if not evolution

[ding]

No. That's your position.

I'll decide my positions, thank you.

My position is that you cannot prove something as "Universal" and then point to merely humans as your support.


Your counter point has been


but but but humans


but but but humans

but but you

but youuuuu...

but humans...but youuuu



because you're simply incapable of a reasoned discussion.

Then we are in agreement.

I say slavery has always been immoral.

You say there were times when it was moral.

No, I didnt say that.

I said that you cannot prove that its universally immoral.

You then failed to logically prove as much, and flailed over what you incorrectly gathered as my views on the topic..in attempts to do so.

For some reason.

So then you agree with me that slavery has always been immoral?

Not universally ~ no...but in my mere opinion, yes.

We aren't talking about your opinion or my opinion, GT. We are talking about a standard. The highest standard.

 

[G.T.]

I'll decide my positions, thank you.

My position is that you cannot prove something as "Universal" and then point to merely humans as your support.


Your counter point has been


but but but humans


but but but humans

but but you

but youuuuu...

but humans...but youuuu



because you're simply incapable of a reasoned discussion.

Then we are in agreement.

I say slavery has always been immoral.

You say there were times when it was moral.

No, I didnt say that.

I said that you cannot prove that its universally immoral.

You then failed to logically prove as much, and flailed over what you incorrectly gathered as my views on the topic..in attempts to do so.

For some reason.

So then you agree with me that slavery has always been immoral?

Not universally ~ no...but in my mere opinion, yes.

We aren't talking about your opinion or my opinion, GT. We are talking about a standard. The highest standard.

then why are you asking leading questions about my opinion to make your case that the standard is universal?

oh...cuz you dont know how to make a case


/derp

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

there is not total free will
there are many factors which affect decisions--socioeconomic, parents, upbringing, physiological,etc
ie: most murders--over 85%-- are committed by males....if there is total free will, why don't females commit more murders?
the majority of the murders committed in my city, are in a certain, ghetto area
blacks commit murders are a MUCH higher rate than whites
please explain the HUGE difference in these numbers......it's a HUGE difference--not a little

Statistics have been consistent in reporting that men commit more criminal acts than women.

Sex differences in crime - Wikipedia

The offending rate for African Americans was almost 8 times higher than whites,

Race and crime in the United States - Wikipedia
EIGHT times higher--not 2, 3, 5 , or 6 but EIGHT times higher

According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, in the year 2008 black youths, who make up 16% of the youth population, accounted for 52% of juvenile violent crime arrests, including 58.5% of youth arrests for homicide and 67% for robbery. Black youths were overrepresented in all offense categories except DUI, liquor laws and drunkenness

"please explain the HUGE difference in these numbers......it's a HUGE difference--not a little"

Why don't YOU explain it to us? Go on, you brought it up. Explain it for us.

 

[Hollie]

t’s odd that you would be lecturing anyone on morals when your all-knowing, all-seeing bibles were pretty adamant that slavery was not included as an immoral undertaking.

Well first of all I'm not lecturing anyone on anything. I'm expressing my beliefs. And secondly, I never claimed to be a saint. I'm happy enough to concede the moral high ground you. I wouldn't want you to fall of of your morally indignant high horse.

That was another attempt to sidestep.

Leviticus 25:45-46


"Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession."


How do we reconcile the above with gods who are alleged to be Omni-everything?

How do we reconcile the above with your “universals”?

I'm not the droid you are looking for.

I’m not looking for one. I'm just disappointed you chose to sidestep the salient point of how / why the gods would be so careless as to allow their universal moral code to be bludgeoned by the corruptible hand of man.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Virtue is the ultimate organizing principle. But you are not virtuous if you are made to be virtuous.

"But you are not virtuous if you are made to be virtuous."

And neither are you virtuous if your virtue is dictated by a religious code, and you onlynattempt to adhere to it out of pure selfishness to save your imaginary eternal soul.

 

[Hollie]

Virtue is the ultimate organizing principle. But you are not virtuous if you are made to be virtuous.

"But you are not virtuous if you are made to be virtuous."

And neither are you virtuous if your virtue is dictated by a religious code, and you onlynattempt to adhere to it out of pure selfishness to save your imaginary eternal soul.

That's really a great observation.

Virtue can't be coerced. *Conformance* can be coerced, but in order for virtue to be exercised, there needs to be freedom of action with which to demonstrate one's virtue. There's a saying that "character is determined by what one does when no one is looking". The "no one looking" part is the important part – if no one is looking, you can get away with it, but what will you do? Merely following a set of rote commands because you feel forced or coerced to abide by the dogma - you are threatened with eternal punishment if you don't - isn't virtuous.

It's a paradox: virtue and character are only made manifest through choice and freedom. Pity that “dogma’tists” can’t seem to fathom this.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Virtue is the ultimate organizing principle. But you are not virtuous if you are made to be virtuous.

"But you are not virtuous if you are made to be virtuous."

And neither are you virtuous if your virtue is dictated by a religious code, and you onlynattempt to adhere to it out of pure selfishness to save your imaginary eternal soul.

That's really a great observation.

Virtue can't be coerced. *Conformance* can be coerced, but in order for virtue to be exercised, there needs to be freedom of action with which to demonstrate one's virtue. There's a saying that "character is determined by what one does when no one is looking". The "no one looking" part is the important part – if no one is looking, you can get away with it, but what will you do? Merely following a set of rote commands because you feel forced or coerced to abide by the dogma - you are threatened with eternal punishment if you don't - isn't virtuous.

It's a paradox: virtue and character are only made manifest through choice and freedom. Pity that “dogma’tists” can’t seem to fathom this.

Virtue is a construct, and a fairly relative one at that. What is or is not virtue is ultimately decided by reason. And one may choose to be virtuous, but that one is not really consciously in control of that choice, as free will is an illusion. So whether or not one is virtuous can as dependent on what has happened to a person as it is on their genetics.

 

[ding]

Then we are in agreement.

I say slavery has always been immoral.

You say there were times when it was moral.

No, I didnt say that.

I said that you cannot prove that its universally immoral.

You then failed to logically prove as much, and flailed over what you incorrectly gathered as my views on the topic..in attempts to do so.

For some reason.

So then you agree with me that slavery has always been immoral?

Not universally ~ no...but in my mere opinion, yes.

We aren't talking about your opinion or my opinion, GT. We are talking about a standard. The highest standard.

then why are you asking leading questions about my opinion to make your case that the standard is universal?

oh...cuz you dont know how to make a case


/derp

Isn't it funny when the guy who doesn't understand what someone else was saying just naturally blames the other guy?

Do you external locus of control much, GT?

 

[ding]

t’s odd that you would be lecturing anyone on morals when your all-knowing, all-seeing bibles were pretty adamant that slavery was not included as an immoral undertaking.

Well first of all I'm not lecturing anyone on anything. I'm expressing my beliefs. And secondly, I never claimed to be a saint. I'm happy enough to concede the moral high ground you. I wouldn't want you to fall of of your morally indignant high horse.

That was another attempt to sidestep.

Leviticus 25:45-46


"Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession."


How do we reconcile the above with gods who are alleged to be Omni-everything?

How do we reconcile the above with your “universals”?

I'm not the droid you are looking for.

I’m not looking for one. I'm just disappointed you chose to sidestep the salient point of how / why the gods would be so careless as to allow their universal moral code to be bludgeoned by the corruptible hand of man.

Yes, you are. You are peeing your pants to find someone who will debate scripture with you. I'm not that guy. I couldn't care less what you believe.

 

[ding]

Virtue is the ultimate organizing principle. But you are not virtuous if you are made to be virtuous.

"But you are not virtuous if you are made to be virtuous."

And neither are you virtuous if your virtue is dictated by a religious code, and you onlynattempt to adhere to it out of pure selfishness to save your imaginary eternal soul.

That's really a great observation.

Virtue can't be coerced. *Conformance* can be coerced, but in order for virtue to be exercised, there needs to be freedom of action with which to demonstrate one's virtue. There's a saying that "character is determined by what one does when no one is looking". The "no one looking" part is the important part – if no one is looking, you can get away with it, but what will you do? Merely following a set of rote commands because you feel forced or coerced to abide by the dogma - you are threatened with eternal punishment if you don't - isn't virtuous.

It's a paradox: virtue and character are only made manifest through choice and freedom. Pity that “dogma’tists” can’t seem to fathom this.

Virtue is a construct, and a fairly relative one at that. What is or is not virtue is ultimately decided by reason. And one may choose to be virtuous, but that one is not really consciously in control of that choice, as free will is an illusion. So whether or not one is virtuous can as dependent on what has happened to a person as it is on their genetics.

Why do you think that virtue is a construct and what makes you think it is a fairly recent one?

 

[ding]

Virtue is the ultimate organizing principle. But you are not virtuous if you are made to be virtuous.

"But you are not virtuous if you are made to be virtuous."

And neither are you virtuous if your virtue is dictated by a religious code, and you onlynattempt to adhere to it out of pure selfishness to save your imaginary eternal soul.

Like I said, IF you are forced to be virtuous you are not virtuous.

I haven't seen any religion that forces it adherents to be virtuous. Have you?

 

[Hollie]

t’s odd that you would be lecturing anyone on morals when your all-knowing, all-seeing bibles were pretty adamant that slavery was not included as an immoral undertaking.

Well first of all I'm not lecturing anyone on anything. I'm expressing my beliefs. And secondly, I never claimed to be a saint. I'm happy enough to concede the moral high ground you. I wouldn't want you to fall of of your morally indignant high horse.

That was another attempt to sidestep.

Leviticus 25:45-46


"Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession."


How do we reconcile the above with gods who are alleged to be Omni-everything?

How do we reconcile the above with your “universals”?

I'm not the droid you are looking for.

I’m not looking for one. I'm just disappointed you chose to sidestep the salient point of how / why the gods would be so careless as to allow their universal moral code to be bludgeoned by the corruptible hand of man.

Yes, you are. You are peeing your pants to find someone who will debate scripture with you. I'm not that guy. I couldn't care less what you believe.

I don’t debate religious texts as I try understand the inconsistencies they contain. I certainly wouldn't debate those texts (the Bible’s), with you as on multiple occassions, you displayed an appalling lack of knowledge regarding the very texts you thump.

 

[ding]

Well first of all I'm not lecturing anyone on anything. I'm expressing my beliefs. And secondly, I never claimed to be a saint. I'm happy enough to concede the moral high ground you. I wouldn't want you to fall of of your morally indignant high horse.

That was another attempt to sidestep.

Leviticus 25:45-46


"Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession."


How do we reconcile the above with gods who are alleged to be Omni-everything?

How do we reconcile the above with your “universals”?

I'm not the droid you are looking for.

I’m not looking for one. I'm just disappointed you chose to sidestep the salient point of how / why the gods would be so careless as to allow their universal moral code to be bludgeoned by the corruptible hand of man.

Yes, you are. You are peeing your pants to find someone who will debate scripture with you. I'm not that guy. I couldn't care less what you believe.

I don’t debate religious texts as I try understand the inconsistencies they contain. I certainly wouldn't debate those texts (the Bible’s), with you as on multiple occassions, you displayed an appalling lack of knowledge regarding the very texts you thump.

No. You do. You're just looking to confirm your bias. That's why you troll religious forums.

 

[frigidweirdo]

If you believe in evolution, do you believe a single celled creature just appeared to get the ball rolling?

Well, a single cell creature didn't just appear, it was formed through chemical reactions.

 

[ding]

If you believe in evolution, do you believe a single celled creature just appeared to get the ball rolling?

Well, a single cell creature didn't just appear, it was formed through chemical reactions.

Come again.

 

[Hollie]

That was another attempt to sidestep.

Leviticus 25:45-46


"Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession."


How do we reconcile the above with gods who are alleged to be Omni-everything?

How do we reconcile the above with your “universals”?

I'm not the droid you are looking for.

I’m not looking for one. I'm just disappointed you chose to sidestep the salient point of how / why the gods would be so careless as to allow their universal moral code to be bludgeoned by the corruptible hand of man.

Yes, you are. You are peeing your pants to find someone who will debate scripture with you. I'm not that guy. I couldn't care less what you believe.

I don’t debate religious texts as I try understand the inconsistencies they contain. I certainly wouldn't debate those texts (the Bible’s), with you as on multiple occassions, you displayed an appalling lack of knowledge regarding the very texts you thump.

No. You do. You're just looking to confirm your bias. That's why you troll religious forums.

I’m not responsible for your hurt feelings. I gave you multiple examples of obvious errors and inconsistencies in your bibles and you ducked and dodged your way around them.

I hope you will accept those examples as a learning experience and attempt to better prepare yourself for challenges to your specious opinions.

I guess you missed it, but this thread was about evolution. It seems it was you who saw that as a threat to your religion and did the trolling.

 

[ding]

I'm not the droid you are looking for.

I’m not looking for one. I'm just disappointed you chose to sidestep the salient point of how / why the gods would be so careless as to allow their universal moral code to be bludgeoned by the corruptible hand of man.

Yes, you are. You are peeing your pants to find someone who will debate scripture with you. I'm not that guy. I couldn't care less what you believe.

I don’t debate religious texts as I try understand the inconsistencies they contain. I certainly wouldn't debate those texts (the Bible’s), with you as on multiple occassions, you displayed an appalling lack of knowledge regarding the very texts you thump.

No. You do. You're just looking to confirm your bias. That's why you troll religious forums.

I’m not responsible for your hurt feelings. I gave you multiple examples of obvious errors and inconsistencies in your bibles and you ducked and dodged your way around them.

I hope you will accept those examples as a learning experience and attempt to better prepare yourself for challenges to your specious opinions.

I guess you missed it, but this thread was about evolution. It seems it was you who saw that as a threat to your religion and did the trolling.

I don't have hurt feelings. I enjoy having conversations with militant atheists.

 

[Hollie]

I’m not looking for one. I'm just disappointed you chose to sidestep the salient point of how / why the gods would be so careless as to allow their universal moral code to be bludgeoned by the corruptible hand of man.

Yes, you are. You are peeing your pants to find someone who will debate scripture with you. I'm not that guy. I couldn't care less what you believe.

I don’t debate religious texts as I try understand the inconsistencies they contain. I certainly wouldn't debate those texts (the Bible’s), with you as on multiple occassions, you displayed an appalling lack of knowledge regarding the very texts you thump.

No. You do. You're just looking to confirm your bias. That's why you troll religious forums.

I’m not responsible for your hurt feelings. I gave you multiple examples of obvious errors and inconsistencies in your bibles and you ducked and dodged your way around them.

I hope you will accept those examples as a learning experience and attempt to better prepare yourself for challenges to your specious opinions.

I guess you missed it, but this thread was about evolution. It seems it was you who saw that as a threat to your religion and did the trolling.

I don't have hurt feelings. I enjoy having conversations with militant atheists.

You thumpers are so much fun.

So tell us how you reconcile the Noah fable with a fossil record that dates back millions of years. Other than the obvious conclusion that those Evilutionist scientists are skulking around under cover of darkness with their spades and shovels planting phony dinosaur bones, what can you offer for evidence of a 6,000 year old Earth?

 

[ding]

Yes, you are. You are peeing your pants to find someone who will debate scripture with you. I'm not that guy. I couldn't care less what you believe.

I don’t debate religious texts as I try understand the inconsistencies they contain. I certainly wouldn't debate those texts (the Bible’s), with you as on multiple occassions, you displayed an appalling lack of knowledge regarding the very texts you thump.

No. You do. You're just looking to confirm your bias. That's why you troll religious forums.

I’m not responsible for your hurt feelings. I gave you multiple examples of obvious errors and inconsistencies in your bibles and you ducked and dodged your way around them.

I hope you will accept those examples as a learning experience and attempt to better prepare yourself for challenges to your specious opinions.

I guess you missed it, but this thread was about evolution. It seems it was you who saw that as a threat to your religion and did the trolling.

I don't have hurt feelings. I enjoy having conversations with militant atheists.

You thumpers are so much fun.

So tell us how you reconcile the Noah fable with a fossil record that dates back millions of years. Other than the obvious conclusion that those Evilutionist scientists are skulking around under cover of darkness with their spades and shovels planting phony dinosaur bones, what can you offer for evidence of a 6,000 year old Earth?

Thumpers? Well I am thumping you pretty good, but in still not the droid you are looking for.

 

[ding]

Then we are in agreement.

I say slavery has always been immoral.

You say there were times when it was moral.

No, I didnt say that.

I said that you cannot prove that its universally immoral.

You then failed to logically prove as much, and flailed over what you incorrectly gathered as my views on the topic..in attempts to do so.

For some reason.

So then you agree with me that slavery has always been immoral?

Not universally ~ no...but in my mere opinion, yes.

We aren't talking about your opinion or my opinion, GT. We are talking about a standard. The highest standard.

then why are you asking leading questions about my opinion to make your case that the standard is universal?

oh...cuz you dont know how to make a case


/derp

It is called using the Socratic method and it is used to show how foolish the other person is.

It is working like a charm. People who practice critical theory like yourself have no defense against it other than looking foolish. Thank you for being so accommodating.