tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-617897255754254019.post2661190089114190900..comments2023-10-04T09:04:44.153-07:00Comments on The Secular-Man Blog (An Oasis of Clear Thinking): Is Atheism a more Moral Position than TheismCraig Secularmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14311623496242884181noreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-617897255754254019.post-12681008779409026682007-08-01T15:52:00.000-07:002007-08-01T15:52:00.000-07:00Secular document. Doesn't mention God. Score!Debat...Secular document. Doesn't mention God. <BR/><BR/>Score!<BR/><BR/>Debated on and approved by secular men?<BR/><BR/>Not.<BR/><BR/>Have you asked Him yet?Guitanguranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04681832816808122712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-617897255754254019.post-75085476689951415132007-08-01T13:48:00.000-07:002007-08-01T13:48:00.000-07:00Oh sorry Freudian slip, I'd got Madison Square Gar...Oh sorry Freudian slip, I'd got Madison Square Gardens spinning round my head for some reason... I hope that doesn't mean your going to 'dock brownie points'.<BR/><BR/>How interesting... You've done it again. The main point I made in the whole post, that it is largely immaterial whether they were deists or theists or not, we could argue over that all day. The main point I made that it was Craig Secularmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14311623496242884181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-617897255754254019.post-52314494579104787662007-08-01T13:19:00.000-07:002007-08-01T13:19:00.000-07:00Well, actually I never quoted Madison. The quote w...Well, actually I never quoted Madison. The quote was from Mr. Mason, our bill of rights guy. And to that point, Mr. Mason was definitely Christian in his viewpoint rather than merely theistic. <BR/><BR/>Taking out Jefferson and Franklin, pretty much everyone else was Christian in some denominational membership or other, as one would ordinarily expect in that day. Up to the time the Constitution Guitanguranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04681832816808122712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-617897255754254019.post-52613869045992112462007-08-01T10:25:00.000-07:002007-08-01T10:25:00.000-07:00I am happy to concede to you that George Mason was...I am happy to concede to you that George Mason was a theist... I should of qualified my statement by saying most of the founding fathers were desists. But even if I did not qualifying that point and we started from the premise that all the founding fathers were theists... that would not change the fact that the constitution is secular and not theistic and that includes the Bill of Rights. <BR/><Craig Secularmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14311623496242884181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-617897255754254019.post-30850442177507096492007-08-01T07:57:00.000-07:002007-08-01T07:57:00.000-07:00Well, as I was referring only to the First Amendme...Well, as I was referring only to the First Amendment and not the whole Constitution, I don't see the problem. Government doesn't have any business creating or sponsoring religion, or preventing individuals from same.<BR/><BR/>Speaking of the 1st Amendment and your crack about deists, I did find a quote from George Mason. He is considered the 'father of the bill of rights'<BR/><BR/>"My soul I Guitanguranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04681832816808122712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-617897255754254019.post-66209830073513638462007-08-01T03:24:00.000-07:002007-08-01T03:24:00.000-07:00Sorry you have an incorrect interpretation of the ...Sorry you have an incorrect interpretation of the meaning of the constitution. While the constitution does hold up the right to freely practice religion, as long as it is not at the expense of someone else's freedom, that is not the same as what you have just said... You said:<BR/><BR/>"the First Amendment is there to keep things peculiar to any one religion, out of government hands."<BR/><BR/>Craig Secularmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14311623496242884181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-617897255754254019.post-73024742469625917372007-07-31T09:00:00.000-07:002007-07-31T09:00:00.000-07:00"It seems you are happy to say what about the 'sec..."It seems you are happy to say what about the 'secular laws' ...But don't mention the others... why not mention the others? They are part of the commandments too. Why is it that modern society has 'cherry picked' murder, theft and perjury and modern society does not hold up the other commandments as laws to follow."<BR/><BR/>Its not cherry picking as you put it. At least as far as our Guitanguranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04681832816808122712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-617897255754254019.post-65928147938737350152007-07-31T06:21:00.000-07:002007-07-31T06:21:00.000-07:00Well how convenient... When you say that "Essentia...Well how convenient... When you say that "Essentially all of what we consider our justice system and body of laws coincide with the 'secular' parts of the ten commandments...perjury, theft, murder etc." <BR/><BR/>It seems you are happy to say what about the 'secular laws' ...But don't mention the others... why not mention the others? They are part of the commandments too. Why is it that modern Craig Secularmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14311623496242884181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-617897255754254019.post-73574758425714645612007-07-31T05:14:00.000-07:002007-07-31T05:14:00.000-07:00Well, Chris, you are part of large group that have...Well, Chris, you are part of large group that have a problem with 'sin' as its usually described in the Bible. You say the sin concept is immoral. I honestly don't get that. Essentially all of what we consider our justice system and body of laws coincide with the 'secular' parts of the ten commandments...perjury, theft, murder etc. Evidently passing laws concerning those behaviors has served us Guitanguranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04681832816808122712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-617897255754254019.post-39660638422038747242007-07-31T01:48:00.000-07:002007-07-31T01:48:00.000-07:00"Condoning what essentially is capital punishment?..."Condoning what essentially is capital punishment? Well, two things...I personally accept capital punishment as valid. From my perspective, I accept that God had a reason for making some behaviors capital offences. As I've come study the Bible more in depth, I've come to a better understanding of the whys and wherfores behind His 'edicts'."<BR/><BR/>Well fine you condone capital punishment.... Craig Secularmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14311623496242884181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-617897255754254019.post-79683391805268142772007-07-30T20:20:00.000-07:002007-07-30T20:20:00.000-07:00Lets see if I can finish...Condoning what essentia...Lets see if I can finish...<BR/><BR/>Condoning what essentially is capital punishment? Well, two things...I personally accept capital punishment as valid. From my perspective, I accept that God had a reason for making some behaviors capital offenses. As I've come study the Bible more in depth, I've come to a better understanding of the whys and wherfores behind His 'edicts'. <BR/><BR/>"the Bible Guitanguranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04681832816808122712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-617897255754254019.post-38670188898528778722007-07-30T14:59:00.000-07:002007-07-30T14:59:00.000-07:00"My very point being, if you condemn someone based..."My very point being, if you condemn someone based on sin, such as for example adulterous sin..."<BR/><BR/>At the risk of being repetitive(maybe because you keep repeating it), I haven't condemned anyone. Not my job, man. <BR/><BR/>NEVER used the word 'stupid',BTW.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Outrageous statements? At the risk of posting it again again again. You said you didn't condone adultery and in that Guitanguranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04681832816808122712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-617897255754254019.post-40785473801601957452007-07-30T02:01:00.000-07:002007-07-30T02:01:00.000-07:00You said... "Huh wuzzat? I suppose that laws based...You said... "Huh wuzzat? I suppose that laws based on sin concerning theft, fraud and murder are also unjust?"<BR/><BR/>Laws based on theft, fraud and murder have absolutely nothing to do with sin. I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself. Sin is a meaningless man-invented concept and is uncoupled from evidence of any real crime being committed. We do not judge individuals based on sinCraig Secularmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14311623496242884181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-617897255754254019.post-21164527698508687252007-07-29T06:09:00.000-07:002007-07-29T06:09:00.000-07:00"But, can you not see that individuals in western ..."But, can you not see that individuals in western societies do hold a different moral standard and countries that hold those standards also recognise the injustice of laws based on sin."<BR/><BR/>Huh wuzzat? I suppose that laws based on sin concerning theft, fraud and murder are also unjust? <BR/><BR/>"Would you seriously condemn someone who strayed and had sex outside of a forced arranged Guitanguranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04681832816808122712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-617897255754254019.post-9245109799980428152007-07-28T10:26:00.000-07:002007-07-28T10:26:00.000-07:00Well, I already gave a definition of why it would ...Well, I already gave a definition of why it would not be adulterous for someone in a forced marriage to stray... In what sense is that really adultery? Now, of course, if you lived in Iran or Somalia... Then of course under the eyes of the law, it may be classed as immoral and indeed illegal. But, can you not see that individuals in western societies do hold a different moral standard and Craig Secularmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14311623496242884181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-617897255754254019.post-78513287639533922722007-07-28T06:17:00.000-07:002007-07-28T06:17:00.000-07:00"Now, in an earlier post, you commented: "I'm wond..."Now, in an earlier post, you commented: "I'm wondering whether your reading any of my posts". I am now beginning to wonder the same thing."<BR/><BR/>"No, I never said it was OK for a spouse to cheat." <BR/><BR/>"Now I certainly was not condoning adultery..."<BR/><BR/><BR/>"Now in certain circumstances, I would even call adultery a moral act."<BR/><BR/>What is to misunderstand here?<BR/><BR/>As Guitanguranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04681832816808122712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-617897255754254019.post-41880717908299082142007-07-28T01:52:00.000-07:002007-07-28T01:52:00.000-07:00Now, in an earlier post, you commented: "I'm wonde...Now, in an earlier post, you commented: "I'm wondering whether your reading any of my posts". I am now beginning to wonder the same thing. In your last response you have made all sorts of claims into what I think and you have completely dropped context.<BR/><BR/>I did say I did not condone adultery. However I then went on to say, however, it would obviously be wrong to judge each case of adulteryCraig Secularmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14311623496242884181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-617897255754254019.post-9094024365842865032007-07-27T12:25:00.000-07:002007-07-27T12:25:00.000-07:00First I get:"No, I never said it was OK for a spou...First I get:<BR/><BR/>"No, I never said it was OK for a spouse to cheat." <BR/><BR/>"Now I certainly was not condoning adultery..."<BR/><BR/>Then I get:<BR/><BR/>"Now in certain circumstances, I would even call adultery a moral act."<BR/><BR/>Get back with me when you've made up your mind.<BR/><BR/>"You seem to be saying ''adultery is bad' end of story, as if it is that 'black and white' and Guitanguranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04681832816808122712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-617897255754254019.post-27453069808955337802007-07-27T00:47:00.000-07:002007-07-27T00:47:00.000-07:00No, I never said it was OK for a spouse to cheat. ...No, I never said it was OK for a spouse to cheat. The fact is that in healthy loving relationships, individuals don't cheat. But again, there are usually causes that lead to adulterous behaviour, these actions do not happen in a vacuum. Perhaps the person who cheats is living in a marriage that has become a sham and the two people have fallen out of love. <BR/><BR/>Now I certainly was not Craig Secularmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14311623496242884181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-617897255754254019.post-18252227080478096362007-07-26T20:28:00.000-07:002007-07-26T20:28:00.000-07:00Mr. H, The other stuff I'll let go of for now, but...Mr. H, <BR/><BR/>The other stuff I'll let go of for now, but...<BR/><BR/>Let me make sure I've got this right. You're telling me that when it comes to morality, cheating on a spouse "...is a difficult question to answer..."?<BR/><BR/>What happened to the 'golden rule'?<BR/><BR/>Or, maybe its OK if a spouse cheated on you?<BR/><BR/>I'm usually not at a loss for words. I am now.Guitanguranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04681832816808122712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-617897255754254019.post-4952642526325222182007-07-26T04:53:00.000-07:002007-07-26T04:53:00.000-07:00Well firstly, I will respond to your comments on H...Well firstly, I will respond to your comments on Hitler, Stalin, Chairman Mao and Pol Pot. Your logic is so obviously faulty, that it 'stands out a mile'. The fact that such dictators are the 'exception and not the rule', I think proves my point and disqualifies yours. The fact is that dictators when compared to the World population seem to be outliers and anathemas, they are not the norm and Craig Secularmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14311623496242884181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-617897255754254019.post-77077870678731387772007-07-25T14:33:00.000-07:002007-07-25T14:33:00.000-07:00"If I said I hade never lied, of course you would ..."If I said I hade never lied, of course you would never believe me and I would be a liar."<BR/><BR/>I would submit that you and I still are liars, as opposed to 'ex' liars.<BR/><BR/>"The point is that all of us lie sometimes, but most of us, do not lie most of the time, which if were innately bad, one would expect to see."<BR/><BR/>Aside from having no evidence to prove that assertion, I would Guitanguranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04681832816808122712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-617897255754254019.post-42316168203905493702007-07-25T03:35:00.000-07:002007-07-25T03:35:00.000-07:001. Have you ever lied? Ever? ... If I said I hade ...1. Have you ever lied? Ever? <BR/><BR/>... If I said I hade never lied, of course you would never believe me and I would be a liar. But this is really a poor presumption. I am not suggesting for a moment, because we are innately good as I believe we are, that we are not capable of lying. The point is that all of us lie sometimes, but most of us, do not lie most of the time, which if were innatelyCraig Secularmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14311623496242884181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-617897255754254019.post-25731070320695338692007-07-24T14:57:00.000-07:002007-07-24T14:57:00.000-07:00"Now, children may need a friendly reminder, now a..."Now, children may need a friendly reminder, now and again, but for the most part, the Golden Rule is innate in us."<BR/><BR/>Where to start? Well, I can catagorically and unequivocally affirm anyone making that statement has never raised a child from birth, or if so, was careless in observing the behavior of said squab. <BR/><BR/>Its not to say that children aren't capable of altruistic Guitanguranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04681832816808122712noreply@blogger.com