No offense, but if I can get it, anybody can.See, I get this, completely. But those who don't, not only don't, but won't, can't, couldn't, wouldn't, ever, never, do.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
No offense, but if I can get it, anybody can.See, I get this, completely. But those who don't, not only don't, but won't, can't, couldn't, wouldn't, ever, never, do.
That's what I assumed, for many years. But it's not so. I hope realizing this takes you less time than it took me.No offense, but if I can get it, anybody can.
Are you saying that your God can't keep up with logic?As long as you place your 'logic' above God, you will continue to not get-it. It's not a logic-thing.
I contradict your view.
Just trying to be helpful.
Insect colonies have no problem "thriving" and "staying together." I am unaware that any insects abide by moral rules about, say, rape. Why do you set humans "and some animals" (but humans are animals) apart as requiring moral rules in order to "thrive" and "stay together"?
Apparently these animals also abide by no rules about killing the innocent or stealing, in addition to abiding to no moral rules about rape. That just leads back to the question I asked: how is it possible for these animals to "thrive" and "stay together" (in tightly packed colonies, no less)?An insect colony would have no concept of rape so rape in that context is a moot point
When and how was that hypothesis tested?For most social insects, the 'rules' are genetically coded.
Apparently these animals also abide by no rules about killing the innocent or stealing, in addition to abiding to no moral rules about rape. That just leads back to the question I asked: how is it possible for these animals to "thrive" and "stay together" (in tightly packed colonies, no less)?
Usually when I debate, i make sure that the person I talk with, understands my definition of the words i use (only when there is more than one common definition). as i see it, it is vital for a debater to have a clear understanding of the terms being used by the other debater in order to have a fuller understanding of the arguments presented.
For some reason, it always seems to me very hard to understand the exact definition of some words that theist who argue against me use.
So i try to understand what is the cause of the different logic mechanism? why is it that my logical assessment is so different than the logical assessment of theist people?
When i ask my self, what is the cause of something i do, it is split into 2 different things (for me),
The cause as: The goal i want to achieve by performing an action
and The cause as: The events that led me to take that action.
The more i debate, the more i try to clearly understand the logic behind the theist beliefs, and i really cant seem to understand it.
I would love if someone can raise to the challenge, and explain me the way the "theistic logic" works.
please use the starting point of explaining what is math to you? is it something invented, or discovered, by humans?
I can't understand not logic.As long as you place your 'logic' above God, you will continue to not get-it. It's not a logic-thing.
Are you trying to suggest that insects do abide by moral precepts? Just state that argument by which you have concluded such.Morality : principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.
Who are you to dictate what is right and wrong to another species?
There is none. He's just practicing on being arcane and sagacious. Haven't you noticed all abstruse and cryptic comments he makes. It's not what is said, but how it's said that's important.I can't understand not logic.
That is the fate of atheists. Demanding freedom, they lose it, and lose their souls too.I can't understand not logic.
As long as you place your 'logic' above God, you will continue to not get-it. It's not a logic-thing.
I suspect nothing is a "logic-thing," for some people. Then again, god isn't actually a thing to these people either. Once you strip away their fears, judgments, anxieties, and narcissism, you realize that god has nothing to do with their petty, fearful, and vindictive nature and actions.
Nobody has any clue, in the Western world what 'God' is. It's plenty real, but not to them, and not in the form they expect.
There's nothing wrong with agnosticism. It's what precedes - and permits - knowing.
as i see it, moral is based on billions of years of evolution. you can find moral "codes" in every specie in nature, yet we are the only specie that can discuss it (as far as we know)What is your "very clear definition" of what "moral" is, and what is the "common understanding" of what we mean by "moral"?
Yes and no.Are those two different ideas or the same?