patrick.net

Dan8267 says

12. Even the fictional character of Jesus was not a morally righteous person. He never condemned slavery, not even sex slavery of children, which was the greatest moral problem of his time.

So now you accuse Jesus of sins of omission? Again, by what standard of morality do you indict Jesus?

Dan8267 says

"Jesus saves, without Him there is nothing but condemnation and death."

13. This is complete bullshit. However, it demonstrates why faith is inherently bad. The fact that you cannot accept under any circumstances that this assertion is false means you are incapable of acting wisely. Christian brainwashing in America today is dangerous. It is a far greater threat to our society than an Islamic terrorist organization. America will not fall to terrorism. It is an ineffective strategy and it is not an existential threat. The brainwashing of the American public actually has an impact on our nation at the highest levels in terms of brainwashed politicians and the brainwashed voters who support htem.

John chapter 8

12 When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”

13 The Pharisees challenged him, “Here you are, appearing as your own witness; your testimony is not valid.”

14 Jesus answered, “Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going. 15 You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one. 16 But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me. 17 In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two witnesses is true. 18 I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me.”

19 Then they asked him, “Where is your father?”

“You do not know me or my Father,” Jesus replied. “If you knew me, you would know my Father also.” 20 He spoke these words while teaching in the temple courts near the place where the offerings were put. Yet no one seized him, because his hour had not yet come.

21 Once more Jesus said to them, “I am going away, and you will look for me, and you will die in your sin. Where I go, you cannot come.”

22 This made the Jews ask, “Will he kill himself? Is that why he says, ‘Where I go, you cannot come’?”

23 But he continued, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24 I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins.”

25 “Who are you?” they asked.

“Just what I have been telling you from the beginning,” Jesus replied. 26 “I have much to say in judgment of you. But he who sent me is trustworthy, and what I have heard from him I tell the world.”

27 They did not understand that he was telling them about his Father. 28 So Jesus said, “When you have lifted up[a] the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me. 29 The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him.” 30 Even as he spoke, many believed in him.

14. Ditto 13.

I fixed it for you, again.

The only thing you have accomplished is proving my points beyond any doubt. Please talk some more. What is your standard/source of morality? I agree that lies are immoral but why are they immoral? Where does immorality come from?

In March 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy, ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). When they enquired "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:

It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.[25]

Jefferson reported the conversation to Secretary of Foreign Affairs John Jay, who submitted the ambassador's comments and offer to Congress. Jefferson argued that paying tribute would encourage more attacks. Although John Adams agreed with Jefferson, he believed that circumstances forced the U.S. to pay tribute until an adequate navy could be built. The U.S. had just fought an exhausting war, which put the nation deep in debt. Federalist and Anti-Federalist forces argued over the needs of the country and the burden of taxation. Jefferson's own Democratic-Republicans and anti-navalists believed that the future of the country lay in westward expansion, with Atlantic trade threatening to siphon money and energy away from the new nation, to be spent on wars in the Old World.[26] The U.S. paid Algiers the ransom, and continued to pay up to $1 million per year over the next 15 years for the safe passage of American ships and the return of American hostages.[citation needed] A $1 million payment in ransom and tribute to the privateering states amounted to approximately 10% of the U.S. government's annual revenues in 1800.[27]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War

Dan8267 says

The evolution of social creatures specifically dealing with cooperation and reciprocity.

curious2 says

"libertarian" = uncharitable

Brief Aside, this is why "Envy", "Jealousy", "Equality", etc are never going to disappear, no matter how Libertarians, Old Fart Prager/Shapiro/Sowell type Conservatives, or Randroids want them to.

The reciprocity and cooperation principles are hardwired into the brain, and humans won't accept too much unfairness/inequity without complaint. The "Hack" around this is to propagandize those with power as being divine representatives or morally/racially/spiritually superior, therefore not subject to the same social controls.

Pharaoh Setontuffit defends his higher consumption of curds and whey because he's related to the Sun God and can't intercede to keep the Nile Flooding without extra sustenance. CEOs can't run a company without 100x the average worker pay because they have magic abilities to make decisions.

It's being going on since Ancient Egypt.

PeopleUnited says

That is a cop out.

Bullshit. You can't just use my counter-argument against your bullshit against my arguments when they do not apply to my arguments. This is a thinly veiled "I know you are, but what am I". The Pacman defense only works if you have a power pellet, and you don't.

PeopleUnited says

What is your standard for morality sweetheart?

I have many components in my moral standards including not manipulating people with lies. Hence, you fail to meet my moral standard. I'm not going to dumb down my morality so that it fits in your childish worldview. Doing so would completely misrepresent that morality. Again, you must accept that your god is false and morality doesn't come from some stupid supernatural creator to even begin to understand real morality.

PeopleUnited says

I agree that lies are immoral. But why are lies immoral?

There are many reasons why lies are immoral. The particular lies of Christianity are immoral for many reasons including, but not limited to, causing little girls to commit suicide, causing people to commit horrific acts like rape and murder and genocide, causing our government to reckless endanger tens of millions of lives if not the entire world with foolish climate change denial. I could go on and on.

PeopleUnited says

What is the source of immorality?

I've already answered that question in detail and gave your reference works that go into even greater detail.

PeopleUnited says

What ideal are you claiming to uphold? What is the source of immorality?

The evolution of social creatures specifically dealing with cooperation and reciprocity.

You obviously read this since you are responding to that post and quoting it.

PeopleUnited says

Dan8267 says

1. Your god does not exist. That is a fact, not an opinion. He no more exists than the elephant god Ganesha and even entertaining the plausibility of Yahweh over Ganesha is pure racism.

Prove it, and honey, try to do it without false accusations of racism.

First, you don't get to dodge racism when you engage in it. Calling racist bullshit racist is perfectly valid.

Second, I already did proved it on this thread and many others. There is no point in me repeating the step-by-step details as you would never accept any proof, empirical or a priori, that your god is false. Put simply, proof is irrelevant to you. You will always hold the lie to be true regardless of proof. Once more you demonstrate just how dangerous Christian brainwashing is.

PeopleUnited says

Dan8267 says

2. Therefore, your god did not create the universe. The universe was not created. It has existed since the beginning of time, whatever that is. This is by definition and therefore cannot be argued against. Time itself is part of the universe and therefore did not exist before the universe. Whether time or space are finite or contain boundaries is irrelevant.

Again prove it. Oh, that's right you can't. Its your opinion.

It is idiotic to claim that a clearly factual statement is an opinion. Whether or not your god created the universe or even exists is clearly not an opinion. The correct answer cannot vary from person to person.

You are boxed in by logic and thrashing out wildly because you know your captured.

PeopleUnited says

We are better off taking Him at his word.

Once more you demonstrate the dangers of Christian brainwashing. Your defense of your creation myth is that we're better off taking the word of a fictional character that he's not fictional. We have to assume the Bible is the word of god because it says it is the word of god and the word of god is unerring. Circular logic much? Anyone who has this kind of reasoning should not be allowed to vote for the exact same reasons we don't let other mentally ill people vote.

PeopleUnited says

Dan8267 says

3. Jesus was not the son of a god or a god. He is either a fictional character or a Jewish criminal condemned to death by his government.

If you are so sure He is not the Son of God why are you so unsure about who He was. It sounds like you are unsure.

What a load of shit. One can be absolutely sure some asshole in a book isn't a god even if it is questionable whether or not that asshole existed.

No human being is divine or supernatural. Anyone who claims otherwise is mentally ill. Delusion is mental illness.

PeopleUnited says

Tell us then, what was Jesus guilty of?

If he existed, then founding a religion that committed many genocides, enslavement, rape, murder, torture, infanticide, ... just to name a few things.

PeopleUnited says

Why was he killed?

If he existed and there is anything slightly truthful about the gospels -- and yes, that's a big IF -- then insurrection.

There is nothing sensible about atoning for evil through human sacrifice. The ridiculousness of such a notion is clearly illustrated in the DarkMatter2525 videos.

PeopleUnited says

And if there is no such thing as sin then how can there be evil? If evil is not sin then what is evil?

Sin is defined as "a transgression against divine law". There is no divine law because there is no god. Therefore, there is no sin. Logic is inescapable.

Evil is "profound immorality" and requires no god and nothing supernatural to be meaningful. Morality is derived from evolutionary developed solutions to the various problems of cooperation in group living within social species. The study of morality is a science, and morality makes sense just like any other science. No lies, no bullshit, no superstitions is needed to understand morality. Such things only prevent a true understanding of the subject matter.

Equations, not false myths, explain morality and allows us to refine and apply it.

PeopleUnited says

Dan8267 says

5. Jesus most certainly did not rise from the dead.

Matthew chapter 28

Oh, the Bible says Jesus rose from the dead. Well, you've convinced me. Of course, you and I also now have to believe that Mohamed rose to heaven on a winged horse because the holy book, the Quran, says so. It would be utterly hypocritical to accept the Bible as the unerring word of god and not also accept the Quran as the unerring word of god. After all, the Quran says it is the word of god and the word of god is unerring, so the Quran must be the word of god.

Watch this video again.

www.youtube.com/embed/GScdUIYXglA

PeopleUnited says

Dan8267 says

6. Heaven could not possibly exist. It is a silly notion that is easily debunked. No mother could be happy in heaven if her child were burning in hell. No person could be happy in heaven if the one who raped and murder her was also there because he turned to Jesus. Heaven could not make people perfectly happy without destroying their minds.

Well Dan, have you looked everywhere?

I don't have to look everywhere. I just need to look at the properties of heaven and see a contradiction to know it's bullshit.

Have you looked everywhere to determine that the elephant god Ganesha does not exist, or the thousands of other gods worshiped by other people? No, and yet you are still certain all those Hindi, Native American, African, and Aboriginal gods do not exist? What fucking hypocrisy and racism. Your tribe gets special accommodation. Fuck all other tribes.

PeopleUnited says

Dan8267 says

7. The Bible was written by many different people each of which had different and conflicting social and political agendas. This is why the Bible is full of contradictions. It was written by man, not by or inspired by your false god.

2 Timothy 3:16-17King James Version (KJV)

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Proverbs 30:5

Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him.

How about we actually test that god again, this time under modern, controlled, scientifically valid conditions rather than letting a bunch of primitive, ignorant Bronze Age barbarians run the experiment?

PeopleUnited says

Dan8267 says

9. Only a fool thinks he needs a savior.

Psalm 14:1

The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good.

Yet another reason why your religion is vile, immoral, corrupt, and dangerous. It claims that reasoning and thinking makes a person a fool and that people should turn over the responsibility of thinking to the writers of the holy books. There is nothing that is more dangerous than blindly following an authoritarian. Have we not learned this lesson time and time again including when that asshole Hitler demonstrated it?

PeopleUnited says

Dan8267 says

10. Savior is not a proper noun. It should not be capitalized.

Jesus is the Savior. There is only one Savior. Therefore it is a proper noun.

No, that's not how English works. Your statement was "The point of the Bible is to teach us that every human being is immoral and needs a Savior."

The very fact that you used the indefinite article demonstrates that the word savior in that sentence is a common noun. Christ, Christian brainwashing even fucks up basic grammar.

PeopleUnited says

Here is what happened on the day Jesus died, just minutes before His death.

...like talking to a god-damn wall.

PeopleUnited says

Dan8267 says

12. Even the fictional character of Jesus was not a morally righteous person. He never condemned slavery, not even sex slavery of children, which was the greatest moral problem of his time.

So now you accuse Jesus of sins of omission? Again, by what standard of morality do you indict Jesus?

The question of slavery is the easiest moral question to answer. If you cannot get that right, you are not a morally upright person. This is especially despicable since the rape of underage girls and boys was common and ubiquitous in the ancient world. Even prepubescent girls and boys were routinely raped. The fact that Jesus, the man or the character, did not object to this as an affront to all that is holy demonstrates his complete lack of moral character. This is not a high standard to meet especially for someone allegedly dying horribly for the sins of man.

The Bible is in no way inspired by a supernatural being. It is solely the work of immoral men whose corrupt and violent worldview was typical of their barbaric time. The authors of both testaments were all in favor of slavery, as long as they weren't the slaves. That's hypocrisy.

@Patrick, given all that PeopleUnited has written in this thread, can you still justify your view that Christianity does not do great harm in America today? Can you simply ignore the delusional thinking that he demonstrates?

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Brief Aside, this is why "Envy", "Jealousy", "Equality", etc are never going to disappear, no matter how Libertarians, Old Fart Prager/Shapiro/Sowell type Conservatives, or Randroids want them to.

Very light and easy read...

https://www.amazon.com/Dangerous-Passion-David-Buss-Ph-D/dp/1451673132

@Patrick, PatNet can't handle the image URL (https: omitted to not confuse site):
//images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41NFZKAX82L.SX329_BO1,204,203,200.jpg

I think the commas are throwing it off.

Dan8267 says

PeopleUnited says

What is your standard for morality sweetheart?

PeopleUnited.....I get my morals from common sense. You get your morals from a book that promotes slavery. What sense does it make?

PeopleUnited says

PeopleUnited says

Tell us Dan what standard would you use to measure what is moral vs immoral? I agree that lies are immoral but why are they immoral? What ideal are you claiming to uphold? What is the source of immorality?

Dan8267 says

This involves math. It certainly can be done. It is literally being done right now by sociologists and biologists. It is not something you could possibly understand as long as you refuse to let go of the lie of your god. So I will not attempt to explain it to you until you have demonstrated some degree of rationality.

I will simply summarize that morality can be mathematically model in exquisite detail and thus a moral artificial intelligent could certainly be created. The basis of the model would be game theory and evolutionary psychology.

That is a cop out.

Dan8267 says

Bullshit. You can't just use my counter-argument against your bullshit against my arguments when they do not apply to my arguments. This is a thinly veiled "I know you are, but what am I". The Pacman defense only works if you have a power pellet, and you don't.

WTF? your answer to the original question is paraphrased as:
Dan, what is your standard for morality?
Dan responds: Math, and I can do the math, but I'm not going to share the equation with you because you are a dummy.

Dan8267 says

I have many components in my moral standards

What are they and where did they come from? Please enlighten us Oh moral one!

Dan8267 says

There are many reasons why lies are immoral.

And yet you utterly failed to name even one of them. Oh wait, you made another lie by claiming that the Bible causes people to commit suicide. So that begs the question, why is suicide immoral? Why are suicide and lies immoral Dan? How do you know for sure?

Dan8267 says

PeopleUnited says

What is the source of immorality?

I've already answered that question in detail and gave your reference works that go into even greater detail.

Try simplifying for those of us who work for a living Dan because I don't have time for your stupid books or videos. Where does immorality come from? Can you just give us like a one or even 4 sentence answer? Is it that hard?

Dan8267 says

You obviously read this since you are responding to that post and quoting it.

I did not watch the video or read the book but since you are the expert I am sure you can paraphrase for us. Where does immorality come from?

Dan8267 says

Dan8267 says

2. Therefore, your god did not create the universe. The universe was not created. It has existed since the beginning of time, whatever that is. This is by definition and therefore cannot be argued against. Time itself is part of the universe and therefore did not exist before the universe. Whether time or space are finite or contain boundaries is irrelevant.

Again prove it. Oh, that's right you can't. Its your opinion.

It is idiotic to claim that a clearly factual statement is an opinion. Whether or not your god created the universe or even exists is clearly not an opinion. The correct answer cannot vary from person to person.

You are boxed in by logic and thrashing out wildly because you know your captured.

Actually Dan you are boxed in by logic. You claim that the universe was not created and yet only observation can establish this hypothesis. Do you have an observer who can verify your hypothesis?

No you don't. You are making false claims about the origin of the universe.

Dan8267 says

Anyone who has this kind of reasoning should not be allowed to vote for the exact same reasons we don't let other mentally ill people vote.

Dan is advocating for removing Bible believers right to vote.

What where you saying is your moral code again?

Dan, in ancient Persian (long before the Islamic invasion), Savior is the same as Saoshyant ...

From the Easter thread:

https://patrick.net/1304995/2017-04-13-why-easter-is-called-easter-and-other-little-known-facts-about-the-holiday?c=1399802#comment-1399802

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism

And here's their version of the Book of Revelation ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frashokereti

Excerpt: "On earth, the Saoshyant will bring about a resurrection of the dead in the bodies they had before they died. This is followed by a last judgment through ordeal. The yazatas Airyaman and Atar will melt the metal in the hills and mountains, and the molten metal will then flow across the earth like a river. All mankind—both the living and the resurrected dead—will be required to wade through that river, but for the righteous (ashavan) it will seem to be a river of warm milk, while the wicked will be burned. The river will then flow down to hell, where it will annihilate Angra Mainyu and the last vestiges of wickedness in the universe.

The narrative continues with a projection of Ahura Mazda and the six Amesha Spentas solemnizing a final act of worship (yasna), and the preparation of parahaoma from "white haoma". The righteous will partake of the parahaoma, which will confer immortality upon them. Thereafter, humankind will become like the Amesha Spentas, living without food, without hunger or thirst, and without weapons (or possibility of bodily injury). The material substance of the bodies will be so light as to cast no shadow. All humanity will speak a single language and belong to a single nation without borders. All will share a single purpose and goal, joining with the divine for a perpetual exaltation of God's glory."

====

Sorry to say it but it looks like the editors of the Book of Revelation may be in violation of some prior ancient copyrights.

PeopleUnited says

WTF? your answer to the original question is paraphrased as:

Dan, what is your standard for morality?

Dan responds: Math, and I can do the math, but I'm not going to share the equation with you because you are a dummy.

...as well as too delusional to accept any reality that contradicts your religion.

But hey, ok, you want the math. Here's the math. Don't bitch to me when you don't understand it. And don't make the stupid claim that just because morality can be described in math, it cannot be taught to children. I'll tear you a new asshole if you make that predictable and stupid argument. If you want the non-math version read the book I linked to, The Moral Animal. I'm not going to transcribe the entire book here.

For more details, read this.

Most theory on the evolution of cooperation by indirect reciprocity is based on unconditional assessment. Evolutionary study on conditional assessment has started mainly by individual-based simulations, in which the corresponding assessment rule was named “us-TFT”34,35. In this paper, we fully analyze Staying, which is characterized by conditional assessment, and reveal that discriminators with Staying are more likely to invade the population of defectors than those with the four most prevailing social norms of indirect reciprocity10,37,38: Scoring19,20,39,40,41, Simple-standing1,21,22, Stern-judging3,37, and Shunning5,42 (Table 1). In mutual defection, within the population of defectors, either Simple-standing or Stern-judging leads defectors evaluated as bad to look good and then to exploit help from other discriminators. In contrast, under the Scoring or Shunning norm, discriminators are evaluated as bad as a result of interacting with defectors, leading to rejection by other discriminators; this is the main reason why the four social norms Scoring, Simple-standing, Stern-judging, and Shunning are unlikely to emerge. In contrast, Staying can leave the images of good discriminators and bad defectors intact; this enables discriminators to channel their cooperation and subvert the stalemate of mutual defection even with a small perturbation of the population state (which is on the order of assessment errors; see eq. (2)).

This is what adults read, not some silly story about a giant boat full of animals.

Dan8267 says

This is what adults read, not some silly story about a giant boat full of animals.

Dan, it's a lot easier than making a lot of speeches.

Paul of Tarsus, the psychotic delusional man that he was, since he'd never met Jesus in the flesh, but merely had a vision after a nervous breakdown on the road to Damascus, lifted a lot of Zoroastrian (or Anatolian Mitharic) motifs, to sell his version of spiritual reality, to the masses in Greek-Anatolia (eastern section) and the rest of the Latin empire.

Rin says

Sorry to say it but it looks like the editors of the Book of Revelation may be in violation of some prior ancient copyrights.

The entire Jewish and Christian mythology has ripped off many sources over the millennia. There were lots of flood myths, lots of god sacrificing their son myths, and other monotheistic religions like Zoroastrianism before Judeo-Christianity. Mohamed wasn't the only plagiarist ripping off prior content. The Christmas tree comes from pagan festivals as does Jesus's alleged birthday, the Winter Solstice. The virgin birth is also a rip off of older myths.

PeopleUnited says

Dan8267 says

Anyone who has this kind of reasoning should not be allowed to vote for the exact same reasons we don't let other mentally ill people vote.

Dan is advocating for removing Bible believers right to vote.

What where you saying is your moral code again?

Letting crazy people vote in other crazy people to key positions of power that leads to the entire destruction of the human race through nuclear war or ecological collapse is not the moral high ground.

PeopleUnited says

Actually Jesus bore not only the torture of the cross, but also the torment of leaving heaven and living as a human being for 33 years (it was beneath Him to lower Himself to our level and take on flesh, to feel pain, to know hunger, He never had to do that in Heaven but He was willing to endure this torment for us) and then was unjustly tried and convicted, sentenced to death without cause. He never sinned and yet he was found guilty

Considering that he was alive for 1 billion years, prior to a mere 33 yr imprisonment in the flesh, is nothing for a true spiritual master. If anything, he should have been grateful to realize what it was like to be a mere mortal, for such a brief period of time.

33/1,000,000,000 is 0.000000033 of one's existence. For you and me, that's like the experience of being stung by a bee in the fourth grade. Plus, Jesus could master the nervous system and thus, administer a psychic morphine to block all pain receptors. Yes, if he were who you say he was, that would have been cakewalk for him.

Dan8267 says

This is what adults read, not some silly story about a giant boat full of animals.

Yeah, I'm not buying it. So basically your morality can only be described with esoteric language that is incomprehensible to whales, whom you claim to be sentient beings. It is genius. Thanks for the non-explanation.

But as long as we are on the subject of animals, my dog killed two of my chickens. She didn't eat them, she killed them for sport. Is this moral?

A man kills another man just to watch him die. Is that moral?

A female sea lion will sometimes kill her offspring. Is this moral?

A mother in Kentucky drives the car into the lake with her two young children in the back. Is that moral?

A male bull will sometimes force himself on a female bull, you know rape her. Is that moral?

A man takes advantage of a drunk co-ed. Is that moral?

PeopleUnited says

Try simplifying for those of us who work for a living Dan because I don't have time for your stupid books or videos.

If you have time for the Bible, the stupidest book of all, and clearly you do, then you have time for real books and videos. You asked to an explanation of how I view morality and I gave you the most accurate and concise answer I can. If you want me to explain the subject matter to you, it's going to be a lot more difficult than reading one of those books or watching a video. I write as an engineer, not as a popularizer of science.

Of course you don't care about the work done in understanding morality with science. You seek only to discredit the competition no matter how superior it is to your lies and superstitions. I cannot teach you what you refuse to learn. Any child could learn the science of morality on his own. All he needs is an Internet connection and curiosity. You lack the latter.

PeopleUnited says

But as long as we are on the subject of animals, my dog killed two of my chickens. She didn't eat them, she killed them for sport. Is this moral?

A man kills another man just to watch him die. Is that moral?

A female sea lion will sometimes kill her offspring. Is this moral?

A mother in Kentucky drives the car into the lake with her two young children in the back. Is that moral?

A male bull will sometimes force himself on a female bull, you know rape her. Is that moral?

A man takes advantage of a drunk co-ed. Is that moral?

If you need your false god to answer any of the above questions, then you are fucked up.

Dan8267 says

Any child could learn the science of morality on his own.

Great, then talk to me like I was a child.
Dan8267 says

But as long as we are on the subject of animals, my dog killed two of my chickens. She didn't eat them, she killed them for sport. Is this moral?

A man kills another man just to watch him die. Is that moral?

A female sea lion will sometimes kill her offspring. Is this moral?

A mother in Kentucky drives the car into the lake with her two young children in the back. Is that moral?

A male bull will sometimes force himself on a female bull, you know rape her. Is that moral?

A man takes advantage of a drunk co-ed. Is that moral?

Which of these actions is moral?

What caused the immoral actions to happen?

PeopleUnited says

Great, then talk to me like I was a child.

OK, I'll play your stupid game. You think you are going to trap me, but I'm going to humiliate you yet again.

"But as long as we are on the subject of animals, my dog killed two of my chickens. She didn't eat them, she killed them for sport. Is this moral?"

No, but dogs are not as sentient as humans and are not as emotionally mature. They cannot be held to the same standards. Dogs are like toddlers that never grow up.

And there are far more shocking examples of how canine instinct can cause a horrible event. There was a documentary that showed wild dogs in a pack playfighting with a few very young pups. The pups got injured to the point where the older dog's predatory instinct was triggered and the play fight turned into a hunt. The pups were killed. There is no magic border between living and non-living, between sentient and non-sentient, between intelligent and mindless. The universe is fuzzy, like it or not. The universe is under no obligation to fit in your arbitrary boundaries and categories.

"A man kills another man just to watch him die. Is that moral?"

If the man being killed had his will violated, then no. That is implied in your statement, but I'm sure you are planning some dumb twist. By the way, if you introduce new information that materially changes what I envisioned you meant, then it is perfectly fair game for me to change my answer. That is not a contradiction.

"A female sea lion will sometimes kill her offspring. Is this moral?"

It depends on the reason. If it is the lesser of two evils, then it is unfortunate but moral. If the pup were to die because of disease, birth defect, or insufficient food, then yes. However, I doubt the sea lion is thinking about the options like a human would. It is acting on instinct and nature itself is amoral. Evolution creates creatures that in turn make moral codes, but not all creatures and not all animal behavior is driven by morality. That does not mean that social animals are devoid of morality. Life is fuzzy. Get use to it.

"A mother in Kentucky drives the car into the lake with her two young children in the back. Is that moral?"

Again, without context, I cannot make a judgement. Was it intentional? What is the intent? Intent is what matters, not consequences, when it comes to morality.

"A male bull will sometimes force himself on a female bull, you know rape her. Is that moral?"

Depends on the nature of the species. In humans rape is immoral because it creates psychological harm. In other species the females may have instinct to demand that males rape them as a kind of fitness test. Immorality comes from committing harm either intentionally or out of apathy. What constitutes harm can vary greatly from species to species.

"A man takes advantage of a drunk co-ed. Is that moral?"

This question is way to vague to answer. The fact is that human beings absolutely do use alcohol to further social and sexual rituals. This may be stupid, but it is reality. I'd have to know exactly what was going on in the man's mind to make any kind of determinate about whether or not his decisions were immoral.

Now your turn, unless you are too much of a coward to play your own game. And I'm going to use real life examples.

Parents teach their children about the Christian afterlife. That myth is a lie, but children are hard-wired by evolution to trust their parents implicitly, so they completely accept the lie as the truth. A father dies. His daughter longs to see him again and believes that he is in heaven and she will see him there is she dies. So she kills herself. This actually happened. Is it moral for parents to teach their children the lie of the Christian afterlife?

Various Christian churches have throughout history committed the worst atrocities imaginable including genocide, slavery, infanticide, torture, and rape. Is it moral to preserve and defend these institutions?

Christianity promotes lies about the existence of an unerring moral authority in order to control the behavior of the masses. Is it moral to tell such a lie to manipulative people? Is it moral to stop debate and discussion of morality by insisting that it is set in stone by some authority that does not even exist?

Man-made climate change is real, happening now, and dangerous. A multitude of scientific evidence from around the world proves this beyond any doubt. For this question, accept this premise regardless of your feelings. Is it moral to deny that man-made climate change is real?

Is it moral for a god to wipe out countless innocent animals in a flood?

Is it moral for a god to allow any being to suffer an eternity in hell?

I know you're going to pussy out on these questions.

Dan8267 says

"A man kills another man just to watch him die. Is that moral?"

In Reno?Dan8267 says

"A mother in Kentucky drives the car into the lake with her two young children in the back. Is that moral?"

I think it was one of the Carolinas, but some crazy bitch did just that and blamed an invisible black man. Even though her own family and ex-husband were willing to take the kids, she was banging the big shot in town and wanted him to commit to her, so she 'decided' to become childless to make herself more marriagable material.

It's the dark side of ape programming taking over.

Dan8267 says

my dog killed two of my chickens

It's also probably how they survived in the wild before they were domesticated.

Dan8267 says

A male bull will sometimes force himself on a female bull

She can also walk out from under him letting him fall and break his back. My rancher cousin has had to put down more than a couple because of that. Like Judge Millyan says, they're animals behaving as animals, they don't live by a moral code. What does this have to do with Islamic terrorism?

Rin says

PeopleUnited says

Actually Jesus bore not only the torture of the cross, but also the torment of leaving heaven and living as a human being for 33 years (it was beneath Him to lower Himself to our level and take on flesh, to feel pain, to know hunger, He never had to do that in Heaven but He was willing to endure this torment for us) and then was unjustly tried and convicted, sentenced to death without cause. He never sinned and yet he was found guilty

Considering that he was alive for 1 billion years, prior to a mere 33 yr imprisonment in the flesh, is nothing for a true spiritual master. If anything, he should have been grateful to realize what it was like to be a mere mortal, for such a brief period of time.

If earth was so bad, why did he come back after 3 days?

www.youtube.com/embed/yZ-iq_dpi9A

Chick out Riley's original piece - quoted in the beginning of the above video and linked in the description - goes on to LAUD the Iranians for providing "Free Sex Changes" and Blames the Media for portraying Muslims as anti-gay. He really is one ignorant SJW. hahahahahahaha

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Riley's...

an idiot. He mentions Leviticus without noting that Israel has gay pride parades, nobody gets stoned to death. He tries to equate Christianity and Islam, without noting 100% of the countries that recognize marriage equality have Christian majorities, while zero countries with Muslim majorities even allow gay couples to live together openly without fear of prosecution. He obsesses over reported "hate crimes" against Muslims (most of which turn out to be fake news) but ignores that Muslims have killed thousands of Americans in the name of Islam, which commands believers to do what they did.

P N Dr Lo R says

they're animals behaving as animals, they don't live by a moral code.

Actually there is ample scientific evidence that most, if not all, social animals have some kind of moral code passed on genetically. It makes perfect sense, too, as morality is a survival strategy. Without cooperation, the herd is killed.

However, the degree and nature of that morality can differ vastly from human morality. The underlying mathematics though is the same.

Dan8267 says

Be a murderer and believe in Jesus and he'll forgive your sins and you'll go to heaven.

You clearly have not gone to church, because what you said is not how it works. What you said, can only be said by someone who truly has no idea, but probably heard something somewhere. You are just bad at this Dan.

FortWayne says

Dan8267 says

Be a murderer and believe in Jesus and he'll forgive your sins and you'll go to heaven.

You clearly have not gone to church, because what you said is not how it works. What you said, can only be said by someone who truly has no idea, but probably heard something somewhere. You are just bad at this Dan.

No. That's what I hear all the time, too.
If you accept Jesus Christ as your savior, all your sins are forgiven, and you will go to heaven. I get asked all the time to accept Christ, before it's too late.

FortWayne says

Dan8267 says

Be a murderer and believe in Jesus and he'll forgive your sins and you'll go to heaven.

You clearly have not gone to church, because what you said is not how it works. What you said, can only be said by someone who truly has no idea, but probably heard something somewhere. You are just bad at this Dan.

Bullshit. The Sacrament of Confession wipes away all sins including cardinal ones like murder. All you have to do is ask forgiveness and accept Jesus. Honey, I guarantee I know a hell of a lot more about Christianity than you do. I had to study it all through elementary, junior high, and high school. And it was Catholic. That's the most canonical of Christian religions. Nobody does dogma and detail like the Catholics.

If you try to debate me on Christian lore, history, and dogma, you'll lose every time. I aced practically every class I took including the religious ones.

Dan8267 says

Bullshit. The Sacrament of Confession wipes away all sins including cardinal ones like murder. All you have to do is ask forgiveness and accept Jesus.

What if a priest, who has already accepted Jesus Christ as his savior, goes on to molest a couple of altar boys. Does he go to heaven or hell?

Dan8267 says

If you try to debate me on Christian lore, history, and dogma, you'll lose every time. I aced practically every class I took including the religious ones.

Fortwhine grew up Catholic too, but he was a lesser student, for reasons that should be obvious from his comments. I would love to know what "college" he claims to have attended, and whether he graduated.

Strategist says

Does he go to heaven or hell?

Whichever he does last decides the question. The Catholic church made vast fortunes this way, approaching lifelong sinners on their deathbeds, guilting them into donating everything to the church. They had to give everything. Thus, in addition to all their other sins, they disinherited their own children to save themselves. (BTW, some would argue Medicare does the same today, via different pretexts.)

Nothing on earth is more obviously unnatural than religion, but among current religions, Islam is the worst by far. Its apologists are literally going back to medieval times to find anything close. So, at best, its defenders call it medieval. Nobody else would consider that a compliment, but the apologists seem to intend it that way.

curious2 says

Nothing on earth is more obviously unnatural than religion, but among current religions, Islam is the worst by far. Its apologists are literally going back to medieval times to find anything close. So, at best, its defenders call it medieval. Nobody else would consider that a compliment, but the apologists seem intend it that way.

ThankYou for stating that. I could not agree more.
My question is.....what drives these apologists and defenders of Islam to stand up for Islam? It makes no sense to me.

Strategist says

what drives these apologists and defenders of Islam to stand up for Islam?

Deliberate disinformation campaigns, petrodollar baksheesh corrupting the MIC, deficit spending, and too many identitarian and emotional partisans refusing to read what Islam says and does before deciding what to say about it.