@mld-woody said:

I didn't mention me either

Hey did anybody actually mention anybody?

WSS

@westside-steve said:

Gee sorry Woody did somebody mentioned you? Did I accuse anybody here of anything?

(be sure to let me know if you hear anything like that)

WSS

I didn't mention me either

@westside-steve said:

not completely. It gives otherwise useless turds something to brag about.

WSS

They should have just gone to church. They could then be useless turds who are fans of the fiction section at their local library.

@mld-woody said:

Why, was someone bragging about something?

(be sure to let me know if you hear anything like that)

WSS

@westside-steve said:

not completely. It gives otherwise useless turds something to brag about.

WSS

Why, was someone bragging about something?

@logicisforsquares said:

Book learning is evil.

WSS

@mld-woody said:

Book learning is evil.

******************************************

OFFICIALLY? Gee, don't know - "didn't show up in Wikipedia.........

Stuart said:

I don't know. I suppose the Egyptians along with many ancient cultures may have had a moral and ethical code they lived by...that said, they may have been of the opinion that the enslavement of the Israelites was not immoral.

That's one reason God wrote the 10 Commandments, and later through his Son JC paid a visit to earth....to set things straight on this morality shit.

So morals did not exist before the invention of a Christian/Jewish god?

@mld-woody said:

So when did morals start to exist? Did Egyptians have morals?

I don't know did they? they were unrepentant slave masters

@mld-woody said:

Any support for this claim?

Really?

The fact is that far more people have been murdered by secular anti-religious regimes than by all the God-based groups in history.

In the last century alone...

Mao-Tse Tung’s atheistic regime in China killed between 40 million and 70 million people.

Joseph Stalin’s atheistic regime in the Soviet Union killed 20 million or more people.

Pol Pot’s atheistic regime in Cambodia killed about one out of every four Cambodians.

The North Korean atheistic regime has killed millions of its own people.

Nazism, an irreligious racist doctrine, killed as many as 17 million civilians.

The Hutus slaughtered Tutsis in Rwanda for ethnic and tribal reasons, not religious ones.

The 5.4 million Congolese killed in the last decade has nothing to do with religion.

And at this moment, as regards to Jews and the greatest Jewish existential question — that of Israel’s survival — the more religious the American Christian, the more likely he or she is to support Israel, while the greatest enmity toward Israel emanates from the center of secularism, the university. - D. PRAGER

WSS

@gftchris said:

So you take what you know to be a shaky basis, extrapolate, criticise the result because it has a shaky basis, and somehow think you made a relevant point?

Well certainly more relevant than making no point at all wouldn't you say? Why don't you give me a list of your completely secular moral truth?

WSS

@westside-steve said:

So you take what you know to be a shaky basis, extrapolate, criticise the result because it has a shaky basis, and somehow think you made a relevant point?

@mld-woody said:

So when did morals start to exist? Did Egyptians have morals?

I don't know. I suppose the Egyptians along with many ancient cultures may have had a moral and ethical code they lived by...that said, they may have been of the opinion that the enslavement of the Israelites was not immoral.

That's one reason God wrote the 10 Commandments, and later through his Son JC paid a visit to earth....to set things straight on this morality shit.

@gftchris said:

Well clearly, yes. If someone thinks it's immoral to abandon a political party, while the rest of the world disagrees, I think we can be sure who's being objective and who's being subjective.

So to be disloyal to those core values would be immoral. unfortunately that starts with an unsound premise which is that there is something right or wrong about justice and equality. that is something that someone made up, believes is right and insists on enforcing. why would that be better or worse then saying it came from the Bible, or the Urania or The Silmarillion?

WSS

@westside-steve said:

Well clearly, yes. If someone thinks it's immoral to abandon a political party, while the rest of the world disagrees, I think we can be sure who's being objective and who's being subjective.

@diehardbrownsfan said:

To really appreciate how good Reagan was you had to live under Jimmy Carter (who was awful) Reagan inherited a mess from Carter but I never heard him whine about how everything bad was all Jimmy Carter's fault like Obama has done with Bush for all these years. Under Reagan this country was strong economically and militarily. .

I never thought we would have a worse president than Jimmy Carter but I guess I underestimated the democratic party who gave us Obama.

@gftchris said:

There's a difference between objective and subjective morality.

Is there?

I think the key word in your statement should be semantics.

I also don't think you can make much of a case for it.

WSS

@westside-steve said:

There's a difference between objective and subjective morality.

WSS