Can Atheists be Moral?

[G.T.]

Objective: Not influenced by personal feelings.

God has feelings. He is Loving, Jealous, Angry, disappointed, vengeful.

God's opinions are free to change, or God does not have free will.

Morality based on God would be subjective, God being the subject.

Morality based on human suffering is measurable, and these empirical measurements exist in spite of bias.

A moral system based on human suffering is far less subjective than one based on a God that experiences emotions and a preference for an outcome. Gods morality is even less objective when you consider the Laws he gave to Moses, vs. the moral disposition of Jesus. There was a change there, and a change is in conflict with moral objectivism based on a God.

 

[hobelim]

I haven't read the thread, since it's 64 pages. But imo the question isn't whether atheists can be moral. The question should be, what is their morality grounded in? The real problem with atheism is that it has no solid basis for objective morality. That's why most atheists will say that morality is subjective, or relative. And I have yet to meet an atheist who is bright enough to understand that if morality is subjective, then it's ultimately meaningless, since no one morality can ever be better than any other.

I think there is an argument to be made for moral relativity within the context of culture and time. Stoning a woman to death for adultery would surely be regarded as immoral today but not 5000 years ago. When Aztec priests ripped the heart out young girls in a sacrifice to their god a thousand years ago it was consider not just moral but the ultimate virtuous act.

That argument has been made, but I think there's a big misunderstanding there. Yes, cultural ideas on morality have changed over time, but it doesn't follow that the true nature of morality is relative or subjective. Adultery was wrong then and it's wrong now and it will always be wrong. (Regardless of what anyone believes.) The punishment for it has changed over time, as you brought up, but just because certain laws or customs are temporary doesn't mean that true (everlasting) morals and principles don't exist.

I hope that was clear.

You say adultery is wrong. But isn't it wrong to have married that person you don't love enough, in the first place?

Good point.

If talking serpents, talking donkeys, swine that do not ruminate, sheep, goats, wolves in sheep clothing etc., are metaphors for types of people then many well respected dedicated married religious folks are guilty of bestiality.

 

[Mindful]

I haven't read the thread, since it's 64 pages. But imo the question isn't whether atheists can be moral. The question should be, what is their morality grounded in? The real problem with atheism is that it has no solid basis for objective morality. That's why most atheists will say that morality is subjective, or relative. And I have yet to meet an atheist who is bright enough to understand that if morality is subjective, then it's ultimately meaningless, since no one morality can ever be better than any other.

I think there is an argument to be made for moral relativity within the context of culture and time. Stoning a woman to death for adultery would surely be regarded as immoral today but not 5000 years ago. When Aztec priests ripped the heart out young girls in a sacrifice to their god a thousand years ago it was consider not just moral but the ultimate virtuous act.

That argument has been made, but I think there's a big misunderstanding there. Yes, cultural ideas on morality have changed over time, but it doesn't follow that the true nature of morality is relative or subjective. Adultery was wrong then and it's wrong now and it will always be wrong. (Regardless of what anyone believes.) The punishment for it has changed over time, as you brought up, but just because certain laws or customs are temporary doesn't mean that true (everlasting) morals and principles don't exist.

I hope that was clear.

You say adultery is wrong. But isn't it wrong to have married that person you don't love enough, in the first place?

Good point.

If talking serpents, talking donkeys, swine that do not ruminate, sheep, goats, wolves in sheep clothing etc., are metaphors for types of people then many well respected dedicated married religious folks are guilty of bestiality.

Is eating meat immoral?

 

[hobelim]

I haven't read the thread, since it's 64 pages. But imo the question isn't whether atheists can be moral. The question should be, what is their morality grounded in? The real problem with atheism is that it has no solid basis for objective morality. That's why most atheists will say that morality is subjective, or relative. And I have yet to meet an atheist who is bright enough to understand that if morality is subjective, then it's ultimately meaningless, since no one morality can ever be better than any other.

I think there is an argument to be made for moral relativity within the context of culture and time. Stoning a woman to death for adultery would surely be regarded as immoral today but not 5000 years ago. When Aztec priests ripped the heart out young girls in a sacrifice to their god a thousand years ago it was consider not just moral but the ultimate virtuous act.

That argument has been made, but I think there's a big misunderstanding there. Yes, cultural ideas on morality have changed over time, but it doesn't follow that the true nature of morality is relative or subjective. Adultery was wrong then and it's wrong now and it will always be wrong. (Regardless of what anyone believes.) The punishment for it has changed over time, as you brought up, but just because certain laws or customs are temporary doesn't mean that true (everlasting) morals and principles don't exist.

I hope that was clear.

You say adultery is wrong. But isn't it wrong to have married that person you don't love enough, in the first place?

Good point.

If talking serpents, talking donkeys, swine that do not ruminate, sheep, goats, wolves in sheep clothing etc., are metaphors for types of people then many well respected dedicated married religious folks are guilty of bestiality.

Is eating meat immoral?

Of course not.

Eating the flesh of unclean creatures that do not ruminate is just dumb. their flesh defiles and contaminates the mind and consequently a persons entire experience of life.

 

[Mindful]

I think there is an argument to be made for moral relativity within the context of culture and time. Stoning a woman to death for adultery would surely be regarded as immoral today but not 5000 years ago. When Aztec priests ripped the heart out young girls in a sacrifice to their god a thousand years ago it was consider not just moral but the ultimate virtuous act.

That argument has been made, but I think there's a big misunderstanding there. Yes, cultural ideas on morality have changed over time, but it doesn't follow that the true nature of morality is relative or subjective. Adultery was wrong then and it's wrong now and it will always be wrong. (Regardless of what anyone believes.) The punishment for it has changed over time, as you brought up, but just because certain laws or customs are temporary doesn't mean that true (everlasting) morals and principles don't exist.

I hope that was clear.

You say adultery is wrong. But isn't it wrong to have married that person you don't love enough, in the first place?

Good point.

If talking serpents, talking donkeys, swine that do not ruminate, sheep, goats, wolves in sheep clothing etc., are metaphors for types of people then many well respected dedicated married religious folks are guilty of bestiality.

Is eating meat immoral?

Of course not.

Eating the flesh of unclean creatures that do not ruminate is just dumb. their flesh defiles and contaminates the mind and consequently a persons entire experience of life.

The manner of slaughter I was alluding to.

 

[hobelim]

That argument has been made, but I think there's a big misunderstanding there. Yes, cultural ideas on morality have changed over time, but it doesn't follow that the true nature of morality is relative or subjective. Adultery was wrong then and it's wrong now and it will always be wrong. (Regardless of what anyone believes.) The punishment for it has changed over time, as you brought up, but just because certain laws or customs are temporary doesn't mean that true (everlasting) morals and principles don't exist.

I hope that was clear.

You say adultery is wrong. But isn't it wrong to have married that person you don't love enough, in the first place?

Good point.

If talking serpents, talking donkeys, swine that do not ruminate, sheep, goats, wolves in sheep clothing etc., are metaphors for types of people then many well respected dedicated married religious folks are guilty of bestiality.

Is eating meat immoral?

Of course not.

Eating the flesh of unclean creatures that do not ruminate is just dumb. their flesh defiles and contaminates the mind and consequently a persons entire experience of life.

The manner of slaughter I was alluding to.

I can't speak for other people but when I slaughter a he goat without blemish for the expiation of sin I do it in the kindest way possible with a razor sharp knife forged by angels in heavenly fire.

They do not even realize their throats have been cut as their blood drains into the ground.

 

[MedfordMan]

Objective: Not influenced by personal feelings.

God has feelings. He is Loving, Jealous, Angry, disappointed, vengeful.

God's opinions are free to change, or God does not have free will.

Morality based on God would be subjective, God being the subject.

Morality based on human suffering is measurable, and these empirical measurements exist in spite of bias.

A moral system based on human suffering is far less subjective than one based on a God that experiences emotions and a preference for an outcome. Gods morality is even less objective when you consider the Laws he gave to Moses, vs. the moral disposition of Jesus. There was a change there, and a change is in conflict with moral objectivism based on a God.

Your argument misrepresents God, but it perfectly sums up the underlying argument of everyone who doesn't believe in God.

God is not human. God does not have feelings. Human feelings are one of the ways we experience the world of which God is the creator.

God does not change.

God does not need free will, as he operates outside the space time continuum. He sees the past, present and future simultaneously, so his will and plan is perfect.

Still, it's your post modernist argument that each person's subjective experience is more valid than that of an entity so powerful it created the universe and everything in it is intrinsically flawed.

You see unbelief comes down to a very simple choice. Do I submit to something greater than myself or do I seek to elevate myself, so I don't have to submit to anything and I can act in accordance with my selfish and base desires.

It's the latter choice which is the source of all human suffering.

 

[G.T.]

Objective: Not influenced by personal feelings.

God has feelings. He is Loving, Jealous, Angry, disappointed, vengeful.

God's opinions are free to change, or God does not have free will.

Morality based on God would be subjective, God being the subject.

Morality based on human suffering is measurable, and these empirical measurements exist in spite of bias.

A moral system based on human suffering is far less subjective than one based on a God that experiences emotions and a preference for an outcome. Gods morality is even less objective when you consider the Laws he gave to Moses, vs. the moral disposition of Jesus. There was a change there, and a change is in conflict with moral objectivism based on a God.

Your argument misrepresents God, but it perfectly sums up the underlying argument of everyone who doesn't believe in God.

God is not human. God does not have feelings. Human feelings are one of the ways we experience the world of which God is the creator.

God does not change.

God does not need free will, as he operates outside the space time continuum. He sees the past, present and future simultaneously, so his will and plan is perfect.The

Still, it's your post modernist argument that each person's subjective experience is more valid than that of an entity so powerful it created the universe and everything in it.

You see unbelief comes down to a very simple choice. Do I submit to something greater than myself or do I seek to elevate myself, so I don't have to submit to anything and I can act in accordance with my selfish and base desires.

It's the latter choice which is the source of all human suffering.

You didnt answer the objection succinctly - the bible uses specific adjectives to describe God's emotions, and you just denied it based on you said so.

Second, I didnt apply subjectivism based on any 1 human individual, so that wasn't pertinent but was a strawman. I appealed to measured human suffering, something concrete as opposed to God who is 1 subject that has emotions, whose morals at least described in the Bible DID change and his adjective of being "un changing" is just another Biblical contradiction ~ and it also causes more logical issues than it resolves.

 

[MedfordMan]

Once again morality is a human construct.

By less moral, I assume you mean less tolerant.

The bible doesn't teach tolerance it teaches love. (One is selfish and one is selfless)

Jesus was extremely intolerant of sin, but in a loving way.

Sin isn't bad because it is forbidden. Sin is forbidden because it is bad (for us).

unfortunately our selfish sin nature wants to do what it wants to do and it makes us recoil from anyone or anything that tells us what to do.

Therefore mankind brands intolerance (even when it's actually love) hate.

Morals are 100% relative. I've argued that til I'm blue in the face.

But "intolerance is love"?

Pull the other one.

Sometimes intolerance is love.

Jesus forgave the woman caught in the act of adultery, but he warned her to go and sin no more (demonstrating his intolerance of the act which brought her into his presence)

"Go and sin no more" is the opposite of intolerance.

How do you figure?

What tolerant person would even have the right to express their own morals to this woman and suggest she conform her actions to their set of beliefs, risking making her feel bad?

Still, since you persist in this untenable position, I'll give you another example.

In the old testament adultery is forbidden in the ten commandments. In the new testament, Jesus says if you even look at a woman with lust in your heart you've already committed adultery.

would you consider it intolerant of Jesus to tell others what represents sexual impropriety for them, especially when he teaches that this sin will land them in Hell?

Explaining where someone went wrong (in your opinion) and encouraging them not not to do it again is not intolerance.

Crepitus,

Since I seem to be encountering a moving goal post, how do you define intolerance?

 

[anynameyouwish]

I haven't read the thread, since it's 64 pages. But imo the question isn't whether atheists can be moral. The question should be, what is their morality grounded in? The real problem with atheism is that it has no solid basis for objective morality. That's why most atheists will say that morality is subjective, or relative. And I have yet to meet an atheist who is bright enough to understand that if morality is subjective, then it's ultimately meaningless, since no one morality can ever be better than any other.

I think there is an argument to be made for moral relativity within the context of culture and time. Stoning a woman to death for adultery would surely be regarded as immoral today but not 5000 years ago. When Aztec priests ripped the heart out young girls in a sacrifice to their god a thousand years ago it was consider not just moral but the ultimate virtuous act.

That argument has been made, but I think there's a big misunderstanding there. Yes, cultural ideas on morality have changed over time, but it doesn't follow that the true nature of morality is relative or subjective. Adultery was wrong then and it's wrong now and it will always be wrong. (Regardless of what anyone believes.) The punishment for it has changed over time, as you brought up, but just because certain laws or customs are temporary doesn't mean that true (everlasting) morals and principles don't exist.

I hope that was clear.

"but just because certain laws or customs are temporary doesn't mean that true (everlasting) morals and principles don't exist."

ok....

murder and theft....

after that....what ya got?

what EVERLASTING morals and principles?



"

 

[Crepitus]

Morals are 100% relative. I've argued that til I'm blue in the face.

But "intolerance is love"?

Pull the other one.

Sometimes intolerance is love.

Jesus forgave the woman caught in the act of adultery, but he warned her to go and sin no more (demonstrating his intolerance of the act which brought her into his presence)

"Go and sin no more" is the opposite of intolerance.

How do you figure?

What tolerant person would even have the right to express their own morals to this woman and suggest she conform her actions to their set of beliefs, risking making her feel bad?

Still, since you persist in this untenable position, I'll give you another example.

In the old testament adultery is forbidden in the ten commandments. In the new testament, Jesus says if you even look at a woman with lust in your heart you've already committed adultery.

would you consider it intolerant of Jesus to tell others what represents sexual impropriety for them, especially when he teaches that this sin will land them in Hell?

Explaining where someone went wrong (in your opinion) and encouraging them not not to do it again is not intolerance.

Crepitus,

Since I seem to be encountering a moving goal post, how do you define intolerance?

I'm not moving anything, you are just using your own definition instead of the one everyone else uses. Here is an example of intolerance.

Now that 'Childhood Trauma' (#ACEs) victim-survivor Oprah Winfrey LOUDLY addressed our Nation's *CHILD CARE* PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS, will YOU, a responsible, caring American citizen join Oprah & Dr. Nadine Burke Harris, MD, pediatrician & CEO of 'The Center For Youth Wellness', in passionately calling for a National MOVEMENT educating American & foreign born primary child caregivers about a potentially life scarring medical disease/condition:

"Childhood Trauma" aka
"Adverse Childhood Experiences" (#ACEs)
___
During a March 11, 2018 '60 Minutes' segment titled, "Treating Trauma," Oprah Winfrey, a 'Childhood Trauma' (#ACEs) victim-survivor, shared knowledge regarding America's easily PREVENTABLE, though potentially life scarring *CHILD CARE* PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS.

EYE-OPENING knowledge Oprah exuberantly confirms is a "game changer."

YouTube search terms: "Oprah Winfrey 'Fixing The 'Hole In Your Soul'"


___

Medical doctors Harris, Ross and Dietz offer insights into how our Early Childhood Development plays a key role in determining the type of individual we mature into
.
"How 'Childhood Trauma' (ACEs) affects health across a lifetime" - Pediatrician Dr. Nadine Burke Harris, M.D.



Dr. Robert K. Ross, MD, President and CEO of The California Endowment, addressed inmates at Ironwood State Prison offering a compelling overview of the role that exposure to *Childhood Trauma* plays in the lives of *Emotionally Troubled* and chronically ill American teens and ADULTS.



Speaking with Mafia hit-man and victim of Early Criminal Childhood Trauma/Abuse Richard "The Iceman" Kuklinski, Dr. Park Dietz explains why Richard most likely developed into a emotionally disturbed, paranoid, cruel, heartless teen and man largely incapable of embracing the human capacity for compassion, empathy or respect for his peaceful or less fortunate neighbors.


___
Black Children Exposed to Violence

Peace.
___
American *(Children)* Lives Matter; Take Pride In Parenting; *End Our National Epidemic of Child Abuse and Neglect*; End Community Violence, Police Anxiety & Educator's Frustrations

 

[anynameyouwish]

I haven't read the thread, since it's 64 pages. But imo the question isn't whether atheists can be moral. The question should be, what is their morality grounded in? The real problem with atheism is that it has no solid basis for objective morality. That's why most atheists will say that morality is subjective, or relative. And I have yet to meet an atheist who is bright enough to understand that if morality is subjective, then it's ultimately meaningless, since no one morality can ever be better than any other.

I think there is an argument to be made for moral relativity within the context of culture and time. Stoning a woman to death for adultery would surely be regarded as immoral today but not 5000 years ago. When Aztec priests ripped the heart out young girls in a sacrifice to their god a thousand years ago it was consider not just moral but the ultimate virtuous act.

That argument has been made, but I think there's a big misunderstanding there. Yes, cultural ideas on morality have changed over time, but it doesn't follow that the true nature of morality is relative or subjective. Adultery was wrong then and it's wrong now and it will always be wrong. (Regardless of what anyone believes.) The punishment for it has changed over time, as you brought up, but just because certain laws or customs are temporary doesn't mean that true (everlasting) morals and principles don't exist.



I hope that was clear.

"Adultery was wrong then and it's wrong now and it will always be wrong."

not in a society that didn't give a hoot who you had sex with.

 

[hobelim]

ok....

murder and theft....

after that....what ya got?

what EVERLASTING morals and principles?

If you eat the flesh of unclean creatures that do not ruminate you will be defiled and contaminated, their flesh is vile and loathsome.

In other words if you swallow the teachings of people who do not think deeply without thinking at all, that vile and loathsome teaching will defile and contaminate your mind and you will become an unclean creature incapable of thinking deeply and you will say and do stupid things that injure yourself and the people you love, sometimes for decades, sometimes for the rest of your life.

This has always been and will always be true.

To sum up kosher law, Stand guard over the purity of your own mind, the seat of your consciousness and entire experience of life. Learn to differentiate between clean and unclean teaching. If you don't, you will fuck up your mind and your life.

When was this or will this ever be irrelevant? Will there ever come a time when adopting irrational beliefs into your thought processes will make you a rational person?

 

[MedfordMan]

Objective: Not influenced by personal feelings.

God has feelings. He is Loving, Jealous, Angry, disappointed, vengeful.

God's opinions are free to change, or God does not have free will.

Morality based on God would be subjective, God being the subject.

Morality based on human suffering is measurable, and these empirical measurements exist in spite of bias.

A moral system based on human suffering is far less subjective than one based on a God that experiences emotions and a preference for an outcome. Gods morality is even less objective when you consider the Laws he gave to Moses, vs. the moral disposition of Jesus. There was a change there, and a change is in conflict with moral objectivism based on a God.

Your argument misrepresents God, but it perfectly sums up the underlying argument of everyone who doesn't believe in God.

God is not human. God does not have feelings. Human feelings are one of the ways we experience the world of which God is the creator.

God does not change.

God does not need free will, as he operates outside the space time continuum. He sees the past, present and future simultaneously, so his will and plan is perfect.The

Still, it's your post modernist argument that each person's subjective experience is more valid than that of an entity so powerful it created the universe and everything in it.

You see unbelief comes down to a very simple choice. Do I submit to something greater than myself or do I seek to elevate myself, so I don't have to submit to anything and I can act in accordance with my selfish and base desires.

It's the latter choice which is the source of all human suffering.

You didnt answer the objection succinctly - the bible uses specific adjectives to describe God's emotions, and you just denied it based on you said so.

Second, I didnt apply subjectivism based on any 1 human individual, so that wasn't pertinent but was a strawman. I appealed to measured human suffering, something concrete as opposed to God who is 1 subject that has emotions, whose morals at least described in the Bible DID change and his adjective of being "un changing" is just another Biblical contradiction ~ and it also causes more logical issues than it resolves.

Well there is a long history of biblical scholarship that addresses these issues, but since I doubt that you want to educate yourself on it, I thought I'd provide the cliffs notes version for you.

I believe the use of Human emotions to explain God's behavior represents a challenge in translating God to us. The use of emotions is less about God's state of mind and more about we as limited beings understand how and why God moves.

Your whole argument was subjective although you artfully tried to dress it up as something else.

Human suffering is far from concrete (as the 21st century has proven), but it is easier to understand than a super natural entity powerful enough to create the universe and everything in it.

Ironically, that is why Jesus is such an important part of the Bible story. Through Jesus, God became a man, to show us that he fully understands us though we continue to struggle to understand God.

 

[G.T.]

Objective: Not influenced by personal feelings.

God has feelings. He is Loving, Jealous, Angry, disappointed, vengeful.

God's opinions are free to change, or God does not have free will.

Morality based on God would be subjective, God being the subject.

Morality based on human suffering is measurable, and these empirical measurements exist in spite of bias.

A moral system based on human suffering is far less subjective than one based on a God that experiences emotions and a preference for an outcome. Gods morality is even less objective when you consider the Laws he gave to Moses, vs. the moral disposition of Jesus. There was a change there, and a change is in conflict with moral objectivism based on a God.

Your argument misrepresents God, but it perfectly sums up the underlying argument of everyone who doesn't believe in God.

God is not human. God does not have feelings. Human feelings are one of the ways we experience the world of which God is the creator.

God does not change.

God does not need free will, as he operates outside the space time continuum. He sees the past, present and future simultaneously, so his will and plan is perfect.The

Still, it's your post modernist argument that each person's subjective experience is more valid than that of an entity so powerful it created the universe and everything in it.

You see unbelief comes down to a very simple choice. Do I submit to something greater than myself or do I seek to elevate myself, so I don't have to submit to anything and I can act in accordance with my selfish and base desires.

It's the latter choice which is the source of all human suffering.

You didnt answer the objection succinctly - the bible uses specific adjectives to describe God's emotions, and you just denied it based on you said so.

Second, I didnt apply subjectivism based on any 1 human individual, so that wasn't pertinent but was a strawman. I appealed to measured human suffering, something concrete as opposed to God who is 1 subject that has emotions, whose morals at least described in the Bible DID change and his adjective of being "un changing" is just another Biblical contradiction ~ and it also causes more logical issues than it resolves.

Well there is a long history of biblical scholarship that addresses these issues, but since I doubt that you want to educate yourself on it, I thought I'd provide the cliffs notes version for you.

I believe the use of Human emotions to explain God's behavior represents a challenge in translating God to us. The use of emotions is less about God's state of mind and more about we as limited beings understand how and why God moves.

Your whole argument was subjective although you artfully tried to dress it up as something else.

Human suffering is far from concrete (as the 21st century has proven), but it is easier to understand than a super natural entity powerful enough to create the universe and everything in it.

Ironically, that is why Jesus is such an important part of the Bible story. Through Jesus, God became a man, to show us that he fully understands us though we continue to struggle to understand God.

Now you're just special pleading. You want to explain away God's described emotions by saying they were simple place-holders, and a function of a misunderstanding ~ but you did not establish that as fact it's just a claim. Decoder ring fallacy.

 

[MedfordMan]

Sometimes intolerance is love.

Jesus forgave the woman caught in the act of adultery, but he warned her to go and sin no more (demonstrating his intolerance of the act which brought her into his presence)

"Go and sin no more" is the opposite of intolerance.

How do you figure?

What tolerant person would even have the right to express their own morals to this woman and suggest she conform her actions to their set of beliefs, risking making her feel bad?

Still, since you persist in this untenable position, I'll give you another example.

In the old testament adultery is forbidden in the ten commandments. In the new testament, Jesus says if you even look at a woman with lust in your heart you've already committed adultery.

would you consider it intolerant of Jesus to tell others what represents sexual impropriety for them, especially when he teaches that this sin will land them in Hell?

Explaining where someone went wrong (in your opinion) and encouraging them not not to do it again is not intolerance.

Crepitus,

Since I seem to be encountering a moving goal post, how do you define intolerance?

I'm not moving anything, you are just using your own definition instead of the one everyone else uses. Here is an example of intolerance.

Now that 'Childhood Trauma' (#ACEs) victim-survivor Oprah Winfrey LOUDLY addressed our Nation's *CHILD CARE* PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS, will YOU, a responsible, caring American citizen join Oprah & Dr. Nadine Burke Harris, MD, pediatrician & CEO of 'The Center For Youth Wellness', in passionately calling for a National MOVEMENT educating American & foreign born primary child caregivers about a potentially life scarring medical disease/condition:

"Childhood Trauma" aka
"Adverse Childhood Experiences" (#ACEs)
___
During a March 11, 2018 '60 Minutes' segment titled, "Treating Trauma," Oprah Winfrey, a 'Childhood Trauma' (#ACEs) victim-survivor, shared knowledge regarding America's easily PREVENTABLE, though potentially life scarring *CHILD CARE* PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS.

EYE-OPENING knowledge Oprah exuberantly confirms is a "game changer."

YouTube search terms: "Oprah Winfrey 'Fixing The 'Hole In Your Soul'"


___

Medical doctors Harris, Ross and Dietz offer insights into how our Early Childhood Development plays a key role in determining the type of individual we mature into
.
"How 'Childhood Trauma' (ACEs) affects health across a lifetime" - Pediatrician Dr. Nadine Burke Harris, M.D.



Dr. Robert K. Ross, MD, President and CEO of The California Endowment, addressed inmates at Ironwood State Prison offering a compelling overview of the role that exposure to *Childhood Trauma* plays in the lives of *Emotionally Troubled* and chronically ill American teens and ADULTS.



Speaking with Mafia hit-man and victim of Early Criminal Childhood Trauma/Abuse Richard "The Iceman" Kuklinski, Dr. Park Dietz explains why Richard most likely developed into a emotionally disturbed, paranoid, cruel, heartless teen and man largely incapable of embracing the human capacity for compassion, empathy or respect for his peaceful or less fortunate neighbors.


___
Black Children Exposed to Violence

Peace.
___
American *(Children)* Lives Matter; Take Pride In Parenting; *End Our National Epidemic of Child Abuse and Neglect*; End Community Violence, Police Anxiety & Educator's Frustrations

The Potter Stewart threshold for intolerance - you know it when you see it.

How convenient.

The fact that you objected to my moving goal post reference is particularly ironic given the set up.

If intolerance is objective then it should be something which can be defined. Define it.

 

[anynameyouwish]

ok....

murder and theft....

after that....what ya got?

what EVERLASTING morals and principles?

If you eat the flesh of unclean creatures that do not ruminate you will be defiled and contaminated, their flesh is vile and loathsome.

In other words if you swallow the teachings of people who do not think deeply without thinking at all, that vile and loathsome teaching will defile and contaminate your mind and you will become an unclean creature incapable of thinking deeply and you will say and do stupid things that injure yourself and the people you love, sometimes for decades, sometimes for the rest of your life.

This has always been and will always be true.

To sum up kosher law, Stand guard over the purity of your own mind, the seat of your consciousness and entire experience of life. Learn to differentiate between clean and unclean teaching. If you don't, you will fuck up your mind and your life.

When was this or will this ever be irrelevant? Will there ever come a time when adopting irrational beliefs into your thought processes will make you a rational person?

"In other words if you swallow the teachings of people who do not think deeply without thinking at all, that vile and loathsome teaching will defile and contaminate your mind and you will become an unclean creature incapable of thinking deeply and you will say and do stupid things that injure yourself and the people you love, sometimes for decades, sometimes for the rest of your life."




I got it!

I should NOT listen to people who quote the bible because they are NOT deep thinkers and are only regurgitating nonsense that they NEVER questioned!

Thank you for that advice!

 

[hobelim]

ok....

murder and theft....

after that....what ya got?

what EVERLASTING morals and principles?

If you eat the flesh of unclean creatures that do not ruminate you will be defiled and contaminated, their flesh is vile and loathsome.

In other words if you swallow the teachings of people who do not think deeply without thinking at all, that vile and loathsome teaching will defile and contaminate your mind and you will become an unclean creature incapable of thinking deeply and you will say and do stupid things that injure yourself and the people you love, sometimes for decades, sometimes for the rest of your life.

This has always been and will always be true.

To sum up kosher law, Stand guard over the purity of your own mind, the seat of your consciousness and entire experience of life. Learn to differentiate between clean and unclean teaching. If you don't, you will fuck up your mind and your life.

When was this or will this ever be irrelevant? Will there ever come a time when adopting irrational beliefs into your thought processes will make you a rational person?

"In other words if you swallow the teachings of people who do not think deeply without thinking at all, that vile and loathsome teaching will defile and contaminate your mind and you will become an unclean creature incapable of thinking deeply and you will say and do stupid things that injure yourself and the people you love, sometimes for decades, sometimes for the rest of your life."




I got it!

I should NOT listen to people who quote the bible because they are NOT deep thinkers and are only regurgitating nonsense that they NEVER questioned!

Thank you for that advice!

Excellent. Just one minor correction.

"I should NOT listen to people who take the bible literally because they are NOT deep thinkers and are only regurgitating nonsense that they NEVER questioned!"

You still get an A for effort!

 

[anynameyouwish]

ok....

murder and theft....

after that....what ya got?

what EVERLASTING morals and principles?

If you eat the flesh of unclean creatures that do not ruminate you will be defiled and contaminated, their flesh is vile and loathsome.

In other words if you swallow the teachings of people who do not think deeply without thinking at all, that vile and loathsome teaching will defile and contaminate your mind and you will become an unclean creature incapable of thinking deeply and you will say and do stupid things that injure yourself and the people you love, sometimes for decades, sometimes for the rest of your life.

This has always been and will always be true.

To sum up kosher law, Stand guard over the purity of your own mind, the seat of your consciousness and entire experience of life. Learn to differentiate between clean and unclean teaching. If you don't, you will fuck up your mind and your life.

When was this or will this ever be irrelevant? Will there ever come a time when adopting irrational beliefs into your thought processes will make you a rational person?

"In other words if you swallow the teachings of people who do not think deeply without thinking at all, that vile and loathsome teaching will defile and contaminate your mind and you will become an unclean creature incapable of thinking deeply and you will say and do stupid things that injure yourself and the people you love, sometimes for decades, sometimes for the rest of your life."




I got it!

I should NOT listen to people who quote the bible because they are NOT deep thinkers and are only regurgitating nonsense that they NEVER questioned!

Thank you for that advice!

Excellent. Just one minor correction.

"I should NOT listen to people who take the bible literally because they are NOT deep thinkers and are only regurgitating nonsense that they NEVER questioned!"

You still get an A for effort!

Do I get a gold star, too?

 

[hobelim]

ok....

murder and theft....

after that....what ya got?

what EVERLASTING morals and principles?

If you eat the flesh of unclean creatures that do not ruminate you will be defiled and contaminated, their flesh is vile and loathsome.

In other words if you swallow the teachings of people who do not think deeply without thinking at all, that vile and loathsome teaching will defile and contaminate your mind and you will become an unclean creature incapable of thinking deeply and you will say and do stupid things that injure yourself and the people you love, sometimes for decades, sometimes for the rest of your life.

This has always been and will always be true.

To sum up kosher law, Stand guard over the purity of your own mind, the seat of your consciousness and entire experience of life. Learn to differentiate between clean and unclean teaching. If you don't, you will fuck up your mind and your life.

When was this or will this ever be irrelevant? Will there ever come a time when adopting irrational beliefs into your thought processes will make you a rational person?

"In other words if you swallow the teachings of people who do not think deeply without thinking at all, that vile and loathsome teaching will defile and contaminate your mind and you will become an unclean creature incapable of thinking deeply and you will say and do stupid things that injure yourself and the people you love, sometimes for decades, sometimes for the rest of your life."




I got it!

I should NOT listen to people who quote the bible because they are NOT deep thinkers and are only regurgitating nonsense that they NEVER questioned!

Thank you for that advice!

Excellent. Just one minor correction.

"I should NOT listen to people who take the bible literally because they are NOT deep thinkers and are only regurgitating nonsense that they NEVER questioned!"

You still get an A for effort!

Do I get a gold star, too?

Better than that.

I will give you a name.

Kosher creature aka, KC, Son of Meanie. Now go find the jawbone of an ass and slaughter some philistines!