You need to add a few more items to that list. I don't think everyone was sufficiently impressed.
Really? So how did you avoid learning about statistics?
Oklahoma Bible mandate challenged in Court
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
You need to add a few more items to that list. I don't think everyone was sufficiently impressed.
Really? So how did you avoid learning about statistics?
Most of us -- no matter what religion or whether the family didn't have one -- were taught as children that harming others is wrong. When we did sock our sister or take someone's toy or kick the dog, we were punished for it. You don't need religion to civilize your kids.
That's a Christian Social club! The Churches job is to save your soul!
I don't have time to teach you theology from Square One! Ask your Christian Social club, if they can ,after Bingo and brunch!
Oh I get that. The question was specific to Cypress. Cypress takes the position that without some referent to religion or metaphysics or some such supernatural stuff that one cannot know what is right and wrong. Or so it would appear from his question.
My question back is that if he is an agnostic as he claims he must surely suffer from the same thing. He cannot know right from wrong per his own reasoning.
But we both know that it doesn't require belief in the supernatural, one can clearly create a wholly secular morality. Without breaking a sweat.
Why are you so obsessed with him?
That's self-interest, not morality. A social convention that says I won't kill you if you won't kill me is based on self-interest and reciprocity. It does not define a system of objective and innate right and wrong.
Many human societies throughout history believed killing and conquest were totally justified and advanced the interests of their society.
Atheists are actually cultural Christians when you scratch beneath the surface. You adopt established religious values, without adopting the practice and ritual aspects of religion
You literally and unequivocally stated that humans are "just another animal".
But you don't call it 'murder' when a male bear destroys the cubs of a male rival. You don't call it 'rape' when a male deer forcibly copulates with a female deer.
Having trouble adequately explaining why in a strictly materialistic view of life, the universe, and everything there would be an objective and innate value of justice and life, independent of social convention and self-interest?
Whether or not there is an Abrahamic God, I believe there is probably some kind of higher agency, and that religious values concerning the innate values of justice, beauty, and human life are rooted in some kind of universal truth.
There's nothing wrong in principle with morals based on social convention, opinion, popular consensus.
But if we are nothing more than a physical collection of quarks and electrons (and maybe that's true) I would have to admit to myself that there is no innate and objective value of human life, there is no universal absolute right and wrong. It's just whatever the convention of our society is, the opinions of our parents are, or what popular consensus tells us.
Many parents teach their children racism is justified. If I believe there really is an innate and objective value of human life, then I would have to accept that racism is objectively, universally, and absolutely wrong independently of my opinions and independent of what somebody's parents told me.
So do we agree that secular morality can be a real thing? Or are you, like Cypress, of the opinion that one must have a referent to the supernatural to know right from wrong?
Hence you are not an agnostic.
Thank you. You are at least being honest.
You believe in God of some form.
I will bookmark this post so that I can return to it the next time you claim agnosticism.
At least it explains why you HATE HATE HATE atheism.
So you, like most religious folks, have determined that you own the word "morality".
That's fine. You can have it.
I can still say what is right and wrong via the rubric explained to you now MANY MANY MANY times.
What's the difference? Oh, you mean "innate" and "objective" as in outside of space and time.
Well again that doesn't exist, Cypress.
Well, at least in my case I certainly know more about Christianity than you do (and you are a believer! So I guess that makes you weak minded and lazy)
So you choose to IGNORE what I told you?
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YSE YES YES a billion jillion times yes.
CORRECT!
You don't call it 'rape' when a male deer forcibly copulates with a female deer.
CORRECT
You are so close to understanding now. Praize jeeeeezus
They couldn't. They had no organization - being a bunch of primitive warring tribes. Even the Iroquois were more of a truce than an actual alliance. One the dissolved as they tooks sides between British and French.
It's why people formed states and nations. The American Indians were still stone age - they had not evolved to the point of creating states. They were less evolved than Babylon in 2500 B.C.
They had yet to devlop writing, or the wheel, or metal tools.. Things that even the most backwards parts of deepest, darkest Africa already had for centuries. North American Indians were cavemen, that's the truth of it.
Jerry Mathers
Was it me?
still an invasion, thanks.
Nonsense. The American Indians had no system of lands and formal laws. There was no "invasion," just migration.
What Grant did with the Sioux can be considered an actual invasion - but claiming the Pilgrims "invaded" is pure hyperbolic historical revisionism.
Jerry Mathers
Was it me?
glo
going all in on word games makes you weak and foolish.
still an invasion, thanks.
going all in on word games makes you weak and foolish.
You're more about trying to get a flock of fools to drink poison kool-aide with you. But no one will follow you, Jim Jones wannabe.
And still not a shred or hint of evidence, Nazi boi.
Jerry Mathers
Was it me?
Jerry Mathers
Was it me?
going all in on word games makes you weak and foolish.
herpes invades your dick, even though you have no official border there. there are home invasion. there are invasive species.
unwanted migration is defacto invasion.
say it aloud.
try to understand with your dumb head.