|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
 Posted - 06/22/2007 : 19:50:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Dave, are you an atheist, and if so how do you derive your moral code? |
Standard Jerome debate tactics: when you're backed into a corner, try to change the subject. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 19:58:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Dave, are you an atheist, and if so how do you derive your moral code? |
Standard Jerome debate tactics: when you're backed into a corner, try to change the subject.
|
Standard Dave tactic: never engaging in conversation, perceiving debate when none exists.
I never initiated a debate. I asked a question which I hoped would be answered.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 20:01:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
I have made an effort to answer most posts that respond. I assumed that was the polite thing to do. |
My comment wasn't a critique! I'm sorry if you took it that way. If anything, it was a sign of admiration. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 20:03:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
I have made an effort to answer most posts that respond. I assumed that was the polite thing to do. |
My comment wasn't a critique! I'm sorry if you took it that way. If anything, it was a sign of admiration.
|
Thanks. |
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 20:45:17 [Permalink]
|
I think that one of my biggest problems with this topic is that it's so overdone. People come here and start topics like this ALL THE TIME. This tells me that the people that begin the topics aren't willing to due their due diligence and find out what they can first. THis site's archives are crawling with topics relating to atheism and the origin of morality. I thought Libertarians did their due diligence. Huh, I guess not.
@ |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 21:20:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by @tomic
I think that one of my biggest problems with this topic is that it's so overdone. People come here and start topics like this ALL THE TIME. This tells me that the people that begin the topics aren't willing to due their due diligence and find out what they can first. THis site's archives are crawling with topics relating to atheism and the origin of morality. I thought Libertarians did their due diligence. Huh, I guess not.
@
|
The thought just struck me when I realized that many here were atheists. I did not think any offense would be taken by the question, and none was meant.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 22:14:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Standard Dave tactic: never engaging in conversation, perceiving debate when none exists.
I never initiated a debate. I asked a question which I hoped would be answered. |
And yet you still cannot admit that your analogy was flawed, and instead bring up irrelevancies. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 22:24:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Standard Dave tactic: never engaging in conversation, perceiving debate when none exists.
I never initiated a debate. I asked a question which I hoped would be answered. |
And yet you still cannot admit that your analogy was flawed, and instead bring up irrelevancies.
|
Dave, of course the analogy was flawed. That is not relevant to the point. The point being, implying that someones moral code allows child rape has little merit in a civil discussion.
I asked a question.
I answered a question.
My answer was attacked in a manner reminiscent of theologians attacking a heretic.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 23:02:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Dave, of course the analogy was flawed. That is not relevant to the point. The point being, implying that someones moral code allows child rape has little merit in a civil discussion. |
That was the point of your flawed analogy, ensuring that you haven't demonstrated your point.I asked a question.
I answered a question.
My answer was attacked in a manner reminiscent of theologians attacking a heretic. |
Looking back at the thread, your answer was attacked because it doesn't make sense in context. You claim that definitions and context matter, but then seem to feel free to change the context of the Bible and the definitions of the Hebrew words to suit your tastes in morality. Had you not insisted that you used such a standard, you wouldn't appear to be a hypocrite. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2007 : 08:47:59 [Permalink]
|
Dave, someone tried to redefine adultery as only sex with a married woman. That has never been the definition.
Dave are you an atheist, and if so how do you determine your moral code?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2007 : 08:49:06 [Permalink]
|
| Look at Dave's picture, and tell me that you seriously think this man has a moral code. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2007 : 08:51:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
Look at Dave's picture, and tell me that you seriously think this man has a moral code.
|
 |
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2007 : 11:39:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Dave, someone tried to redefine adultery as only sex with a married woman. That has never been the definition. |
But THAT is the Hebrew meaning!!!! That's the point!!! To claim it has "never been the definition" is to pretend that the Ten Commandments were written in English within the last few centuries!! But they weren't, and even you know that! |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2007 : 12:49:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Dave, someone tried to redefine adultery as only sex with a married woman. That has never been the definition. |
But THAT is the Hebrew meaning!!!! That's the point!!! To claim it has "never been the definition" is to pretend that the Ten Commandments were written in English within the last few centuries!! But they weren't, and even you know that!
|
You are making a claim. Present a Hebrew dictionary that defines adultery as only sex with a married woman.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2007 : 13:37:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
You are making a claim. Present a Hebrew dictionary that defines adultery as only sex with a married woman. |
The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, while dated, is still the standard for working with the Hebrew Bible. Under N'P, it defines it as "to commit adultery" further qualifying it as "usu[ally] of a man, always with the wife of another." That is, it goes one way: a married woman can't have sex outside of marriage; a married man can have sex with a single woman (though he'd probably have to marry her, too!). |
|
|
 |
|
Atheism and Morals
