You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: MODERN = GOOD, OLD = BAD
Awesome. Now that we've established some common-ground, we can clearly map out where we agree and disagree.
Awesome. Now that we've established some common-ground, we can clearly map out where we agree and disagree.
Why not adopt the mindset of a libertarian or a classical liberal who simply doesn't care what people do as long as they don't violate the rights of other people, right?
Rights without an enforcement mechanism are meaningless.
Why?
Because I can tell you all day and all night that you have the "right" to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" - but if I don't DO ANYTHING to insure that your life is protected and your liberty is protected then you have no fair shot at "pursuing happiness".
The words themselves sound good, but without a coherent and reliable enforcement mechanism, those words are hollow aphorisms.
You really do hate God that much?
The one and only creator of the universe is superawesomeamazing!!!!
I'm just having some trouble figuring out exactly what it wants me to do TODAY.
Can you help me out?
Are you calling everybody everywhere retarded for being religious?
No. Most religions have a strong social-bonding aspect. Joining a club that strengthens your social-connections is prudent.
I'm just trying to figure out why they claim so fervently that "objective-morality" is vastly superior to "situational-ethics" and yet, can't provide a LIST of practical, universal, real-world, modern day "objective moral principles".
I mean, if you (and many others) claim that "love" (agape) is the top moral principle, wouldn't all christians be very strongly ANTI-WAR? If your primary "objective-moral-principle" is "love", wouldn't you be very strongly ANTI-DEATH-PENALTY? Wouldn't you be very strongly in favor of HUMANE TREATMENT OF IMMIGRANTS AND PRISONERS AND THE HOMELESS?