I wish I could have a conversation with Carl over some warm bud brownies. Too bad no one is wise enough or strong enough to avoid death. Damn death, Jesus better be right!!!
You need to take the serious philosophical arguments for religion if you're going to evaluate it fairly. Not cite examples of dumb religious people. You're trying to criticize an idea by going after people who follow the idea poorly. It's a dumb parlor trick. I could just as easily use you as an example of how ignorant of philosophy atheists seem to be (as does Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris). Yet, that wouldn't be fair to atheism. So let's use an even standard for evaluating a concept.
Im waiting for one iota of proof of the existence of a Universal omnipotent being. Do you have something to back up your claims? Do you have anything to back up ANY scripture that claims the existence of God? inquiring minds have wanted to know for the last 5000 yrs.
You're treating empirical knowledge as if it's the only type of knowledge. Even someone who's read Hume's wikipedia profile understands the problem of treating empirical knowledge as the basis for all knowledge. The "God" question is not a scientific one. Yet you treat it as such because your understanding of philosophical concepts is basically non-existent.
There is one part of the theory that can be proven and that is weather or not the document that the theory came from has been able to prove that the authors knew more than would be reasonable for anyone of that time. If that is true then what can't be proven yet should be given weight.
the better. I never said I wanted us to go back to Christianity. But I understand that morality has to be based upon something. And utilitarianism doesn't seem to be working so well if social registers in the form of crime and violence and out of wedlock children and all the rest have any bearing on our understanding. Secular types (you sound pretty secular) are too philosophically illiterate to understand that morality can't be based upon nothing or else it becomes weak and meaningless.
Religions are immoral and unethical. The ONLY way to morality is through philosophical inquiry into ones actions to examine whether they are ethical or not. there is nothing moral or ethical about religion. It appears to be moral on the surface..at least to those that seem to agree with it. but when they don't agree with it they are not treated very ethically or morally.
What we need in schools today is more philosophy and critical thinking, not religion and mysticism.
@ZeusTelemaxos The funny thing is that if there was no Christianity there would be no science. Christianity teaches that the god of the universe is a god of order same yesterday, today and tomorrow. So it was concluded that the universe was also orderly the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. As such, could be studied and the laws it ran by could be found so the scientific method was born.
@ZeusTelemaxos Only if you can back your view with facts and not just act like a name calling Liberal. I've seen your video list, you should be able to.
Seriously you think the scientific method resulted from Christianity and didnt exist before that? let me explain something. Science works on observation and measurement.Every theory MUST be falsefiable. I know someone like you probably knows nothing about that concept. But basically, science has no room for absurdities like religion.Because every theory must provide a means for someone disprove it. If one cant provide that falsifiability, its not science. Its garbage.
@ZeusTelemaxos The bible tells us to check what you can of a religious document and if all that can be checked turns out to be true then you can work with the assumption that the rest is true and if new information comes up, A prophecy comes true or is proven faults or a new discovery the earth is not flat and it does not sit on the back of Elephants, the document will be proven more reliable or faults. What else can you ask for?
@ZeusTelemaxos All religions focus on what happens after we die, which can't be proven, because how we act depends greatly on what will happen then. If you think you just cease to be than at doesn't really matter what you do, this universe will eventually grow cold and life less leaving no results of your life. If you believe in the bible every lasting life is a gift all you have to do is except and what you do will be rewarded.
"Religions are immoral and unethical. The ONLY way to morality is through philosophical inquiry into ones actions to examine whether they are ethical or not."
So what happens when someone reads Plato or Aristotle (do they count as philosophy oh wise one) and sees the obvious justification for theism within their writings? Religions are often based on philosophical precepts. Just because some people are religious and stupid doesn't change the religion itself.
"What we need in schools today is more philosophy and critical thinking, not religion and mysticism."
Oh yeah? So what philosophical system do you use to base your morality on? I'm not a Christian, but I've put in the hard work of figuring out a morality that isn't based upon it. And that's why I appreciate Christianity because much of the morality you likely take for granted (that I, incidentally, am likely to reject) is based upon Christian morality.
So the morality of gays in the millitary is based on Christianity? How about the Morality of women teaching getting work and becoming self sufficient. Is that Christian morality too? What about Democracy? Is that a Christian ideal too? Philosophy isnt necessarily a system. Its not a religion. There isnt a dogma like religion that you have to follow. its more of a process of interrogation f ones thoughts and actions. you are looking for an instruction manual. There isnt one
"So the morality of gays in the millitary is based on Christianity? How about the Morality of women teaching getting work and becoming self sufficient."
No, that's an extension of egalitarian morality which actually has its roots in Christian morality with its "we're all God's children." Before Christianity, such egalitarian notions were rightfully viewed as absurd. I don't think women working outside the home is win for them, either.
"What about Democracy? Is that a Christian ideal too?"
It depends. But the roots of today's love affair with democracy can be traced back to the so-called "Enlightenment." And despite secular historicizing, a great many of those thinkers based such ideas (along with "rights") on the idea that a Creator existed.
"Philosophy isnt necessarily a system. Its not a religion."
Really? Utilitarianism isn't a system? Platonic and Aristotilean realism is not a system? Cartesian dualism is not a system? Deontological ethics is not a system?
Religion and philosophy bleed into one another. Just because the average religious person or the average atheist on the street, such as yourself, is unable to grasp this doesn't make it any less true.
"Believe it or not. there is nothing other than the concept of "eternal salvation" that Christianity offered to the world. EVERYTHING in the bible and the torah regarding morals and ethics had been written and talked about long before."
Yeah? So? That's all the more reason to believe that there is some truth to be found in the teachings of certain religions. I'm not looking for any manual. I'm not even religious. I just don't have a gag reflex against it like you do.
Thats exactly the problem. Every Sunday millions of pious zombies call other people sinners and sentence them to eternal brimfire and punishment, and they dont think twice. They see it as a perfectly normal thing. Yet when an Atheist calls them delusional they freak out and are ready to invoke their religious rights and so on and accuse the atheist of a hate crime. So if you dont get a gag reflex on religion perhaps you should reexamine your thoughts.
You're criticizing an aspect of religion that I don't like and then using that do try to discredit all religion altogether. Yet I'm aware that there are atheistic thinkers that are vastly more nuanced (such as Nietzsche whom I mentioned earlier). If I pretended that all atheists were like Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens and condemned atheism on those grounds, I'd be doing exactly what you're doing with religion.
I think Platonic-Aristotilean realism (that started with Socrates' ideas) which people like Augustine and Aquinas fleshed out for Catholicism is pretty impressive stuff. But to appreciate it, you have to understand classical metaphysical arguments which you seem to be completely oblivious to. That being said, that doesn't mean that I support all the nonsense that comes out of religious people's mouths. But I see plenty of nonsense from your crowd. That doesn't discredit atheism.
I noticed you capitalized catholic. yet in the original Nicean creed the word catholic was not capitalized because it simply meant all encompassing. Rome tookk that word Capitalized it and created a whole new religion.
There was a split sometime in the Church's past. You're not telling me anything I don't know. You just come across as someone trying to mask his own ignorance of Western thought in an attempt to justify a shallow brand of atheism. It would be better if you just admitted that you had a lot to learn on the topic and just conceded but grace is not your strong suit, I see.
It is a fusion between Christ's documented teachings and Greek metaphysical ideas. Sadly, modern Christianity is really just Cultural Marxism with a crucifix.
Believe it or not. there is nothing other than the concept of "eternal salvation" that Christianity offered to the world. EVERYTHING in the bible and the torah regarding morals and ethics had been written and talked about long before. As a matter of fact some claim that had Jesus and Socrates lived today. Socrates would have sued Jesus for plagiarism.
to higher standards when applying to university or even when being charged with "hate" crimes? That doesn't too equal to me, either. Despite the fact that 90% of interracial violence is non-white/white, whites are twice as likely to be charged with "hate" crimes. Think long and hard about the great "equality before the law" nonsense you lectured to me and then think about how little that actually applies to our culture. Stop listening to the rhetoric and actually think for yourself for once.
"n something where the parameters are not defined?" if you didn't define those parameters is because you're either not interested on defining them and that's what bigots do the most, or on the other way you are just irresponsible.
And why do i have to explain thing twice to you. you clearly are mentally challenged. There are only on type of person more ignorant than a Catholic like you, and thats a muslim. Both of you are a waste of time.
Do you think I should believe in "equality"? Well, then make a proposition to me. I rejected your earlier definition. Why do you want me to define some nebulous concept I don't accept? What's the point?
@Icecreamforcrowtoo it was fine talking with you but i have better thing to attended to. I hope you're not a pedophile supporter like most of the Catholic like you usually are. see'ya Iceboy, take care.
There's more of your razor sharp wit. That's what I like about you. Your posts stick to the substance of everything-- false insinuations and name-calling. Why read Aquinas or G.K. Chesterton or any other person I've already named when they can read "ZZzzzzzWhat"'s view about the big questions-- a grand tour of logical fallacies--everything from begging the question to non-sequiturs to straw man arguments and even puerile name-calling. It pretty much sums up the new atheist crowd.
Secular state does not opose the values but it does oppose the intereference of religion on the government ruling, thats what the -separetion of church and state- stand for. on other words, bcs you're slow, you can have your catolic values but you can NOT impose on the rest of the population.
The U.S., U.K. have religious representatives but they CAN NOT take part on the governement rulling like it happens on the Iraq Federal Republic thatsy i pointed out the semi-theocracy. (...)
No, secular values do oppose religious values. "Tolerance" (particularly when it entails those matters I already mentioned) is not a traditional religious value.
"on other words, bcs you're slow, you can have your catolic values but you can NOT impose on the rest of the population."
Yes, yes. But secular values also define and shape the texture of the culture. I can't raise my child in a traditional wholesome environment when "secularism" tells me...
that the values of MTV can say or do what it wants all over the country. Secularism is not neutral. Neutrality is a heuristic construct. The permissiveness of one set values inevitably tends to lead to the disprivileging of other values within a culture over time.
When you go to state school in Britain, you are taught the Anglican faith. That's from the gov. Yet, I'd still consider the U.K. to be secular. You just don't want to accept that the gov. values...
MTV is not a religion. If you dont like what they show on there, dont allow your child to watch it. Do you allow you child to look through adult magazines? Same goes for movies and television. The world is never going back to the Dark Ages where people feared eternal damnation and being burned alive for thinking outside of the "Holy Books" of Abrahamic garbage.
"MTV is not a religion. If you dont like what they show on there, dont allow your child to watch it. Do you allow you child to look through adult magazines? Same goes for movies and television."
None of that garbage exists in a vacuum. You seem like a big time reductionist thinker but that's typical for our age. All that nonsense has a cumulative effect on the culture and effects the world we all have to inhabit. The social changes that have taken place have not been for...
Where did I say that secular values oppose religious values by default? The Enlightenment, though not theistic, still got its values from Christianity. But secular values often do go against traditional religion and are often oriented toward opposing religious values. A prime example is homosexuality. Or ideas about marriage. Or the proliferation of pornography. Or even freedom of speech (when interpreted to mean freedom to promote every form of crude degeneracy imaginable).
"Enlightenment values (as opposed to theistic values)" Secular stated do not oppose religious values; search for the meaning of -secular-
" I didn't Iraq is now a republic?" once again bcs you're really slow -> Federal Republic with division of power(with religious representatives) aka semi-theocracy.
"I'm guilty of NOT BELIEVING in something I can't define?" your aguilty to be dumd enough to disbelief something you don't even know.
In the U.S., we have religious representatives. The U.K. has religious representatives. The Anglican Church is the state religion. Is the U.K. not secular? How does the fact that Iraqis include space for religious representatives go against the idea that the constructs of their government are secular by design?
" your aguilty to be dumd enough to disbelief something you don't even know."
I'm guilty of not believing in something I don't know?! That seems pretty reasonable to me. I'll let you think about that one a bit. Why would anyone believe in something where the parameters are not defined?
I didn't know that Poland was a republic that governed according to Enlightenment values (as opposed to theistic values)? Really? I didn't know Iraq is now a republic? Well, I'll be. Even though that was my point. I don't know what empirical science is despite the fact that I can name more people who pioneered empirical philosophical thought than you? I'm guilty of NOT BELIEVING in something I can't define? Uh, okay. Logic is not your strong suit. Nice insults, there. Classy stuff.
@Icecreamforcrowtoo Complex thinking? lol you didn't even know that Poland was a secular state and you don't know what the fcuk is a Federal Republic with division of power. You also don't know what is empirical science nor you can define the concept of equality. Go fuck yourself and your catholic dogmatic agenda of wich you are ashamed to admit.
The American culture is increasingly more informed of its values through egalitarian government propaganda rather than religious or other sources of belief. What do you think defines a culture in terms of secularity?
The gov. of Iraq is secular (and Western influenced to be that way). The culture is not. Poland's gov. is secular. The culture is not. Saying that communism is the height of egalitarian thinking is not the same as me equating it with liberalism.
You really can't walk and chew gum at the same time. If I talk about communism to make a point about secularism, I must be confusing it with liberalism. What nonsense.
secular equality = the priciple that all people ought to be treated equally, that means: equality before the law, equal opportunity, gender equality, racial equality, social equality!
You definition was since the beginning a bias one, it had all to do with your Communism aversion and that also proves that you have a religious agenda which you constantly deny but also suggest.
"secular equality = the priciple that all people ought to be treated equally, that means: equality before the law, equal opportunity, gender equality, racial equality, social equality!"
Yeah. I know that's not communism even though communism would say similar things. I never said it was the same. You said I thought they were just out of the blue. But I will say I reject the above nonsense all the same. It's clear you just buy the state line on everything. And you're quite biased.
"secular equality = the priciple that all people ought to be treated equally, that means: equality before the law, equal opportunity, gender equality, racial equality, social equality!"
Again, I reject this philosophical proposition. It's a positive assertion that you can't even justify. Shouldn't women have to enlist in the army just like men? No? Is that not sexist? It's certainly not equality, just your narrow definition of it.
Shouldn't men who are "house husbands" get palimony/alimony just like housewives when there's a divorce? Our government, the preacher of "equality," sure doesn't think so. Neither do I. But I don't claim to believe in equality. I'm honest. Shouldn't nonwhite countries like Japan practice "diversity"? They want to keep their culture distinctly Japanese?! Racists. I'll never speak kindly about such people and their clean, livable, environment again.
Those monsters don't even believe that everyone should be treated equally! I guess it's because they are smart enough to distinguish between Japanese vs. non-Japanese, man vs. woman, smart vs. dumb, beautiful vs. ugly, etc., etc. How dare they order their society according to the laws of nature and not what they want to be true for soft sentimental reasons!
Speaking of treating everyone the same and equal opportunity, do you think it's fair that whites are held to...
"U.S. is becoming more and more secular", "Communism is the height of secular,"
Not also you think the a secular state is nothing more that a belief you also identify Communism and Iraq's Federal republic as equal to a Secular State.
And for the first time today i've find out that you confuse equality with the communist (totalitarian) doctrine which is a childish like misconception. It is obvious we were talking of distinct things.
You're straw maning here. (You do that a lot.) I never said a secular state was "nothing more than a belief." I said that what the culture thinks in relation its core beliefs should also determine how secular or not secular we view a state to be. You just want to look at the gov. to make a cheap point.
I said the Iraqi gov. is secular. I didn't say their culture was.
I do not confuse anything. Communism is not the same as liberalism (even if liberalism can justify communism).
I did not say that the secular state is "nothing more than a belief." I simply made the assertion that when determining how secular a state is, the culture, and not just the gov, should also be evaluated. You just want to look at the gov. to make a cheap point.
Iraq has a secular gov. Not a secular culture. That's all I said.
I don't confuse belief in equality w/ communism. But liberalism can be used to justify communism. Simply because I oppose both doesn't mean I confuse the 2.
The U.S. is becoming more and more secular. The ruling values that we export to Europe and now forcefully to the ME are secular. What many believe within the culture itself in the U.S. is still not secular despite people yourself who condescend to them. When evaluating whether a state is secular or not, you seem to want to just look at the government nothing else. The culture is rules over is of no consequence. This back and forth is just a game to you (that's largely semantics).
@Icecreamforcrowtoo "How can what the population believes (which defines the culture) have no bearing on how you define the nature of the country overall?" so tell me, are the USA and Poland Secular states or not?
"it does not follow that the culture it governs over is" so the secular values have no effect on those countries? are their population restricted to have one single belief system?
"communism in Eastern Europe"? what has that have to do with these secular states?
The U.S. is becoming more and more secular. The ruling values that we export to Europe and now forcefully to the ME are secular. What many believe within the culture itself is still not secular despite people yourself who condescend to their beliefs. When evaluating whether a state is secular or not, you seem to want to just look at the government nothing else. The culture it rules over is of no consequence. This back and forth is just a game to you (that's largely semantics).
:so the secular values have no effect on those countries? are their population restricted to have one single belief system?"
They do have an effect. But that's rather my point. Do you not think that Poland's high rate of Catholicism also informs the population. You want to use a label like secular to imply that Poland is the same as Sweden (a much more secular country). It's simply not. Nor is Serbia. Nor is Romania. Nor is the Ukraine or Croatia. Western Europe is more secular.
*Sigh* Communism is the height of secular, egalitarian based thinking. It was imposed on those countries for half a century. Yet today, most of Poland retains their religion despite being persecuted for such beliefs under communism. But going by your logic where gov seems to equal the whole country, Poland should be hugely secular. Yet the actual beliefs of Poles today are not in essence.
In either case. Simply because a government is secular, it does not follow that the culture it governs over is. This much should be obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of communism in Eastern Europe.
You're just trying to dodge the obvious fact that secularism is a belief system rather than a type of government. Yes, secular governments often preside over secular populations. But a secular culture is not a necessity for a secular state to rule over it.
Poland is 90something percent Catholic. The USA has secular values within it that it promotes globally. The religious belief itself within it is not secular. So if your logic of government=culture is true, then Iraq must be just as secular as Sweden, no?
Poland has a secular government. It's culture, which is 90 something percent Catholic, is not by any means secular. More fallacy-based reasoning on your part. This time you're conflating culture with the government. I guess the new Iraq is a secular society too now, eh? And again, the onus is on the person making the positive claims. I make no such claims about equality. You do. It's not my fault you don't know one of the basic premises for any logical discussion.
You are the one who values equality so you should tell me what type of equality it is you value and explain to me why I should as well. I shouldn't have to define what type I reject. The onus is on you in that regard. Don't try to reverse this. Basic logic dictates that the person making the positive assertions (which you are in the case of equality) has the burden of argument on their shoulders.
@Icecreamforcrowtoo Are you dodging my questions again? Did you not know that Poland is a Secular state? And y do you reject something which you obviously can not define?
"I shouldn't have to define what type I reject." What types?? its is plain and simple definition of -equality-. Do you know what -equality- is? than if so what is it?
I'm not dodging anything. You say that you value equality. I do not. The positive assertion for why it should be valued rests with you. Why should I value something you won't define? Poland is not a secular country due to it's government anymore than Iraq is a secular country because of its government.
lol i asked for a non-Secular state and you answered me Poland? did you not know that Poland is a Secular state?
"Why do I have define a conceptual notion that I wholly reject?" lolwut?? so you reject something which you do nort know its definition?? lol are you trolling boy?
@Icecreamforcrowtoo lolwut? so just because you hate the idea that Poland is a Secular country does not change the fact that it is. As like USA most of the population is religious but that doesn't change the fact that it is a Secular country.
My favorite non-secular country? Poland is still 90% or so Catholic. I'm partial to them. But they too are going to be overrun (even if their religion protects them from being overrun to a degree in the east) as their values become more liberal and "tolerance"-based due to EU pressuring.
"Skyscrapers and super computers don't come from equality." hunn what the fck?
look, until you tell me whats your definition of equality i can't have this conversation with you. you sound like a crazy person with all that technology, skyscrapers talk.
And why do you despise secular societies? tell me which are the 10 most peaceful/advanced/better life quality countries in the world.. you'll be surprised of how many of those are secular countries. and btw, which is your favorite non-secular country?
once again icyboy: What is your idea of equality? i'm still waiting for that answer..
Those "peaceful" societies are going away. Sweden, Norway, Denmark...they're being overrun because the secular values of "tolerance" disarm them from being able to defend their own culture. Search around youtube and you'll see Muslims destroying Oslo and Malmo. There are real consequences for moral universalism.
empty and without any virtue. We mistake technological progress with human progress in general. Which is why I guess you believe in equality yet cannot begin to justify it in any real terms. My point about equality is that our own eyes tell us it is not true, yet we believe in it to varying degrees. The belief is based on a wish; not reality.
There is no equality. Inequality is the truth. 80% of this inequality is biological and another 20% or so cultural. You believe in equality just like a our government seems to want you to. My beliefs are much more heretical than yours. Yes, I want a reason for equality. Not an appeal to the modern world. Skyscrapers and super computers don't come from equality.
I guess believing in state religion is okay, though. Even if you dress it up and call it "secularism." It's still a blind faith in the superiority of a belief system; you haven't even begun to justify it nor can you.
well icyboy, we can't have this dialogue until you explain to me what is you definition of -equality-. It seems that you demand that equality has to be -absolute to all humand beings- to be valid " There are people who are smarter, who are stronger, who are more virtuous." which is a rude fallacy.
Y do i believe in equality? because it is real, it happens on every secular country.
"society is superior" lolwut? why does it has to be superior? does the superiority justify equality's existence?
Certainly it is better to believe in something that is greater. That is why I asked you to justify a secular society. I see nothing great about the decadent West and modern Western influenced societies in relation to the great ancient civilizations of the past. Sure, we have more technology than they had. But that hardly makes secularism any better. People live for no other reason than just to mindlessly consume and engage in raw hedonism, something ancient societies knew was...
So you believe equality is a virtue. It's certainly not a virtue to most people outside of the West. There are people who are smarter. There are people who are stronger. There are people who are more virtuous. I fail to see the value in believing that we are all the same in spite of those obvious truths. You believe in it, but you cannot tell me why you do. So you appeal to a secular society; but then you cannot tell me why such a society is superior so you cite "tolerance." Lame.
The need to find a common ground is exactly to end the disagreement.
"you think equality is some manifestation of progress" a very simplistic opinion of yours;
"which is highly dubious" why is dubious?
You tire me out because you never answer my questions and come with new subjects! e.g. you didn't even said what is you idea/notion of equality! you just dodge all questions like you did with this one..
It is dubious to make the claim that because evolution exists, we are "progressing" toward equality. Only someone who thinks in fallacies can make such leaps in logic. These are not new subjects. This stuff is all related. You're just too myopic to see that.
And why should we try to find common ground if we disagree? You think equality is some manifestation of progress and I don't. You justify this belief by citing evolution which is highly dubious. Then because I understandably find such claims to be outlandish, you accuse me of trying to "tire" you out.
If you think Japan is egalitarian (in the sense that we are), you are mistaken. Same with Singapore, China, and Korea (a place where I used to live). They are nice places to live, no doubt. But they do not view outsiders as their equals. And rightfully so.
You have this conviction about equality that's not so unlike what a religious person thinks about God. Yet, you can scarcely justify it. All you do is appeal to some vague notions of evolution to try to explain how it's come about. Yet, you can't tell me *why* I should believe in it.
@Icecreamforcrowtoo i've explained to you various times, the problem is that you are ignoring it to try to justify your point.
On which basis is my notion of equality equal to "what a religious person thinks about God"?
lol, these are not vague notions, in fact if you agree that humans evolved, and intelligence/principles/societies as well, you also agree with my point.
What do you mean by "why"? I've explained various times why there is the need for equality in a tolerable society.
- equality did not came from christianity, in fact, all abrahamic religions are separatist and do not promote equality; - once again, equality, like morals and etics are subjected to various factor like culture/belief system. Saying equality is exclusive to western society is a statement of rude ignorance. There are plenty of Secular, equality promoting societies on the middle east, Asia and Oceania.
And telling that equality is technologically based is an even more ignorant statement.
"- equality did not came from christianity, in fact, all abrahamic religions are separatist and do not promote equality;"
Judaism is not equality-based. One just has to look at modern Israel to see that. But Christianity, which comes mostly from Aristotilean metaphysics, is egalitarian.
You say that equality is "subjected to various factor" but you are not explaining why I should believe in it.
Ancient China and contemporary China was/is pretty orderly. Athens was pretty orderly. Rome was pretty orderly. 1920s/30s Japan was pretty orderly as it remains so today. Nazi Germany was pretty orderly. None of those governments preached or preach equality.
Who cares. You keep using that word "tolerable" as if it's the end all by all justification for everything. They didn't have the crime rates or the social dysfunction either. But hey, anything for "tolerance" which I assume you mean to be permissiveness toward any type of hedonistic ventilation.
"we shouldn't treat everyone the same."yap that's 'the golden rule' and it is not religiously based.
"Schools, universities, the government, the media, the U.N., businesses (by law); people appeal to it all the time. It's in the very air we breathe." ... and?
@Icecreamforcrowtoo you're changing the subject all the time. you didn't even told me if you believe that principles like equality evolved with the growing complex society or if it was given by god.
I already answered you. I don't believe in equality. I think equality came about because of Western society's Christian orientation. It doesn't exist in China. Or India. Or Africa. Or in the Middle East. We believe in it because our technological prowess gives us the ability of sentimental illusions.
I know the modern liberal dispensation tells me to hate people who preach inequality, but the fact of the matter is the society we live under now is not so great due to this religious belief in equality.
Simply because technology allows us to lie to ourselves about the nature of inequality doesn't mean that it's any less true. If the grid went down, all the flowery rhetoric about how evolved we are would go right down the tubes and non-egalitarian principles based on pure strength and hierarchy (and pre-Christian tradition) would re-establish themselves. Technology has simply made it more easier for us to lie about us all being equal.
if you live on a Secular society, equality is part of the 'established order';
"I want to live in strong, virtuous society that doesn't "tolerate" weakness and degeneracy." if by 'weakness and degeneracy.' you mean equality, than you are refering to a Fascist Totalitarian society.
"you have to ignore basic facts" what do you mean by that?
and btw your speech as changed to an anti equality, why is that?
Equality is not an innate human attribute. That's nonsense. Most of the world rightfully does not imbibe egalitarian principles. We do because of the Christian legacy.
@Icecreamforcrowtoo "Equality is not an innate human attribute." i never said it was, i was asking you're oppinion about that wich btw you dodged that question.
"We do because of the Christian legacy." hunn and which is that legacy? Christianism like all other abrahamic religions are separatist, the contrarie to equality.
I already asked you, what is so great about a "tolerable" society? I want to live in strong, virtuous society that doesn't "tolerate" weakness and degeneracy. Why is tolerating vice some value to you?
People are unequal. To believe in equality, you have to ignore basic facts that even young children are aware of.
Simply because 'most people are able to follow' (whatever that means) doesn't make it right. And again, most of the world lives under non-egalitarian constructs so...
And the principle of equality (in the sense that you understand the word) comes from St. Paul-- Christianity. A belief system I reject with the full knowledge of knowing what I'm rejecting. You seem utterly clueless of your inconsistency, though.
@Icecreamforcrowtoo i'm starting to loose my patience with this circular reasoning/ special pleading for gods existence.. lets try to find a common ground shall we?
Do you believe equality is was a principle that grown with our intelligence and acquired by the also evolved complex society? or do you believe equality is an innate human attribute given by god?
I'm still wondering why equality is something I should value. Indeed, it's hard to find a single society that valued it in the same sense we do. The whole "we are all brothers in Christ" has had a profound effect (directly and indirectly) on Western thought in establishing egalitarian-based thought whether one believes in a religion or not. People sure didn't have a problem living in a less "tolerable" society during the pagan years. Inequality was often celebrated. Perhaps rightfully so.
@Icecreamforcrowtoo sure but if we would compare an society during the pagan years with a society of nowerday it would be very much different. Like i said, these principles were passed trough time by generations and had alterations. The concept of equality is better and involves more aspect than on the "pagan years".
btw, if you believe on the evolutionary process of intelligence and society, your arguments of this being god made have to change considerably.
Why is equality better? I think it allows mediocrity to flourish. The ancients felt the same way. Life is clearly not equal. You believe in a value that your own two eyes tells you is false.
@Icecreamforcrowtoo i've mention it before. equality is a principle necessary for a tolerable society. just like morality and etics. As simple as that. No metaphysical nor magic necessary.
"Life is clearly not equal" sure, equality is just a principle whch most of us are able to follow, but there are always other factor that enable equality like relative cultural/religious belief systems.
"You believe in a value that your own two eyes tells you is false." could you be more clear about that?
wow calm down icyboy, .. if you believe in evolution then you know the humans had a primordial stage on which intelligence was almost as none and it evolved further then. principles like equality, morality and ethics were gradually acquired as intelligence developed and society grown to be more complex.
I never said it was "an opinion of the day", i even mentioned trans-generation.
I'm just wondering why we should believe in equality. You can't seem to answer this question. Plato didn't. Aristotle didn't. Most societies outside the West today still don't. It's not some fact that equality is the truth. In fact, quite the opposite. My own eyes tell me that inequality is the truth. Yet, I'll bet you still believe in equality. Yet, you can't justify it. All you can do is explain how you think it evolved. But I didn't ask how it evolved.
I do believe in evolution. I don't know why you make this assumption other than that your brain thinks in simplistic compartment-based thought. "Hmmm, he defends religion...must not like science or evolution."
I wish I could have a conversation with Carl over some warm bud brownies. Too bad no one is wise enough or strong enough to avoid death. Damn death, Jesus better be right!!!
noledgewise1 1 day ago
You need to take the serious philosophical arguments for religion if you're going to evaluate it fairly. Not cite examples of dumb religious people. You're trying to criticize an idea by going after people who follow the idea poorly. It's a dumb parlor trick. I could just as easily use you as an example of how ignorant of philosophy atheists seem to be (as does Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris). Yet, that wouldn't be fair to atheism. So let's use an even standard for evaluating a concept.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 3 months ago
@Icecreamforcrowtoo
Im waiting for one iota of proof of the existence of a Universal omnipotent being. Do you have something to back up your claims? Do you have anything to back up ANY scripture that claims the existence of God? inquiring minds have wanted to know for the last 5000 yrs.
ZeusTelemaxos 3 months ago
@ZeusTelemaxos
You're treating empirical knowledge as if it's the only type of knowledge. Even someone who's read Hume's wikipedia profile understands the problem of treating empirical knowledge as the basis for all knowledge. The "God" question is not a scientific one. Yet you treat it as such because your understanding of philosophical concepts is basically non-existent.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 3 months ago
@Icecreamforcrowtoo
Well then..What exactly is the God question if not a scientific one? must be complete delusion.
ZeusTelemaxos 3 months ago
@ZeusTelemaxos
It's an ontological question.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 3 months ago
There is one part of the theory that can be proven and that is weather or not the document that the theory came from has been able to prove that the authors knew more than would be reasonable for anyone of that time. If that is true then what can't be proven yet should be given weight.
wwhit2001 3 months ago
Who other the Jesus said "Love your enemies?"
wwhit2001 3 months ago
the better. I never said I wanted us to go back to Christianity. But I understand that morality has to be based upon something. And utilitarianism doesn't seem to be working so well if social registers in the form of crime and violence and out of wedlock children and all the rest have any bearing on our understanding. Secular types (you sound pretty secular) are too philosophically illiterate to understand that morality can't be based upon nothing or else it becomes weak and meaningless.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 3 months ago
@Icecreamforcrowtoo
Religions are immoral and unethical. The ONLY way to morality is through philosophical inquiry into ones actions to examine whether they are ethical or not. there is nothing moral or ethical about religion. It appears to be moral on the surface..at least to those that seem to agree with it. but when they don't agree with it they are not treated very ethically or morally.
What we need in schools today is more philosophy and critical thinking, not religion and mysticism.
ZeusTelemaxos 3 months ago
@ZeusTelemaxos The funny thing is that if there was no Christianity there would be no science. Christianity teaches that the god of the universe is a god of order same yesterday, today and tomorrow. So it was concluded that the universe was also orderly the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. As such, could be studied and the laws it ran by could be found so the scientific method was born.
wwhit2001 3 months ago
@wwhit2001
Seriously!? You want a reply to that post ?
ZeusTelemaxos 3 months ago
@ZeusTelemaxos Only if you can back your view with facts and not just act like a name calling Liberal. I've seen your video list, you should be able to.
wwhit2001 3 months ago
@wwhit2001
Seriously you think the scientific method resulted from Christianity and didnt exist before that? let me explain something. Science works on observation and measurement.Every theory MUST be falsefiable. I know someone like you probably knows nothing about that concept. But basically, science has no room for absurdities like religion.Because every theory must provide a means for someone disprove it. If one cant provide that falsifiability, its not science. Its garbage.
ZeusTelemaxos 3 months ago
@ZeusTelemaxos The bible tells us to check what you can of a religious document and if all that can be checked turns out to be true then you can work with the assumption that the rest is true and if new information comes up, A prophecy comes true or is proven faults or a new discovery the earth is not flat and it does not sit on the back of Elephants, the document will be proven more reliable or faults. What else can you ask for?
wwhit2001 3 months ago
@ZeusTelemaxos All religions focus on what happens after we die, which can't be proven, because how we act depends greatly on what will happen then. If you think you just cease to be than at doesn't really matter what you do, this universe will eventually grow cold and life less leaving no results of your life. If you believe in the bible every lasting life is a gift all you have to do is except and what you do will be rewarded.
wwhit2001 3 months ago
@ZeusTelemaxos
"Religions are immoral and unethical. The ONLY way to morality is through philosophical inquiry into ones actions to examine whether they are ethical or not."
So what happens when someone reads Plato or Aristotle (do they count as philosophy oh wise one) and sees the obvious justification for theism within their writings? Religions are often based on philosophical precepts. Just because some people are religious and stupid doesn't change the religion itself.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 3 months ago
@ZeusTelemaxos
"What we need in schools today is more philosophy and critical thinking, not religion and mysticism."
Oh yeah? So what philosophical system do you use to base your morality on? I'm not a Christian, but I've put in the hard work of figuring out a morality that isn't based upon it. And that's why I appreciate Christianity because much of the morality you likely take for granted (that I, incidentally, am likely to reject) is based upon Christian morality.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 3 months ago
@Icecreamforcrowtoo
So the morality of gays in the millitary is based on Christianity? How about the Morality of women teaching getting work and becoming self sufficient. Is that Christian morality too? What about Democracy? Is that a Christian ideal too? Philosophy isnt necessarily a system. Its not a religion. There isnt a dogma like religion that you have to follow. its more of a process of interrogation f ones thoughts and actions. you are looking for an instruction manual. There isnt one
ZeusTelemaxos 3 months ago
@ZeusTelemaxos
"So the morality of gays in the millitary is based on Christianity? How about the Morality of women teaching getting work and becoming self sufficient."
No, that's an extension of egalitarian morality which actually has its roots in Christian morality with its "we're all God's children." Before Christianity, such egalitarian notions were rightfully viewed as absurd. I don't think women working outside the home is win for them, either.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 3 months ago
"What about Democracy? Is that a Christian ideal too?"
It depends. But the roots of today's love affair with democracy can be traced back to the so-called "Enlightenment." And despite secular historicizing, a great many of those thinkers based such ideas (along with "rights") on the idea that a Creator existed.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 3 months ago
"Philosophy isnt necessarily a system. Its not a religion."
Really? Utilitarianism isn't a system? Platonic and Aristotilean realism is not a system? Cartesian dualism is not a system? Deontological ethics is not a system?
Religion and philosophy bleed into one another. Just because the average religious person or the average atheist on the street, such as yourself, is unable to grasp this doesn't make it any less true.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 3 months ago
"Believe it or not. there is nothing other than the concept of "eternal salvation" that Christianity offered to the world. EVERYTHING in the bible and the torah regarding morals and ethics had been written and talked about long before."
Yeah? So? That's all the more reason to believe that there is some truth to be found in the teachings of certain religions. I'm not looking for any manual. I'm not even religious. I just don't have a gag reflex against it like you do.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 3 months ago
@Icecreamforcrowtoo
Thats exactly the problem. Every Sunday millions of pious zombies call other people sinners and sentence them to eternal brimfire and punishment, and they dont think twice. They see it as a perfectly normal thing. Yet when an Atheist calls them delusional they freak out and are ready to invoke their religious rights and so on and accuse the atheist of a hate crime. So if you dont get a gag reflex on religion perhaps you should reexamine your thoughts.
ZeusTelemaxos 3 months ago
@ZeusTelemaxos
You're criticizing an aspect of religion that I don't like and then using that do try to discredit all religion altogether. Yet I'm aware that there are atheistic thinkers that are vastly more nuanced (such as Nietzsche whom I mentioned earlier). If I pretended that all atheists were like Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens and condemned atheism on those grounds, I'd be doing exactly what you're doing with religion.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 3 months ago
@Icecreamforcrowtoo
can you tell us what religion you discredit and which you dont? LOL!!
ZeusTelemaxos 3 months ago
@ZeusTelemaxos
I think Platonic-Aristotilean realism (that started with Socrates' ideas) which people like Augustine and Aquinas fleshed out for Catholicism is pretty impressive stuff. But to appreciate it, you have to understand classical metaphysical arguments which you seem to be completely oblivious to. That being said, that doesn't mean that I support all the nonsense that comes out of religious people's mouths. But I see plenty of nonsense from your crowd. That doesn't discredit atheism.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 3 months ago
@Icecreamforcrowtoo
So if classicists mentioned God, that automatically in your eyes gives credibility to the existence of God?
ZeusTelemaxos 3 months ago
@ZeusTelemaxos
I did not say any such thing. I read Plato's Republic and Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics and found their arguments compelling.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 3 months ago
@Icecreamforcrowtoo
Aristotelian Ethics have nothing to do with religion. They were deduced from logical arguments and reasoning they are not dogma.
ZeusTelemaxos 3 months ago
@ZeusTelemaxos
The provide the philosophical framework for Catholic theology. Anyone who's vaguely familiar with Western philosophy is aware of this.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 3 months ago
@Icecreamforcrowtoo
I noticed you capitalized catholic. yet in the original Nicean creed the word catholic was not capitalized because it simply meant all encompassing. Rome tookk that word Capitalized it and created a whole new religion.
ZeusTelemaxos 3 months ago
@ZeusTelemaxos
There was a split sometime in the Church's past. You're not telling me anything I don't know. You just come across as someone trying to mask his own ignorance of Western thought in an attempt to justify a shallow brand of atheism. It would be better if you just admitted that you had a lot to learn on the topic and just conceded but grace is not your strong suit, I see.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 3 months ago
@Icecreamforcrowtoo
So you still maintain that Western thought came from the Abrahamic religions?
ZeusTelemaxos 3 months ago
@ZeusTelemaxos
It is a fusion between Christ's documented teachings and Greek metaphysical ideas. Sadly, modern Christianity is really just Cultural Marxism with a crucifix.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 3 months ago
@Icecreamforcrowtoo That makes no fucking sense. Besides, Christ didn't actually exist.
Mangina9000 2 months ago
@Mangina9000
What makes "no fucking sense," Wordsworth? I'm not a Christian, either. So your words don't really bother me (which was no doubt your intent).
Icecreamforcrowtoo 2 months ago
@Icecreamforcrowtoo
Believe it or not. there is nothing other than the concept of "eternal salvation" that Christianity offered to the world. EVERYTHING in the bible and the torah regarding morals and ethics had been written and talked about long before. As a matter of fact some claim that had Jesus and Socrates lived today. Socrates would have sued Jesus for plagiarism.
ZeusTelemaxos 3 months ago
to higher standards when applying to university or even when being charged with "hate" crimes? That doesn't too equal to me, either. Despite the fact that 90% of interracial violence is non-white/white, whites are twice as likely to be charged with "hate" crimes. Think long and hard about the great "equality before the law" nonsense you lectured to me and then think about how little that actually applies to our culture. Stop listening to the rhetoric and actually think for yourself for once.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
"n something where the parameters are not defined?" if you didn't define those parameters is because you're either not interested on defining them and that's what bigots do the most, or on the other way you are just irresponsible.
And why do i have to explain thing twice to you. you clearly are mentally challenged. There are only on type of person more ignorant than a Catholic like you, and thats a muslim. Both of you are a waste of time.
ZZzzzzzWhat 5 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat
Do you think I should believe in "equality"? Well, then make a proposition to me. I rejected your earlier definition. Why do you want me to define some nebulous concept I don't accept? What's the point?
I'm not a Catholic. I'm a Nietzschean.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
@Icecreamforcrowtoo it was fine talking with you but i have better thing to attended to. I hope you're not a pedophile supporter like most of the Catholic like you usually are. see'ya Iceboy, take care.
ZZzzzzzWhat 5 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat
There's more of your razor sharp wit. That's what I like about you. Your posts stick to the substance of everything-- false insinuations and name-calling. Why read Aquinas or G.K. Chesterton or any other person I've already named when they can read "ZZzzzzzWhat"'s view about the big questions-- a grand tour of logical fallacies--everything from begging the question to non-sequiturs to straw man arguments and even puerile name-calling. It pretty much sums up the new atheist crowd.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
Secular state does not opose the values but it does oppose the intereference of religion on the government ruling, thats what the -separetion of church and state- stand for. on other words, bcs you're slow, you can have your catolic values but you can NOT impose on the rest of the population.
The U.S., U.K. have religious representatives but they CAN NOT take part on the governement rulling like it happens on the Iraq Federal Republic thatsy i pointed out the semi-theocracy. (...)
ZZzzzzzWhat 5 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat
No, secular values do oppose religious values. "Tolerance" (particularly when it entails those matters I already mentioned) is not a traditional religious value.
"on other words, bcs you're slow, you can have your catolic values but you can NOT impose on the rest of the population."
Yes, yes. But secular values also define and shape the texture of the culture. I can't raise my child in a traditional wholesome environment when "secularism" tells me...
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat
that the values of MTV can say or do what it wants all over the country. Secularism is not neutral. Neutrality is a heuristic construct. The permissiveness of one set values inevitably tends to lead to the disprivileging of other values within a culture over time.
When you go to state school in Britain, you are taught the Anglican faith. That's from the gov. Yet, I'd still consider the U.K. to be secular. You just don't want to accept that the gov. values...
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
values of a state are not identical to the organic values within a culture.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
@Icecreamforcrowtoo
MTV is not a religion. If you dont like what they show on there, dont allow your child to watch it. Do you allow you child to look through adult magazines? Same goes for movies and television. The world is never going back to the Dark Ages where people feared eternal damnation and being burned alive for thinking outside of the "Holy Books" of Abrahamic garbage.
ZeusTelemaxos 3 months ago
@ZeusTelemaxos
"MTV is not a religion. If you dont like what they show on there, dont allow your child to watch it. Do you allow you child to look through adult magazines? Same goes for movies and television."
None of that garbage exists in a vacuum. You seem like a big time reductionist thinker but that's typical for our age. All that nonsense has a cumulative effect on the culture and effects the world we all have to inhabit. The social changes that have taken place have not been for...
Icecreamforcrowtoo 3 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat
Where did I say that secular values oppose religious values by default? The Enlightenment, though not theistic, still got its values from Christianity. But secular values often do go against traditional religion and are often oriented toward opposing religious values. A prime example is homosexuality. Or ideas about marriage. Or the proliferation of pornography. Or even freedom of speech (when interpreted to mean freedom to promote every form of crude degeneracy imaginable).
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
"Enlightenment values (as opposed to theistic values)" Secular stated do not oppose religious values; search for the meaning of -secular-
" I didn't Iraq is now a republic?" once again bcs you're really slow -> Federal Republic with division of power(with religious representatives) aka semi-theocracy.
"I'm guilty of NOT BELIEVING in something I can't define?" your aguilty to be dumd enough to disbelief something you don't even know.
ZZzzzzzWhat 5 months ago
Comment removed
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat
In the U.S., we have religious representatives. The U.K. has religious representatives. The Anglican Church is the state religion. Is the U.K. not secular? How does the fact that Iraqis include space for religious representatives go against the idea that the constructs of their government are secular by design?
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat
lol
" your aguilty to be dumd enough to disbelief something you don't even know."
I'm guilty of not believing in something I don't know?! That seems pretty reasonable to me. I'll let you think about that one a bit. Why would anyone believe in something where the parameters are not defined?
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat
I didn't know that Poland was a republic that governed according to Enlightenment values (as opposed to theistic values)? Really? I didn't know Iraq is now a republic? Well, I'll be. Even though that was my point. I don't know what empirical science is despite the fact that I can name more people who pioneered empirical philosophical thought than you? I'm guilty of NOT BELIEVING in something I can't define? Uh, okay. Logic is not your strong suit. Nice insults, there. Classy stuff.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
Complex thinking that's over your silly new atheist head=trolling.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Icecreamforcrowtoo Complex thinking? lol you didn't even know that Poland was a secular state and you don't know what the fcuk is a Federal Republic with division of power. You also don't know what is empirical science nor you can define the concept of equality. Go fuck yourself and your catholic dogmatic agenda of wich you are ashamed to admit.
ZZzzzzzWhat 5 months ago
Comment removed
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
you are definitively a troll. i'm done waiting my time with you kid.
ZZzzzzzWhat 5 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat
Those labels are all you have.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
"U.S. is becoming more and more secular", why is it becoming more a secular state? it is or is not
"I said the Iraqi gov. is secular." lol thats the point smart guy, Iraqi gov IS NOT a secular state! i've already explaind you that.
"Communism is not the same as liberalism" -> "Communism is the height of secular, egalitarian based thinking."
"Iraq has a secular gov. Not a secular culture. That's all I said."
"Why should people who are not the same be treated the same?"
ZZzzzzzWhat 5 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat
The American culture is increasingly more informed of its values through egalitarian government propaganda rather than religious or other sources of belief. What do you think defines a culture in terms of secularity?
The gov. of Iraq is secular (and Western influenced to be that way). The culture is not. Poland's gov. is secular. The culture is not. Saying that communism is the height of egalitarian thinking is not the same as me equating it with liberalism.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
Your belief in that drivel is more based on emotion than people I know who do believe in a God of some sorts.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
Why should people who are not the same be treated the same? That's nonsense.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
You still haven't justified your belief in those egalitarian lies, either.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
You really can't walk and chew gum at the same time. If I talk about communism to make a point about secularism, I must be confusing it with liberalism. What nonsense.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
secular equality = the priciple that all people ought to be treated equally, that means: equality before the law, equal opportunity, gender equality, racial equality, social equality!
You definition was since the beginning a bias one, it had all to do with your Communism aversion and that also proves that you have a religious agenda which you constantly deny but also suggest.
ZZzzzzzWhat 5 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat
"secular equality = the priciple that all people ought to be treated equally, that means: equality before the law, equal opportunity, gender equality, racial equality, social equality!"
Yeah. I know that's not communism even though communism would say similar things. I never said it was the same. You said I thought they were just out of the blue. But I will say I reject the above nonsense all the same. It's clear you just buy the state line on everything. And you're quite biased.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat
"secular equality = the priciple that all people ought to be treated equally, that means: equality before the law, equal opportunity, gender equality, racial equality, social equality!"
Again, I reject this philosophical proposition. It's a positive assertion that you can't even justify. Shouldn't women have to enlist in the army just like men? No? Is that not sexist? It's certainly not equality, just your narrow definition of it.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat
Shouldn't men who are "house husbands" get palimony/alimony just like housewives when there's a divorce? Our government, the preacher of "equality," sure doesn't think so. Neither do I. But I don't claim to believe in equality. I'm honest. Shouldn't nonwhite countries like Japan practice "diversity"? They want to keep their culture distinctly Japanese?! Racists. I'll never speak kindly about such people and their clean, livable, environment again.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
Those monsters don't even believe that everyone should be treated equally! I guess it's because they are smart enough to distinguish between Japanese vs. non-Japanese, man vs. woman, smart vs. dumb, beautiful vs. ugly, etc., etc. How dare they order their society according to the laws of nature and not what they want to be true for soft sentimental reasons!
Speaking of treating everyone the same and equal opportunity, do you think it's fair that whites are held to...
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
"U.S. is becoming more and more secular", "Communism is the height of secular,"
Not also you think the a secular state is nothing more that a belief you also identify Communism and Iraq's Federal republic as equal to a Secular State.
And for the first time today i've find out that you confuse equality with the communist (totalitarian) doctrine which is a childish like misconception. It is obvious we were talking of distinct things.
ZZzzzzzWhat 5 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat
You're straw maning here. (You do that a lot.) I never said a secular state was "nothing more than a belief." I said that what the culture thinks in relation its core beliefs should also determine how secular or not secular we view a state to be. You just want to look at the gov. to make a cheap point.
I said the Iraqi gov. is secular. I didn't say their culture was.
I do not confuse anything. Communism is not the same as liberalism (even if liberalism can justify communism).
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat
I did not say that the secular state is "nothing more than a belief." I simply made the assertion that when determining how secular a state is, the culture, and not just the gov, should also be evaluated. You just want to look at the gov. to make a cheap point.
Iraq has a secular gov. Not a secular culture. That's all I said.
I don't confuse belief in equality w/ communism. But liberalism can be used to justify communism. Simply because I oppose both doesn't mean I confuse the 2.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat
The U.S. is becoming more and more secular. The ruling values that we export to Europe and now forcefully to the ME are secular. What many believe within the culture itself in the U.S. is still not secular despite people yourself who condescend to them. When evaluating whether a state is secular or not, you seem to want to just look at the government nothing else. The culture is rules over is of no consequence. This back and forth is just a game to you (that's largely semantics).
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
@Icecreamforcrowtoo "How can what the population believes (which defines the culture) have no bearing on how you define the nature of the country overall?" so tell me, are the USA and Poland Secular states or not?
"it does not follow that the culture it governs over is" so the secular values have no effect on those countries? are their population restricted to have one single belief system?
"communism in Eastern Europe"? what has that have to do with these secular states?
ZZzzzzzWhat 5 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat
The U.S. is becoming more and more secular. The ruling values that we export to Europe and now forcefully to the ME are secular. What many believe within the culture itself is still not secular despite people yourself who condescend to their beliefs. When evaluating whether a state is secular or not, you seem to want to just look at the government nothing else. The culture it rules over is of no consequence. This back and forth is just a game to you (that's largely semantics).
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat
:so the secular values have no effect on those countries? are their population restricted to have one single belief system?"
They do have an effect. But that's rather my point. Do you not think that Poland's high rate of Catholicism also informs the population. You want to use a label like secular to imply that Poland is the same as Sweden (a much more secular country). It's simply not. Nor is Serbia. Nor is Romania. Nor is the Ukraine or Croatia. Western Europe is more secular.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat
*Sigh* Communism is the height of secular, egalitarian based thinking. It was imposed on those countries for half a century. Yet today, most of Poland retains their religion despite being persecuted for such beliefs under communism. But going by your logic where gov seems to equal the whole country, Poland should be hugely secular. Yet the actual beliefs of Poles today are not in essence.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
I am from the U.S.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
In either case. Simply because a government is secular, it does not follow that the culture it governs over is. This much should be obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of communism in Eastern Europe.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
You're just trying to dodge the obvious fact that secularism is a belief system rather than a type of government. Yes, secular governments often preside over secular populations. But a secular culture is not a necessity for a secular state to rule over it.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
@Icecreamforcrowtoo are you from iraq or poland?
ZZzzzzzWhat 5 months ago
Iraq is not a Secular country, its a Federal Republic with division of power with religious representatives (semi-theocracy).
You do not dodge anything.. and yet you have not told me your definition of -equality-
the population's beliefe system does not change the fact that Poland or the USA are secular countries
ZZzzzzzWhat 5 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat
We have religious representatives.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
@Icecreamforcrowtoo by we what do you mean? Iraq or polish?
ZZzzzzzWhat 5 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat
"the population's beliefe system does not change the fact that Poland or the USA are secular countries"
How can what the population believes (which defines the culture) have no bearing on how you define the nature of the country overall?
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ZZzzzzzWhat
Poland is 90something percent Catholic. The USA has secular values within it that it promotes globally. The religious belief itself within it is not secular. So if your logic of government=culture is true, then Iraq must be just as secular as Sweden, no?
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat
Poland has a secular government. It's culture, which is 90 something percent Catholic, is not by any means secular. More fallacy-based reasoning on your part. This time you're conflating culture with the government. I guess the new Iraq is a secular society too now, eh? And again, the onus is on the person making the positive claims. I make no such claims about equality. You do. It's not my fault you don't know one of the basic premises for any logical discussion.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
You are the one who values equality so you should tell me what type of equality it is you value and explain to me why I should as well. I shouldn't have to define what type I reject. The onus is on you in that regard. Don't try to reverse this. Basic logic dictates that the person making the positive assertions (which you are in the case of equality) has the burden of argument on their shoulders.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
@Icecreamforcrowtoo Are you dodging my questions again? Did you not know that Poland is a Secular state? And y do you reject something which you obviously can not define?
"I shouldn't have to define what type I reject." What types?? its is plain and simple definition of -equality-. Do you know what -equality- is? than if so what is it?
ZZzzzzzWhat 5 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat
I'm not dodging anything. You say that you value equality. I do not. The positive assertion for why it should be valued rests with you. Why should I value something you won't define? Poland is not a secular country due to it's government anymore than Iraq is a secular country because of its government.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
lol i asked for a non-Secular state and you answered me Poland? did you not know that Poland is a Secular state?
"Why do I have define a conceptual notion that I wholly reject?" lolwut?? so you reject something which you do nort know its definition?? lol are you trolling boy?
ZZzzzzzWhat 5 months ago
Comment removed
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
@Icecreamforcrowtoo lolwut? so just because you hate the idea that Poland is a Secular country does not change the fact that it is. As like USA most of the population is religious but that doesn't change the fact that it is a Secular country.
ZZzzzzzWhat 5 months ago
Comment removed
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
Your the one who likes equality so you should define what type of equality it is you value and tell me why I should. The onus is on you, broseph.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
My favorite non-secular country? Poland is still 90% or so Catholic. I'm partial to them. But they too are going to be overrun (even if their religion protects them from being overrun to a degree in the east) as their values become more liberal and "tolerance"-based due to EU pressuring.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Skyscrapers and super computers don't come from equality." hunn what the fck?
look, until you tell me whats your definition of equality i can't have this conversation with you. you sound like a crazy person with all that technology, skyscrapers talk.
ZZzzzzzWhat 5 months ago
lol the technology again?
And why do you despise secular societies? tell me which are the 10 most peaceful/advanced/better life quality countries in the world.. you'll be surprised of how many of those are secular countries. and btw, which is your favorite non-secular country?
once again icyboy: What is your idea of equality? i'm still waiting for that answer..
ZZzzzzzWhat 5 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat
Those "peaceful" societies are going away. Sweden, Norway, Denmark...they're being overrun because the secular values of "tolerance" disarm them from being able to defend their own culture. Search around youtube and you'll see Muslims destroying Oslo and Malmo. There are real consequences for moral universalism.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
@Icecreamforcrowtoo which is your best example of a ideal non-secular country?
And for the 10th time: what is your definition of equality?
ZZzzzzzWhat 5 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat
Why do I have define a conceptual notion that I wholly reject?
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
And of course, that technology that we attribute to ourselves all comes from the backs of those who lived prior to us.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
empty and without any virtue. We mistake technological progress with human progress in general. Which is why I guess you believe in equality yet cannot begin to justify it in any real terms. My point about equality is that our own eyes tell us it is not true, yet we believe in it to varying degrees. The belief is based on a wish; not reality.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"we are "progressing" toward equality." so you think there is no equality in the world? that we are still trying to reach it?
hun "state religion" ? "superiority of a belief system"? what are you talking about?
"you haven't even begun to justify it nor can you." justify equality? lol you want a reason for equality?
ZZzzzzzWhat 5 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat
There is no equality. Inequality is the truth. 80% of this inequality is biological and another 20% or so cultural. You believe in equality just like a our government seems to want you to. My beliefs are much more heretical than yours. Yes, I want a reason for equality. Not an appeal to the modern world. Skyscrapers and super computers don't come from equality.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
I guess believing in state religion is okay, though. Even if you dress it up and call it "secularism." It's still a blind faith in the superiority of a belief system; you haven't even begun to justify it nor can you.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
well icyboy, we can't have this dialogue until you explain to me what is you definition of -equality-. It seems that you demand that equality has to be -absolute to all humand beings- to be valid " There are people who are smarter, who are stronger, who are more virtuous." which is a rude fallacy.
Y do i believe in equality? because it is real, it happens on every secular country.
"society is superior" lolwut? why does it has to be superior? does the superiority justify equality's existence?
ZZzzzzzWhat 5 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat
Certainly it is better to believe in something that is greater. That is why I asked you to justify a secular society. I see nothing great about the decadent West and modern Western influenced societies in relation to the great ancient civilizations of the past. Sure, we have more technology than they had. But that hardly makes secularism any better. People live for no other reason than just to mindlessly consume and engage in raw hedonism, something ancient societies knew was...
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
yes, equality is a virtue of which most of the people of a Secular society values.
ZZzzzzzWhat 5 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat
So you believe equality is a virtue. It's certainly not a virtue to most people outside of the West. There are people who are smarter. There are people who are stronger. There are people who are more virtuous. I fail to see the value in believing that we are all the same in spite of those obvious truths. You believe in it, but you cannot tell me why you do. So you appeal to a secular society; but then you cannot tell me why such a society is superior so you cite "tolerance." Lame.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
The need to find a common ground is exactly to end the disagreement.
"you think equality is some manifestation of progress" a very simplistic opinion of yours;
"which is highly dubious" why is dubious?
You tire me out because you never answer my questions and come with new subjects! e.g. you didn't even said what is you idea/notion of equality! you just dodge all questions like you did with this one..
ZZzzzzzWhat 5 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat
It is dubious to make the claim that because evolution exists, we are "progressing" toward equality. Only someone who thinks in fallacies can make such leaps in logic. These are not new subjects. This stuff is all related. You're just too myopic to see that.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
And why should we try to find common ground if we disagree? You think equality is some manifestation of progress and I don't. You justify this belief by citing evolution which is highly dubious. Then because I understandably find such claims to be outlandish, you accuse me of trying to "tire" you out.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
but what is the definition of that of which you "just believe in"
ZZzzzzzWhat 5 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat
Do you or do you not believe in equality?
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
It's just something you believe in. That's my "idea" of it.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
You're saying that because humans evolved, equality is inevitable? On what basis can you justify that statement?
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
i'm getting tired of this conversation (and i think this is your objective)
lets try to find a common ground shall we?
Whats your idea of equality?
ZZzzzzzWhat 5 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat
I told you that equality does not exist. You're more dogmatic than any religious thinker I know.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
If you think Japan is egalitarian (in the sense that we are), you are mistaken. Same with Singapore, China, and Korea (a place where I used to live). They are nice places to live, no doubt. But they do not view outsiders as their equals. And rightfully so.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
You have this conviction about equality that's not so unlike what a religious person thinks about God. Yet, you can scarcely justify it. All you do is appeal to some vague notions of evolution to try to explain how it's come about. Yet, you can't tell me *why* I should believe in it.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
@Icecreamforcrowtoo i've explained to you various times, the problem is that you are ignoring it to try to justify your point.
On which basis is my notion of equality equal to "what a religious person thinks about God"?
lol, these are not vague notions, in fact if you agree that humans evolved, and intelligence/principles/societies as well, you also agree with my point.
What do you mean by "why"? I've explained various times why there is the need for equality in a tolerable society.
ZZzzzzzWhat 5 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat
You're saying that because humans have evolved, that equality is inevitable? On what basis?
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
- equality did not came from christianity, in fact, all abrahamic religions are separatist and do not promote equality; - once again, equality, like morals and etics are subjected to various factor like culture/belief system. Saying equality is exclusive to western society is a statement of rude ignorance. There are plenty of Secular, equality promoting societies on the middle east, Asia and Oceania.
And telling that equality is technologically based is an even more ignorant statement.
ZZzzzzzWhat 5 months ago
Comment removed
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat
Even Karl Marx recognized that equality was based upon technological "progress."
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat
"- equality did not came from christianity, in fact, all abrahamic religions are separatist and do not promote equality;"
Judaism is not equality-based. One just has to look at modern Israel to see that. But Christianity, which comes mostly from Aristotilean metaphysics, is egalitarian.
You say that equality is "subjected to various factor" but you are not explaining why I should believe in it.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
Ancient China and contemporary China was/is pretty orderly. Athens was pretty orderly. Rome was pretty orderly. 1920s/30s Japan was pretty orderly as it remains so today. Nazi Germany was pretty orderly. None of those governments preached or preach equality.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
@Icecreamforcrowtoo lol, they didn't preach equality but they were also a not tolerable society whatsoever.
ZZzzzzzWhat 5 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat
Who cares. You keep using that word "tolerable" as if it's the end all by all justification for everything. They didn't have the crime rates or the social dysfunction either. But hey, anything for "tolerance" which I assume you mean to be permissiveness toward any type of hedonistic ventilation.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
Comment removed
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
The ability to entertain such sentimental garbage that has its genesis in Christian thinking toward the end of the Roman Empire.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"we shouldn't treat everyone the same."yap that's 'the golden rule' and it is not religiously based.
"Schools, universities, the government, the media, the U.N., businesses (by law); people appeal to it all the time. It's in the very air we breathe." ... and?
ZZzzzzzWhat 5 months ago
You don't hear people saying "we shouldn't treat everyone the same."
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
Tell me, is an aristocracy so bad?
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
@Icecreamforcrowtoo you're changing the subject all the time. you didn't even told me if you believe that principles like equality evolved with the growing complex society or if it was given by god.
ZZzzzzzWhat 5 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat
I already answered you. I don't believe in equality. I think equality came about because of Western society's Christian orientation. It doesn't exist in China. Or India. Or Africa. Or in the Middle East. We believe in it because our technological prowess gives us the ability of sentimental illusions.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
I know the modern liberal dispensation tells me to hate people who preach inequality, but the fact of the matter is the society we live under now is not so great due to this religious belief in equality.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
@Icecreamforcrowtoo who does preach equality?
ZZzzzzzWhat 5 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat
Schools, universities, the government, the media, the U.N., businesses (by law); people appeal to it all the time. It's in the very air we breathe.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
What's wrong with fascism? It's switched to equality because moral gravity for equality comes from Christianity.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
Simply because technology allows us to lie to ourselves about the nature of inequality doesn't mean that it's any less true. If the grid went down, all the flowery rhetoric about how evolved we are would go right down the tubes and non-egalitarian principles based on pure strength and hierarchy (and pre-Christian tradition) would re-establish themselves. Technology has simply made it more easier for us to lie about us all being equal.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
if you live on a Secular society, equality is part of the 'established order';
"I want to live in strong, virtuous society that doesn't "tolerate" weakness and degeneracy." if by 'weakness and degeneracy.' you mean equality, than you are refering to a Fascist Totalitarian society.
"you have to ignore basic facts" what do you mean by that?
and btw your speech as changed to an anti equality, why is that?
ZZzzzzzWhat 5 months ago
Comment removed
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
Equality is not an innate human attribute. That's nonsense. Most of the world rightfully does not imbibe egalitarian principles. We do because of the Christian legacy.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Icecreamforcrowtoo "Equality is not an innate human attribute." i never said it was, i was asking you're oppinion about that wich btw you dodged that question.
"We do because of the Christian legacy." hunn and which is that legacy? Christianism like all other abrahamic religions are separatist, the contrarie to equality.
ZZzzzzzWhat 5 months ago
so your point about what 'most people are able to follow' is rather meaningless. Most people follow the established order. Period.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
I already asked you, what is so great about a "tolerable" society? I want to live in strong, virtuous society that doesn't "tolerate" weakness and degeneracy. Why is tolerating vice some value to you?
People are unequal. To believe in equality, you have to ignore basic facts that even young children are aware of.
Simply because 'most people are able to follow' (whatever that means) doesn't make it right. And again, most of the world lives under non-egalitarian constructs so...
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
And the principle of equality (in the sense that you understand the word) comes from St. Paul-- Christianity. A belief system I reject with the full knowledge of knowing what I'm rejecting. You seem utterly clueless of your inconsistency, though.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
@Icecreamforcrowtoo i'm starting to loose my patience with this circular reasoning/ special pleading for gods existence.. lets try to find a common ground shall we?
Do you believe equality is was a principle that grown with our intelligence and acquired by the also evolved complex society? or do you believe equality is an innate human attribute given by god?
ZZzzzzzWhat 5 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat
I believe equality is non-sense that comes from Christian morality. You may not believe in the God, but the morality comes from that religion.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
I'm still wondering why equality is something I should value. Indeed, it's hard to find a single society that valued it in the same sense we do. The whole "we are all brothers in Christ" has had a profound effect (directly and indirectly) on Western thought in establishing egalitarian-based thought whether one believes in a religion or not. People sure didn't have a problem living in a less "tolerable" society during the pagan years. Inequality was often celebrated. Perhaps rightfully so.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
@Icecreamforcrowtoo sure but if we would compare an society during the pagan years with a society of nowerday it would be very much different. Like i said, these principles were passed trough time by generations and had alterations. The concept of equality is better and involves more aspect than on the "pagan years".
btw, if you believe on the evolutionary process of intelligence and society, your arguments of this being god made have to change considerably.
ZZzzzzzWhat 5 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat
Why is equality better? I think it allows mediocrity to flourish. The ancients felt the same way. Life is clearly not equal. You believe in a value that your own two eyes tells you is false.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
@Icecreamforcrowtoo i've mention it before. equality is a principle necessary for a tolerable society. just like morality and etics. As simple as that. No metaphysical nor magic necessary.
"Life is clearly not equal" sure, equality is just a principle whch most of us are able to follow, but there are always other factor that enable equality like relative cultural/religious belief systems.
"You believe in a value that your own two eyes tells you is false." could you be more clear about that?
ZZzzzzzWhat 5 months ago
Comment removed
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
wow calm down icyboy, .. if you believe in evolution then you know the humans had a primordial stage on which intelligence was almost as none and it evolved further then. principles like equality, morality and ethics were gradually acquired as intelligence developed and society grown to be more complex.
I never said it was "an opinion of the day", i even mentioned trans-generation.
ZZzzzzzWhat 5 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat
I'm just wondering why we should believe in equality. You can't seem to answer this question. Plato didn't. Aristotle didn't. Most societies outside the West today still don't. It's not some fact that equality is the truth. In fact, quite the opposite. My own eyes tell me that inequality is the truth. Yet, I'll bet you still believe in equality. Yet, you can't justify it. All you can do is explain how you think it evolved. But I didn't ask how it evolved.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
I do believe in evolution. I don't know why you make this assumption other than that your brain thinks in simplistic compartment-based thought. "Hmmm, he defends religion...must not like science or evolution."
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago
Giving order is not the same thing as interfering. Which I assumed was understood before this exchange began.
Icecreamforcrowtoo 5 months ago