tax_senior2002

I often see atheists say that society is the arbiter of morality. And to some extent, I can see where this comes from.

But in putting this argument forth, that whatever moral rules society comes up with are therefore the defining standard for right and wrong. Do people who argue this realize that this legitimizes societies like Nazi Germany? What right did we have to go in and stop Hitler from exterminating Jews if that society deemed exterminating Jews to be moral and good?

Society has the ability to decide on whatever morality it wants, BUT, that does not make it the RIGHT set of morals, or everyone who uses this argument defends Hitler or any other society that decides on genocide, or that rape is allowable, or that murder is good, or that theft is okay, or anything else.

Subjective morality is the same as saying no morality.

This is the response from a peaceful Muslim. Check the comment to the best answer:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=201101...

Like Nietzsche, Hume, and Madalyn Murray O'hair? Has atheism hit an intellectual dry spell? Most atheists today logically contradict themselves about three seconds out of the gate....

Where'd they all go?

If this is the case, and atheists are such free-thinkers, why is it that I've seen this insult hurled about 100 times in the last 24 hours on here? Is repeating what other atheists say "free thought", or is anything and everything that atheists say "free-thought" simply by virtue of their atheism....

Seems like a little double standard is at work here.

Depending on your views, the fact is, the wheel and axle existed before man, and only has this been discovered in the past 30 years. Mitochondrial and chloroplastic ATP-ase, cellular mechanisms which regulate the transfer of chemicals into and out of the cells, are formed by proteins which build a literal pump, complete with a freely rotating wheel and axle. Likewise, rotating cilia and flagellum also utilize a wheel and axle to spin the chain of proteins that form the propeller.

So, the question is, it took man's intelligence to figure out that the wheel and axle were useful for transporting things, but sheer dumb luck resulted in the wheel and axle being used in cellular machinery for hundreds of millions of years prior to man's evolution?

Either ID needs to be considered a viable position, or the intelligence of man is nothing more than sheer dumb luck.

True, man did fashion a wheel out of something at first. In that sense, we created the wheel. But the fact that a round shape makes the best wheel was not arbitrarily decided upon by humans. We really had no control over what shape to make the wheel for optimal performance. True?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ec8lpcA5hls&feature...

Watch all of the clips. He lays waste to the current theory of evolution. I happen to think that evolution is on the right track, but agree with Berlinski that the theory is grossly incomplete and full of holes that need updating.

It seems like the smartest atheist philosophers are all dead memories. Neitzsche and Hume, for example, were brilliant, even if wrong. They used strict arguments and were as careful as possible to avoid logic fallacies, and wrote respectfully and beautifully. Even if wrong, these were at least decent efforts.

Today's atheistic heros such as Dawkins, Hitchens, and Sam Harris have written scores of books and have made millions, but all of their books contain demonstrably false reasoning, logical fallacies, and abuse of statistics and historical fact. Are they writing to a less educated age?

Most Christian philosophers today, such as William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga, and others at least make sound logical arguments, similar in effort to those of Hume or Neitzsche.

At least Hume and Neitzsche realized the consequences of not believing in God. Today's atheists try to have their cake and eat it, too, with respect to morality.

Is atheism past its prime?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pz2eCFoafXk&feature...

Especially at about 2:35

When they are clearly not liberal nor progressive.

1) They're not liberal. They want to tell you what to eat, what to drink, what type of health care you can have, how you can run your business, what you can do with private property, how many and what type of guns you can own, etc. They're certainly not "liberal" in the classical meaning of the word.

2) They're not "progressive", either. They favor high tax rates and the accumulation of power in one federal government. Lots of dictators in history have had high tax rates and super-concentrated power. So liberalism isn't "progressive", either.

So, should liberals really be called "socialist regressives"?

http://drudgereport.com/flash2n.htm

Apparently, Janet Napolitano is encouraging citizens to rat out other citizens. Does this seem like Hitler asking Germans to turn over Jews? Does to me.

A new gene has been discovered which codes for liberal political views. Is this proving Darwin wrong, since liberals are apparently thriving just fine? Or is this a genetic flaw that will eventually be extinct. Liberals do tend to support abortion and homosexuality, which will decrease their numbers.

I've asked a scientific question about Darwinism twice now. Both times it takes my 5 points, but the question never appears? I'm hoping this question shows up....

Assange has already distributed an "Insurance" file containing more sensitive leaks. Assange said that if Wikileaks was shut down, he would distribute the password to these files, and they will surely go public. What's in them?

1) The brand of women's panties that Obama likes to wear?

2) Who killed JFK?

3) Obama's college transcript?

4) Ben Bernanke transcripts showing that bonuses were the reason for the bailouts?

5) The secret ingredient in Bush Beans?

6) Details of Iran's nuclear program?

7) The definitive location of Waldo?

What do you think?

So far, all I can tell is that people post stupid political questions and then vote for answers that match their preconceived notions.

OR, lazy idiots get online and try to get others to do their homework for them.

Looks all weird.

A recent article (I believe USA Today) stated that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, but that the growth in the gap was not so much based on gender, race, or religion, but age. I've experienced this greed first hand. 50-and 60- somethings basically being in positions of power in their companies, able to take away income or make decisions to enrich themselves far beyond what most would consider reasonable, at the expense of, and without consideration for, the people who work for them (usually younger).

Salaries have grown, but have not kept up with inflation. A household with one wage-earner has become virutally a thing of the past.

Companies that have experienced large losses continue to pay bonuses to their executives that are exorbiant.

So, what do you think? Are the baby boomers the greediest generation? If their parents were the Greatest Generation, I would argue YES.