If you know any chickens capable of a lifetime legal and emotional commitment I would like to meet them.
LOL. My response was hyperbolic, as in, even something as outlandish as same sex chickens wouldn't sway me. As in, I really don't care because it's none of my business.
Nope, you equated gays with chickens. As in they are less than human. You can't even lie and satisfy her. I recently made the mistake of using he describing a fictional psychiatrist which makes me sexist. Then I thought about who I think of when I think of a shrink. It is really a tie, the female shrink from 2 and a half men and Dr. Phil. I think the woman from the show is a lesbian in real life.....whatever.
I haven't researched it but I'd guess that chickens are more loyal over a lifetime than any human gay or straight. Oops, just did and I guess I'm wrong. Oh well.
Interestingly bizarre theory. Care to elaborate? So a culture without a written language necessarily has no moral code? barfo
Not necessarily, the Celtics had a code and they had no written language, but it was of the Celtic people. You said each individual atheist has his or her own moral code. No need to get together and talk about it, apparently no need to write it down. Sound like no code, or chaos, unless of course you mostly adopt the code others in society use.
Ah but what religion? Nothing in the picture represents the teachings of Jesus, indeed just the opposite. But I probably should let the Christians defend their faith, I am sure they can do much better. In light of todays events, the image you offer might be of a Muslim sect acting out the teaching of Mohammad when they find the homosexuals.
Not surprising that MarAzul is wrong on fact and interpretation. As barfo said there is no atheist church or atheist bible. But many atheists have written about morality and ethics and show a huge variation. Ayn Rand, from whom the Tea Party claimed inspiration because she opposed taxation for the common good, was an atheist elitist, who proclaimed selfishness as a virtue and believed in an elite of rich, brilliant, physically beautiful people who mattered, and a mass who did not. The Society for Secular Humanism published a Humanist Manifesto calling for equal rights, education, promotion of science, individual liberties, among other, in the context of liberal capitalism. Leon Trotsky, an atheist Marxist and humanist, wrote a book on the subject, Their Morals and Ours, in which he argued that dominant morality in any society would be that of ruling class and called for developing a new morality. That's just three views. So yes, there is a lot written. It's just that since we have no church every atheist, agnostic, secularist can form his/her own views. Or join others whose views he/she shares. Not surprising so much difference. After all, all Christians claim fealty to the same book but have differences at least as great as atheists. I see at every Pride Parade contingents of Christian churches, schools, and organizations. And I see at every antigay event a speakers' list of ministers hating gays. And both sides claim inspiration from the same book, just as pro and anti slavery sides did. He is wrong on interpretation that no written code means no ethics. First, ethics existed long before writing in human culture. Every culture has had some sort of ethical/moral rules to live by, although they varied widely. Second, if atheists/agnostics/humanists have no ethics, how do you explain why we commit so few crimes? Part of it is demographics; we tend to be among the more educated and hence somewhat better off members of society; so are less likely to commit crimes of desperation. But compare atheists and believers adjusting for education and social class and the atheist/agnostic/humanists STILL commit fewer crimes. MarAzul is wrong when he says we adopt Christian ethics without crediting. I reject Christian ethics. And I don't just mean the religious right but the whole concept. Christian ethics are based on salvation. We are all imperfect, our deeds are not what "save" us, just our faith. IMO that gives way too much leeway for shitty behavior because all you need is faith, ask Jesus and any sin forgiven. Even if you've done nothing to repair the harm done to another person hurt by one's actions. While at the same time being the best you can be gives no credit if you don't have the "right" faith. So I reject that. If anything I am closer to the Hippocratic Oath that begins, simply, "first do no harm".
Read Karl Marx and you'll see that actually there is a code..actually the only written work I know of that doesn't really have one is Taoism
I suppose you already knew I would totally reject Marx as totally anti American. "An ethical ideology that includes the inevitability of change and the evolution of morals leaves Marxists free to abandon generally accepted moral standards in pursuit of a greater good—the creation of a classless communist society. This pursuit requires Marxists to dedicate themselves to the cause and to use whatever action they believe will bring about a classless society. Any course of action then, no matter how immoral it appears to a world that believes in an absolute or universal moral standard, is morally good within the Marxist-Leninist worldview." Seem like we have been seeing some of this in recent years. I am hoping my countryman join me and total rejection of this load of shit. But that is what you get when you have government become your religion. The 10 commandments and the golden rule will do fine, much better than some wise ass rewriting the code to meet his needs this year.
