broleaf [3140943]

We've been living in the anti-tradition era, also known as the Enlightenment, for 300 years. I think you fail to grasp the fact that this era is now ending, hence the rise of the far right.

Show post

EverleighRaven [2949890]

What is going to happen when it ends? And how will it change people's lives, and how do I prepare myself when it does happen?

Capgros [2088627]

Some sort of dark enlightenment lol, if you can't win any discussion, you have to make up things to prove a false point.

EverleighRaven [2949890]

Can you be more specific?

broleaf [3140943]

Go check the European electoral map; neo-reactionaries are on the rise. The AFD is now larger than Merkel's old party.

EverleighRaven [2949890]

I do not know what you are referring to. Can you send me a map or something?

Faether [2732904]

The most unchristian christian to ever christian

Capgros [2088627]

Christians in Spain stabbed themselves in the back, by backing Franco, after his regime Christianity plummeted, it was a deep dive. People just saw the truth about the church trying to keep control walking on corpses.

Faether [2732904]

Organized religion has always been about control. That's why churches keep having to change their rules to stay relevant with the younger generations.

Capgros [2088627]

You literally believe in a neochristian monarchy, which could have as well a Hitler as fuhrer king

Most Christians are not like you,. So this is about you, not about christianity


to quote you from another thread:

"Diversity for the sake of diversity isn't even a positive; it's illogical from an atheist perspective if we reduce them to animals. Why should the white human animal support some moral argument of competing with the black human animal in the shared society? Sounds illogical, especially trying to enforce such a conceptual ideal. Did you not argue that tribalism is a thing seems like you're conflicted; there's some illogical inconsistency?"

That's right from the Neonazi book, that is just there

Show post

broleaf [3140943]

Taken out of context. Wow, aren't you desperate? Lol.

link to exact quote

Feel free to join that conversation as well. We have been discussing how atheists can't conceptualize morality rationally since it would be illogical.

angrysc0tsman12 [1099272]

Atheists absolutely can conceptualize morality. However we understand it is a social construct and is relative.

broleaf [3140943]

Yes, relative, as in subject to constant change with zero moral grounding. I agree.

angrysc0tsman12 [1099272]

Yes. Because there is no such thing as absolute morality. There is no universal moral code which determines what is "right" and what is "wrong".

broleaf [3140943]

Yes, there is. If you go outside the contemporary context and base morality on tradition rooted in the past rather than the future, you have officially anchor yourself.

broleaf [3140943]

Taken out of context. Wow, aren't you desperate? Lol.

link to exact quote

Feel free to join that conversation as well. We have been discussing how atheists can't conceptualize morality rationally since it would be illogical.

Show post

angrysc0tsman12 [1099272]

Atheists absolutely can conceptualize morality. However we understand it is a social construct and is relative.

broleaf [3140943]

Yes, relative, as in subject to constant change with zero moral grounding. I agree.

angrysc0tsman12 [1099272]

Yes. Because there is no such thing as absolute morality. There is no universal moral code which determines what is "right" and what is "wrong".

broleaf [3140943]

Yes, there is. If you go outside the contemporary context and base morality on tradition rooted in the past rather than the future, you have officially anchor yourself.

angrysc0tsman12 [1099272]

If you go back far enough in the past, adult men married children as young as 12 years old. Is it morally "right" for an adult to marry a child? Moreover if you look at age of consent laws, they were as low as 7 years old in at least one state as recent as 1880.

angrysc0tsman12 [1099272]

Atheists absolutely can conceptualize morality. However we understand it is a social construct and is relative.

Show post

broleaf [3140943]

Yes, relative, as in subject to constant change with zero moral grounding. I agree.

angrysc0tsman12 [1099272]

Yes. Because there is no such thing as absolute morality. There is no universal moral code which determines what is "right" and what is "wrong".

broleaf [3140943]

Yes, there is. If you go outside the contemporary context and base morality on tradition rooted in the past rather than the future, you have officially anchor yourself.

angrysc0tsman12 [1099272]

If you go back far enough in the past, adult men married children as young as 12 years old. Is it morally "right" for an adult to marry a child? Moreover if you look at age of consent laws, they were as low as 7 years old in at least one state as recent as 1880.

broleaf [3140943]

Yeah, pretty sure most of us neo-reactionaries are not for pedophiles; that's more of a liberal thing as of late. Lastly, things might rhyme, but they will never be as they were.

EverleighRaven [2949890]

What is going to happen when it ends? And how will it change people's lives, and how do I prepare myself when it does happen?

Show post

Capgros [2088627]

Some sort of dark enlightenment lol, if you can't win any discussion, you have to make up things to prove a false point.

EverleighRaven [2949890]

Can you be more specific?

broleaf [3140943]

Go check the European electoral map; neo-reactionaries are on the rise. The AFD is now larger than Merkel's old party.

EverleighRaven [2949890]

I do not know what you are referring to. Can you send me a map or something?

broleaf [3140943]

When I'm home.

broleaf [3140943]

Yes, relative, as in subject to constant change with zero moral grounding. I agree.

Show post

angrysc0tsman12 [1099272]

Yes. Because there is no such thing as absolute morality. There is no universal moral code which determines what is "right" and what is "wrong".

broleaf [3140943]

Yes, there is. If you go outside the contemporary context and base morality on tradition rooted in the past rather than the future, you have officially anchor yourself.

angrysc0tsman12 [1099272]

If you go back far enough in the past, adult men married children as young as 12 years old. Is it morally "right" for an adult to marry a child? Moreover if you look at age of consent laws, they were as low as 7 years old in at least one state as recent as 1880.

broleaf [3140943]

Yeah, pretty sure most of us neo-reactionaries are not for pedophiles; that's more of a liberal thing as of late. Lastly, things might rhyme, but they will never be as they were.

Capgros [2088627]

broleaf [3140943]

Taken out of context. Wow, aren't you desperate? Lol.

link to exact quote

Feel free to join that conversation as well. We have been discussing how atheists can't conceptualize morality rationally since it would be illogical.

Show post

angrysc0tsman12 [1099272]

Atheists absolutely can conceptualize morality. However we understand it is a social construct and is relative.

broleaf [3140943]

Yes, relative, as in subject to constant change with zero moral grounding. I agree.

angrysc0tsman12 [1099272]

Yes. Because there is no such thing as absolute morality. There is no universal moral code which determines what is "right" and what is "wrong".

broleaf [3140943]

Yes, there is. If you go outside the contemporary context and base morality on tradition rooted in the past rather than the future, you have officially anchor yourself.

angrysc0tsman12 [1099272]

If you go back far enough in the past, adult men married children as young as 12 years old. Is it morally "right" for an adult to marry a child? Moreover if you look at age of consent laws, they were as low as 7 years old in at least one state as recent as 1880.

angrysc0tsman12 [1099272]

Atheists absolutely can conceptualize morality. However we understand it is a social construct and is relative.

Show post

broleaf [3140943]

Yes, relative, as in subject to constant change with zero moral grounding. I agree.

angrysc0tsman12 [1099272]

Yes. Because there is no such thing as absolute morality. There is no universal moral code which determines what is "right" and what is "wrong".

broleaf [3140943]

Yes, there is. If you go outside the contemporary context and base morality on tradition rooted in the past rather than the future, you have officially anchor yourself.

angrysc0tsman12 [1099272]

If you go back far enough in the past, adult men married children as young as 12 years old. Is it morally "right" for an adult to marry a child? Moreover if you look at age of consent laws, they were as low as 7 years old in at least one state as recent as 1880.

broleaf [3140943]

Yeah, pretty sure most of us neo-reactionaries are not for pedophiles; that's more of a liberal thing as of late. Lastly, things might rhyme, but they will never be as they were.

angrysc0tsman12 [1099272]

Atheists absolutely can conceptualize morality. However we understand it is a social construct and is relative.

Show post

broleaf [3140943]

Yes, relative, as in subject to constant change with zero moral grounding. I agree.

angrysc0tsman12 [1099272]

Yes. Because there is no such thing as absolute morality. There is no universal moral code which determines what is "right" and what is "wrong".

broleaf [3140943]

Yes, there is. If you go outside the contemporary context and base morality on tradition rooted in the past rather than the future, you have officially anchor yourself.

angrysc0tsman12 [1099272]

If you go back far enough in the past, adult men married children as young as 12 years old. Is it morally "right" for an adult to marry a child? Moreover if you look at age of consent laws, they were as low as 7 years old in at least one state as recent as 1880.

broleaf [3140943]

Yeah, pretty sure most of us neo-reactionaries are not for pedophiles; that's more of a liberal thing as of late. Lastly, things might rhyme, but they will never be as they were.

broleaf [3140943]

Yes, relative, as in subject to constant change with zero moral grounding. I agree.

Show post

angrysc0tsman12 [1099272]

Yes. Because there is no such thing as absolute morality. There is no universal moral code which determines what is "right" and what is "wrong".

broleaf [3140943]

Yes, there is. If you go outside the contemporary context and base morality on tradition rooted in the past rather than the future, you have officially anchor yourself.

angrysc0tsman12 [1099272]

If you go back far enough in the past, adult men married children as young as 12 years old. Is it morally "right" for an adult to marry a child? Moreover if you look at age of consent laws, they were as low as 7 years old in at least one state as recent as 1880.

broleaf [3140943]

Yeah, pretty sure most of us neo-reactionaries are not for pedophiles; that's more of a liberal thing as of late. Lastly, things might rhyme, but they will never be as they were.

angrysc0tsman12 [1099272]

But that's my point though. Go back in time long enough and you'll find that marrying children was morally permissive whether as part of social norms or by means of necessity (as was the case if you go back really really really far).

Thus disproves the argument for absolute morals.

broleaf [3140943]

We've been living in the anti-tradition era, also known as the Enlightenment, for 300 years. I think you fail to grasp the fact that this era is now ending, hence the rise of the far right.

Show post

EverleighRaven [2949890]

What is going to happen when it ends? And how will it change people's lives, and how do I prepare myself when it does happen?

Capgros [2088627]

Some sort of dark enlightenment lol, if you can't win any discussion, you have to make up things to prove a false point.

EverleighRaven [2949890]

Can you be more specific?

broleaf [3140943]

Go check the European electoral map; neo-reactionaries are on the rise. The AFD is now larger than Merkel's old party.

EverleighRaven [2949890]

I do not know what you are referring to. Can you send me a map or something?

EverleighRaven [2949890]

What is going to happen when it ends? And how will it change people's lives, and how do I prepare myself when it does happen?

Show post

Capgros [2088627]

Some sort of dark enlightenment lol, if you can't win any discussion, you have to make up things to prove a false point.

EverleighRaven [2949890]

Can you be more specific?

broleaf [3140943]

Go check the European electoral map; neo-reactionaries are on the rise. The AFD is now larger than Merkel's old party.

EverleighRaven [2949890]

I do not know what you are referring to. Can you send me a map or something?

broleaf [3140943]

How Europe’s far right is marching steadily into the mainstream

Germany's far-right party now polls higher than the three parties in government

How Technocratic Hyper-Rationalism Has Birthed Right-Wing Extremism

angrysc0tsman12 [1099272]

Yes. Because there is no such thing as absolute morality. There is no universal moral code which determines what is "right" and what is "wrong".

Show post

broleaf [3140943]

Yes, there is. If you go outside the contemporary context and base morality on tradition rooted in the past rather than the future, you have officially anchor yourself.

angrysc0tsman12 [1099272]

If you go back far enough in the past, adult men married children as young as 12 years old. Is it morally "right" for an adult to marry a child? Moreover if you look at age of consent laws, they were as low as 7 years old in at least one state as recent as 1880.

broleaf [3140943]

Yeah, pretty sure most of us neo-reactionaries are not for pedophiles; that's more of a liberal thing as of late. Lastly, things might rhyme, but they will never be as they were.

angrysc0tsman12 [1099272]

But that's my point though. Go back in time long enough and you'll find that marrying children was morally permissive whether as part of social norms or by means of necessity (as was the case if you go back really really really far).

Thus disproves the argument for absolute morals.

broleaf [3140943]

No, because we in Orthodoxy have had an unchanging singular set of ethics dating back prior to Constantine the Great, and as an Orthodox Christian, that's my position. In contrast to your non-existent moral foundation that will be based on who knows what moving forward. One thing is certain, and that is my side is consistent, and yours is the asymmetric opposite to us in that regard.

broleaf [3140943]

Yes, there is. If you go outside the contemporary context and base morality on tradition rooted in the past rather than the future, you have officially anchor yourself.

Show post

angrysc0tsman12 [1099272]

If you go back far enough in the past, adult men married children as young as 12 years old. Is it morally "right" for an adult to marry a child? Moreover if you look at age of consent laws, they were as low as 7 years old in at least one state as recent as 1880.

broleaf [3140943]

Yeah, pretty sure most of us neo-reactionaries are not for pedophiles; that's more of a liberal thing as of late. Lastly, things might rhyme, but they will never be as they were.

angrysc0tsman12 [1099272]

But that's my point though. Go back in time long enough and you'll find that marrying children was morally permissive whether as part of social norms or by means of necessity (as was the case if you go back really really really far).

Thus disproves the argument for absolute morals.

broleaf [3140943]

No, because we in Orthodoxy have had an unchanging singular set of ethics dating back prior to Constantine the Great, and as an Orthodox Christian, that's my position. In contrast to your non-existent moral foundation that will be based on who knows what moving forward. One thing is certain, and that is my side is consistent, and yours is the asymmetric opposite to us in that regard.

EverleighRaven [2949890]

Just because something changes or stays the same over time, doesn't mean it is inherently better or worse than other systems..

angrysc0tsman12 [1099272]

If you go back far enough in the past, adult men married children as young as 12 years old. Is it morally "right" for an adult to marry a child? Moreover if you look at age of consent laws, they were as low as 7 years old in at least one state as recent as 1880.

Show post

broleaf [3140943]

Yeah, pretty sure most of us neo-reactionaries are not for pedophiles; that's more of a liberal thing as of late. Lastly, things might rhyme, but they will never be as they were.

angrysc0tsman12 [1099272]

But that's my point though. Go back in time long enough and you'll find that marrying children was morally permissive whether as part of social norms or by means of necessity (as was the case if you go back really really really far).

Thus disproves the argument for absolute morals.

broleaf [3140943]

No, because we in Orthodoxy have had an unchanging singular set of ethics dating back prior to Constantine the Great, and as an Orthodox Christian, that's my position. In contrast to your non-existent moral foundation that will be based on who knows what moving forward. One thing is certain, and that is my side is consistent, and yours is the asymmetric opposite to us in that regard.

EverleighRaven [2949890]

Just because something changes or stays the same over time, doesn't mean it is inherently better or worse than other systems..

broleaf [3140943]

The point is that one has a moral foundation, while the other does not.

broleaf [3140943]

Yeah, pretty sure most of us neo-reactionaries are not for pedophiles; that's more of a liberal thing as of late. Lastly, things might rhyme, but they will never be as they were.

Show post

angrysc0tsman12 [1099272]

But that's my point though. Go back in time long enough and you'll find that marrying children was morally permissive whether as part of social norms or by means of necessity (as was the case if you go back really really really far).

Thus disproves the argument for absolute morals.

broleaf [3140943]

No, because we in Orthodoxy have had an unchanging singular set of ethics dating back prior to Constantine the Great, and as an Orthodox Christian, that's my position. In contrast to your non-existent moral foundation that will be based on who knows what moving forward. One thing is certain, and that is my side is consistent, and yours is the asymmetric opposite to us in that regard.

EverleighRaven [2949890]

Just because something changes or stays the same over time, doesn't mean it is inherently better or worse than other systems..

broleaf [3140943]

The point is that one has a moral foundation, while the other does not.

EverleighRaven [2949890]

Christian and atheist morals are founded on different things, and under different circumstances.

angrysc0tsman12 [1099272]

But that's my point though. Go back in time long enough and you'll find that marrying children was morally permissive whether as part of social norms or by means of necessity (as was the case if you go back really really really far).

Thus disproves the argument for absolute morals.

Show post

broleaf [3140943]

No, because we in Orthodoxy have had an unchanging singular set of ethics dating back prior to Constantine the Great, and as an Orthodox Christian, that's my position. In contrast to your non-existent moral foundation that will be based on who knows what moving forward. One thing is certain, and that is my side is consistent, and yours is the asymmetric opposite to us in that regard.

EverleighRaven [2949890]

Just because something changes or stays the same over time, doesn't mean it is inherently better or worse than other systems..

broleaf [3140943]

The point is that one has a moral foundation, while the other does not.

EverleighRaven [2949890]

Christian and atheist morals are founded on different things, and under different circumstances.

broleaf [3140943]

They sprouted like seeds from us and our Christian values in the West. Then sequentially, they mutated off, creating chaos and atomization in their wake. Now, they have given birth to the rising Dark Enlightenment that will persecute and eliminate them. No one is under some sort of delusion that the far right is going to tolerate the different branches under the neo-contemporary umbrella. The far right will be as intolerant to them as they were to us if not worse.

What is right and wrong is irrelevant; there is only power.

The irony lies in the scenario where, as the Dark Enlightenment rises, the contemporary landscape shifts to an extreme in the polar direction, positioning Christianity as the new liberals on a diagram. However, I don't think it will be that extreme.

broleaf [3140943]

No, because we in Orthodoxy have had an unchanging singular set of ethics dating back prior to Constantine the Great, and as an Orthodox Christian, that's my position. In contrast to your non-existent moral foundation that will be based on who knows what moving forward. One thing is certain, and that is my side is consistent, and yours is the asymmetric opposite to us in that regard.

Show post

EverleighRaven [2949890]

Just because something changes or stays the same over time, doesn't mean it is inherently better or worse than other systems..

broleaf [3140943]

The point is that one has a moral foundation, while the other does not.

EverleighRaven [2949890]

Christian and atheist morals are founded on different things, and under different circumstances.

broleaf [3140943]

They sprouted like seeds from us and our Christian values in the West. Then sequentially, they mutated off, creating chaos and atomization in their wake. Now, they have given birth to the rising Dark Enlightenment that will persecute and eliminate them. No one is under some sort of delusion that the far right is going to tolerate the different branches under the neo-contemporary umbrella. The far right will be as intolerant to them as they were to us if not worse.

What is right and wrong is irrelevant; there is only power.

The irony lies in the scenario where, as the Dark Enlightenment rises, the contemporary landscape shifts to an extreme in the polar direction, positioning Christianity as the new liberals on a diagram. However, I don't think it will be that extreme.

EverleighRaven [2949890]

Why do you think that the far right is going to win? And do you think it would be a good thing for society if they did win? How would things change, in your opinion?

Edit: It would be interesting to see what happens when the Christians become the new liberals. Also, what would happen to the people who didn't want to convert?