Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She’s angry at the hypocrisy of “religious” people. Ninety percent of the time, they are twisting their religious books and teachings to justify their hatred, bigotry, xenophobia, acts of violence, etc. It’s just all a big excuse. If you want to hate gay people, do it in your own name. If you want to invade another country, do it in your own name. If you want to keep women under your thumb, do it in your own name.

Well she’s gained over 50 lbs, has no friends or hobbies, is unmarried and hasn’t had a boyfriend in 3 years. She exists in a constant state of anger and I am getting very sick of it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't mind if people are religious, as long as they keep it to themselves. Meaning: stop making laws based on your holy book and not on basic human morality.

There is no “basic human morality” without the reference point people refer to as “God.”

That is a claim you have to prove or it is easy to dismiss BS.

You’re not paying attention.

The very idea of “right,” “wrong,” “moral” and “immoral” require some authoritative reference point, some “lawgiver.” Otherwise relativism takes over. What one person thinks is good (typically for them) someone else will decide is evil (typically because it has a negative effect on them). All sorts of behaviors that present day people in the West disapprove of on grounds of “basic human morality” used to be thought of as perfectly OK in the West, and still are in other places. Likewise, all sorts of behaviors that present day people in the West think are fine used to be roundly condemned in the West and still are in much of the world.

If history proves anything it is that human beings are very poor at coming up and living in accord with any sort of “universal morality.”

It is a common philosophical error to blame some human-defined “god” for this or that. Philosophically, “God” is the label people have come up with for a being with a certain set of immutable attributes that exist independent of that label. What is right or wrong can only be measured by comparison to some objective perfection — one of the attributes of “God.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't mind if people are religious, as long as they keep it to themselves. Meaning: stop making laws based on your holy book and not on basic human morality.

There is no “basic human morality” without the reference point people refer to as “God.”

That is a claim you have to prove or it is easy to dismiss BS.

You’re not paying attention.

The very idea of “right,” “wrong,” “moral” and “immoral” require some authoritative reference point, some “lawgiver.” Otherwise relativism takes over. What one person thinks is good (typically for them) someone else will decide is evil (typically because it has a negative effect on them). All sorts of behaviors that present day people in the West disapprove of on grounds of “basic human morality” used to be thought of as perfectly OK in the West, and still are in other places. Likewise, all sorts of behaviors that present day people in the West think are fine used to be roundly condemned in the West and still are in much of the world.

If history proves anything it is that human beings are very poor at coming up and living in accord with any sort of “universal morality.”

It is a common philosophical error to blame some human-defined “god” for this or that. Philosophically, “God” is the label people have come up with for a being with a certain set of immutable attributes that exist independent of that label. What is right or wrong can only be measured by comparison to some objective perfection — one of the attributes of “God.”

"Coming up with" is pretty easy, but "living with" is something completely different. See the history of the Jews in the Old Testament for example. How many times dis they disobey God? But they're only human, after all. Created in God's image and all that, so what do you expect?

Actually, the God’s image part is the good part. The darkening of the intellect and the corruption and misuse of free will attributable to human choices is where problems arise.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't mind if people are religious, as long as they keep it to themselves. Meaning: stop making laws based on your holy book and not on basic human morality.

There is no “basic human morality” without the reference point people refer to as “God.”

That is a claim you have to prove or it is easy to dismiss BS.

You’re not paying attention.

The very idea of “right,” “wrong,” “moral” and “immoral” require some authoritative reference point, some “lawgiver.” Otherwise relativism takes over. What one person thinks is good (typically for them) someone else will decide is evil (typically because it has a negative effect on them). All sorts of behaviors that present day people in the West disapprove of on grounds of “basic human morality” used to be thought of as perfectly OK in the West, and still are in other places. Likewise, all sorts of behaviors that present day people in the West think are fine used to be roundly condemned in the West and still are in much of the world.

If history proves anything it is that human beings are very poor at coming up and living in accord with any sort of “universal morality.”

It is a common philosophical error to blame some human-defined “god” for this or that. Philosophically, “God” is the label people have come up with for a being with a certain set of immutable attributes that exist independent of that label. What is right or wrong can only be measured by comparison to some objective perfection — one of the attributes of “God.”

well most peoples have a version of the golden rule. That is pretty much universal. and the 10 commandments, at least nos. 5-10 aren't far off either

Nonsense. The “values” you reference typically apply only within the “self” group. Countless cultures and peoples, past and present, have considered all sorts of dreadful behavior perfectly acceptable and even desirable when directed at “suitable” targets.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't mind if people are religious, as long as they keep it to themselves. Meaning: stop making laws based on your holy book and not on basic human morality.

There is no “basic human morality” without the reference point people refer to as “God.”

That is a claim you have to prove or it is easy to dismiss BS.

You’re not paying attention.

The very idea of “right,” “wrong,” “moral” and “immoral” require some authoritative reference point, some “lawgiver.” Otherwise relativism takes over. What one person thinks is good (typically for them) someone else will decide is evil (typically because it has a negative effect on them). All sorts of behaviors that present day people in the West disapprove of on grounds of “basic human morality” used to be thought of as perfectly OK in the West, and still are in other places. Likewise, all sorts of behaviors that present day people in the West think are fine used to be roundly condemned in the West and still are in much of the world.

If history proves anything it is that human beings are very poor at coming up and living in accord with any sort of “universal morality.”

It is a common philosophical error to blame some human-defined “god” for this or that. Philosophically, “God” is the label people have come up with for a being with a certain set of immutable attributes that exist independent of that label. What is right or wrong can only be measured by comparison to some objective perfection — one of the attributes of “God.”

That’s a lot of words, which started with an unnecessary insult. And yet no evidence of your claim is presented, and it can be therefore summarily dismissed.

Wow. “Summarily dismissed.” How about that.

Aquinas will be heartbroken.

Aquinas’ presuppositional nonsense has been disassembled many times. There are many links, I will post some if you don’t want to google them.

But your assertions are by no means as thoughtful as his, and for yours we only need Hitchens’ Razor:

“That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”.

In your defense I don’t think your point is weak because you aren’t intelligent or thoughtful. It’s because your presuppositional position is not defensible with logic, whether you are you, or Aquinas.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't mind if people are religious, as long as they keep it to themselves. Meaning: stop making laws based on your holy book and not on basic human morality.

There is no “basic human morality” without the reference point people refer to as “God.”

That is a claim you have to prove or it is easy to dismiss BS.

You’re not paying attention.

The very idea of “right,” “wrong,” “moral” and “immoral” require some authoritative reference point, some “lawgiver.” Otherwise relativism takes over. What one person thinks is good (typically for them) someone else will decide is evil (typically because it has a negative effect on them). All sorts of behaviors that present day people in the West disapprove of on grounds of “basic human morality” used to be thought of as perfectly OK in the West, and still are in other places. Likewise, all sorts of behaviors that present day people in the West think are fine used to be roundly condemned in the West and still are in much of the world.

If history proves anything it is that human beings are very poor at coming up and living in accord with any sort of “universal morality.”

It is a common philosophical error to blame some human-defined “god” for this or that. Philosophically, “God” is the label people have come up with for a being with a certain set of immutable attributes that exist independent of that label. What is right or wrong can only be measured by comparison to some objective perfection — one of the attributes of “God.”

That’s a lot of words, which started with an unnecessary insult. And yet no evidence of your claim is presented, and it can be therefore summarily dismissed.

Wow. “Summarily dismissed.” How about that.

Aquinas will be heartbroken.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't mind if people are religious, as long as they keep it to themselves. Meaning: stop making laws based on your holy book and not on basic human morality.

There is no “basic human morality” without the reference point people refer to as “God.”

That is a claim you have to prove or it is easy to dismiss BS.

You’re not paying attention.

The very idea of “right,” “wrong,” “moral” and “immoral” require some authoritative reference point, some “lawgiver.” Otherwise relativism takes over. What one person thinks is good (typically for them) someone else will decide is evil (typically because it has a negative effect on them). All sorts of behaviors that present day people in the West disapprove of on grounds of “basic human morality” used to be thought of as perfectly OK in the West, and still are in other places. Likewise, all sorts of behaviors that present day people in the West think are fine used to be roundly condemned in the West and still are in much of the world.

If history proves anything it is that human beings are very poor at coming up and living in accord with any sort of “universal morality.”

It is a common philosophical error to blame some human-defined “god” for this or that. Philosophically, “God” is the label people have come up with for a being with a certain set of immutable attributes that exist independent of that label. What is right or wrong can only be measured by comparison to some objective perfection — one of the attributes of “God.”

That’s a lot of words, which started with an unnecessary insult. And yet no evidence of your claim is presented, and it can be therefore summarily dismissed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't mind if people are religious, as long as they keep it to themselves. Meaning: stop making laws based on your holy book and not on basic human morality.

There is no “basic human morality” without the reference point people refer to as “God.”

That is a claim you have to prove or it is easy to dismiss BS.

You’re not paying attention.

The very idea of “right,” “wrong,” “moral” and “immoral” require some authoritative reference point, some “lawgiver.” Otherwise relativism takes over. What one person thinks is good (typically for them) someone else will decide is evil (typically because it has a negative effect on them). All sorts of behaviors that present day people in the West disapprove of on grounds of “basic human morality” used to be thought of as perfectly OK in the West, and still are in other places. Likewise, all sorts of behaviors that present day people in the West think are fine used to be roundly condemned in the West and still are in much of the world.

If history proves anything it is that human beings are very poor at coming up and living in accord with any sort of “universal morality.”

It is a common philosophical error to blame some human-defined “god” for this or that. Philosophically, “God” is the label people have come up with for a being with a certain set of immutable attributes that exist independent of that label. What is right or wrong can only be measured by comparison to some objective perfection — one of the attributes of “God.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't mind if people are religious, as long as they keep it to themselves. Meaning: stop making laws based on your holy book and not on basic human morality.

There is no “basic human morality” without the reference point people refer to as “God.”

That is a claim you have to prove or it is easy to dismiss BS.

You’re not paying attention.

The very idea of “right,” “wrong,” “moral” and “immoral” require some authoritative reference point, some “lawgiver.” Otherwise relativism takes over. What one person thinks is good (typically for them) someone else will decide is evil (typically because it has a negative effect on them). All sorts of behaviors that present day people in the West disapprove of on grounds of “basic human morality” used to be thought of as perfectly OK in the West, and still are in other places. Likewise, all sorts of behaviors that present day people in the West think are fine used to be roundly condemned in the West and still are in much of the world.

If history proves anything it is that human beings are very poor at coming up and living in accord with any sort of “universal morality.”

It is a common philosophical error to blame some human-defined “god” for this or that. Philosophically, “God” is the label people have come up with for a being with a certain set of immutable attributes that exist independent of that label. What is right or wrong can only be measured by comparison to some objective perfection — one of the attributes of “God.”

"Coming up with" is pretty easy, but "living with" is something completely different. See the history of the Jews in the Old Testament for example. How many times dis they disobey God? But they're only human, after all. Created in God's image and all that, so what do you expect?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't mind if people are religious, as long as they keep it to themselves. Meaning: stop making laws based on your holy book and not on basic human morality.

There is no “basic human morality” without the reference point people refer to as “God.”

That is a claim you have to prove or it is easy to dismiss BS.

You’re not paying attention.

The very idea of “right,” “wrong,” “moral” and “immoral” require some authoritative reference point, some “lawgiver.” Otherwise relativism takes over. What one person thinks is good (typically for them) someone else will decide is evil (typically because it has a negative effect on them). All sorts of behaviors that present day people in the West disapprove of on grounds of “basic human morality” used to be thought of as perfectly OK in the West, and still are in other places. Likewise, all sorts of behaviors that present day people in the West think are fine used to be roundly condemned in the West and still are in much of the world.

If history proves anything it is that human beings are very poor at coming up and living in accord with any sort of “universal morality.”

It is a common philosophical error to blame some human-defined “god” for this or that. Philosophically, “God” is the label people have come up with for a being with a certain set of immutable attributes that exist independent of that label. What is right or wrong can only be measured by comparison to some objective perfection — one of the attributes of “God.”

well most peoples have a version of the golden rule. That is pretty much universal. and the 10 commandments, at least nos. 5-10 aren't far off either

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't mind if people are religious, as long as they keep it to themselves. Meaning: stop making laws based on your holy book and not on basic human morality.

There is no “basic human morality” without the reference point people refer to as “God.”

That is a claim you have to prove or it is easy to dismiss BS.

You’re not paying attention.

The very idea of “right,” “wrong,” “moral” and “immoral” require some authoritative reference point, some “lawgiver.” Otherwise relativism takes over. What one person thinks is good (typically for them) someone else will decide is evil (typically because it has a negative effect on them). All sorts of behaviors that present day people in the West disapprove of on grounds of “basic human morality” used to be thought of as perfectly OK in the West, and still are in other places. Likewise, all sorts of behaviors that present day people in the West think are fine used to be roundly condemned in the West and still are in much of the world.

If history proves anything it is that human beings are very poor at coming up and living in accord with any sort of “universal morality.”

It is a common philosophical error to blame some human-defined “god” for this or that. Philosophically, “God” is the label people have come up with for a being with a certain set of immutable attributes that exist independent of that label. What is right or wrong can only be measured by comparison to some objective perfection — one of the attributes of “God.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't mind if people are religious, as long as they keep it to themselves. Meaning: stop making laws based on your holy book and not on basic human morality.

There is no “basic human morality” without the reference point people refer to as “God.”

That is a claim you have to prove or it is easy to dismiss BS.

You’re not paying attention.

The very idea of “right,” “wrong,” “moral” and “immoral” require some authoritative reference point, some “lawgiver.” Otherwise relativism takes over. What one person thinks is good (typically for them) someone else will decide is evil (typically because it has a negative effect on them). All sorts of behaviors that present day people in the West disapprove of on grounds of “basic human morality” used to be thought of as perfectly OK in the West, and still are in other places. Likewise, all sorts of behaviors that present day people in the West think are fine used to be roundly condemned in the West and still are in much of the world.

If history proves anything it is that human beings are very poor at coming up and living in accord with any sort of “universal morality.”

It is a common philosophical error to blame some human-defined “god” for this or that. Philosophically, “God” is the label people have come up with for a being with a certain set of immutable attributes that exist independent of that label. What is right or wrong can only be measured by comparison to some objective perfection — one of the attributes of “God.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't mind if people are religious, as long as they keep it to themselves. Meaning: stop making laws based on your holy book and not on basic human morality.

There is no “basic human morality” without the reference point people refer to as “God.”

That is a claim you have to prove or it is easy to dismiss BS.

You’re not paying attention.

The very idea of “right,” “wrong,” “moral” and “immoral” require some authoritative reference point, some “lawgiver.” Otherwise relativism takes over. What one person thinks is good (typically for them) someone else will decide is evil (typically because it has a negative effect on them). All sorts of behaviors that present day people in the West disapprove of on grounds of “basic human morality” used to be thought of as perfectly OK in the West, and still are in other places. Likewise, all sorts of behaviors that present day people in the West think are fine used to be roundly condemned in the West and still are in much of the world.

If history proves anything it is that human beings are very poor at coming up and living in accord with any sort of “universal morality.”

It is a common philosophical error to blame some human-defined “god” for this or that. Philosophically, “God” is the label people have come up with for a being with a certain set of immutable attributes that exist independent of that label. What is right or wrong can only be measured by comparison to some objective perfection — one of the attributes of “God.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't mind if people are religious, as long as they keep it to themselves. Meaning: stop making laws based on your holy book and not on basic human morality.

There is no “basic human morality” without the reference point people refer to as “God.”

That is a claim you have to prove or it is easy to dismiss BS.

Anonymous wrote:It’s really hard to be friends with religious people trying to control the govt and being hateful toward certain groups.