pop morality

[Drich]

Right

I was thinking about this.

Drich's morality is about abolishing the idea that being a good person is of any value? So basically, he's diametrically opposed to what most people would consider morality to be about?

No 'smart guy.' What I am saying that a person's good, only needs to be as 'good' as society says.
If that person is looking to be moral. Which maybe fine for you, but what if you lived in Nazi Germany the same held true then, or in North Korea or under the Islamic State? Do you truly think those people see themselves as being 'immoral?' Yet all three societies are in staunch opposition to yours. That means one or BOTH of you are wrong about what is truly 'moral.'

My purpose in this thread was to point out that without God, you in this western society have no idea if you've crossed that evil society line. because we like all other evil societies see ourself as being the 'good guy' in the world.

[Drich]

Right.

Well, it's pretty clear your idea of morality has nothing in common with mine, or the general understanding that morality is concerned with human wellbeing.

I don't know why I'd be surprised. But continuing to argue as if they are the same thing is faulty. I have no interest in polishing god's nob. If he's gonna punish me for caring about people instead of following pointless rules, he can go right ahead. Your "morality" is of no consequence to me at all.

At what point did i EVER say the two moralities are the same? did you not read the OP? For that matter did you even read any of the posts I just made directed at you? or is your mind so closed to anything I have said that you can not address the points I have made? that your best effort is to just rebuild the strawman argument I have already taken down?

Seriously, if you can not make a topical contribution then why bother?

[robvalue]

You're totally right. Why am I talking to you. I'll correct that right now.

[LadyForCamus]

Not one of you in all of your pomp and back patting has addressed the single issue that religates your belief in science to faith. Why is that?

Are you not smart enough to comprehend the issue, or do you like so many christians who can not defend their beliefs simply rely on a circular argument to 'save' you?

I have posted several different examples of papers that both contradict the current theories of black holes and of the Higgs boson.

Now whether you believe in these findings or not is not the point, nor is it a matter of how popular your belief is. That fact is their is an accredited source that contradicts what you understand. Which makes your continued allegiance to the current theory a matter of faith. This is the same faith used in the belief of God. Why? because you (like all of science) can not personally affirm the current theories of black holes or the higgs boson are correct and the papers that describe alternative theories as being false. You just 'will' that what you know is indeed the complete truth. And when you find out it is not you just chock it up to the process of 'science.' (which makes your god infallible) But if you were to take the same measure of observation you use on the God of the bible and use it against your 'precious.' It would also fail, because again yours is a system of belief based in faith, because again the vast majority of what science claims you will never EVER be able to personally verify.

This fact separates Christians from you guys. In that a Christian can indeed know God fully in this life and the only faith needed is the faith required to simply A/S/K.

Now to the second 1/2 of the argument you all seem to be too dense to address, is how your blind 'faith in science' puts men in a position to buy/control your morality/how you think. If and when 'scientific discovery' is purchased and made to support a political movement or agenda, those who have blind faith in 'science' will do or believe whatever 'science' tells them to do or believe.

You can't tell me this isn't already happening, because we have modern day examples: Global ice age by 2000, hole in the ozone, global warming, Now global climate change because it got cold before (carbon tax could be implemented) Homosexuality is pre programmed genetically. All of these are just a handful of examples of how 'science' is used to manipulate how we buy, sell, what we think, where and how we live. It is used to control our morality and our minds.

Does the list of control look familiar??? These are the same charges many of you rail against the church with!!! These are the same points of societal control the church needed in the darkages to control the planet and punish anyone who speaks out against it. When the church splintered, control of the world through the church was lost. Yet here you all go making the same mistake over again by rallying this time under science rather than God.

Now if the same corrupt minds used the complete and honorable Qualities of God to create a oppressive power hungry world dominating monster found in the Dark ages church, how much more corrupt will this reincarnation of the 'blind faith church' be when you all unite under 'science' which supposedly kills God? (as per our discussion in this thread "Kills God= no source of absolute righteousness?")

Why should anyone take seriously the views of someone who thinks a human being lived to be 900 years old, lol. This thread reeks of desperation.

[robvalue]

Well, yeah. After saying he's not at all concerned with the wellbeing of anyone but himself, it's a bit hard to take his ideas of "morality" seriously.

It's pretty easy to justify almost anything using the bible. "God told me to do it, just like all those people in the bible". How are we to know? Maybe God did tell them. That would make whatever they did "moral". Wow, great system. I think I'll pass.

Seeing as he doesn't care about anyone else, why is he even telling us this?

Oh yeah. To score more points with his God. Classy.

[LadyForCamus]

Interesting, thanks

So... Drich is saying morality isn't about being a good person, it's just about following arbitrary rules a dictator has laid out? Is that right?

Wow that sounds likes a blast.

Right, Which completely contradicts what he said in the "story of Adam and Eve makes no sense" thread, where he proudly boasted that Adam and Eve were perfectly capable of an understanding the difference between right and wrong before they ate from the tree of knowledge, because - paraphrasing- knowing 'right and wrong is different than knowing good and evil.' Drich...I do believe you are a slime ball.

[Drich]

Not one of you in all of your pomp and back patting has addressed the single issue that religates your belief in science to faith. Why is that?

Are you not smart enough to comprehend the issue, or do you like so many christians who can not defend their beliefs simply rely on a circular argument to 'save' you?

I have posted several different examples of papers that both contradict the current theories of black holes and of the Higgs boson.

Now whether you believe in these findings or not is not the point, nor is it a matter of how popular your belief is. That fact is their is an accredited source that contradicts what you understand. Which makes your continued allegiance to the current theory a matter of faith. This is the same faith used in the belief of God. Why? because you (like all of science) can not personally affirm the current theories of black holes or the higgs boson are correct and the papers that describe alternative theories as being false. You just 'will' that what you know is indeed the complete truth. And when you find out it is not you just chock it up to the process of 'science.' (which makes your god infallible) But if you were to take the same measure of observation you use on the God of the bible and use it against your 'precious.' It would also fail, because again yours is a system of belief based in faith, because again the vast majority of what science claims you will never EVER be able to personally verify.

This fact separates Christians from you guys. In that a Christian can indeed know God fully in this life and the only faith needed is the faith required to simply A/S/K.

Now to the second 1/2 of the argument you all seem to be too dense to address, is how your blind 'faith in science' puts men in a position to buy/control your morality/how you think. If and when 'scientific discovery' is purchased and made to support a political movement or agenda, those who have blind faith in 'science' will do or believe whatever 'science' tells them to do or believe.

You can't tell me this isn't already happening, because we have modern day examples: Global ice age by 2000, hole in the ozone, global warming, Now global climate change because it got cold before (carbon tax could be implemented) Homosexuality is pre programmed genetically.  All of these are just a handful of examples of how 'science' is used to manipulate how we buy, sell, what we think, where and how we live. It is used to control our morality and our minds.

Does the list of control look familiar??? These are the same charges many of you rail against the church with!!! These are the same points of societal control the church needed in the darkages to control the planet and punish anyone who speaks out against it. When the church splintered, control of the world through the church was lost. Yet here you all go making the same mistake over again by rallying this time under science rather than God.

Now if the same corrupt minds used the complete and honorable Qualities of God to create a oppressive power hungry world dominating monster found in the Dark ages church, how much more corrupt will this reincarnation of the 'blind faith church' be when you all unite under 'science' which supposedly kills God? (as per our discussion in this thread "Kills God= no source of absolute righteousness?")

Why should anyone take seriously the views of someone who thinks a human being lived to be 900 years old, lol.   This thread reeks of desperation.

Maybe Because I understand that a 'year' for a Jew is not based on the Gregorian calendar (meaning a year for you)

[Drich]

Well, yeah. After saying he's not at all concerned with the wellbeing of anyone but himself,

How did you estrapolate this little nugget out of "Love yoour neighbor as your self?"
Or are you just speaking in empty generalities hoping something will stick?

it's a bit hard to take his ideas of "morality" seriously.

With such a gap between your assessment of what I said and what I actually said the feeling is mutual. (can't take your objections very seriously.)

It's pretty easy to justify almost anything using the bible. "God told me to do it, just like all those people in the bible".

Actually it's not Eg homosexuality, Promiscuity, .. You know the big reasons people want to be 'atheists.'

How are we to know?

The bible.

Maybe God did tell them.

Yes, in the bible.

That would make whatever they did "moral".

Except for everything it deems as sin.

Wow, great system. I think I'll pass.

Actually you didn't. You took this system and implemented it, its called morality.

Seeing as he doesn't care about anyone else, why is he even telling us this?

Oh yeah. To score more points with his God. Classy.

You do not even see the flaw in your reasoning do you?

You think this is something I've just conjoured, but again this is Biblical Christianity. What I am repersenting here is Christianity according to the bible.

[LadyForCamus]

Why should anyone take seriously the views of someone who thinks a human being lived to be 900 years old, lol.   This thread reeks of desperation.

Maybe Because I understand that a 'year' for a Jew is not based on the Gregorian calendar (meaning a year for you)

Okay...so help me out here. Are you talking about moon cycles? Because according to the bible, Abraham lived to be around 150, Yes? Correct me if I'm wrong. So, going by that math, that would mean he was really only like...11 when he died?

[Drich]

Interesting, thanks

So... Drich is saying morality isn't about being a good person, it's just about following arbitrary rules a dictator has laid out? Is that right?

Wow that sounds likes a blast.

Right, Which completely contradicts what he said in the "story of Adam and Eve makes no sense" thread, where he proudly boasted that Adam and Eve were perfectly capable of an understanding the difference between right and wrong before they ate from the tree of knowledge, because - paraphrasing- knowing 'right and wrong is different than knowing good and evil.'  Drich...I do believe you are a slime ball.

Maybe you should have spent the time you took to write your post and asked rob to validate his synopsis of what i said.. after all he did not quote anything did he?