The problem with using this type of language (especially coming from white people) is it makes our culture look like a minstrel one. RRS has a minstrel mentality when it comes to black people:
Of course, RRS are naming off "atrocities" in the Bible, yet they refuse to give any comprehensive justification for morality given an atheist worldview. But they know in their heart that atheism cannot account for moral absolutes. Thus they can't have any real problem with atrocities in the Bible.
Oh, and Rook, dude, you need to get some braces! Your teeth are as crooked as a dog's hind leg.
Saturday, November 3, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
ROFL!!! I don't know what's funnier:
1) white crackas trying to talk gangsta
2) Kelly saying the n-word at 1:24
or 3) whoever is holding the camera at the end (Brian, probably) desperately fighting to keep the shot above Kelly's chest, but ultimately failing miserably.
You know, i wasn't sure if she said "nigga" but it sure sounded like it. And if she did use that word, then she's as stupid as they get.
Sapient rapped in monotone. How funny is that?
I'm offended, it's like Betty White doing "Gin and Juice" at the old folks home.
Ermm, a couple of things.
First of all, atheists like to have fun every once in a while, by laughing about, what I believe are bible verses, they achieved exactly what they attempted.
Second of all, what's so bad of getting a nice shot of breasts, or are you to stuck up in your religious dogma to enjoy it?
Third, atheists have morals because it works. That simple. Societies that commit atrocities and in general immoral behavior are very short lived, the difference being that atheist morals adapt to the times, religious ones don't or only in a reduced measure.
Glhf,
Cookiemonster,
Ermm, a couple of things.
First of all, atheists like to have fun every once in a while, by laughing about, what I believe are bible verses, they achieved exactly what they attempted.
Uh, yeah, at the expense of black culture. Can you not figure that out? That's the whole point of the post.
Second of all, what's so bad of getting a nice shot of breasts, or are you to stuck up in your religious dogma to enjoy it?
Those aren't breasts. Those are silicone implants. Are you to stuck up in your atheistic dogma to realize that?
Third, atheists have morals because it works. That simple. Societies that commit atrocities and in general immoral behavior are very short lived, the difference being that atheist morals adapt to the times, religious ones don't or only in a reduced measure.
Glhf,
Let me get this straight, you're saying that morality is justified because it works. Then the killing fields of Cambodia are certainly justifiable given your worldview. Certainly, killing off reactionaries work. Heck, killing off Jews during the Holocaust certainly worked. You still have the problem of knowing what's good or evil given this pragmatic view of morality.
Frank
Ok, nice point, but give me a moment, because it works is a very much abbreviated form.
First of all, neither of the two regimes that you mentioned are still in existence today, and neither existed for more than two decades, which is a very short time when compared to most other countries, so neither of the two worked. I am not up to date on Cambodia, so I can't say much beyond what wikipedia gives me, which is not a lot.
So, here we go: The Third Reich was not a stable regime in any way, shape or form. There were several attempts on Hitler's life, there were masses of "terrorist" organizations, they were at war with a multitude of other countries far more powerful than they were, these are all reasons why it didn't work.
But I am sure you can find more examples that contradict this, so let me expand a bit on "because it works". Because it works is not in context of the individual, but of the group. It works a bit like evolution. Parents teach their children their moral values. If these moral values are good for the group, the group becomes stronger and the values spread to other groups. Values that weaken the group shrivel and die.
Therefore, good is what benefits the group as a whole.
And if you want other opinions on ethics that work in an atheistic view, look up the categorical imperative, that derives from reason, or utilitarianism, that derives from maximizing pleasure and minimizing suffering.
Who cares if they are implants?
They are making fun of themselves, not black culture. I've lived in a 50% black community and nobody talked like this. I wouldn't believe this is anything like real black culture.
Cookiemonster,
Morality guides society. Societies with good morals live longer than degenerate societies. As Frank pointed out, you still need to differentiate right from wrong.
In your view, society guides and determines its own morals. This is a little bit like building a skyscraper and then drawing the blueprints. We know that people don't do that. We know that people have a way to determine right from wrong, good morals from bad morals. It isn't all relative: if we pass judgment, there is some standard by which we are passing judgment, and that standard cannot itself be the thing judged.
Without God, atheists such as yourself are putting the cart before the horse whenever they talk about morality. In order to have an objective standard by which to judge morality, there must be something beyond this material world--a standard by which we are judging.
Cory,
In your view, society guides and determines its own morals. This is a little bit like building a skyscraper and then drawing the blueprints.
Almost. It's like building a skyscraper by throwing bits of concrete and steel at each other and removing the bits that don't look like they belong to a skyscraper until you finally end up with a skyscraper. It is a very slow process, but it irrefutably ends up in a skyscraper.
How do "we know" that this isn't the case, that people have an innate way to separate right from wrong?
The judging of the standards is done passively, as you said societies with "good" morals live longer than ones with "bad" morals. In biology this is called natural selection, the same occurs for social rules.
Cookie,
Your view requires objective morality to exist, since we are building to some sort of standard. We know what a skyscraper looks like since we have myriad examples. What example do you have for morality that you are building your society toward?
I say, we don't have one on earth. But we do in heaven: Jesus! I submit that is the example you are building toward, whether you acknowledge this or not.
What you stubbornly refuse to admit is that you building to a standard, a boilerplate, an ideal. This standard must exist somewhere, or else we wouldn't know what it looks like. God, through Christ, is the example.
Post a Comment