Kentucky Church Bans Interracial Marriage

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

I disagree, secular morality can provide a universal morality.

Listen, it appears you are interested in performing mental gymnastics to avoid the obvious truth.

If a slave trader identifies himself as part of a religion and refers to a holy book (in his eyes) to decide what is right and wrong my “brand of morality” is not to blame. His source of morality was the bible, and the bible clearly condones slavery. It’s an undeniable fact.

[/quote]

No mental gymnastics. I’m saying his source of morality is himself. And further that your source of morality (societal consent) also approved it.

I can identify myself as an atheist and kill someone, but that doesn’t mean that atheism caused it.

I wasn’t aware that the Bible condoned slavery. But it’s especially ironic, because Christians are also the ones that pushed abolition.

For your point to be true, the slave trader would have need to not become a slave trader if it wasn’t for the Bible, and you know that’s a load of crap.[/quote]

If you hold the Christian worldview you get your morals from Christianity.

Atheism is not a worldview, so your comparison doesn’t work.

I don’t understand what the last sentence of your post is trying to say.
[/quote]

But quoting from the Bible doesn’t mean they got there morality from Christianity. You are assuming outward expression and inward belief are the same. I’m contending they aren’t.

Positive atheism is. And negative does to the extend not deciding is deciding to not decide.

And Christianity isn’t really a worldview any as it is a pursuit. It is a methodology, not a concrete decision.

It means, he did evil because he was evil on the inside, not cause the bible told him to enslave black people.

82

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

I disagree, secular morality can provide a universal morality.

[/quote]

Okay, what is it? Give me universal secular morality.[/quote]

Human rights-

The crusades America leads to spread “freedom” and “democracy” whatever that means.

Granted, those are quasi religious in nature, but they are explicitly not religious, maybe precisely because they are so close to it. [/quote]

Yeah, Americans can’t even agree on what the codified rights spelled out in the constitution actually mean. I’m sure there is universal consensus though.

But for shits and giggles, justify human rights, secularly.[/quote]

I do not have to.

I just pointed out that they are considered top be universal and that there even is apprently a cross cultural consensus that they are.

Sure, there are sectarian disputes, but that is also true for any truly religious movement.[/quote]

Uh, there are significant portions of the world that don’t agree with even the basic ones.

And you, you don’t have to justify them. The consensus is that god gave them to us, because its entirely illogical.

And again, the religious claim to morality doesn’t require consensus of any kind, so I don’t know why you bring it up. Consensus can’t effect absolute morality by definition. [/quote]

Yeah well, but if people disagree what those absolute morals are, the end result kind of looks like disagreement.

Also, no religious moral system was ever recognized all around the world so how is that different from secular humanism, which incidentally is one of the roots of the declaration of human rights?

83

[quote]orion wrote:

Yeah well, but if people disagree what those absolute morals are, the end result kind of looks like disagreement.

Also, no religious moral system was ever recognized all around the world so how is that different from secular humanism, which incidentally is one of the roots of the declaration of human rights?[/quote]

That is true, because there absolutely is disagreement about what they are (pun intended), but disagreement doesn’t affect the absolute morals themselves. It doesn’t and can’t diminish or disprove absolute morality. Get it? I claim rape is bad, absolutely. Some other church claiming something different doesn’t affect my claim.

But it’s really moot, because secular humanism doesn’t exist. All of it starts with a leap of faith outside of reasoning or logic.

84

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Yeah well, but if people disagree what those absolute morals are, the end result kind of looks like disagreement.

Also, no religious moral system was ever recognized all around the world so how is that different from secular humanism, which incidentally is one of the roots of the declaration of human rights?[/quote]

That is true, because there absolutely is disagreement about what they are (pun intended), but disagreement doesn’t affect the absolute morals themselves. It doesn’t and can’t diminish or disprove absolute morality. Get it? I claim rape is bad, absolutely. Some other church claiming something different doesn’t affect my claim.

But it’s really moot, because secular humanism doesn’t exist. All of it starts with a leap of faith outside of reasoning or logic.[/quote]

And that is different from religion, how?

85

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Yeah well, but if people disagree what those absolute morals are, the end result kind of looks like disagreement.

Also, no religious moral system was ever recognized all around the world so how is that different from secular humanism, which incidentally is one of the roots of the declaration of human rights?[/quote]

That is true, because there absolutely is disagreement about what they are (pun intended), but disagreement doesn’t affect the absolute morals themselves. It doesn’t and can’t diminish or disprove absolute morality. Get it? I claim rape is bad, absolutely. Some other church claiming something different doesn’t affect my claim.

But it’s really moot, because secular humanism doesn’t exist. All of it starts with a leap of faith outside of reasoning or logic.[/quote]

And that is different from religion, how?[/quote]

lol. It isn’t. Which was my point. The only real difference is the acknowledgement of faith.

86

All right, I agree.

87

[quote]orion wrote:
All right, I agree. [/quote]

WTF?

I’m trying to figure out how to argue with this post… Hah.

88

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
All right, I agree. [/quote]

WTF?

I’m trying to figure out how to argue with this post… Hah.[/quote]

We will find something else.

I am sure you are not one of these waffle loving infidels, no man of somewhat sound mind and body possibly could be.

89

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

I disagree, secular morality can provide a universal morality.

Listen, it appears you are interested in performing mental gymnastics to avoid the obvious truth.

If a slave trader identifies himself as part of a religion and refers to a holy book (in his eyes) to decide what is right and wrong my “brand of morality” is not to blame. His source of morality was the bible, and the bible clearly condones slavery. It’s an undeniable fact.

[/quote]

No mental gymnastics. I’m saying his source of morality is himself. And further that your source of morality (societal consent) also approved it.

I can identify myself as an atheist and kill someone, but that doesn’t mean that atheism caused it.

I wasn’t aware that the Bible condoned slavery. But it’s especially ironic, because Christians are also the ones that pushed abolition.

For your point to be true, the slave trader would have need to not become a slave trader if it wasn’t for the Bible, and you know that’s a load of crap.[/quote]

If you hold the Christian worldview you get your morals from Christianity.

Atheism is not a worldview, so your comparison doesn’t work.

I don’t understand what the last sentence of your post is trying to say.
[/quote]

But quoting from the Bible doesn’t mean they got there morality from Christianity. You are assuming outward expression and inward belief are the same. I’m contending they aren’t.

Positive atheism is. And negative does to the extend not deciding is deciding to not decide.

And Christianity isn’t really a worldview any as it is a pursuit. It is a methodology, not a concrete decision.

It means, he did evil because he was evil on the inside, not cause the bible told him to enslave black people.[/quote]

Hrmmm… you believe a book is the word of god, it condones slavery so you go ahead and enslave blacks guilt free. There were many people who owned slaves and were pro-slavery during that time period. Are you really going to argue this outward express/inward belief argument for all these people?

Additionally, you’re on crack if you don’t think Christianity is a world view.

No form of atheism is a world view. Atheism is nothing more than a single answer to a single question. There are no scriptures or dogma or tenets on how an atheist should live his/her life.

If we can’t agree on these points there’s really no point in arguing further.

90

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

John Lennon is an overrated cunt. I can’t believe you rolled out his crap. On second thought I take that back, because I know there are fools who feed into his bullshit. [/quote]

I rolled it out precisely because he is an overrated cunt and thus is illustrative of the folks who buy into that pile of steaming…[/quote]

Okay. You have redeemed yourself.

91

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
Damn and I thought I was exposed to all the bitterness possible reading some of the shit in PWI.

Who are you two exactly? You don’t have to buy into the man’s political ideologies but to use those words on a guy who was one of the best musical scribes of all-time and forever changed the history of music forever is just disrespectful. [/quote]

For my part I’m someone who doesn’t buy into the cult of personality that has developed around him. Even when that song was written no imagination was needed to see how badly flawed the ideology it promotes is. I think he has done harm to this world.

Frankly on the musical tip back when the Beatles were still together I derived much greater inspiration from the music of Isaac Hayes…

92

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

I don’t agree with what you have said in regards to the source of knowledge, but that’s a different debate entirely. Even if you can’t explain it, it’s irrational to jump to the conclusion it must be from a supernatural source.

The examples in your second paragraph are not of minds relying on their own logic and reasoning. All the examples you listed were from groups where religion played a large in role society. I remember reading slave traders would often quote a passage in the bible to justify slavery.

Secular morality is about using your own logic, reasoning, moral intuition in combination with your interaction with others.

[/quote]

Logic cannot provide a universal morality. I believe in a universal morality.

And this is where your argument really crumbles. In those situations there was societal consensus. By your own reasoning that is what makes right or wrong, not religion.

In fact the religion itself was by societal consensus. So those religious beliefs themselves pass your own test for morality.

And this also omits that much of that has been done outside of religion. But also, that quoting a Bible verse doesn’t mean that the slave trader was motivated by or justified the action to himself by religion. It is much more likely that was the method he used to justify himself to society. The truth is that he was an evil man who wanted to benefit himself through evil means and then search for a method of justification. In which case, he was relying on his internal sense of right and wrong and that is why he did what he did.

Do you really think he read the Bible and got “slavery is okay” out of it, then decided to go do it? Or do you think he first though internally and decided he wanted to get rich on slaves, then read the Bible to seek permission? In the second scenario, your brand of morality is to blame, not mine.[/quote]

Doesn’t it come down to emotion, the ‘spirit’ of life, at the end of the day? Emotional capacity comes first and a moral code develops from that. As humans we are all born with emotional and intellectual potential that separates us from other animals. It’s why an evil person is always emotionally void. In the current example, a slave trader maybe evil because he cannot feel emotion. However, it is more likely his ‘evil’ is derived from a place of ignorance, that is, he cannot imagine what it is like to be the slave. He cannot garner an external perspective of the world around him. If said slave trader eventually becomes a slave himself he will not be a slave trader thereafter.

If I knocked you on the head and you woke up not knowing what religion is, who Jesus is or anything about society and I then gave you a weapon and a limited amount of food what do you think you would do? Assuming you lost your ability to speak how do think you would survive? Would you use your weapon to harm people to survive?

93


One of the more impressive strings of inconsistent fallacious thought I’ve seen in a while. Formally honest though I think I believe it was.

94

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
One of the more impressive strings of inconsistent fallacious thought I’ve seen in a while. Formally honest though I think I believe it was.
[/quote]

I’ve seen worse coming from biblehumpers, to be honest.

95

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

I don’t agree with what you have said in regards to the source of knowledge, but that’s a different debate entirely. Even if you can’t explain it, it’s irrational to jump to the conclusion it must be from a supernatural source.

The examples in your second paragraph are not of minds relying on their own logic and reasoning. All the examples you listed were from groups where religion played a large in role society. I remember reading slave traders would often quote a passage in the bible to justify slavery.

Secular morality is about using your own logic, reasoning, moral intuition in combination with your interaction with others.

[/quote]

Logic cannot provide a universal morality. I believe in a universal morality.

And this is where your argument really crumbles. In those situations there was societal consensus. By your own reasoning that is what makes right or wrong, not religion.

In fact the religion itself was by societal consensus. So those religious beliefs themselves pass your own test for morality.

And this also omits that much of that has been done outside of religion. But also, that quoting a Bible verse doesn’t mean that the slave trader was motivated by or justified the action to himself by religion. It is much more likely that was the method he used to justify himself to society. The truth is that he was an evil man who wanted to benefit himself through evil means and then search for a method of justification. In which case, he was relying on his internal sense of right and wrong and that is why he did what he did.

Do you really think he read the Bible and got “slavery is okay” out of it, then decided to go do it? Or do you think he first though internally and decided he wanted to get rich on slaves, then read the Bible to seek permission? In the second scenario, your brand of morality is to blame, not mine.[/quote]

Doesn’t it come down to emotion, the ‘spirit’ of life, at the end of the day? Emotional capacity comes first and a moral code develops from that. As humans we are all born with emotional and intellectual potential that separates us from other animals. It’s why an evil person is always emotionally void. In the current example, a slave trader maybe evil because he cannot feel emotion. However, it is more likely his ‘evil’ is derived from a place of ignorance, that is, he cannot imagine what it is like to be the slave. He cannot garner an external perspective of the world around him. If said slave trader eventually becomes a slave himself he will not be a slave trader thereafter.

If I knocked you on the head and you woke up not knowing what religion is, who Jesus is or anything about society and I then gave you a weapon and a limited amount of food what do you think you would do? Assuming you lost your ability to speak how do think you would survive? Would you use your weapon to harm people to survive?[/quote]

Have you seem Amistad?

That slave that pleaded so touchingly to be freed went home aaaaannnnd, became a rather successful slave trader…

96

Wow. But then, it’s their church. If they like being laugh at, let them.

97

[quote]Alvirre wrote:
Wow. But then, it’s their church. If they like being laugh at, let them. [/quote]

This.

I do hold the firm belief that everyone holds the inalienable right to be an incurable fucktard.

Even in church.

98

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Alvirre wrote:
Wow. But then, it’s their church. If they like being laugh at, let them. [/quote]

This.

I do hold the firm belief that everyone holds the inalienable right to be an incurable fucktard.

Even in church.[/quote]

Exactly. Besides white churches are nowhere near as much fun as a Black church. They should consider themselves lucky if some black folk would want to come have church with them. It’s very much their loss.

99

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Alvirre wrote:
Wow. But then, it’s their church. If they like being laugh at, let them. [/quote]

This.

I do hold the firm belief that everyone holds the inalienable right to be an incurable fucktard.

Even in church.[/quote]

Nicely said. :slight_smile:

100

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

I disagree, secular morality can provide a universal morality.

Listen, it appears you are interested in performing mental gymnastics to avoid the obvious truth.

If a slave trader identifies himself as part of a religion and refers to a holy book (in his eyes) to decide what is right and wrong my “brand of morality” is not to blame. His source of morality was the bible, and the bible clearly condones slavery. It’s an undeniable fact.

[/quote]

No mental gymnastics. I’m saying his source of morality is himself. And further that your source of morality (societal consent) also approved it.

I can identify myself as an atheist and kill someone, but that doesn’t mean that atheism caused it.

I wasn’t aware that the Bible condoned slavery. But it’s especially ironic, because Christians are also the ones that pushed abolition.

For your point to be true, the slave trader would have need to not become a slave trader if it wasn’t for the Bible, and you know that’s a load of crap.[/quote]

If you hold the Christian worldview you get your morals from Christianity.

Atheism is not a worldview, so your comparison doesn’t work.

I don’t understand what the last sentence of your post is trying to say.
[/quote]

But quoting from the Bible doesn’t mean they got there morality from Christianity. You are assuming outward expression and inward belief are the same. I’m contending they aren’t.

Positive atheism is. And negative does to the extend not deciding is deciding to not decide.

And Christianity isn’t really a worldview any as it is a pursuit. It is a methodology, not a concrete decision.

It means, he did evil because he was evil on the inside, not cause the bible told him to enslave black people.[/quote]

Hrmmm… you believe a book is the word of god, it condones slavery so you go ahead and enslave blacks guilt free. There were many people who owned slaves and were pro-slavery during that time period. Are you really going to argue this outward express/inward belief argument for all these people?

Additionally, you’re on crack if you don’t think Christianity is a world view.

No form of atheism is a world view. Atheism is nothing more than a single answer to a single question. There are no scriptures or dogma or tenets on how an atheist should live his/her life.

If we can’t agree on these points there’s really no point in arguing further.

[/quote]

Ah, but sharing the belief there is no god is a view of the world. Which is very similar to the one fundamental belief of Christianity.

And again, it condones slavery??!