"Dumbed down?' from what? This childish bullsh*t?

I feel my response was called for, and not in any way 'childish' as you say. Your two quotes, however, reek of immaturity and a smug, defiant attitude. This isn't the place to vent that crap- this forum was ORIGINALLY meant to be a place to have intelligent discussions, at least I think it was.

As far as I can tell, you are a narrow-minded idiot just looking for attention. This isn't name calling, it's just the impression you've given me. You haven't posted much in this forum, so this ins't the best way to start, that is, unless you WANT people to think this way of you. And remember, I'm not calling names, this is just a mere observation.

On another note, threads with titles as blatantly ignorant as this should be deleted- if not to discourage weak arguments, to save the original poster from losing their credibility in this forum.

Its a shame.... he was so young....

 

 

Sorry you don't like the thread title. It's the title of the article as well. I didn't create though I think it reigns true. The name calling was never started by me in this thread and if you re-read the entire thing, I beleive you will find it was your political allies than began the childish behavior. I posted a published article, If you don't like it don't read it. If you want to discuss finer points of the article without attacking the person posting it than great. If not grow up and go elsewhere.

 

You're affiliation with the Republican party, and in turn your failure to fix the gaps in your teeth, buy new blue jeans, and stop wearing plad, makes you worth nothing.

Understand now? Okay, I totally agree with this statement: people who can't recognize right from wrong are worth nothing. But I don't think the entire democratic party belong in this category. The problem in your argument is that you fail to explain how the ENTIRE democratic party can't 'recognize evil.' You've got to admit, this is quite a stretch.

Maybe it's a symptom of 'liberalitis' ... complete and utter evil-blindness.
What's the cure? Quick, gimme that Toby Keith album!

 

Oh, by the way, thanks for getting half-way back on track.

 

Can secularism by it's defintion find anything evil? I would say it cannot.

 

Ah, there's your problem.

So, let me get this straight. Secularism is a principle that says the government should not sponsor any one religion or hold one faith higher than another. It doesn't discount religion altogether. So how does sponsoring a religion make a government able to distinguish good from evil, which is exactly what you are implying? All I see its that is encourages those in charge to tend toward being more righteous and ethnocentric.

Just like in the election results, people seem to be confused between morality and religion. The evangelical right assumes that those who don't believe in the invisible man in the sky (sorry for the facetious jab) can't have any basis for morality. The truth is, I have lived my life to a higher moral standard than almost every religious person I know- so I have proved to myself that knowing right from wrong doesn't require a devout belief in a higher power. I'd love to hear an explaination if you continue to think otherwise.

What is your definition of secularism, and how does it impede someone from distinguishing right from wrong?

Better yet, what is your definition of 'evil'? I think that leads to yet another hole in your argument. Do you mean 'evil' as in, non-faith based? If so, then your statement makes more sense, but you still have alot to learn.

 

I would say that secular humanism" is a religion -- it meets all of the epistemological and logical requirements to be a religion. And an argument that they don't believe in a god/gods doesn't hold water since neither does Zen Buddhism (and any other pantheistic religion).

But examine the circular reasoning that they use:

"My reason is my ultimate authority because it seems reasonable to me to make it so."
"The findings of human sensory experiences are the ultimate authority for discovering what is real and what is not, because our human senses have never discovered anything else: thus, human sense experience tells me that my principle is true."
"I know there can be no ultimate authority because I do not know of any such ultimate authority."
He argues for an ultimate standard of truth (himself) -- an absolute authority for what to believe. And in the process, uses circular reasoning to justify himself. Thus there is your morality. without a basis for morality perceived outside of the human experience you will never be able to come to a conclusion on what is good or evil.

 

Alright this is getting a bit out of control.

Please, everyone calm this down a bit. THIS IS A INTERNET FORUM! DO NOT GET BUTT-HURT BY COMMENTS ON HERE!

I will not close this thread, nor will any of the other moderators as we do not do that but please everyone, keep it civil.
-Jeff

 

Now defining “evil” for some is difficult. Those who struggle with that word, that concept, struggle also with concepts like “truth” and “love” and “kindness.” They struggle with them in part because they view themselves as intellectuals, beings able to conceptualize beyond most mere mortals. These “intellectuals” deem their insights to be so incisive that lesser minds cannot appreciate the subtle abstracts involved in attempting to take a concept such as “evil” and distilling it so as to remove it from a subjective framework of analysis.

IMO, I will go with the standard three main characteristics of an evil person are:

1. Pride: "I am better than you are."
2. Hypocrisy: "I have higher standards for others than for self."
3. Indifference: "I do not care."

Since secularism does away with accountability to God, it leaves man with no sense of personal guilt before God. His only concern is man-made laws, and with the inclination to evil and selfishness of fallen human nature, self-interest will be his main incentive in observing them. Social justice becomes merely a political matter, as a consequence of which we have become a nation with much injustice in religious and racial matters, in education, in housing, in labor, etc. In public life expediency and propriety become norms of human behavior.

 

Like I said days ago...'evil' is an objective thing. It is made up by humans...there was no pure good or pure evil before we made the ideas. Unless you're religious. Then evil is defined by what your religion says it is.
To get back to the article, it says that anyone who does not aknowledge that there is a definable 'evil' and thinks everything falls into the grey area between good and evil is, themselves, worth nothing. But this view point fits in PERFECTLY with the first two aspects of evil things you just listed. It's both arogant and hypochritical. And it even makes it seem as though the author doesn't care that the leftists are worth nothing. So if the people calling leftists 'worth nothing' because they don't 'see evil' are actually evil themselves...you see what I'm getting at.

 

i will be more then happy to show you evil

 

So, you support good and speak against 'evil' just because you are accountable to god? You still don't seem to get my point. Good vs. evil has no parralels between believers vs. non-believers. What ever happened to doing the right thing just because? Personally, I don't need a higher power to guide me and my actions. If you do, that's you, and you should not assume everyone else is the same way.

At this point in history, I don't see it as important to have an established, government-recognized religion as compared to the beginning of civilization, when it was used for control, reproduction, and to set a moral standard. People in this country in this modern world should be able to distinguish good from evil. Our society has developed its own set of morals (akin to, but completely detached from religion), so I see the importance of religion becoming less and less as time goes on, and I certainly don't see it as necessary so that people won't go dance with the devil. To say that one must be accountable to god to resist the temptations of evil (the devil's lure) is just plain short-sighted.


So, I think I get your reasoning, as flawed as it may be. (correct me if I'm wrong)

-You think that anyone who doesn't believe in god is being helplessly reeled in by the devil and is losing thier ability to recognize evil.
-Nobody on the left believes in god. (geez, everyone knew that )
-If you can't recognize evil, then youre worthless (most agreeable statement)
-put em together..... therefore, the left is worthless!

(I know you didn't make that last statement, but you have tried pretty hard to support it.)

I'm not trying to start a religious argument here (as much fun as that may be), I'm just acting as the logic and generalization police (once again )

 

So, I guess we can refuse to acknoledge what our nation's evangelicals have deemed 'evil', or we can refuse to acknolede the rest of the world, and the fact that other religions think we are evil. Here is where too much optimism and narrow-mindedness can run you into trouble (can you spell I.... R.... A.... Q.....?)

 

Maybe we could agree to disagree?