The Good Book

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It was literally three posts before mine, and the other two prior clearly were talking about something else. Learn to read [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I read that comment. It doesn't have any context to what you meant by "primitive people were... primitive". I am not sure why you are assuming someone else's comment has the proper context to what was in your brain when you replied. I am not a mind reader, so I do not know how you interpreted that comment.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by Reiwa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That's what you're doing now. Stop hollering that morality is the same as your opinion on good and bad.

It's not.

There is plenty of objective evidence that religion != morality, and zero evidence that religion is somehow a prerequisite for morality.

I mean, there's an entire Wikipedia page on the topic of "Morality and religion":

According to Stephen Gaukroger: "It was generally assumed in the 17th century that religion provided the unique basis for morality, and that without religion, there could be no morality."[18] This view slowly shifted over time.

Congrats: you're thinking at a 17th century level [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There's even an entire second page about Secular Morality:

Secular morality is the aspect of philosophy that deals with morality outside of religious traditions. Modern examples include humanism, freethinking, and most versions of consequentialism.

So I've got multiple philosophical frameworks (and wiki pages detailing them) all demonstrating the falacy of your argument ... where's your evidence that you can't be moral without religion? I'd love to see it.

[Danth]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Sure, but all of that still amounted to (basically) a hundreds-of-years-long game of telephone.

Point being it may have been less telephone game and more deliberate manipulation. The Christian faith (and its associated culture) did not replace the pagan Roman faith by accident or through mere luck; rather it was the culmination of many decades of concentrated social and political effort. Some texts never made public--yeah, I was raised Catholic, and they mentioned that in Sunday School. It's been the stuff of conspiracy theories for literal centuries but the Church more or less maintains it's largely redundant story and non-factor. I don't see that it matters.


As for morality, if someone tries telling me that he can't be moral or nobody can have morality without the threat of some invisible sky wizard striking him down, I'll regard that man as probably a very small and craven man indeed. Some people probably *can't* act right without a threat of eternal beat-down. I can.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by Danth [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

As for morality, if someone tries telling me that he can't be moral or nobody can have morality without the threat of some invisible sky wizard striking him down, I'll regard that man as probably a very small and craven man indeed. Some people probably *can't* act right without a threat of eternal beat-down. I can.

Amen.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I read that comment. It doesn't have any context to what you meant by "primitive people were... primitive". I am not sure why you are assuming someone else's comment has the proper context to what was in your brain when you replied. I am not a mind reader, so I do not know how you interpreted that comment.

I even quoted it before my post! Jesus Christ man, do you seriously want me to recap an entire 10+ page thread in every comment I make?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I even quoted it before my post! Jesus Christ man, do you seriously want me to recap an entire 10+ page thread in every comment I make?

Clearly you are dodging my question at this point. Instead of all of the excuse posts you just made, you could have elaborated on what you meant lol. I am really not sure why this is so hard.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Clearly you are dodging my question at this point. Instead of all of the excuse posts you just made, you could have elaborated on what you meant lol. I am really not sure why this is so hard.

If you truly can't understand my post (again, with the post it's responding to quoted directly above it), then you're truly too stupid for me to converse with.

But I don't think you are ... I think you're just a troll who got caught trying to get a clever quip in without understanding any of the conversation's context ... and now you're trying to troll your way out of it.

[Danth]

I think you guys are both enjoying throwing some barbs at each other.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If you truly can't understand my post (again, with the post it's responding to quoted directly above it), then you're truly too stupid for me to converse with.

But I don't think you are ... I think you're just a troll who got caught trying to get a clever quip in without understanding any of the conversation's context ... and now you're trying to troll your way out of it.

Dodging again. If it is such a simple thing to explain, it would have taken less time/text than your excuses. Why is it such a problem to write a few sentences explaining what you mean? It can't be so complex you have to re-hash the entire thread as you keep claiming lol.

[Reiwa]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There is plenty of objective evidence that religion != morality, and zero evidence that religion is somehow a prerequisite for morality.

I mean, there's an entire Wikipedia page on the topic of "Morality and religion":



Congrats: you're thinking at a 17th century level [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There's even an entire second page about Secular Morality:



So I've got multiple philosophical frameworks (and wiki pages detailing them) all demonstrating the falacy of your argument ... where's your evidence that you can't be moral without religion? I'd love to see it.

Opinions are not evidence. I'm not inclined to entertain the words of men who went on to murder God. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]