Feed on Posts or Comments 31 July 2014

Christianity &Islam &Judaism Thomas on 19 Mar 2012 12:40 am

The stupidity of the “God is the source of morality” mindset

There is a comment that appeared today that is worth repeating because it contains the truth. It has been cleaned up here for wider consumption:

I always, always get tickled when people (theists) try to assert that no one can be an actual moral authority.

- Doctors are medical authorities.
- Aircraft engineers are aviation authorities.
- Historians are history authorities.
- Lawyers are law authorities.
- Economists are economics authorities
- Nutritionists are nutrition authorities.
- Scientists are science authorities (in their fields).

And… wait for it…

- Moral philosophers are… moral authorities.

Religion has declared it to be arrogant and blasphemous to assert that anyone is a moral authority except God, who never speaks and thus, de facto, the clergy become the moral authorities despite that lack of credentials 40yA was talking about.

On theology island, you don’t actually need to think about moral questions, then, to become a moral authority, you only have to read these Bronze Age books and the exegesis laid on top of them by centuries of agendist, mostly ignorant imbeciles.

It goes deeper than that, however. There are many moral questions that require nothing more than common sense to analyze. To understand this point, consider this analogy: every human being is an expert in the effects of gravity. We all have the common sense to know, through experience, that jumping off of a 10th story balcony will result in death. If a human being falls 100 feet to earth, we are all experts in the result. It does not require a college degree to appreciate the effects of gravity.

This article explains how every human being can understand that murder is evil in just the same way:

On Ethics and rational moral codes

No college degree in moral philosophy is required to understand that murder is evil.

In contrast, imagine the idiocy that goes into declaring the God of the Bible to be a source of morality. This is a being who, according to his own supposedly self-authored book, thinks slavery is good, who killed nearly every living thing in a flood (and then lied about said flood, because it never happened), who believes that animal and human sacrifices are important, who prescribes the death penalty for homosexuals and who believes that eternal torture is a valid idea.

The God of the Bible is a disgusting, appalling amalgamation of the most evil things ever imagined. And this is the being that theists choose to be their model for morality? Theists would have to be completely delusional to do that:

70 Responses to “The stupidity of the “God is the source of morality” mindset”

  1. on 19 Mar 2012 at 1:03 am 1.A said …

    1. “Moral philosophers are… moral authorities.”

    Why are they moral authorities and which ones should we allow to have this authority?

    2. “every human being can understand that murder is evil”

    Would this include abortion? If no, why not?

  2. on 19 Mar 2012 at 2:02 am 2.Lou (DFW) said …

    1.A said …

    (sigh) A. and his ilk can never actually defend their delusional beliefs. Rather than answer “The stupidity of the “God is the source of morality” mindset” comment, they avoid it by diverting the discussion off-topic to whether or not abortion is murder.

    So, A., in the context of this discussion, that murder does or does not include abortion is irrelevant. But for the sake of argument, let’s assume it does. So what?

  3. on 19 Mar 2012 at 2:12 am 3.Anonymous said …

    Definition of murder:

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder

    “the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought”

  4. on 19 Mar 2012 at 12:01 pm 4.A said …

    Thank you Anonymous.

    So which moral philosophers should we follow?

    According to the definition you provided, is abortion murder or no?

  5. on 19 Mar 2012 at 2:06 pm 5.DPK said …

    A… instead why don’t YOU explain to us which religious moral code we should follow? The Judea-Christian one that exposes slavery and stoning? Or perhaps the Islamic one that requires killing of infidels? Or maybe one of the more obscure sun worshiping codes that require ritual human sacrifice.
    And since you are once again trying diversionary tactics, let’s keep you on track and point out for the 10,000th time that your silly diversions are just a smokescreen for the fact that you have presented absolutely no evidence to suggest that any of the claims you make about an absolute moral code being given by a god are in any way actually true. So, why we should anyone believe anything you claim?

  6. on 19 Mar 2012 at 2:07 pm 6.DPK said …

    Sorry… damn spell check, “exposes” of course should have been “espouses”

  7. on 19 Mar 2012 at 2:10 pm 7.BrianE said …

    Anonymous,

    Is jerking off murder? If not, why?

    Is a woman having her period murder? If not, why?

    Is aborting a fertilized human egg before week 20 murder? If yes, then why does god allow so many miscarriages to occur?

    The abortion question is not so simple as ‘yes its murder’ or ‘no its not’. Refine your question.

  8. on 19 Mar 2012 at 3:08 pm 8.QuotedComment said …

    OP says:
    “It goes deeper than that, however. There are many moral questions that require nothing more than common sense to analyze”

    This is most correct. Just like there are many medical questions that do not require a doctor to analyze, like a common bout of the cold, many minor injuries like shaving cuts, etc. Medical authority isn’t needed. Morality is no different. Most of us are sufficiently moral to handle things via common sense, which is the name we give the general set of knowledge acquired by experience and absorption from our parents.

    Then there are hard questions–like when abortion constitutes killing a person instead of a fetus or blastocyst, including in cases where the health of the mother and would-be newborn must be considered carefully. There are questions like the ethics of various kinds of cyber issues, like file sharing and fair-use clauses. There are ethical questions surrounding matters like using fMRI as a real-time lie detector: is it okay in cases of interrogating a war prisoner? how about a accused criminal that stands trial? how about a convicted criminal on matters related to his crime that might be relevant? how about politicians running for office? how about everyday citizens? There are ethical questions about installing tracking devices in all manufactured cars. The list of hard ethical questions is long and grows every day.

    What do the scriptures (i.e., supposedly, God) say about these things? Last time I checked, the only plausible answer is “nothing at all.” What’s left? Clergy to decipher the matter. Is that sufficient? Well… sometimes.

    Sometimes clergy members are actually moral authorities for the same reason that other (including secular) moral philosophers are–they’ve thought about it a lot and wrestled with the hard questions. There is a significant downside to the clergy as moral authorities, though: they try to define all morality in the context of these books that we can plainly see are moot (at best) on these kinds of modern ethical questions. That makes them a bit like someone trying to run from a tiger while carrying a bucket of water that they refuse to put down. They might get away, but they’d do a better job of it by dropping the bucket.

    Then there is the matter when clergy are not actually moral authorities. They could be usurpers who pretend to be, or they could be severely misguided people who think they are. What’s the problem? Society gives them a free pass to moral authoritativeness that they haven’t earned because they’ve decided to become people of the cloth.

    Prove there is God, prove there is objective morality, connect that God to the deification/objectification of moral authority (the Bible will make this hard, btw), and you’re saying something meaningful. Otherwise, you’re posturing, dodging, and making fools of yourselves.

    Alternatively, establish that to become a cleric you must actually succeed in demonstrating clear authority on these matters, and you MIGHT have a case for theistic moral claims.

  9. on 19 Mar 2012 at 3:43 pm 9.Lou (DFW) said …

    “7.BrianE said …

    “The abortion question is not so simple as ‘yes its murder’ or ‘no its not’. Refine your question.”

    In the context of this discussion, it doesn’t matter. The definition of abortion and murder is irrelevant. The relevant point is that the “God is the source of morality” mindset is stupid. The theists here have yet to provide any evidence that their imaginary god exists, and that it’s the source of any moral code. The latter, in and of itself, is entirely irrelevant. So what if their imaginary god is the source of any moral code? Atheists don’t care as long as theists keep it to themselves. The problem is that they want to force their version of morality upon everybody, so they invent an alleged “moral authority” to justify it. Until they provide evidence of said “moral authority,” then it’s nothing but just another, easily dismissed, religious delusion. It’s as simple as that. There’s no need to discuss their diversionary comments about abortion and murder.

  10. on 19 Mar 2012 at 4:34 pm 10.Severin said …

    4. A
    “So which moral philosophers should we follow?“

    …said someone who was arrogant enough to denies his answers to any question posed.

    O.K., A, I will repeat my recent answer:
    I am the highest and the best moral standard for myself, and my „built – in“ moral standard had never failed.
    In cases of moral dilemmas, I consult other people I trust common sense and their moral integrity, and/or, in case there is chance to brake the law with a decision of mine, I also consult people of law.

    I will also repeat my recent question:
    Where can I find moral standards that YOU follow?

    How long shall I wait for your answer, please?
    I mean, the question was posed here from me and from many other atheists many times.

    So?

  11. on 19 Mar 2012 at 4:35 pm 11.Severin said …

    …I trust their common sense …

  12. on 19 Mar 2012 at 4:42 pm 12.Severin said …

    A,

    please note that I answered your question!
    I think I answered it the fifth, maybe even ninth time!

    You may not like my answer, but here it is, and a very sincere one!

    You now, please: WHERE CAN I FIND AND STUDY MORAL STANDARDS YOU FOLLOW?

    One simple sentence, maybe 2, will do!
    Just WHERE?

  13. on 19 Mar 2012 at 6:43 pm 13.DPK said …

    “Prove there is God, prove there is objective morality, connect that God to the deification/objectification of moral authority (the Bible will make this hard, btw), and you’re saying something meaningful. Otherwise, you’re posturing, dodging, and making fools of yourselves.”

    Best quote of the week, right there! Well put, and clearly stated.

    Now Hor and his sock monkeys will disappear for a while, only to return to argue evolution or some other irrelevant point of deflection. Never fails. They are as predictable as sunset.

  14. on 19 Mar 2012 at 7:27 pm 14.Mitch said …

    Interesting topic. You have the blogmaster claiming moral philosophers are the source of morality (I doubt atheists will listen to Plantinga), others claim here common sense (which varies) and then others claim they are the source of morality and further we consult others for the answers. I have met some of the atheist masses and I wouldn’t leave my pen out of sight. Interpretation: morality is relative in the atheist community and all do what is right in their own eyes.

    None answered the question of abortion. 60 years ago a resounding abortion is murderer would have been heard but what has happened? Much like the Nazis programmed the masses to believe Jews were subhuman and killing them was OK, we now have a culture that uses terms like “fetus” “tissue” to redefine the baby in the womb so that it to is subhuman. Killing the baby for a multitude of reasons is acceptable with the advent of this new definition. Likewise, agencies like Planned Parenthood rely on these dollars that abortions bring to the organizations.

    Much like the Germans had to walk through and witness the carnage the Nazis wrought on the Germans, Et tu Americans should be forced to walk through the carnage they have sat back and let take place under the guise of “choice” “fetus” and “woman’s rights”.

  15. on 19 Mar 2012 at 7:36 pm 15.MightyMitch said …

    14.Mitch said …
    1. “I have met some of the atheist masses and I wouldn’t leave my pen out of sight. Interpretation: morality is relative in the atheist community and all do what is right in their own eyes.”

    Actually, yes, just like everyone else. Ever actually been rebuked by God for a misdeed? No, of course not–you have to wait until after you die to figure out if you will be rebuked or not.

    The question comes down to the moral fiber of the person doing the action. This tends to be highest in people who wrestle with moral questions for themselves.

    This hasty generalization is a dodge in addition to a logical fallacy, by the way.

    2. “None answered the question of abortion. 60 years ago a resounding abortion is murderer would have been heard but what has happened?”

    A comment above (by me) reads: “Then there are hard questions–like when abortion constitutes killing a person instead of a fetus or blastocyst, including in cases where the health of the mother and would-be newborn must be considered carefully.”
    That kind of deals with it–the question is harder than we see at first, and even 60 years ago, if your claim is true, we weren’t so clear on that.

    What’s your answer, though? Well, you take a hard-line stance against abortion as murder per the teachings of your clergy who conveniently ignore the fifth chapter of the book of Numbers (and a great deal of biology and real ethics) to promote their shallow understanding of morality in the simplest black-and-white terms possible–despite not having any scriptural support and some possible scriptural refutation.

    In short, we didn’t address the topic of morality because it’s an idiotic dodge, just like almost everything else here.

  16. on 19 Mar 2012 at 7:38 pm 16.MightyMitch said …

    Correction to above: last sentence should read: “In short, we didn’t address the topic of abortion because it’s an idiotic dodge, just like almost everything else here.”

    Pardon me.

  17. on 19 Mar 2012 at 7:40 pm 17.Severin said …

    14 Mitch

    Why don’t you name your moral standards? Where do you find moral rules you follow in your life?

    It’s easy, why don’t you say it?!

  18. on 19 Mar 2012 at 8:03 pm 18.Severin said …

    Mitch

    I can easily define my basic moral rule.
    In my primitive English, which I do hope you will somehow understand, it sounds something like:
    Never do to other people anything you would not like other people to do to you.
    There are some additional rules that I constructed myself and/or learned and adopted from my parents and from other members of the society I live with, including writers of books I have read, school teachers, friends, …, like, for example: be responsible, take responsibility for your decisions and for what you do, help other people as much as you can, be kind to people, etc.

    I can easily define the sources of the moral code I am living accordingly: my genes, my parents and the society I am living in.

    Maybe you do not agree with me, and that is fine.

    But why, the hell, you NEVER point your moral code?!

    Is it some secret code? I am not allowed to approach to it?
    How can you expect anyone to believe you if you talk and talk about my morality and never mention where does YOURS come from?!

  19. on 19 Mar 2012 at 8:05 pm 19.Severin said …

    Mitch,
    Please, please, Mitch discover the source of your moral code for us.
    Don’t you be selfish!

  20. on 19 Mar 2012 at 8:33 pm 20.Anonymous said …

    The insanity of Christianity can be condensed as follows:

    Step 1: Christian reads God’s Moral Standard in the Bible, like this:

    “Leviticus 25:44-46
    New International Version (NIV)

    44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life”

    Step 2: Christian must either support this absurd Moral Standard, or declare that God is wrong.

    Supporting this Moral Standard indicates moral insanity.

    Stating that God is wrong indicates that God cannot be used as a moral standard.

    Any rational person, faced with this contradiction, abandons Christianity. Therefore, Christians are by definition irrational.

  21. on 19 Mar 2012 at 9:09 pm 21.MightyMitch said …

    14.Mitch said …

    “Much like the Germans had to walk through and witness the carnage the Nazis wrought on the Germans, Et tu Americans should be forced to walk through the carnage they have sat back and let take place under the guise of “choice” “fetus” and “woman’s rights”.”

    Perhaps that is reasonable. Meanwhile, pro-lifers like yourself should be “forced” to walk through the carnage of “back-alley abortions” that they create by consequence when they legislate against legal abortions. They should also get to face the reality of babies born with genetic defects that cause them to suffer for a few days an die and talk to the parents of those children. They should also face the dead mothers, and their living relatives, when the birth kills her, as was determined before it happened, and an abortion could have prevented it.

    It’s not so simple as you want to believe, Mitch, and calling to horrors of the situation is a sword that cuts both ways.

    Your comparison to the Nazis, also, is a juvenile false equivalency. It’s a relatively easy thing to do when you want to undercut your opponent’s position.

    …Since you brought them up, though, perhaps you can explain why Hitler claimed he was doing God’s work, in the line of his hero Martin Luther, and why he had “God on our side” (in German “Gott Mit Uns”) on the belt buckles of his SS troopers. If you face this aspect of the situation and call out “Hitler was a defect from the moral code…,” then you should realize that THAT sword cuts both ways too.

  22. on 19 Mar 2012 at 9:40 pm 22.Lou (DFW) said …

    14.Mitch said …

    “None answered the question of abortion.”

    It has been answered. But you and your ilk continue to harp on it as if it changes anything about this discussion – it doesn’t.

    “Much like the Nazis programmed the masses to believe Jews were subhuman and killing them was OK…”

    Oh really? Show us how that happened. Show us SPECIFICALLY how the German citizens were “programmed” by the Nazis that killing the Jews was OK. Wait, I’ll save you some time – that didn’t happen.

    “Likewise, agencies like Planned Parenthood rely on these dollars that abortions bring to the organizations.”

    So what? How is that in anyway relevant to the fact that you haven’t provided any evidence for your alleged “moral authority?”

  23. on 19 Mar 2012 at 9:41 pm 23.Mitch said …

    Severin,

    Certainly, all you had to do is ask. I live by the standards set by Jesus Christ the Nazarene. You live by a good moral code and I do admire that. However relative morality allows the evil doers to perpetuate their evil in the world by claiming it is also moral to do so.

    Well done MM, justify bad behavior with more bad behavior. The source of all great wars. My equivocation of Nazis’ dehumanization of Jews to modern America’s dehumanization of babies is actually quite relevant if you know history. You have shown us how well the campaign has worked.

  24. on 19 Mar 2012 at 9:48 pm 24.Lou (DFW) said …

    23.Mitch said …

    “However relative morality allows the evil doers to perpetuate their evil in the world by claiming it is also moral to do so.”

    What part of “you haven’t provided any evidence of your moral authority for your absolute moral code” don’t you understand?

    But let’s assume that your imaginary god actually exists as the moral authority for your absolute moral code. So what? Evil is still perpetuated throughout the world while your imaginary god twiddles his thumbs.

  25. on 19 Mar 2012 at 10:24 pm 25.Lou (DFW) said …

    24.Lou (DFW) said …

    “Evil is still perpetuated throughout the world while your imaginary god twiddles his thumbs.”

    P.S. That makes your imaginary god about as immoral as they come.

  26. on 20 Mar 2012 at 1:24 am 26.ReligionIsStupid said …

    Severin’s question hasn’t been answered. What he asked was “WHERE CAN I FIND AND STUDY MORAL STANDARDS YOU FOLLOW?”

    Basically, “Mitch” is playing games and avoiding defining these standards probably because they don’t actually exist or that they are as basic and obvious as could be.

    So, “Mitch”, where is there a list that specifically, unambiguously, and clearly lays out these standards? You take issue with relative morality so your answer ought to be a concise list of standards that anyone, and everyone, agrees define the moral standards that you adhere to.

    It clearly isn’t the bible as every Xtain seems to provide their own interpretation of that. So, no more word games, please show us this list of yours.

  27. on 20 Mar 2012 at 2:11 am 27.MightyMitch said …

    23.Mitch said …

    “Certainly, all you had to do is ask. I live by the standards set by Jesus Christ the Nazarene.”

    Which one? There are at least twelve, some of which are similar. Technically, these all revolve around the same guy who almost definitely lived, but none of them portray the same character consistently.

    1. Jesus Christ as described by Saul of Tarsus (a.k.a. St. Paul). This Jesus is a spirit of divine and epic proportions, and he plays oddly against the Jesus of the Gospels and strangely to idiosyncrasies and insecurities of Paul. This Jesus is mostly a fabrication of Paul’s, but notably, his resurrection doesn’t involve an empty tomb but only a dismembered spirit of sorts.

    2. Jesus the Nazarene set forth in the Gospel of Mark. This Jesus is defined by a series of pericopes that make him out to be a apocalyptic Jew in the tradition of John the Baptist. He has a particular bent to restoring adherence to conservative Jewish Law and claims no divinity of himself in any way.

    3. Jesus the Nazarene set forth in the Gospel of Matthew. This Jesus is similarly defined by a series of pericopes and is particularly concerned with being a moral teacher. He also called to a return to conservative Jewish Law, but his stress of the coming apocalypse and New World Order (with him at the head) played a much more significant role, as did he in this vision. This Jesus was much more concerned with meeting the needs of beliefs of messianic Jews and is considered to be quite the fulfilment of various prophesies taken out of context from the Jewish scriptures.

    4. Jesus the Nazarene set forth in the Gospel of Luke and its second volume, Acts of the Apostles. Similar to the Jesus of Mark and Matthew, this Jesus was a moral teacher, but he had a particular message reaching to the poor–although much of what he said seemed to try to rope them in and then keep them content. This Jesus was pretty darn close to a socialist. He was similar in theological position to Matthew’s Jesus but less morally strict and a bit more equivocal about being divine.

    5. Jesus Christ the Nazarene set forth in the Gospel of John. This is a straight-up theological legend Jesus whose story is a bizarre blend of Platonist philosophy, pericopes about his actual life, and a variety of theological stories (some quite old) from various pagan cultures near Greece at around the end of the first century. This Jesus is fully divine and quite the love doctor. He’s also anti-Jewish traditionalism, so he’s at odds with the possibly reconcilable Jesus in the above three conceptions.

    6. Jesus of the “other” Gospels. This isn’t really one character. It’s many at once, based upon a huge variety of incoherent rambling accounts by early Christians.

    7. Jesus, according to Arius of Alexandria. This Jesus was divine but not part of the Godhead, and his moral code was an amalgamation of all of the above. Believing in this Jesus was deemed heretical in 324 because this Jesus didn’t fit Constantine’s political goals.

    8. Jesus, according to official Catholic doctrine. This Jesus is divine, part of the Godhead, simultaneously 100% not man and 100% man, eternal, etc. He is highly inconsistent and primarily based upon the Gospel of John and the writings of Paul, forced into some semblance of semi-consistency. He is influenced, when it is convenience, by the synoptic gospels, but not when it isn’t.

    9. Jesus, according to the Protestants. This Jesus is similar to the Catholic Jesus but less angry and controlling.

    10. Jesus, according to evangelicals that redefined him around 100 years ago. He’s your buddy, but he’s also a complete cartoon character.

    11. Jesus, according to the Muslims. He is a great teacher that lived at the start of the common era, the next to last prophet before Muhammad. He was wrong about many things and is subordinate, but second, to Muhammad now.

    12. Jesus, according to the Mormons, 7th Day Adventists, etc. Yup, kind of like a mish-mash of the last two.

    We could also talk about the Jesus of the American Democrats and the Jesus of the American Republicans; recent research shows them to be quite distinct and not perfectly harmonious with any of the ones above.

    Indeed, we could talk about the Jesus of almost every individual believer. If that’s too much of a stretch, we could certainly talk about the Jesus of the some 40,000 distinct denominations of Christianity (look it up). They’re not all perfectly consistent.

    Thus… you didn’t really answer that question very clearly.

  28. on 20 Mar 2012 at 2:38 am 28.MightyMitch said …

    23.Mitch said …

    “Certainly, all you had to do is ask. I live by the standards set by Jesus Christ the Nazarene.”

    Also, please indicate what this Jesus Christ the Nazarene that you follow had to say about the ethics of file sharing.
    What did he say about the ethics of euthanasia for terminally ill people in severe pain?
    What’s his stance on gay marriage?
    How would he feel about using fMRI on an accused criminal to determine if his plea of not-guilty is a lie or not?
    What’s his opinion on abortion?

    Which understanding of “turn the other cheek” do you espouse? Is that literally that you’d let someone slap both sides of your face as a powerless victim to win a moral victory while getting your ass kicked? Or is it that you’d turn your cheek to insult him per Roman customs that no one follows any more? Or is it that you’d be generally nonviolent but defend yourself if necessary? Or is this one not really applicable?

    You might also clarify why you have possessions like a computer if you really follow this guy. You’re supposed to give all of your stuff to the poor and follow him, or is that not the Jesus you’re following?

    Definitely… more clarity is needed here. I might even say you didn’t even answer that question at all yet.

  29. on 20 Mar 2012 at 3:01 am 29.A said …

    Guys, still awaiting some sort of reasoned response. Let me repost for clarity.

    Quotes are from the thread:

    1. “Moral philosophers are… moral authorities.”

    Why are they moral authorities and which ones should we allow to have this authority?

    2. “every human being can understand that murder is evil”

    Would this include abortion? If no, why not?

    Thanks DPK, Mighty and Stupid.

  30. on 20 Mar 2012 at 3:23 am 30.A+(like better than A) said …

    29.A said …

    “Guys, still awaiting some sort of reasoned response. Let me repost for clarity.
    Quotes are from the thread:
    1. “Moral philosophers are… moral authorities.”
    Why are they moral authorities and which ones should we allow to have this authority?
    2. “every human being can understand that murder is evil”
    Would this include abortion? If no, why not?
    Thanks DPK, Mighty and Stupid.”

    Actually, I already responded (as BiffTannen) in the other thread you posted this in, though I was responding to Biff, who pretty well summarized it for you, though like an idiot. Since technically the fetus is a symbiotic life form (not an independent one), the question is entirely different than murder.

    The abortion thing has already been handled–it’s complicated. Personally, I don’t see it as murder. That’s me. It’s a hard question with many difficult aspects to it. That’s why we don’t try to legislate on it: we give people the choice on the matter.

    So, this is the answer I gave on the other thread, reposted kindly for you here:

    –reposted comment for the illiterate or lazy–
    44.Biff said …

    “To the A comment, what makes someone a moral authority? Does one go to Philosophy U and became a moral authority?”

    Um, yes, that’s pretty much exactly how that happens, except “Philosophy U” needs to be replaced by “accredited college or university, preferably one that offers doctoral degrees.” At “Phil U,” these will-be moral authorities spend a great deal of time studying difficult ethical questions and the moral systems that have been developed in the past, including ones mentioned here like Kierkegaard and even Platinga, and learn from their ideas, including refutations of their claims. They then go on to study difficult ethical and moral questions of their own, do a great deal of work in the field, and emerge as “moral authorities.”

    Your comment is embarrassing you. It’s very much like saying “…what makes someone a medical authority? Does one go to Medicine U and became a medical authority?” Do you have the slightest idea how educational systems work, what they represent, what they do, or what comes out of them? Or are you stuck in some anti-intellectualist rut thinking that they’re some kind of “liberal factories” or something?

    To whoever else foolishly taunted me with idiocy, you can’t renounce unbelief, you can only decide to start believing. Since you’ve given no evidence and all the evidence I’ve seen points to the contrary, I’ll stay with unbelief until such time as the evidence points me somewhere else.
    –end reposted comment–

  31. on 20 Mar 2012 at 3:34 am 31.Lou (DFW) said …

    29.A said …

    “Guys, still awaiting some sort of reasoned response. Let me repost for clarity.”

    Let me repost for clarity:

    We’re STILL waiting for you to provide evidence of the theists’ “moral authority.” After all, the topic of this discussion is “The stupidity of the “God is the source of morality” mindset.” It’s not about morality in general or about whether or not abortion is murder. Yet you continuously attempt to divert attention from the FACT that you don’t have any evidence for your “moral authority.”

    But we know you NEVER, EVER will provide such evidence because you don’t have any because it doesn’t exist because there is no such “moral authority” – it’s that simple.

    Try to adhere to the alleged morals of your imaginary god – be honest and admit that you don’t have any evidence.

  32. on 20 Mar 2012 at 5:51 am 32.Severin said …

    23 Mitch

    Thank you, Mitch.
    I can not explain the “moral code” but as a list of “rules”: what is “good” (right, allowed) to do and what is not good (wrong, not allowed) to do.
    How else could be described a “moral code”.
    Some explanations could be added to this list, but essentially, that is it: allowed/forbidden.
    Do you have another explanation?

    Now, please show us where in the entire NT, where ONLY could be found stories about Jesus Christ the Nazarene, could also be found the list of moral rules.

    I somehow missed it, although I read entire NT again.

    Or, maybe there (in the NT) is NO such a thing as moral code, but you, maybe guided by someone, pick something here, something there, and use it as your moral code?!
    In that case, if you are a good man (which I do not doubt), your morality comes from sources other than Jesus Christ the Nazarene. They come exactly from the same sources as my own ones: genes, mother, father, society, school, …

  33. on 20 Mar 2012 at 11:13 am 33.Mitch said …

    Severin

    Notice this post starts with moral authorities determine our morals. Well I do agree to a point, Jesus Christ. No Jesus didn’t put out a list, he taught principles about stealing, honesty, murder, loving, etc, etc and that is where moral principles are derived from. Many you practice are those taught by Christ.

    Example: Buying a paper online and turning it into your your professor as your own work is a lie and would be wrong.

  34. on 20 Mar 2012 at 11:19 am 34.Mitch said …

    “the fetus is a symbiotic life form (not an independent one”

    So the argument is the fetus is subhuman.

    A 3 month old is also dependent for survival. So it would be OK to let it die too?

  35. on 20 Mar 2012 at 11:26 am 35.Anonymous said …

    Where does jesus say slavery is wrong?

    Where does jesus say rape is wrong?

    Where does jesus say racism is wrong?

    Where does jesus say sexism is wrong?

    Where does jesus say contraception is wrong?

    Where does jesus say homosexuality is wrong?

    Where does jesus say polygamy is wrong?

    Where does jesus say that drunk driving is wrong?

    Where does jesus say that prostitution is wrong?

    Where does jesus say that destroying another person’s property is wrong? Doesnt jesus destroy a fig tree? Doesnt jesus kill a herd of pigs?

  36. on 20 Mar 2012 at 12:35 pm 36.Lou (DFW) said …

    33.Mitch said …

    “Many you practice are those taught by Christ.”

    Many millions of people who never heard of your imaginary Christ-god figure had the same (or better) morals before and after the fictional Christ stories were ever told or published. This entire idea that morals come from the fictional Christ character is complete and utter nonsense. It’s simply another part of the religion delusion.

    What’s immoral is lying about an imaginary god for which you have no evidence, and attempting to force your beliefs about it upon those who are not foolish enough to believe those lies. Mitch, you and every person who attempts to foist your fraudulent religious delusions upon us are immoral. Mitch, guess where I got my “moral code” – from my parents, teachers, and, yes, you guessed it – the xtian church that I attended as a child. The same “moral code” that you claim is that of fictional Jesus allows me to determine that. Ironic, isn’t it?

  37. on 20 Mar 2012 at 4:07 pm 37.MightyMitch said …

    34.Mitch said …

    “‘the fetus is a symbiotic life form (not an independent one’

    So the argument is the fetus is subhuman.”

    Um, no. That’s not what was said. It’s interesting how you used your Jesus-morals to read something different that what was said. Repeated: “a fetus is a symbiotic life form.” It happens also to be human, but it is not an independent one. Its life is inextricable from that of the mother’s–the mother dies; until near the end, the fetus dies too. The mother uses substances she shouldn’t; the fetus also uses substances it shouldn’t and might come out broken because of it. The fetus dies… the mother’s life is at risk. Even the fetus’s existence in a perfectly healthy situation puts severe strain on the mother’s biological system and can kill her. It’s a mark of modernity that women don’t die very often in childbirth now. That used to happen kind of a lot.

    Where was your God in preventing it? Oh, shit, he had to wait until humans invented medical science to do it for him. He did medical science? Why did he wait more than 99% of the time there have been humans on the planet? When he was here 2000 years ago, according to you, why didn’t he bring medical science, since he was interfering with people directly at that point anyway? Nice morals, Jesus-God.

    No one has ever claimed that a fetus is “subhuman.” It is not, however, the same thing as an independent human being. Thus, at the VERY least, questions concerning the health of the mother have to come into any question about the morality of abortion.

    Where’s God on this one? Unborn > mother? Hmm. Why do you hate mothers?

    On the other hand, the fetus isn’t exactly a being that has experienced much yet. Thus, the health of the fetus and the projected experience of the would-be baby human has to be thought of. If the baby will be born with severe problems that will cause it (and its parents) immeasurable suffering, then the question becomes a little more cloudy and difficult. There are many ways in which a fetus can go wrong, resulting in a infant that will be born into severe suffering to live only a very short time and then die, causing severe wreckage to the families that had to deal with it. Most babies of most humans that have ever lived, even when born healthy, only made it a year or two.

    Where’s God on that? Oh, yeah, waiting for medical science to make it not the problem that it always has been. Thanks, God, for staying out of this one but coming around 2000 years ago to tell us to give all of our stuff away and hate our parents.

    Is this enough for you with your stupid abortion question?

    Now,
    1. Get on to proving your God exists.
    2. Connect that God to the Jesus that you follow.
    3. Explain why neither God (through his H.Spirit) or he-as-Jesus bothered to clear the matter up for us in a way that doesn’t make him into a monster.

    Can’t do it? Then drop this whole dodge to a question you think we’ll find hard about morality and stay on task.

  38. on 20 Mar 2012 at 5:37 pm 38.A said …

    Mighty Mouth,

    Stop with the preaching. Is Aborting a baby in the womb murder of not? This post started out with murder being a simple dilemma to answer according to the blogger but you continually ignore such a simple question. Yes or No

    2. Who are the moral authorities we should listen to this matter? Maybe we can check their websites.

  39. on 20 Mar 2012 at 5:53 pm 39.DPK said …

    A… it says much about your deluded mindset that you insist on yes or no answers for questions that do not have yes or no answers. The factual answer to your question “Is aborting a baby in the womb murder, or not?” is “It depends.”
    Is capital punishment murder? Funny how so many anti-abortion christians are pro-capital punishment. Is killing enemy combatants in warfare murder? God didn’t seem to have any problem with slaying enemies in the bible… but Jesus said “turn the other cheek”. Hmmm… where is your absolute moral directive?
    I’ll tell you, it doesn’t exist. Even if you were to point to a list of moral directives supposedly delivered from your god, I guarantee you I could find problems and contradictions. Why? Because morality is NEVER absolute. Don’t lie, but there are times you must lie. Don’t kill, but there are time you must kill. Don’t steal, but there are times you must make room for exceptions. That is why your myth of moral absolutism from god is just that, a myth.
    Now, stop demanding answers from others until you provide some of your own. Until you do you are nothing more than a fart in the wind.

  40. on 20 Mar 2012 at 6:21 pm 40.A+(like better than A) said …

    Mighty Mouth,

    “Stop with the preaching. Is Aborting a baby in the womb murder of not? This post started out with murder being a simple dilemma to answer according to the blogger but you continually ignore such a simple question. Yes or No”

    No. It’s abortion (as clarified above, that’s different than murder).

  41. on 20 Mar 2012 at 6:46 pm 41.ReligionIsStupid said …

    Hor said… This post started out with murder being a simple dilemma to answer according to the blogger but you continually ignore such a simple question.

    Except, that’s not what the blog post is about, is it?

    The post was about murder being evil, not the question of if abortion is murder.

    However, Hor is the one that wants an answer to that question so, you tell us, is abortion murder – the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought, a predetermination to commit an act without legal justification or excuse? Show your working and your references.

    Meanwhile, there are many other unanswered questions for you. Here’s some from post 37

    1. Get on to proving your God exists.
    2. Connect that God to the Jesus that you follow.
    3. Explain why neither God (through his H.Spirit) or he-as-Jesus bothered to clear the matter up for us in a way that doesn’t make him into a monster.

  42. on 20 Mar 2012 at 7:04 pm 42.Lou (DFW) said …

    41.ReligionIsStupid said …

    “Except, that’s not what the blog post is about, is it?

    The post was about murder being evil, not the question of if abortion is murder.”

    It’s not even about that. It’s about the mindset of “God is the source of morality” being one of stupidity. And A Hor continuously demonstrates how that is.

    Human actions are neither “good” nor “evil” – they simply are. Evil implies a force, power, or personification such as the devil or satan. Good implies the opposite. Good and evil are nothing but human concepts used to justify or vilify their actions.

    All of this discussion is 100% irrelevant unless and until there is any evidence of a “moral authority” – so far nobody has provided it. So the discussion about the source of morality is moot. It simply doesn’t matter.

  43. on 20 Mar 2012 at 7:24 pm 43.Mitch said …

    M&M has demonstrated my first point well. He has redefined terms in order not to feel well about events he allows to transpire.

    Its not a human being it is a symbiotic life form, a fetus, just tissue. That is the line of the Planned Parenthood groups who feed the little girls lies about their unborn children.

    Its not murder (the taking of innocent life) its abortion. How could it be murder, it is legal. Right?

    Our most innocent in society are the new untermensch. The brown shirts now wear while lab coats.

  44. on 20 Mar 2012 at 7:38 pm 44.Lou (DFW) said …

    43.Mitch said …

    “He has redefined terms in order not to feel well about events he allows to transpire.

    Its [sic] not a human being [sic] it is a symbiotic life form, a fetus, just tissue.”

    Now look at who’s redefining terms, and lying about what he wrote – typical Hor.

  45. on 20 Mar 2012 at 7:46 pm 45.ReligionIsStupid said …

    Good point Lou, and it dovetails into something Mitch said in 33. Having gone from claiming he lives by the standards “set by” Jesus he changes that to

    No Jesus didn’t put out a list, he taught principles about stealing, honesty, murder, loving, etc, etc and that is where moral principles are derived from. Many you practice are those taught by Christ.

    Example: Buying a paper online and turning it into your your professor as your own work is a lie and would be wrong.

    Which is a strange comment to make considering the principles of “honesty, murder, loving, etc” that he attributes to his Christ had been incorporated into moral codes or law before the invention of the god of the bible. Maybe this Christ repeated them, but that’s the not the same as saying he invented them or learned of them via divine inspiration. See, for example, the code of Ur-Nammu some 2000+ years BCE.

  46. on 20 Mar 2012 at 11:30 pm 46.Burebista said …

    I don’t think Lou (DFW) has realized it, but he just supported Mitch’s position. ha ha

  47. on 20 Mar 2012 at 11:35 pm 47.Burebista said …

    Religion is stupid,

    Did you get tired of being Mr Q?

  48. on 20 Mar 2012 at 11:54 pm 48.DPK said …

    Someone explain to me how any individual’s position on abortion proves a supernatural god, or an absolute morality.
    You might be surprised to learn that I, a rather staunch atheist, am not in favor of legal abortion except in a few rather exceptional circumstances. Surprised? You may be surprised at a great deal of my political and social views. But the bigger question is; “So what?”
    What has it got to do with “The stupidity of the ‘God is the source of morality’ mindset.” Which is what we were talking about. So far, despite their mighty efforts to distract the discussion from anything at all relative to the point the theists so far have utterly failed to:
    Demonstrate that a god actually exists.
    Demonstrate that this god has provided any type of absolute moral code.
    Demonstrate that this moral code is absolute.
    So, so far theists have expelled much flatulence, no substance. Epic Fail.
    God must not be on your side, or if he is, his debating skills are on par with his prayer answering and infinite mercy skills.
    Burebista… get tired of being Horattio and Boz?

  49. on 21 Mar 2012 at 2:35 am 49.Peanut M&Ms said …

    I’m still waiting for these hee-haws to tell me which of the many Jesuses they claim to follow.

    Interestingly, I went on a brief search on a work break earlier to try to find moral authorities on the abortion question, but the whole matter is obfuscated because the first several pages of search results are all “Catholic bishop” this and “reverend” that–seems like the religious clergy just kind of stole the term “moral authority” and ran with it. I might put some more time into it, but it’s really a waste of time in regard to this thread (as pointed out just above).

  50. on 21 Mar 2012 at 2:49 am 50.Peanut M&Ms said …

    It appears a serious ethical authority on the matter of abortion is philosopher Peter Singer, for those interested in looking into him. He’s looked into it for a long time with a lot of effort.

    Philosopher Judith Jarvis Thompson is another that has worked on the matter at length.

    Economist Steve Levitt has done extensive work indicating how Roe v. Wade had dramatic effects at lowering the overall crime rate and violent crime rates.

    Like I said above–abortion is not the same thing as murder, which is why we have a different word for it. Furthermore, the issue is primarily complicated because it is not an independent life form but rather a symbiote with its mother: as one New Jersey Superior Court judge noted, “If a fetus is a person, it is a person in very special circumstances – it exists entirely within the body of another much larger person and usually cannot be the object of direct action by another person.” (quoting from State v. Loce, 1991).

    That’s three names in 10 minutes of casual looking. I guess that’s worth something.

    This, of course, is just to answer the charge that I didn’t answer a question asked of me. Now… giddy-up with those asked of you:
    1. Which Jesus?
    2. Where’s your evidence for God?
    3. Where’s your evidence for objective morality?
    4. What links God to that objective morality?
    5. What links Jesus to God?
    6. On what grounds should we believe that Jesus was even a supreme moral philosopher or that he taught valid ethics?
    7. Many of the smaller questions posed above, like what your particular interpretation of “turn the other cheek” is.

    I answered yours… you answer mine.

  51. on 21 Mar 2012 at 3:03 am 51.Lou (DFW) said …

    46.Burp said …

    “I don’t think Lou (DFW) has realized it, but he just supported Mitch’s position. ha ha”

    Show us how, or otherwise, as usual, that makes you a liar.

  52. on 21 Mar 2012 at 6:31 am 52.Severin said …

    33 Mitch
    “Notice this post starts with moral authorities determine our morals. Well I do agree to a point, Jesus Christ. ..
    Example: Buying a paper online and turning it into your your professor as your own work is a lie and would be wrong.“

    My point is: I KNOW it is wrong! I don’t need Jesus to tell me that! I KNOW it without Jesus!
    I KNEW it was wrong before I ever herad for Jesus in my life.
    Aborigines KNEW it was wrong for 40,000 years and followed their moral code, without knowing Jesus. They had no cheating, no murders, no rapings, not even wars for 40,000 years, they followed their own (and very high!) moral standards, without Jesus.

    We do not need Jesus to live according to high moral standards.

    I would say that, what Jesus’ “sells” as moral code, is highly dangerous!
    Just look what he says:
    „25 “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear.“
    „34 Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.
    I would never say anything like that to my children! It is a call for irresponsibility! I would (and I did) teach them to have plans for future, to think on their future and to WORK to get what they need and wish.

    “29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away.”
    That is insane! I was taught to keep my instincts and my wishes on a leash, not to gouge my eye if I see a naked women and feel a wish.
    I was taught that feeling wishes for women is NATURAL, nothing to shame about, BUT that I could contact a lady ONLY if it was consent. My parents never suggested me to gouge my eye!
    “39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.”
    What??? I was taught by my mother and father to AVOID any conflict if possible, to try to solve it diplomatically, or to run away, BUT in case that someone attacs me I was suggested to defend myself and my family/friends/society.

    Dangerous “moral authority”!

  53. on 21 Mar 2012 at 12:09 pm 53.Lou (DFW) said …

    22.Lou (DFW) said …

    14.Mitch said …

    “Much like the Nazis programmed the masses to believe Jews were subhuman and killing them was OK…”

    “Oh really? Show us how that happened. Show us SPECIFICALLY how the German citizens were “programmed” by the Nazis that killing the Jews was OK. Wait, I’ll save you some time – that didn’t happen.”

    Still waiting for your answer, “Mitch.”

  54. on 22 Mar 2012 at 2:08 am 54.Ted said …

    “Much like the Nazis programmed the masses to believe Jews were subhuman and killing them was OK…”

    Geez Mitch, you don’t have to back to Germany to see programming of the masses. Look at how 50% of the population still believe what Barrack Obama tells them. Abortion is one good example but what about healthcare reform under 1B, Unemployment below 8% yet they still believe?

    Atheists will believe anything scientism sends their way.

    No, the majority of the masses throughout the world are simple to manipulate.

  55. on 22 Mar 2012 at 2:23 am 55.Lou (DFW) said …

    53.Ted said …

    “Much like the Nazis programmed the masses to believe Jews were subhuman and killing them was OK…”

    “Geez Mitch, you don’t have to back to Germany to see programming of the masses.”

    Geez, Hor, I mean Ted, if you believe in an imaginary creator/god, then you will believe that Nazis programmed the masses to believe that it was OK to kill the Jews.

    “No, the majority of the masses throughout the world are simple to manipulate.”

    As churches and religion have clearly demonstrated for thousands of years. But the one thing religion and you have NEVER done – provide evidence for your imaginary god, all while lying about atheists.

  56. on 22 Mar 2012 at 2:57 am 56.DPK said …

    “No, the majority of the masses throughout the world are simple to manipulate.

    Very true. One need look no further than the lie of religion to see that.

  57. on 22 Mar 2012 at 5:32 am 57.Slapnuts McGee said …

    *facepalm*

    Why does the abortion argument always have to come up?

    And somebody please respond too 35.Anonymous’ post. Now a rebuttal to that I am most curious to see. And what about hacking? What does the good lord say about hacking I wonder?

  58. on 23 Mar 2012 at 8:15 pm 58.PLEASE HELP, RELIGION IS RUINING MY LIFE said …

    I am a Christian, and religion has ruined my ability to live a happy life.

    I want to change but I can’t.

    Here is why I can’t stop believing Christianity:

    - I have an ability to interpret right and wrong as a human being
    - I have different ideas of what right is, why I should do it, who I am doing it for, how right applies in different situations, when should I do right and how I should do it
    - Other people have different ideas of these things
               - one word could produce a thousand connotations
    - I am incapable of doing the right thing 24/7
       - therefore I cause pain in others life unwillingly
    - This makes me feel unable to consistently uphold perfect ethical behavior in my relationships
    - This powerlessness makes me feel the need for grace to motivate myself to keep trying to do the right thing.
    -  Grace is only offered in the Christian paradigm
    -  Therefore I cannot fit Atheism to the needs of my mind to be motivated to try to be a better person.

           I always fall short, and I need to know that that is ok to be motivated to keep trying.

    Can atheism offer me a paradigm that will fulfill my needs?

    I’m sick of these religious nuts trying to tell me how to live my life!

    Please HELP!!

  59. on 23 Mar 2012 at 8:32 pm 59.Godless Monkey said …

    Wow, you really are screwed up, I agree! How do the countless millions who do not “believe” in jesus get through the day without going on murderous rampages? Yes, you do need help, and if your imaginary warden keeps you in check, great! Society does not need one so unhinged and unbalanced let loose on the rest of us. Thankfully I am not insane and can get through the day all on my own without, as you say, hurting peoople unwillingly. Please do not lose your faith as you might go on a killing spree if you actually had to think for yourself. Stay chained, my friend.

  60. on 23 Mar 2012 at 8:38 pm 60.Bob Marley saaid said …

    “Truth is, everyone is going to hurt you, you just have to figure out who is worth getting hurt for”

    Everyone hurts each other emotionally, we just can’t help it as human beings.

  61. on 23 Mar 2012 at 8:40 pm 61.It is Painful to Be Human said …

    All humans have experienced this, why do you think we have to define ethics.

  62. on 23 Mar 2012 at 8:41 pm 62.It is Painful to Be Human said …

    I just have it to the 3rd degree

  63. on 23 Mar 2012 at 8:42 pm 63.It is Painful to Be Human said …

    I only hurt the ones I love.

  64. on 23 Mar 2012 at 8:44 pm 64.It is Painful to Be Human said …

    not physical pain, emotional pain.

    I make them:

    sad
    angry
    frustrated
    upset

    with me at times, and I just want everyone to get along.

  65. on 23 Mar 2012 at 8:44 pm 65.It is Painful to Be Human said …

    Im not a murderer. lol

  66. on 23 Mar 2012 at 9:22 pm 66.Godless Monkey said …

    Perhaps some therapy might help you in regards to your being such an asshole to the ones you love. Stay chained, though, please until you learn some self-control.

  67. on 29 Apr 2012 at 5:36 pm 67.John said …

    59… Godless Monkey or should it be godless hominid?

    Anyway, where do your morals derive and what makes yours any better than anyone else’s. From the religion of atheism, this should all be relative and without any anchor other than concoctions of man.

    You seem to know right from wrong which is interesting and you seem to be taking an absolute view on it. Weird, it’s almost like your borrowing morality from another worldview…

  68. on 29 Apr 2012 at 6:12 pm 68.Godless Monkey said …

    Weird, John, that you assume, number one, that atheism is a religion. Number one lie.

    Number two, I know you have not lived out your xtian moral code absolutely. Proof: How many of your xtian brethren did you stone to death last week for not keeping the sabbath holy? But of course you have your get out of hell free card when you ask for forgiveness. How convienent for you and the asshole above to not “do unto others” in the first place.

    And if I were to borrow my morality from the bible and do all acts required from such — the cops would be at my house in two hot seconds slapping cuffs on me and taking me in for a 5150 hearing.

    And yes, I’ll accept your moniker of Godless Hominid — Hominid or Monkey, I have no quarrel :)

  69. on 29 Apr 2012 at 7:04 pm 69.John said …

    68. Godless Monkey

    Atheism is a religion. You are one of its followers. You have miracles, an origin that requires faith beyond the realm of science, a denial of god without having full knowledge and a wealth of religious leaders. The list goes own. Your John Smith is Darwin.

    Number 2 – You really need to study more. Check out Hank Hanegraaff. You are too ignorant to respond to on this question. It’s well beyond the scope of a BLOG. It does demonstrate you are looking at skeptics’ material. Let me know when you get up to speed and we can talk. Stay away from Ken Ham… every family has it genetically impaired members. He is one of ours. :)

    I am not a young earther, I like Bill Maher, and I know the majority of you are like most Christians: Ignorant followers.

    From my faith perspective, you should not be harmed in anyway for your beliefs. If I am right, you should be pitied. If I am wrong, we should all be pitied. It’s not my job to force your hand. It does no good.

    There is quite a difference between hominid and monkey. People of your faith should have an intellectual issue with it. :)

  70. on 29 Apr 2012 at 7:26 pm 70.Godless Monkey said …

    Dear John,

    You cite your authorities but you have failed in the most obvious definition of all: atheisim. Look it up.

    If tomorrow evolution is proved to be the biggest lie ever hoaxed on mankind that will not make your belief in the supernatural any less delusional than it is now.

    One clearly sees in your last post how those xtian moral absolutes are working for you in that you seem to be one slap-happy Don Rickles imitator gleefully delighting in your imagined insults. Chuckle, chuckle. What would Jesus do?

    You know, the xtian guru here, 40YA, has quite the thesis on ridicule and how it is absolutely only a product of what he terms, paraphrasing, the atheist religous liberal, left-wing, morality-lacking heathen. Seems you two are at quarrel.

    Pity? Yes, seems we’re equally pitiable of each other. I pity that a seemingly intelligent person could be so bamboozled. Stay chained, Dear John :)

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply