"Christian" Dad Whips Kids Over Changed Channel

[D1B]

Wondering why Joe hasn't answeredthis?

I'm not answering him because I'm ignoring him.

But since you asked, I certainly don't think that our morality is biologically driven in the manner described, although I'm sure it is one of many factors. Now that I'm a parent, I have to come to think it is even a smaller factor than I originally thought.

Being a parent plainly deepens an understanding of our overall humanity, and presents yet another way that we experience person-hood. Does it deepen your understanding of morality? Yes -- and in ways that you might never suspect until you become a parent. I find it hard to describe my emotions toward my children as being biologically driven.

Let me explain. I sometimes watch my sons play soccer or baseball, and I watch with other parents who are there to watch their children. And I sometimes begin to think that there may one parent watching the game whose son might someday die in a car accident, or lose their way in life and do something horrific, or in some other way do something or have something done to them which will cause deep sadness for their parents -- who are smiling broadly today and basking in their love for their child. And I become deeply troubled by this thought. I never had such thoughts before I became a parent. Is my concern for one of these parents driven by biology? How can you say something like that? For my kid, sure, you can make the argument, I suppose. But for some other parent?

There is something which ties us together as humans.

It's called empathy and shared responsibility, you dimwit. The same empathy someone punked you with earlier in the thread.

Most animals feircely defend their young and show tender affection. Social species like us show it to other's children. Higher order primates show advanced emotions such as sorrow and grief. It's a powerful product of evolution.

Real nice description Joe, but your attempt to dismiss or minimize a biological basis for morality is lame, like you.

[JoltinJoe]

I agree with a lot of what you say. Although I don't think it's possible to evolve past the Bible in its fully revealed sense.

Rudimentary? Jefferson thought that Jesus, while not divine, was the most sublime moral philosopher who ever lived. I agree with that. He's so good that everyone wants a piece of him -- even many people who aren't exactly Christ-like.

As for my thoughts, in the end, I have two essential points. First, God is not hiding from us. If he exists, he is manifesting himself through a major world religion. Second, God has given it to us straight, by becoming one of us and telling what he wants us to know directly. I really find the notion of the Incarnation irresistible: a God who loves the world so much that he becomes one with us, to give us the lessons directly.

That this guy which one major world religion has pegged as the Incarnate also happens to be, in the eyes of brilliant men like Jefferson, the most sublime moral philosopher who ever lived puts it all together for me.

That the church that he founded even survived in the years after his death is a miracle too.

God is speaking directly to us. OK. Joe, what about the billions of people who don't believe in your god?

Do you sit around all day thinking about the next stupid question you can ask?

[D1B]

God is speaking directly to us. OK. Joe, what about the billions of people who don't believe in your god?

Do you sit around all day thinking about the next stupid question you can ask?

A god who love's the world so much!

You're a whackjob of the highest order.

[CID1990]

Somebody wake me up when the pie arrives.

[grizzaholic]

Somebody wake me up when the pie arrives.

I heard that they are serving mince-meat pie. I think I will pass.

[JoltinJoe]

I'm not answering him because I'm ignoring him.

But since you asked, I certainly don't think that our morality is biologically driven in the manner described, although I'm sure it is one of many factors. Now that I'm a parent, I have to come to think it is even a smaller factor than I originally thought.

Being a parent plainly deepens an understanding of our overall humanity, and presents yet another way that we experience person-hood. Does it deepen your understanding of morality? Yes -- and in ways that you might never suspect until you become a parent. I find it hard to describe my emotions toward my children as being biologically driven.

Let me explain. I sometimes watch my sons play soccer or baseball, and I watch with other parents who are there to watch their children. And I sometimes begin to think that there may one parent watching the game whose son might someday die in a car accident, or lose their way in life and do something horrific, or in some other way do something or have something done to them which will cause deep sadness for their parents -- who are smiling broadly today and basking in their love for their child. And I become deeply troubled by this thought. I never had such thoughts before I became a parent. Is my concern for one of these parents driven by biology? How can you say something like that? For my kid, sure, you can make the argument, I suppose. But for some other parent?

There is something which ties us together as humans.

It's called empathy and shared responsibility, you dimwit. The same empathy someone punked you with earlier in the thread.

Most animals feircely defend their young and show tender affection. Social species like us show it to other's children. Higher order primates show advanced emotions such as sorrow and grief. It's a powerful product of evolution.

Real nice description Joe, but your attempt to dismiss or minimize a biological basis for morality is lame, like you.

Seriously, what a rube you are.

You prance around calling yourself a "secular humanist," and like most under-educated "secular humanists," you try to co-opt the "humanist" label, even as you continue to deprive humans of all things that make us human and special: free will, advanced moral reasoning, deep sensitivity and emotion, etc.

The humanists of the Renaissance and Enlightenment celebrated the human form in art, literature music. The Enlightenment philosophers declared that all men were created equal and endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights. Modern "humanists" do nothing but diminish the human. We are just another animal.

So our moral code is simply just a product of biological impulses? You are so clueless you don't appreciate the irony of calling yourself a "humanist" while you diminish the human species into a simple product of our biology.

[youngterrier]

the fact that this thread has lasted this long is laughable at best

[kalm]

It's called empathy and shared responsibility, you dimwit. The same empathy someone punked you with earlier in the thread.

Most animals feircely defend their young and show tender affection. Social species like us show it to other's children. Higher order primates show advanced emotions such as sorrow and grief. It's a powerful product of evolution.

Real nice description Joe, but your attempt to dismiss or minimize a biological basis for morality is lame, like you.

Seriously, what a rube you are.

You prance around calling yourself a "secular humanist," and like most under-educated "secular humanists," you try to co-opt the "humanist" label, even as you continue to deprive humans of all things that make us human and special: free will, advanced moral reasoning, deep sensitivity and emotion, etc.

The humanists of the Renaissance and Enlightenment celebrated the human form in art, literature music. The Enlightenment philosophers declared that all men were created equal and endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights. Modern "humanists" do nothing but diminish the human. We are just another animal.

So our moral code is simply just a product of biological impulses? You are so clueless you don't appreciate the irony of calling yourself a "humanist" while you diminish the human species into a simple product of our biology.

Are you going now going to quote Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Hitler to prove their Humanism? Here's a clue Joe: DIB's humanists aren't the type you are confusing with fascists/cult leaders/autocrats - those tend to be right leaning. You are again confusing labels and trying to connect the dots that aren't there.

[JoltinJoe]

Kalm, what the heck are you smoking? Did you read what D1B said?

Modern secular "humanists," while claiming to be in the humanist tradition, devalue humans by arguing -- as D1B just did -- that man's morality is the result of mere biology. I'm not confusing anything. D1B just said it.

I'm simply highlighting the irony of calling yourself a "humanist" while simultaneously moving the human species closer and closer to the other animals by claiming, for example, that our morality is derived from biology (and indeed directly comparing our "nurturing instincts to those of animals).

Next, the secular humanists will be talking about "animal rights." (Oh, wait ...).

I didn't make any connection between modern secular "humanists" and Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. I will concede that, while sometimes employing language of the so-called "secular humanists," their ultimate actions were not consistent with their words. What you seem to fail to grasp is that this happened, however, because there is no core objective basis for truth infusing "secular humanism."

You say that the dots are not there to be connected between modern secular humanists and the massively failed "secular" governments of the past. In fact, many genuine scholars have convincingly made that connection. I think you should read some of them before you dismiss out of hand that notion there is a prevailing fundamental flaw which continues to go unaddressed in the thought of modern secular "humanism."

[andy7171]

Bring on the retirement threads.

[D1B]

Bring on the retirement threads.

No retirement here Andy. When did I ever retire?

I'll continue to back him up against the wall like I've been doing for years.

Your hero continues to fabricate and distort others' arguments, personal life and belief systems to gain advantage. Here's a perfect example - implying that I believe morality is only a product of biology. All I said was biology is the base for morality - a big difference - and I'm right. I never said anything remotely close to the gross exaggerations of his last few posts.

He's on tilt and has gotten his ass kicked repeatedly by me and others on this thread. He now can only lie and lash out.

No one wants to deal with him anymore.

[JoltinJoe]

The only thing going in this thread is, generally, a civil exchange of ideas between posters -- and then you, a blowhard of the highest order who can't control his emotions. People see right through you.

It's a friggin' same that people here can't have an intelligent discussion about religion, morality, etc., without you interrupting with your tirades and and fabrications. This place use to be a place where people could have fun, and intelligent debate too. You've ruined it.

But it's all been worth it for this quote:

You know a vast majority of [those who died under Stalin] died of starvation - a result of inherent flaws in communist economic theory and practice.

You're an apologist for Stalin. Why would anyone pay any attention to anything you have to say?

[JoltinJoe]

Your hero continues to fabricate and distort others' arguments, personal life and belief systems to gain advantage. Here's a perfect example - implying that I believe morality is only a product of biology. All I said was biology is the base for morality - a big difference - and I'm right. I never said anything remotely close to the gross exaggerations of his last few posts.

Most animals feircely defend their young and show tender affection. Social species like us show it to other's children. Higher order primates show advanced emotions such as sorrow and grief. It's a powerful product of evolution.

[D1B]

Your hero continues to fabricate and distort others' arguments, personal life and belief systems to gain advantage. Here's a perfect example - implying that I believe morality is only a product of biology. All I said was biology is the base for morality - a big difference - and I'm right. I never said anything remotely close to the gross exaggerations of his last few posts.

Most animals feircely defend their young and show tender affection. Social species like us show it to other's children. Higher order primates show advanced emotions such as sorrow and grief. It's a powerful product of evolution.

Doesn't say anything at all about morality only being a product of biology.

Try again, scumbag. Figure out another lie.

[D1B]

The only thing going in this thread is, generally, a civil exchange of ideas between posters -- and then you, a blowhard of the highest order who can't control his emotions. People see right through you.

It's a friggin' same that people here can't have an intelligent discussion about religion, morality, etc., without you interrupting with your tirades and and fabrications. This place use to be a place where people could have fun, and intelligent debate too. You've ruined it.

But it's all been worth it for this quote:

You know a vast majority of [those who died under Stalin] died of starvation - a result of inherent flaws in communist economic theory and practice.

You're an apologist for Stalin. Why would anyone pay any attention to anything you have to say?

Another Joltin Joe exaggeration. Death estimates range in the tens of millions for starvation deaths due to famine in Soviet Russia (and Georgia) and China. This is a historical fact. Again, I've never said there were not other victims of communism and tyranny.

Joe, you've become an animal here. A feral zealot who can only resort to lying and deception. We all see it, exept for you.

[kalm]

Modern secular "humanists," while claiming to be in the humanist tradition, devalue humans by arguing -- as D1B just did -- that man's morality is the result of mere biology. I'm not confusing anything. D1B just said it.

I'm simply highlighting the irony of calling yourself a "humanist" while simultaneously moving the human species closer and closer to the other animals by claiming, for example, that our morality is derived from biology (and indeed directly comparing our "nurturing instincts to those of animals).

Are you threatened by the notion that we might be a part of nature? That it's ok for us to share some god-given traits with animals? Is it impossible to be a humanist and pro animal or nature? I'm rootin' for ya to win but you're losing ground very fast. And yes, D is belligerent, but some of you're stuff might be be taken as more subtle jabs at monotheists, or pantheists, but jabs none the less.

I didn't make any connection between modern secular "humanists" and Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. I will concede that, while sometimes employing language of the so-called "secular humanists," their ultimate actions were not consistent with their words. What you seem to fail to grasp is that this happened, however, because there is no core objective basis for truth infusing "secular humanism."

You say that the dots are not there to be connected between modern secular humanists and the massively failed "secular" governments of the past. In fact, many genuine scholars have convincingly made that connection. I think you should read some of them before you dismiss out of hand that notion there is a prevailing fundamental flaw which continues to go unaddressed in the thought of modern secular "humanism."

But I don't have to read some of them when I have you.

[JoltinJoe]

Modern secular "humanists," while claiming to be in the humanist tradition, devalue humans by arguing -- as D1B just did -- that man's morality is the result of mere biology. I'm not confusing anything. D1B just said it.

I'm simply highlighting the irony of calling yourself a "humanist" while simultaneously moving the human species closer and closer to the other animals by claiming, for example, that our morality is derived from biology (and indeed directly comparing our "nurturing instincts to those of animals).

Are you threatened by the notion that we might be a part of nature? That it's ok for us to share some god-given traits with animals? Is it impossible to be a humanist and pro animal or nature? I'm rootin' for ya to win but you're losing ground very fast. And yes, D is belligerent, but some of you're stuff might be be taken as more subtle jabs at monotheists, or pantheists, but jabs none the less.

I didn't make any connection between modern secular "humanists" and Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. I will concede that, while sometimes employing language of the so-called "secular humanists," their ultimate actions were not consistent with their words. What you seem to fail to grasp is that this happened, however, because there is no core objective basis for truth infusing "secular humanism."

You say that the dots are not there to be connected between modern secular humanists and the massively failed "secular" governments of the past. In fact, many genuine scholars have convincingly made that connection. I think you should read some of them before you dismiss out of hand that notion there is a prevailing fundamental flaw which continues to go unaddressed in the thought of modern secular "humanism."

But I don't have to read some of them when I have you.

Kalm, I'm fine with being part of nature -- but we are higher than the animals.

And I'm pro-animal in that I believe that humans have a moral obligation to treat animals humanely. But that's different than saying animals have rights. They don't.

Rights are, in our understanding, inalienable to man, endowed to each one of us by our creator. The best governments which have ever existed have been based on concepts of natural law. Our constitution is a precise articulation of the natural law model. I get concerned when secular humanists attack the principles of natural law, and it goes unchallenged, because they are undermining the very foundation of our government -- which, although not perfect, has managed to keep us free and prosperous.

In contrast to natural law, the only governments based on modern "humanistic" principles have all devolved into brutal totalitarian states, as the idealism of Marx/Engels always gets co-opted into the opportunism of Stalin. We've had this discussion before, I think, and I've observed that the reason this happens is because the collective rights of the "people" (which ultimately becomes a euphemism for the central government) is deemed more important than the right of any individual. And this is possible because modern "humanism" lacks, as a central, core, and objective truth, that all individuals possess inalienable rights derived from a source higher than the central government.

Looking at history, why would any thinking and free people trade the natural right model for the model offered by secular humanists? Why should we elect the idea that there is no objective force which has endowed us with inalienable rights, given what we can observe from history?

[kalm]

Are you threatened by the notion that we might be a part of nature? That it's ok for us to share some god-given traits with animals? Is it impossible to be a humanist and pro animal or nature? I'm rootin' for ya to win but you're losing ground very fast. And yes, D is belligerent, but some of you're stuff might be be taken as more subtle jabs at monotheists, or pantheists, but jabs none the less.



But I don't have to read some of them when I have you.

Kalm, I'm fine with being part of nature -- but we are higher than the animals.

And I'm pro-animal in that I believe that humans have a moral obligation to treat animals humanely. But that's different than saying animals have rights. They don't.

Rights are, in our understanding, inalienable to man, endowed to each one of us by our creator. The best governments which have ever existed have been based on concepts of natural law. Our constitution is a precise articulation of the natural law model. I get concerned when secular humanists attack the principles of natural law, and it goes unchallenged, because they are undermining the very foundation of our government -- which, although not perfect, has managed to keep us free and prosperous.

In contrast to natural law, the only governments based on modern "humanistic" principles have all devolved into brutal totalitarian states, as the idealism of Marx/Engels always gets co-opted into the opportunism of Stalin. We've had this discussion before, I think, and I've observed that the reason this happens is because the collective rights of the "people" (which ultimately becomes a euphemism for the central government) is deemed more important than the right of any individual. And this is possible because modern "humanism" lacks, as a central, core, and objective truth, that all individuals possess inalienable rights derived from a source higher than the central government.

Looking at history, why would any thinking and free people trade the natural right model for the model offered by secular humanists? Why should we elect the idea that there is no objective force which has endowed us with inalienable rights, given what we can observe from history?

Classical conk response and very persuasive, but I disagree. We are not seperate from nature, we are not above anything in nature. This included the founding fathers.

In this day and age, individuals can clearly become post-subjective truth and still adhere to the principles of inalienable rights without the subjectve moral code of a church. I'll grant you that it's not clear whether groups of people yet can. That's a very interesing question.

[JoltinJoe]

Classical donk response ...

Principles of inalienable rights are not dependent on the "objective truth" of any single church, but instead simply on the generic truth that they are endowed by the creator. So the government is officially neutral on matters of specific religions, but not secular in that it certainly has a position on the existence of a creator.

You take away the creator, you have really taken away the idea that rights are inalienable. Oh, sure, you can say that rights are still inalienable, but once there is no creator, you have made the government the source of rights, by default. There is a reason why this word "inalienable" or "unalienable" was a product of the Enlightenment. It gave standing to the individual to claim that his rights were derived from an authority higher than the man-made government and thus had to be respected by the man-made government. So if you take away the creator, you destroy the model or concept of inalienable rights. (This is why the claim of the "secular humanist," that he is a product of the Enlightenment humanism, is bogus. It is why I say that the secular "humanist" has co-opted the term "humanist").

Worse, if you take away the creator, you are now espousing a modern "humanism," by default, as the foundation for rights. This model has failed in historical proportions whenever attempted. History proves it's a slippery slope from the ideal of "individual can clearly become post-objective truth (Freudian slip, kalm? ) and still adhere to the principles of inalienable rights" (an articulation expressly attempted by the Soviet constitution) and to a despot who grasps that this makes the central government the source of rights.

So I'll stick with what has worked best, as proven by history.
BTW, I never said we were above or separate from nature. I said we were above the animals.

[D1B]

Classical donk response ...

Principles of inalienable rights are not dependent on the "objective truth" of any single church, but instead simply on the generic truth that they are endowed by the creator. So the government is officially neutral on matters of specific religions, but not secular in that it certainly has a position on the existence of a creator.

You take away the creator, you have really taken away the idea that rights are inalienable. Oh, sure, you can say that rights are still inalienable, but once there is no creator, you have made the government the source of rights, by default. There is a reason why this word "inalienable" or "unalienable" was a product of the Enlightenment. It gave standing to the individual to claim that his rights were derived from an authority higher than the man-made government and thus had to be respected by the man-made government. So if you take away the creator, you destroy the model or concept of inalienable rights. (This is why the claim of the "secular humanist," that he is a product of the Enlightenment humanism, is bogus. It is why I say that the secular "humanist" has co-opted the term "humanist").

Worse, if you take away the creator, you are now espousing a modern "humanism," by default, as the foundation for rights. This model has failed in historical proportions whenever attempted. History proves it's a slippery slope from the ideal of "individual can clearly become post-objective truth (Freudian slip, kalm? ) and still adhere to the principles of inalienable rights" (an articulation expressly attempted by the Soviet constitution) and to a despot who grasps that this makes the central government the source of rights.

So I'll stick with what has worked best, as proven by history.
BTW, I never said we were above or separate from nature. I said we were above the animals.

Joe doesn't know anything about humanism.

[JoltinJoe]

Classical donk response ...

Principles of inalienable rights are not dependent on the "objective truth" of any single church, but instead simply on the generic truth that they are endowed by the creator. So the government is officially neutral on matters of specific religions, but not secular in that it certainly has a position on the existence of a creator.

You take away the creator, you have really taken away the idea that rights are inalienable. Oh, sure, you can say that rights are still inalienable, but once there is no creator, you have made the government the source of rights, by default. There is a reason why this word "inalienable" or "unalienable" was a product of the Enlightenment. It gave standing to the individual to claim that his rights were derived from an authority higher than the man-made government and thus had to be respected by the man-made government. So if you take away the creator, you destroy the model or concept of inalienable rights. (This is why the claim of the "secular humanist," that he is a product of the Enlightenment humanism, is bogus. It is why I say that the secular "humanist" has co-opted the term "humanist").

Worse, if you take away the creator, you are now espousing a modern "humanism," by default, as the foundation for rights. This model has failed in historical proportions whenever attempted. History proves it's a slippery slope from the ideal of "individual can clearly become post-objective truth (Freudian slip, kalm? ) and still adhere to the principles of inalienable rights" (an articulation expressly attempted by the Soviet constitution) and to a despot who grasps that this makes the central government the source of rights.

So I'll stick with what has worked best, as proven by history.
BTW, I never said we were above or separate from nature. I said we were above the animals.

Joe doesn't know anything about humanism.

I take that back. Most of us are above the animals.

[D1B]

Joe doesn't know anything about humanism.

I take that back. Most of us are above the animals.

Joe villifies secular humanism by equating it with totalitarianism.

Joe is angry and lashes out.