Originally posted by @fmfI never met anyone that didn't have an innate sense of right and wrong.
What can non-believers ~ and contemporary secular society more broadly ~ learn about morality from religious people and religious institutions once the notions of everlasting life, divine law and "sin" are taken out of the equation?
The only thing those without faith can learn from the faithful is to quit living in denial of the One that is the author of life and the code of morality.
Originally posted by @fmfI was puzzled by his post because it made no sense. That’s why I questioned it. The two question marks are indicative of a question (actually two questions) being asked.
So when you saw atheist Ghost of a Duke referring to his atheism ~ "I have no notion of divine law" ~ you genuinely thought that he was unaware that religious people obey "laws" that they believe are "divine" laws, despite him having studied theology?
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeWrong. You don’t have to be a student of theology to know divine law exists. Most people know that. Don’t blame me for a post in which you very poorly expressed yourself.
Clearly not. He just saw an opportunity to poke fun at my degree, in a thoroughly disingenuous manner.
Originally posted by @fmfYou’re questioning my integrity because I posed two questions to Ghost about a post in which he very poorly expressed himself?
The way I see it, the only issue [with regard to this silliness on his part] is his integrity and not his ability to comprehend what you said and/or what it meant.
Have I had to issue a community-wide apology because I exhibited no integrity?
Have I had to apologize to this website’s owners because I exhibited no integrity?
No. That’s what you had to do. In both cases.
Originally posted by @romans1009You know very well I'm an atheist and precisely what I meant when I said I had no notion of divine law. You chose, however, to deliberately misrepresent what I had written and 'play on words' rather than respond to my post sensibly.
Wrong. You don’t have to be a student of theology to know divine law exists. Most people know that. Don’t blame me for a post in which you very poorly expressed yourself.
As an atheist 'I have no notion of divine law.' (There is no divine! ) This is not the same as saying, "divine law,...what's that?"
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeYou should have said you don’t recognize divine law or don’t place any credence in it or don’t believe in it. Saying you have no notion of it implies you don’t know it exists.
You know very well I'm an atheist and precisely what I meant when I said I had no notion of divine law. You chose, however, to deliberately misrepresent what I had written and 'play on words' rather than respond to my post sensibly.
As an atheist 'I have no notion of divine law.' (There is no divine! ) This is not the same as saying, "divine law,...what's that?"
You expressed yourself in that instance very poorly. There’s no disputing it. But please, carry on for the next five hours trying to.
Originally posted by @romans1009You apparently have no 'notion' that 'notion' was the language of the thread.
You should have said you don’t recognize divine law or don’t place any credence in it or don’t believe in it. Saying you have no notion of it implies you don’t know it exists.
You expressed yourself in that instance very poorly. There’s no disputing it. But please, carry on for the next five hours trying to.
I'm sorry that you don't understand how conversations work, and I'm certainly not going to waste time translating things for you.
We both know you knew my original meaning, but by all means, continue with the lie if it makes you happy.
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeI didn’t know your original meaning which is why I questioned it. Saying you have no notion of something implies you don’t know it exists. That’s why I questioned it. But pretend to know my motive in questioning your very poorly-worded post. It distracts from your sloppily-worded presentation.
You apparently have no 'notion' that 'notion' was the language of the thread.
I'm sorry that you don't understand how conversations work, and I'm certainly not going to waste time translating things for you.
We both know you knew my original meaning, but by all means, continue with the lie if it makes you happy.
Originally posted by @romans1009I do not believe, when you read my post, that you (or anyone else) 'genuinely' thought I was saying 'divine law,...what's that?'
I didn’t know your original meaning which is why I questioned it. Saying you have no notion of something implies you don’t know it exists. That’s why I questioned it. But pretend to know my motive in questioning your very poorly-worded post. It distracts from your sloppily-worded presentation.
You 'chose' to interpret it that way so you had something to get your teeth into, rather than sensibly thinking, 'ah, he's saying, as an atheist, there is no notion of divine law in his life.'
There's no wriggling off that hook. You're just damaging yourself.
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeSo I misrepresented you by directly quoting you?
I do not believe, when you read my post, that you (or anyone else) 'genuinely' thought I was saying 'divine law,...what's that?'
You 'chose' to interpret it that way so you had something to get your teeth into, rather than sensibly thinking, 'ah, he's saying, as an atheist, there is no notion of divine law in his life.'
There's no wriggling off that hook. You're just damaging yourself.
🙄
1 edit
Originally posted by @romans1009Your downfall is often in your literal interpretation. You might want to work on that.
So I misrepresented you by directly quoting you?
🙄
Okay, concentrate now:
FMF's OP said - "...learn about morality from religious people and religious institutions once the NOTIONS of everlasting life."
Becker replied - "Without the NOTIONS of divine law and sin, morality becomes a matter of personal preference."
Ghost responded - "I have no NOTION of divine law but that doesn't mean my morality is a personal preference."
*I ask you please to read things in context and recognize that some pertinent keywords are necessarily carried between posts, among people who know each other's primary religious position.
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeGood grief, heartpence. Give it a rest. Is your obsessing over this and your refusal to acknowledge your post was poorly worded the behavior of a psychologically healthy person? Are you going to be blubbering about this for the next three weeks? Have one of tiger’s PB&J sandwiches; I made an extra one. Do you like rye bread? I think tiger does but I’m not sure.
Your downfall is often in your literal interpretation. You might want to work on that.
Okay, concentrate now:
FMF's OP said - "...learn about morality from religious people and religious institutions once the NOTIONS of everlasting life."
Becker replied - "Without the NOTIONS of divine law and sin, morality becomes a matter of personal pref ...[text shortened]... ecessarily carried between posts, among people who know each other's primary religious position.
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeBTW, there was a great deal of space and time between the OP and Becker’s post and then your poorly-worded post. Your juxtaposing them as if they all followed each other when only Becker’s did that with the OP is very disingenuous and misleading on your part.
Your downfall is often in your literal interpretation. You might want to work on that.
Okay, concentrate now:
FMF's OP said - "...learn about morality from religious people and religious institutions once the NOTIONS of everlasting life."
Becker replied - "Without the NOTIONS of divine law and sin, morality becomes a matter of personal pref ...[text shortened]... ecessarily carried between posts, among people who know each other's primary religious position.
You’re a bad hombre!
Originally posted by @thinkofoneI was pretty clear. We aren't on the same page, and that happens.
...How does it apply to what I've been posting?
If I had to guess, I'd say that you've misinterpreted my point. But if you don't plainly state your point and how it relates to what I've been posting, I'd only be guessing.
I admit I forget what you said. I forgot what I said! So I look at thread title and think. morality doesn't require belief or non-belief. I'm comfortable saying that believers are less moral in general. Oh, they can be sweet people, yes granma what you say, but you are kinda ignorant. Things change so fast and we have to keep up or shut up.
Believers are less moral because I have read the bible. I don't condone slavery or misogyny, and that is where I am.
Originally posted by @apathistLet's see. On one hand you claim that you were "pretty clear", yet on the other you admit that you don't know what either of us said. Yeah, that makes sense.
I was pretty clear. We aren't on the same page, and that happens.
I admit I forget what you said. I forgot what I said! So I look at thread title and think. morality doesn't require belief or non-belief. I'm comfortable saying that believers are less moral in general. Oh, they can be sweet people, yes granma what you say, but you are kinda ignorant. Thi ...[text shortened]... oral because I have read the bible. I don't condone slavery or misogyny, and that is where I am.