But I knew if I stuck around long enough I'd harvest a few more names for my ignore list! Jeebus Mary Muther of Gawd it worked again!
But only against men Fucking each other. Women Fucking each other is OK even though it's still homosexuality. Fuck off. Sent from my SM-G850F using Grasscity Forum mobile app
If non the religious can have no morals without the presence of a made up deity. Why arnt i and all the other non religious locked up for the atrocities that we just cant stop our selves from doing with out your imaginary god telling us what is right or wrong. Oh because we can think for our selves not be told how to think by a book of fairytales. Sent from my SM-G950F using Grasscity Forum mobile app
You are the reason religion gets a bad name....you're are a truly repressed jackass to the enth degree. Come on over so I can shove my size 13 boot up your ass and your God can send you to hell for being a homo father fucktard!
Wow, and you like to shove your feet up mens asses. That doesn't make you gay that makes you rather quite perverted. Dear Lord you do like the sound of your own voice. So you're anti-Semitic then?
Incorrect, you don't need to prove God first. The argument is NOT that God exists It is that IF God does not exist then there is no such thing as right and wrong I am curious, do you think there can be morality without god? IMO an honest atheist would agree amd simply say there is no such thing as morality.
Nope, not anti simetic in the slightest. I’ve even fucked an Israeli before. Don’t care where people are from or what their beliefs are. Not all “Jews” are really religious I ether. The one I pumped is a soldier and kills people for a living. Fuck all religious about that. And It’s not their fault they’ve been brainwashed. It’s the religions themselves I have a problem with. Suppose I could be called a sectarian but no, I’m not anti simetic or racist. You on the other hand have just shown us you are a homophobe. Religion is supposed to preach love and tolerance for all mankind but you think it’s ok to hate on people because of their sexual preference. That’s not being very tolerant or acceptant is it? And it doesn’t matter anyway cos as long as they repent their sins before death they’ll still get into heaven. It’s ok to rape children in the eyes of religion , as long as you repent then it’s perfectly fine by your eyes so what’s the problem with gay people?
So much hate. I can take a horse to water but I cannot make you drink. Your views are so entrenched that you apply no filters to how you perceive things whatsoever - other than what meets your own self of sense. Of which you view yourself as some pinnacle of moral virtue, fighting for gay rights seeing "homophobes" everywhere. All I did was copy and paste a passage from the Torah. I neither said I agreed nor disagreed. One part of it mentioned homosexuality then you went off on several rants based on that alone. Why did you single this out? Are you familiar with the works of Carl Jung? I also find it interesting in a lab rat kind of way why you think you are the person who defines what religion is? If you are not Jewish (or enter any other religion) what makes you believe that you are the person to define what the religion should teach - eg tolerance of homosexuality in your case. So, please quote exactly how I have shown myself to be a homophobe.
You hold two very opposing views here. On one hand it's wrong to hate on people for their sexual choice but on the other hand you seem to hate on paedophiles? You see the futility in your words....
And not only are you a homophobe but you support pedophilia. Great. I'm done talking to you like. Sent from my SM-G850F using Grasscity Forum mobile app
As per the Jung quote. You never was talking to me. Just on a series of rants for the purposes of fluffing your own ego.
So many problems with this logic. First and foremost, if you surrender your ability to decide what is morally right and wrong, then it matters not where those morals exists because; you could never objectively identify them. Your only option is to blindly follow a set of morals and hope you picked the right god, which is not rational. We could say, "Raping a child isn't rationally wrong to a theist/deist because it can't be. It's just a matter of opinion which God(s) (s)he picked." Then there is the assumption that God is the only thing capable of giving morality an objective standard. Aliens might be capable? Maybe it is also an intrinsic property of the universe? What about future humans, they may have it all sorted out too. I don't understand though why you think it is not possible to be objective about a moral standard. Right and wrong have definitions, criteria, and standards. Sure things get tricky in edge cases, but for the most part we have it down. In any case, noting that you don't have all the answers, and that things may change as we gain new information, is also a part of being objective. As we go the standard will just get better. You had your example about abusing a child, that there was no basis for it being evil, but that is a blatant falsehood. Was someone hurt? Yes, both mentally and physically. Duration of harm? Long term. Capability of individual to protect themselves? Low, subject was a minor and defenseless. Perpetrators reason for inflicting harm? Immediate self gratification. Do we need to go on? Also why would morality be treated like a democracy? A democracy is for opinions. Whether something is right or wrong is based on the facts. It is a fact that slavery is wrong. You can't democracy it into being right. Cheers
I'm with you on the world either ending or some mass event that needs to wipe out half of humanity. I was at the Carnegie natural history museum and gallery in Pittsburgh and they had a display that showed the population history of humanity for the past 3000 years and into 2030. The world map absolutely exploded in the last decade to where Asia was sooo over populated that something has to give.
Welcome to the party brother! I was hoping to see you in here. What exactly is morality? This is something I think needs to be defined if we are going to debate its meaning and source. Morality is something that comes from being social. If one is a hermit and does not associate with anyone morals are useless and not needed. Its only because we are social creatures that morals develop. As we interact with each other we are told by others reactions if our actions are viewed to be good or bad by the average person we come across. Most people interact with hundreds or thousands of people yearly and the aggregate some of all their reactions to your behavior indicates to us what is acceptable and what is not. From these interactions we develop stories we can tell to convey the message we learn from all these interactions. And from these stories we pull from it the moral of the stories, and we get morality. A old story I think we all are familiar with is Frankenstein. The notion of a human created monster. Frankenstein represents the potential dangers in unbridled technological advancements. If we don't develop a moral sense that is as conscious and as elaborate as our technological sense the fact that we are capable of becoming increasingly more powerful will eventually do us in. Nuclear mutual destruction and the debate over A.I. comes to mind and I think we all could relate with the moral of the story. The bigger your weapons the smarter you better be to control them. This is why the story is timeless and never gets old. Around 500 years ago as we ratcheted up the rate that we developed technological expertise and at the same time started to divorce ourselves from the mythological and religious conceptions left behind because they were built largely on superstitions, we start to find ourselves straying from the abilities to develop a moral system that can keep up with technological advancements. We need to spend as much time on developing a code, a system of morals, as we do on developing technologyical advancements, and updating the stories and bring them into the clear consciousness of the public that can convey the message the story of up and down, right from wrong. I think the understanding of private property and self ownership and recognizing everyone's sovereignty and complete ownership of ones self and the extension of our labor is a great start to developing a sound, just system that can help society establish a bases for morality. Having a firm understanding of the origins of our liberties and how the non aggressive principles derive from private property is paramount in my opinion. Bringing "GOD" and the messages that he tells into a story to which everyone one could relate and identify with in ourselves is perhaps a way to advance the system of morals? Do you believe that NAP was born from religion or religion was born from NAP? Glad you are back! Sent from my SM-G935V using Grasscity Forum mobile app
Whatever man.....I'm. Just here to have a laugh. ... You haven't failed me so far...lmao Keep up.the good work mate.... Just know that this thread isn't going to achieve anything Exept stoner entertainment Sent from my GT-I9505 using Grasscity Forum mobile app