The disconnect is that I had an issue with a very specific, false claim.
Can we go back to the point and can you please debate your stance?
I am not going to concede until you actually offer some form of reasoning which doesn’t assume that I will take your unsubstantiated world view as fact.
The problem is, you have yet to correctly identify a single claim made by anyone in this thread. And I don’t know how to fix that. So what’s the point of further debate?
I’m okay with that.
Rat, do you actually know what the phrase “ad hominem” trees to?
OH come on Miller, look at his direct respose
And compare that to non-luddite modern research
[
](PLOS One)
Now once again…there is this claim that human abstract moral principles have some special weight.
Is that NOT the claim Kimstu was making?
You tried to liken it to ants but but is irreverent to the original claim due to their relative distance from us.
Great apes have ALL of these traits.
These all existed long before religion was even an option.
So you can feign frustration with my “inability to understand” but outside of saying that ants don’t feel it you haven’t offered ANY real debate material to counter my claims nor have either one of you offered any concrete testable difference between the two.
It may be a good idea to try to step back and see how…well absent…any cites or even concrete claims have been from you two.
Um…yes “to the man”
They were just flinging personal insults vs. actually attacking the points, and in a debate your post is…an “ad hominem”
Maybe you are confusing the term with a more specific version of one?
[
](http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html)
They did not offer any proof of "human morality is unique because of… or here you can see how religion and a unique human morality co-evolved…Or your argument is invalid because…
But thank you for the laugh.
That is what I got out of Kimstu’s post too, hence my (maybe unclear)question.
How exactly is a human abstract moral principle different from the animal emotions/behaviors?
Plus, are you sure these abstract moral principles aren’t just dressing up of our animal emotions so they only look superior?
Are you saying de Waal’s research *doesn’t *show that apes have intrinsic concepts of justice and fainess?
So that I understand,is the general thrust of your argument that it’s not morality if it’s not codified?
I disagree. In fact, I disagree strongly. Human “abstract” concepts of morality are just a gloss we put over our own evolved behaviours. They are our own explanations for why we act as we do, a conversation we have with ourselves about our morality. But they are not our moral imperative, our behaviours are. So I think I’m saying morals aren’t the code - the map is not the territory. Morality precedes codification.
I think this tangent is a very interesting topic, but it really is a tangent, and it’s on page 7 of this thread. Could I ask that rat avatar or Kimstu open up a new thread laying out their case in clear terms?
Morality being in-built or codified is an excellent debate topic, and it’s a shame to waste it on a thread that has the word “athesist” in the subject heading.
Having read this entire thread, I would like to propose that henceforth, we accept a-t-h-i-e-s-t as an acceptable spelling of the word.
ETA: Oh, and that rat avatar and Kable have demonstrated that they are.
You appear to be substantially redefining the term STD, here.
The first list is titled “Animal diseases that can be transmitted sexually to humans”. Granted, that is a subset of STD’s, but it’s the part that’s relevant to the discussion.
I’m just gonna say I’m glad you didn’t try to get away with:
Syphilis comes from fucking Sheep.
Gonorrhea comes from fucking Goats.
AIDS comes from fucking Apes.
Can’t find any place in Hawaii called Portobello. Help, please?
In Hawaii, you would have to look in the produce section, near the regular white mushrooms. There is a Portobelo in Panama, quite close to the canal, on the north (Carribean/Atlantic side), that is probably the closest to Hawaii. The only Portobello in the Pacific is in southern Kiwiland, but putting the fleet there would be problematic as the Kiwis do not allow nuclear-armed ships in their waters. The US would have to conquer them with an impressive haka and teach them to drive on the correct side of the road.
On the upside, the Kiwis have same-sex marriage.
I’m thinking possibly Mr. Quatro has a bit of an absurdist sense of humor. Or a bad memory for geography.
All passed into law, but the paperwork for SSM won’t be up and running for another couple of months.
So, could you delay the invasion until August do you think? The weather will be starting to get a bit better, and I’ll have time to decide whether it’s ethical for me to try and sell my right-hand drive car before you arrive.
Having slogged through the seven pages of OP, agreement/disagreement, and heated digressions, I thought I’d take a moment to try and drag this thread back on track.
[My apologies in advance; I can’t seem to find my syllogistic symbols to insert so I’ll have to use [FONT=Wingdings]–>[/FONT] as a “therefore” indicator.]
Could it be possible?
Yes, it could. Whether or not we subscribe to the Christian paradigm, Mr. Quatro’s interpretation is one possible reality among the zillions of realities in the multidimensional multiverse. I don’t want to send this off to a completely different track of string theory and eleven-dimensional mathematics, so I’m just going to drop this line right here. Suffice it to say that, strictly speaking, I’ve answered his original question. I’d even go so far as to say, “Not only is it possible, but there are many homosexuals who are, in fact atheists.”
But we all recognize that Mr. Quatro’s post is not so much a question as a platform [Hear me Witness, all ye sinners…] poorly disguised as a poorly spell-checked suggestion:
Homosexuality = AntiBiblical behavior –> un-Christian
As has already been discussed at length in this thread and others, such is not the case and there are far too many alternative explanations to bother suggesting there is any support for Mr. Quatro’s speculation.
In fact, I’ll take this opportunity to object to the starting premise:
Homosexuality = Anti-Biblical behavior = Sin = counter-Christian(1) = Atheism
Excuse me? What?
I can bring myself to concede that, within its own paradigm, the first four are correct.
Homosexuality = Anti-Biblical behavior = Sin = counter-Christian
[And, yes, I realize we’ve already seen arguments to the contrary; let’s forego adding seven more pages of rehashing those passages.]
But that’s about as far as I can concede points.
It’s fair enough to objectively suggest that
Homosexuality = Anti-Biblical behavior –> counter-Christian
But adding = Sin at the end…
Counter-Christian = sin
…egregiously fails to recognize that there are many other systems of belief(2) which either don’t include a “Sin” category or don’t include Homosexual behavior as a sinful act.
Most importantly, Mr. Quatro’s error is in equating…
Sin = counter-Christian = Atheism
…because the Monotheistic Trio(3) takes the xenophobic and dogmatic stance that “If you’re not with us you’re against us” and intentionally characterized the deities of other religions as ‘devils’ and ‘demons’ in their own pantheon. This, in fact, would essentially be positing that…
Atheism = counter-Christian [FONT=Wingdings]–>[/FONT] demonic/satanic/evil/etcetera = Sin
…and, again strictly within their own xenophobic paradigm, they may be correct.
However, there are plenty of scholars who are less mind-washed who understand that there are many religions, as well as several philosophical perspectives (i.e. there are no deities involved) beyond the Monotheistic triad that are no less [no more?] valid than Christianity. So, for those of us who do not subscribe to the Monotheistic paradigm(s), Atheists are a philosophical group, homosexuals are a behavioral group, and the descriptions are not necessarily mutually exclusive. So…
Homosexual ? Atheist (there’s no particular correlation to be derived)
—G!
It’s your hell.
You can burn in it.
(1) As opposed to Anti-Christ-ian, which presupposes a subscription to the Christian paradigm and…well, someone can take this one to a different thread.
(2) I’m not even trying to be specific here. Shinto or other ancestral paradigms? Wicca or New Age systems? I really don’t know, but it’s easy enough to imagine them. Just ask John Lennon [FONT=Wingdings]J[/FONT]
(3) All of the children of Abraham, followers of Elohim, YWH, and “God the father”
Grestarian: There’s also another logical possibility: one could engage in sin, thus becoming Anti-Christian – and still believe in God! Exactly the opposite of “Atheist.”
(In fact, some Christian denominations decree that we are all sinners, ever day. Would they, thus, conclude that they aren’t really Christians at all, but atheists?)
We’ve all seen Christians behave badly. Cuss, or drink, or hit people, or commit adultery. That doesn’t turn them atheist. It merely makes them less than ideal followers of Christ’s teaching.
So, yeah, the chain of logic has some gaps in it.
Thanks to Grestarian someone has finally tried to make sense and bring the thread back to near normal, instead of arguing about animal rights to faith, good grief!
and Trinopus has a good point that even anti-christ people have a little god, the devil himself is a little god of this world, but he could have no power unless the God most high gives it to him.
This is the end so to speak fo non believers, but notice that believers are still on the earth (pre rapture)
Revelations 13:4 NKJ
So they worshiped the dragon who gave authority to the beast; and they worshiped the beast, saying, “Who is like the beast? Who is able to make war with him?”
Revelations 13:7-8 NKJ
It was granted to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them. And authority was given him over every tribe, tongue, and nation. **All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. **