No need. You clearly changed the meaning of your sentence. But you did: You keep writing that. It's as meaningless now as it was the first time. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Wrong. You simply stating something doesn't make it true. No, it was a fail because, as I said: You're still making assumptions about the basis of morality. I had thought you were actually smarter than this. Evidently I'm still prone to error. My apologies.
Apparently you can't understand that if x + y = morality that x does not equal y. The reason I keep calling 'atheism' as 'underlying' is that is what actually makes the whole thing pointless. There are 'theist Humanists' (GeoffP) too. I've kept on saying the basis is groundless as long as y exists. I've talking about this in my 're-evol-ve' thread as well. And I used the same equation there as well. And I said there as well that " I KNOW Atheism does not talk about morality"... So this 'new meaning' you are talking about pre-dates this thread, which is proof that it is not a 'new meaning' but your misunderstanding what I have been saying. I was pointing out that Basis does not equal Atheism. 'still making assumption...' but that was about the rest of it. The 'fail' has to be about the 'god factor' which is what was being discussed in that sentence. Its kind of like saying this argument is false because the argument you made before it is false even though the two arguments are actually unrelated. God being a factor that was replaced, is unrelated to saying what the basis of morality is. This only happens when you're talking about theism and atheism together- you just can't fathom it. Anyways this is tiresome repitition so :wave: Peace be unto you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The fail was 'misplaced'. Those were two separate arguments we were talking about. The 'replacement of God' is one issue and the basis of morality was another issue. Anyways, how do you feel when someone doesn't listen to your clarification Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Peace be unto you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Hardly. You fail to read. The sentence is the same as when I first wrote it back in post #79. And again in #81. And again in #83. And #81 clearly pointed out that your further assumption that I was still referring to god was in error. I'd left the "question" of god behind because I'd previously pointed out your error on that assumption too.
What you may have 'clearly pointed out' in #81 has nothing to do with what I had said. Your post #79, that specific sentence was in response to my response to you about god being the factor. It was about 'atheism' and 'theism', specifically, the subject of that sentence. Fail for morality is totally misplaced. This started earlier with my comments that 'God' was 'replaced'- you were questioning the word 'replace'. Then you said: "God was never a factor so he can't have been "replaced"." Even though I was saying that the authority of God was 'replaced' by xx xxx xx . Or were you again interpreting the word replace as you wanted, instead of in the context that I was writing it in.? Well anyways, whatever this is getting petty. Peace be unto you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I'm not - read the thread title. An indoctrinating teacher implies indoctrinated children. 'Children' is about as on-topic as it gets; 'Atheistic morality' however... Firstly: Please stop assuming I'm an atheist & then piling your preconceptions (and misconceptions) up on my shoulders. It's irritating & starting to itch. Secondly: Its not about me telling you whats right or wrong. Its about us sitting down for a drink and watching some video footage of the last 50 years of human history. Its about us seeing something like racism, and both coming to the conclusion that, you know what, racism sucks; lets ensure our children aren't exposed to teachings which encourage it. Obscurity like 'relative morality' doesn't need to factor into our understanding of whats 'wrong'. All it requires is a willingness to sit at the same table, and engage in discussion.
Sure 'childrens' are on topic and as a specific topic. But the general conclusion that was trying to be made was 'indoctrintion is wrong'. Wrong on what moral basis? And wrong for who. (Q) is an Atheist, you jumped in, so I was assuming you are arguing against what I was saying to (Q)- which was for atheists. 'racism sucks'- you think white supremcists think that? You think they think its morally wrong? Why sit on the table in the first place- is it wrong to hold your own personal views? If so, on what basis? Peace be unto you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Agreed - they probably don't think that; and I'm sure there might well be some sound arguments for their cause. But I would say that their world-view is a relic from a time when cultures were isolated from others; when cultural morality was the order of the day, and was the instigator of conflict. Tribal mentality doesn't work on a global scale. Drawing conclusions by observing the world and its history, and agreeing upon them, strips morality of its subjective, cultural and religious connotations. It creates rather, a morality consciously defined by the people to whom it applies. We sit together so that ideas may evolve from their subjective, single minded nature into a collaborative ideal.
A child should not be TAUGHT what to believe, that is pure evil and should be frowned upon. Also: The message of Hell is simply fear-mongering...
Every person is taught WHAT to believe. Even when i was in school and being the smartest in the class the teacher still busted my balls.
After awhile though, everyone left me alone. One day the teacher said "John, whats wrong with you? You stare out the window all day. You dont talk, you dont play" I was like, how should i know? Luckily i got better. I think my sensors were overloaded. The shame of it all was they put my chair by the window and the grass was green and the trees were blowing in the wind. The squirrels were jumping all over and chasing eachother and every once in awhile they would stop to look at me looking at them.
While I understand believers have no morals, it would be very difficult trying to explain the moral implications to you because you have no frame of reference. It is wrong because it does not allow the child to learn how to think, which is made evidently clear in many of the believers posts here.
you need evidence of that? Really the only time we are not taught WHAT to believe is in a language class.
You miss the point. If you were the smartest in your class how come you're not so smart now? Or was it a (very) remedial class and you just scraped to the top?
It's quite simple: I read your posts. The ones where you fail, consistently to make your (or any) point and resort time and time again to merely reiterating your original statement as if that somewhow validated it. Ah, so it was a remedial class.