Posted on 05/04/2014 12:34:25 PM PDT by Olog-hai
Just an insufferable, low IQ deceiver...
.
But let's not pretend that our friend is being a self proclaimed equal opportunity mediator.
I laid out a short version of non-supernatural morality earlier. I've asked for a similar definition from the theistic side and haven't gotten one.
If I had to guess, it's because he knows that he'll open up an intellectual can of worms by saying "My morality comes from the Bible", as those of us who don't agree with you and he easily go line by line documenting the death, destruction, and misery commanded by the "transcendent authority" in the OT.
The best defense is a good offense. I can't fault him for not putting his convictions on the line, as they are likely indefensible.
-What does 76.2X39 mean?
—It is an ammo designation. In this case for my AK47.
Ah.
See, I was ignorant.
Your response is excellent and I agree.
Yet it defeats your entire premise.
It reinforces the view that an external authority provides the most strong basis for humans behaving morally.
So your cognition is less than up to the understanding that the complexity of the DNA code is beyond accident?
.
Mercurial:
changeable; volatile; fickle; flighty; erratic:
“Old Testament God”: created man, decided they were too violent without telling mankind that being violent was a bad thing. Destroyed Man with flood. Saved Noah, who then got drunk and cursed an entire tribe of men because its found saw him naked.
God creates a wealth of food in Egypt for seven years, then causes a famine of equal time so Joseph can make bank on stored Egyptian goods.
To punish ALL Egyptians, and not just the ruling class, OT God kills all the Egyptian first-born and when he runs out of them, kills first-born cattle to boot.
Yep, that’s mercurial.
Aren't you that geocentrist guy, or am I thinking of someone else?
Buddhism is not pan-theistic at all. Name their gods.
Superstition? One man’s superstition is another man’s religion.
No. “Mercurial” implies doing it without notice, and without telling the creation what is expected of them. The people had plenty of advance warning from prophets—including the antediluvians, from Noah.
And the curse is not because Noah was found naked, but because the one who received the curse did nothing about it (and there is heavy implication that there was lewdness involved in the lack of action); the two tribes that were not cursed did something about it.
Please read the Bible first before making ad hoc claims about its contents.
The Arhat.
Was driving to the store thinking about your comment and remembered this from way back.
I'm not arguing that gorillas are going to establish a Constitutional Republic anytime soon, but I think it at least makes one pause about the innate nature of minimizing suffering.
Not conservative, and not an atheist.
He’s agnostic, which makes his arcane use of the English language and his intentional obfuscation of his points in a barrage of 50 cent words plucked from the list of the Scripps-Howard Spelling Bee all the more caustic to me.
He’ll be outing himself as a homo next week to sell a book.
Begging more questions here. Does the gorilla have a sense of morality, or did God influence that gorilla to act against the standard set of instincts given to it? None of us can get inside that gorilla’s head, of course.
And the curse is not because Noah was found naked, but because the one who received the curse did nothing about it (and there is heavy implication that there was lewdness involved in the lack of action); the two tribes that were not cursed did something about it.
Yikes.
Of course not. But what's more likely, that there was a very primordial, basic appeal to the gorilla's mind that this person was in trouble and needed help, or that that God intervened in that tiny, isolated circumstance and helped the boy?
Since we're both primates, I think that there was a tiny speck of evolutionary morality in helping the boy.
You're free to believe it was a miracle.
Why did he run and tell his brothers after leaving Noah naked, instead of covering him up?
Throwing the word “nonsense” out there implies insecurity in one’s position. Rather liberal-like.
Evolution does not necessarily imply morality, though. Especially from a Darwinian point of view. Helping the human child was of no benefit to the gorilla; it neither strengthened his own survivability nor indicated an alteration of his genes in a beneficial way.
I totally agree. Morality does seem to be of evolutionary benefit to a tribal species dependent on solidarity with one another.
Evolution does not necessarily imply morality, though.
I totally agree. However, morality does seem to be of evolutionary benefit to a tribal species dependent on solidarity with one another.
Kuan yin. Mr Hell. Tudi Gong gong - millions of them. Myriad ghosts. All sorts I don’t remember the names of.
Again, I think you have no knowledge or experience with Buddhism at all.
Except from the liberal western misrepresentation of the past century.
Yes we do have absolute mathematical proof in the complexity, and enduring stability of the code.
Perhaps that is too far above your level of cognition?
Atheists tend to be less than honest, below productive IQ levels, and tenacious as an earth worm.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.