Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
My world is pretty good. Just remember that at any time you are the sum of your choices and when things go horribly wrong to look into the mirror to see the cause of your troubles.You certainly like to live in a dreamworld, or fantasyland, if you prefer. There is nothing that supports anything you say. It's a wonder that you don't just implode.Is that why you don't believe in God? Because bad things happen to good people? It is called life, Mudda. The reality though is that you are making a fringe argument. You are trying to use the exception to define the rule. As a rule, the consequence of violating a moral law is not usually immediate, but since error cannot stand it will eventually fail. And when it does, if we are honest and paying attention we will come to know the error of our way and repent (i.e. transform). Thus evolving our consciousness (i.e. growing as human beings) and continuing our march towards the next leap in the evolution of matter."how can we know if we are truly doing good or doing evil and rationalizing that we are doing good? The answer is simple... outcomes." Then why does bad shit happen to people who do all the right things?We live in a universe where the laws of nature are such that where given enough time and the right conditions beings that know and create will arise. Beings that know and create were pre-destined by the laws of nature at the moment space and time were created. The matter/energy which you are made of was created when space and time were created. Since that time it has only changed form. There is nothing nebulous or amorphous about this. From the point of origin until now, everything in between was controlled by natural processes according to the laws of nature. Throughout this time, matter complexified until it was possible for beings that now and create to arise. There is nothing nebulous or amorphous about this either. Beings that know and create are the finished product of the evolution of matter. We are the end product. The only thing remaining is for our "sentience" to evolve just as matter has evolved during every step of the process. And just like the natural laws controlled that process, they also control this process.The Universe and "God" are both nebulous amorphous concepts that serve as a "projection screen" for sentience which then throws upon them the garland of a priori beliefs much like heathens decorate a festivus pole ...
One Traveler through Life even said
“What are the stars but points in the body of God where we insert the healing needles of our terror and longing?
Virtue is the greatest organizing principle. When people behave virtuously, predictable success will NATURALLY follow. When people behave without virtue, predictable failures will NATURALLY occur. This is nature accepting or rejecting us. We have been given a way to know the difference between right and wrong.
Man is born with the ability to know right from wrong and when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept, he rationalizes that he did not violate it. Men don't do evil for evil's sake, they do evil for the sake of their own good. So from this we can know that man prefers good over evil.
So getting back to the concept of nature rejecting us, how can we know if we are truly doing good or doing evil and rationalizing that we are doing good? The answer is simple... outcomes. Moral laws are not like physical laws. When you violate a physical law, the consequence is immediate. Not so for moral laws. The consequence of violating a moral law is not usually immediate, but since error cannot stand it will eventually fail. And when it does, if we are honest and paying attention we will come to know the error of our way and repent (i.e. transform). Thus evolving our consciousness (i.e. growing as human beings) and continuing our march towards the next leap in the evolution of matter.
I believe you directed me to the wrong post, as this is post #226, and has nothing to do with "up to date" science:I don't care if you believe what I wrote. I'm not going to argue with you about it. You clearly are not up to date on the science. See post #226.This is nothing but hubris, and presumption. Your first statement is true. Everything that followed is conjecture. There is no evidence whatsoever of creation, or a "Creator". You tried to prove that claim in another thread, and failed miserably, as the only way to "see' your evidence of creation, was to concede from the outset that there was a creator. That's not "evidence";that's that's confirmation bias.We live in a universe where the laws of nature are such that where given enough time and the right conditions beings that know and create will arise. Beings that know and create were pre-destined by the laws of nature at the moment space and time were created. The matter/energy which you are made of was created when space and time were created. Since that time it has only changed form. There is nothing nebulous or amorphous about this. From the point of origin until now, everything in between was controlled by natural processes according to the laws of nature. Throughout this time, matter complexified until it was possible for beings that now and create to arise. There is nothing nebulous or amorphous about this either. Beings that know and create are the finished product of the evolution of matter. We are the end product. The only thing remaining is for our "sentience" to evolve just as matter has evolved during every step of the process. And just like the natural laws controlled that process, they also control this process.The Universe and "God" are both nebulous amorphous concepts that serve as a "projection screen" for sentience which then throws upon them the garland of a priori beliefs much like heathens decorate a festivus pole ...
One Traveler through Life even said
“What are the stars but points in the body of God where we insert the healing needles of our terror and longing?
"Virtue" is a term without definition. What is "virtuous"? A Christian has values. A Muslim has values. A Pagan has values. Are they the same? Would they all agree on the qualities that are "virtuous"? No. They would not. Your little treatise on virtue sounds great for a philosophy term paper, but has no value in application.Virtue is the greatest organizing principle. When people behave virtuously, predictable success will NATURALLY follow. When people behave without virtue, predictable failures will NATURALLY occur. This is nature accepting or rejecting us. We have been given a way to know the difference between right and wrong.
Man is born with the ability to know right from wrong and when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept, he rationalizes that he did not violate it. Men don't do evil for evil's sake, they do evil for the sake of their own good. So from this we can know that man prefers good over evil.
Man clearly is not "born" with an innate sense of right, or wrong. Otherwise we would not have sociopaths, and career criminals. Yes, some criminals do what they do to to serve some sense of their own good; many do not. Rapists do not rape out of some sense of good. They do so because they can. They do so because they don't care about your stupid ideas of "right and wrong". Sociopaths also are uninterested in any petty concepts of "good and evil"; they just do what they can because they can.
Now, are these the norm? Certainly not. However, if this sense of "right and wrong" were innate - if it was something one is "born with" - it would be universal, like any other genetic trait. But, it's not. "Right and Wrong" have to be taught; it has to be instilled.
Now in this we agree. However, you seem to think that these "moral laws" of which you speak are universal. I would argue that, with the exception of a few general concepts, they are not. And even those general concepts change definition depending on the culture in which one is raised. And discovering those moral laws is an intensely personal process. It is not something that can be proscribed, or legislated. Each person must arrive at their moral code on their own. Otherwise, they are not growing ethically, or morally; rather they are just parroting things that others told them were the "right things" to say.So getting back to the concept of nature rejecting us, how can we know if we are truly doing good or doing evil and rationalising that we are doing good? The answer is simple... outcomes. Moral laws are not like physical laws. When you violate a physical law, the consequence is immediate. Not so for moral laws. The consequence of violating a moral law is not usually immediate, but since error cannot stand it will eventually fail. And when it does, if we are honest and paying attention we will come to know the error of our way and repent (i.e. transform). Thus evolving our consciousness (i.e. growing as human beings) and continuing our march towards the next leap in the evolution of matter.
Can I tell what the purpose of your creation was from what you created?NoNo. I would hope you wouldn't. But it would be nice if you answered my question. Can I use something you create as evidence?All great questions but to suggest you know our purpose is silly. Should we worship you?Can I use something you create as evidence?Then it isn't proof. The correct answer is you don't know.
And you've made assumptions and presented them as obvious facts.
Sorry, post #276.I believe you directed me to the wrong post, as this is post #226, and has nothing to do with "up to date" science:I don't care if you believe what I wrote. I'm not going to argue with you about it. You clearly are not up to date on the science. See post #226.This is nothing but hubris, and presumption. Your first statement is true. Everything that followed is conjecture. There is no evidence whatsoever of creation, or a "Creator". You tried to prove that claim in another thread, and failed miserably, as the only way to "see' your evidence of creation, was to concede from the outset that there was a creator. That's not "evidence";that's that's confirmation bias.We live in a universe where the laws of nature are such that where given enough time and the right conditions beings that know and create will arise. Beings that know and create were pre-destined by the laws of nature at the moment space and time were created. The matter/energy which you are made of was created when space and time were created. Since that time it has only changed form. There is nothing nebulous or amorphous about this. From the point of origin until now, everything in between was controlled by natural processes according to the laws of nature. Throughout this time, matter complexified until it was possible for beings that now and create to arise. There is nothing nebulous or amorphous about this either. Beings that know and create are the finished product of the evolution of matter. We are the end product. The only thing remaining is for our "sentience" to evolve just as matter has evolved during every step of the process. And just like the natural laws controlled that process, they also control this process.The Universe and "God" are both nebulous amorphous concepts that serve as a "projection screen" for sentience which then throws upon them the garland of a priori beliefs much like heathens decorate a festivus pole ...
One Traveler through Life even said
“What are the stars but points in the body of God where we insert the healing needles of our terror and longing?
"Virtue" is a term without definition. What is "virtuous"? A Christian has values. A Muslim has values. A Pagan has values. Are they the same? Would they all agree on the qualities that are "virtuous"? No. They would not. Your little treatise on virtue sounds great for a philosophy term paper, but has no value in application.Virtue is the greatest organizing principle. When people behave virtuously, predictable success will NATURALLY follow. When people behave without virtue, predictable failures will NATURALLY occur. This is nature accepting or rejecting us. We have been given a way to know the difference between right and wrong.
Man is born with the ability to know right from wrong and when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept, he rationalizes that he did not violate it. Men don't do evil for evil's sake, they do evil for the sake of their own good. So from this we can know that man prefers good over evil.
Man clearly is not "born" with an innate sense of right, or wrong. Otherwise we would not have sociopaths, and career criminals. Yes, some criminals do what they do to to serve some sense of their own good; many do not. Rapists do not rape out of some sense of good. They do so because they can. They do so because they don't care about your stupid ideas of "right and wrong". Sociopaths also are uninterested in any petty concepts of "good and evil"; they just do what they can because they can.
Now, are these the norm? Certainly not. However, if this sense of "right and wrong" were innate - if it was something one is "born with" - it would be universal, like any other genetic trait. But, it's not. "Right and Wrong" have to be taught; it has to be instilled.
Now in this we agree. However, you seem to think that these "moral laws" of which you speak are universal. I would argue that, with the exception of a few general concepts, they are not. And even those general concepts change definition depending on the culture in which one is raised. And discovering those moral laws is an intensely personal process. It is not something that can be proscribed, or legislated. Each person must arrive at their moral code on their own. Otherwise, they are not growing ethically, or morally; rather they are just parroting things that others told them were the "right things" to say.So getting back to the concept of nature rejecting us, how can we know if we are truly doing good or doing evil and rationalising that we are doing good? The answer is simple... outcomes. Moral laws are not like physical laws. When you violate a physical law, the consequence is immediate. Not so for moral laws. The consequence of violating a moral law is not usually immediate, but since error cannot stand it will eventually fail. And when it does, if we are honest and paying attention we will come to know the error of our way and repent (i.e. transform). Thus evolving our consciousness (i.e. growing as human beings) and continuing our march towards the next leap in the evolution of matter.
Can I tell what the purpose of your creation was from what you created?NoNo. I would hope you wouldn't. But it would be nice if you answered my question. Can I use something you create as evidence?All great questions but to suggest you know our purpose is silly. Should we worship you?Can I use something you create as evidence?
"Man is born with the ability to know right from wrong". Got any proof or is this just the same old fartsmoke?We live in a universe where the laws of nature are such that where given enough time and the right conditions beings that know and create will arise. Beings that know and create were pre-destined by the laws of nature at the moment space and time were created. The matter/energy which you are made of was created when space and time were created. Since that time it has only changed form. There is nothing nebulous or amorphous about this. From the point of origin until now, everything in between was controlled by natural processes according to the laws of nature. Throughout this time, matter complexified until it was possible for beings that now and create to arise. There is nothing nebulous or amorphous about this either. Beings that know and create are the finished product of the evolution of matter. We are the end product. The only thing remaining is for our "sentience" to evolve just as matter has evolved during every step of the process. And just like the natural laws controlled that process, they also control this process.The Universe and "God" are both nebulous amorphous concepts that serve as a "projection screen" for sentience which then throws upon them the garland of a priori beliefs much like heathens decorate a festivus pole ...
One Traveler through Life even said
“What are the stars but points in the body of God where we insert the healing needles of our terror and longing?
Virtue is the greatest organizing principle. When people behave virtuously, predictable success will NATURALLY follow. When people behave without virtue, predictable failures will NATURALLY occur. This is nature accepting or rejecting us. We have been given a way to know the difference between right and wrong.
Man is born with the ability to know right from wrong and when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept, he rationalizes that he did not violate it. Men don't do evil for evil's sake, they do evil for the sake of their own good. So from this we can know that man prefers good over evil.
So getting back to the concept of nature rejecting us, how can we know if we are truly doing good or doing evil and rationalizing that we are doing good? The answer is simple... outcomes. Moral laws are not like physical laws. When you violate a physical law, the consequence is immediate. Not so for moral laws. The consequence of violating a moral law is not usually immediate, but since error cannot stand it will eventually fail. And when it does, if we are honest and paying attention we will come to know the error of our way and repent (i.e. transform). Thus evolving our consciousness (i.e. growing as human beings) and continuing our march towards the next leap in the evolution of matter.
Are we born with a moral core? The Baby Lab says 'yes' - CNN.com
As Babies, We Knew Morality
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2010-05-psychologists-babies-wrong-months.html
Are We Born Knowing Right from Wrong?
Are we born knowing right from wrong? - The Washington Post
From one of your links: "The currently prevailing theory on human development is that human beings start their lives with a "moral blank state", so it was just fartsmoke after all. (your links are otherwise filled with bullshit experiments that are failing to displace that theory). Please try again.
Wow, you really do try to define the rule through exception if that was your conclusion. Those links even shut old cryborh up, but not you. I'd love to play texas hold em with you since yo never know when to fold a losing hand, lol.
Fantasy worlds are usually enjoyed by its creator. And it's evidence of something, but what?My world is pretty good. Just remember that at any time you are the sum of your choices and when things go horribly wrong to look into the mirror to see the cause of your troubles.You certainly like to live in a dreamworld, or fantasyland, if you prefer. There is nothing that supports anything you say. It's a wonder that you don't just implode.Is that why you don't believe in God? Because bad things happen to good people? It is called life, Mudda. The reality though is that you are making a fringe argument. You are trying to use the exception to define the rule. As a rule, the consequence of violating a moral law is not usually immediate, but since error cannot stand it will eventually fail. And when it does, if we are honest and paying attention we will come to know the error of our way and repent (i.e. transform). Thus evolving our consciousness (i.e. growing as human beings) and continuing our march towards the next leap in the evolution of matter."how can we know if we are truly doing good or doing evil and rationalizing that we are doing good? The answer is simple... outcomes." Then why does bad shit happen to people who do all the right things?We live in a universe where the laws of nature are such that where given enough time and the right conditions beings that know and create will arise. Beings that know and create were pre-destined by the laws of nature at the moment space and time were created. The matter/energy which you are made of was created when space and time were created. Since that time it has only changed form. There is nothing nebulous or amorphous about this. From the point of origin until now, everything in between was controlled by natural processes according to the laws of nature. Throughout this time, matter complexified until it was possible for beings that now and create to arise. There is nothing nebulous or amorphous about this either. Beings that know and create are the finished product of the evolution of matter. We are the end product. The only thing remaining is for our "sentience" to evolve just as matter has evolved during every step of the process. And just like the natural laws controlled that process, they also control this process.The Universe and "God" are both nebulous amorphous concepts that serve as a "projection screen" for sentience which then throws upon them the garland of a priori beliefs much like heathens decorate a festivus pole ...
One Traveler through Life even said
“What are the stars but points in the body of God where we insert the healing needles of our terror and longing?
Virtue is the greatest organizing principle. When people behave virtuously, predictable success will NATURALLY follow. When people behave without virtue, predictable failures will NATURALLY occur. This is nature accepting or rejecting us. We have been given a way to know the difference between right and wrong.
Man is born with the ability to know right from wrong and when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept, he rationalizes that he did not violate it. Men don't do evil for evil's sake, they do evil for the sake of their own good. So from this we can know that man prefers good over evil.
So getting back to the concept of nature rejecting us, how can we know if we are truly doing good or doing evil and rationalizing that we are doing good? The answer is simple... outcomes. Moral laws are not like physical laws. When you violate a physical law, the consequence is immediate. Not so for moral laws. The consequence of violating a moral law is not usually immediate, but since error cannot stand it will eventually fail. And when it does, if we are honest and paying attention we will come to know the error of our way and repent (i.e. transform). Thus evolving our consciousness (i.e. growing as human beings) and continuing our march towards the next leap in the evolution of matter.
"Man is born with the ability to know right from wrong". Got any proof or is this just the same old fartsmoke?We live in a universe where the laws of nature are such that where given enough time and the right conditions beings that know and create will arise. Beings that know and create were pre-destined by the laws of nature at the moment space and time were created. The matter/energy which you are made of was created when space and time were created. Since that time it has only changed form. There is nothing nebulous or amorphous about this. From the point of origin until now, everything in between was controlled by natural processes according to the laws of nature. Throughout this time, matter complexified until it was possible for beings that now and create to arise. There is nothing nebulous or amorphous about this either. Beings that know and create are the finished product of the evolution of matter. We are the end product. The only thing remaining is for our "sentience" to evolve just as matter has evolved during every step of the process. And just like the natural laws controlled that process, they also control this process.
Virtue is the greatest organizing principle. When people behave virtuously, predictable success will NATURALLY follow. When people behave without virtue, predictable failures will NATURALLY occur. This is nature accepting or rejecting us. We have been given a way to know the difference between right and wrong.
Man is born with the ability to know right from wrong and when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept, he rationalizes that he did not violate it. Men don't do evil for evil's sake, they do evil for the sake of their own good. So from this we can know that man prefers good over evil.
So getting back to the concept of nature rejecting us, how can we know if we are truly doing good or doing evil and rationalizing that we are doing good? The answer is simple... outcomes. Moral laws are not like physical laws. When you violate a physical law, the consequence is immediate. Not so for moral laws. The consequence of violating a moral law is not usually immediate, but since error cannot stand it will eventually fail. And when it does, if we are honest and paying attention we will come to know the error of our way and repent (i.e. transform). Thus evolving our consciousness (i.e. growing as human beings) and continuing our march towards the next leap in the evolution of matter.
Are we born with a moral core? The Baby Lab says 'yes' - CNN.com
As Babies, We Knew Morality
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2010-05-psychologists-babies-wrong-months.html
Are We Born Knowing Right from Wrong?
Are we born knowing right from wrong? - The Washington Post
From one of your links: "The currently prevailing theory on human development is that human beings start their lives with a "moral blank state", so it was just fartsmoke after all. (your links are otherwise filled with bullshit experiments that are failing to displace that theory). Please try again.
Wow, you really do try to define the rule through exception if that was your conclusion. Those links even shut old cryborh up, but not you. I'd love to play texas hold em with you since yo never know when to fold a losing hand, lol.
"The currently prevailing theory on human development is that human beings start their lives with a "moral blank state"". Not the exception, and you just lost the hand.
"Man is born with the ability to know right from wrong". Got any proof or is this just the same old fartsmoke?
Are we born with a moral core? The Baby Lab says 'yes' - CNN.com
As Babies, We Knew Morality
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2010-05-psychologists-babies-wrong-months.html
Are We Born Knowing Right from Wrong?
Are we born knowing right from wrong? - The Washington Post
From one of your links: "The currently prevailing theory on human development is that human beings start their lives with a "moral blank state", so it was just fartsmoke after all. (your links are otherwise filled with bullshit experiments that are failing to displace that theory). Please try again.
Wow, you really do try to define the rule through exception if that was your conclusion. Those links even shut old cryborh up, but not you. I'd love to play texas hold em with you since yo never know when to fold a losing hand, lol.
"The currently prevailing theory on human development is that human beings start their lives with a "moral blank state"". Not the exception, and you just lost the hand.
But a growing number of researchers now believe differently. They believe babies are in fact born with an innate sense of morality, and while parents and society can help develop a belief system in babies, they don't create one. A team of researchers at Yale University's Infant Cognition Center, known as The Baby Lab, showed us just how they came to that conclusion.
Are we born with a moral core? The Baby Lab says 'yes' - CNN.com
"Man is born with the ability to know right from wrong". Got any proof or is this just the same old fartsmoke?
Are we born with a moral core? The Baby Lab says 'yes' - CNN.com
As Babies, We Knew Morality
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2010-05-psychologists-babies-wrong-months.html
Are We Born Knowing Right from Wrong?
Are we born knowing right from wrong? - The Washington Post
From one of your links: "The currently prevailing theory on human development is that human beings start their lives with a "moral blank state", so it was just fartsmoke after all. (your links are otherwise filled with bullshit experiments that are failing to displace that theory). Please try again.
Wow, you really do try to define the rule through exception if that was your conclusion. Those links even shut old cryborh up, but not you. I'd love to play texas hold em with you since yo never know when to fold a losing hand, lol.
"The currently prevailing theory on human development is that human beings start their lives with a "moral blank state"". Not the exception, and you just lost the hand.
But a growing number of researchers now believe differently. They believe babies are in fact born with an innate sense of morality, and while parents and society can help develop a belief system in babies, they don't create one. A team of researchers at Yale University's Infant Cognition Center, known as The Baby Lab, showed us just how they came to that conclusion.
Are we born with a moral core? The Baby Lab says 'yes' - CNN.com
From one of your links: "The currently prevailing theory on human development is that human beings start their lives with a "moral blank state", so it was just fartsmoke after all. (your links are otherwise filled with bullshit experiments that are failing to displace that theory). Please try again.
Wow, you really do try to define the rule through exception if that was your conclusion. Those links even shut old cryborh up, but not you. I'd love to play texas hold em with you since yo never know when to fold a losing hand, lol.
"The currently prevailing theory on human development is that human beings start their lives with a "moral blank state"". Not the exception, and you just lost the hand.
But a growing number of researchers now believe differently. They believe babies are in fact born with an innate sense of morality, and while parents and society can help develop a belief system in babies, they don't create one. A team of researchers at Yale University's Infant Cognition Center, known as The Baby Lab, showed us just how they came to that conclusion.
Are we born with a moral core? The Baby Lab says 'yes' - CNN.com
The baby lab's experiment was stupid.
From one of your links: "The currently prevailing theory on human development is that human beings start their lives with a "moral blank state", so it was just fartsmoke after all. (your links are otherwise filled with bullshit experiments that are failing to displace that theory). Please try again.
Wow, you really do try to define the rule through exception if that was your conclusion. Those links even shut old cryborh up, but not you. I'd love to play texas hold em with you since yo never know when to fold a losing hand, lol.
"The currently prevailing theory on human development is that human beings start their lives with a "moral blank state"". Not the exception, and you just lost the hand.
But a growing number of researchers now believe differently. They believe babies are in fact born with an innate sense of morality, and while parents and society can help develop a belief system in babies, they don't create one. A team of researchers at Yale University's Infant Cognition Center, known as The Baby Lab, showed us just how they came to that conclusion.
Are we born with a moral core? The Baby Lab says 'yes' - CNN.com
bogus experiment. They show a nice bunny, then "slam" the door with another one and still couldn't get more than 80 % of the babies to choose nice bunny, lol. Inate means born with, like our aversion to fire, a survival instinct. What you have is nothing, gee, what a fucking surprise!
"But over the last decade, a growing body of evidence has challenged both the blank slate view of morality and veneer theory. Morality, it seems, is hard-wired."The baby lab's experiment was stupid.But a growing number of researchers now believe differently. They believe babies are in fact born with an innate sense of morality, and while parents and society can help develop a belief system in babies, they don't create one. A team of researchers at Yale University's Infant Cognition Center, known as The Baby Lab, showed us just how they came to that conclusion."The currently prevailing theory on human development is that human beings start their lives with a "moral blank state"". Not the exception, and you just lost the hand.From one of your links: "The currently prevailing theory on human development is that human beings start their lives with a "moral blank state", so it was just fartsmoke after all. (your links are otherwise filled with bullshit experiments that are failing to displace that theory). Please try again.
Wow, you really do try to define the rule through exception if that was your conclusion. Those links even shut old cryborh up, but not you. I'd love to play texas hold em with you since yo never know when to fold a losing hand, lol.
Are we born with a moral core? The Baby Lab says 'yes' - CNN.com
bogus experiment. They show a nice bunny, then "slam" the door with another one and still couldn't get more than 80 % of the babies to choose nice bunny, lol. Inate means born with, like our aversion to fire, a survival instinct. What you have is nothing, gee, what a fucking surprise!But a growing number of researchers now believe differently. They believe babies are in fact born with an innate sense of morality, and while parents and society can help develop a belief system in babies, they don't create one. A team of researchers at Yale University's Infant Cognition Center, known as The Baby Lab, showed us just how they came to that conclusion."The currently prevailing theory on human development is that human beings start their lives with a "moral blank state"". Not the exception, and you just lost the hand.From one of your links: "The currently prevailing theory on human development is that human beings start their lives with a "moral blank state", so it was just fartsmoke after all. (your links are otherwise filled with bullshit experiments that are failing to displace that theory). Please try again.
Wow, you really do try to define the rule through exception if that was your conclusion. Those links even shut old cryborh up, but not you. I'd love to play texas hold em with you since yo never know when to fold a losing hand, lol.
Are we born with a moral core? The Baby Lab says 'yes' - CNN.com
As Babies, We Knew Morality
"But over the last decade, a growing body of evidence has challenged both the blank slate view of morality and veneer theory. Morality, it seems, is hard-wired."The baby lab's experiment was stupid.But a growing number of researchers now believe differently. They believe babies are in fact born with an innate sense of morality, and while parents and society can help develop a belief system in babies, they don't create one. A team of researchers at Yale University's Infant Cognition Center, known as The Baby Lab, showed us just how they came to that conclusion."The currently prevailing theory on human development is that human beings start their lives with a "moral blank state"". Not the exception, and you just lost the hand.From one of your links: "The currently prevailing theory on human development is that human beings start their lives with a "moral blank state", so it was just fartsmoke after all. (your links are otherwise filled with bullshit experiments that are failing to displace that theory). Please try again.
Wow, you really do try to define the rule through exception if that was your conclusion. Those links even shut old cryborh up, but not you. I'd love to play texas hold em with you since yo never know when to fold a losing hand, lol.
Are we born with a moral core? The Baby Lab says 'yes' - CNN.com
bogus experiment. They show a nice bunny, then "slam" the door with another one and still couldn't get more than 80 % of the babies to choose nice bunny, lol. Inate means born with, like our aversion to fire, a survival instinct. What you have is nothing, gee, what a fucking surprise!But a growing number of researchers now believe differently. They believe babies are in fact born with an innate sense of morality, and while parents and society can help develop a belief system in babies, they don't create one. A team of researchers at Yale University's Infant Cognition Center, known as The Baby Lab, showed us just how they came to that conclusion."The currently prevailing theory on human development is that human beings start their lives with a "moral blank state"". Not the exception, and you just lost the hand.From one of your links: "The currently prevailing theory on human development is that human beings start their lives with a "moral blank state", so it was just fartsmoke after all. (your links are otherwise filled with bullshit experiments that are failing to displace that theory). Please try again.
Wow, you really do try to define the rule through exception if that was your conclusion. Those links even shut old cryborh up, but not you. I'd love to play texas hold em with you since yo never know when to fold a losing hand, lol.
Are we born with a moral core? The Baby Lab says 'yes' - CNN.com
As Babies, We Knew Morality
I don't need to try again. Science is on my side. But thanks for proving my point that atheists are the first to reject science when it suits them."But over the last decade, a growing body of evidence has challenged both the blank slate view of morality and veneer theory. Morality, it seems, is hard-wired."The baby lab's experiment was stupid.But a growing number of researchers now believe differently. They believe babies are in fact born with an innate sense of morality, and while parents and society can help develop a belief system in babies, they don't create one. A team of researchers at Yale University's Infant Cognition Center, known as The Baby Lab, showed us just how they came to that conclusion."The currently prevailing theory on human development is that human beings start their lives with a "moral blank state"". Not the exception, and you just lost the hand.Wow, you really do try to define the rule through exception if that was your conclusion. Those links even shut old cryborh up, but not you. I'd love to play texas hold em with you since yo never know when to fold a losing hand, lol.
Are we born with a moral core? The Baby Lab says 'yes' - CNN.com
bogus experiment. They show a nice bunny, then "slam" the door with another one and still couldn't get more than 80 % of the babies to choose nice bunny, lol. Inate means born with, like our aversion to fire, a survival instinct. What you have is nothing, gee, what a fucking surprise!But a growing number of researchers now believe differently. They believe babies are in fact born with an innate sense of morality, and while parents and society can help develop a belief system in babies, they don't create one. A team of researchers at Yale University's Infant Cognition Center, known as The Baby Lab, showed us just how they came to that conclusion."The currently prevailing theory on human development is that human beings start their lives with a "moral blank state"". Not the exception, and you just lost the hand.Wow, you really do try to define the rule through exception if that was your conclusion. Those links even shut old cryborh up, but not you. I'd love to play texas hold em with you since yo never know when to fold a losing hand, lol.
Are we born with a moral core? The Baby Lab says 'yes' - CNN.com
As Babies, We Knew Morality"But over the last decade, a growing body of evidence has challenged both the blank slate view of morality and veneer theory. Morality, it seems, is hard-wired."The baby lab's experiment was stupid.But a growing number of researchers now believe differently. They believe babies are in fact born with an innate sense of morality, and while parents and society can help develop a belief system in babies, they don't create one. A team of researchers at Yale University's Infant Cognition Center, known as The Baby Lab, showed us just how they came to that conclusion."The currently prevailing theory on human development is that human beings start their lives with a "moral blank state"". Not the exception, and you just lost the hand.Wow, you really do try to define the rule through exception if that was your conclusion. Those links even shut old cryborh up, but not you. I'd love to play texas hold em with you since yo never know when to fold a losing hand, lol.
Are we born with a moral core? The Baby Lab says 'yes' - CNN.com
bogus experiment. They show a nice bunny, then "slam" the door with another one and still couldn't get more than 80 % of the babies to choose nice bunny, lol. Inate means born with, like our aversion to fire, a survival instinct. What you have is nothing, gee, what a fucking surprise!But a growing number of researchers now believe differently. They believe babies are in fact born with an innate sense of morality, and while parents and society can help develop a belief system in babies, they don't create one. A team of researchers at Yale University's Infant Cognition Center, known as The Baby Lab, showed us just how they came to that conclusion."The currently prevailing theory on human development is that human beings start their lives with a "moral blank state"". Not the exception, and you just lost the hand.Wow, you really do try to define the rule through exception if that was your conclusion. Those links even shut old cryborh up, but not you. I'd love to play texas hold em with you since yo never know when to fold a losing hand, lol.
Are we born with a moral core? The Baby Lab says 'yes' - CNN.com
As Babies, We Knew Morality
From your link:"Like chimps, we are capable of moral evil." Another fail. Please try again.
They are trying something but aren't all the way there. Next time get a proper link if you want me to agree with you. And up your critical thinking brah, that would help.I don't need to try again. Science is on my side. But thanks for proving my point that atheists are the first to reject science when it suits them."But over the last decade, a growing body of evidence has challenged both the blank slate view of morality and veneer theory. Morality, it seems, is hard-wired."The baby lab's experiment was stupid.But a growing number of researchers now believe differently. They believe babies are in fact born with an innate sense of morality, and while parents and society can help develop a belief system in babies, they don't create one. A team of researchers at Yale University's Infant Cognition Center, known as The Baby Lab, showed us just how they came to that conclusion."The currently prevailing theory on human development is that human beings start their lives with a "moral blank state"". Not the exception, and you just lost the hand.
Are we born with a moral core? The Baby Lab says 'yes' - CNN.com
bogus experiment. They show a nice bunny, then "slam" the door with another one and still couldn't get more than 80 % of the babies to choose nice bunny, lol. Inate means born with, like our aversion to fire, a survival instinct. What you have is nothing, gee, what a fucking surprise!But a growing number of researchers now believe differently. They believe babies are in fact born with an innate sense of morality, and while parents and society can help develop a belief system in babies, they don't create one. A team of researchers at Yale University's Infant Cognition Center, known as The Baby Lab, showed us just how they came to that conclusion."The currently prevailing theory on human development is that human beings start their lives with a "moral blank state"". Not the exception, and you just lost the hand.
Are we born with a moral core? The Baby Lab says 'yes' - CNN.com
As Babies, We Knew Morality"But over the last decade, a growing body of evidence has challenged both the blank slate view of morality and veneer theory. Morality, it seems, is hard-wired."The baby lab's experiment was stupid.But a growing number of researchers now believe differently. They believe babies are in fact born with an innate sense of morality, and while parents and society can help develop a belief system in babies, they don't create one. A team of researchers at Yale University's Infant Cognition Center, known as The Baby Lab, showed us just how they came to that conclusion."The currently prevailing theory on human development is that human beings start their lives with a "moral blank state"". Not the exception, and you just lost the hand.
Are we born with a moral core? The Baby Lab says 'yes' - CNN.com
bogus experiment. They show a nice bunny, then "slam" the door with another one and still couldn't get more than 80 % of the babies to choose nice bunny, lol. Inate means born with, like our aversion to fire, a survival instinct. What you have is nothing, gee, what a fucking surprise!But a growing number of researchers now believe differently. They believe babies are in fact born with an innate sense of morality, and while parents and society can help develop a belief system in babies, they don't create one. A team of researchers at Yale University's Infant Cognition Center, known as The Baby Lab, showed us just how they came to that conclusion."The currently prevailing theory on human development is that human beings start their lives with a "moral blank state"". Not the exception, and you just lost the hand.
Are we born with a moral core? The Baby Lab says 'yes' - CNN.com
As Babies, We Knew Morality
From your link:"Like chimps, we are capable of moral evil." Another fail. Please try again.
I don't give a fuck if you agree. You are a dumb ass. You are like almost every other atheist I have met, you only see the bad that men have committed, you don't weight the good. It is not the fault of religion or God. You are literally throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You have a vague rosy notion of goodness of life without out religion or belief in a Supreme Being. You don't have to imagine what the world would look like, we have ample examples of the 20th century of what a society without God looks like. Your logic is flawed to say the least.They are trying something but aren't all the way there. Next time get a proper link if you want me to agree with you. And up your critical thinking brah, that would help.I don't need to try again. Science is on my side. But thanks for proving my point that atheists are the first to reject science when it suits them."But over the last decade, a growing body of evidence has challenged both the blank slate view of morality and veneer theory. Morality, it seems, is hard-wired."The baby lab's experiment was stupid.But a growing number of researchers now believe differently. They believe babies are in fact born with an innate sense of morality, and while parents and society can help develop a belief system in babies, they don't create one. A team of researchers at Yale University's Infant Cognition Center, known as The Baby Lab, showed us just how they came to that conclusion.
Are we born with a moral core? The Baby Lab says 'yes' - CNN.com
bogus experiment. They show a nice bunny, then "slam" the door with another one and still couldn't get more than 80 % of the babies to choose nice bunny, lol. Inate means born with, like our aversion to fire, a survival instinct. What you have is nothing, gee, what a fucking surprise!But a growing number of researchers now believe differently. They believe babies are in fact born with an innate sense of morality, and while parents and society can help develop a belief system in babies, they don't create one. A team of researchers at Yale University's Infant Cognition Center, known as The Baby Lab, showed us just how they came to that conclusion.
Are we born with a moral core? The Baby Lab says 'yes' - CNN.com
As Babies, We Knew Morality"But over the last decade, a growing body of evidence has challenged both the blank slate view of morality and veneer theory. Morality, it seems, is hard-wired."The baby lab's experiment was stupid.But a growing number of researchers now believe differently. They believe babies are in fact born with an innate sense of morality, and while parents and society can help develop a belief system in babies, they don't create one. A team of researchers at Yale University's Infant Cognition Center, known as The Baby Lab, showed us just how they came to that conclusion.
Are we born with a moral core? The Baby Lab says 'yes' - CNN.com
bogus experiment. They show a nice bunny, then "slam" the door with another one and still couldn't get more than 80 % of the babies to choose nice bunny, lol. Inate means born with, like our aversion to fire, a survival instinct. What you have is nothing, gee, what a fucking surprise!But a growing number of researchers now believe differently. They believe babies are in fact born with an innate sense of morality, and while parents and society can help develop a belief system in babies, they don't create one. A team of researchers at Yale University's Infant Cognition Center, known as The Baby Lab, showed us just how they came to that conclusion.
Are we born with a moral core? The Baby Lab says 'yes' - CNN.com
As Babies, We Knew Morality
From your link:"Like chimps, we are capable of moral evil." Another fail. Please try again.
Of course you care what I think, otherwise you wouldn't be so upset, lol!I don't give a fuck if you agree. You are a dumb ass. You are like almost every other atheist I have met, you only see the bad that men have committed, you don't weight the good. It is not the fault of religion or God. You are literally throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You have a vague rosy notion of goodness of life without out religion or belief in a Supreme Being. You don't have to imagine what the world would look like, we have ample examples of the 20th century of what a society without God looks like. Your logic is flawed to say the least.They are trying something but aren't all the way there. Next time get a proper link if you want me to agree with you. And up your critical thinking brah, that would help.I don't need to try again. Science is on my side. But thanks for proving my point that atheists are the first to reject science when it suits them."But over the last decade, a growing body of evidence has challenged both the blank slate view of morality and veneer theory. Morality, it seems, is hard-wired."The baby lab's experiment was stupid.
bogus experiment. They show a nice bunny, then "slam" the door with another one and still couldn't get more than 80 % of the babies to choose nice bunny, lol. Inate means born with, like our aversion to fire, a survival instinct. What you have is nothing, gee, what a fucking surprise!
As Babies, We Knew Morality"But over the last decade, a growing body of evidence has challenged both the blank slate view of morality and veneer theory. Morality, it seems, is hard-wired."The baby lab's experiment was stupid.
bogus experiment. They show a nice bunny, then "slam" the door with another one and still couldn't get more than 80 % of the babies to choose nice bunny, lol. Inate means born with, like our aversion to fire, a survival instinct. What you have is nothing, gee, what a fucking surprise!
As Babies, We Knew Morality
From your link:"Like chimps, we are capable of moral evil." Another fail. Please try again.
Here is how I imagine a world without God or religion would look like... their religion would be socialism. They would worship big government and social policy. It would be based on atheism and the deification of man. It would proceed in almost all of its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of the individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They would have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine would be abolition of private property, abolition of family and communality or equality. They would practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. They would be identified by an external locus of control. They would worship science but would be the first to argue against it when it did not suit their cause. They would force everyone to believe the same things and think the same way. There would be no diversity of thought, only homogenization of thought.
The Khmer Rouge abolished all religion and dispersed minority groups, forbidding them to speak their languages or to practice their customs. These policies had been implemented in less severe forms for many years prior to the Khmer Rouge's taking power.Of course you care what I think, otherwise you wouldn't be so upset, lol!I don't give a fuck if you agree. You are a dumb ass. You are like almost every other atheist I have met, you only see the bad that men have committed, you don't weight the good. It is not the fault of religion or God. You are literally throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You have a vague rosy notion of goodness of life without out religion or belief in a Supreme Being. You don't have to imagine what the world would look like, we have ample examples of the 20th century of what a society without God looks like. Your logic is flawed to say the least.They are trying something but aren't all the way there. Next time get a proper link if you want me to agree with you. And up your critical thinking brah, that would help.I don't need to try again. Science is on my side. But thanks for proving my point that atheists are the first to reject science when it suits them."But over the last decade, a growing body of evidence has challenged both the blank slate view of morality and veneer theory. Morality, it seems, is hard-wired."
As Babies, We Knew Morality"But over the last decade, a growing body of evidence has challenged both the blank slate view of morality and veneer theory. Morality, it seems, is hard-wired."
As Babies, We Knew Morality
From your link:"Like chimps, we are capable of moral evil." Another fail. Please try again.
Here is how I imagine a world without God or religion would look like... their religion would be socialism. They would worship big government and social policy. It would be based on atheism and the deification of man. It would proceed in almost all of its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of the individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They would have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine would be abolition of private property, abolition of family and communality or equality. They would practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. They would be identified by an external locus of control. They would worship science but would be the first to argue against it when it did not suit their cause. They would force everyone to believe the same things and think the same way. There would be no diversity of thought, only homogenization of thought.
If you want an example of a world with god, just look at the Middle East. Add all the hate in the US towards gays and people who don't agree with you about a fantasy world run by an invisible overlord that no one has ever seen or knows where it is.
I would disagree with you, there Mudda. The Middle East isn't an example of a world without God; rather it is a perfect example of what happens in a theocracy.Of course you care what I think, otherwise you wouldn't be so upset, lol!I don't give a fuck if you agree. You are a dumb ass. You are like almost every other atheist I have met, you only see the bad that men have committed, you don't weight the good. It is not the fault of religion or God. You are literally throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You have a vague rosy notion of goodness of life without out religion or belief in a Supreme Being. You don't have to imagine what the world would look like, we have ample examples of the 20th century of what a society without God looks like. Your logic is flawed to say the least.They are trying something but aren't all the way there. Next time get a proper link if you want me to agree with you. And up your critical thinking brah, that would help.I don't need to try again. Science is on my side. But thanks for proving my point that atheists are the first to reject science when it suits them."But over the last decade, a growing body of evidence has challenged both the blank slate view of morality and veneer theory. Morality, it seems, is hard-wired."
As Babies, We Knew Morality"But over the last decade, a growing body of evidence has challenged both the blank slate view of morality and veneer theory. Morality, it seems, is hard-wired."
As Babies, We Knew Morality
From your link:"Like chimps, we are capable of moral evil." Another fail. Please try again.
Here is how I imagine a world without God or religion would look like... their religion would be socialism. They would worship big government and social policy. It would be based on atheism and the deification of man. It would proceed in almost all of its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of the individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They would have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine would be abolition of private property, abolition of family and communality or equality. They would practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. They would be identified by an external locus of control. They would worship science but would be the first to argue against it when it did not suit their cause. They would force everyone to believe the same things and think the same way. There would be no diversity of thought, only homogenization of thought.
If you want an example of a world with god, just look at the Middle East. Add all the hate in the US towards gays and people who don't agree with you about a fantasy world run by an invisible overlord that no one has ever seen or knows where it is.
I agree theocracies are bad. Just as bad as the world you imagine without religion and God.I would disagree with you, there Mudda. The Middle East isn't an example of a world without God; rather it is a perfect example of what happens in a theocracy.Of course you care what I think, otherwise you wouldn't be so upset, lol!I don't give a fuck if you agree. You are a dumb ass. You are like almost every other atheist I have met, you only see the bad that men have committed, you don't weight the good. It is not the fault of religion or God. You are literally throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You have a vague rosy notion of goodness of life without out religion or belief in a Supreme Being. You don't have to imagine what the world would look like, we have ample examples of the 20th century of what a society without God looks like. Your logic is flawed to say the least.They are trying something but aren't all the way there. Next time get a proper link if you want me to agree with you. And up your critical thinking brah, that would help.I don't need to try again. Science is on my side. But thanks for proving my point that atheists are the first to reject science when it suits them.From your link:"Like chimps, we are capable of moral evil." Another fail. Please try again.
Here is how I imagine a world without God or religion would look like... their religion would be socialism. They would worship big government and social policy. It would be based on atheism and the deification of man. It would proceed in almost all of its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of the individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They would have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine would be abolition of private property, abolition of family and communality or equality. They would practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. They would be identified by an external locus of control. They would worship science but would be the first to argue against it when it did not suit their cause. They would force everyone to believe the same things and think the same way. There would be no diversity of thought, only homogenization of thought.
If you want an example of a world with god, just look at the Middle East. Add all the hate in the US towards gays and people who don't agree with you about a fantasy world run by an invisible overlord that no one has ever seen or knows where it is.
So what? A couple of quotes versus what's happening in the Middle East today? You lose brah. Again.The Khmer Rouge abolished all religion and dispersed minority groups, forbidding them to speak their languages or to practice their customs. These policies had been implemented in less severe forms for many years prior to the Khmer Rouge's taking power.Of course you care what I think, otherwise you wouldn't be so upset, lol!I don't give a fuck if you agree. You are a dumb ass. You are like almost every other atheist I have met, you only see the bad that men have committed, you don't weight the good. It is not the fault of religion or God. You are literally throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You have a vague rosy notion of goodness of life without out religion or belief in a Supreme Being. You don't have to imagine what the world would look like, we have ample examples of the 20th century of what a society without God looks like. Your logic is flawed to say the least.They are trying something but aren't all the way there. Next time get a proper link if you want me to agree with you. And up your critical thinking brah, that would help.I don't need to try again. Science is on my side. But thanks for proving my point that atheists are the first to reject science when it suits them.From your link:"Like chimps, we are capable of moral evil." Another fail. Please try again.
Here is how I imagine a world without God or religion would look like... their religion would be socialism. They would worship big government and social policy. It would be based on atheism and the deification of man. It would proceed in almost all of its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of the individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They would have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine would be abolition of private property, abolition of family and communality or equality. They would practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. They would be identified by an external locus of control. They would worship science but would be the first to argue against it when it did not suit their cause. They would force everyone to believe the same things and think the same way. There would be no diversity of thought, only homogenization of thought.
If you want an example of a world with god, just look at the Middle East. Add all the hate in the US towards gays and people who don't agree with you about a fantasy world run by an invisible overlord that no one has ever seen or knows where it is.
Communism is naturalized humanism. Karl Marx
The propaganda of atheism is necessary for our programs. Vladimir Lenin
Alexander Solzhenitsyn
“More than half a century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of older people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: ‘Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.’” “Since then I have spent well-nigh fifty years working on the history of our Revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval...But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous Revolution that swallowed up some sixty million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.’”
“Templeton Lecture, May 10, 1983,” in The Solzhenitsyn Reader: New and Essential Writings, 1947-2005, eds. Edward E. Ericson, Jr. and Daniel J. Mahoney (Wilmington, DE: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2006), 577
George Washington
Farewell Address, Sept 17, 1796
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports...In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens...”
The Will of the People: Readings in American Democracy (Chicago: Great Books Foundation, 2001), 38.
George Washington
Farewell Address, Sept 17, 1796
“…And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion...reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
The Will of the People: Readings in American Democracy (Chicago: Great Books Foundation, 2001), 38.
Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people's allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before putting their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation's Christian heritage.
Dr. Ron Paul
Nope. The world you imagine without God would be bad, but that is because your imagination is limited by your need to create a God. It has blunted your intellect so that you cannot even tell the difference between a religion, and a political ideology.I agree theocracies are bad. Just as bad as the world you imagine without religion and God.I would disagree with you, there Mudda. The Middle East isn't an example of a world without God; rather it is a perfect example of what happens in a theocracy.Of course you care what I think, otherwise you wouldn't be so upset, lol!I don't give a fuck if you agree. You are a dumb ass. You are like almost every other atheist I have met, you only see the bad that men have committed, you don't weight the good. It is not the fault of religion or God. You are literally throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You have a vague rosy notion of goodness of life without out religion or belief in a Supreme Being. You don't have to imagine what the world would look like, we have ample examples of the 20th century of what a society without God looks like. Your logic is flawed to say the least.They are trying something but aren't all the way there. Next time get a proper link if you want me to agree with you. And up your critical thinking brah, that would help.I don't need to try again. Science is on my side. But thanks for proving my point that atheists are the first to reject science when it suits them.
Here is how I imagine a world without God or religion would look like... their religion would be socialism. They would worship big government and social policy. It would be based on atheism and the deification of man. It would proceed in almost all of its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of the individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They would have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine would be abolition of private property, abolition of family and communality or equality. They would practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. They would be identified by an external locus of control. They would worship science but would be the first to argue against it when it did not suit their cause. They would force everyone to believe the same things and think the same way. There would be no diversity of thought, only homogenization of thought.
If you want an example of a world with god, just look at the Middle East. Add all the hate in the US towards gays and people who don't agree with you about a fantasy world run by an invisible overlord that no one has ever seen or knows where it is.
