Can Atheists be Moral?

[Taz]

Sod Jews are descended from apes.

That would be the great apes., Sirs to you.

So you believe in evolution. It's a start.

I did until I met you.

Now I also believe in devolution.

In full view of everyone here you went from a creature with the form and shape of a flabby human being and an intelligence just slightly above that of a monkey into a shapeless quivering puddle of smelly pond scum.

Its fascinating! People are taking pictures and jotting down notes

So Jesus descended from an ape?

Who can say? People have been searching high and low for a pair of his underwear so they could take a DNA test but so far, nothing.

I am beginning to suspect that he didn't wear any.

There must be a cum shot on some guy’s shorts.

 

[hobelim]

That would be the great apes., Sirs to you.

So you believe in evolution. It's a start.

I did until I met you.

Now I also believe in devolution.

In full view of everyone here you went from a creature with the form and shape of a flabby human being and an intelligence just slightly above that of a monkey into a shapeless quivering puddle of smelly pond scum.

Its fascinating! People are taking pictures and jotting down notes

So Jesus descended from an ape?

Who can say? People have been searching high and low for a pair of his underwear so they could take a DNA test but so far, nothing.

I am beginning to suspect that he didn't wear any.

There must be a cum shot on some guy’s shorts.

Yes, of course. Brilliant! Why didn't I think of that?

With all of that stuff dribbling around everywhere just like you said, and you would know, there must be. Maybe some blood or even a shit stain!

Dexter will arrive shortly at your back door to collect your tighty whities for testing.

 

[Taz]

So you believe in evolution. It's a start.

I did until I met you.

Now I also believe in devolution.

In full view of everyone here you went from a creature with the form and shape of a flabby human being and an intelligence just slightly above that of a monkey into a shapeless quivering puddle of smelly pond scum.

Its fascinating! People are taking pictures and jotting down notes

So Jesus descended from an ape?

Who can say? People have been searching high and low for a pair of his underwear so they could take a DNA test but so far, nothing.

I am beginning to suspect that he didn't wear any.

There must be a cum shot on some guy’s shorts.

Yes, of course. Brilliant! Why didn't I think of that?

With all of that stuff dribbling around everywhere just like you said, and you would know, there must be. Maybe some blood or even a shit stain!

Dexter will arrive shortly at your back door to collect your tighty whities for testing.

Yes, a shit stain from the cross would do it. Jesus would have likely have had at least one wet fart up there.

 

[hobelim]

I did until I met you.

Now I also believe in devolution.

In full view of everyone here you went from a creature with the form and shape of a flabby human being and an intelligence just slightly above that of a monkey into a shapeless quivering puddle of smelly pond scum.

Its fascinating! People are taking pictures and jotting down notes

So Jesus descended from an ape?

Who can say? People have been searching high and low for a pair of his underwear so they could take a DNA test but so far, nothing.

I am beginning to suspect that he didn't wear any.

There must be a cum shot on some guy’s shorts.

Yes, of course. Brilliant! Why didn't I think of that?

With all of that stuff dribbling around everywhere just like you said, and you would know, there must be. Maybe some blood or even a shit stain!

Dexter will arrive shortly at your back door to collect your tighty whities for testing.

Yes, a shit stain from the cross would do it. Jesus would have likely have had at least one wet fart up there.

Do you think he was a vegetarian?

 

[Taz]

So Jesus descended from an ape?

Who can say? People have been searching high and low for a pair of his underwear so they could take a DNA test but so far, nothing.

I am beginning to suspect that he didn't wear any.

There must be a cum shot on some guy’s shorts.

Yes, of course. Brilliant! Why didn't I think of that?

With all of that stuff dribbling around everywhere just like you said, and you would know, there must be. Maybe some blood or even a shit stain!

Dexter will arrive shortly at your back door to collect your tighty whities for testing.

Yes, a shit stain from the cross would do it. Jesus would have likely have had at least one wet fart up there.

Do you think he was a vegetarian?

He probably ate some cock, so no.

 

[danielpalos]

i am willing to barter full body massage for coconut oil; feel free to call me a liar and make me Prove it, chics.

 

[hobelim]

Who can say? People have been searching high and low for a pair of his underwear so they could take a DNA test but so far, nothing.

I am beginning to suspect that he didn't wear any.

There must be a cum shot on some guy’s shorts.

Yes, of course. Brilliant! Why didn't I think of that?

With all of that stuff dribbling around everywhere just like you said, and you would know, there must be. Maybe some blood or even a shit stain!

Dexter will arrive shortly at your back door to collect your tighty whities for testing.

Yes, a shit stain from the cross would do it. Jesus would have likely have had at least one wet fart up there.

Do you think he was a vegetarian?

He probably ate some cock, so no.

Yeah but if it was black bean imitation cock it doesn't count.

 

[BreezeWood]

the question for bing is whether humanity evolved from the same initial life template as all other physiological beings on earth or as being distinct from the metaphysical Garden which itself evolved on Earth's surface.

There’s only about 1% that separates us from the monkeys.

1% or 2% difference represents at least 15 million changes in our genome since the time of our common ancestor about six million years ago..

.

Light being spoken into existence into a world that was without shape or form and void is about the law coming into the world ...

The creation of heaven and earth and the beginning of the universe are two entirely different subjects.

1% or 2% difference represents at least 15 million changes in our genome since the time of our common ancestor about six million years ago..

the question ... is whether humanity evolved from the same initial life template as all other physiological beings on earth or as being distinct from the metaphysical Garden which itself evolved on Earth's surface.

- is about the law coming into the world ...

is that morality

I did not read where you cleared up your understanding of when the light came into the world, hob - was it special for humanity as a distinctly made being or for all physiological beings, Flora and Fauna the evolution of life, Garden Earth on this planet. -

in your religion opinion, was it when the initial life template first became alive.

 

[DGS49]

Atheists can be ethical, but not "moral." Moral implies accession to a higher authority, and moral imperatives often involve behavior that is not overtly harmful (e.g., lust, greed, hatred), and their ethics only kick in when actual, demonstrable harm is imminent or visible.

A Moral person abhors abortion even while acknowledging that the beginning of "personhood" is in question. It is the mere possibility that abortion kills a person that makes it morally unacceptable.

The Ethical person sanctions abortion, as long as the personhood of the fetus cannot be demonstrated.

Huge difference.

I have a brother and his wife are church going Christians and like half the congregation, they are pro choice. How do you explain that?

There is NO MORAL ARGUMENT for abortion, under any but the most extreme cases (e.g., the mother will die if she has to go through with childbirth). Your relatives are hypocrites.

Like most of us.

 

[sealybobo]

Atheists can be ethical, but not "moral." Moral implies accession to a higher authority, and moral imperatives often involve behavior that is not overtly harmful (e.g., lust, greed, hatred), and their ethics only kick in when actual, demonstrable harm is imminent or visible.

A Moral person abhors abortion even while acknowledging that the beginning of "personhood" is in question. It is the mere possibility that abortion kills a person that makes it morally unacceptable.

The Ethical person sanctions abortion, as long as the personhood of the fetus cannot be demonstrated.

Huge difference.

I have a brother and his wife are church going Christians and like half the congregation, they are pro choice. How do you explain that?

There is NO MORAL ARGUMENT for abortion, under any but the most extreme cases (e.g., the mother will die if she has to go through with childbirth). Your relatives are hypocrites.

Like most of us.

Well sure getting an abortion could never be put on the list of things that are moral.

Neither is cheating on your wife. It's not illegal though.

 

[ding]

Atheists can be ethical, but not "moral." Moral implies accession to a higher authority, and moral imperatives often involve behavior that is not overtly harmful (e.g., lust, greed, hatred), and their ethics only kick in when actual, demonstrable harm is imminent or visible.

A Moral person abhors abortion even while acknowledging that the beginning of "personhood" is in question. It is the mere possibility that abortion kills a person that makes it morally unacceptable.

The Ethical person sanctions abortion, as long as the personhood of the fetus cannot be demonstrated.

Huge difference.

I have a brother and his wife are church going Christians and like half the congregation, they are pro choice. How do you explain that?

There is NO MORAL ARGUMENT for abortion, under any but the most extreme cases (e.g., the mother will die if she has to go through with childbirth). Your relatives are hypocrites.

Like most of us.

Well sure getting an abortion could never be put on the list of things that are moral.

Neither is cheating on your wife. It's not illegal though.

There may be hope for you yet.

 

[ding]

Atheists can be ethical, but not "moral." Moral implies accession to a higher authority, and moral imperatives often involve behavior that is not overtly harmful (e.g., lust, greed, hatred), and their ethics only kick in when actual, demonstrable harm is imminent or visible.

A Moral person abhors abortion even while acknowledging that the beginning of "personhood" is in question. It is the mere possibility that abortion kills a person that makes it morally unacceptable.

The Ethical person sanctions abortion, as long as the personhood of the fetus cannot be demonstrated.

Huge difference.

I have a brother and his wife are church going Christians and like half the congregation, they are pro choice. How do you explain that?

There is NO MORAL ARGUMENT for abortion, under any but the most extreme cases (e.g., the mother will die if she has to go through with childbirth). Your relatives are hypocrites.

Like most of us.

Even then it would not be moral. Merely the lesser of two evils so to speak.

 

[badger2]

'Deleuze's attempts to dissolve the dogmatic image of thought raise a challenge for philosophers: to begin (and begin again) by struggling against the "natural" presuppositions that chain thinking to Analogy, Identity, Opposition, and Resemblance. I have suggested that part of the reason that this bondage has lasted so long was the forced implantation of Chriost into Porphyry's tree. This will make it all the more difficult for sacerdotal theologians, or philosophers who identify with a Christian (or other monotheistic) in-group, to loosen these constraints. This final shackle is particularly resilient because of the way in which it is fortified by the forces of theogonic reproduction that bind together individuals through the hyper-active detection of similarities and the hyper-active protection of the assimilated. The cognitive and colaitional biases that are part of our phylogenetic and cultural inheritance are extremely powerful. They contributed to the survival of our ancestors in the Late Pleistocene. Today, however, they constrain our thinking in ways that lead us to guess "supernatural agent" when confronted with ambiguous phenomena and surround ourselves with like-minded individuals with whom we constantly exchange a mutual endorsement of guesses, a spiral of similarity that intensifies anxiety about defectors and out-groups.
....
Thought is not conditioned by encounters with "the gods," with ordered forms that guarantee recognition. On the contrary, "what we encounter are the (demons [italics]), the sign-bearers: powers of the leap, the interval, the intensive and the instant. The repetition of difference is a "demonic" power that both "makes us ill" and "heals us" (Difference and Repetition, p. 19) The process that engenders the liberation of thinking is (demonic [it.]) "rather than divine, since it is a peculiarity of demons to operate in the intervals between the god's fields of action, as it is to leap over the barriers or enclosures, thereby confounding the boundaries between properties (DR, 37)....we can also take the question, "what are we to make of Deleuze's references to the demonic genesis of thought?" - in a pragmatic sense.'
(Shults, Iconoclastic Theology)

 

[badger2]

'They struggled to fit both the Logos, conceived as the determining principle of the hierarchical distribution of being to and through the subaltern genera,and the man Jesus, conceived as determined individual within a particular differentiated species, into one and the same Person. It is somewhat obvious how their attempts to represent the infinite (and the finite) within an identical concept were driven by anthropomorphic promiscuity. However, it is equally important to notice the role of sociographic prudery. Plotinus and Porphyry had no need to threaten anyone with excommunication or damnation. For the church fathers at Chalcedon, however, the Unity of the Church as a religious coalition was at stake, and so everyone in the in-group must confess One and the Same belief. When one presses too hard at the logical cracks in religious doctrine a little atheism always begins to secrete, even if one's intention is to purify or reform the tradition.'
(Shults, op cit)

'That primal feeling through which human regulation comes under the sway of daemonic rhythm, dissolving the vitreous resistance of law in the undulating ether of the cosmic pulse.'
(Ludwig Klages)

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There is NO MORAL ARGUMENT for abortion, under any but the most extreme cases

More garbage. Yes there are.

 

[danielpalos]

i don't need to engage in the immorality of false witness bearing. free full body massage with happy ending and g-spot focus work!

 

[hobelim]

the question for bing is whether humanity evolved from the same initial life template as all other physiological beings on earth or as being distinct from the metaphysical Garden which itself evolved on Earth's surface.

There’s only about 1% that separates us from the monkeys.

1% or 2% difference represents at least 15 million changes in our genome since the time of our common ancestor about six million years ago..

.

Light being spoken into existence into a world that was without shape or form and void is about the law coming into the world ...

The creation of heaven and earth and the beginning of the universe are two entirely different subjects.

1% or 2% difference represents at least 15 million changes in our genome since the time of our common ancestor about six million years ago..

the question ... is whether humanity evolved from the same initial life template as all other physiological beings on earth or as being distinct from the metaphysical Garden which itself evolved on Earth's surface.

- is about the law coming into the world ...

is that morality

I did not read where you cleared up your understanding of when the light came into the world, hob - was it special for humanity as a distinctly made being or for all physiological beings, Flora and Fauna the evolution of life, Garden Earth on this planet. -

in your religion opinion, was it when the initial life template first became alive.

You must be transformed from what you isn't into what you is.

That is the initial life template to become a living being. Everything else is just dust and ashes, ashes and dust.

 

[ding]

the question for bing is whether humanity evolved from the same initial life template as all other physiological beings on earth or as being distinct from the metaphysical Garden which itself evolved on Earth's surface.

There’s only about 1% that separates us from the monkeys.

1% or 2% difference represents at least 15 million changes in our genome since the time of our common ancestor about six million years ago..

.

Light being spoken into existence into a world that was without shape or form and void is about the law coming into the world ...

The creation of heaven and earth and the beginning of the universe are two entirely different subjects.

1% or 2% difference represents at least 15 million changes in our genome since the time of our common ancestor about six million years ago..

the question ... is whether humanity evolved from the same initial life template as all other physiological beings on earth or as being distinct from the metaphysical Garden which itself evolved on Earth's surface.

- is about the law coming into the world ...

is that morality

I did not read where you cleared up your understanding of when the light came into the world, hob - was it special for humanity as a distinctly made being or for all physiological beings, Flora and Fauna the evolution of life, Garden Earth on this planet. -

in your religion opinion, was it when the initial life template first became alive.

You must be transformed from what you isn't into what you is.

That is the initial life template to become a living being. Everything else is just dust and ashes, ashes and dust.

That makes absolutely no sense at all.

 

[BreezeWood]

Atheists can be ethical, but not "moral." Moral implies accession to a higher authority, and moral imperatives often involve behavior that is not overtly harmful (e.g., lust, greed, hatred), and their ethics only kick in when actual, demonstrable harm is imminent or visible.

A Moral person abhors abortion even while acknowledging that the beginning of "personhood" is in question. It is the mere possibility that abortion kills a person that makes it morally unacceptable.

The Ethical person sanctions abortion, as long as the personhood of the fetus cannot be demonstrated.

Huge difference.

I have a brother and his wife are church going Christians and like half the congregation, they are pro choice. How do you explain that?

There is NO MORAL ARGUMENT for abortion, under any but the most extreme cases (e.g., the mother will die if she has to go through with childbirth). Your relatives are hypocrites.

Like most of us.

.

There is NO MORAL ARGUMENT for abortion, under any but the most extreme cases (e.g., the mother will die if she has to go through with childbirth). Your relatives are hypocrites.

you made an exception to your own baiting ... are you a raping - misogynist.

abortion is not a moral issue, it is a biological circumstance giving woman a choice for them to make whether or not it was their desire to start a process they did not intend.

no different than having a (medical) vasectomy for the same reason to restrain an undesired result.

it is also immoral to capitalize "NO MORAL ARGUMENT" when it was that poster that broached the subject. the same as the race baiter swinging a noose.

 

[BreezeWood]

the question for bing is whether humanity evolved from the same initial life template as all other physiological beings on earth or as being distinct from the metaphysical Garden which itself evolved on Earth's surface.

There’s only about 1% that separates us from the monkeys.

1% or 2% difference represents at least 15 million changes in our genome since the time of our common ancestor about six million years ago..

.

Light being spoken into existence into a world that was without shape or form and void is about the law coming into the world ...

The creation of heaven and earth and the beginning of the universe are two entirely different subjects.

1% or 2% difference represents at least 15 million changes in our genome since the time of our common ancestor about six million years ago..

the question ... is whether humanity evolved from the same initial life template as all other physiological beings on earth or as being distinct from the metaphysical Garden which itself evolved on Earth's surface.

- is about the law coming into the world ...

is that morality

I did not read where you cleared up your understanding of when the light came into the world, hob - was it special for humanity as a distinctly made being or for all physiological beings, Flora and Fauna the evolution of life, Garden Earth on this planet. -

in your religion opinion, was it when the initial life template first became alive.

You must be transformed from what you isn't into what you is.

That is the initial life template to become a living being. Everything else is just dust and ashes, ashes and dust.

.

You must be transformed from what you isn't into what you is.

That is the initial life template to become a living being. Everything else is just dust and ashes, ashes and dust.

you accomplished the impossible, I agreed with bing ...


That is the initial life template to become a living being ...

you are wrong there hob, the life template is the living being both Fauna and Flora - from the very beginning, purity as the criteria from the metaphysical for all things that exist.