broleaf [3140943]

Ah, so your argument is that if a Christian does not adhere to contemporary modernity, they are all neo-Nazis

Yeah, I don't think that deserves a merit of response; it's offensive and beneath me. But I'm glad that's what I've reduced you to.

Sorry, I missed this meme in your post earlier.

Show post

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

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".

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.

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.

Capgros [2088627]

Bullshit, it's just something natural in a social species like humans, nothing to do with tradition.

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.

Capgros [2088627]

Bullshit, it's just something natural in a social species like humans, nothing to do with tradition.

broleaf [3140943]

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.

Fistyboy [1733255]

Who’s tradition exactly?

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.

Fistyboy [1733255]

Who’s tradition exactly?

broleaf [3140943]

I suppose that depends on the individual. I wonder what would happen if the Enlightenment began to collapse, and everyone started to return to their traditions. Hmm...

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.

Fistyboy [1733255]

Who’s tradition exactly?

broleaf [3140943]

I suppose that depends on the individual. I wonder what would happen if the Enlightenment began to collapse, and everyone started to return to their traditions. Hmm...

Fistyboy [1733255]

Then if it’s based on an individual basis what gives anyone the right to question another’s ability to conceptualize morality?

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.

Fistyboy [1733255]

Who’s tradition exactly?

broleaf [3140943]

I suppose that depends on the individual. I wonder what would happen if the Enlightenment began to collapse, and everyone started to return to their traditions. Hmm...

Fistyboy [1733255]

Then if it’s based on an individual basis what gives anyone the right to question another’s ability to conceptualize morality?

broleaf [3140943]

Individual might be too simplistic, so I'll expand that. I base it on one's ancestors. In my case, I am Scottish and Christian. I derive my traditions from that.

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.

Fistyboy [1733255]

Who’s tradition exactly?

broleaf [3140943]

I suppose that depends on the individual. I wonder what would happen if the Enlightenment began to collapse, and everyone started to return to their traditions. Hmm...

Fistyboy [1733255]

Then if it’s based on an individual basis what gives anyone the right to question another’s ability to conceptualize morality?

broleaf [3140943]

Individual might be too simplistic, so I'll expand that. I base it on one's ancestors. In my case, I am Scottish and Christian. I derive my traditions from that.

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

Fistyboy [1733255]

Who’s tradition exactly?

broleaf [3140943]

I suppose that depends on the individual. I wonder what would happen if the Enlightenment began to collapse, and everyone started to return to their traditions. Hmm...

Fistyboy [1733255]

Then if it’s based on an individual basis what gives anyone the right to question another’s ability to conceptualize morality?

broleaf [3140943]

Individual might be too simplistic, so I'll expand that. I base it on one's ancestors. In my case, I am Scottish and Christian. I derive my traditions from that.

Fistyboy [1733255]

But you live in a society of varying ancestry. So should you impose your morality on others or have others impose theirs on you? If morality should be based on tradition of course

Fistyboy [1733255]

Who’s tradition exactly?

Show post

broleaf [3140943]

I suppose that depends on the individual. I wonder what would happen if the Enlightenment began to collapse, and everyone started to return to their traditions. Hmm...

Fistyboy [1733255]

Then if it’s based on an individual basis what gives anyone the right to question another’s ability to conceptualize morality?

broleaf [3140943]

Individual might be too simplistic, so I'll expand that. I base it on one's ancestors. In my case, I am Scottish and Christian. I derive my traditions from that.

Fistyboy [1733255]

But you live in a society of varying ancestry. So should you impose your morality on others or have others impose theirs on you? If morality should be based on tradition of course

broleaf [3140943]

A positive aspect is that we have Christianity to patch together that framework, being the higher-regarded tradition over the ancestral one. Without it, the rise of the Dark Enlightenment could be quite dangerous, as I'm sure you can see. We would be reduced to tribalist chimps, murdering each other, I'm sure, in short order. Kek.

When the Enlightenment collapses, so does the shoddy, illogical framework that bound that society together. Food for thought.
One could argue that atheists are the biggest danger to human life in the change in age of spirit.

Fistyboy [1733255]

Who’s tradition exactly?

Show post

broleaf [3140943]

I suppose that depends on the individual. I wonder what would happen if the Enlightenment began to collapse, and everyone started to return to their traditions. Hmm...

Fistyboy [1733255]

Then if it’s based on an individual basis what gives anyone the right to question another’s ability to conceptualize morality?

broleaf [3140943]

Individual might be too simplistic, so I'll expand that. I base it on one's ancestors. In my case, I am Scottish and Christian. I derive my traditions from that.

Fistyboy [1733255]

But you live in a society of varying ancestry. So should you impose your morality on others or have others impose theirs on you? If morality should be based on tradition of course

broleaf [3140943]

A positive aspect is that we have Christianity to patch together that framework, being the higher-regarded tradition over the ancestral one. Without it, the rise of the Dark Enlightenment could be quite dangerous, as I'm sure you can see. We would be reduced to tribalist chimps, murdering each other, I'm sure, in short order. Kek.

When the Enlightenment collapses, so does the shoddy, illogical framework that bound that society together. Food for thought.
One could argue that atheists are the biggest danger to human life in the change in age of spirit.

broleaf [3140943]

I suppose that depends on the individual. I wonder what would happen if the Enlightenment began to collapse, and everyone started to return to their traditions. Hmm...

Show post

Fistyboy [1733255]

Then if it’s based on an individual basis what gives anyone the right to question another’s ability to conceptualize morality?

broleaf [3140943]

Individual might be too simplistic, so I'll expand that. I base it on one's ancestors. In my case, I am Scottish and Christian. I derive my traditions from that.

Fistyboy [1733255]

But you live in a society of varying ancestry. So should you impose your morality on others or have others impose theirs on you? If morality should be based on tradition of course

broleaf [3140943]

A positive aspect is that we have Christianity to patch together that framework, being the higher-regarded tradition over the ancestral one. Without it, the rise of the Dark Enlightenment could be quite dangerous, as I'm sure you can see. We would be reduced to tribalist chimps, murdering each other, I'm sure, in short order. Kek.

When the Enlightenment collapses, so does the shoddy, illogical framework that bound that society together. Food for thought.
One could argue that atheists are the biggest danger to human life in the change in age of spirit.

Fistyboy [1733255]

So morality should be based on Christianity and anyone who doesn’t believe Jesus is their lord and saviour should have Christian morals imposed on them?

Fistyboy [1733255]

Then if it’s based on an individual basis what gives anyone the right to question another’s ability to conceptualize morality?

Show post

broleaf [3140943]

Individual might be too simplistic, so I'll expand that. I base it on one's ancestors. In my case, I am Scottish and Christian. I derive my traditions from that.

Fistyboy [1733255]

But you live in a society of varying ancestry. So should you impose your morality on others or have others impose theirs on you? If morality should be based on tradition of course

broleaf [3140943]

A positive aspect is that we have Christianity to patch together that framework, being the higher-regarded tradition over the ancestral one. Without it, the rise of the Dark Enlightenment could be quite dangerous, as I'm sure you can see. We would be reduced to tribalist chimps, murdering each other, I'm sure, in short order. Kek.

When the Enlightenment collapses, so does the shoddy, illogical framework that bound that society together. Food for thought.
One could argue that atheists are the biggest danger to human life in the change in age of spirit.

Fistyboy [1733255]

So morality should be based on Christianity and anyone who doesn’t believe Jesus is their lord and saviour should have Christian morals imposed on them?

broleaf [3140943]

What is right is irrelevant.

broleaf [3140943]

Individual might be too simplistic, so I'll expand that. I base it on one's ancestors. In my case, I am Scottish and Christian. I derive my traditions from that.

Show post

Fistyboy [1733255]

But you live in a society of varying ancestry. So should you impose your morality on others or have others impose theirs on you? If morality should be based on tradition of course

broleaf [3140943]

A positive aspect is that we have Christianity to patch together that framework, being the higher-regarded tradition over the ancestral one. Without it, the rise of the Dark Enlightenment could be quite dangerous, as I'm sure you can see. We would be reduced to tribalist chimps, murdering each other, I'm sure, in short order. Kek.

When the Enlightenment collapses, so does the shoddy, illogical framework that bound that society together. Food for thought.
One could argue that atheists are the biggest danger to human life in the change in age of spirit.

Fistyboy [1733255]

So morality should be based on Christianity and anyone who doesn’t believe Jesus is their lord and saviour should have Christian morals imposed on them?

broleaf [3140943]

What is right is irrelevant.

Fistyboy [1733255]

What is right is based on morality isn’t that the discussion we’re having?

Fistyboy [1733255]

But you live in a society of varying ancestry. So should you impose your morality on others or have others impose theirs on you? If morality should be based on tradition of course

Show post

broleaf [3140943]

A positive aspect is that we have Christianity to patch together that framework, being the higher-regarded tradition over the ancestral one. Without it, the rise of the Dark Enlightenment could be quite dangerous, as I'm sure you can see. We would be reduced to tribalist chimps, murdering each other, I'm sure, in short order. Kek.

When the Enlightenment collapses, so does the shoddy, illogical framework that bound that society together. Food for thought.
One could argue that atheists are the biggest danger to human life in the change in age of spirit.

Fistyboy [1733255]

So morality should be based on Christianity and anyone who doesn’t believe Jesus is their lord and saviour should have Christian morals imposed on them?

broleaf [3140943]

What is right is irrelevant.

Fistyboy [1733255]

What is right is based on morality isn’t that the discussion we’re having?

broleaf [3140943]

It's quite simple: you have your contemporary ethics, and I have my spiritual and traditional ethics. I've already explained where mine are derived from. What is right is dependent on the age of spirit; what is right is based on power.

On my cellphone atm.

broleaf [3140943]

A positive aspect is that we have Christianity to patch together that framework, being the higher-regarded tradition over the ancestral one. Without it, the rise of the Dark Enlightenment could be quite dangerous, as I'm sure you can see. We would be reduced to tribalist chimps, murdering each other, I'm sure, in short order. Kek.

When the Enlightenment collapses, so does the shoddy, illogical framework that bound that society together. Food for thought.
One could argue that atheists are the biggest danger to human life in the change in age of spirit.

Show post

Fistyboy [1733255]

So morality should be based on Christianity and anyone who doesn’t believe Jesus is their lord and saviour should have Christian morals imposed on them?

broleaf [3140943]

What is right is irrelevant.

Fistyboy [1733255]

What is right is based on morality isn’t that the discussion we’re having?

broleaf [3140943]

It's quite simple: you have your contemporary ethics, and I have my spiritual and traditional ethics. I've already explained where mine are derived from. What is right is dependent on the age of spirit; what is right is based on power.

On my cellphone atm.

Capgros [2088627]

The age of spirit in your country, is not really based on religion anymore.



Massive Declines – 2011-2021 Religious Affiliation Numbers in Canada,

Seems you are just living in the past

Fistyboy [1733255]

So morality should be based on Christianity and anyone who doesn’t believe Jesus is their lord and saviour should have Christian morals imposed on them?

Show post

broleaf [3140943]

What is right is irrelevant.

Fistyboy [1733255]

What is right is based on morality isn’t that the discussion we’re having?

broleaf [3140943]

It's quite simple: you have your contemporary ethics, and I have my spiritual and traditional ethics. I've already explained where mine are derived from. What is right is dependent on the age of spirit; what is right is based on power.

On my cellphone atm.

Capgros [2088627]

The age of spirit in your country, is not really based on religion anymore.



Massive Declines – 2011-2021 Religious Affiliation Numbers in Canada,

Seems you are just living in the past

broleaf [3140943]

The rise of reactionarism without any spiritual or moral grounding poses a danger to human life, unless the society is more or less homogeneous. Atheist traditionalists may clash with other atheist traditionalists. Christianity binds the two in harmony under spirit.