I put out a perfectly serous post about ethical theory. I wanted a serous discussion. they always disappoint on serious discussions because they are not cable of them.
Originally Posted by Asimov racist? Ok here is another version of Orwellian lanagued used by atheists. if you disproved their arguments and show that there's a fundametnal flaw and you don't accept their privilaged postion then you are a "racists."
has nothing to do with race. it has nothing to do with anything I believe. its' just like calling me a moron or a "silly dingo" or something except it carries this lying connotation,
that's one of them most dissenter and satanic and lying tactics I've seen. to actually try and clerestory any postie feeling anyone could have for me just becuase you can't answer my argument that's low as you can get.
you know people will not bother to find the truth. they wont go looking for posts to see if I say things absinthe races. they will assume your lie means I don't like other races.
how do you know I'm not black? It's slander it's ruining my reputation over a lie.
this is an example of the atheist [B][I]newspeak[/I][/B] there change the meaning of accepted words to fit their own definition, but use the connotation of the word to slander the opponent. We have seen them do this with words like 'delusion" (changed to mean anyone who thinks something they don't agree with, but used for the connotation of mental illness).
In the quote above where he quoted me he light linked "simplistic atheist" so he's saying I'm a racist because I see through atheists. So atheists now become like persecuted black people and to disagree with their views is to be a "racist."
here is the original post. I defy you to find anything racist in it!
One big mistake I think is being made all the time by both atheists and theists is the assumption that morality and ethics is like a science that can "discovered" in nature rather than "formulated" (what simplistic atheists thinkers would call "made up").
This mistake is brought on by theists who have no careful in their use of language. in saying that God makes moral law objective by writing its truth into the fabric of reality it's part of the truth of the created order, they convey the impression that there's soemthing objective n the subject matter than can be "discovered."
God's character is love. So God's laws are based upon love. organisms are created in such a way that when they become complex enough in their minds (ie what the bible would call "spirit") they develop moral concepts because they develop the capacity for agope--the highest form of love.
That doesn't mean you can find some love gene that makes people moral or that you can look in a microscope and find the love floating around in the chromosomes.
The fact is morality is based upon relative values. These values are developed by humans and they are a admixture of cultural constructs and the propensity of the complex moral motions that come from having complex brains and the capacity to love that is woven into the universe in some way we don't get.
Values are cultural constructs they are Ralina and they can't be proved to be other wise. Nor do we need ot prove them so.
we do not need scientific proof that being good is valid and being evil is evil. All we really need is an understanding of those terms and how the values we hold are tied to the transcendent category of truth. That is gained easily enough by reading Tilliich's Systematic Theology.
It can also be gained logically as the obvious consequent of believe in a loving God. That's why the moral argument is a good for God's existence, and its' why one should believe, becuase we have the moral motions that can't be expalined other wise without taking out the moral thinking that makes the motions moral.
Reducing to genetics or biology defeats the purpose of moral thinking. Yet we have the motions, The only real meaning that can be derived that makes sense is to retaliation that has to do with the transcendent category and the depth of being. Ie God.
The theory space monkey talks about just trades in the obvious and wrongly concludes that becasue values are relative then there must not be anything to them.
Originally Posted by Sazz View Post
Racist? I... don't see race in this.
Racism isn't just about skin colour.MFFJM2 first says it is racism
Yes, it is. Racism is exactly about the bias/discrimination of one race against another because of perceived differences in racial characteristics, and asserted superiority by one race over another. Just as sexism is about gender differences.then, probalby realizing he can't prove it back peddles to give "racism" his own little new connotation.
I will defend Metacrock that I have never noticed a propensity for racial bias in his writing, and thus he is not guilty in my view of this charge. His bias is of a far more neurotic nature, because it is not based on race or gender or age, but whether someone agrees with him. Those who agree are geniuses, but still not as smart as Meta. Those that disagree are dolts, or worse.
Hermit chimes in:
You're the one thinks it's OK to call atheists "not fully human." Get that beam out of your eye...
He knows that's a lie because I said at the time (when we were disputing about the Bishop saying atheist aren't fully human, I said "If I thought that's what he meant I would be on your side" if I thought he really said they are not human. On other occasions I denounced that position and he knows that.
this is typical of atheist hate group tactics to lie and slander the personality involved when can't win arguemnts.