WAG
-
Posts
90 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Everything posted by WAG
-
Cultural relativism and situational ethics: So technically slavery was "right" before it was decided to be "wrong." Yet in the future, society (the moral democracy we can call it) can dictate that slavery is "right", again. Uh oh. If relativism is true, then all choices are equally "good." If all choices are equally good, then even intolerance toward other beliefs can be morally correct. Why then should anyone practice tolerance? Bottom line: Moral relativism is self-refuting ....and wouldn't it suck for you to be on the wrong side of the "moral majority" one day? I know I said this earlier but your ethical thought process dictates that you will become a slave to the majority opinion regarding right and wrong. Be careful what you wish for Joe.
-
Why? Because it's "icky"?
-
But not you, right?
-
So what I'm gathering here (from some of you) is that I should not be denied the right to walk around in this country nude since I am not actually victimizing anybody? Roger that! Out.
-
If you are an atheist are you saying you rejected the idea of acknowledging some kind of Creator/Moral Law Giver/Deity because of what you perceived to be the "cookies" some particular religion offered in an afterlife? I'm sorry it was that simple for you but of course that is your opinion. On the contrary my friend. I question my faith everyday. That's what should be expected out of every religious person. In fact, you guys are helping me do that on this forum. The thing is..every time I question my faith, I still come back to the same truth. Obviously for some people like so.it.goes they reach a different conclusion. However, saying we are all just minion robots...that does not compute.
-
https://wiki.answers...._humans_animals Sweet...I can plagiarize too: Humans are distinguished from other primates by their bipedal locomotion, and especially by their relatively larger brain with its particularly well developed neocortex, prefontal cortex, and temporal lobes, which enable high levels of abstract reasoning, language, problem solving, and culture through social learning Agreed.
-
Dude, he is saying it is abnormal and unnatural for humans. With regard to animals, who gives a ######? They are animals.
-
<Sigh>....and just when I thought this discussion was getting into the more important subjects about morality and truth. It's back to this talking point again. I guess its one step forward two steps back on this forum. So from where do we derive our sense of absolute right and wrong, again?
-
Moral Relativism “You have your way, I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, it does not exist." - Nietzsche: “If man is a product of evolution, one species among others, in a universe without purpose, then man’s option is to live for himself” - Paul Kurtz, The Humanist Alternative Hmmm, I guess that makes sense... if you live alone on an island and never had to interact with another human being. Sad place that end game must be...
-
What is a thumper?
-
So I guess all those civilizations and cultures predating Christianity that opposed homosexuality issues were also relying on the Bible. What about today? Are other non-Judeo-Christian countries throughout this world such as Japan relying on the Bible too?
-
HUH?
-
So now that we are all on board with subjective morality.. .whose opinion on right and wrong should we go with from here on forward in this country?
-
So you are assuming I subscribe to sola scriptura? Hmmm...
-
Relax. I said, "That goes for both sides of the debate."
-
Yes, it was a jab. A well deserved one at that. My point is that if you are going to criticize a religious practice you should really study the practice before making obtuse generalizations. A more sophisticated/educated understanding of the matter DOES give you more flexibility to criticize. That's universal with regard to any subject. On that note, you are right. That is all. I'm over this topic. <and all rejoiced>
-
Reductio ad absurdum arguments. The fact that thousands of creatures eat their own species does not give humans the moral ground to engage in cannibalism. Taking moral cues from the animal kingdom is absurd. That goes for both sides of the debate.
-
So as a "religious" scholar turned atheist...are you telling me your mind was changed based on the same interpretation of Christian practice that HOSS broke down for us ("The Bible clearly expects us to keep slaves"...seriously??) If so, please PM as I would love to be "disappointed" by your revelation. I can respect that you actively followed and studied your religion for years and then chose to separate from it. On that note, I would hope (based on your experience) you would understand the offensiveness of HOSS's obtuse generalizations.... and I'm the one accused of being condescending..got it.
-
Yawn... yet another atheist trying to be a religious scholar. How long did you seriously practice religion, again? Already happened (Rome)...and is happening (Europe)... funny how a religious leader and a secular leader can arrive at the same conclusion. https://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0465006272
-
The point is that the creators of this country recognized the inherent virtue of Judeo-Christian teaching/principles and that piety, religion, and objective morality are intimately connected to the well being of the state and enforcement of civil justice. To think that is not what happened absolutely amazes me. Remember this? We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed... Admittedly, the author of this article basically nails my entire philosophy better than I can spew it: https://publiushuldah...-or-congress-2/ Ultimately you have to ask yourself a simple question as a citizen of this country: Do our rights descend from God or are they derived from man? If it is the latter then you have chosen to be subjected to the will of someone else's moral compass (at least five federal judges, or whatever "rights" Vertigo or joe1234 decided should be enforced when they woke up in the morning). You will always be answerable to the State and the popular opinion of the day.
-
Plenty of sources are provided.
-
Yeah man, I must have been born in the wrong nation.... these old farts got it all wrong. https://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=63
-
Don't worry. I'm not actually offended by someone who subscribes to a moral code that embraces the sexual intercourse between siblings and who knows what else...
-
Can't say I didn't call this one. Hypocrisy thy name is Vertigo.
-
Continuing to not answer my question... No. This is a discussion about where we draw the line on "civil rights"...and a valid discussion given the SCOTUS ruling which legitimately opens the door for this topic. Yes, the burden is on you now. I'm sorry. You are right. Maybe you could help me then by answering the damn question. Actually, you are not sticking to the subject I was discussing...you're the one that replied to my post. The same statistics can be drawn from CDC research. I gave you that link in an attempt dumb it down for you. My point is that divorce rates and the sociological reasons for divorce are pretty inconclusive and fuzzy (as you mentioned in your first sentence). We know very little about it. In other words, it doesn't help your argument. Especially when you spew your "talking points" statistics.
