ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Friday, March 02, 2018

Americans don't need God

At least, not to be good. Or so most of them think.
Americans took God out of public schools. And universities, mostly. And, over the years, government. And social issues. And holiday references. And there even have been attempts to banish God, or belief in Him, from business, including in the fight over abortion funding in Obamacare.

So it shouldn’t surprise anyone that a new Pew Research poll found 56 percent of Americans say it’s not necessary to believe in God to be moral and have good values.

That’s up from the 49 percent who expressed that view in 2011.

“This increase reflects the continued growth in the share of the population that has no religious affiliation, but it also is the result of changing attitudes among those who do identify with a religion, including white evangelical Protestants,” Pew said.
After answering the poll question and confirming "her" opinion that "she" did not need God to be moral, the transgender "woman" posted lies on Facebook about a political opponent being a neo-Nazi homophobe, before prostituting "herself" to a gay man, and donating a small portion of the proceeds to Planned Parenthood in order to help murder unborn children.

Then "she" went to the Episcopalian "church" to worship "God the Mother".

It must be all those "Judeo-Christian" values of which we hear so much about these days. Who needs God when you've got Judeo Christ? This should end well. In any event, as Christopher Hallpike amply demonstrates, those Americans are wrong.

Labels: ,

75 Comments:

Blogger Aeoli March 02, 2018 11:16 AM  

Compare: http://www.unz.com/isteve/human-rights-why-countries-differ/

Blogger Hammerli280 March 02, 2018 11:24 AM  

Idiots. After Will and Ariel Durant wrote their massive 14-volume History of Western Civilization, they wrote a slim volume, "The Lessons of History."

One of those lessons was that faith was a cornerstone of a civil society. Because it provided a code of conduct of far better provenance than the whim of King or Congress, backed with the threat of inescapable punishment and the promise of undeniable reward.

From a purely pragmatic standpoint, public faith is essential to maintaining a civil society. It saves trouble, as well as souls.

Blogger Warunicorn March 02, 2018 11:25 AM  

I find it hilarious they don't find it necessary to believe in God to have morality---to be good, specifically.

So, then...what is defined as "good?" More importantly, who defines that?

I'm at the point where I don't give two sh*ts what they think. Cross the line I've drawn...well, they're gonna have a bad day.

OpenID widlast March 02, 2018 11:29 AM  

"did not need God to be moral"

These modern nitwits have no idea what morality is.
They think supporting perversion and the murder of innocents is "moral". They think the vitriolic hatred of and lying about anyone they don't like is moral.

In the end days they will turn the world upside down.

Blogger Markku March 02, 2018 11:31 AM  

An individual doesn't need God to behave like a decent person by present global standards. Or "be good" in secular lingo. However, one needs God for it to make SENSE to remain so, even if circumstances change. And that's why nobody should trust an atheist.

Blogger Azimus March 02, 2018 11:34 AM  

Getting ready to move to Galt's Gulch...

Blogger ghostfromplanetspook March 02, 2018 11:39 AM  

Whos selling the paperback of Do We Need God To Be Good? Must really need some cash and fast.

Blogger CM March 02, 2018 11:45 AM  

The only word I have for this is perverse.

Blogger Rick March 02, 2018 11:51 AM  

I have to say, after reading the post, what's so wrong with being a neo-Nazi homophobe?
I don't want to be a neo-Nazi homophobe, but why is "her" opinion valid an undisputed protected virtue but the neo-Nazi homophobe who hasn't hurt a fly but merely "thinks things" just like "she" does isn't a valid and protected "way to be"?

Blogger Rick March 02, 2018 12:01 PM  

"An individual doesn't need God to behave like a decent person by present global standards."

I disagree. The individual gets it from his parents -- ones heavenly parents via their "adopted" parents.

I think it was Gil Bailie who said, to the effect, that "it is not possible to live outside the Gospels."

Which is to say, we owe our present, cultural concept of innocence to Christ.

An excellent book by Bailie, btw:
Violence Unveiled: Humanity at the Crossroads

https://www.amazon.com/Violence-Unveiled-Humanity-at-Crossroads/dp/0824516451

Blogger Dave March 02, 2018 12:04 PM  

Must really need some cash and fast

Who don't need fast cash? The only thing better is when it's easy. Fast and easy cash is what we're all lookin' for.

Blogger Brad Richards March 02, 2018 12:05 PM  

I am not religious, yet I assert that my moral standards are just as high as anyone here.

What people forget - both the religious and the non-religious - is that all of us have been born and raised in a society imbued with Christian culture. The Christian tenets of behavior are part of Western society, and are thus an integral part of our shared culture.

As Markku (#5) says: You don't need to be actively religious to be a decent person. I disagree, however, with his supposition that my standards are any more subject to change than his.

Blogger Cetera March 02, 2018 12:21 PM  

Brad Richards wrote:ou don't need to be actively religious to be a decent person.

"Decent" defined by whom, though? That's the real question, and the most meaningful question.

The "average" person in America isn't "decent" by any definition I espouse or believe in.

Blogger crypto.fashion March 02, 2018 12:28 PM  

They do need God--after all, all we need is twelve.

Blogger SirHamster March 02, 2018 12:32 PM  

Markku wrote:An individual doesn't need God to behave like a decent person by present global standards. Or "be good" in secular lingo. However, one needs God for it to make SENSE to remain so, even if circumstances change. And that's why nobody should trust an atheist.

If an individual's moral behavior is temporal and not permanent, the behavior is from environment, not innate.

That individual is not moral, only morally conformed.

Morally conformed is good if it's in the direction of becoming moral; not so good when it replaces being moral.

Blogger freddie_mac March 02, 2018 12:49 PM  

@5 Markku
An individual doesn't need God to behave like a decent person by present global standards.

The problem is that "present global standards" continue to change, and not always (rarely?) for the better. In twenty years (or less), speaking out against MZB and Walter Breen could mean prison sentences; questioning a tranny's mental health might be a death sentence.

Religion -- Christianity in particular -- has firm guidelines for behavior. Granted, not everyone calling themselves Christian in modern times adheres to those standards, but those standards have not been changed (cf. pretzel logic when standards conflict with modern "morals").

Blogger Garuna March 02, 2018 12:52 PM  

it’s not necessary to believe in God to be moral and have good values.

This is probably just an honest poll. Because in today's world, what is high morality? What are good values? Both of these have been degraded. All kinds of degeneracy is now considered good and moral. Including mutilation of children and murder of unborn sons and daughters.

The poll reveals that western society has become increasingly comfortable with its degeneracy. The damage is irreparable. This is why I left America recently and don't plan to return.

Blogger James Dixon March 02, 2018 12:59 PM  

> I disagree, however, with his supposition that my standards are any more subject to change than his.

Disagree all you want. The question is whether he's right or not, not whether you agree with him.

Blogger Orthodox March 02, 2018 1:02 PM  

Audacious Epigone posted something similar this week: Moral Mormons 18.8% of Mormons think lack of morality is the biggest problem in America.

A lot of people think they're being moral by encouraging transgenders to mutilate themselves, so I can see how people who think tolerance=morality don't see a lack of morality in the country.

Blogger ReluctantMessiah March 02, 2018 1:19 PM  

Nature abhors a vacuum. Take away God, people start worshiping other people (cough Obama cough). And when I think morality, I think Chicago...

Blogger Joab March 02, 2018 1:22 PM  

The only way to fix it is to flush it all away
Any fucking time, any fucking day

Blogger Stickwick Stapers March 02, 2018 1:22 PM  

What the heck is going on with Amazon and the paperback version of Hallpike's book? You can only get it used and for $1,891.56.

Blogger VD March 02, 2018 1:26 PM  

What the heck is going on with Amazon and the paperback version of Hallpike's book? You can only get it used and for $1,891.56.

We'll have the Kindle version back up soon. It came off when Pronoun was shut down.

Blogger Ryan G March 02, 2018 1:34 PM  

How does one respond to assertion that secularization in the US seems to be a good thing from a crime-rate perspective? In spite of all the drama regarding recent school shootings, violent crime has been on the decline for decades and recently hit a 20 year low back in 2014.

This isn't a view I believe in, but I'm also unable to come up with any strictly rational responses to it either.

Blogger Skyler the Weird March 02, 2018 1:59 PM  

When the Police don't report the crime, the crime rates tend to fall. Likewise when one person or a gang burglarizes 15 homes in a neighborhood and the Police count it as one theft because the same person did it. Burglary rate goes down.

Blogger Conor Foran March 02, 2018 2:08 PM  

@24 Ryan G How about Correlation is not Causation?

Blogger James Dixon March 02, 2018 2:18 PM  

> In spite of all the drama regarding recent school shootings, violent crime has been on the decline for decades and recently hit a 20 year low back in 2014.

Probably because you've been lied to for decades: http://thefederalist.com/2018/01/22/new-harvard-research-says-u-s-christianity-not-shrinking-growing-stronger/

Blogger Dire Badger March 02, 2018 2:45 PM  

Take away god, and men worship themselves and women worship Moloch.

It always happens.

Blogger Ryan G March 02, 2018 2:51 PM  

@26 Conor Foran - That could work except that I know objectors will point out that other societies are secular and haven't (yet) descended into anarchistic bloodshed.

Information regarding under-reporting crimes also confirms my long held suspicion that things aren't nearly as rosy as some people would have us believe. I simply find it hard to imagine that all of the old timers who complain about not having to lock their doors are all just nostalgic.

Blogger slarrow March 02, 2018 2:58 PM  

Do Americans need God to be good? Not right now--the civilizational inertia is sufficient to let God's law structure and inform their moral code while they blithely take credit for being parasites on the remnants of Christendom.

Can Americans define good without God? Not so much. Remove the possibility of the transcendent, and there's not much left beyond sentiment, force, and the occasional vapid appeal to "evolution". Foolish to kill the goose that laid the golden egg, but that usually happens in every version of the fable I've ever read.

Blogger Ceerilan March 02, 2018 3:03 PM  

What's really interesting is that every nation with a modern understanding of human rights developed that modern understanding under strong Christian influence. Contrast this with postmodern philosophies like Communism. Their practitioners pay lipservice to the idea to avoid rightfully being lynched by their victims.

Blogger AnvilTiger March 02, 2018 3:04 PM  

The ontological argument:
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist
2. Objective moral values do exist
3. Therefore, God exists
Basically, atheists like to accept premise 2 while rejecting premise 1, thus denying the conclusion. But there are no successful arguments for accepting premise 2 while rejecting premise 1, because rejecting premise 1 means we live in a purely materialistic universe, and if we live in a purely materialistic universe, there is no way to successfully assert premise 2.

Therefore, atheists are idiots.

Blogger Rick March 02, 2018 3:14 PM  

I think we should vote on whose morals are the best!
And we can vote on them every five minutes!
Unless we vote that that's not popular.
Crap, I almost had this solved..

Blogger Ryan G March 02, 2018 3:33 PM  

"What's really interesting is that every nation with a modern understanding of human rights developed that modern understanding under strong Christian influence."

"But understand this: In the last days terrible times will come. For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, without love of good, traitorous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. Turn away from such as these! " - 2 Timothy Verse 3

Blogger Snidely Whiplash March 02, 2018 3:42 PM  

Brad Richards wrote:I am not religious, yet I assert that my moral standards are just as high as anyone here.
I would assert that you have not "moral" standards, per se, at all. If you are like 90-odd percent of the Atheists I've discussed these matters with, you have inculcated values and habits, and have trained yourself never to examine them, at all, and to react in anger whenever challenged on the fact.
Ryan G wrote:I simply find it hard to imagine that all of the old timers who complain about not having to lock their doors are all just nostalgic.
It's absolutely true people didn't have to lock their doors in many places. The reason they didn't have to lock their doors is that there was always someone home and there were no minorities in their communities.

Blogger Stilicho March 02, 2018 4:17 PM  

Somewhat tangential: I have always associated the term "evangelicals" with mega-church churchianity. I've always considered myself a "fundamentalist" Christian and recall that being the general term used to refer to Protestant Christians who believe (for simplicity's sake) that scripture is our primary guide. See, for example, references to Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell from the 80s. Somewhere along the line,the reference started being to "evangelicals" rather than "fundamentalists" and I suspect this has been done deliberately to blur the lines between fundamentalists and churchians in no small part to assist the infiltration and takeover of fundamentalist churches by the churchians (see,e.g. Southern Baptists).

Any thoughts/comments by the Ilk?

OpenID Sidehill Dodger March 02, 2018 4:46 PM  

AnvilTiger wrote:The ontological argument:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist

2. Objective moral values do exist

3. Therefore, God exists

Basically, atheists like to accept premise 2 while rejecting premise 1, thus denying the conclusion. But there are no successful arguments for accepting premise 2 while rejecting premise 1, because rejecting premise 1 means we live in a purely materialistic universe, and if we live in a purely materialistic universe, there is no way to successfully assert premise 2.

Therefore, atheists are idiots.

That's not any version of the ontological argument I've ever heard of. What you're attempting to present is a moral argument for the existence of God. I'm afraid it's not terribly convincing because many people are perfectly happy with asserting that your premise 2 is false. The form of your argument is valid, but remember that formal validity is not itself sufficient to prove the truth of a conclusion--one must accept the truth of the premises.

A better way to present the moral argument might be to talk to the unbeliever and get him to admit that moral evil exists in the world. That is, there are people who have done terrible things that we condemn. This usually isn't hard. Once the unbeliever admits this, you can attack along the lines of "but what is the source of your conviction that these actions are wrong?". The unbeliever has no recourse but to shrug unknowingly at this point. You, the believer, can then introduce the notion that if we recognize evil as such, then we must have a reference point--a knowledge of something that is Good. Oddly, this knowledge does not require belief in God, because even the unbeliever knows it. It's already there, (because we are made in God's image). At this point, you can raise the question of the origin of the moral template.

No, it's not a knock-down formal proof of the existence of God. I know of no such argument. That's why we call it "faith".

Blogger Tim from Nashua March 02, 2018 5:23 PM  

President Trump, What is good in life? . . . To crush your enemies, to see them in the fetal position before you, and to hear the lamentation of the Feminazis.

Blogger tz March 02, 2018 5:49 PM  

There is a reason the first commandment is "Thou Shall have no other gods before me".

There has to be an absolute standard, and standard giver. The former was called the Tao by Lewis in Abolition of Man. But the Tao is at best some kind of abstraction, something like animism or pantheism when there is no divine lawgiver.

Why are there so few moral atheists? That is the answer. Even with Objectivism, it ended up Ayn Rand said... and when she wished to have an affair, she managed to find a loophole.

That is the libertarian heresy - that we can be our own standards of law and morality. When it is us, we ARE all "equal" in authority. But you can't question God.

Blogger James March 02, 2018 6:38 PM  

What people are toofa king drooling retard stupid to understand is that when they say they don't need to believe in God to be moral and have "good" values, they are saying that they are God. And, hey, we can't question God, now, can we? Who are we to question God's will?

Blogger Paddy J S March 02, 2018 8:37 PM  

Best argument for Gods existence. Look at every single lefty liberal and their talking points you know. They are wrong about nearly all of them so why would they be right on the most important belief of all.

Blogger DonReynolds March 02, 2018 9:21 PM  

"Pew Research poll found 56 percent of Americans say it’s not necessary to believe in God to be moral and have good values."

It is a loaded question.
Is it possible to be moral and have good values without being a Christian?
Do Christians have the only morality?
Do Christians have the only good values?
Can a non-Christian have the same moral code and good values as a Christian?
The question itself is silly.
Can a person be LIKE a Christian without being one, with the same morality and the same good values?
Anything is possible, but why would they?
Why would a person pretend to be a Christian, without being one?
Of course, that is the answer.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash March 02, 2018 10:04 PM  

It's a loaded question because a Christian should know he can't be a good person even though he believes in God.

Blogger Pale Male March 02, 2018 11:01 PM  

@25 In the US, the crime victimization survey catches that kind of thing.  Ideally there would be finer sampling in metropolitan areas to catch things like "compstat" in Chicago.

@32 Your premise #1 is false.  If God does not exist, it only means that objective moral values can't come from God.  It does not mean that they don't have some other source.  You should read Ayn Rand; even if she was wrong, she had worthwhile insights and critiques which cannot be dismissed out of hand.

Consider it a holy quest.  Find ways to demonstrate objective moral values without a theistic premise.  With enough of these all pointing the same way, you have a good case to argue for a law-giver without assuming your conclusion.

And yes, I'd love to see someone do this.

@38 You sound far too much like those who insist there MUST be absolute human equality.  They assume their conclusion too.  That's where they go wrong and can never get back.  And yes, humans are weak.  Perhaps Rand especially, because she'd been lionized too much.

Blogger DonReynolds March 02, 2018 11:42 PM  

Muslims, Hindus, Jews....all insist that they believe in God, but I would never agree with their morality or their values nor would I think they are positive morals or good values.

The question is nonsense and terribly misleading.

Blogger Wynn Lloyd March 03, 2018 12:24 AM  

VD once explained this is in a brilliant way:
Morality is working due to inertia. As we move farther from the source of our moral tradition, our moral standing decays.
(I think I have that right?).
In other words, Christianity is responsible for the ethics we have now. As we move further away from it, we will become morally unrecognizable.

Blogger The Stygian March 03, 2018 12:29 AM  

Holy crap. The only thing keeping this ideal of a country afloat is.....God. When our leaders sold this country via the fed we started to feel the slow bleed until it had become a femoral artery hemorrhage. 🙁

Blogger John (not the pope) March 03, 2018 1:19 AM  

VD...where can I get a print edition of Hallpike's book?
Thanks!

OpenID paulmurray March 03, 2018 1:36 AM  

If "good" is defined as "what God likes", then "God is good" simply means "God does whatever he wants".

OpenID widlast March 03, 2018 9:40 AM  

"Muslims, Hindus, Jews....all insist that they believe in God"

Muslims believe in a god, who does not exist, and hate all others regardless of the others' beliefs.
Jews believe in God, who they know nothing about, and consider themselves His equal.
Hindus believe in a large assortment of gods, the number and character of which has changed regularly through history. As one Brit in India commented "every Hindu has his own religion".

Blogger saintCrispee March 03, 2018 10:21 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Rick March 03, 2018 10:30 AM  

Since nations, races, and cultures are so distinctly different, it makes perfect sense that God would speak in such a way that the person immersed in that culture could hear Him. “Before Abraham was I AM” seems to support that argument. I believe at least once Jesus refers to himself as I AM. “Who do they say I AM.”
Intersting that God in only 2 words indicates his identity (the first “I”) and that he embodies the very state of “being” itself: “AM”.

Blogger Rick March 03, 2018 10:38 AM  

Islam however I’m not so sure about. It’s been corrupted obviously, and whatever Truth that may have been in it, may have simply been co-opted for well the usual reasons. Bait and switch of the Absolute worst kind.
Anyway, since it was formed after Christ chronologically, it seems entirely unnecessary, plus a rejection of Christ as Who He Is.

Blogger saintCrispee March 03, 2018 10:57 AM  

The morality of God is not the ultimate source of morality ("good" and "evil"). Rather, it is an expression of man's innate and learned values developed over time as a necessarily social being who could not survive without a sympathetic disposition toward his neighbors.

Blogger Rick March 03, 2018 11:23 AM  

“The morality of God is not the ultimate source of morality“

This does not compute.

If there is a God (you say so above) then, by definition, he is the “ultimate source” of everything.

Blogger saintCrispee March 03, 2018 11:30 AM  

@Rick

I should have put "The morality of God" in quotation marks so as to indicate that it is the creation of man and not something emanating from a god or the God of the bible.

Blogger Rick March 03, 2018 11:43 AM  

I understand. But I think your argument is nevertheless untrue. You have things reversed. The values you say which were developed over time of course is true. But that is because God created just such a cosmos where of course the ONLY values that could be developed successfully would have to be in comportment with the laws of God. Something like mistake in thinking the map came before the territory because man had no territory before he developed a map of it. For example, the laws of language pre-exist communication, otherwise communication would not be possible. The mistake would be to think humans invented communication itself because it works so well.

Blogger saintCrispee March 03, 2018 11:47 AM  

@Rick

You wrote: "But that is because God created just such a cosmos where of course the ONLY values that could be developed successfully would have to be in comportment with the laws of God"

This is a premise that I can't support since I have not evidence to support it.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash March 03, 2018 1:00 PM  

saintCrispee wrote:Rather, it is an expression of man's innate and learned values developed over time as a necessarily social being who could not survive without a sympathetic disposition toward his neighbors.
This is frankly gibberish. Like virtually all Atheists, you have no idea what morality even is. Values are not morality, and they do not determine morality. Values are mere preferences. I value leisure, but duty is my moral obligation.
If the values are innate, they must have a source. If they are learned, they can be manipulated. In either case, they would be entirely subjective, when morality, is by definition objective.

Would it be good or bad for me to kill you, take your stuff and rape your wife? There is a huge population on the planet, if not an outright majority, who believe it would be a fine thing, so long as you weren't a member of their tribe.

Blogger Rick March 03, 2018 1:09 PM  

I understand. I think you mean you find no evidence of God. I say we’re swimming in evidence. Certainly more than sufficient.

I’m not trying to convince you otherwise. One man’s trash is another man’s treasure, after all. But out of curiosity (mine) would you consider yourself athiest or agnostic or ...?

It is funny, and probably pretty common, that my experience, once upon a time, was that my own intellect was a stumbling block toward Christianity (I had a low but polite opinion of it until 40). I’m just saying the phenomenon is interesting and somewhat paradoxical. Not making a claim that yours is a stumbling block. I do not think a person must abandon ones intellect. But rather fully employ it in this direction.

Interesting too in that we so often judge religion before even sticking our toe in the water. Likely because religion by its nature asks things of us. And that’s becomes clear right at the beginning of ones introduction to it. It doesn’t just say “you’re fine just the way you are.” And of course we have historically a great many examples of an abuse of religion. Like anything else.
Likewise, not claiming your intellect is your problem. I don’t know you. But I see it a lot. It’s not necessarily a bad thing, if one overcomes it somehow eventually.

Blogger saintCrispee March 03, 2018 2:22 PM  

@Snidely
"If the values are innate, they must have a source. If they are learned, they can be manipulated. In either case, they would be entirely subjective, when morality, is by definition objective."

I agree with this nearly entirely. Those things we value and call "morality" (as if objective) are derived from our survival instinct. And they certainly can be manipulated. It happens regularly. And yes, those values most people hold are subjective insofar as they do not derive from a single, unassailable font of authority.

Blogger saintCrispee March 03, 2018 2:25 PM  

@Rick
"I understand. I think you mean you find no evidence of God. I say we’re swimming in evidence. Certainly more than sufficient.

I’m not trying to convince you otherwise. One man’s trash is another man’s treasure, after all. But out of curiosity (mine) would you consider yourself athiest or agnostic or ...?"

"Atheist" vs "Agnostic" are loaded terms insofar as they tend to be descriptions of one's view toward a particular god of history. That said I'd probably fall into the agnostic camp where the notion of a creator is concerned. The universe, in my view, had to come from some source. That's where I stop. What that source is I have no idea. I have explored the various explanations and all fall short for me.

Blogger TrueBag PipeRock March 03, 2018 3:31 PM  

Catholic vs Pagan. Nick Fuentes vs Styxhexenhammer666 debate on religion in USA live today in hour: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSLhaKyQ3xg

Blogger Snidely Whiplash March 03, 2018 4:10 PM  

Your facile assertion that morality is nothing more than "values" based on survival instinct is simply, obviously and egregiously wrong. of course, as a materialist, you must assert that everything in human behavior is based on that ol' explanation for everything, evolution.

You again, elide the difference between "values" and morality. The are not even similar things. Values are nothing more than emotions. Morality is more real than you are.

Blogger saintCrispee March 03, 2018 4:51 PM  

@62
"Your facile assertion that morality is nothing more than "values" based on survival instinct is simply, obviously and egregiously wrong."

Says you. And that's the easy part. Explaining why is much harder and is probably why you chose not to try.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash March 03, 2018 5:03 PM  

You pathetic specimen.
i am under no obligation to you to explain anything, especially when you've demonstrated, repeatedly, that you are incapable of understanding.

If you want to understand consider the case of self-sacrifice. And don't blow it off with yet another facile "evolution" but actually think about it, if you're capable. What makes self-sacrifice noble? Why is the martyr revered and the suicide reviled?

Blogger saintCrispee March 03, 2018 5:48 PM  

@64

"i am under no obligation to you to explain anything, especially when you've demonstrated, repeatedly, that you are incapable of understanding"

I would never suggest you are under some obligation to explain anything. I'm only noting that you purposely choose not to. I take that to mean either 1) you can't or 2) you are embarrassed by the simplemindedness of your explanation.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash March 03, 2018 6:08 PM  

Or, you could take it to mean that I have so little respect for your intellect that I choose not to waste my time.

I gave you the lead, follow it if you dare.

Blogger saintCrispee March 03, 2018 6:23 PM  

@66
"Or, you could take it to mean that I have so little respect for your intellect that I choose not to waste my time."

And still....here you are...using and taking your time. My conclusions stand.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash March 03, 2018 6:55 PM  

Considering that you have yet to provide a single argument in favor or your conclusions, I fail to see how that pertains. You have merely asserted your own opinions, without the slightest scintilla of reason, logical support or evidence.

Your conclusions are not conclusions in any meaning of the word. They are mere prejudices, based in your own self-regard and emotional need to pretend you understand.

Blogger David Davenport March 03, 2018 8:54 PM  

"... the occasional vapid appeal to "evolution"."

What is "vapid" about evolution?

Please explain.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash March 03, 2018 9:10 PM  

Adjectives, do you understand how they work?

Blogger Pale Male March 03, 2018 9:37 PM  

If there's a universal morality, I'd like to see some commentary on this:

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/01/what_i_learned_in_peace_corps_in_africa_trump_is_right.html

"Our basic ideas of human relations, right and wrong, are incompatible."

"The Ten Commandments were not disobeyed – they were unknown. The value system was the exact opposite. You were supposed to steal everything you can to give to your own relatives.

"We hear a lot about the kleptocratic elites of Africa. The kleptocracy extends through the whole society. My town had a medical clinic donated by international agencies. The medicine was stolen by the medical workers and sold to the local store."

I'm willing to entertain claims that sub-Saharan Africans are not human, as they lack Neanderthal genes.

Blogger David Davenport March 04, 2018 12:45 AM  

Snidely, please explain about evolution.

In regard to adjectives, "vapid" is a modifier one might find in a small circulation magazine for the fuzzy tweed suit and bow tie set... For example "New Critierion."

Is your bow tie perhaps tied a bit too tight, snidely?

Blogger Snidely Whiplash March 04, 2018 12:56 AM  

Opera cape and cravat, thank you.
To which noun does the modifier "vapid" apply, David?
Hint, in English this is determined by word order, you fucking moron.
Learn to read, instead of skimming until offended, you unliterate goob.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts