Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Atheists
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 916024" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>That statement would suggest that prior to about 1200 BCE, there were no ethics, no morality that condemned murder, theft and lying. Accepting the premise of a 6k year old earth, one would have to ask until Moses, what was the moral foundation on which the likes of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Issac, Jacob would rely on as their moral and ethical guide?</p><p></p><p>If the 10 Commandments are the original source of moral ethics, how do you account for the same moral ideals as no murder, no theft, no lying being so commonplace across the planet, across the span of time/people and until the last 2k years, over a vast majority of those people who were completely unaware of the Moses account and the ideal of the Judaic code and it's god?</p><p></p><p>There is a scientific school of thought that morality comes not from a higher being but could in fact come from <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/5373379/Animals-can-tell-right-from-wrong.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: #ff0000">nature itself</span></a>. The fact that morality is observed in animals might suggest that morality's source is not necessary by an action of a higher or supernatural being. What if we learned that morality was an action of the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/31/health/psychology/31book.html?pagewanted=all" target="_blank"><span style="color: #ff0000">evolutionary process</span></a> in nature rather than the process of religious dogma or doctrine?</p><p></p><p>As to the original post of the article from Townhall, I do agree taking the time, energy and resources to try and litigate public christmas displays is a waste. All IMO could be used in other better means but then christian folk seem to do a good job of using these types events to re-enforce their own ideals and purpose so it works out in the end. Besides, no lawsuits are needed IMO to get the point across so there you go!</p><p></p><p>I find the vast majority of people contrary to what they say really aren't interested in the "REAL" reason for the season!</p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/happy2.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":happy2:" title="Happy2 :happy2:" data-shortname=":happy2:" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 916024, member: 2189"] That statement would suggest that prior to about 1200 BCE, there were no ethics, no morality that condemned murder, theft and lying. Accepting the premise of a 6k year old earth, one would have to ask until Moses, what was the moral foundation on which the likes of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Issac, Jacob would rely on as their moral and ethical guide? If the 10 Commandments are the original source of moral ethics, how do you account for the same moral ideals as no murder, no theft, no lying being so commonplace across the planet, across the span of time/people and until the last 2k years, over a vast majority of those people who were completely unaware of the Moses account and the ideal of the Judaic code and it's god? There is a scientific school of thought that morality comes not from a higher being but could in fact come from [URL='http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/5373379/Animals-can-tell-right-from-wrong.html'][COLOR=#ff0000]nature itself[/COLOR][/URL]. The fact that morality is observed in animals might suggest that morality's source is not necessary by an action of a higher or supernatural being. What if we learned that morality was an action of the [URL='http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/31/health/psychology/31book.html?pagewanted=all'][COLOR=#ff0000]evolutionary process[/COLOR][/URL] in nature rather than the process of religious dogma or doctrine? As to the original post of the article from Townhall, I do agree taking the time, energy and resources to try and litigate public christmas displays is a waste. All IMO could be used in other better means but then christian folk seem to do a good job of using these types events to re-enforce their own ideals and purpose so it works out in the end. Besides, no lawsuits are needed IMO to get the point across so there you go! I find the vast majority of people contrary to what they say really aren't interested in the "REAL" reason for the season! :happy2: [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Atheists
Top