Discussion in 'Political Zone' started by Cajuncowboy, Feb 23, 2008.
He is watching you ..... and recording everything you say.
Have you read the New Testament? Rape and incest would almost certainly be included under Cajun's definition.
:lmao: Only a moron would consider it immoral behaviour on the part of the recipient in that case.
I'm not talking about the recipient. I'm talking about the act itself specifically in the context of your remark. "The more immoral, the better."
Well, I'm insecure and need the psychological reassurance of moral absolutes. Hard as I try to assume the responsibilities of a rational and independent adult, I just can't shake my infantile longing for an authoritative father figure to tell me the difference between right and wrong, even if it's completely arbitrary, contradictory, irrational, and intolerant.
Lucky that you possess the intellectual maturity, compassion, and courage to accept ambiguity and difference of opinion. I'm just not there yet in my intellectual, psychological, or moral development.
that was a joke. sorta.
of course it was and it was assumed you would understand it included consent
Your problem here has a set of very easy solutions: Simply abandon all that insecurity and embrace the safety of numbers. Let the majority consensus of secular society dictate your actions and thoughts.
There is one only absolute rule in secular humanism: Never ever question the supremacy of science or its practitioners, even when they broach topics they are completely ill-suited to address and even when they produce conflicting answers. And never question their usage of science. Scientists are completely unbiased; this is the very reason we have such clear answers regarding global warming, abortion, and a myriad of other issues.
It may seem as if I'm advocating a faith in science. But I'm really not. There's a huge difference here because...um...because secular society tells me so.
And you know all that intuitive knowledge within your mind screaming at you that there's something greater yourself...something of far greater moral authority and enlightenment? Ignore it. Just ignore it. Put your hands over your ears, close your eyes, and pretend it like it doesn't exist.
I mean, if science can't quantify something, that something must not exist. Right?
And naturalistic explanations always take predence over other explanations...even when they produce a 1 in 10^34 probability of our universe even existing. I mean, 1 in 10^34 is completely rational.
Thanks for the kind words. But there's really nothing difficult about it. Simply embrace moral ambiguity and moral relativism, and ignore your instinctive belief in a power greater than yourself; this allows you to justify almost any behavior on your part while simultaneously avoiding any consequences.
Simply overlook the fact that the pursuit of moral absolutes forms the cornerstone of any healthy society. Remember, you're in this for yourself, right?
Who needs faith in anything else?
Now that someone has mentioned religion, this thread will soon be locked, won't it?
Instinctive belief? Intuitive knowledge? Like I'm going to grant you those premises.
Please note that attacks on secular humanism are permitted on this board. No mollycoddling required.
I was talking about my personal deity, Reggie, who lives up in the clouds. It's not really a religion in the strict sense.
Of course secular humanism can be attacked. Secular humanism scoffs at the notion that it's a religion.
(In fairness, the term secular humanism is only used by a handful of people on this board, most of whom are secular humanists.)
Just like evolution and intelligent design hold equal weight as "scientific theories" on the origins of humanity.
The term is used by religious crusaders in their desperate bid to discredit secular science by reducing it to the level of religion. The rest of us simply accept it as commonsense and reason. Hegemony does have its privileges.
Alot of scientific theory really does equate to not much more than religious belief or "faith", and in general those theories which require such faith are defended by their believers with the fervor of a religious zealot. Lots of similarities between the two.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster allows you to ignore all that nonsense from both sides.
Believe on him.
I have no problem with a person who rejects intelligent design as a valid scientific theory on the basis that it isn't falsifiable.
However, I do think people should be intellectually consistent in their application of the falsifiability argument. In other words, it's rather hypocritical to reject ID on grounds of unfalsifiability, and then to embrace the multiverse theory, which is equally unfalsifiable.
Unfortunately for the secular humanists, modern scientific models of the cosmos are completely irrational without ID or the multiverse, neither of which is scientifically provable.
I thought the trial in PA dismissed ID on several grounds, the judge essentially saying that it was bunch of crap and a thinly veiled effort to cloak religion in the garb of science.
A judge also upheld separate but equal, ruling that it was perfectly fair.
Judges clearly make mistakes.
Some form of ID - just like some form of scientific naturalism - has been around for centuries...well before Christianity existed. In my opinion, one of the best arguments for ID was posed by Plato, who stated that those who look to attribute every phenomenon to a natural causes are doomed to forever seek "a larger Atlas to hold everything in."
Well, that was nearly 3000 years ago, so Plato's ability to ascribe phenomena to natural causes was decidedly limited.
I rather like Xenophanes ideas on religion. Much more modern and plausible.
His point had little to do with ascribing naturalistic causes. He was explaining a deficiency in the overall approach and outlook of the hardcore scientific naturalist - a deficiency that remains to this day and is evidenced somewhat by modern cosmological models.
So Plato's ideas should be discarded due to their age while Xenophanes's ideas should be embraced despite the fact that they're even older?
It's odd that you would pick Xenophanes as he was a monotheist who envisioned a god that 'sees all over, thinks all over, and hears all over' - a view that is somewhat similar to the Christian God, even though Xenophanes was not a religious man. He also believed that this one god could be discerned within nature.