Starboy

That is really the crux of it. To discuss reality would require abandoning religion.

Starboy

ManM

Mad Kally,
Ouch.

MadKally

Excellent Starboy!

RufusAtticus

Kally before you can claim that you are a better person than others, you must first act like it.

Starboy

Rufus, don't be so hard on Mad Kally. He may indeed be a better person, the question is: better for what?

Starboy

wildernesse

Well, I thought that we could still discuss this hypothetical situation without referring to Adam and Eve--which is what I've been trying to do in my death squad example. However, it is apparently ridiculous to separate the OP question from the implied subtext of Adam and Eve.

Obviously, I will leave this topic to those much more superior people who are able to discuss and refute my example simply by being atheists, who are acknowledged moral giants. We all know by simply asserting your superiority it becomes Truth. Where have I heard that before? Oh, yes--the fundie psychos on all the Christian boards I visit who simply assert their worth and despise all others who are different.

--tibac

Mad Kally

Rufus,
Do you know me or anything about all the things I do in real life?
Sorry if I offended your wife.

I would be proud if I could become a little tiny fraction of what Koy is..

Thanks Starboy

I'll stay out of this insane forum because as I said before:

"To argue with a man who has renounced his reason is like giving medicine to the dead."

--- Thomas Paine

RufusAtticus

Kally,
Do you know Wildy or anything about the things she does in real life?

All I'm pointing out is those who are better don't have to assert it.

Rhea

Just out of curiosity, what makes someone say that (in the adam & eve example) "if they weren't kicked out of eden, we wouldn't be here." ?

Is this the first instance of children as punishment for misdeeds?

Adam and Even were only allowed to have children because they broke the rules?

That one totally baffled me.

Wildernesse, sorry you're feeling you can't discuss it. It's pretty clear to me (personal opinion) that the question should be clarified (either by the OP or by the answerers). Maybe that would make the discussion more real.

For example, I ASSUME for the purpose of answering
Would you let billions of people suffer for the actions of two people?
That the suffering is CAUSED by me (as opposed to not prevented) and
That the actions of the 2 are wrongs.


Another interesting assumption by some is that I would care if I had never been born. If I had never been born I wouldn't be here to care about it. So that argument seems very important to one person and may justifiably seem like a cop-out to another.

Brings to mind a part of the abortion argument, "what if your mother decided to abort you?" Well, I wouldn't give a crap. And the little girl or boy that she might have had later or instead as a result of not being burdened with me (who is off somewhere, I guess, sorry that s/he was never born) would be getting the question instead.

So maybe in a forum like this we need to state our assumptions in order to communicate with each other better.

Mad Kally

I was referring to ManM who has been a pain in the butt for a long, long time. IN MY OPINION OF COURSE!!! I've always liked Wildy and as a matter of fact I didn't even take the time to read what she was saying. I was focused on the pain in the butt. I honestly believe my morals are much better than some. Not Wildy ok? (also not necessarily religious people)