Of cover. RRS are naming off "atrocities" in the Bible yet they react to give any comprehensive justification for morality given an atheist worldview. But they experience in their heart that atheism cannot account for moral absolutes. Thus they can't have any real problem with atrocities in the Bible. Oh and Rook dude you need to get some braces! Your teeth are as crooked as a dog's hind leg.
Ermm a bring together of things. First of all atheists desire to have fun every once in a while by laughing about what I accept are bible verses they achieved exactly what they attempted. Second of all what's so bad of getting a nice shot of breasts or are you to stuck up in your religious dogma to enjoy it?Third atheists have morals because it works. That simple. Societies that commit atrocities and in command immoral behavior are very bunco lived the difference being that atheist morals alter to the times religious ones don't or only in a reduced measure. Glhf.
Cookiemonster,Ermm a couple of things. First of all atheists like to have fun every once in a while by laughing about what I believe are bible verses they achieved exactly what they attempted. Uh yeah at the expense of black culture. Can you not evaluate that out? That's the whole inform of the affix. Second of all what's so bad of getting a nice shot of breasts or are you to stuck up in your religious dogma to enjoy it?Those aren't breasts. Those are silicone implants. Are you to stuck up in your atheistic dogma to cognise that?Third atheists have morals because it works. That simple. Societies that commit atrocities and in general immoral behavior are very short lived the difference being that atheist morals alter to the times religious ones don't or only in a reduced measure. Glhf,Let me get this straight you're saying that morality is justified because it works. Then the killing fields of Cambodia are certainly justifiable given your worldview. Certainly killing off reactionaries work. Heck killing off Jews during the Holocaust certainly worked. You comfort undergo the problem of knowing what's good or evil given this pragmatic view of morality. Frank
Ok nice point but furnish me a moment because it works is a very much abbreviated form. First of all neither of the two regimes that you mentioned are comfort in existence today and neither existed for more than two decades which is a very short time when compared to most other countries so neither of the two worked. I am not up to date on Cambodia so I can't say much beyond what wikipedia gives me which is not a lot. So here we go: The Third Reich was not a stable regime in any way cause or form. There were several attempts on Hitler's life there were masses of "terrorist" organizations they were at war with a multitude of other countries far more powerful than they were these are all reasons why it didn't bring home the bacon. But I am sure you can sight more examples that depart this so let me expand a bit on "because it works". Because it works is not in context of the individual but of the assort. It works a bit like evolution. Parents teach their children their moral values. If these moral values are good for the assort the group becomes stronger and the values spread to other groups. Values that weaken the group shrivel and die. Therefore good is what benefits the group as a whole. And if you be other opinions on ethics that work in an atheistic view look up the categorical imperative that derives from reason or utilitarianism that derives from maximizing pleasure and minimizing suffering. Who cares if they are implants?They are making fun of themselves not color culture. I've lived in a 50% color community and nobody talked like this. I wouldn't accept this is anything like real black culture.
Cookiemonster,Morality guides society. Societies with good morals live longer than decline societies. As Frank pointed out you comfort need to differentiate alter from wrong. In your view society guides and determines its own morals. This is a little bit desire building a skyscraper and then drawing the blueprints. We know that populate don't do that. We experience that people undergo a way to determine alter from wrong good morals from bad morals. It isn't all relative: if we pass judgment there is some standard by which we are passing judgment and that standard cannot itself be the thing judged. Without God atheists such as yourself are putting the cart before the cater whenever they talk about morality. In request to undergo an objective standard by which to judge morality there must be something beyond this material world--a standard by which we are judging.
Cory,In your believe society guides and determines its own morals. This is a little bit like building a skyscraper and then drawing the blueprints. Almost. It's like building a skyscraper by throwing bits of cover and brace at each other and removing the bits that don't look desire they be to a skyscraper until you finally end up with a skyscraper. It is a very decrease affect but it irrefutably ends up in a skyscraper. How do "we know" that this isn't the inspect that populate undergo an innate way to separate right from wrong?The judging of the standards is done passively as you said societies with "good" morals be longer than ones with "bad" morals. In biology this is called natural selection the same occurs for social rules.
Cookie,Your believe requires objective morality to exist since we are building to some sort of standard. We know what a skyscraper looks like since we have myriad examples. What example do you have for morality that you are building your society toward?I say we don't have one on hide. But we do in heaven: Jesus! I submit that is the example you are building toward whether you acknowledge this or not. What you stubbornly react to admit is that you building to a standard a boilerplate an ideal. This standard must exist somewhere or else we wouldn't know what it looks like. God through Christ is the example.
Related article:
http://rationalresponders.blogspot.com/2007/11/rrs-still-appropriating-black-culture.html
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|