What is the Highest Authority You Recognize?

[Brian37]

I agree, morality is subjective, and there are some basics that are universal absolutely,... 

Am I the only one who sees the inconsistency here? Is there any atheist on this thread willing to challenge the muddled thinking in "one of their own."?

Let me guess, you have a a book of magic that has all the answers for me, a book that tells you how to treat your slaves. Yep you got me, morality is static. Glad nobody ever used the bible to justify slavery. Glad the bible wasn't used to justify denial of women's right to vote. FUCK I am even glad that people still today use it to justify being fucking dicks to LGBT. 

Thanks for correcting me, see you in church, say a week from NEVER!

Yea yea yea Mr Rogers, problem still remains Jews and Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists also claim they own the patent on our species morality. Get in line, take a number.

You have an old book you like so what. That is your book, not mine. If that keeps you from going on a killing spree great, but I don't need it.

[Thumpalumpacus]

"Subjective" and "absolute" don't really play well together.

[RoadRunner79]

And for some, a simple question invokes a paranoia and avoidance (mostly because of the source) the likes of which I've only experienced when dealing with those in a cult.

Yeah, the moral couldn't possibly be 'don't be the kind of poster who has earned distrust and suspicion due to their history.'

What cult did you belong to or deal with?

By cult, I mostly mean it in the Christian sense of unorthodox group.   I dealt with some Jehovah Witnesses on a number of occasions (on another forum).   There was also, a number of small groups or even individuals who had some pretty wacko ideas.   Come to think of it, a conversation on authority would have been good there to.  But I did notice a distrust and a constant questioning of motives, from anything that was outside of the group or individual.

---

Yeah, the moral couldn't possibly be 'don't be the kind of poster who has earned distrust and suspicion due to their history.'

What cult did you belong to or deal with?

Neo just backhandedly called atheist a cult, and I am sure he won't admit it. 

No Neo, sorry, while the word "atheist" certainly doesn't have any magic power to make us only do good, it still is not a gang or a cult, the word merely means "off". And we don't always agree on politics or economics. I get tired of repeating that there are atheist who voted for Trump, other atheists like Che who lead to Castro's Cuba, I hate both of those attitudes. 

We are not a cult, we have no secret handshake, we do not eat babies nor drink goats blood. We will not rape your women. If an individual atheist does bad, that only makes that individual bad. But we are still capable of obeying the law and being non violent and GASP even protecting  the rights of the religious.

He wants us to be his evil boogieman and is upset when we wont let him paint us like that collectively.

Incorrect again (I would have thought you should get one correct by dumb luck by now)     Perhaps I need to be more careful about what I didn't say!

I'll make you a deal... I'll do my best to not do what you keep thinking I'm doing.   You stop trying to argue for me, or making assumptions based on what you think I beleive.

[Brian37]

Yeah, the moral couldn't possibly be 'don't be the kind of poster who has earned distrust and suspicion due to their history.'

What cult did you belong to or deal with?

By cult, I mostly mean it in the Christian sense of unorthodox group.   I dealt with some Jehovah Witnesses on a number of occasions (on another forum).   There was also, a number of small groups or even individuals who had some pretty wacko ideas.   Come to think of it, a conversation on authority would have been good there to.  But I did notice a distrust and a constant questioning of motives, from anything that was outside of the group or individual.

---

Neo just backhandedly called atheist a cult, and I am sure he won't admit it. 

No Neo, sorry, while the word "atheist" certainly doesn't have any magic power to make us only do good, it still is not a gang or a cult, the word merely means "off". And we don't always agree on politics or economics. I get tired of repeating that there are atheist who voted for Trump, other atheists like Che who lead to Castro's Cuba, I hate both of those attitudes. 

We are not a cult, we have no secret handshake, we do not eat babies nor drink goats blood. We will not rape your women. If an individual atheist does bad, that only makes that individual bad. But we are still capable of obeying the law and being non violent and GASP even protecting  the rights of the religious.

He wants us to be his evil boogieman and is upset when we wont let him paint us like that collectively.

Incorrect again (I would have thought you should get one correct by dumb luck by now)      Perhaps I need to be more careful about what I didn't say!

I'll make you a deal... I'll do my best to not do what you keep thinking I'm doing.   You stop trying to argue for me, or making assumptions based on what you think I beleive.

Why did you use the word "cult"? Now think carefully because the "I am not like the others" as a ploy just to go back to the "Stalin/Hitler/Po Pot" garbage.  I do happen to think those monsters created a cult of personality and gained power, but even their rise started out by small unrest. But all of them at the same time convinced a majority of religious people to follow them. 

Keep in mind I have been at this 16 years. Mormons and JWs were cults but aren't called that now, but you don't want to accept that the first Christians were also considered "cults". Scientology, that one baffles me the most because everyone knew back then when he wrote his best seller 'Diannetics"(sp) everyone knew he was a si fi writer. 

I can forgive the gullibility of the early JWS and even the first Mormons, and even the first Christians, but we know better now. 

"I am not like the others"? Why because they are smaller? Or because you think "Brian you picked the wrong sect" or "You don't have the correct interpretation" will work on me?

You will try to convince yourself I am a boogieman or lost puppy to save. You thought that even before you signed up here. Otherwise why are you hear? 

1. Argument from tradition, does not equal fact.
2. Argument from popularity does not equal fact.
3. My interpretation does not equal fact.
4. Quoting a holy writing of any religious label worldwide is circular reasoning, that also doesn't equal fact.
5. An apologist is not neutral, and every religion has followers who quote apologists, also not fact.
6. My holy writing matches science is something all religions pull, also not a valid tactic. Scientific method is neutral.

Now your argument is size of the sect? Nope, that is how all new religions start, small. 

Now be careful how you respond, because I know your end game. This is not my first chess game and you are not the first Christian much less the only religion I have ever debated.

[Neo-Scholastic]

"Subjective" and "absolute" don't really play well together.

Thank you. It's like saying, "it is always wrong to torture babies for fun - but that's just my opinion."

[Brian37]

"Subjective" and "absolute" don't really play well together.

Thank you. It's like saying, "it is always wrong to torture babies for fun - but that's just my opinion."

What is your point, because you don't like that we would agree that it is wrong to torture babies, we do agree that it is wrong to torture babies. Were you expecting us to suddenly go out grab some and stab them to death in public? 

Or is it that you don't like us pointing out the stories in your bible that involve infanticide like when God allowed the Egyptian first born to suffer because of a beef he had with the king? Or is it that you don't like us pointing out, that the flood myth would have to include the babies of the adults who didn't obey God? Are you going to back peddle off that now and claim no babies died in the flood? That would seem odd that only one family was left, when the flood stopped that no babies of other families were not the Noah family didn't die. 

Yes it is always wrong to torture babies, so? Your problem might not be us, but that book you fell for.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Thank you. It's like saying, "it is always wrong to torture babies for fun - but that's just my opinion."

What is your point, because you don't like that we would agree that it is wrong to torture babies, we do agree that it is wrong to torture babies.

But it isn't wrong just because everyone has the same subjective opinion, is it? It's wrongness is an absolute moral fact. Thus, if there is one moral fact then morality is not entirely subjective.

[RoadRunner79]

---

By cult, I mostly mean it in the Christian sense of unorthodox group.   I dealt with some Jehovah Witnesses on a number of occasions (on another forum).   There was also, a number of small groups or even individuals who had some pretty wacko ideas.   Come to think of it, a conversation on authority would have been good there to.  But I did notice a distrust and a constant questioning of motives, from anything that was outside of the group or individual.

---

Incorrect again (I would have thought you should get one correct by dumb luck by now)      Perhaps I need to be more careful about what I didn't say!

I'll make you a deal... I'll do my best to not do what you keep thinking I'm doing.   You stop trying to argue for me, or making assumptions based on what you think I beleive.

---

Why did you use the word "cult"? Now think carefully because the "I am not like the others" as a ploy just to go back to the "Stalin/Hitler/Po Pot" garbage.  I do happen to think those monsters created a cult of personality and gained power, but even their rise started out by small unrest. But all of them at the same time convinced a majority of religious people to follow them. 

Keep in mind I have been at this 16 years. Mormons and JWs were cults but aren't called that now, but you don't want to accept that the first Christians were also considered "cults". Scientology, that one baffles me the most because everyone knew back then when he wrote his best seller 'Diannetics"(sp) everyone knew he was a si fi writer. 

I can forgive the gullibility of the early JWS and even the first Mormons, and even the first Christians, but we know better now. 

"I am not like the others"? Why because they are smaller? Or because you think "Brian you picked the wrong sect" or "You don't have the correct interpretation" will work on me?

You will try to convince yourself I am a boogieman or lost puppy to save. You thought that even before you signed up here. Otherwise why are you hear? 

1. Argument from tradition, does not equal fact.
2. Argument from popularity does not equal fact.
3. My interpretation does not equal fact.
4. Quoting a holy writing of any religious label worldwide is circular reasoning, that also doesn't equal fact.
5. An apologist is not neutral, and every religion has followers who quote apologists, also not fact.
6. My holy writing matches science is something all religions pull, also not a valid tactic. Scientific method is neutral.

Now your argument is size of the sect? Nope, that is how all new religions start, small. 

Now be careful how you respond, because I know your end game. This is not my first chess game and you are not the first Christian much less the only religion I have ever debated.

Prooftexting and inventing a strawman does not equal bupkiss!
And I don't care how long you've been playing candyland, what you are doing is not debate or discussion. Just re-enforcing the your delusions, with the voice's in your head.

If you want to discuss, I'm happy to - but you need to listen and respond to what is said.

[Brian37]

---

---

Why did you use the word "cult"? Now think carefully because the "I am not like the others" as a ploy just to go back to the "Stalin/Hitler/Po Pot" garbage.  I do happen to think those monsters created a cult of personality and gained power, but even their rise started out by small unrest. But all of them at the same time convinced a majority of religious people to follow them. 

Keep in mind I have been at this 16 years. Mormons and JWs were cults but aren't called that now, but you don't want to accept that the first Christians were also considered "cults". Scientology, that one baffles me the most because everyone knew back then when he wrote his best seller 'Diannetics"(sp) everyone knew he was a si fi writer. 

I can forgive the gullibility of the early JWS and even the first Mormons, and even the first Christians, but we know better now. 

"I am not like the others"? Why because they are smaller? Or because you think "Brian you picked the wrong sect" or "You don't have the correct interpretation" will work on me?

You will try to convince yourself I am a boogieman or lost puppy to save. You thought that even before you signed up here. Otherwise why are you hear? 

1. Argument from tradition, does not equal fact.
2. Argument from popularity does not equal fact.
3. My interpretation does not equal fact.
4. Quoting a holy writing of any religious label worldwide is circular reasoning, that also doesn't equal fact.
5. An apologist is not neutral, and every religion has followers who quote apologists, also not fact.
6. My holy writing matches science is something all religions pull, also not a valid tactic. Scientific method is neutral.

Now your argument is size of the sect? Nope, that is how all new religions start, small. 

Now be careful how you respond, because I know your end game. This is not my first chess game and you are not the first Christian much less the only religion I have ever debated.

Prooftexting and inventing a strawman does not equal bupkiss!
And I don't care how long you've been playing candyland, what you are doing is not debate or discussion.  Just re-enforcing the your delusions, with the voice's in your head.

If you want to discuss, I'm happy to - but you need to listen and respond to what is said.

Sorry, my refusing to walk down your Yellow Brick Road and cutting to the core of the arguments I get from every religion does make it a "straw man". 

You don't want to "discuss" you want to sell, you simply try to convince yourself that a "discussion" is all you are doing. 

Yea and again, we also have Muslims here on this site that also claim they are only "discussing" or "debating" take your pick. How many people of other religions do you "discuss" with, or do you mainly "discuss" with atheists?

You have  product you are selling, stop lying to me trying to pretend that is not what you are doing.

You call it a "discussion" with us here, but I bet you peddle your product in not only other threads but in your own real personal life too.

EVERY RELIGION IN THE WORLD argues like this.

1. I got it right.
2. My religious history is long.
3. My religion is popular.
4. My holy writing says.
5. My holy person says.
6. My club has a history of discoveries.
7. My religion matches science.

Now please tell me what I have left out that you have not argued because  you do think you got it right otherwise you would not be here even "discussing" you would be seeking answers elsewhere.

I bet you don't have "discussions" with many Hindus or Buddhists or Jews or Muslims do you?

How about you discuss your "position" with a variety of religions for a few years first before you stupidly assume I don't know what you are doing.

[CapnAwesome]

No one. I don't obey the police, that's for sure. They are our public servants, not the other way around. Saying no to a request by a cop is our right.