Take Back Our Country

[rogue06]

The first crusade didn't start until more than 400 years after Jerusalem was first captured by Muslims. Your account is too simplistic.

The First Crusade was in response to the Seljuq Turks moving into the region and killing pilgrims headed to Jerusalem. Previously there had been sporadic attacks by Muslims against pilgrims but these guys took it up several notches.

[Roy]

The First Crusade was in response to the Seljuq Turks moving into the region and killing pilgrims headed to Jerusalem. Previously there had been sporadic attacks by Muslims against pilgrims but these guys took it up several notches.

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you agreeing with me, trying to defend Sparko's oversimplicity, or merely providing additional info?

[rogue06]

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you agreeing with me, trying to defend Sparko's oversimplicity, or merely providing additional info?

Yes.

[Cow Poke]

Yes.

Where are your manners? It's "Yes, sir".

[carpedm9587]

Where are your manners? It's "Yes, sir".

When you insert a quote into a sentence, you use a comma, and the closing punctuation is put inside the quotation mark...

It's, "yes, sir."

[Cow Poke]

When you insert a quote into a sentence, you use a comma, and the closing punctuation is put inside the quotation mark...

It's, "yes, sir."

That's one I will never get right.

[One Bad Pig]

When you insert a quote into a sentence, you use a comma, and the closing punctuation is put inside the quotation mark...

It's, "yes, sir."

You're both wrong. It's "Yes, sir." A comma is generally only required when the sentence is something like "He said, 'I don't give a rip.'" One should also capitalize the first word if one is quoting an entire sentence, as is the case here.

[One Bad Pig]

And I note you have not answerd the question...

That would be because IT'S NOT THE ARGUMENT I'M MAKING. Do try to keep up.

I have. You're supposing without a basis...

It could be you're merely deliberately ignoring contrary information.

Worldviews...

Ideal worldviews. Quit playing word games.

I think you're glossing over a lot...

I'm boiling things down to the basics.

What you describe as a "moral backbone" I would describe as a fixed/unbending view that cannot accept new information. That's not a "good" thing.

Can new information make pedophilia acceptable? Yes, that's a serious question. I expect you to dodge it, but it's possible you'll pleasantly surprise me.

I'm not much in favor of individuals imposing their view of what a god, that does not exist, wants on other humans. That is a formula for a species run by fancy rather than fact.

Your assertion is duly noted.

It has happened. And I am indeed open to changing my views...when someone has a credible argument to offer. It has happened more than once in my life. But there has to be a credible argument behind it.

Color me skeptical.

Interesting. I had the impression that you adhered to a literal interpretation of the bible. Not quote young earth, mind you, but definitely "if it's in the NT, it is TRUTH." Am I wrong...?

That's an interesting definition of 'fundamentalist' you have. I take, e.g., the parable of the Prodigal Son as a parable, not literal truth.

Correct. An atheist does not see "good" as arising from "what god wants" or "what the bible says." So when we act for good, it is because we see in the thing itself a good. When we act for good, it is because we see it as the right thing to do - not because "god says so."

Congratulations on evading my point. When you act for good, you see it as the right thing to do - not because atheism says so.

You are now in Seer's domain. I have no comment to such debate tactics.

Translation: I have no answer for that, so I'm going to insult you and pretend I'm above such things. They really DO think it's the right thing to do, going by their own standards. I can see why you'd pretend that's not so.

[rogue06]

All avoided by my answer

[carpedm9587]

That's one I will never get right.

When the student is ready...a teacher will appear...

[carpedm9587]

You're both wrong. It's "Yes, sir." A comma is generally only required when the sentence is something like "He said, 'I don't give a rip.'" One should also capitalize the first word if one is quoting an entire sentence, as is the case here.

I hate when that happens...

[carpedm9587]

That would be because IT'S NOT THE ARGUMENT I'M MAKING. Do try to keep up.

It could be you're merely deliberately ignoring contrary information.

Ideal worldviews. Quit playing word games.

I'm boiling things down to the basics.

To be completely honest, I'm no longer entirely sure how this discussion got to this point. I went back some way, and I think it's generally about the claims that theism or atheism is responsible for more/greater atrocities. I stand behind my numbers, and I'll leave it at that.

Can new information make pedophilia acceptable? Yes, that's a serious question. I expect you to dodge it, but it's possible you'll pleasantly surprise me.

Setting the unnecessary aspersion(s) aside, theoretically yes; practically no. First of all, pedophilia is unacceptable because it is a variation on rape, in which a person in power exerts that power over someone who cannot resist/refuse it. In the case of pedophilia, it is because the "target" of the rape is a child and lacks the mental/physical capacity to resist/refuse an adult. So, theoretically, if we developed a science in which children mentally matured faster and gained that capability, pedophilia would cease to be a problem. Practically, that's not going to happen.

It's also important to note that what is considered "pedophilia" in one culture is considered normal in another. In the U.S., an adult having sex with a 13 year old would be considered pedophilia. In other cultures, children become adults when they enter into puberty. They are not sheltered as long as children in developed countries, and take on adult responsibilities much earlier in life. So the line where we cross into pedophilia shifts between some cultures. So before puberty, I suspect all cultures see that as pedophilia. From puberty to late teens, there is a lot of variation. From late teens onward, few (if any) cultures see it as pedophilia.

Also, I will note that, even if the answer had been a simple "no," you have not really said anything. The flexibility to admit new information and adjust accordingly does not mean that ALL things will adjust. It simply means that things can adjust as needed.

Your assertion is duly noted.

Color me skeptical.

That's an interesting definition of 'fundamentalist' you have. I take, e.g., the parable of the Prodigal Son as a parable, not literal truth.

There are other truths than historical ones.

Congratulations on evading my point. When you act for good, you see it as the right thing to do - not because atheism says so.

Correct. Unlike most theisms, atheism has no embedded moral framework. Yet the process of moralizing continues for atheist as well as theist. It is intrinsic to the human mind. So the atheist necessarily examines moralizing and good/bad distinctions on their own merits. The theist is caught up in "what god wants" and trying to discern that from various holy books.

Since the atheist believes there is no god - the atheist necessarily sees theistic moralizing as ungrounded - except in the writings of other people conveying what they think a god (who does not exist) wants.

Since the theist believes there is a god and this god defines what is moral - the theist will necessarily see the atheist as lacking a moral compass.

Translation: I have no answer for that, so I'm going to insult you and pretend I'm above such things. They really DO think it's the right thing to do, going by their own standards. I can see why you'd pretend that's not so.

Not what I said or meant. I will leave you to your translations.

[carpedm9587]

I was just thinking - and realized my answer to "pedophilia" was actually about the age at which pedophilia is considered to have occurred, not about the act of pedophilia itself. Because of the forced//power aspect of pedophilia, I can think of no new information that would make "pedophilia" moral since, by definition, it is sex between an adult and a young person incapable of consenting/resisting. The term itself implies immorality - as do terms like murder and rape.

[Sparko]

I was just thinking - and realized my answer to "pedophilia" was actually about the age at which pedophilia is considered to have occurred, not about the act of pedophilia itself. Because of the forced//power aspect of pedophilia, I can think of no new information that would make "pedophilia" moral since, by definition, it is sex between an adult and a young person incapable of consenting/resisting. The term itself implies immorality - as do terms like murder and rape.

Morals are relative remember? Your preference is as valid as the pedophile's who disagrees with you.

[seer]

I I can think of no new information that would make "pedophilia" moral since, by definition, it is sex between an adult and a young person incapable of consenting/resisting....

Have you raised any teenangers? A 13 year old certainly can consent - or more often than not - resist.