.  I love a good discussion, one that makes me stretch a bit and think a bit.  But a discussion needs two sides--it's a give and take; not just a series of questions from on high.

[Qchan]

I like that.  But when you question you seemed to come from 'on high' as the expert.  And that can leave some a bit chilly--especially if you don't share a little of what it is you think about the subject.  I love a good discussion, one that makes me stretch a bit and think a bit.  But a discussion needs two sides--it's a give and take; not just a series of questions from on high.

Are you insinuating that I'm not giving my own opinion to the input I provide?

[Aletheia]

Welcome.

This community is pretty laid back once you get to know them. We don't always agree, and many of us have opposing views on countless topics. However, this is to be expected in a group only united by their lack of a belief in a deity. The atheistic population will be very heterogeneous, whereas most communities tend to be more homogeneous often with a doctrine or agreed upon "normal" behaviour. This will present a more openness with thoughts, as well as a more unhindered content. People here say what they think - some do so bluntly and others with a little more care.

This freedom of thought enables more ideas to be cultivated, but it comes at the price of being rather direct and harsh at times.

[Qchan]

Welcome.

This community is pretty laid back once you get to know them. We don't always agree, and many of us have opposing views on countless topics. However, this is to be expected in a group only united by their lack of a belief in a deity. The atheistic population will be very heterogeneous, whereas most communities tend to be more homogeneous often with a doctrine or agreed upon "normal" behaviour. This will present a more openness with thoughts, as well as a more unhindered content. People here say what they think - some do so bluntly and others with a little more care.

This freedom of thought enables more ideas to be cultivated, but it comes at the price of being rather direct and harsh at times.

When you join a society of people who agree upon very little, they tend to establish their own beliefs and branch off on their own. I've figured out this fact also applies to atheist forums, which is pretty funny if you ask me.

[Aletheia]

Are you insinuating that I'm not giving my own opinion to the input I provide?

They might be insinuating that you are not providing enough information to demonstrate how much you do and do not know about a given subject you wish to discuss. Without this, a discussion becomes more of a series of queries with less relativeness between the parties involved. Even though a discussion can be over more logical/scientific topics, one cannot forget that we are not purely logical beings, we do have emotions. In order to keep a logical discussion going, it helps to keep the emotions calm and increase interest by providing a more approachable environment.

When you join a society of people who agree upon very little, they tend to establish their own beliefs and branch off on their own. I've figured out this fact also applies to atheist forums, which is pretty funny if you ask me.

Funny how? Human beings are social animals, so it is in our nature to create groups based on common interests/goals. For instance, the majority of the atheists here would fall under the category of rationalists or freethinkers. We do not have many spiritual or religious (not focused on a deity) atheists here. This comes as no surprise that we'd find cohesion within a secondary characteristic separate from our atheism.

If you expected something other than human behaviour from atheists, then disappointment is inevitable.

[Mermaid]

also applies to atheist forums, which is pretty funny if you ask me.

Funny? Funny how? Like a clown? Do we amuse you?

[leo]

My name is Qchan. I'm here because I'm interested in other humans and how they think. Nice to meet all of you.

. 
Welcome but the question is : how often do you crap and fart?