Discussion:
Can atheists have morals?
Add Reply
Jahnu
2018-05-01 02:06:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Of course, except for an atheist nothing is absolute. In atheism moral
and ethics are not absolute rules. Moral and ethics are simply what is
agreed on by the majority of the population in a certain place on the
planet at any given time.

Thus, in atheism there is no foundation of moral and ethics except
what is socially accepted rules of behavior.

Let me give you an example. In most of the world the killing of
animals for food is not considered immoral, merely good business.
From the absolute point of view of God, however, to kill animals for
food is unnecessary cruel and immoral behavior.

As a thinking, moral human being one will naturally try to live a life
that causes the least harm to other living entities. In atheism, OTOH,
there is nothing wrong with eating what one feels like simply because
it tastes good.

Of course, even an atheist would frown on eating other human beings,
but eating animals is considered totally normal in atheism. Even in
most religions it's considered normal behavior to slaughter animals
for food. It is not considered the least bit immoral by the vast
majority of people in the world to slaughter animals by the millions
every day in high-tech death-camps.

The fact is, however, that if there is no God to establish absolute
rules for moral behavior, moral and ethics will be nothing but the
mental speculations of humans with different norms and standards.
So according to the relative standards of moral and ethics accepted by
most people of the world today, atheists can be moral people, just as
so-called religious people can be immoral.

In the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition, we learn that the four pillars of
religion are cleanliness, austerity, compassion, and truthfulness.
There is a systematic and well-rounded process to religion, whose
foundation is structured on these four pillars. Religion is not simply
a matter of faith, nor just a system of morals and ethics, although it
is often portrayed as such. It is more than faith, it is a science -
in Bhagavad-gita, Krishna calls it the science of the self.

As these four pillars are the foundation of religion, the Vedic
scriptures also teach that there are four main sinful activities -
illicit sex, intoxication, gambling, and meat eating. Why are they
"sinful?" Because they each attack and destroy a specific pillar of
religion. Cleanliness is destroyed by illicit sex; austerity by
intoxication; compassion by meat-eating; and truthfulness by gambling.

Thus it is clearly seen that modern, contemporary culture is
consistently trying to destroy religious principles by undermining the
four pillars of religion. For example, the vast majority of all TV and
movies out of Hollywood are based on the repeated and glorified
practice of the four sinful activities mentioned above, which destroy
religious principles. There is a constant propaganda going on to
normalize and make acceptable illicit sex, intoxication, meat-eating,
and gambling.

Thus, the modern global culture, which is being hailed as the pinnacle
of all human progress and knowledge, is actively seeking to destroy
the eternal religious principles mentioned in the Vedas.

Now, when we point that out to mainstream people, it is rejected and
scoffed at as being backwards and primitive.

Why this observation? Because as devotees of Krishna, we are trying to
emulate the Vedic culture and values. At the same time many of us live
in a society, where these values are regarded as primitive and
back-wards. In fact, as westerners we have grown up to see the
standards of the modern consumer culture as normal and even coveted
and glorified. It is even called the way of freedom.

Srila Prabhupada said, that the difference between him and his
disciples was that he was afraid of maya, they were not. This is to
show how important it is for a devotee to understand how harmful and
degraded the modern culture is. Things that according to the Vedic
standard are considered extremely sinful are considered completely
normal in modern society - cow-killing, publicly kissing and fondling,
scantily clad women and so on.

The global culture is merely an attempt to make the whole world into a
market place of McDonalds, Levis and Coca-cola. It is being hailed as
the info-age, but when examined closely, the info available is merely
a barrage of propaganda to make the general population into good and
loyal consumers and usurpers of nature. The goal of life, instead of
being knowledge of the self and an end to the existential problems of
life, is now centered around getting an education, then a job that
will enable one to spend money for sense-gratification.

The goal of life has become to spend money on consumer goods, and the
producers of these goods spend vast amounts of money to convince
people to buy their products. Basically the whole world is running on
trade. It is a business-culture governed by vaishyas not by brahmanas,
as a proper human culture is meant to be. So Srila Prabhupada ordered
us to create a class of brahmins to guide society, and the only way to
do that is by preaching sanatana-dharma - the eternal religion, and
that is exactly what Hare Krishna is doing all over the world.

Krishna says:

One who is not envious but is a kind friend to all living entities,
who does not think himself a proprietor and is free from false ego,
who is equal in both happiness and distress, who is tolerant, always
satisfied, self-controlled, and engaged in devotional service with
determination, his mind and intelligence fixed on Me - such a devotee
of Mine is very dear to Me. -Bg 12.13-14

He by whom no one is put into difficulty and who is not disturbed by
anyone, who is equipoised in happiness and distress, fear and anxiety,
is very dear to Me. - Bg 12.15

https://www.youtube.com/user/jahnudvip?feature=watch

https://picasaweb.google.com/113672947796865733014/Jahnu

http://www.touchtalent.com//artist/118705/jahnu-das


Yap Honghor
2018-05-03 09:45:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jahnu
Of course, except for an atheist nothing is absolute. In atheism moral
and ethics are not absolute rules. Moral and ethics are simply what is
agreed on by the majority of the population in a certain place on the
planet at any given time.
Thus, in atheism there is no foundation of moral and ethics except
what is socially accepted rules of behavior.
Let me give you an example. In most of the world the killing of
animals for food is not considered immoral, merely good business.
From the absolute point of view of God, however, to kill animals for
food is unnecessary cruel and immoral behavior.
As a thinking, moral human being one will naturally try to live a life
that causes the least harm to other living entities. In atheism, OTOH,
there is nothing wrong with eating what one feels like simply because
it tastes good.
Of course, even an atheist would frown on eating other human beings,
but eating animals is considered totally normal in atheism. Even in
most religions it's considered normal behavior to slaughter animals
for food. It is not considered the least bit immoral by the vast
majority of people in the world to slaughter animals by the millions
every day in high-tech death-camps.
The fact is, however, that if there is no God to establish absolute
rules for moral behavior, moral and ethics will be nothing but the
mental speculations of humans with different norms and standards.
So according to the relative standards of moral and ethics accepted by
most people of the world today, atheists can be moral people, just as
so-called religious people can be immoral.
In the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition, we learn that the four pillars of
religion are cleanliness, austerity, compassion, and truthfulness.
There is a systematic and well-rounded process to religion, whose
foundation is structured on these four pillars. Religion is not simply
a matter of faith, nor just a system of morals and ethics, although it
is often portrayed as such. It is more than faith, it is a science -
in Bhagavad-gita, Krishna calls it the science of the self.
As these four pillars are the foundation of religion, the Vedic
scriptures also teach that there are four main sinful activities -
illicit sex, intoxication, gambling, and meat eating. Why are they
"sinful?" Because they each attack and destroy a specific pillar of
religion. Cleanliness is destroyed by illicit sex; austerity by
intoxication; compassion by meat-eating; and truthfulness by gambling.
Thus it is clearly seen that modern, contemporary culture is
consistently trying to destroy religious principles by undermining the
four pillars of religion. For example, the vast majority of all TV and
movies out of Hollywood are based on the repeated and glorified
practice of the four sinful activities mentioned above, which destroy
religious principles. There is a constant propaganda going on to
normalize and make acceptable illicit sex, intoxication, meat-eating,
and gambling.
Thus, the modern global culture, which is being hailed as the pinnacle
of all human progress and knowledge, is actively seeking to destroy
the eternal religious principles mentioned in the Vedas.
Now, when we point that out to mainstream people, it is rejected and
scoffed at as being backwards and primitive.
Why this observation? Because as devotees of Krishna, we are trying to
emulate the Vedic culture and values. At the same time many of us live
in a society, where these values are regarded as primitive and
back-wards. In fact, as westerners we have grown up to see the
standards of the modern consumer culture as normal and even coveted
and glorified. It is even called the way of freedom.
Srila Prabhupada said, that the difference between him and his
disciples was that he was afraid of maya, they were not. This is to
show how important it is for a devotee to understand how harmful and
degraded the modern culture is. Things that according to the Vedic
standard are considered extremely sinful are considered completely
normal in modern society - cow-killing, publicly kissing and fondling,
scantily clad women and so on.
The global culture is merely an attempt to make the whole world into a
market place of McDonalds, Levis and Coca-cola. It is being hailed as
the info-age, but when examined closely, the info available is merely
a barrage of propaganda to make the general population into good and
loyal consumers and usurpers of nature. The goal of life, instead of
being knowledge of the self and an end to the existential problems of
life, is now centered around getting an education, then a job that
will enable one to spend money for sense-gratification.
The goal of life has become to spend money on consumer goods, and the
producers of these goods spend vast amounts of money to convince
people to buy their products. Basically the whole world is running on
trade. It is a business-culture governed by vaishyas not by brahmanas,
as a proper human culture is meant to be. So Srila Prabhupada ordered
us to create a class of brahmins to guide society, and the only way to
do that is by preaching sanatana-dharma - the eternal religion, and
that is exactly what Hare Krishna is doing all over the world.
One who is not envious but is a kind friend to all living entities,
who does not think himself a proprietor and is free from false ego,
who is equal in both happiness and distress, who is tolerant, always
satisfied, self-controlled, and engaged in devotional service with
determination, his mind and intelligence fixed on Me - such a devotee
of Mine is very dear to Me. -Bg 12.13-14
He by whom no one is put into difficulty and who is not disturbed by
anyone, who is equipoised in happiness and distress, fear and anxiety,
is very dear to Me. - Bg 12.15
https://www.youtube.com/user/jahnudvip?feature=watch
https://picasaweb.google.com/113672947796865733014/Jahnu
http://www.touchtalent.com//artist/118705/jahnu-das
http://youtu.be/B46rjU_q_cM
Fuck you, troll monkey.....
Jahnu
2018-09-13 00:22:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 3 May 2018 02:45:00 -0700 (PDT), Yap Honghor
Ah laik to be fucked by a troll monkey.....
I know :)

If there were no God, a person couldn't be evil in the first place,
because only God can define good and evil.

Let me give you an example - the second largest enterprise in the
modern consumer civilization is the meat-industry. In most of the
world, the slaughter of millions of animals daily is considered a good
and legitimate business. In the Vedic culture such mass-slaughter of
other living entities is considered pure and unadulterated evil.

Who is right? Surely, you need God to decide that. If God does not
define good and evil, these concepts will remain the mental
speculation of human beings. In that case good and evil become
relative terms decided by political vote.

So the material world is designed by God to facilitate the good and/or
evil desires of the fallen souls. The ultimate evil is to be against
God, to turn away from God, and only God can fulfill the desire of a
soul to turn away from Him.

Such a person must factually know the greatest of all, the Personality
of Godhead, who is unembodied, omniscient, beyond reproach, without
veins, pure and uncontaminated, the self-sufficient philosopher who
has been fulfilling everyone's desire since time immemorial.
-Isopanishad 8

Srila Prabhupada explains:

Here is a description of the transcendental and eternal form of the
Absolute Personality of Godhead. The Supreme Lord is not formless. He
has His own transcendental form, which is not at all similar to the
forms of the mundane world.

The forms of the living entities in this world are embodied in
material nature, and they work like any material machine. The anatomy
of a material body must have a mechanical construction with veins and
so forth, but the transcendental body of the Supreme Lord has nothing
like veins.

It is clearly stated here that He is unembodied, which means that
there is no difference between His body and His soul. Nor is He forced
to accept a body according to the laws of nature, as we are. In
materially conditioned life, the soul is different from the gross
embodiment and subtle mind. For the Supreme Lord, however, there is
never any such difference between Him and His body and mind. He is the
Complete Whole, and His mind, body and He Himself are all one and the
same.

In the Brahma-samhita (5.1) there is a similar description of the
Supreme Lord. He is described there as sac-cid-ananda-vigraha, which
means that He is the eternal form fully representing transcendental
existence, knowledge and bliss. As such, He does not require a
separate body or mind, as we do in material existence.

The Vedic literature clearly states that the Lord's transcendental
body is completely different from ours; thus He is sometimes described
as formless. This means that He has no form like ours and that He is
devoid of a form we can conceive of. In the Brahma-samhita (5.32) it
is further stated that with each and every part of His body He can do
the work of the other senses. This means that the Lord can walk with
His hands, accept things with His legs, see with His hands and feet,
eat with His eyes, etc.

In the sruti-mantras it is also said that although the Lord has no
hands and legs like ours, He has a different type of hands and legs,
by which He can accept all that we offer Him and run faster than
anyone. These points are confirmed in this eighth mantra through the
use of words like sukram ("omnipotent").

The Lord's worshipable form (arca-vigraha), which is installed in
temples by authorized acaryas who have realized the Lord in terms of
Mantra Seven, is nondifferent from the original form of the Lord. The
Lord's original form is that of Sri Krsna, and Sri Krsna expands
Himself into an unlimited number of forms, such as Baladeva, Rama,
Nrsimha and Varaha. All of these forms are one and the same
Personality of Godhead.

Similarly, the arca-vigraha worshiped in temples is also an expanded
form of the Lord. By worshiping the arca-vigraha, one can at once
approach the Lord, who accepts the service of a devotee by His
omnipotent energy.

The arca-vigraha of the Lord descends at the request of the acharyas,
the holy teachers, and works exactly in the original way of the Lord
by virtue of the Lord's omnipotence. Foolish people who have no
knowledge of Sri Isopanishad or any of the other sruti-mantras
consider the arca-vigraha, which is worshiped by pure devotees, to be
made of material elements.

This form may be seen as material by the imperfect eyes of foolish
people or kanistha-adhikaris, but such people do not know that the
Lord, being omnipotent and omniscient, can transform matter into
spirit and spirit into matter, as He desires.

In the Bhagavad-gita (9.11-12) the Lord regrets the fallen condition
of men with little knowledge who deride Him because He descends like a
man into this world. Such poorly informed persons do not know the
omnipotence of the Lord. Thus the Lord does not manifest Himself in
full to the mental speculators. He can be appreciated only in
proportion to one's surrender to Him. The fallen condition of the
living entities is due entirely to forgetfulness of their relationship
with God.

In this mantra, as well as in many other Vedic mantras, it is clearly
stated that the Lord has been supplying goods to the living entities
from time immemorial. A living being desires something, and the Lord
supplies the object of that desire in proportion to one's
qualification. If a man wants to be a high-court judge, he must
acquire not only the necessary qualifications but also the consent of
the authority who can award the title of high-court judge.

The qualifications in themselves are insufficient for one to occupy
the post: it must be awarded by some superior authority. Similarly,
the Lord awards enjoyment to living entities in proportion to their
qualifications, but good qualifications in themselves are not
sufficient to enable one to receive awards. The mercy of the Lord is
also required.

Ordinarily the living being does not know what to ask from the Lord,
nor which post to seek. When the living being comes to know his
constitutional position, however, he asks to be accepted into the
transcendental association of the Lord in order to render
transcendental loving service unto Him. Unfortunately, living beings
under the influence of material nature ask for many other things, and
they are described in the Bhagavad-gita (2.41) as having divided, or
splayed, intelligence.

Spiritual intelligence is one, but mundane intelligence is diverse. In
Srimad-Bhagavatam (7.5.30-31) it is stated that those who are
captivated by the temporary beauties of the external energy forget the
real aim of life, which is to go back to Godhead.

Forgetting this, one tries to adjust things by various plans and
programs, but this is like chewing what has already been chewed.
Nonetheless, the Lord is so kind that He allows the forgetful living
entity to continue in this way without interference.

Thus this mantra of Sri Isopanishad uses the very appropriate word
yathatathyatah, indicating that the Lord rewards the living entities
just in pursuance of their desires. If a living being wants to go to
hell, the Lord allows him to do so without interference, and if he
wants to go back home, back to Godhead, the Lord helps him.
God is described here as paribhuh, the greatest of all. No one is
greater than or equal to Him. Other living beings are described here
as beggars who ask goods from the Lord. The Lord supplies the things
the living entities desire. If the entities were equal to the Lord in
potency -- if they were omnipotent and omniscient -- there would be no
question of their begging from the Lord, even for so-called
liberation.

Real liberation means going back to Godhead. Liberation as conceived
of by an impersonalist is a myth, and begging for sense gratification
has to continue eternally unless the beggar comes to his spiritual
senses and realizes his constitutional position.

Only the Supreme Lord is self-sufficient. When Lord Krsna appeared on
earth five thousand years ago, He displayed His full manifestation as
the Personality of Godhead through His various activities. In His
childhood He killed many powerful demons, such as Aghasura, Bakasura
and Sakatasura, and there was no question of His having acquired such
power through any extraneous endeavor.

He lifted Govardhana Hill without ever practicing weight-lifting. He
danced with the gopis without social restriction and without reproach.
Although the gopis approached Him with a paramour's feelings of love,
the relationship between the gopis and Lord Krsna was worshiped even
by Lord Chaitanya, who was a strict sannyasi and rigid follower of
disciplinary regulations. To confirm that the Lord is always pure and
uncontaminated,

Sri Isopanishad describes Him as suddham (antiseptic) and
apapa-viddham(prophylactic). He is antiseptic in the sense that even
an impure thing can become purified just by touching Him. The word
"prophylactic" refers to the power of His association. As mentioned in
the Bhagavad-gita (9.30-31), a devotee may appear to be su-duracara,
not well behaved, in the beginning, but he should be accepted as pure
because he is on the right path.

This is due to the prophylactic nature of the Lord's association. The
Lord is also apapa-viddham because sin cannot touch Him. Even if He
acts in a way that appears to be sinful, such actions are all-good,
for there is no question of His being affected by sin. Because in all
circumstances He is suddham, most purified, He is often compared to
the sun.
The sun extracts moisture from many untouchable places on the earth,
yet it remains pure. In fact, it purifies obnoxious things by virtue
of its sterilizing powers. If the sun, which is a material object, is
so powerful, then we can hardly begin to imagine the purifying
strength of the all-powerful Lord.





https://www.youtube.com/user/jahnudvip?feature=watch

https://picasaweb.google.com/113672947796865733014/Jahnu

http://www.touchtalent.com//artist/118705/jahnu-das

http://youtu.be/B46rjU_q_cM
Malcolm McMahon
2018-09-14 13:19:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jahnu
On Thu, 3 May 2018 02:45:00 -0700 (PDT), Yap Honghor
Ah laik to be fucked by a troll monkey.....
I know :)
If there were no God, a person couldn't be evil in the first place,
because only God can define good and evil.
The mistake is to assume that if morals are not divinely ordained, they must be the product of human reason.

No. They are a product of emotional intuition.

When we detect a moral offence, it's more like a smell than a deduction. And these fundamental morals are something that has co-evolved with human society, and they make human society possible.

Different people differ in the weight they give to the different fundamentals.

Anyone seriously interested in the origins of morality needs to read a recent book "The Righteous Mind". One of the interesting aspects is that it's written by an atheist but has a lot of positive thing to say about religions, and gives Dawkins and Co. rather a hard time (though I read it on the basis of Dawkins' recommendation).

He uses the analogy that the emotional self is an elephant, and the the reason is a rider. The rider has _some_ influence over the elephant but the legs, emphatically, are attached to the elephant.
Christopher A. Lee
2018-09-14 13:40:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 06:19:14 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Jahnu
On Thu, 3 May 2018 02:45:00 -0700 (PDT), Yap Honghor
Ah laik to be fucked by a troll monkey.....
I know :)
If there were no God, a person couldn't be evil in the first place,
because only God can define good and evil.
Bigoted lie, noted.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The mistake is to assume that if morals are not divinely ordained, they must be the product of human reason.
No. They are a product of emotional intuition.
I'd call it empathy.

This is a standard theist dishonesty to the point of bigoted nastiness
- usually by theists who show they have none themselves.
Malcolm McMahon
2018-09-14 13:59:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 06:19:14 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Jahnu
On Thu, 3 May 2018 02:45:00 -0700 (PDT), Yap Honghor
Ah laik to be fucked by a troll monkey.....
I know :)
If there were no God, a person couldn't be evil in the first place,
because only God can define good and evil.
Bigoted lie, noted.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The mistake is to assume that if morals are not divinely ordained, they must be the product of human reason.
No. They are a product of emotional intuition.
I'd call it empathy.
Empathy relates mostly to _one_ of the fundamentals. But there are others. For example fairness. Haidt identifies the following

Care/harm

Fairness/cheating

Hierarchy/disrespect

Sanctity/desecration

Liberty/oppression

Violations of any of these "put our backs up" though we may argue our way out of supporting them.
v***@gmail.com
2018-09-17 07:56:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 06:19:14 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Jahnu
On Thu, 3 May 2018 02:45:00 -0700 (PDT), Yap Honghor
Ah laik to be fucked by a troll monkey.....
I know :)
If there were no God, a person couldn't be evil in the first place,
because only God can define good and evil.
Bigoted lie, noted.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The mistake is to assume that if morals are not divinely ordained, they must be the product of human reason.
No. They are a product of emotional intuition.
I'd call it empathy.
This is a standard theist dishonesty to the point of bigoted nastiness
- usually by theists who show they have none themselves.
Certainly, we have no empathy for you, after all the vicious things you say about us just because we disagree with you.
You made your own enemies without any help from us.
Cloud Hobbit
2018-09-17 08:59:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Certainly, we have no empathy for you, after all the vicious things you say about us just because we disagree with you.
You made your own enemies without any help from us.
_____________________

No, asshole, it's because the theists who pollute this group constantly lie, quote mine, use out of date science, and try to pass off opinions as evidence.

They lie about who we are and what we actually believe. They act as if we march in lock step politically. All this because atheists refute theist arguments.

The list of logical fallacies by theists is the stuff of legend.

We get a bit testy being lied to and about and being bombarded with off charter posts, and the theists act as if WE did something wrong. The really crazy ones say we're trying to violate their free speech. Imagine how stupid one has to be to think that's true or even possible in a NG.

It all boils down to the fact that all the theists who are trolls, are ALS despicable, lying, assholes. We just return the favor.
Jahnu
2018-09-18 00:34:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
bitch moan whine
Anything that can be known can also be proven. For instance, belief in
God can be certified by knowledge. The idea that God cannot be proven,
that it’s entirely a matter of belief, is an idiocy invented by the
Church. The Church has no knowledge of God, and so they are left with
mere faith. They have even taken faith in God and elevated it to some
kind of noble, holy state of being.

But seriously, all it takes to believe in God is logic, reason, and
common sense. Anyone with a functioning intellect can understand that
the world didn’t just create itself, one day, out of a bunch of
chemicals.

Since the invention of the electro-microscope, scientists have even
established indisputable proof of intelligent design in a single cell.

So science has proven intelligent design in nature. IOW, science has
proven there is a supreme intelligence behind the creation of nature.
Science has proven God.

However, who God is and why He has created the universe, is not
something that can be proven empirically. That has to be revealed from
God Himself.

If there is a God, which is what all available evidence tell us there
is, it can be factually known. And if God doesn’t exist, it cannot be
known for certain. Anyway, there is simply no good reason to assume,
God would not reveal Himself to mankind.

So God reveals Himself in the Bhagavad Gita. Note how God emphasizes
knowledge about Himself, rather than mere faith in Him. I mean,
really, who gives a hoot what you or I believe in? It’s what we know
that counts, right?

Krishna says:

Now hear, O son of Prtha, how by practicing yoga in full consciousness
of Me, with mind attached to Me, you can know Me in full, free from
doubt. —Bg. 7.1

I shall now declare unto you in full this knowledge, both phenomenal
and numinous. This being known, nothing further shall remain for you
to know. —Bg. 7.2

Whoever knows Me as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, without
doubting, is the knower of everything. He therefore engages himself in
full devotional service to Me, O son of Bharata. —Bg 15.19

Srila Prabhupada explains:

There are many philosophical speculations about the constitutional
position of the living entities and the Supreme Absolute Truth. Now in
this verse the Supreme Personality of Godhead clearly explains that
anyone who knows Lord Krsna to be the Supreme Person is actually the
knower of everything.

The imperfect knower goes on simply speculating about the Absolute
Truth, but the perfect knower, without wasting his valuable time,
engages directly in Krishna consciousness, the devotional service of
the Supreme Lord. Throughout the whole of Bhagavad-gita, this fact is
being stressed at every step. And still there are so many stubborn
commentators on Bhagavad-gita who consider the Supreme Absolute Truth
and the living entities to be one and the same.

Vedic knowledge is called sruti, learning by aural reception. One
should actually receive the Vedic message from authorities like Krsna
and His representatives. Here Krsna distinguishes everything very
nicely, and one should hear from this source.

Simply to hear like the hogs is not sufficient; one must be able to
understand from the authorities. It is not that one should simply
speculate academically. One should submissively hear from
Bhagavad-gita that these living entities are always subordinate to the
Supreme Personality of Godhead. Anyone who is able to understand this,
according to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Sri Krishna, knows
the purpose of the Vedas; no one else knows the purpose of the Vedas.

The word bhajati is very significant. In many places the word bhajati
is expressed in relationship with the service of the Supreme Lord. If
a person is engaged in full Krsna consciousness, in the devotional
service of the Lord, it is to be understood that he has understood all
the Vedic knowledge.

In the Vaisnava parampara it is said that if one is engaged in the
devotional service of Krsna, then there is no need for any other
spiritual process for understanding the Supreme Absolute Truth. He has
already come to the point, because he is engaged in the devotional
service of the Lord. He has ended all preliminary processes of
understanding.

But if anyone, after speculating for hundreds of thousands of lives,
does not come to the point that Krishna is the Supreme Personality of
Godhead and that one has to surrender there, all his speculation for
so many years and lives is a useless waste of time.





https://www.youtube.com/user/jahnudvip?feature=watch

https://picasaweb.google.com/113672947796865733014/Jahnu

http://www.touchtalent.com//artist/118705/jahnu-das

http://youtu.be/B46rjU_q_cM
Jahnu
2018-09-14 21:36:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 06:19:14 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The mistake is to assume that if morals are not divinely ordained, they must be the product of human reason.
No. They are a product of emotional intuition.
Whatever. So now you're just making up shit as you go along?

Not much happening in the brain-department, eh, Mac?

The fact is that in atheism there is no basis for moral and ethics,
except what make out it. That's why you've had to adop the moral and
ethics od the Church.

Atheism is basically a disease of the mind. It's a direct observable
fact, the more a society discards it's religion, the more debased,
insane and animalistic people become.

I have noticed the Hollywood propaganda machine, how they have made
the family into God. Family is the most important identity in life,
surpassing even nation, religion or gender.

- What can I do, we are blood, is an often heard expression. Or if you
fail to show up for your son's playing the piano on parents' night,
because you had something more important to do, you are considered a
miserable failure and your boy is traumatized for life. Boohoo. You
neighbors scowl at you - there goes the guy, who doesn't care about
his kids because he failed to show up when they performed at school.

Seriously, does anyone actually want to spend the rest of life, or, if
you're a Christian, the rest of eternity, with his or her family? What
if your wife is a nagging witch from hell or your husband an abusive
rascal? What if your kids turn into junkies or prostitutes and end up
hating your guts? And you are going to spend eternity with them?

Is it any wonder the sales of anti-depressants are shooting through
the roof these days? If there is nothing beyond family and nation to
command your deepest attention, care and worry, is it any wonder
people are frustrated like never before?

In contrast to this meaningless, hopeless existence we have the Vedic
Version, as we have received it from Srila Prabhupada. The Vedic
Version is very simple - it says:

All this society-nation-tribe-family-and-friends-related awareness is
total illusion, it is Maya. Maya is Krishna's illusory potency.

When you leave eternity to become the independent enjoyer, you are put
under the spell of Maya in the material world, where you're allowed to
act out all your desires for friendship and love.

In real life Krishna is the only lover - He is the most munificent
master, He is the dearmost child, He is the best friend, or the most
desired lover, He is the most intelligent, the most funny, the most
knowledgeable, the most cunning, in fact, Krishna is the most of
anything - He is the Supreme.

And we are all looking for Krishna. We are all looking for love,
friendship, family and society. We are all looking for that happiness
and satisfaction, that really only Krishna can provide.

The fact is that anything experienced in a material body comes to an
end. All the body's relationships are like a dream and they always,
without exception, end in distress and lamentation. No matter how
loved you are or how much you love someone, you found just the right
person for you, your soulmate - that person always ends up leaving
you. Either he or she dies, or they loose interest and go away.
Material or bodily relationships always end in misery. The only person
who will never leave you, who will never desert you, who will never
disappoint you, who will always be there for you, who will be your
most dearly beloved - that person is Krishna!

Of course, hardly anyone likes to hear this truth, and so they have
made a whole culture out of forgetting it. Our eternal relationship
with God has been replaced with temporary bodily relations that in the
greater scheme of things are fleeting like dreams. We all grow up to
believe that nation and family are our most important relations. We
are cultivated into a tribal mentality from the minute we are born.
Whether we are sophisticated urban dwellers or tribal people in a
jungle - it is the same body-oriented mentality that rules the world.

In reality the soul is meant to relate to Krishna in love and
devotion.

Now, if you're a die-hard materialist, this message is obviously not
for you. If you are satisfied going through life's hum-drum as if
there is nothing else, like it's the all in all, then go right ahead
and go with the flow. Who can stop you?

But if you've ever had the thought - maybe there is more to life than
just being born, an education, a job and then die - then Krishna is a
viable alternative. God and His devotees will supply you with a long
term life-strategy that will leave you happy and satisfied.

Krishna fulfills everyone's desires, so as long as we wish to gratify
a material body, which really is nothing but a sack of meat and bones,
He lets us do that. He will even make us believe there is nothing
beyond our body and mind and their relations. So, if we want release
from material life, we must petition Krishna, but even if we want to
be in illusion, we need God's help. See, that's a funny thing about
life - we can't be in illusion without Krishna putting us there.

Krishna says:

I am in everyone’s heart as the Supersoul. As soon as one desires to
worship some demigod, I make his faith steady so that he can devote
himself to that particular deity. —Bg 7.21

Endowed with such a faith, he endeavors to worship a particular
demigod and obtains his desires. But in actuality these benefits are
bestowed by Me alone. —Bg 7.22

Men of small intelligence worship the demigods, and their fruits are
limited and temporary. Those who worship the demigods go to the
planets of the demigods, but My devotees ultimately reach My supreme
planet. —Bg 7.23

Unintelligent men, who do not know Me perfectly, think that I, the
Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krishna, was impersonal before and
have now assumed this personality. Due to their small knowledge, they
do not know My higher nature, which is imperishable and supreme.— Bg
7.24

I am never manifest to the foolish and unintelligent. For them I am
covered by My internal potency, and therefore they do not know that I
am unborn and infallible. (Bg 7.25)

O Arjuna, as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, I know everything
that has happened in the past, all that is happening in the present,
and all things that are yet to come. I also know all living entities;
but Me no one knows. —Bg 7.26

O scion of Bharata, O conqueror of the foe, all living entities are
born into delusion, bewildered by dualities arisen from desire and
hate. —Bg 7.27

Persons who have acted piously in previous lives and in this life and
whose sinful actions are completely eradicated are freed from the
dualities of delusion, and they engage themselves in My service with
determination.—g 7.28

Intelligent persons who are endeavoring for liberation from old age
and death take refuge in Me in devotional service. They are actually
Brahman because they know everything about transcendental activities.
—Bg 7.29

Those in full consciousness of Me, who know Me, the Supreme Lord, to
be the governing principle of the material manifestation, of the
demigods, and of all methods of sacrifice, can understand and know Me,
the Supreme Personality of Godhead, even at the time of death. —Bg
7.30






https://www.youtube.com/user/jahnudvip?feature=watch

https://picasaweb.google.com/113672947796865733014/Jahnu

http://www.touchtalent.com//artist/118705/jahnu-das

http://youtu.be/B46rjU_q_cM
JWS
2018-09-14 21:43:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 06:19:14 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The mistake is to assume that if morals are not divinely ordained, they must be the product of human reason.
No. They are a product of emotional intuition.
Whatever. So now you're just making up shit as you go along?
Not much happening in the brain-department, eh, Mac?
The fact is that in atheism there is no basis for moral and ethics,
except what make out it. That's why you've had to adop the moral and
ethics od the Church.
- show quoted text -
"Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Thursday pointed to the Bible to justify the Trump administration's policy of separating undocumented immigrant parents from their children. In doing so, Sessions said all laws are ordained by God and that having children does not protect people from prosecution."
Read it here:
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/blakemontgomery/jeff-sessions-said-the-bible-justifies-separating-illegal

I know you'll have a good answer which demonstrates the
filthy morals of your christian belief.

P.S.
You've got to admire Krishna over Jesus. I mean, just in
terms of not getting crucified.
- AJ
Cloud Hobbit
2018-09-14 23:32:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JWS
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 06:19:14 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The mistake is to assume that if morals are not divinely ordained, they must be the product of human reason.
No. They are a product of emotional intuition.
Whatever. So now you're just making up shit as you go along?
Not much happening in the brain-department, eh, Mac?
The fact is that in atheism there is no basis for moral and ethics,
except what make out it. That's why you've had to adop the moral and
ethics od the Church.
- show quoted text -
"Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Thursday pointed to the Bible to justify the Trump administration's policy of separating undocumented immigrant parents from their children. In doing so, Sessions said all laws are ordained by God and that having children does not protect people from prosecution."
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/blakemontgomery/jeff-sessions-said-the-bible-justifies-separating-illegal
I know you'll have a good answer which demonstrates the
filthy morals of your christian belief.
P.S.
You've got to admire Krishna over Jesus. I mean, just in
terms of not getting crucified.
- AJ
I guess there is a rule against crucifying blue people.
Jahnu
2018-09-17 03:31:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JWS
You've got to admire Krishna over Jesus. I mean, just in
terms of not getting crucified.
Also in terms of being God.

Krishna says:

I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything
emanates from Me. The wise who perfectly know this engage in My
devotional service and worship Me with all their hearts. (Bg 10.8)

The thoughts of My pure devotees dwell in Me, their lives are fully
devoted to My service, and they derive great satisfaction and bliss
from always enlightening one another and conversing about Me. (Bg
10.9)

To those who are constantly devoted to serving Me with love, I give
the understanding by which they can come to Me. (Bg 10.10)

To show them special mercy, I, dwelling in their hearts, destroy with
the shining lamp of knowledge the darkness born of ignorance.
(Bhagavad Gita 10.11)




https://www.youtube.com/user/jahnudvip?feature=watch

https://picasaweb.google.com/113672947796865733014/Jahnu

http://www.touchtalent.com//artist/118705/jahnu-das

http://youtu.be/B46rjU_q_cM
Gronk
2018-09-22 05:23:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Ask those poor kids.
Malcolm McMahon
2018-09-19 10:28:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 06:19:14 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The mistake is to assume that if morals are not divinely ordained, they must be the product of human reason.
No. They are a product of emotional intuition.
Whatever. So now you're just making up shit as you go along?
Actually I've given the question quite a lot of thought lately. I read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Righteous_Mind on Dawkins' recommendation (even though it gives Dawkins and co a bit of a hard time), and I recommend it to everyone interested in the nature of morality.

Interestingly though the author is clearly an atheist he has quite a lot of positive things to say about religion.

_Of course_ atheism is just not believing in God doesn't imply any particular moral philosophy, but most atheists with an interest in moral philosophy generally lean towards Humanism, which _does_ promote some commonsense moral values.

But you don't have to have an interest in moral philosophy to be moral.

Fortunately moral behaviour is no more a product of moral philosophy than it is of divine mandate. Its a combination of evolutionary drivers and specific values inculcated by the social matrix which produces us. Reason is more in the role of our press secretary, doing post-decision rationalisation to make our choices more acceptable to other people, and ourselves.

And it's just as well, if your moral limits are dictated by reason then you can reason your way out of them. If they are dictated by religion, then you can be talked out of them in the name of your religion.
Jahnu
2018-09-20 00:04:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 03:28:01 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Actually I've given the question quite a lot of thought lately. I read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Righteous_Mind on Dawkins' recommendation (even though it gives Dawkins and co a bit of a hard time), and I recommend it to everyone interested in the nature of morality.
Interestingly though the author is clearly an atheist he has quite a lot of positive things to say about religion.
_Of course_ atheism is just not believing in God doesn't imply any particular moral philosophy, but most atheists with an interest in moral philosophy generally lean towards Humanism, which _does_ promote some commonsense moral values.
But you don't have to have an interest in moral philosophy to be moral.
Fortunately moral behaviour is no more a product of moral philosophy than it is of divine mandate. Its a combination of evolutionary drivers and specific values inculcated by the social matrix which produces us. Reason is more in the role of our press secretary, doing post-decision rationalisation to make our choices more acceptable to other people, and ourselves.
And it's just as well, if your moral limits are dictated by reason then you can reason your way out of them. If they are dictated by religion, then you can be talked out of them in the name of your religion.
Why is western philosophy better than Eastern philosophy?

That's like asking - why is a tricycle better than a BMW?

The answer to that question is that only if you are two or three years
old is a tricycle better than a BMW.

Similarly, if you are a two a year old philosopher, you might think
that western philosophy is better than eastern philosophy.
Now, of the eastern philosophies, the Vedic philosophy is vastly
superior to anything else coming out of the East whether it be India,
China or Japan, what to speak of the West.

Of course, the Vedic philosophy originates in India, but just like
anything else in the present age of Kali, India included, philosophy
has degraded into a mishmash of atheistic malinterpretations and
wishful mental speculations.

For instance, who needs an old drug addicted, cigar-smoking fool to
tell you how the mind works? Freud came up with the idea that all boys
are sexually attracted to their mother. I mean, really? The fact is
that nobody, except for maybe Freud himself or a pig or a dog, is
sexually attracted to their own mother. Still, this old pervert is
regarded as the father of modern psychiatry.

Welcome to Kalilyuga.

The Greeks are highly regarded as the fathers of western philosophy
and modern western democracy. They also introduced public statues of
nude men and boys. Imagine, you stroll through the town, and some guy
in marble throws his dick in your face. I mean, seriously, who needs
that? Does it get any more low-class?

Again, welcome to Kaliyuga.

In contrast to this folly, we have the Bhagavad Gita. Bhagavad Gita
means the song of God, and Bhagavad Gita is the essence of Vedic
philosophy and religion. Krishna's teachings in Bhagavad Gita are the
pinnacle of philosophy and religion. The philosophy delivered by
Krishna in Bhagavad Gita is without a doubt the most complete,
advanced, sophisticated and well thought out explanation of reality
available anywhere in the world at any time.

Thank God for the Vedas.

"The reader is nowhere raised into and sustained in a bigger, purer or
rarer region of thought than in the Bhagavad Gita" -- Henry David
Thoreau

Krishna says:

My dear Arjuna, because you are never envious of Me, I shall impart to
you this most confidential knowledge and realization, knowing which
you shall be relieved of the miseries of material existence. (Bg. 9.1)

This knowledge is the king of education, the most secret of all
secrets. It is the purest knowledge, and because it gives direct
perception of the self by realization, it is the perfection of
religion. It is everlasting, and it is joyfully performed. (Bg. 9.2)





https://www.youtube.com/user/jahnudvip?feature=watch

https://picasaweb.google.com/113672947796865733014/Jahnu

http://www.touchtalent.com//artist/118705/jahnu-das

http://youtu.be/B46rjU_q_cM
Malcolm McMahon
2018-09-20 08:16:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jahnu
On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 03:28:01 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Actually I've given the question quite a lot of thought lately. I read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Righteous_Mind on Dawkins' recommendation (even though it gives Dawkins and co a bit of a hard time), and I recommend it to everyone interested in the nature of morality.
Interestingly though the author is clearly an atheist he has quite a lot of positive things to say about religion.
_Of course_ atheism is just not believing in God doesn't imply any particular moral philosophy, but most atheists with an interest in moral philosophy generally lean towards Humanism, which _does_ promote some commonsense moral values.
But you don't have to have an interest in moral philosophy to be moral.
Fortunately moral behaviour is no more a product of moral philosophy than it is of divine mandate. Its a combination of evolutionary drivers and specific values inculcated by the social matrix which produces us. Reason is more in the role of our press secretary, doing post-decision rationalisation to make our choices more acceptable to other people, and ourselves.
And it's just as well, if your moral limits are dictated by reason then you can reason your way out of them. If they are dictated by religion, then you can be talked out of them in the name of your religion.
Why is western philosophy better than Eastern philosophy?
Not a response. I wish you'd learn how to debate.
Jahnu
2018-09-20 19:24:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 01:16:59 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Not a response. I wish you'd learn how to debate.
I know how to debate. The reason I don't debate fools like you is
compassion. I'm so intellectually superior to you, I make you look
like a door knob.The minute I start debating you, you'd curl up in a
corner, drooling and blathering incoherently.

http://on.forbes.com/6185DFYb1



https://www.youtube.com/user/jahnudvip?feature=watch

https://picasaweb.google.com/113672947796865733014/Jahnu

http://www.touchtalent.com//artist/118705/jahnu-das

http://youtu.be/B46rjU_q_cM
Malcolm McMahon
2018-09-21 15:21:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jahnu
On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 01:16:59 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Not a response. I wish you'd learn how to debate.
I know how to debate. The reason I don't debate fools like you is
compassion. I'm so intellectually superior to you, I make you look
like a door knob.The minute I start debating you, you'd curl up in a
corner, drooling and blathering incoherently.
I'd like to see you try.
Kevrob
2018-09-21 15:49:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Jahnu
On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 01:16:59 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Not a response. I wish you'd learn how to debate.
I know how to debate. The reason I don't debate fools like you is
compassion. I'm so intellectually superior to you, I make you look
like a door knob.The minute I start debating you, you'd curl up in a
corner, drooling and blathering incoherently.
I'd like to see you try.
Jesper's a proselytizing troll. End of story.

---
Kevin R
a.a #2310
Jahnu
2018-09-22 01:53:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 08:21:47 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
I'd like to see you try.
Liar.

The sages say:

Then, in the beginning of Kali-yuga, the Lord will appear as Lord
Buddha, the son of Anjana, in the province of Gaya, just for the
purpose of deluding those who are envious of the faithful theist.
(SB 1.3.24)

http://on.forbes.com/6185DFYb1



https://www.youtube.com/user/jahnudvip?feature=watch

https://picasaweb.google.com/113672947796865733014/Jahnu

http://www.touchtalent.com//artist/118705/jahnu-das

http://youtu.be/B46rjU_q_cM
o***@hot.ee
2018-09-22 10:58:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jahnu
On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 08:21:47 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
I'd like to see you try.
Liar.
Do you read what you write:

Jahnu: "I know how to debate. The reason I don't debate fools like you is
compassion. I'm so intellectually superior to you, I make you look
like a door knob.The minute I start debating you, you'd curl up in a
corner, drooling and blathering incoherently"

It is impossible to figure if that was written as parody of insanity
or by genuinely insane. On both cases ... parodying insanity is
cruel and being insane is unfortunate ... so my compassion.
v***@gmail.com
2018-09-20 08:59:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 06:19:14 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The mistake is to assume that if morals are not divinely ordained, they must be the product of human reason.
No. They are a product of emotional intuition.
Whatever. So now you're just making up shit as you go along?
Actually I've given the question quite a lot of thought lately. I read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Righteous_Mind on Dawkins' recommendation (even though it gives Dawkins and co a bit of a hard time), and I recommend it to everyone interested in the nature of morality.
Interestingly though the author is clearly an atheist he has quite a lot of positive things to say about religion.
_Of course_ atheism is just not believing in God doesn't imply any particular moral philosophy, but most atheists with an interest in moral philosophy generally lean towards Humanism, which _does_ promote some commonsense moral values.
But you don't have to have an interest in moral philosophy to be moral.
Fortunately moral behaviour is no more a product of moral philosophy than it is of divine mandate. Its a combination of evolutionary drivers and specific values inculcated by the social matrix which produces us. Reason is more in the role of our press secretary, doing post-decision rationalisation to make our choices more acceptable to other people, and ourselves.
And it's just as well, if your moral limits are dictated by reason then you can reason your way out of them. If they are dictated by religion, then you can be talked out of them in the name of your religion.
I fervently disagree.. Most of the people in the USA are either Christians or Jews. The two religions have in common a very specific moral code called the Ten Commandments

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments


Sorry, but you are wrong. If moral behavior were a product of evolution or natural to humans, there would be no murder, no theft, no rape,no lying,
no fraud, and no violent crime at all. Humanism may have some moral rules in it, but I have never seen any of them specifically stated and/ or labelled as such.. History has demonstrated that, without specific written rules, there can be no justice and nobody is safe.
Malcolm McMahon
2018-09-20 15:10:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 06:19:14 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The mistake is to assume that if morals are not divinely ordained, they must be the product of human reason.
No. They are a product of emotional intuition.
Whatever. So now you're just making up shit as you go along?
Actually I've given the question quite a lot of thought lately. I read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Righteous_Mind on Dawkins' recommendation (even though it gives Dawkins and co a bit of a hard time), and I recommend it to everyone interested in the nature of morality.
Interestingly though the author is clearly an atheist he has quite a lot of positive things to say about religion.
_Of course_ atheism is just not believing in God doesn't imply any particular moral philosophy, but most atheists with an interest in moral philosophy generally lean towards Humanism, which _does_ promote some commonsense moral values.
But you don't have to have an interest in moral philosophy to be moral.
Fortunately moral behaviour is no more a product of moral philosophy than it is of divine mandate. Its a combination of evolutionary drivers and specific values inculcated by the social matrix which produces us. Reason is more in the role of our press secretary, doing post-decision rationalisation to make our choices more acceptable to other people, and ourselves.
And it's just as well, if your moral limits are dictated by reason then you can reason your way out of them. If they are dictated by religion, then you can be talked out of them in the name of your religion.
I fervently disagree.. Most of the people in the USA are either Christians or Jews. The two religions have in common a very specific moral code called the Ten Commandments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments
Out of the 10, 4 are simply the religion protecting itself. The "covet" one is a thought crime, and therefore undetectable in others.

The remaining five occur in every society that has ever existed, because a society isn't viable without them.
Post by v***@gmail.com
Sorry, but you are wrong. If moral behavior were a product of evolution or natural to humans, there would be no murder, no theft, no rape,no lying,
All humans have an immune system, yet we still catch diseases. And sometimes we have to weigh conflicting moral drives.

But we are a domesticated species. We co-evolve with our societies, each adapting to the needs of the other. On top of our instincts there's a layer of social conditioning, inculcated mostly by stories (whether true or imagined). This produces further conflict.

For example we are instinctively loath to kill or die but a viable society requires warriors. Thus society inculcates the virtue of heroism, which overrides that instinct. It does this mostly with males because, in the fundamental matter of population dynamics, males are dispensable. The most important use of young men in history is to do any necessary dying.

On the other hand the Moses of the story, who you claim was the first person to say "thou shall not kill" was a genocidal warlord who ordered the slaughter of a whole people so that his tribe could steel their land, illustrating how a religious rule can be overridden in the name of the religion.

Note, in the story, his troops protested the slaughter. It went _against_ their instincts, and was done on the authority of their religion. Their religion caused them to kill far more than the commandment would have prevented.

Most people are, instinctively, extremely reluctant to kill. It takes either training or ideology to make them do so.
Post by v***@gmail.com
no fraud, and no violent crime at all. Humanism may have some moral rules in it, but I have never seen any of them specifically stated and/ or labelled as such.. History has demonstrated that, without specific written rules, there can be no justice and nobody is safe.
Actually the need for rules is mostly about the presence of sociopaths, and the need to impose penalties on them when they behave in a solophistic manner. One of our moral instincts is fairness, a reaction you find in most primates. Societies based on mutual altruism have to deal with the "free rider" problem.

Humanism doesn't focus on moral _rules_ but moral _values_. Humanism says we should promote the flourishing of individual human beings and we should have regard to the interests of artificial constructs, such as nations, religions, tribes, only insofar as they promote the flourishing of human beings.
Christopher A. Lee
2018-09-20 15:37:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 08:10:58 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Humanism doesn't focus on moral _rules_ but moral _values_. Humanism
says we should promote the flourishing of individual human beings and
we should have regard to the interests of artificial constructs, such as
nations, religions, tribes, only insofar as they promote the flourishing of
human beings.
Those who need rules, need them to replace natural empathy which good
parenting nurtures, but atrophies in the strongly religious and is
replaced by "what God says".

Empathy leads to situational ethics, which works pretty much all the
time.

Rules don't. The golden rule might put you in the other guy's shoes,
but as yourself, not him.

As George Bernard Shaw said... "Don't do unto others as you would have
them do unto you, their taste might be different.

Or to put it another way, the Marquis de Sade could justify hurting
others because he wants them to hurt him.
Malcolm McMahon
2018-09-22 12:50:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 08:10:58 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Humanism doesn't focus on moral _rules_ but moral _values_. Humanism
says we should promote the flourishing of individual human beings and
we should have regard to the interests of artificial constructs, such as
nations, religions, tribes, only insofar as they promote the flourishing of
human beings.
Those who need rules, need them to replace natural empathy which good
parenting nurtures, but atrophies in the strongly religious and is
replaced by "what God says".
To my mind moral rules are a kind of compiled form of moral values, mostly to
encourage those that don't have those values to still stick to them.
Christopher A. Lee
2018-09-22 14:12:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 22 Sep 2018 12:50:44 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 08:10:58 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Humanism doesn't focus on moral _rules_ but moral _values_. Humanism
says we should promote the flourishing of individual human beings and
we should have regard to the interests of artificial constructs, such as
nations, religions, tribes, only insofar as they promote the flourishing of
human beings.
Those who need rules, need them to replace natural empathy which good
parenting nurtures, but atrophies in the strongly religious and is
replaced by "what God says".
To my mind moral rules are a kind of compiled form of moral values, mostly to
encourage those that don't have those values to still stick to them.
Rules which they can't realise don't always work and only give
lip-service to, anyway.

The trouble is that they imagine these rules give them the moral high
ground.

They haven't the empathy and understanding for others even to realise
that there are such things.

It's a variant of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Look at the religious hypocrites we get here, who claim the moral high
ground like the psycho who started this thread, and their supporters.
v***@gmail.com
2018-09-24 10:22:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Sat, 22 Sep 2018 12:50:44 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 08:10:58 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Humanism doesn't focus on moral _rules_ but moral _values_. Humanism
says we should promote the flourishing of individual human beings and
we should have regard to the interests of artificial constructs, such as
nations, religions, tribes, only insofar as they promote the flourishing of
human beings.
Those who need rules, need them to replace natural empathy which good
parenting nurtures, but atrophies in the strongly religious and is
replaced by "what God says".
To my mind moral rules are a kind of compiled form of moral values, mostly to
encourage those that don't have those values to still stick to them.
Rules which they can't realise don't always work and only give
lip-service to, anyway.
Not everyone obeys the moral rules. That's why we have ways of punishing those who don't obey them. We have policemen and prosecutors and jails.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
The trouble is that they imagine these rules give them the moral high
ground.
That's a lie. Only obedience to moral rules makes us better than scum like you.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
They haven't the empathy and understanding for others even to realise
that there are such things.
It's a variant of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Baloney. DK refers only to competence. It has nothing to do with morals.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Look at the religious hypocrites we get here, who claim the moral high
ground like the psycho who started this thread, and their supporters.
You are the worst liar who posts here. Everyone else is morally superior to you.
Kevrob
2018-09-21 15:47:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Humanism may have some moral rules in it, but I have never seen any of them specifically stated and/ or labelled as such..
Alleviate your ignorance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Secular_Humanist_Declaration

https://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php/11

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanist_Manifesto

Note, there are both religious and secular humanists.

Some secular humanists are even Jewish! (Ehnically, anyway.)

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/secular-humanistic-judaism-rejecting-god/

---
Kevin R
a.a #2310
v***@gmail.com
2018-09-21 19:49:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by v***@gmail.com
Humanism may have some moral rules in it, but I have never seen any of them specifically stated and/ or labelled as such..
Alleviate your ignorance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Secular_Humanist_Declaration
https://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php/11
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanist_Manifesto
I read them and saw no rules for moral behavior at all. All they list is
general principles which almost nobody could dispute.

The Ten Commandments forbids adultery, murder, theft and lying.

Duke is right. You have no moral rules at all.
Street
2018-09-22 00:37:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 4:59:58 AM UTC-4,
Post by v***@gmail.com
Humanism may have some moral rules in it, but I have never
seen any of them specifically stated and/ or labelled as such..
Post by v***@gmail.com
Alleviate your ignorance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Secular_Humanist_Declaration
https://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php/11
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanist_Manifesto
I read them and saw no rules for moral behavior at all. All they list is
general principles which almost nobody could dispute.
That's the point. Our morality is the product of our evolution.
Post by v***@gmail.com
The Ten Commandments forbids adultery, murder, theft and lying.
Do you think most people would do those things if it weren't for the
Ten Commandments?
Post by v***@gmail.com
Duke is right. You have no moral rules at all.
You just said those were "general principles which almost nobody
could dispute". How are they different from morality?
Christopher A. Lee
2018-09-22 07:05:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 4:59:58 AM UTC-4,
Post by v***@gmail.com
Humanism may have some moral rules in it, but I have never
seen any of them specifically stated and/ or labelled as such..
Post by v***@gmail.com
Alleviate your ignorance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Secular_Humanist_Declaration
https://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php/11
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanist_Manifesto
I read them and saw no rules for moral behavior at all. All they
list is
Post by v***@gmail.com
general principles which almost nobody could dispute.
That's the point. Our morality is the product of our evolution.
Post by v***@gmail.com
The Ten Commandments forbids adultery, murder, theft and lying.
Do you think most people would do those things if it weren't for the
Ten Commandments?
Post by v***@gmail.com
Duke is right. You have no moral rules at all.
You just said those were "general principles which almost nobody
could dispute". How are they different from morality?
Only sociopaths need "moral rules". Normal people have innate empathy,
which neither Mad Joe not Sir Pukelot have.

And they use them to beat up others instead of living by them,
themselves.

Do either of them seriously imagine their behaviour towards us
demonstrates morality?

The Golden Rule they pretend is unique to Christianity, is a
simplistic, one-size-fits all which doesn't work much of the time
because it puts them in the other guy's shoes as themselves, not the
other guy.
v***@gmail.com
2018-09-22 08:51:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 4:59:58 AM UTC-4,
Post by v***@gmail.com
Humanism may have some moral rules in it, but I have never
seen any of them specifically stated and/ or labelled as such..
Post by v***@gmail.com
Alleviate your ignorance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Secular_Humanist_Declaration
https://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php/11
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanist_Manifesto
I read them and saw no rules for moral behavior at all. All they
list is
Post by v***@gmail.com
general principles which almost nobody could dispute.
That's the point. Our morality is the product of our evolution.
Post by v***@gmail.com
The Ten Commandments forbids adultery, murder, theft and lying.
Do you think most people would do those things if it weren't for the
Ten Commandments?
Post by v***@gmail.com
Duke is right. You have no moral rules at all.
You just said those were "general principles which almost nobody
could dispute". How are they different from morality?
Only sociopaths need "moral rules". Normal people have innate empathy,
which neither Mad Joe not Sir Pukelot have.
Really? Here are the FBI statistics on Crime in the USA by year:

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s

Do all these criminals have "innate empathy?" Are all of them "sociopaths"?
Post by Christopher A. Lee
And they use them to beat up others instead of living by them,
themselves.
Do either of them seriously imagine their behaviour towards us
demonstrates morality?
Our morality is governed by the Ten Commandments and the Torah. Those books forbid lying but they do not forbid insults.. Why don't you show us all where Duke and I have violated Torah law or the Ten Commandments?
Post by Christopher A. Lee
The Golden Rule they pretend is unique to Christianity,
That's a LIE

http://www.bard.edu/iat/newsletters/IATNewsletter/documents/Wednesday_April16.pdf
Cloud Hobbit
2018-09-22 09:42:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
The basic moral code of sane people is simple, its easy to remember because it's just one sentence. Are you ready?. Here it is.


Don't be a dick.
v***@gmail.com
2018-09-24 10:16:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The basic moral code of sane people is simple, its easy to remember because it's just one sentence. Are you ready?. Here it is.
Don't be a dick.
Now I know why you atheists fear religion. You don't like the specific rules we theists have to live by. You want to be free to lie.
Hollis Brown Jr.
2018-09-24 19:22:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The basic moral code of sane people is simple, its easy to remember because it's just one sentence. Are you ready?. Here it is.
Don't be a dick.
Now I know why you atheists fear religion.
Please stop lying. I do not fear religion.
Cloud Hobbit
2018-09-25 02:19:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The basic moral code of sane people is simple, its easy to remember because it's just one sentence. Are you ready?. Here it is.
Don't be a dick.
Now I know why you atheists fear religion. You don't like the specific rules we theists have to live by. You want to be free to lie.
__________________

You just can't stop lying, can you? What gives you the idea that we fear religion?

What could we possibly be afraid of?

It's not religion we fear, it religious PEOPLE. The fundies in particular who think God commands them to blow up abortion clinics or kill doctors who perform abortions.

Religion itself is a joke because it's build like a house of cards with no substance. Its just based on a collection of lies and myths borrowed from other religions. Most people, thankfully are not fundies and couldn't care less if we are theists or not. They live and let live and base their ideas about us from our actions.

Its that same kind of reasoning that tells us you and Duke are scummy, lying assholes.
Jahnu
2018-09-25 05:36:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 19:19:16 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Flobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
You just can't stop lying, can you? What gives you the idea that we fear religion?
What could we possibly be afraid of?
You are too stupid to be afraid. Death is going to be a rude awakening
for you.

Krishna says:

Pride, arrogance, conceit, anger, harshness and ignorance -- these
qualities belong to those of demoniac nature, O son of Prtha. (Bg
16.4)

Those who are demoniac do not know what is to be done and what is not
to be done. Neither cleanliness nor proper behavior nor truth is found
in them. (Bg 16.7)

They say that this world is unreal, with no foundation, no God in
control. They say it is produced of sex desire and has no cause other
than lust. (Bg. 16.8)

Following such conclusions, the demoniac, who are lost to themselves
and who have no intelligence, engage in unbeneficial, horrible works
meant to destroy the world. (Bg. 16.9)

Taking shelter of insatiable lust and absorbed in the conceit of pride
and false prestige, the demoniac, thus illusioned, are always sworn to
unclean work, attracted by the impermanent. (Bg. 16.10)

They believe that to gratify the senses is the prime necessity of
human civilization. Thus until the end of life their anxiety is
immeasurable. Bound by a network of hundreds of thousands of desires
and absorbed in lust and anger, they secure money by illegal means for
sense gratification. (Bg. 16.11-12)

The demoniac person thinks: "So much wealth do I have today, and I
will gain more according to my schemes. So much is mine now, and it
will increase in the future, more and more. He is my enemy, and I have
killed him, and my other enemies will also be killed. I am the lord of
everything. I am the enjoyer. I am perfect, powerful and happy. I am
the richest man, surrounded by aristocratic relatives. There is none
so powerful and happy as I am. I shall perform sacrifices, I shall
give some charity, and thus I shall rejoice." In this way, such
persons are deluded by ignorance. (Bg. 16. 13-15)

Thus perplexed by various anxieties and bound by a network of
illusions, they become too strongly attached to sense enjoyment and
fall down into hell. (Bg. 16.16)

Self-complacent and always impudent, deluded by wealth and false
prestige, they sometimes proudly perform sacrifices in name only,
without following any rules or regulations. (Bg. 16.17)

Bewildered by false ego, strength, pride, lust and anger, the demons
become envious of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is situated
in their own bodies and in the bodies of others, and blaspheme against
the real religion. (Bg. 16.18)

Those who are envious and mischievous, who are the lowest among men, I
perpetually cast into the ocean of material existence, into various
demoniac species of life. (Bg. 16. 19)

Attaining repeated birth amongst the species of demoniac life, O son
of Kunti, such persons can never approach Me. Gradually they sink down
to the most abominable type of existence. (Bg. 16.20)

There are three gates leading to this hell—lust, anger and greed.
Every sane man should give these up, for they lead to the degradation
of the soul. (Bg. 16.21)

The man who has escaped these three gates of hell, O son of Kunti,
performs acts conducive to self-realization and thus gradually attains
the supreme destination. (Bg. 16.22)

He who discards scriptural injunctions and acts according to his own
whims attains neither perfection, nor happiness, nor the supreme
destination. (Bg. 16.23)

One should therefore understand what is duty and what is not duty by
the regulations of the scriptures. Knowing such rules and regulations,
one should act so that he may gradually be elevated. (Bg. 16.24)




https://www.youtube.com/user/jahnudvip?feature=watch

https://picasaweb.google.com/113672947796865733014/Jahnu

http://www.touchtalent.com//artist/118705/jahnu-das

http://youtu.be/B46rjU_q_cM
Peter Pan
2018-09-25 07:12:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jahnu
On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 19:19:16 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Flobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
You just can't stop lying, can you? What gives you the idea that we fear religion?
What could we possibly be afraid of?
You are too stupid to be afraid. Death is going to be a rude awakening
for you.
Death is going to be a rude awakening for you. Just wait
until Krishna says, "You fool! I'm an atheist!!"
duke
2018-09-25 21:24:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Jahnu
On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 19:19:16 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Flobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
You just can't stop lying, can you? What gives you the idea that we fear religion?
What could we possibly be afraid of?
You are too stupid to be afraid. Death is going to be a rude awakening
for you.
Death is going to be a rude awakening for you. Just wait
until Krishna says, "You fool! I'm an atheist!!"
Now isn't that a "peanut original". He actually thinks the Hindu God is an
atheist. Poor stupid boy. The worst of the worse.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
Peter Pan
2018-09-25 22:47:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Jahnu
On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 19:19:16 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Flobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
You just can't stop lying, can you? What gives you the idea that we fear religion?
What could we possibly be afraid of?
You are too stupid to be afraid. Death is going to be a rude awakening
for you.
Death is going to be a rude awakening for you. Just wait
until Krishna says, "You fool! I'm an atheist!!"
Now isn't that a "peanut original". He actually thinks the Hindu God is an
atheist. Poor stupid boy. The worst of the worse.
Jesus is an atheist too, duke.

He's giving all us aa regs front-row seats at your
flambeing.
Post by duke
the dukester, Antichrist-American
ravn
2018-09-26 00:38:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jahnu
Death is going to be a rude awakening
for you.
Well, it isn't like one will be aware after the fact. There's nothing to fear here, except fear itself.
v***@gmail.com
2018-09-25 09:56:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The basic moral code of sane people is simple, its easy to remember because it's just one sentence. Are you ready?. Here it is.
Don't be a dick.
Now I know why you atheists fear religion. You don't like the specific rules we theists have to live by. You want to be free to lie.
__________________
You just can't stop lying, can you? What gives you the idea that we fear religion?
What could we possibly be afraid of?
It's not religion we fear, it religious PEOPLE. The fundies in particular who think God commands them to blow up abortion clinics or kill doctors who perform abortions.
Show us a real example of a fundamentalist who blew up an abortion clinic.
Make sure you tell us how you know he takes the bible literally.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Religion itself is a joke because it's build like a house of cards with no substance. Its just based on a collection of lies and myths borrowed from other religions. Most people, thankfully are not fundies and couldn't care less if we are theists or not. They live and let live and base their ideas about us from our actions.
Its that same kind of reasoning that tells us you and Duke are scummy, lying assholes.
Every time I ask you to prove we lied, you don't.
Cloud Hobbit
2018-09-25 21:02:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Show us a real example of a fundamentalist who blew up an abortion clinic.
Make sure you tell us how you know he takes the bible literally.
___________________

Google Army of God.
duke
2018-09-25 21:26:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The basic moral code of sane people is simple, its easy to remember because it's just one sentence. Are you ready?. Here it is.
Don't be a dick.
Now I know why you atheists fear religion. You don't like the specific rules we theists have to live by. You want to be free to lie.
__________________
You just can't stop lying, can you? What gives you the idea that we fear religion?
What could we possibly be afraid of?
It's not religion we fear, it religious PEOPLE. The fundies in particular who think God commands them to blow up abortion clinics or kill doctors who perform abortions.
Show us a real example of a fundamentalist who blew up an abortion clinic.
Make sure you tell us how you know he takes the bible literally.
Cloud is a real stupid ass. He craps thru his nose and speaks out of his ass.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
duke
2018-09-25 21:23:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 19:19:16 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The basic moral code of sane people is simple, its easy to remember because it's just one sentence. Are you ready?. Here it is.
Don't be a dick.
Now I know why you atheists fear religion. You don't like the specific rules we theists have to live by. You want to be free to lie.
__________________
You just can't stop lying, can you? What gives you the idea that we fear religion?
What could we possibly be afraid of?
It's not religion we fear, it religious PEOPLE. The fundies in particular who think God commands them to blow up abortion clinics or kill doctors who perform abortions.
I'm religious and I definitely don't believe that. Nobody I know believes that.
Only the most far-out, false religious person believes that. God absolutely
forbids us to do such a thing.

Aren't you being a little silly.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Religion itself is a joke because it's build like a house of cards with no substance. Its just based on a collection of lies and myths borrowed from other religions. Most people, thankfully are not fundies and couldn't care less if we are theists or not. They live and let live and base their ideas about us from our actions.
You're professing that love of God and neighbor has no substance. Then what do
you live by?
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Its that same kind of reasoning that tells us you and Duke are scummy, lying assholes.
I didn't tell you the things you brought up above. I demand an apology.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
Jahnu
2018-09-22 23:44:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 22 Sep 2018 02:05:04 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Only sociopaths need "moral rules". Normal people have innate empathy,
which neither Mad Joe not Sir Pukelot have.
You? empathy? hahaha :) Obviously not. If you had even an ounce of
empathy in that meat-head of yours, you wouldn't dine on slices of a
corpse that was murdered and tortured in an automated death-camp, just
so you can satisfy your disgusting eating-habits.


"Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival
of life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet"

-Albert Einstein



https://www.youtube.com/user/jahnudvip?feature=watch

https://picasaweb.google.com/113672947796865733014/Jahnu

http://www.touchtalent.com//artist/118705/jahnu-das

http://youtu.be/B46rjU_q_cM
Cloud Hobbit
2018-09-23 00:07:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jahnu
You? empathy? hahaha :) Obviously not. If you had even an ounce of
empathy in that meat-head of yours, you wouldn't dine on slices of a
corpse that was murdered and tortured in an automated death-camp, just
so you can satisfy your disgusting eating-habits.
_______________
There is no arguing with an idiot who believes that non human life is equal to human life. Just look at all the things nonhuman have accomplished. Just last night a cow scrapped on Jesper's dirt floor.

"Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival
of life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet"

-Albert Einstein
- show quoted text -

No science irrefutably proves Veganism or Vegetarianism is better than a balanced diet that includes meat, fish, and fowl in moderation. You lose, again.

The problem is not that humans eat meat, but rather that they eat too much. That's why humans suffer from heart disease, they eat too much.

Not enough fish and vegetables.
Fish is exceedingly good for humans. Beef is one of the best ways to get protein. That's why dairy products are something to include in one's diet.

Milk, cheese, yogurt, etc. all are rich in protein.

The key word is moderation. Being so much more wealthy than most countries we have the capability of overconsumption, a problem seldom encountered in very religious countries.

But do carry on with your bullshit, it helps to insure the likelihood that people will not join your insane cult.

It seems that after inventing all those great sexual positions they lost interest in logic and reason. Perhaps that's 80shy there are so many dustbin babies in India.
Cloud Hobbit
2018-09-23 00:09:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jahnu
You? empathy? hahaha :) Obviously not. If you had even an ounce of
empathy in that meat-head of yours, you wouldn't dine on slices of a
corpse that was murdered and tortured in an automated death-camp, just
so you can satisfy your disgusting eating-habits.
_______________
There is no arguing with an idiot who believes that non human life is equal to human life. Just look at all the things nonhuman have accomplished. Just last night a cow scrapped on Jesper's dirt floor.

"Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival
of life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet"

-Albert Einstein
- show quoted text -

No science irrefutably proves Veganism or Vegetarianism is better than a balanced diet that includes meat, fish, and fowl in moderation. You lose, again.

The problem is not that humans eat meat, but rather that they eat too much. That's why humans suffer from heart disease, they eat too much.

Not enough fish and vegetables.
Fish is exceedingly good for humans. Beef is one of the best ways to get protein. That's why dairy products are something to include in one's diet.

Milk, cheese, yogurt, etc. all are rich in protein.

The key word is moderation. Being so much more wealthy than most countries we have the capability of overconsumption, a problem seldom encountered in very religious countries.

But do carry on with your bullshit, it helps to insure the likelihood that people will not join your insane cult.

It seems that after inventing all those great sexual positions they lost interest in logic and reason. Perhaps that's why there are so many dustbin babies in India.
WangoTango
2018-09-25 17:23:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jahnu
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Only sociopaths need "moral rules". Normal people have innate empathy,
which neither Mad Joe not Sir Pukelot have.
You? empathy? hahaha :) Obviously not. If you had even an ounce of
empathy in that meat-head of yours, you wouldn't dine on slices of a
corpse that was murdered and tortured in an automated death-camp, just
so you can satisfy your disgusting eating-habits.
So, if I only ate animals that I hunted for my own consumption, is that
OK?
Christopher A. Lee
2018-09-25 17:41:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 13:23:51 -0400, WangoTango
Post by WangoTango
Post by Jahnu
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Only sociopaths need "moral rules". Normal people have innate empathy,
which neither Mad Joe not Sir Pukelot have.
You? empathy? hahaha :) Obviously not. If you had even an ounce of
empathy in that meat-head of yours, you wouldn't dine on slices of a
corpse that was murdered and tortured in an automated death-camp, just
so you can satisfy your disgusting eating-habits.
So, if I only ate animals that I hunted for my own consumption, is that
OK?
He's certifiably insane.
WangoTango
2018-09-25 22:26:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 13:23:51 -0400, WangoTango
Post by WangoTango
Post by Jahnu
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Only sociopaths need "moral rules". Normal people have innate empathy,
which neither Mad Joe not Sir Pukelot have.
You? empathy? hahaha :) Obviously not. If you had even an ounce of
empathy in that meat-head of yours, you wouldn't dine on slices of a
corpse that was murdered and tortured in an automated death-camp, just
so you can satisfy your disgusting eating-habits.
So, if I only ate animals that I hunted for my own consumption, is that
OK?
He's certifiably insane.
Well, we all know that, but it's funny to see his attempts at insulting
people. I'm expecting at least a "Wanker" or two out of him. Funny how
that insult doesn't translate well out of places that were recent UK
holdings.
Christopher A. Lee
2018-09-25 22:50:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 18:26:15 -0400, WangoTango
Post by WangoTango
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 13:23:51 -0400, WangoTango
Post by WangoTango
Post by Jahnu
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Only sociopaths need "moral rules". Normal people have innate empathy,
which neither Mad Joe not Sir Pukelot have.
You? empathy? hahaha :) Obviously not. If you had even an ounce of
empathy in that meat-head of yours, you wouldn't dine on slices of a
corpse that was murdered and tortured in an automated death-camp, just
so you can satisfy your disgusting eating-habits.
So, if I only ate animals that I hunted for my own consumption, is that
OK?
He's certifiably insane.
Well, we all know that, but it's funny to see his attempts at insulting
people. I'm expecting at least a "Wanker" or two out of him. Funny how
that insult doesn't translate well out of places that were recent UK
holdings.
I dunno about that. In America the equivalent is "jerk" - from jerking
off.

But call him a Jodrell Banker or a Sherman tanker and they won't know
what you mean.

And did you know that "berk" is from :Berkeley Hunt?

"Goose" from goose and duck? Hence "found under a gooseberry bush".
Jahnu
2018-09-26 01:03:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 13:23:51 -0400, WangoTango
Post by WangoTango
So, if I only ate animals that I hunted for my own consumption, is that
OK?
That would defnitely be so much better than supporting an enterprise
of pure evil. It would be so much better for your karma to hunt and
kill what you eat.

The law of karma dictates that the suffering you inflict on other
living entities comes back to you in equal measure.

That's why vegetarians suffer less than meat-eaters.

AN OPEN LETTER FROM PAUL McCARTNEY- 14.01.2008


A recently published UN report has come to my attention. This report
contains information that I, personally, find quite amazing and I’d
like to share it with you. The report (Livestock’s Long Shadow)
contains one clear message; it states that the single most effective
act that any individual can currently do to lessen the effects of
global warming is to become vegetarian. That this message comes
directly from an authoritative body such as the UN (whose member
states, it should be remembered, are not generally considered
vegetarian) rather than an organisation committed to vegetarianism is
significant.

You may know that for over 30 years I have been interested in the
promotion of vegetarianism and my own feelings were sparked by a
simple compassion for animals. What I think is especially compelling,
is that this report should now encourage everybody to ‘do their bit’
for the planet. The evidence that the report gives is, frankly,
stunning. It points directly to the striking detrimental effects of
excessive livestock farming on the environment. For instance:

“Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to the most
serious environmental problems of today” says Henning Steinfeld of the
UN Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO). “Urgent action is
required to remedy the situation.”

• “70% of former forests in the Amazon have been turned over to
grazing.”

• “Livestock now use 30% of the entire world’s land surface.”

“Cattle rearing is also a major source of land and water degradation.”
(FAO report Livestock’s Long Shadow- Environmental Issues & Options).

“When emissions from land use and land use change are included (i.e.
deforestation), the livestock sector accounts for 9% of CO2 deriving
from human-related activities, but produces a much larger share of
even more harmful greenhouse gases. It generates 65% of human-related
nitrous oxide, which has 296 times the Global Warming Potential (GWP)
of CO2.”

“The livestock business is among the most damaging sectors to the
earth’s increasingly scarce water resources, contributing among other
things to water pollution¬from animal wastes, antibiotics and
hormones, chemicals from tanneries, fertilizers and the pesticides
used to sprayed crops.”

Ok, this may sound like me banging on about vegetarianism again but
this time, these facts come straight from the UN and I wonder if you,
like me, think that they are significant enough to be taken seriously.
By simply considering altering eating habits people can strike a blow
for the environment, our children and the future. Such facts and data
as those listed above can’t be ignored.

I hope this statement doesn’t seem too heavy-handed but I think this
recent news is important enough to take notice of.

Many thanks for reading this.

Cheers,

Paul McCartney

source:
http://macca.devstars.eu/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=64366




https://www.youtube.com/user/jahnudvip?feature=watch

https://picasaweb.google.com/113672947796865733014/Jahnu

http://www.touchtalent.com//artist/118705/jahnu-das

http://youtu.be/B46rjU_q_cM

Street
2018-09-23 01:29:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 22 Sep 2018 02:05:04 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 4:59:58 AM UTC-4,
Post by v***@gmail.com
Humanism may have some moral rules in it, but I have never
seen any of them specifically stated and/ or labelled as such..
Post by v***@gmail.com
Alleviate your ignorance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Secular_Humanist_Declaration
https://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php/11
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanist_Manifesto
I read them and saw no rules for moral behavior at all. All they
list is
Post by v***@gmail.com
general principles which almost nobody could dispute.
That's the point. Our morality is the product of our evolution.
Post by v***@gmail.com
The Ten Commandments forbids adultery, murder, theft and lying.
Do you think most people would do those things if it weren't for the
Ten Commandments?
Post by v***@gmail.com
Duke is right. You have no moral rules at all.
You just said those were "general principles which almost nobody
could dispute". How are they different from morality?
Only sociopaths need "moral rules". Normal people have innate
empathy,
Post by Christopher A. Lee
which neither Mad Joe not Sir Pukelot have.
Exactly!
Post by Christopher A. Lee
And they use them to beat up others instead of living by them,
themselves.
Do either of them seriously imagine their behaviour towards us
demonstrates morality?
The Golden Rule they pretend is unique to Christianity, is a
simplistic, one-size-fits all which doesn't work much of the time
because it puts them in the other guy's shoes as themselves, not the
other guy.
We're forced to conclude that, if it weren't for their religion,
they'd spend much of their time murdering and stealing.
Christopher A. Lee
2018-09-23 02:08:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jahnu
On Sat, 22 Sep 2018 02:05:04 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 4:59:58 AM UTC-4,
Post by v***@gmail.com
Humanism may have some moral rules in it, but I have never
seen any of them specifically stated and/ or labelled as such..
Post by v***@gmail.com
Alleviate your ignorance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Secular_Humanist_Declaration
https://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php/11
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanist_Manifesto
I read them and saw no rules for moral behavior at all. All they
list is
Post by v***@gmail.com
general principles which almost nobody could dispute.
That's the point. Our morality is the product of our evolution.
Post by v***@gmail.com
The Ten Commandments forbids adultery, murder, theft and lying.
Do you think most people would do those things if it weren't for
the
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by v***@gmail.com
Ten Commandments?
Post by v***@gmail.com
Duke is right. You have no moral rules at all.
You just said those were "general principles which almost nobody
could dispute". How are they different from morality?
Only sociopaths need "moral rules". Normal people have innate
empathy,
Post by Christopher A. Lee
which neither Mad Joe not Sir Pukelot have.
Exactly!
Post by Christopher A. Lee
And they use them to beat up others instead of living by them,
themselves.
Do either of them seriously imagine their behaviour towards us
demonstrates morality?
The Golden Rule they pretend is unique to Christianity, is a
simplistic, one-size-fits all which doesn't work much of the time
because it puts them in the other guy's shoes as themselves, not the
other guy.
We're forced to conclude that, if it weren't for their religion,
they'd spend much of their time murdering and stealing.
They seem proud of that - but they're mortally offended if you take
them seriously and say you hope they never get within a hundred miles
of your loved ones because we know just how easily people can lose
their belief.
Street
2018-09-23 02:45:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 22 Sep 2018 21:08:25 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Jahnu
On Sat, 22 Sep 2018 02:05:04 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 20:37:00 -0400, Street
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 4:59:58 AM UTC-4,
Post by v***@gmail.com
Humanism may have some moral rules in it, but I have never
seen any of them specifically stated and/ or labelled as such..
Post by v***@gmail.com
Alleviate your ignorance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Secular_Humanist_Declaration
https://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php/11
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanist_Manifesto
I read them and saw no rules for moral behavior at all. All they
list is
Post by v***@gmail.com
general principles which almost nobody could dispute.
That's the point. Our morality is the product of our evolution.
Post by v***@gmail.com
The Ten Commandments forbids adultery, murder, theft and
lying.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Jahnu
Post by v***@gmail.com
Do you think most people would do those things if it weren't for
the
Post by v***@gmail.com
Ten Commandments?
Post by v***@gmail.com
Duke is right. You have no moral rules at all.
You just said those were "general principles which almost
nobody
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Jahnu
Post by v***@gmail.com
could dispute". How are they different from morality?
Only sociopaths need "moral rules". Normal people have innate
empathy,
which neither Mad Joe not Sir Pukelot have.
Exactly!
And they use them to beat up others instead of living by them,
themselves.
Do either of them seriously imagine their behaviour towards us
demonstrates morality?
The Golden Rule they pretend is unique to Christianity, is a
simplistic, one-size-fits all which doesn't work much of the time
because it puts them in the other guy's shoes as themselves, not the
other guy.
We're forced to conclude that, if it weren't for their religion,
they'd spend much of their time murdering and stealing.
They seem proud of that - but they're mortally offended if you take
them seriously and say you hope they never get within a hundred miles
of your loved ones because we know just how easily people can lose
their belief.
They're irrational and they prefer to be that way.
v***@gmail.com
2018-09-24 10:23:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Jahnu
On Sat, 22 Sep 2018 02:05:04 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 4:59:58 AM UTC-4,
Post by v***@gmail.com
Humanism may have some moral rules in it, but I have never
seen any of them specifically stated and/ or labelled as such..
Post by v***@gmail.com
Alleviate your ignorance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Secular_Humanist_Declaration
https://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php/11
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanist_Manifesto
I read them and saw no rules for moral behavior at all. All they
list is
Post by v***@gmail.com
general principles which almost nobody could dispute.
That's the point. Our morality is the product of our evolution.
Post by v***@gmail.com
The Ten Commandments forbids adultery, murder, theft and lying.
Do you think most people would do those things if it weren't for
the
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by v***@gmail.com
Ten Commandments?
Post by v***@gmail.com
Duke is right. You have no moral rules at all.
You just said those were "general principles which almost nobody
could dispute". How are they different from morality?
Only sociopaths need "moral rules". Normal people have innate
empathy,
Post by Christopher A. Lee
which neither Mad Joe not Sir Pukelot have.
Exactly!
Post by Christopher A. Lee
And they use them to beat up others instead of living by them,
themselves.
Do either of them seriously imagine their behaviour towards us
demonstrates morality?
The Golden Rule they pretend is unique to Christianity, is a
simplistic, one-size-fits all which doesn't work much of the time
because it puts them in the other guy's shoes as themselves, not the
other guy.
We're forced to conclude that, if it weren't for their religion,
they'd spend much of their time murdering and stealing.
They seem proud of that - but they're mortally offended if you take
them seriously and say you hope they never get within a hundred miles
of your loved ones because we know just how easily people can lose
their belief.
Show us where that happened.
Peter Pan
2018-09-25 08:06:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Jahnu
On Sat, 22 Sep 2018 02:05:04 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 4:59:58 AM UTC-4,
Post by v***@gmail.com
Humanism may have some moral rules in it, but I have never
seen any of them specifically stated and/ or labelled as such..
Post by v***@gmail.com
Alleviate your ignorance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Secular_Humanist_Declaration
https://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php/11
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanist_Manifesto
I read them and saw no rules for moral behavior at all. All they
list is
Post by v***@gmail.com
general principles which almost nobody could dispute.
That's the point. Our morality is the product of our evolution.
Post by v***@gmail.com
The Ten Commandments forbids adultery, murder, theft and lying.
Do you think most people would do those things if it weren't for
the
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by v***@gmail.com
Ten Commandments?
Post by v***@gmail.com
Duke is right. You have no moral rules at all.
You just said those were "general principles which almost nobody
could dispute". How are they different from morality?
Only sociopaths need "moral rules". Normal people have innate
empathy,
Post by Christopher A. Lee
which neither Mad Joe not Sir Pukelot have.
Exactly!
Post by Christopher A. Lee
And they use them to beat up others instead of living by them,
themselves.
Do either of them seriously imagine their behaviour towards us
demonstrates morality?
The Golden Rule they pretend is unique to Christianity, is a
simplistic, one-size-fits all which doesn't work much of the time
because it puts them in the other guy's shoes as themselves, not the
other guy.
We're forced to conclude that, if it weren't for their religion,
they'd spend much of their time murdering and stealing.
They seem proud of that - but they're mortally offended if you take
them seriously and say you hope they never get within a hundred miles
of your loved ones because we know just how easily people can lose
their belief.
Show us where that happened.
Just read what you said in this very thread:

Now I know why you atheists fear religion. You
don't like the specific rules we theists have to
live by. You want to be free to lie.
-- Mad Joe

So you are saying you need "specific rules" to control
your own behavior, lest you be convinced to go on a
serial rampage of murder, lust, theft and lying.

How bout:

If moral behavior were a product of evolution or
natural to humans, there would be no murder, no
theft, no rape,no lying, no fraud, and no violent
crime at all. Humanism may have some moral rules in
it, but I have never seen any of them specifically
stated and/ or labelled as such.. History has
demonstrated that, without specific written rules,
there can be no justice and nobody is safe.
-- Artie Joe

So the only thing stopping you from a life of crime is
that your religion forces you to F34R H1S R4TH.

But, Crazy Joe, morality IS a product of human evolution.
Normal human nature is to be repulsed by violence and
contemptuous of dishonesty. (not that i mean to speak on
your behalf here.)

Sure, some people are exceptions. They are called
psychopaths. They just aren't equipped with the empathy
thing in their brain. And guess what... From birth, you
can force all the religion on them that you can, and they
will still be psychopaths.

Some of them will even rage on usenet in ALL CAPS with
long strings of emphatic punctuation!!!!!!!!!!!
v***@gmail.com
2018-09-25 09:59:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Jahnu
On Sat, 22 Sep 2018 02:05:04 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 4:59:58 AM UTC-4,
Post by v***@gmail.com
Humanism may have some moral rules in it, but I have never
seen any of them specifically stated and/ or labelled as such..
Post by v***@gmail.com
Alleviate your ignorance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Secular_Humanist_Declaration
https://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php/11
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanist_Manifesto
I read them and saw no rules for moral behavior at all. All they
list is
Post by v***@gmail.com
general principles which almost nobody could dispute.
That's the point. Our morality is the product of our evolution.
Post by v***@gmail.com
The Ten Commandments forbids adultery, murder, theft and lying.
Do you think most people would do those things if it weren't for
the
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by v***@gmail.com
Ten Commandments?
Post by v***@gmail.com
Duke is right. You have no moral rules at all.
You just said those were "general principles which almost nobody
could dispute". How are they different from morality?
Only sociopaths need "moral rules". Normal people have innate
empathy,
Post by Christopher A. Lee
which neither Mad Joe not Sir Pukelot have.
Exactly!
Post by Christopher A. Lee
And they use them to beat up others instead of living by them,
themselves.
Do either of them seriously imagine their behaviour towards us
demonstrates morality?
The Golden Rule they pretend is unique to Christianity, is a
simplistic, one-size-fits all which doesn't work much of the time
because it puts them in the other guy's shoes as themselves, not the
other guy.
We're forced to conclude that, if it weren't for their religion,
they'd spend much of their time murdering and stealing.
They seem proud of that - but they're mortally offended if you take
them seriously and say you hope they never get within a hundred miles
of your loved ones because we know just how easily people can lose
their belief.
Show us where that happened.
Now I know why you atheists fear religion. You
don't like the specific rules we theists have to
live by. You want to be free to lie.
-- Mad Joe
So you are saying you need "specific rules" to control
your own behavior, lest you be convinced to go on a
serial rampage of murder, lust, theft and lying.
I said no such thing.
Post by v***@gmail.com
If moral behavior were a product of evolution or
natural to humans, there would be no murder, no
theft, no rape,no lying, no fraud, and no violent
crime at all. Humanism may have some moral rules in
it, but I have never seen any of them specifically
stated and/ or labelled as such.. History has
demonstrated that, without specific written rules,
there can be no justice and nobody is safe.
-- Artie Joe
So the only thing stopping you from a life of crime is
that your religion forces you to F34R H1S R4TH.
I didn't say that, either.
Peter Pan
2018-09-25 20:36:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Jahnu
On Sat, 22 Sep 2018 02:05:04 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 4:59:58 AM UTC-4,
Post by v***@gmail.com
Humanism may have some moral rules in it, but I have never
seen any of them specifically stated and/ or labelled as such..
Post by v***@gmail.com
Alleviate your ignorance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Secular_Humanist_Declaration
https://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php/11
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanist_Manifesto
I read them and saw no rules for moral behavior at all. All they
list is
Post by v***@gmail.com
general principles which almost nobody could dispute.
That's the point. Our morality is the product of our evolution.
Post by v***@gmail.com
The Ten Commandments forbids adultery, murder, theft and lying.
Do you think most people would do those things if it weren't for
the
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by v***@gmail.com
Ten Commandments?
Post by v***@gmail.com
Duke is right. You have no moral rules at all.
You just said those were "general principles which almost nobody
could dispute". How are they different from morality?
Only sociopaths need "moral rules". Normal people have innate
empathy,
Post by Christopher A. Lee
which neither Mad Joe not Sir Pukelot have.
Exactly!
Post by Christopher A. Lee
And they use them to beat up others instead of living by them,
themselves.
Do either of them seriously imagine their behaviour towards us
demonstrates morality?
The Golden Rule they pretend is unique to Christianity, is a
simplistic, one-size-fits all which doesn't work much of the time
because it puts them in the other guy's shoes as themselves, not the
other guy.
We're forced to conclude that, if it weren't for their religion,
they'd spend much of their time murdering and stealing.
They seem proud of that - but they're mortally offended if you take
them seriously and say you hope they never get within a hundred miles
of your loved ones because we know just how easily people can lose
their belief.
Show us where that happened.
Now I know why you atheists fear religion. You
don't like the specific rules we theists have to
live by. You want to be free to lie.
-- Mad Joe
So you are saying you need "specific rules" to control
your own behavior, lest you be convinced to go on a
serial rampage of murder, lust, theft and lying.
I said no such thing.
So you are special and need no restraint, it's only the
evil atheists who need specific rules on their behavior?
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
If moral behavior were a product of evolution or
natural to humans, there would be no murder, no
theft, no rape,no lying, no fraud, and no violent
crime at all. Humanism may have some moral rules in
it, but I have never seen any of them specifically
stated and/ or labelled as such.. History has
demonstrated that, without specific written rules,
there can be no justice and nobody is safe.
-- Artie Joe
So the only thing stopping you from a life of crime is
that your religion forces you to F34R H1S R4TH.
I didn't say that, either.
It's an exact quote of your words.

Human nature doesn't need to be described in "specific
rules". The details will vary anyway, but we all have a
general idea of what's right and wrong. Well, all of us
except for the evil ones. The only morality some of you
understand is the kind that's enforced by a hardass
authoritarian god.
Malcolm McMahon
2018-09-22 12:51:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by v***@gmail.com
Humanism may have some moral rules in it, but I have never seen any of them
specifically stated and/ or labelled as such..
Alleviate your ignorance.
That's rule number one ;-)
Christopher A. Lee
2018-09-24 19:16:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 22 Sep 2018 12:51:48 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
<***@theriomorph.me.uk> wrote:

Jesper started this thread out of deliberate, psychopathic nastiness.

https://www.alternet.org/belief/9-questions-atheists-might-find-insulting-and-answers

1: "How can you be moral without believing in God?"

The answer: Atheists are moral for the same reasons believers are
moral: because we have compassion, and a sense of justice. Humans are
social animals, and like other social animals, we evolved with some
core moral values wired into our brains: caring about fairness, caring
about loyalty, caring when others are harmed.

If you're a religious believer, and you don't believe these are the
same reasons that believers are moral, ask yourself this: If I could
persuade you today, with 100% certainty, that there were no gods and
no afterlife... would you suddenly start stealing and murdering and
setting fire to buildings? And if not -- why not? If you wouldn't...
whatever it is that would keep you from doing those things, that's the
same thing keeping atheists from doing them. (And if you would --
remind me not to move in next door to you.)

And ask yourself this as well: If you accept some parts of your holy
book and reject others -- on what basis are you doing that? Whatever
part of you says that stoning adulterers is wrong but helping poor
people is good; that planting different crops in the same field is a
non-issue but bearing false witness actually is pretty messed-up; that
slavery is terrible but it's a great idea to love your neighbor as
yourself... that's the same thing telling atheists what's right and
wrong. People are good -- even if we don't articulate it this way --
because we have an innate grasp of the fundamental underpinnings of
morality: the understanding that other people matter to themselves as
much as we matter to ourselves, and that there is no objective reason
to act as if any of us matters more than any other. And that's true of
atheists and believers alike.

Why you shouldn't ask it: This is an unbelievably insulting question.
Being moral, caring about others and having compassion for them, is a
fundamental part of being human. To question whether atheists can be
moral, to express bafflement at how we could possibly manage to care
about others without believing in a supernatural creator, is to
question whether we're even fully human.

And you know what? This question is also hugely insulting to religious
believers. It's basically saying that the only reason believers are
moral is fear of punishment and desire for reward. It's saying that
believers don't act out of compassion, or a sense of justice. It's
saying that believers' morality is childish at best, self-serving at
worst. I wouldn't say that about religious believers... and you
shouldn't, either.
Christopher A. Lee
2018-09-22 14:14:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by v***@gmail.com
Humanism may have some moral rules in it, but I have never seen any of them specifically stated and/ or labelled as such..
Alleviate your ignorance.
"Enhance your calm, John Spartan"
Kevrob
2018-09-23 02:20:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Kevrob
Post by v***@gmail.com
Humanism may have some moral rules in it, but I have never seen any of them specifically stated and/ or labelled as such..
Alleviate your ignorance.
"Enhance your calm, John Spartan"
"I would, but I can't figure out the @#&^! 3 shells."

Sandy Bullock was so damned cute in that mov....

Crap! I just got fined 3 times! No, 4!

---
Kevin R
a.a #2310
Cloud Hobbit
2018-09-22 02:29:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 06:19:14 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The mistake is to assume that if morals are not divinely ordained, they must be the product of human reason.
No. They are a product of emotional intuition.
Whatever. So now you're just making up shit as you go along?
Actually I've given the question quite a lot of thought lately. I read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Righteous_Mind on Dawkins' recommendation (even though it gives Dawkins and co a bit of a hard time), and I recommend it to everyone interested in the nature of morality.
Interestingly though the author is clearly an atheist he has quite a lot of positive things to say about religion.
_Of course_ atheism is just not believing in God doesn't imply any particular moral philosophy, but most atheists with an interest in moral philosophy generally lean towards Humanism, which _does_ promote some commonsense moral values.
But you don't have to have an interest in moral philosophy to be moral.
Fortunately moral behaviour is no more a product of moral philosophy than it is of divine mandate. Its a combination of evolutionary drivers and specific values inculcated by the social matrix which produces us. Reason is more in the role of our press secretary, doing post-decision rationalisation to make our choices more acceptable to other people, and ourselves.
And it's just as well, if your moral limits are dictated by reason then you can reason your way out of them. If they are dictated by religion, then you can be talked out of them in the name of your religion.
I fervently disagree.. Most of the people in the USA are either Christians or Jews. The two religions have in common a very specific moral code called the Ten Commandments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments
But 10 is not really how many commandments we actually need. 2is all you need.

Post by v***@gmail.com
Sorry, but you are wrong. If moral behavior were a product of evolution or natural to humans, there would be no murder, no theft, no rape,no lying,
no fraud, and no violent crime at all. Humanism may have some moral rules in it, but I have never seen any of them specifically stated and/ or labelled as such.. History has demonstrated that, without specific written rules, there can be no justice and nobody is safe.
Your conclusion does not follow. Just because humans naturally develop a moral code doesn't mean that all of them will follow it any more than all Christians or Jews follow the 10 Commandments or any other religious inspired law. People sometimes make bad decisions. Some people make horrible decisions. It doesn't matter to them that there is a moral code that forbids it. It doesn't matter if they believe in God, they still fuck up. That's why we have laws, courts, and government. We know these people exist and we need to try and keep them under control.

I suggest if you want to know what humanist morals are, you should go to the American Humanists web page.
https://americanhumanist.org/

If you aren't sure what their moral code is, I would suggest it is the same one in general that most people in the Western World subscribe to but with some exceptions.
duke
2018-09-22 18:57:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 19:29:33 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 06:19:14 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The mistake is to assume that if morals are not divinely ordained, they must be the product of human reason.
No. They are a product of emotional intuition.
Whatever. So now you're just making up shit as you go along?
Actually I've given the question quite a lot of thought lately. I read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Righteous_Mind on Dawkins' recommendation (even though it gives Dawkins and co a bit of a hard time), and I recommend it to everyone interested in the nature of morality.
Interestingly though the author is clearly an atheist he has quite a lot of positive things to say about religion.
_Of course_ atheism is just not believing in God doesn't imply any particular moral philosophy, but most atheists with an interest in moral philosophy generally lean towards Humanism, which _does_ promote some commonsense moral values.
But you don't have to have an interest in moral philosophy to be moral.
Fortunately moral behaviour is no more a product of moral philosophy than it is of divine mandate. Its a combination of evolutionary drivers and specific values inculcated by the social matrix which produces us. Reason is more in the role of our press secretary, doing post-decision rationalisation to make our choices more acceptable to other people, and ourselves.
And it's just as well, if your moral limits are dictated by reason then you can reason your way out of them. If they are dictated by religion, then you can be talked out of them in the name of your religion.
I fervently disagree.. Most of the people in the USA are either Christians or Jews. The two religions have in common a very specific moral code called the Ten Commandments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments
But 10 is not really how many commandments we actually need. 2is all you need.
http://youtu.be/FVVo036N9OY
Post by v***@gmail.com
Sorry, but you are wrong. If moral behavior were a product of evolution or natural to humans, there would be no murder, no theft, no rape,no lying,
no fraud, and no violent crime at all. Humanism may have some moral rules in it, but I have never seen any of them specifically stated and/ or labelled as such.. History has demonstrated that, without specific written rules, there can be no justice and nobody is safe.
Your conclusion does not follow. Just because humans naturally develop a moral code doesn't mean that all of them will follow it any more than all Christians or Jews follow the 10 Commandments or any other religious inspired law. People sometimes make bad decisions. Some people make horrible decisions. It doesn't matter to them that there is a moral code that forbids it. It doesn't matter if they believe in God, they still fuck up. That's why we have laws, courts, and government. We know these people exist and we need to try and keep them under control.
I suggest if you want to know what humanist morals are, you should go to the American Humanists web page.
https://americanhumanist.org/
If you aren't sure what their moral code is, I would suggest it is the same one in general that most people in the Western World subscribe to but with some exceptions.
Then it is not the same.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
duke
2018-09-19 18:47:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 06:19:14 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The mistake is to assume that if morals are not divinely ordained, they must be the product of human reason.
No. They are a product of emotional intuition.
That's right. Atheists can have morals, but the prefer to ignore them.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
Malcolm McMahon
2018-09-20 08:02:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 06:19:14 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The mistake is to assume that if morals are not divinely ordained, they must be the product of human reason.
No. They are a product of emotional intuition.
That's right. Atheists can have morals, but the prefer to ignore them.
That's not an argument, simply an insult.
Christopher A. Lee
2018-09-20 11:48:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 01:02:44 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 06:19:14 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The mistake is to assume that if morals are not divinely ordained, they must be the product of human reason.
No. They are a product of emotional intuition.
That's right. Atheists can have morals, but the prefer to ignore them.
That's not an argument, simply an insult.
Puke, Jesper, Mad Joe and the other psychos who religiously harass us
here with threads like this, certainly don't.
Kevrob
2018-09-21 15:34:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 06:19:14 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The mistake is to assume that if morals are not divinely ordained, they must be the product of human reason.
No. They are a product of emotional intuition.
That's right. Atheists can have morals, but the prefer to ignore them.
That's not an argument, simply an insult.
It's Earl. What did you expect?

Secular Humanists have a moral system.
So do members of the Ethical Culture Movement,
as do Objectivists (Ayn Rand followers) and
even Marxists, though I consider theirs deeply
flawed. They probably think the same thing about mine.

Atheists, as a groups, are no more in agreement about
ethics than are the members of the many religions.
Are their commonalities? Generally, yes, but a
Humanist deeply into environmentalism might disagree
strongly with an Epicurean about how to live.

This is OK, as long as nobody commits the mistake some of
the Marxists made, and try to enforce their moral vision
through the threat of the use of force, and by actual slaughter
when they were resisted.

Some religions eschew the slaughtering, but oh so many have
resorted to it when deemed justifiable.

---
Kevin R
a.a #2310
duke
2018-09-21 21:01:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 06:19:14 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The mistake is to assume that if morals are not divinely ordained, they must be the product of human reason.
No. They are a product of emotional intuition.
That's right. Atheists can have morals, but the prefer to ignore them.
That's not an argument, simply an insult.
It's Earl. What did you expect?
Continuing high level ethics.
Post by Kevrob
Secular Humanists have a moral system.
So do members of the Ethical Culture Movement,
as do Objectivists (Ayn Rand followers) and
even Marxists, though I consider theirs deeply
flawed. They probably think the same thing about mine.
Atheists, as a groups, are no more in agreement about
ethics than are the members of the many religions.
Are their commonalities? Generally, yes, but a
Humanist deeply into environmentalism might disagree
strongly with an Epicurean about how to live.
This is OK, as long as nobody commits the mistake some of
the Marxists made, and try to enforce their moral vision
through the threat of the use of force, and by actual slaughter
when they were resisted.
Some religions eschew the slaughtering, but oh so many have
resorted to it when deemed justifiable.
---
Kevin R
a.a #2310
the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
duke
2018-09-21 21:00:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 01:02:44 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 06:19:14 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The mistake is to assume that if morals are not divinely ordained, they must be the product of human reason.
No. They are a product of emotional intuition.
That's right. Atheists can have morals, but the prefer to ignore them.
That's not an argument, simply an insult.
A truth.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
v***@gmail.com
2018-09-20 08:48:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 06:19:14 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The mistake is to assume that if morals are not divinely ordained, they must be the product of human reason.
No. They are a product of emotional intuition.
That's right. Atheists can have morals, but the prefer to ignore them.
I would agree with you as far as lying is concerned. The only atheist who posts here who does not lie is Marvin Sebourn..
Jews and Christians have a very specific moral code and you don't need to read the entire bible to find it.
This Malcolm character made the same claim a few days ago and I proved him wrong by posting the Ten Commandments.
duke
2018-09-21 21:03:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 06:19:14 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The mistake is to assume that if morals are not divinely ordained, they must be the product of human reason.
No. They are a product of emotional intuition.
That's right. Atheists can have morals, but the prefer to ignore them.
I would agree with you as far as lying is concerned. The only atheist who posts here who does not lie is Marvin Sebourn..
I've found him to be pretty sound in his thinking also.
Post by v***@gmail.com
Jews and Christians have a very specific moral code and you don't need to read the entire bible to find it.
This Malcolm character made the same claim a few days ago and I proved him wrong by posting the Ten Commandments.
the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
Peter Pan
2018-09-23 02:12:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 06:19:14 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The mistake is to assume that if morals are not divinely ordained, they must be the product of human reason.
No. They are a product of emotional intuition.
That's right. Atheists can have morals, but the prefer to ignore them.
I would agree with you as far as lying is concerned. The only atheist who posts here who does not lie is Marvin Sebourn..
I've found him to be pretty sound in his thinking also.
LOL. Me too. Especially Marvin's thinking that duke is
an incorrigible liar and congenital retard.
Post by duke
Post by v***@gmail.com
Jews and Christians have a very specific moral code and you don't need to read the entire bible to find it.
This Malcolm character made the same claim a few days ago and I proved him wrong by posting the Ten Commandments.
You and duke don't follow the 10 commandments. Especially
the one about false witness.
duke
2018-09-23 16:41:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 06:19:14 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The mistake is to assume that if morals are not divinely ordained, they must be the product of human reason.
No. They are a product of emotional intuition.
That's right. Atheists can have morals, but the prefer to ignore them.
I would agree with you as far as lying is concerned. The only atheist who posts here who does not lie is Marvin Sebourn..
I've found him to be pretty sound in his thinking also.
LOL. Me too. Especially Marvin's thinking that duke is
an incorrigible liar and congenital retard.
You made that up, didn't you, you stinking liar. He never said that to me.
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by v***@gmail.com
Jews and Christians have a very specific moral code and you don't need to read the entire bible to find it.
This Malcolm character made the same claim a few days ago and I proved him wrong by posting the Ten Commandments.
You and duke don't follow the 10 commandments. Especially
the one about false witness.
the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
Peter Pan
2018-09-24 00:10:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 06:19:14 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The mistake is to assume that if morals are not divinely ordained, they must be the product of human reason.
No. They are a product of emotional intuition.
That's right. Atheists can have morals, but the prefer to ignore them.
I would agree with you as far as lying is concerned. The only atheist who posts here who does not lie is Marvin Sebourn..
I've found him to be pretty sound in his thinking also.
LOL. Me too. Especially Marvin's thinking that duke is
an incorrigible liar and congenital retard.
You made that up, didn't you, you stinking liar. He never said that to me.
Please do ask Marvin the next time he posts.
duke
2018-09-24 20:59:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 06:19:14 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The mistake is to assume that if morals are not divinely ordained, they must be the product of human reason.
No. They are a product of emotional intuition.
That's right. Atheists can have morals, but the prefer to ignore them.
I would agree with you as far as lying is concerned. The only atheist who posts here who does not lie is Marvin Sebourn..
I've found him to be pretty sound in his thinking also.
LOL. Me too. Especially Marvin's thinking that duke is
an incorrigible liar and congenital retard.
You made that up, didn't you, you stinking liar. He never said that to me.
Marvin knows better than that.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
Peter Pan
2018-09-25 01:07:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 06:19:14 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The mistake is to assume that if morals are not divinely ordained, they must be the product of human reason.
No. They are a product of emotional intuition.
That's right. Atheists can have morals, but the prefer to ignore them.
I would agree with you as far as lying is concerned. The only atheist who posts here who does not lie is Marvin Sebourn..
I've found him to be pretty sound in his thinking also.
LOL. Me too. Especially Marvin's thinking that duke is
an incorrigible liar and congenital retard.
You made that up, didn't you, you stinking liar. He never said that to me.
Uhm, duke... why did you snip out my 1-line reply?

I'll just have to put it back again. Baaaad duke....
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Please do ask Marvin the next time he posts.
Marvin knows better than that.
Marvin knows you are a liar. He flat out told you so, in
no uncertain terms. He also said you're not very bright.

Isn't it funny, it never takes people very long to figure
you out. Well, except for the other not-very-bright
ones, like Mad Joe.
duke
2018-09-25 21:27:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 06:19:14 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The mistake is to assume that if morals are not divinely ordained, they must be the product of human reason.
No. They are a product of emotional intuition.
That's right. Atheists can have morals, but the prefer to ignore them.
I would agree with you as far as lying is concerned. The only atheist who posts here who does not lie is Marvin Sebourn..
I've found him to be pretty sound in his thinking also.
LOL. Me too. Especially Marvin's thinking that duke is
an incorrigible liar and congenital retard.
You made that up, didn't you, you stinking liar. He never said that to me.
Uhm, duke... why did you snip out my 1-line reply?
I'll just have to put it back again. Baaaad duke....
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Please do ask Marvin the next time he posts.
Marvin knows better than that.
Marvin knows you are a liar. He flat out told you so, in
no uncertain terms. He also said you're not very bright.
NOBODY would believe you over marvin.


the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
Peter Pan
2018-09-25 22:39:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 06:19:14 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The mistake is to assume that if morals are not divinely ordained, they must be the product of human reason.
No. They are a product of emotional intuition.
That's right. Atheists can have morals, but the prefer to ignore them.
I would agree with you as far as lying is concerned. The only atheist who posts here who does not lie is Marvin Sebourn..
I've found him to be pretty sound in his thinking also.
LOL. Me too. Especially Marvin's thinking that duke is
an incorrigible liar and congenital retard.
You made that up, didn't you, you stinking liar. He never said that to me.
Uhm, duke... why did you snip out my 1-line reply?
I'll just have to put it back again. Baaaad duke....
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Please do ask Marvin the next time he posts.
Marvin knows better than that.
Marvin knows you are a liar. He flat out told you so, in
no uncertain terms. He also said you're not very bright.
NOBODY would believe you over marvin.
Irrelevant, since I didn't say anything that contradicts
Marvin's opinion of you.

But you did. Nobody would believe you over Marvin. But
it's good that you recognize him now as the gold standard
in usenet cred.
Malcolm McMahon
2018-05-03 10:31:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jahnu
Of course, except for an atheist nothing is absolute. In atheism moral
and ethics are not absolute rules. Moral and ethics are simply what is
agreed on by the majority of the population in a certain place on the
planet at any given time.
Whereas in theism, the moral and ethical environment are whatever the local shaman says is "God's Will".
Post by Jahnu
Thus, in atheism there is no foundation of moral and ethics except
what is socially accepted rules of behavior.
Firstly that's a simplistic picture of the way the human mind works. Some aspects of morality come to us from our evolutionary heritage, others are inculcated by the social framework. We start as a troop animal, and troop animals come with behavioural restraints particularly as regards relationships with relatives.

In general our personal intellectual beliefs have little or nothing to do with our morals and ethics. In part they are in our genes, in part we absorb them through stories and role models.

To me the idea that ethical codes are invented through the deliberative thought of philosophers, theologians or, for that matter, Gods, really doesn't hold water.

The problem with accepting religion as a moral authority is that that religion can switch off our morals when that is politically expedient. External moral authorities, of any kind, are dangerous in that respect.
Post by Jahnu
Let me give you an example. In most of the world the killing of
animals for food is not considered immoral, merely good business.
From the absolute point of view of God, however, to kill animals for
food is unnecessary cruel and immoral behavior.
Whether its necessary or not is typically a matter of geology and climate. Where there's plenty of land suitable for arable agriculture eating meat becomes a luxury, and economically inefficient. Where the land can't support arable farming then we are more dependent on four legged biomass converters.

It changes the nature of warfare too. Cattle are portable. Steeling arable land requires conquest.
Alex W.
2018-05-04 01:18:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Jahnu
Of course, except for an atheist nothing is absolute. In atheism
moral and ethics are not absolute rules. Moral and ethics are
simply what is agreed on by the majority of the population in a
certain place on the planet at any given time.
Whereas in theism, the moral and ethical environment are whatever the
local shaman says is "God's Will".
And isn't it simply amazing how often god's will coincides with the will
and wishes (and to the benefit) of the shaman or cleric?
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Jahnu
Let me give you an example. In most of the world the killing of
animals for food is not considered immoral, merely good business.
From the absolute point of view of God, however, to kill animals
for food is unnecessary cruel and immoral behavior.
Whether its necessary or not is typically a matter of geology and
climate. Where there's plenty of land suitable for arable agriculture
eating meat becomes a luxury, and economically inefficient. Where the
land can't support arable farming then we are more dependent on four
legged biomass converters.
It changes the nature of warfare too. Cattle are portable. Steeling
arable land requires conquest.
Cattle are portable, but grazing lands and water sources are not. So
even nomadic cultures and herdsmen engage in conquest.
v***@gmail.com
2018-09-14 15:34:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Jahnu
Of course, except for an atheist nothing is absolute. In atheism moral
and ethics are not absolute rules. Moral and ethics are simply what is
agreed on by the majority of the population in a certain place on the
planet at any given time.
Whereas in theism, the moral and ethical environment are whatever the local shaman says is "God's Will".
That's a LIE


https://www.dummies.com/religion/christianity/catholicism/catholicism-and-the-ten-commandments/

Both Jews and Christians are regulated by the Ten Commandments.
JWS
2018-09-14 18:25:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Jahnu
Of course, except for an atheist nothing is absolute. In atheism moral
and ethics are not absolute rules. Moral and ethics are simply what is
agreed on by the majority of the population in a certain place on the
planet at any given time.
Whereas in theism, the moral and ethical environment are whatever the local shaman says is "God's Will".
That's a LIE
https://www.dummies.com/religion/christianity/catholicism/catholicism-and-the-ten-commandments/
Both Jews and Christians are regulated by the Ten Commandments.
"Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Thursday pointed to the Bible to justify the Trump administration's policy of separating undocumented immigrant parents from their children. In doing so, Sessions said all laws are ordained by God and that having children does not protect people from prosecution."
Read it here:
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/blakemontgomery/jeff-sessions-said-the-bible-justifies-separating-illegal

I know you'll have a good answer which demonstrates the
filthy morals of your christian belief.
v***@gmail.com
2018-09-17 07:05:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JWS
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Jahnu
Of course, except for an atheist nothing is absolute. In atheism moral
and ethics are not absolute rules. Moral and ethics are simply what is
agreed on by the majority of the population in a certain place on the
planet at any given time.
Whereas in theism, the moral and ethical environment are whatever the local shaman says is "God's Will".
That's a LIE
https://www.dummies.com/religion/christianity/catholicism/catholicism-and-the-ten-commandments/
Both Jews and Christians are regulated by the Ten Commandments.
"Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Thursday pointed to the Bible to justify the Trump administration's policy of separating undocumented immigrant parents from their children. In doing so, Sessions said all laws are ordained by God and that having children does not protect people from prosecution."
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/blakemontgomery/jeff-sessions-said-the-bible-justifies-separating-illegal
I know you'll have a good answer which demonstrates the
filthy morals of your christian belief.
1. I am not a Christian
2. I don't see how that is relevant to anything.
m***@gmail.com
2018-09-17 08:56:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by JWS
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Jahnu
Of course, except for an atheist nothing is absolute. In atheism moral
and ethics are not absolute rules. Moral and ethics are simply what is
agreed on by the majority of the population in a certain place on the
planet at any given time.
Whereas in theism, the moral and ethical environment are whatever the local shaman says is "God's Will".
That's a LIE
https://www.dummies.com/religion/christianity/catholicism/catholicism-and-the-ten-commandments/
Both Jews and Christians are regulated by the Ten Commandments.
"Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Thursday pointed to the Bible to justify the Trump administration's policy of separating undocumented immigrant parents from their children. In doing so, Sessions said all laws are ordained by God and that having children does not protect people from prosecution."
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/blakemontgomery/jeff-sessions-said-the-bible-justifies-separating-illegal
I know you'll have a good answer which demonstrates the
filthy morals of your christian belief.
1. I am not a Christian
That is yet to be proven.
Post by v***@gmail.com
2. I don't see how that is relevant to anything.
Anything a troll like you posts where it isn't wanted is relevant to nothing.
That's generally everything you post.
JWS
2018-09-17 12:36:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by JWS
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Jahnu
Of course, except for an atheist nothing is absolute. In atheism moral
and ethics are not absolute rules. Moral and ethics are simply what is
agreed on by the majority of the population in a certain place on the
planet at any given time.
Whereas in theism, the moral and ethical environment are whatever the local shaman says is "God's Will".
That's a LIE
https://www.dummies.com/religion/christianity/catholicism/catholicism-and-the-ten-commandments/
Both Jews and Christians are regulated by the Ten Commandments.
"Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Thursday pointed to the Bible to justify the Trump administration's policy of separating undocumented immigrant parents from their children. In doing so, Sessions said all laws are ordained by God and that having children does not protect people from prosecution."
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/blakemontgomery/jeff-sessions-said-the-bible-justifies-separating-illegal
I know you'll have a good answer which demonstrates the
filthy morals of your christian belief.
1. I am not a Christian
You're right. I should say the filthy morals of your particular
god and particular sections of your holy book be they subsections
of a larger work or some other independently created tome.
Post by v***@gmail.com
2. I don't see how that is relevant to anything.
What? Session's position? I guess it's not relevant if you're
not a christian. But it would seem to me that belief in any moral
system, no matter its origin, would inform you about Session's
statement. Do you have an opinion on Session's statement?
v***@gmail.com
2018-09-17 07:08:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JWS
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Jahnu
Of course, except for an atheist nothing is absolute. In atheism moral
and ethics are not absolute rules. Moral and ethics are simply what is
agreed on by the majority of the population in a certain place on the
planet at any given time.
Whereas in theism, the moral and ethical environment are whatever the local shaman says is "God's Will".
That's a LIE
https://www.dummies.com/religion/christianity/catholicism/catholicism-and-the-ten-commandments/
Both Jews and Christians are regulated by the Ten Commandments.
"Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Thursday pointed to the Bible to justify the Trump administration's policy of separating undocumented immigrant parents from their children. In doing so, Sessions said all laws are ordained by God and that having children does not protect people from prosecution."
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/blakemontgomery/jeff-sessions-said-the-bible-justifies-separating-illegal
I know you'll have a good answer which demonstrates the
filthy morals of your christian belief.
The author of that article is wrong. The Obama administration also separated children from undocumented migrants. It is not a Trump administration policy.
JWS
2018-09-17 12:58:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by JWS
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Jahnu
Of course, except for an atheist nothing is absolute. In atheism moral
and ethics are not absolute rules. Moral and ethics are simply what is
agreed on by the majority of the population in a certain place on the
planet at any given time.
Whereas in theism, the moral and ethical environment are whatever the local shaman says is "God's Will".
That's a LIE
https://www.dummies.com/religion/christianity/catholicism/catholicism-and-the-ten-commandments/
Both Jews and Christians are regulated by the Ten Commandments.
"Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Thursday pointed to the Bible to justify the Trump administration's policy of separating undocumented immigrant parents from their children. In doing so, Sessions said all laws are ordained by God and that having children does not protect people from prosecution."
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/blakemontgomery/jeff-sessions-said-the-bible-justifies-separating-illegal
I know you'll have a good answer which demonstrates the
filthy morals of your christian belief.
The author of that article is wrong. The Obama administration also separated children from undocumented migrants. It is not a Trump administration policy.
What is this then?
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-announces-zero-tolerance-policy-criminal-illegal-entry

You mean to tell me that Obama did the same thing and there
was no outcry from the Republicans? No outcry from the Jews?
You turned a blind eye to Obama's heinous acts?

From this article:
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/did-the-obama-administration-separate-families/
“Previous administrations used family detention facilities, allowing the whole family to stay together while awaiting their deportation case in immigration court, or alternatives to detention, which required families to be tracked but released from custody to await their court date,” Brown and her co-author, Tim O’Shea, wrote in an explainer piece for the Bipartisan Policy Center’s website. “Some children may have been separated from the adults they entered with, in cases where the family relationship could not be established, child trafficking was suspected, or there were not sufficient family detention facilities available. … However, the zero-tolerance policy is the first time that a policy resulting in separation is being applied across the board.”
Kevrob
2018-09-14 19:03:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Jahnu
Of course, except for an atheist nothing is absolute. In atheism moral
and ethics are not absolute rules. Moral and ethics are simply what is
agreed on by the majority of the population in a certain place on the
planet at any given time.
Whereas in theism, the moral and ethical environment are whatever the local shaman says is "God's Will".
That's a LIE
https://www.dummies.com/religion/christianity/catholicism/catholicism-and-the-ten-commandments/
Both Jews and Christians are regulated by the Ten Commandments.
..and the Jews have an extensive literature interpreting those.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midrash

Christians have whole libraries dedicated to biblical interpretation,
also.

It isn't much different than "the Constitution means what the
Supreme Court says it means."

---
Kevin R
a.a #2310
ravn
2018-09-24 20:11:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jahnu
Of course, except for an atheist nothing is absolute.
If that's the case, that rule would be an absolute, wouldn't it? Now what?
Loading...