So what is this toxic masculinity thing anyhow?

[Mountain Man]

Kind of pathetic that the bulk of Tassman's objection to Christianity have a strong moral component, yet he himself has no basis for his morals being relevant to people in other communities.

I think one of the strongest arguments against atheism is that most atheists instinctively reject the implications of their own worldview.

[seer]

No Tass, I am not confusing anything. And incarcerating Uighur Muslims is one way to preserve stability. Which is a moral good if your stability is the goal.

[Tassman]

Your avoidance of the issue shows that you indeed have no answer. You have no basis to object to anyone else's moral values - that's the logical outcome of your own beliefs.

[tabibito]

I recall an incident where a person was quite peaceably sitting at a table on a university campus. On the table were informational leaflets promoting the Republican cause. A passing anti-Trumper berated the person for promoting violence, upended his table, and assaulted and left him injured. Near as I can tell, Tassman, your post above demonstrates a mind-set similar to that of the anti-Trumper.

[Tassman]

And yet you claimed that Arab societies that practice tossing homosexuals off of rooftops was immoral. It is only immoral in our society, so you have no actual argument with them claiming it is moral in their society.

It is barbaric by current Western standards. Moral values that are grounded in the perceived ordinances of a deity, in this case Allah, tend to be more primitive than those of modern Western society because they reflect the moral values of 1,500 years ago. Similarly, with Judeo/Christian morality. Morality has evolved a lot since then. We're well past the days of killing witches, incarcerating homosexuals, subjugating women and justifying slave ownership.

Yet you do complain that what they do is actually immoral. You can't help yourself. Because in your heart you know that morals are objective.

I know no such thing. Morals are demonstrably NOT objective. Western morality has changed and adapted considerably throughout history and continue to do so. For the better IMHO.

[Tassman]

No Tass, I am not confusing anything. And incarcerating Uighur Muslims is one way to preserve stability. Which is a moral good if your stability is the goal.

In this instance to an ideology is the goal, NOT stability. In just the same way religions demand conformity to their ideology. People forced to conform against their will ultimately result in instability because the oppressed will revolt at the first opportunity.

I mean those who claim to know what God REALLY means as opposed to those who, in their view, have got it wrong.

You mean like those who invented the idea of equal rights?

Are equal rights for all citizens a bad thing. Why?

[seer]

In this instance to an ideology is the goal, NOT stability. In just the same way religions demand conformity to their ideology. People forced to conform against their will ultimately result in instability because the oppressed will revolt at the first opportunity.

Nonsense Tass, you have moved the goal posts from stability to conformity. And I don't see China falling apart anytime soon, the totalitarian Roman empire lasted for centuries, longer than our present western democracies. And a society needs a high degree conformity to survive, if we don't share certain principles and values we would be constantly at each other's throat. You have nothing Tass.

I mean those who claim to know what God REALLY means as opposed to those who, in their view, have got it wrong.

You mean like Mayor Pete?

Are equal rights for all citizens a bad thing. Why?

In your world it is neither objectively good or bad. Never mind the very idea of human rights - where do they come from Tass, how are they any more than legal fictions? Bed time stories we tell ourselves?

[Mountain Man]

And yet you hypocritically object to the moral values of Muslim culture.

[Sparko]

It is barbaric by current Western standards.

so what? They are not part of Western society. So their morals are different. Since you said that morals are determined by each society, you have no say so about some other society's morals. They are just as valid as yours are.

Moral values that are grounded in the perceived ordinances of a deity, in this case Allah, tend to be more primitive than those of modern Western society because they reflect the moral values of 1,500 years ago. Similarly, with Judeo/Christian morality. Morality has evolved a lot since then. We're well past the days of killing witches, incarcerating homosexuals, subjugating women and justifying slave ownership.

that is just your opinion as an atheist in another society. Since you already said that morals are unique to each society your opinion doesn't matter. They probably think your morals are barbaric and primitive because you are an infidel.

Yet you do complain that what they do is actually immoral. You can't help yourself. Because in your heart you know that morals are objective.

I know no such thing.

You just did again, right above.

Morals are demonstrably NOT objective. Western morality has changed and adapted considerably throughout history and continue to do so. For the better IMHO.

How can you make a determination of what is "better?" Just because you agree with the current morals doesn't make them better. That is just another opinion. Other people would disagree with you. If morals are not objective then there is no "better" or "worse" because there is no objective standard to compare them to.

[Tassman]

so what? They are not part of Western society. So their morals are different. Since you said that morals are determined by each society, you have no say so about some other society's morals. They are just as valid as yours are.

that is just your opinion as an atheist in another society. Since you already said that morals are unique to each society your opinion doesn't matter. They probably think your morals are barbaric and primitive because you are an infidel.

How can you make a determination of what is "better?" Just because you agree with the current morals doesn't make them better.

One can reasonably determine that current Western moral values are more appropriate to modern Western society than the tribal values of an earlier era. If only because we no longer live in a tribal society.

That is just another opinion. Other people would disagree with you. If morals are not objective then there is no "better" or "worse" because there is no objective standard to compare them to.

[Tassman]

Nonsense Tass, you have moved the goal posts from stability to conformity.

No, you

In your world it is neither objectively good or bad. Never mind the very idea of human rights - where do they come from Tass,

The concept of equal 'human rights' comes from the evolution of moral values and social behavior to enable the survival of our species in cooperative communities. The social rules that were necessary for a nomadic tribal society to survive in OT times are no longer suitable for a modern, multicultural, international community such as ours.

how are they any more than legal fictions? Bed time stories we tell ourselves?

[seer]

No, you

Nonsense Tass, you said that the developed countries, with their emphasis on equal rights, were more stable. That does not follow. And what is wrong with forced conformity if it leads to more stability?

The concept of equal 'human rights' comes from the evolution of moral values and social behavior to enable the survival of our species in cooperative communities. The social rules that were necessary for a nomadic tribal society to survive in OT times are no longer suitable for a modern, multicultural, international community such as ours.

More nonsense, China and Iran and Saudi Arabia, etc... are surviving just fine...


Human rights in a godless universe are an invented fiction, they do not exist. They are make believe.

[Sparko]

Yes you did. You argued that they were barbaric.




Our society's moral code is based on that same deity.

One can reasonably determine that current Western moral values are more appropriate to modern Western society than the tribal values of an earlier era. If only because we no longer live in a tribal society.

And yet our laws and moral codes can be traced back to the same roots as those "tribal societies" and are based on the same.


And yet you keep arguing as if morals are objective, telling Christians that our God is immoral, that the arabs are barbaric, that morals are "getting better"

Let me ask you something. We are currently seeing several US states trying to legalize infanticide. Infanticide is something those barbaric societies of the past used to do. Killing unwanted babies, or even sacrificing them. Do you think our society trying to legalize infanticide (after birth abortion they call it) is an example of our morals "getting better?"

[MaxVel]

Stop dodging. The problem is that YOU are acting incoherently when you attempt to impose your moral values - which are entirely subjective, according to you - on others. That's no more reasonable that you insisting that your personal tastes in music be imposed on others, by force if need be. It's just another set of personal and subjective beliefs. You're literally insane to want to do that.

All your talk of morals 'improving' or getting 'better' is just bunk. There's no such thing in your world, since there is no objective goal to improve towards. Morals are just what they are, and no set is any better than any other set, except insofar as it aligns with Tassman's pet hobbyhorses. Your moral preaching rings entirely hollow, because of your moral subjectivism. Emperor Tassman has no clothes. Stop thinking you're morally superior to others. You're not. Your worldview doesn't allow that.

[seer]

Your moral preaching rings entirely hollow, because of your moral subjectivism.

Bingo!