[quote]Therizza wrote:
I’m glad for you. I’m not trying to change what you believe, and I don’t question why you believe it. So would you say, using those studies as evidence, that there is a ‘natural law’ that killing is abhorrent? [/quote]
Yes. It’s bad for the species.
But of course, then it would come down to why you are killing.
See, we can agree on something.
[quote]Ct. Rockula wrote:
So in a country that is 83 percent [self identified] Christian according to ABCNews, shouldnt there be a different view on those that are ordered by God?
[/quote]
Fixed. Look at our culture. Kid’s cartoons about transforming robots turned into live action movies featuring masterbation jokes and a pot brownie high mom? I’d believe 83 percent of americans worship, and live a life of, instant self-gratification, than christianity. Unless the other 17 percent (then subtract the other self-identified religious) are just that damn dominant.
Aren’t chimps cannibals? Great, they’re “nice” to their partners in crime. I guess.
[quote]Therizza wrote:
See, we can agree on something. [/quote]
Hold me.
PS: Do you play the game from which your avatar sprang?
[quote]Therizza wrote:
PS: Do you play the game from which your avatar sprang?[/quote]
Hell yes I do.
Are you an orc warrior?
[quote]Therizza wrote:
Are you an orc warrior? [/quote]
Aha, nope. DK Tank/Sometimes Warlock.
[quote]Therizza wrote:
Are you an orc warrior? [/quote]
Aha, nope. DK Tank/Sometimes Warlock.
<= pally
[quote]Therizza wrote:
<= pally[/quote]
Now I can tell you to just bubble/hearth out of arguments.
Strangulate
[quote]Therizza wrote:
Strangulate[/quote]
OH snap, no you didn’t
[quote]Makavali wrote:
The capacity for empathy and compassion is hard wired into our brains and is cultivated through the guidance of our parents and interactions with our peers. Were you aware of studies which show that chimps in captivity experience visible signs of distress when confronted with the mistreatment of other chimps with which they are familiar?
This clearly demonstrates that even lower order primates are endowed with an innate capacity to empathize. They don’t need the Bible to tell them that murder is wrong and neither do I.[/quote]
Primates also engage in infanticide and outright slaughter of one another - and empathy is nowhere to be found. They also take stuff if they feel like it.
The Iron Law of the Jungle - though “natural” - doesn’t provide us the “natural rights” of life, liberty, and property. Keep looking.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Makavali wrote:
The capacity for empathy and compassion is hard wired into our brains and is cultivated through the guidance of our parents and interactions with our peers. Were you aware of studies which show that chimps in captivity experience visible signs of distress when confronted with the mistreatment of other chimps with which they are familiar?
This clearly demonstrates that even lower order primates are endowed with an innate capacity to empathize. They don’t need the Bible to tell them that murder is wrong and neither do I.
Primates also engage in infanticide and outright slaughter of one another - and empathy is nowhere to be found. They also take stuff if they feel like it.
The Iron Law of the Jungle - though “natural” - doesn’t provide us the “natural rights” of life, liberty, and property. Keep looking.
[/quote]
Neither does the Bible.
I’m pointing out that the so called virtues of empathy etc. are directly observable in the so called “lower” animals.
The one cardinal mistake theists make with regard to morality is that there must be some absolute moral ideal (presumably of divine origin)for humans to act “morally”. A review of human civilization however clearly demonstrates the very plasticity of morality and ethical behavior, which has changed and evolved over many centuries.
While we recoil at the idea of Abraham readiness for human sacrifice, it is important to appreciate that in ancient times, such acts were NOT considered immoral. Likewise, all societies have embraced slavery, which has only been abhorrent to the West only since the 19th C.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
The one cardinal mistake theists make with regard to morality is that there must be some absolute moral ideal (presumably of divine origin)for humans to act “morally”. A review of human civilization however clearly demonstrates the very plasticity of morality and ethical behavior, which has changed and evolved over many centuries.[/quote]
This is just dumb - if there is no “absolute moral ideal”, then all moral behavior is negotiable, and you have no reason to complain if I do something morally abhorrent, on the basis that I just have a different moral interpretation than you.
Thus, if a society adopted a policy that it would execute any person who had been on welfare rolls for two years straight as a means of “cutting the fat of society”, you have no basis on which to complain - after all, said society is just engaging in the “plasticity” of an up-for-grabs morality.
This is the cardinal mistake atheists make with regard to morality - they continue to appeal to some basic “baseline” of genuine moral behavior that should be observed regardless of individual opinion - human rights, “tolerance”, whatever - but when pressed to explain why or how such “baseline” exists, they don’t have an adequate answer.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Well since people know that God exists 100 over a 100
Either stupidity or arrogance here.
I don’t know 100% that God doesn’t exist. I find it highly improbable that God exists in the sense that Abrahamic and a lot of other religions claim He/She exists.
Okay, either God exists or he doesn’t. There is right and wrong, you cannot have a half God, just like you cannot have a half man. Either he is or is not a man.
I never said half a God, I say I don’t know and because of evidence presented I lean toward there being no God. Apparently being religious and being able to read a mutually exclusive.
Also, your can’t be a half man theory is fundamentally flawed, don’t use it again.[/quote]
How is it fundamentally flawed? There is a right answer and a wrong answer. Now, if you do not know, then do not state your opinion as fact.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Well since people know that God exists 100 over a 100
Either stupidity or arrogance here.
I don’t know 100% that God doesn’t exist. I find it highly improbable that God exists in the sense that Abrahamic and a lot of other religions claim He/She exists.
Okay, either God exists or he doesn’t. There is right and wrong, you cannot have a half God, just like you cannot have a half man. Either he is or is not a man.
I never said half a God, I say I don’t know and because of evidence presented I lean toward there being no God. Apparently being religious and being able to read a mutually exclusive.
Also, your can’t be a half man theory is fundamentally flawed, don’t use it again.
How is it fundamentally flawed? There is a right answer and a wrong answer. Now, if you do not know, then do not state your opinion as fact.[/quote]
Feel free to ignore the rest of my statement, by the way. I know issues can be annoying.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Well since people know that God exists 100 over a 100
Either stupidity or arrogance here.
I don’t know 100% that God doesn’t exist. I find it highly improbable that God exists in the sense that Abrahamic and a lot of other religions claim He/She exists.
Okay, either God exists or he doesn’t. There is right and wrong, you cannot have a half God, just like you cannot have a half man. Either he is or is not a man.
I never said half a God, I say I don’t know and because of evidence presented I lean toward there being no God. Apparently being religious and being able to read a mutually exclusive.
Also, your can’t be a half man theory is fundamentally flawed, don’t use it again.
How is it fundamentally flawed? There is a right answer and a wrong answer. Now, if you do not know, then do not state your opinion as fact.
Feel free to ignore the rest of my statement, by the way. I know issues can be annoying.[/quote]
I am sorry I am not nit picky about everything you say. I just wanted you to explain how I was wrong. Obviously I am ignorant to this your majesty and I accept all things you say. Religious and reading of course is mutually exclusive, but I bet I can still comprehend better than you.
And my half God statement was about your Abraham statement, you assume that today’s religion is equal to Abraham’s God. Which is not true, the today’s religion is much liberal. God is not what many people assume he is.