Originally posted by Surtur
Yeah but it's not like "don't molest little kids" is some religious tenet(insert joke here), though even if it was the 11th commandment IMO it doesn't matter here. Since stuff like theft and killing are commandments, but those are also things most people are against.Even just ignoring the commandments, I'd agree more with some like abortion. Like a religious conservative who decided to get one.
So because the Holy Book doesn't explicitly say "Don't f#ck kids" you give them a pass on this? They can't be faulted because their primary source of morality didn't explicitly forbid it. 😂
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
So because the Holy Book doesn't explicitly say "Don't f#ck kids" you give them a pass on this? They can't be faulted because their primary source of morality didn't explicitly forbid it. 😂
I'm not giving them a pass, what I'm saying is there are some things that go beyond religion. Not killing people is usually universal no matter what you believe. Theft, rape, and molestation should be too. There are things specific to religions, this is not one of them.
So I don't think party matters for Republican child molesters anymore than it matters for a Democrat.
Re: Re: Democrat Mayor Resigns because of Child Molestation Accusations.
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
#FullRetard
Wait, what? Where did you read that this Democrat molested fully retarded children?
But that makes sense. Many Democrats like to harm the innocent while pretending they are righteous. You love those dead minority babies, don't you?
Originally posted by Surtur
So I don't think party matters for Republican child molesters anymore than it matters for a Democrat.
I can get behind that.
But what I'm saying is that it's extra slimy for the religious Right to hide behind their supposed moral high ground and be molesting children behind closed doors. Like if we found out tomorrow, for example, that Pat Robertson had been molesting children for years when he had the gall to be condemning people in the name of God so blatantly.
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
I can get behind that.But what I'm saying is that it's extra slimy for the religious Right to hide behind their supposed moral high ground and be molesting children behind closed doors. Like if we found out tomorrow, for example, that Pat Robertson had been molesting children for years when he had the gall to be condemning people in the name of God so blatantly.
I think it's slimy for both, because the left pretends like they have the moral high ground too, they just don't try to use religion for it.
I don't think either side has more slime going on, is my point. It's just slime in different ways.
The Left [should be] by definition more secular and because of the stronghold that religion still has on the country, the Right still probably likes to think that it has the moral high ground.
Yes, I know to us atheists it sounds ridiculous, but that's our politics. The religious Right has the "moral absolutes," not like us heathen "moral relativists" on the Left. So in that sense the Right has the moral high ground.
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
The Left [should be] by definition more secular and because of the stronghold that religion still has on the country, the Right still probably likes to think that it has the moral high ground.Yes, I know to us atheists it sounds ridiculous, but that's our politics. The religious Right has the "moral absolutes," not like us heathen "moral relativists" on the Left. So in that sense the Right has the moral high ground.
A religious person would inherit values while a non-religious one owns and builds their own making them objectively more responsible of their actions. A religious person can be forgiven by a higher benevolent power in a proportion non dependant on the atrocities they may commit too (which are widely dependant on the religious values we are talking about).
I've stumbled into atheists that argue that religious morality is obsolete, thus claiming by extension that they are aware of a superior morality. I don't believe the Left in the US is meant to embody this principle, but you can see similar mentalities in historical parties like the Comunists.
Originally posted by Bentley
A religious person would inherit values while a non-religious one owns and builds their own making them objectively more responsible of their actions. A religious person can be forgiven by a higher benevolent power in a proportion non dependant on the atrocities they may commit too (which are widely dependant on the religious values we are talking about).I've stumbled into atheists that argue that religious morality is obsolete, thus claiming by extension that they are aware of a superior morality. I don't believe the Left in the US is meant to embody this principle, but you can see similar mentalities in historical parties like the Comunists.
Change "objectively" to "in my opinion" or "subjectively." In fact, it would appear a person who sets their own morals would be more subjective than a large religion that has been changing those morals over long periods of time (averaging moral opinion that, in general, works for the preservation and prosperity of humans as a collective which is really what religion (most of them) is about).
This is a nice segue into this topic because you seem to be leading the topic in this direction:
I do not agree with this chart.....for the most part.
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Oh, SHIT! Somebody bustin' out a CHART!
You got raped by a Priest when you were a kid Patent?
Cause Damn. You gotta hard on for Religious Hate on or what?
And if you want to Bible Bash. Go do it in the Religious Forum. We here to make fun of Hypocrite Leftist Fascists in this thread.
🤣
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
The Left [should be] by definition more secular and because of the stronghold that religion still has on the country, the Right still probably likes to think that it has the moral high ground.Yes, I know to us atheists it sounds ridiculous, but that's our politics. The religious Right has the "moral absolutes," not like us heathen "moral relativists" on the Left. So in that sense the Right has the moral high ground.
But thinking you have the moral high ground due to religion isn't any worse than thinking you have it just because your own beliefs are superior lol.
There is no "the right is worse" here. There is "both are shit and slime, in different ways".
Originally posted by Surtur
But thinking you have the moral high ground due to religion isn't any worse than thinking you have it just because your own beliefs are superior lol.There is no "the right is worse" here. There is "both are shit and slime, in different ways".
If you think about it, by him saying that it's worse when the right does it. he is essentially saying that the right are better people and thus should be held to a higher standard.
Originally posted by Surtur
But thinking you have the moral high ground due to religion isn't any worse than thinking you have it just because your own beliefs are superior lol.There is no "the right is worse" here. There is "both are shit and slime, in different ways".
Originally posted by Emperordmb
I don't think he's drawing the distinction off of a bias against the right, but rather a bias against religion.
But what is religion though? Some on the left show a cult/religious like zeal for their beliefs. Why is that lesser because they don't believe in a sky god?