LogFAQs > #937783966

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, Database 6 ( 01.01.2020-07.18.2020 ), DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	The concept of "sin" is regressive.
Kyuubi4269 04/20/20 10:06:46 PM #44:	Unbridled9 posted... Zoroastrianism got reduced to it's current state is because Islam does not play well with others It's overly passive, its system doesn't leave enough room to deal with violent neighbours. That's a weakness when surrounded by violent bastards. Sikhs made wielding a sword to deal with Muslims part of their religion, notice how they're larger than Zoroastrianism. Unbridled9 posted... However I highly disagree with the belief that morality does not exist. After all, we see cultures and religions all over the world develop similar morals and moral systems. Some of the differences make sense when taking in to account the various environments, cultures, and sociologists of the location as well; but the fact that so many cultures can develop so many relatively similar beliefs would highly indicate that there is such a thing as true morality. You can make a car with 3 wheels yet strangely every single country has opted for 4 wheels, they're even made of steel! Clearly that means that people naturally gravitate to these things, it's not like cheap steel and maximised distance of contact patch to CoM work well and justify themselves. Everywhere people like not being killed for no reason or robbed in broad daylight so obviously these things justify themselves. The limits of these vary however as some people get mighty angry so are willing to allow honour killings and others think themselves pretty sneaky so think they can get an upper hand if we're leanient on theft. Unbridled9 posted... morality is objective No, it's objective that death no good, theft sad and being cucked no fun. We're intelligent creatures with empathy so we're more than happy to negotiate to lessen that risk. Unbridled9 posted... being imperfect beings yet created in the image of the divine Where's the requirement divinity be involved? This is an extraneous element. Unbridled9 posted... This is why the belief that an atheist is capable of developing a moral system is also inherently flawed. And yet athiests teach their children not to shit on others. Athiests develop rule of law just fine, but it requires understanding why it's wrong to steal and being able to explain it to others rather than blowing it off as "God said, ask him." Unbridled9 posted... Because whatever moral system that they propose with the distinct absence of a divine being would have it's morality heavily influenced by the local culture of which the vast majority have lived in a culture shaped for centuries by one specific religion as well as millennia by religion in general. In other words, all they can do is copy the religious set of morals and find atheistic justifications for said morals while assuming said morals are right for religious reasons and gloss over said religious reasons. No. The rules make perfectly solid logic, athiests just get to cast off BS like making sacrifices to God or going to mass without looking like hypocrites. There's plenty of BS in the bible that didn't make it in to English Common Law as it's not necessary to be a good person without necessitating God. Like my previous example, is everybody just copying the original car when they make 4 wheel cars or are they just doing what makes good sense? Unbridled9 posted... Especially since, whenever we see nations arise that push atheistic worldviews, they tend to throw out morality instantly, abuse power, and engage in many acts considered highly immoral by the religious groups (murder being a favorite). Oh yes, England is well-known for its lax laws on murder, we generally don't punish that /s. The US outright claims to be an athiestic country yet they don't have any less lax an approach to murder than the UK. That's weeeeeeird, brah. --- Doctor Foxx posted... The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted [p:937783966] in The concep... [t:78603252]...</cite> <quote>Unbridled9 posted...</cite> <quote>Zoroastrianism got reduced to it's current state is because Islam does not play well with others</quote> It's overly passive, its system doesn't leave enough room to deal with violent neighbours. That's a weakness when surrounded by violent bastards. Sikhs made wielding a sword to deal with Muslims part of their religion, notice how they're larger than Zoroastrianism. Unbridled9 posted...</cite> <quote>However I highly disagree with the belief that morality does not exist. After all, we see cultures and religions all over the world develop similar morals and moral systems. Some of the differences make sense when taking in to account the various environments, cultures, and sociologists of the location as well; but the fact that so many cultures can develop so many relatively similar beliefs would highly indicate that there is such a thing as true morality.</quote> You can make a car with 3 wheels yet strangely every single country has opted for 4 wheels, they're even made of steel! Clearly that means that people naturally gravitate to these things, it's not like cheap steel and maximised distance of contact patch to CoM work well and justify themselves. Everywhere people like not being killed for no reason or robbed in broad daylight so obviously these things justify themselves. The limits of these vary however as some people get mighty angry so are willing to allow honour killings and others think themselves pretty sneaky so think they can get an upper hand if we're leanient on theft. Unbridled9 posted...</cite> <quote>morality is objective</quote> No, it's objective that death no good, theft sad and being cucked no fun. We're intelligent creatures with empathy so we're more than happy to negotiate to lessen that risk. Unbridled9 posted...</cite> <quote>being imperfect beings yet created in the image of the divine</quote> Where's the requirement divinity be involved? This is an extraneous element. Unbridled9 posted...</cite> <quote>This is why the belief that an atheist is capable of developing a moral system is also inherently flawed. </quote> And yet athiests teach their children not to shit on others. Athiests develop rule of law just fine, but it requires understanding why it's wrong to steal and being able to explain it to others rather than blowing it off as "God said, ask him." Unbridled9 posted...</cite> <quote>Because whatever moral system that they propose with the distinct absence of a divine being would have it's morality heavily influenced by the local culture of which the vast majority have lived in a culture shaped for centuries by one specific religion as well as millennia by religion in general. In other words, all they can do is copy the religious set of morals and find atheistic justifications for said morals while assuming said morals are right for religious reasons and gloss over said religious reasons.</quote> No. The rules make perfectly solid logic, athiests just get to cast off BS like making sacrifices to God or going to mass without looking like hypocrites. There's plenty of BS in the bible that didn't make it in to English Common Law as it's not necessary to be a good person without necessitating God. Like my previous example, is everybody just copying the original car when they make 4 wheel cars or are they just doing what makes good sense? Unbridled9 posted...</cite> <quote>Especially since, whenever we see nations arise that push atheistic worldviews, they tend to throw out morality instantly, abuse power, and engage in many acts considered highly immoral by the religious groups (murder being a favorite). </quote> Oh yes, England is well-known for its lax laws on murder, we generally don't punish that /s. The US outright claims to be an athiestic country yet they don't have any less lax an approach to murder than the UK. That's weeeeeeird, brah. --- Doctor Foxx posted... The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1