Atheists base their morality on politically correct behaviour.
I made the statement, Saiyyadati?
My memory must be going finally...
I merely coughed at the perceived personal slur.
Atheists base their morality on politically correct behaviour.
Being politically correct mean interpreting actions within the context of that society. Religion does the same thing, only within the context of that religion.
I made the statement, Saiyyadati?
My memory must be going finally...
I merely coughed at the perceived personal slur.
It would contain irreduceable forms and a high degree of perfection.What would a God designed universe look like?
As opposed to supernatural and mysterious, it means with observable cause.What is "natural"?
It would contain irreduceable forms and a high degree of perfection.
So it is limited by observation?As opposed to supernatural and mysterious, it means with observable cause.
Then I believe you have just disproven your own statement. Hitler was a vegetarian, but I do not believe he was a moral atheists, do you?
Then I believe you have just disproven your own statement. Hitler was a vegetarian, but I do not believe he was a moral atheists, do you?
But religion lays down the mores that any society deems acceptable or inacceptable. Even a secular society arrests and imprisons thieves and murderers.
If religion is a big part of that society, then yes, it contributes it's values to it, but secular values do not require a religious basis. You don't need religion to see that thieves and murderers are harmful to the well being of society.
Then you have provided no evidence to back up your claim.I never said he was.
But why would you be concerned by the well being of society?
Because humans are social creatures. If the cohesion of society fails, then there is a chance of chaos.
Then you have provided no evidence to back up your claim.
Right, because I'm a part of society. If murderers are loose, I will be in danger.
Because if you design something from the beginning, you wouldn't need to adapt ill-suited parts from a previous form. Pandas, to give a famous example, would have a real thumb rather than a deformed wrist bone common in all bears.Why?
Natural causes have been observed either directly or indirectly for many phenomenon previously explained only by religion.So it is limited by observation?
Because if you design something from the beginning, you wouldn't need to adapt ill-suited parts from a previous form. Pandas, to give a famous example, would have a real thumb rather than a deformed wrist bone common in all bears.
Natural causes have been observed either directly or indirectly for many phenomenon previously explained only by religion.
I did; I said all moral atheists are politically correct.
I did; I said all moral atheists are politically correct.
But thats your opinion.
If there is no design, why is it "deformed" or "mutated" or "deficient"?