(October 8, 2021 at 11:00 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: @ayost

It’s very telling that you assume we have questions for you, yet you have none for us. We’ve been questioning for years. That’s how many of us became atheists. Maybe it’s time for you to start asking and listening.

Actually my first post on here was a response to the OP question. I asked questions and was called condescending...so I'm not sure how you want me to proceed.

You made condescending assertions. Try a little personal responsibility. That's part of my moral system. How about yours?

---

(October 11, 2021 at 12:51 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: ...other than the smell anyway.

You have to have a minimum 6 inches of deep mulch or bedding in their run to deal with that.

(October 11, 2021 at 12:40 pm)ayost Wrote: I'm sure you can explain your moral system, just not justify it. I'm also sure it will bounce around like flubber when I start to challenge it.

Are you going to say that morality comes from God?  Do you mean via commandments, or do you mean by "god illuminating our souls with the ability to know what is good".

Both are easy to shoot down.  Command morality negates the ability for moral choice, and if we follow the bible's commands to the letter, we will do lots of things we would consider immoral today.  And, if God did indeed illuminate our souls, why isn't there only one universally-held moral code throughout history and culture?

Morality and ethics are messy, because survival and social interaction is a complex system.  A morality that allows the ultra-selfish to win will fail the test of reality.  A morality that destroys social co-operation will fail the test of reality.  A morality that is too altruistic will fail the test of reality.  Morality cannot be described except in terms of social interaction -- something involving many individuals with different traits, needs, and wants. 

Morality is messy, but what allows it to exist is empathy for others, and the test of reality when applied universally.

Quote:What bothers me isn't that fraud is not nice. Or that fraud is mean. For fifteen thousand years, fraud and short sighted thinking have never, ever worked. Not once.

-- Mark Baum, "The Big Short"

(October 11, 2021 at 12:54 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: You made condescending assertions.  Try a little personal responsibility.  That's part of my moral system.  How about yours?

---

(October 11, 2021 at 12:51 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: ...other than the smell anyway.

You have to have a minimum 6 inches of deep mulch or bedding in their run to deal with that.

I don't think I made condescending assertions..not on this thread anyway. I think your quotes got borked.

I just don't feel the need to quote every stupid thing this one says, it's pointless. A decade on these boards, and it's never ceased to amaze me that we get nuts, just...exclusively nuts. I wouldn't have believed people like this existed before.

(October 7, 2021 at 5:41 pm)ayost Wrote:

(October 7, 2021 at 6:08 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: A process of selection of canonical books for the NT that occured from the second century onwards.  There was some bickering and burning at the stake that went on for a while before one sect/interpretation finally prevailed. Gnostics, Nonpaulines, Arians, others were suppressed by political victories. It's quite accidental that one set of texts prevailed. There were some core texts upon which all Christians agreed. But there were also disputed texts.

I know that as time went on in later centuries the church and the state became intertwined in a way that was destructive for the church. And the Church (as in the big organization, not local believers) failed immensely to fulfill Christ's mission. No argument there.

However, the idea that the canon or the body of orthodox beliefs was just the result of political bickering is too simple. First, there's evidence that 22 of the 27 books of the NT were considered core writings by the mid second century. Second, early on as these texts were circulated there was no controlling body forcing people to only read certain things. The NT spread organically through multiple lines that couldn't be controlled. You couldn't suppress writings, they were very where and their transmission uncontrolled. Also, you aren't telling the whole story. Some doctrines survived and won out despite political victories by the opposition, like Arianism and Constantius II. I don't think accidental is a good description. I think there was much more happening than that.

(October 7, 2021 at 6:08 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: (By the way, welcome to the forums. Pleasure to meet you.)

Thank you, truly. And likewise.

---

(October 11, 2021 at 12:44 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Do I?  Strange.  It's a good thing you came along to tell me what I think.  I'd have never known otherwise.  

From your response above, you appear to understand perfectly well why your stated view is self referentially false.  You see thousands of years worth of explanations, and competing explanations.  It's almost as if people do have moral systems and explanations for their moral systems.  It's almost as if "because christ" isn't an answer to the question of why or whether it's wrong to curbstomp the neighbors kid..but fuck me if you could think of any reason besides that, eh?  Obviously, if you're that ignorant, then other people must also be.



Get your shit together.  Don't want people to treat you like a dumb asshole, stop putting in the work.

And what happens when one person's moral system collides with another person's moral system and we all start explaining our moral systems?

You act like people have never thought torture was "not wrong", or slavery, or genocide, or rape, or burning babies alive, or sacrificing children. Way worse things than curbstomping a kid have been considered "not wrong".

(October 11, 2021 at 1:03 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: I just don't feel the need to quote every stupid thing this one says, it's pointless.  A decade on these boards, and it's never ceased to amaze me that we get nuts, just...exclusively nuts.  I wouldn't have believed people like this existed before.

It is quite the study in the human condition in all its forms.

But, as former staff, you know that and I am learning it.

All kinds of things happen when moral systems collide. Hardly matters, to me, that there are people who believe that there's nothing wrong with torture..just like it doesn't matter, to me, that there are people who believe that there's nothing wrong with killing the better man to pay for their profligate sins.

Is the answer to all of those things, better and worse, also "because christ"?

(October 11, 2021 at 1:04 pm)ayost Wrote:

(October 7, 2021 at 5:41 pm)ayost Wrote: I know that as time went on in later centuries the church and the state became intertwined in a way that was destructive for the church. And the Church (as in the big organization, not local believers) failed immensely to fulfill Christ's mission. No argument there.

However, the idea that the canon or the body of orthodox beliefs was just the result of political bickering is too simple. First, there's evidence that 22 of the 27 books of the NT were considered core writings by the mid second century. Second, early on as these texts were circulated there was no controlling body forcing people to only read certain things. The NT spread organically through multiple lines that couldn't be controlled. You couldn't suppress writings, they were very where and their transmission uncontrolled. Also, you aren't telling the whole story. Some doctrines survived and won out despite political victories by the opposition, like Arianism and Constantius II. I don't think accidental is a good description. I think there was much more happening than that.


Thank you, truly. And likewise.

---

(October 11, 2021 at 12:44 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Do I?  Strange.  It's a good thing you came along to tell me what I think.  I'd have never known otherwise.  

From your response above, you appear to understand perfectly well why your stated view is self referentially false.  You see thousands of years worth of explanations, and competing explanations.  It's almost as if people do have moral systems and explanations for their moral systems.  It's almost as if "because christ" isn't an answer to the question of why or whether it's wrong to curbstomp the neighbors kid..but fuck me if you could think of any reason besides that, eh?  Obviously, if you're that ignorant, then other people must also be.



Get your shit together.  Don't want people to treat you like a dumb asshole, stop putting in the work.

And what happens when one person's moral system collides with another person's moral system and we all start explaining our moral systems?

You act like people have never thought torture was "not wrong", or slavery, or genocide, or rape, or burning babies alive, or sacrificing children. Way worse things than curbstomping a kid have been considered "not wrong".

Not that any of it matters, as they were just doing what they evolved to do.

Are you describing your moral system? I thought you were a "because christ" guy, not a "because we evolved to do it" guy....? We're omnivores...too, you don't see me running out to roast people on a spit.

The fuck is wrong with you?