Thanks for the implicit admission that your thinking is the product of indoctrination rather than insight.
The only things you understand, evidenced your behavior and postings, are celebrating yourself and lack of knowledge on the subject, listing only what you have been told to believe. The only apparent thing that you understand is denial of the thoughts of others and respond with an attack as listed in the above quoted post.
..nothing but ad hominem, again.. with some false accusations. Is that really all you have? I won't keep pointing this out, btw, but will just go to ignoring you.
On the contrary I reasoned my way out of my comprehensive childhood indoctrination. I must admit that even that didn't go so far as to attempt to redefine conscience/morality as god-given.
Please ignore me. It is a badge of honor considering the source. You tend to ignore anything of intelligence.
Seeing you don't understand what conscience is, it's hardly a surprise that your understanding of insight is absent as well. Oh sure, how could the meaning of conscience possibly deviate from that declared by some 19th century pinhead?
Done. And since you have little idea related content, but just personal snipes, it will be a welcome break.
from what I have seen on here so far that is their whole premise, they cant even tell us what their morals are! the only thing we have seen from them is the religion of lack.
And exactly what are your "morals"? Dismissing the truth is not considered a moral stance. Spreading false beliefs is not considered moral. Flip flopping about morals being the cause of religion but you must have a religion to have morals is not moral. In fact, it is just a plain lid, which is also considered immoral and breaks ranks with your alleged religion. BTW, a "lack of religion" is precisely what an atheist claims, it is you who keep trying to make that into a religion, and failing.
On that same note, how can those like you fail to see the error of your ways in following the words of a w000 year old goat herder in a book that has been altered countless times but continue to claim it as true in all aspects? Who is the pinhead?
I, too, will enjoy a respite from your personal attacks and false assumptions. Along with the ignorance displayed b your commentary.
How did you reason your definition of 'conscience/morality? From where does this phenomena come? You seem to believe, now, that it is a human construct, only, & is not an embedded trait from a Higher Power. How is this sense of 'morality' just a man made, arbitrary mandate? How would you know? Do the indoctrinated realize they are indoctrinated? Perhaps you exchanged one set of indoctrinated beliefs, for another. By what empirical basis do you believe in a purely naturalistic universe? Why does a supernatural possibility elicit such a hostile reaction? You cannot be certain that your beliefs about naturalistic origins of life, & the universe. There is no empirical evidence to support that belief, yet you think it is 'settled science', or such, & completely dismiss the possibility of a supernatural explanation. You have no more empirical evidence to support your belief, so why is the 'Godidit' premise so offensive to you? Either 'Godidit', or 'Nothindidit'. We are here. But there is no 'smoking gun', as to HOW we got here. None of the major mysteries of origins has any empirical evidence to support their belief. So why be hostile toward one belief, & cheer for the other?
there is no flip flopping, you fail to comprehend that the word religion can be used in different senses. most often in philosophy its used in the established group sense, I am pointing out its development. You cant have a religion before you have something to be religious about, that would be insanity.
Funny how those theists like you get to, according to you, pick which meaning that they want for religion. Usually the most convenient. As I stated before and you continue to fail to disprove, orals are a human concept. Religion took them over in a power grab to control peoples lives.
Now I have a link, to post it will save me lots of time as we do our repeat replay act ad infinitum. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/religion-and-morality.516320/#post-1068119706
Darwin wasn't the first by any means. http://symposia.templeton.org/evolution_of_conscience/ As for the rest, we are a product of nature, we exist within nature, therefore the supernatural, being outside nature, is not accessible to us.
One begins with the perceptable universe. We explore the heck out of it, discovering how it works in great detail. We gain confidence in our methodologies and conclusions as they allow us to answer questions that are increasingly difficult. The leap to the supernatural, thus rejecting all these methods, tools and discoveries needs some sort of justification, some sort of evidence. It makes no sense to do so without some sort of evidence. That necessary evidence has not been found. As I have pointed out to you in the past, I am not hostile to the possibility. I believe there is room for coexistence, though I have no interest in the supernatural. But, I am hostile to some of the expressions of some of those who espouse the supernatural. These have to do with the denial and even vilification of science in education, in public policy decision making, etc. That is an assault that mankind can not afford. It does very real damage. That is a ridiculous suggestion. There is major evidence concerning origins. And, there is a dramatic difference between the biblical creation story and evolution, for example. This particular assault on science has an obvious pernicious effect and must be opposed at every encounter.
Ever try to prove what a philosopher says in in fact true? Religion is philosophy and equally never have actual proof of what they claim. Especially including you.
The poster you are replying to exhibits extreme tunnel vision regarding his claims. Unable to admit other possibilities. The more proof provided to him the more he denies it.
Talking to an arrogant individual with an inflated sense of self importance who cannot accept the possibility that he is wrong. How is that? Which would fit perfectly with assigning you with the above appellation.
yeh there is an old saying that applies, opinions are like *******s everyone has one. however it does not change the fact that the lack of belief opinion is logically not feasible and as another said is that the best anyone can do is present probability. Lack of belief theory fails logic 101
And yet you have nothing but opinions, which you have described. Because YOU don't like something does not make it illogical or not feasible. In fact, with your posting history, it reinforces the truth of these thoughts. BTW, at some point you should consider taking a course in Logic. Perhaps then you would not make so many assine claims as to what it does and does not say.
