Disobedience has consequences.

[LostMarbels]

Ok, thanks. I would like to be careful though about using the word deviant that way, but if what you are saying is that anything that deviates from the norm defined by Jesus Christ is deviant because He defines absolute morality, I accept that. But you should specify that when you say it because it isn't included in the immediate meaning of the word.

I did.
Unfortunately without a absolute authoritative set of morals, morality becomes subjective, and conditioned by cultural and/or historical stratification of a said society. While one group of peoples may accept a social norm, another set of individuals could find that "norm" reprehensible. So as I said, without an iron clad set of morality anything can be deemed permissible.

Maybe you did not understand my wording?

I even responded to you: I do not believe the social norm should define a Christian. Our standards should be as Christ demonstrated for us.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

To answer this I believe we first must find out who God is. For me God is omnipotent, omniscient, and solely sovereign. I also confess the word of God, that dwelt with God, and was God, came in the flesh and dwelt amongst man. 1Jn 4:2-3. So that being said Jesus Christ is God. And with God being the all powerful creator of all existence; I don't put anything beyond his capabilities.

See, I don't actually see the logical process that brought you here. It was just like this? God exists from the beginning so therefore you start from that basis? This was already true to you so therefor the Jesus story is true?

You see that is where I have a huge issue because I just don't know how you chose Yahweh. Because I'm assuming he was the subject of first religious text that you read. But how did you decide it was him that was real? It seems very a priori.

Also by having a relationship with Jesus I have come to understand that God delights in confusing the wise men of this world with "foolishness".

Gotta raise my eyebrows to this one, say what now?

For example, if you don't believe in an all powerful God... a virgin conceiving a child is out of the question, and is quite foolish in their opinion.

Yes. It's entirely foolish to believe so. In that day and age it's entirely unbelievable. It's more likely that Mary just straight up lied.

However if you accept God as all powerful you understand that God, being the creator of the laws of "normalcy", can act outside of the norm He created. Then its just another of His amazing deeds.

Special pleading at its finest. "But its God so it doesn't matter" your a priori assumption that God exist makes this possible.

I believe my Bible because I know my God.

I'm correct in assuming that Yahweh was the subject of the first religious text you were given. And you don't question that a bit, despite what you say.

He is both faithful, and powerful enough to have accomplished all that is contained within the bibles pages.

Think about this for a moment. Inside the Bible's pages. But... outside?

I think the first problem many have is they are starting on the premises that they have the ability to judge God.

While I think he's very sadistic this isn't my first premise. I think Voldemort is evil too before you go on a "aha so you do believe in him" tangent. My first premise is: Is it reasonable to believe that such a thing exists? I've always come up inconclusive or negative, depending on the weather, and therefor these arguments don't make sense to me.

Secondly, they are equating God's actions to human like, when in fact it is us humans that mimic God"s actions. Remember God is the creator, He dosn't act like us.

A big tell that he's man made is that he is a jealous God and wants no other gods above him. So anyone can tell the political attachments to that statement when creating a theocracy. The author wanted his subjects to not even think about worshiping the other religions that [Religion X copied] were around at the same time. I'm guessing under penalty of death. I shudder to think what happened to quite a few people who believed otherwise.

It doesn't sound like you question this. It sounds like you are stuck on the basis that it exists and run from there. Which is why argument doesn't seem to get through to you.

 

[oi_antz]

I did.
Unfortunately without a absolute authoritative set of morals, morality becomes subjective, and conditioned by cultural and/or historical stratification of a said society. While one group of peoples may accept a social norm, another set of individuals could find that "norm" reprehensible. So as I said, without an iron clad set of morality anything can be deemed permissible.

Maybe you did not understand my wording?

I even responded to you: I do not believe the social norm should define a Christian. Our standards should be as Christ demonstrated for us.

Ok, but that did not become apparent until later. The original statement did not make sense with the one about Ancient Greece.

 

[LostMarbels]

See, I don't actually see the logical process that brought you here. It was just like this? God exists from the beginning so therefore you start from that basis? This was already true to you so therefor the Jesus story is true?

You see that is where I have a huge issue because I just don't know how you chose Yahweh. Because I'm assuming he was the subject of first religious text that you read. But how did you decide it was him that was real? It seems very a priori.

Nowhere close my friend. Simple. Jesus has power. Real power. Not something you have to convince your self of, but real undeniable power. Authority no other God I know can stand against. Jesus Christ is Lord of all.

Gotta raise my eyebrows to this one, say what now?

This is simple actually. God delights in making the wise of this world look like fools. To him it is hilarious when his creation says: "God can't......".

Yes. It's entirely foolish to believe so. In that day and age it's entirely unbelievable. It's more likely that Mary just straight up lied.

Or there is the possibility that you are so prejudiced to the very notion you discard it without consideration.

Special pleading at its finest. "But its God so it doesn't matter" your a priori assumption that God exist makes this possible.

God doesn't need my belief to exists.

I'm correct in assuming that Yahweh was the subject of the first religious text you were given. And you don't question that a bit, despite what you say.

Actually the first religious text I myself began to study was The Gnostic Mass. I dabbeled with Satanism, and the Occult before becoming a witch in Gardnerian Wicca. I was also bi-sexual,and had many "lovers" of both sexes. So you would be way off base assuming I was christian. I used to go to death concerts like Morbid Angel, Cannibal Corpse, Deacide, and the like. My all time favorite song of that time, was: God of Emptiness. I am so thankful that you are shocked to learn this. A true testament to Jesus Christ.

Think about this for a moment. Inside the Bible's pages. But... outside?

Yes.... outside of the bible also.

While I think he's very sadistic this isn't my first premise. I think Voldemort is evil too before you go on a "aha so you do believe in him" tangent. My first premise is: Is it reasonable to believe that such a thing exists? I've always come up inconclusive or negative, depending on the weather, and therefor these arguments don't make sense to me.

I'm not like that. This is your life to live. I'm only a watchman.

Son of man, speak to the children of thy people, and say unto them, When I bring the sword upon a land, if the people of the land take a man of their coasts, and set him for their watchman: If when he seeth the sword come upon the land, he blow the trumpet, and warn the people; Then whosoever heareth the sound of the trumpet, and taketh not warning; if the sword come, and take him away, his blood shall be upon his own head. He heard the sound of the trumpet, and took not warning; his blood shall be upon him. But he that taketh warning shall deliver his soul. But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand.

I'm just blowing my horn.

A big tell that he's man made is that he is a jealous God and wants no other gods above him. So anyone can tell the political attachments to that statement when creating a theocracy. The author wanted his subjects to not even think about worshiping the other religions that [Religion X copied] were around at the same time. I'm guessing under penalty of death. I shudder to think what happened to quite a few people who believed otherwise.

It doesn't sound like you question this. It sounds like you are stuck on the basis that it exists and run from there. Which is why argument doesn't seem to get through to you.

No. I have learned allot from Atheists. I question allot, but it is hard to take something serious when someone accuses someone you have known for years of something completely against their nature. I know Jesus personally. We hang out all the time, and some of the things you say are way off base.

 

[LostMarbels]

Hey Grim, let me pick your brain for a bit. Where did all creation come from?

I have found in my own search for truth and understanding; the more I dug, the more my belief in Jesus, and an all powerful God were confirmed. There is no logical and/or scientific reasoning and/or proof that "nothing' consummated all "existence". Logically nothing exists in nothing. 0+0= 0. Yet here we are. I have even heard many smart people believe matter had to come from nowhere. Yep, It just poofed into existence.To them, how or where the matter came from dose not matter.

There are also the laws and constraints of our existence. Such as the laws of thermodynamics, gravity, and inertia. How did they come to be? Are they sentient, and had to learn their behavior? What unseen, unknown form controls these laws?

Then we can get into evolution. Everything that we see as macro evo are things like special divergence, special adaptation ,Genetic drift, speciation, and just plain old mutations. To put it simply, if you change a dogs environment, you may very well change everything form behavior, to breeding habits, and their coloration to adapt to their current environment. However they did not turn into an entirely new animal. A canine will never, and can never become an equine. The two cant even mate to have offspring. But that canine can pick up different traits, and mutations, that would not have presented itself if it stayed in its original environment and/or habitat. These traits then get passed to their offspring, and in a few generations you could have an entirely new breed of dog then the original one. Every dog in the world is the same species. They just have different traits and mutations present making them a new breed.

I find nothing alarming with Christians understanding God's creation. However, nothing begets nothing. There has to be a reason.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

Hey Grim, let me pick your brain for a bit. Where did all creation come from?

I dunno. I don't really want an answer to that question. It's a question that could have an answer but probably won't be found in mine, my children, nor my entire lineage's lifetime. Maybe it was a collection of events, maybe it was a singularity, maybe it was who knows. It makes life grand.

I have found in my own search for truth and understanding; the more I dug, the more my belief in Jesus, and an all powerful God were confirmed.

You mean you started with an answer and then looked for things only to confirm the answer you've already chosen. I tend to start with questions. And I don't pick an answer to quell my inquiry.

There is no logical and/or scientific reasoning and/or proof that "nothing' consummated all "existence".

Are you so positive of this? I'm not.

Logically nothing exists in nothing.

I'm losing patience with this argument. Show me an example of nothing before you shovel this to me. I'm done dealing with this.

0+0= 0. Yet here we are.

This is math. You know what math is? A man-made construct. I am not an equation. I am a Hominid.

I have even heard many smart people believe matter had to come from nowhere. Yep, It just poofed into existence. To them, how or where the matter came from dose not matter.

Okay so you dismiss this and somehow believe a human being, something that descended from primates is somehow comprised of the creator of everything in existence. First off you don't understand quantum physics and it's plainly showing you don't want to either. I'm no expert either so see Laurence Krauss on this. But in quantum physics, matter DOES pop into existence at random. It's a very complex field that you just haven't explored, I'm positive. You seem to go off gut feeling alot is what I'm gathering.

There are also the laws and constraints of our existence. Such as the laws of thermodynamics, gravity, and inertia. How did they come to be?

I'm supposed to explain Axioms now? They just are, it's how it's always been. I'm not inclined to believe these laws will ever change, disappear, or not apply to anything in existence. And as soon as matter was in existence for these laws to act upon then this is the result.

Are they sentient, and had to learn their behavior? What unseen, unknown form controls these laws?

You ask such bad, irrelevant questions.

Then we can get into evolution.

Oh.

Everything that we see as macro evo are things like special divergence, special adaptation ,Genetic drift, speciation, and just plain old mutations.

Okay.

To put it simply, if you change a dogs environment, you may very well change everything form behavior, to breeding habits, and their coloration to adapt to their current environment.

Okay.

However they did not turn into an entirely new animal.

I have NO patience for this pathetic argument.

I find nothing alarming with Christians understanding God's creation.

After reading this I can understand how you think and why you think this.

There has to be a reason.

And you choose answers first and look only to confirm them. You are no skeptic.

 

[KCfromNC]

Yes, exactly. It is an easily demonstrated fact that people can form opinions about people in the bible, and the fact that those opinions are formed is in no way a claim that the characters are actually fictitious.

I'm not sure how this relates to anything I'm saying, but thanks for sharing I guess.

 

[oi_antz]

I agree that this is impossible to test, because of the incredible number of variables.

What you are suggesting though, is that I'm not me, but this other person and this other person is already shown to have done so.

No, really what I am suggesting is that the other person and you are the culminated result of life experiences. Of course I expect brain chemestry will be a factor, but that too, probably can be traced back through generations of environmental influence. Point being, is I question the assumption it is impossible that I can ever become that person I am so opposed to being. I look at those who subject themselves to religious institutions, and in a very short amount of time can be flipped totally against the world and their family. All through having the necessary exposure to ideas and information. I reckon therefore, that it is possible, entirely, that I could become such a despicable person. In fact I have been made a despicable person from life experiences, very recently, which I was not prior. I am recovering though, due to having changed those circumstances.

 

[Cute Tink]

No, really what I am suggesting is that the other person and you are the culminated result of life experiences. Of course I expect brain chemestry will be a factor, but that too, probably can be traced back through generations of environmental influence. Point being, is I question the assumption it is impossible that I can ever become that person I am so opposed to being. I look at those who subject themselves to religious institutions, and in a very short amount of time can be flipped totally against the world and their family. All through having the necessary exposure to ideas and information. I reckon therefore, that it is possible, entirely, that I could become such a despicable person. In fact I have been made a despicable person from life experiences, very recently, which I was not prior. I am recovering though, due to having changed those circumstances.

I don't know that we will be capable of resolving this discussion, given the nature of what would be needed. You have a personal experience that demonstrates to you that you can be changed by life experiences and circumstances. I have a personal experience that shows me that, while I have changed a lot (outgoing, less judgmental) because of certain circumstances, I have also largely remained the same (morality).

We certainly can't put the exact same person back through someone else's life and see what outcome we get.

 

[Cute Tink]

Even in homosexuality there is role play of man, and women. Someone still plays the opposite role even tho both are of the same sex. How often do you see feminine women with feminine women, or manly men with manly men? Why act like, and be attracted to the same sex acting as if they are the opposite sex?

I just want to address this little point, because I think it's pretty misunderstood.

The idea that women who are masculine are just "acting like men" is incorrect. Some women are just more masculine than others. Same for men who are feminine. They are just being themselves, not "acting like" the opposite sex.

For the notion that women who are attracted to masculine women should just be with men misses the point. A woman in such a relationship is not just attracted to the masculinity of the woman, but also the fact that she is a woman. You might also question why a heterosexual woman who is attracted to feminine men is not just with feminine women. The problem is the same. Their attraction is on more levels than just masculinity/femininity.

I hope that clears some of these questions up for you.

 

[LostMarbels]

I dunno. I don't really want an answer to that question. It's a question that could have an answer but probably won't be found in mine, my children, nor my entire lineage's lifetime. Maybe it was a collection of events, maybe it was a singularity, maybe it was who knows. It makes life grand.

"I don't really want an answer to that question." That is the basis of your entire argument. You do not want to know the answer.

You mean you started with an answer and then looked for things only to confirm the answer you've already chosen. I tend to start with questions. And I don't pick an answer to quell my inquiry.

You also refute before questioning. So whats the difference?

Are you so positive of this? I'm not.

Because you have already made your mind up. You are resolute there is no God.

I'm losing patience with this argument. Show me an example of nothing before you shovel this to me. I'm done dealing with this.

Since you seem to hold to the faith that something came produce nothing, please show me an example of nothing.

This is math. You know what math is? A man-made construct. I am not an equation. I am a Hominid.

Science is a man made construct: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

This means you can only test and come to an explanation of what is tested. Just an explanation. Then you can have knowledge of only that self evident explanation.

Okay so you dismiss this and somehow believe a human being, something that descended from primates is somehow comprised of the creator of everything in existence. First off you don't understand quantum physics and it's plainly showing you don't want to either. I'm no expert either so see Laurence Krauss on this. But in quantum physics, matter DOES pop into existence at random. It's a very complex field that you just haven't explored, I'm positive. You seem to go off gut feeling alot is what I'm gathering.

Before you assumed I was always a Christian: "I'm correct in assuming that Yahweh was the subject of the first religious text you were given. And you don't question that a bit, despite what you say."

Now you are incorrect in this assumption as well.

I'm supposed to explain Axioms now? They just are, it's how it's always been. I'm not inclined to believe these laws will ever change, disappear, or not apply to anything in existence. And as soon as matter was in existence for these laws to act upon then this is the result.

I'm supposed to explain God now? He just is, it's how it's always been. I'm not inclined to believe God will ever change, disappear, or not apply to anything in existence. And as soon as matter was created by God to act upon then this is the result.

You see how faithful you are? What you say comes form nothing is the same belief system for God. If I answered you in this manor you would demand testable, undeniable proof. So, what is your proof to substantiate your claims?

Or simply, science is your faith? Your religion?

You ask such bad, irrelevant questions.

Then teach me. If you actually have something to say then say it instead of just running around popping off subjective comments about my stance. Defend your own stance and show me evidence God doesn't exist.

I have NO patience for this pathetic argument.

Why? Because you cant silence this point of view?

And you choose answers first and look only to confirm them. You are no skeptic.

I'm not a skeptic. I'm inquisitive.

 

[Davian]

So you think gay teenagers should kill them selves rather than buy a flashy car?

It's just a guess, but I think oi_antz was using what we call an "analogy". They were not actually buying a car.

 

[Davian]

In this analogy, they chose the flashy one, because it cost more. They really did not want a basic one, even though their friends and family wanted them to want a basic one. Their friends and family have some attitude problem that causes them to bully people who like flash cars. It is very, very sad. Please don't think of me that way. I would just as easily say they chose the basic one, if the basic one came at a higher price. Point is, they were prepared to pay a higher price for the one they wanted. But in the case of what you describe, it ended up costing more than expected.

Your analogy fails to address why the child would "choose" the "flashy car" knowing the possible repercussions from the people around him, or upon seeing these repercussions, simply changing to the other "car".

I would say that your analogy is flawed, in that the evidence speaks to sexual orientation not being a choice.

 

[Davian]

I did.
Unfortunately without a absolute authoritative set of morals,

What are these "absolute" morals that you allude to?

morality becomes subjective, and conditioned by cultural and/or historical stratification of a said society. While one group of peoples may accept a social norm, another set of individuals could find that "norm" reprehensible. So as I said, without an iron clad set of morality anything can be deemed permissible.

Maybe you did not understand my wording?

I even responded to you: I do not believe the social norm should define a Christian. Our standards should be as Christ demonstrated for us.

Like whipping people that you are angry with. I recall you bringing that up earlier.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

"I don't really want an answer to that question." That is the basis of your entire argument. You do not want to know the answer.

Yes. I want the answer but I don't. I want to look because looking is fun. I know very well I'm not going to find just by thinking or reading a book. Which is why it's sucha grand mystery

You also refute before questioning. So whats the difference?

Wrong. I question before refuting. That means if a proposition is brought up, I consider it before stating my reasons as to why I don't accept it. I don't accept it first and then figure out why later. That's bad thinking.

Because you have already made your mind up. You are resolute there is no God.

Wrong. I'm not convinced there is one, but I have no reason to believe there is one either.

Since you seem to hold to the faith that something came produce nothing, please show me an example of nothing.

You misunderstand (how surprising) I am telling you that you cannot show an example of "nothing." Because what you perceive as "nothing" can never be nothing. In order for "nothing" to exist, it would have to not exist at the exact same time. Do you understand why I am annoyed by people bringing this failed argument up?

Science is a man made construct: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

This means you can only test and come to an explanation of what is tested. Just an explanation. Then you can have knowledge of only that self evident explanation.

Your point?

Before you assumed I was always a Christian: "I'm correct in assuming that Yahweh was the subject of the first religious text you were given. And you don't question that a bit, despite what you say."

Now you are incorrect in this assumption as well.

Sounds like you also do as I assumed, accept answers and try to think of why you did later. Which is why you had that whole spiel about your various religious changes. And you thought I'd be shocked. It doesn't shock me. It actually validates me. You just go around accepting propositions willy nilly. Can't wait to see what you take on next. My vote is on probably Hinduism.

I'm supposed to explain God now? He just is, it's how it's always been. I'm not inclined to believe God will ever change, disappear, or not apply to anything in existence. And as soon as matter was created by God to act upon then this is the result.

You would have to explain how something existed before the universe. Parroting doesn't serve you.

You see how faithful you are? What you say comes form nothing is the same belief system for God. If I answered you in this manor you would demand testable, undeniable proof. So, what is your proof to substantiate your claims?

Or simply, science is your faith? Your religion?

Hang on. Because I observe the natural world and the fact that in my lifetime it has remained consistent and would have to have remained so in order for things to exist, I now have faith? It's called being honest. What you sound like is a zealot. You imply there is a god without question and you're not inclined to question because... reasons. I'm not inclined to question because Gravity affects me 24/7/365/2000 as well as the planets around the sun and the moon around the Earth. Until the moon starts to do loopty loops and does a suicide to mars and back at random I'm not inclined to believe that gravity will change. This is the same way with you. You don't have reason to believe gravity will just stop working right?

Then teach me. If you actually have something to say then say it instead of just running around popping off subjective comments about my stance. Defend your own stance and show me evidence God doesn't exist.

I'm not sure I can. You ask if physical laws are sentient. What can I possibly tell you? You question if physical laws can think and perceive themselves. You need to figure out what questions are appropriate to form. Start from a base. Fundamentals. If you want to reach that... question I'll give you an actual path to it. I'll show you how to think fundamentally.

Ask yourself first. Physical laws?

Then. What are the physical laws?

Then. Do they affect me?

Then. How do they affect me?

Then. Do they affect others?

Then. Do they affect others differently? How?

Then. How far is their reach?

Then. Can I alter them?

Then. Can they alter me?

Then. Is this absolute?

Then. Will it change one day?

Then. Could it change one day?

Then. Does it have the ability to even change?

Then. If it did, would it change?

Then. If it did, would it not?

Then. If I could, would I change it?

Then. What if I were gravity? How would I affect everything?

Then. I wonder, is gravity is somewhat sentient? Could it be?

Then. What about inertia?

And then take it from there. For me, I have a threshold on some things. Some things for me are silly to question in my opinion but there is a way to question any and everything. That does not make the questions valid but it makes thinking about the answer possible nonetheless. You must start from ground up or you will fail. Which is why I'm not convinced of several things so far because my fundamental thinking gives me an answer that no longer allows me to go further. In fact in the example I just gave you above I would stop around "Will it change one day?" because my answer would be "probably not" but as you can see, you can go further than that.

Why? Because you cant silence this point of view?

Yes and it's sad that I can't. You don't understand evolution then don't bring it up to someone who does. I've heard enough Ray Comfort and the Hovind dunces present this argument. Just don't talk about evolution. Period.

I'm not a skeptic. I'm inquisitive.

Yea. You clash with skeptical thinking because you consider everything deeply without considering previous knowledge. Which is why your religious stance changed so much. To you "why is water wet?" is a valid question. To me, it's silly and not worthy of asking. You ask questions and don't realize some of them are just invalid.

 

[LostMarbels]

What are these "absolute" morals that you allude to?

Like whipping people that you are angry with. I recall you bringing that up earlier.

So... you do not want to say anything about the post or make any comments at all. Instead your just going to throw stuff up on the screen.

Did you even understand what I said?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

What I believe about the way He created the world really is not based on any reliable knowledge, so I must admit it is all based on my imagination. However, since we agree that my perspective on the origins of the present state of the world is described in the book of Genesis, and that I draw conclusions about the truth based on that story, then I tend to view the origin of human civilisation in two most likely ways, according to that story:

1. Considering literal Gensis account of creation, mankind was plonked in paradise without any previous experience, and therefore did not have any idea that molesting children could even be desirable. This knowledge was discovered when he bagan to seek and obtain the knowledge of good and evil.

2. Considering that humankind has evolved from life as described by theories of evolition, over millions of years, at some point mankind began to know about good and evil, and has decided that it is evil to molest children. However, this does not imply that the desire was not experienced and acted on before the knowledge of good and evil was pursued.

I don't actually know which of these ideas is more accurate, so I tend to consider them both as being possible and equally plausible, yet do not commit to one over the other as the basis of my understanding. Hopefull this can help you to welcome my perspectives more, and to even check the reliability of our assumptions before you jump in with conclusions.

What I do know however, is that God probably does not desire the suffering of children, based on a simple linking of two statements made by Jesus, whom I consider to have always spoken truthfully, and thses words no less containing truth:

"For when you did it to the least of these, my brothers and sisters, you were doing it to me". "Depart from me, because when I was [suffering and needed your help] [you abandoned me]."

"How can you say that you have not already seen the father? Whoever has seen the son has seen the father!"

Therefore, Jesus expresses the will of God, that we should treat others as though we would want to be treated ourselves, and even appeals to our conscience whe He says we are treating Him when we treat others.

Therefore, no, I believe the desire to molest children is not a desire of God, but of someone who does not value the life of a child as they should.

I'm more concerned with what reality tells us about the likely nature of a deity than what's presented in a book.

And reality says that some human beings molest children, while other people like myself would never do such a thing.

Since an omnipotent god could have created a universe in which all humans have the "never molesting a child" trait like myself, you have no choice but to say that this deity desires a world in which children suffer from molestation more than a world in which no one molests children.

I realize that must be a hard thing to hear and accept, but i don't see a logical way out of the problem. If you have one, please present it.

 

[LostMarbels]

Grim.

The problem is there is no understanding of the origination of anything in fundamentalism. You say it is silly to ask why something is the way it is. I find it foolish not to ask. The laws of physical for example are immutable fact. How and where did these laws come to be? I do not believe they are sentient any more than I believe they had to evolve to their current state. How did they come to be? Just shrugging my shoulders and saying "it is what it is" is not enough for me.

 

[Davian]

So... you do not want to say anything about the post or make any comments at all. Instead your just going to throw stuff up on the screen.

Did you even understand what I said?

I simply asked, what are these "absolute" morals that you allude to? Can you not answer this question?

 

[Davian]

Grim.

The problem is there is no understanding of the origination of anything in fundamentalism. You say it is silly to ask why something is the way it is. I find it foolish not to ask. The laws of physical for example are immutable fact. How and where did these laws come to be? I do not believe they are sentient any more than I believe they had to evolve to their current state. How did they come to be? Just shrugging my shoulders and saying "it is what it is" is not enough for me.

The religionist's claim of "my god did it" is not enough for me. Particularly when the individual making said assertion then promptly exempts their own religious beliefs (gods/angels/afterlife/miracles/souls/etc) from being subject to those same laws.