Oral history is generally reliable within a three-generation callback time period

[Daylight63]

Why are militant atheists always pointing to religious leaders as the gold standard of morality?

I am mocking YOU for raising Jesus as the gold standard of morality when you hold those same moral commandments in low regard.

That's the point.

The fact that you don't get it is all I need to know about your supposed "intellect" that you brag about all day every day.

 

[Daylight63]

Dutch-Dutch lives to respond to Cypress' posts with "Agreed."

^^^^^QFT^^^^^^^

 

[Cypress]

I am mocking YOU for raising Jesus as the gold standard of morality when you hold those same moral commandments in low regard.

That's the point.

The fact that you don't get it is all I need to know about your supposed "intellect" that you brag about all day every day.

I've never seen you mention any prominent historical atheist as a gold standard of morality.

You only hold out religious leaders and religious teachings as the gold standard of morality.

It's basically like you are admitting that religion is fundamentally the basis of human moral beliefs.

 

[Daylight63]

I've never seen you mention any prominent historical atheist as a gold standard of morality.

You only hold out religious leaders and religious teachings as the gold standard of morality.

It's basically like you are admitting that religion is fundamentally the basis of human moral beliefs.

Geez it is like you don't understand. Let me clarify it for you:

I think you are a hypocrite. You talk about Jesus' moral teachings and then you LAUGH at the command to "turn the other cheek". Or you act like you can't give up your grudge against people. You don't understand the teachings of Jesus! LOL.

It's like you talking about quantum mechanics. YOU don't understand what Jesus said. Yet you hold yourself up as someone who does. That's a lie and you should be smart enough to know we can all see it.

LOL.

YOU are the one always holding up a moral guide you yourself don't even believe in.

That's the key point, Cy. Maybe some day you'll be smart enough to understand it.

 

[Cypress]

Geez it is like you don't understand. Let me clarify it for you:

I think you are a hypocrite.

LOL.

Way to throw militant atheists under the bus

No Perry, it's not about me. In the four years you have been posting here under various socks, you have never held out any famous atheists as a gold standard for morality.

What you do seem prone to doing is quoting religious teachings and religious figures as the gold standard of moral belief.

Unlike you, I can find a moral core in the principles of the unrepentant atheist Karl Marx. Marx had a very Christian message - to raise up the poor and oppressed, and to lay low the rich and powerful. That is an unmistakably a Judeo-Christian ethos Marx had faith in, much to his credit, even if he wanted to strip away the religious context.

 

[dancindave]

I've never seen you mention any prominent historical atheist as a gold standard of morality.

You only hold out religious leaders and religious teachings as the gold standard of morality.

It's basically like you are admitting that religion is fundamentally the basis of human moral beliefs.

How the basis of human morality beliefs is human reproduction medical pseudoscience where killing a fabricated son of God grants standing to sociopsychopathilogical homicidal human farming of “serve the Pope or die” Christiananality pedophilia with a more perfect union to Islamidiotocracy flaming flying chariot pseudoscience “death to the infidels” pedophilia Valhalla is fundamentally survival of the fittest fascists pyramid scheme gold standard in mass murder……

 

[IBDaMann]

HaHaHa! That's exactly the way much of our knowledge of ancient history works, by people writing down an oral tradition they received from eyewitnesses or from reports of people who knew the eyewitnesses.

... except that you are trying to pass off hearsay as "first-hand accounts" when the issue is "Jesus Christ".

That's exactly what I said in post #1. Herodotus never met the Persian emperors, and he was not a witness to the Persian wars.

That is misleading. When you say "Herodotus" you are talking about his written records, not the dead guy who can't speak. His written records are all first-hand accounts. He happened to be the vehicle for putting those accounts into writing, acting as a scribe. Then, with first-hand accounts in hand, he compiled his historical texts, all to standard.

Your hearsay still does not meet standards for historical documentation.

 

[IBDaMann]

Way to throw militant atheists under the bus

Way to throw yourself under the bus. You know that there is no such thing as a militant atheist; it is a contradiction. But then again, you do like to ramble in mixtures of babbling and gibberish.

No Perry, it's not about me.

Yes, you make it entirely about you and how you never know any of the material about which you post, but merely regurgitate the words of others, errors and all, in the hopes that people will think that you are somehow learned on that topic.

In the four years you have been posting here under various socks, you have never held out any famous atheists as a gold standard for morality.

Dale McGowan

Unlike you, I can find a moral core in the principles of the unrepentant atheist Karl Marx.

Nope. You cannot. Marx wasn't even an atheist. He was a firebrand preacher of a nasty Rapture-like religion that we call "Marxism." Try reading the Marxism Bible, i.e. "The Communist Manifesto" and "Das Kapital."

Marx had a very Christian message - to raise up the poor and oppressed,

Nope. His clear message was "Butcher the rich, the successful and those who add value to society in violent revolution." In no way, shape or form did his message involve helping anyone, only in tearing down through violence and enslaving the people.

 

[Bai Lan]

Herodotus is our primary sources for the Persian emperor Xerxes and for the history of the Greco-Persian wars. Herodotus was never an eyewitness to the Persian wars, and was writing decades after Xerxes died

yes.

history is mostly lies.

there is no fate either.

think for yourself, failure.

 

[Cypress]

... except that you are trying to pass off hearsay as "first-hand accounts" when the issue is "Jesus Christ".


That is misleading. When you say "Herodotus" you are talking about his written records, not the dead guy who can't speak. His written records are all first-hand accounts. He happened to be the vehicle for putting those accounts into writing, acting as a scribe. Then, with first-hand accounts in hand, he compiled his historical texts, all to standard.

Your hearsay still does not meet standards for historical documentation.

My OP says nothing about Jesus.

No, Herodotus is not a "first hand account." Herodotus was not a witness to the historical events he writes about.
Herodotus got his information by talking to eyewitnesses, interviewing people who knew the eyewitnesses, or from talking to people who knew the cultural oral tradition.

You're free to travel the country and demand universities shut down all research about ancient history.

Because without secondary sources and oral tradition, you might as well forget about learning about antiquity. Without secondary sources we would be ignorant of Persian emperor Xerxes, Hypatia of Alexandria, the Athenian statesman Solon, Indian emperor Chandragupta, etc.

 

[Bai Lan]

Why are militant atheists always pointing to religious leaders as the gold standard of morality?

You don't need to make Jesus, Siddhartha Buddha, or the Dali Lama your aspirational benchmark.

Surely history's great atheists, Nietzsche, Marx, Camus, Sartre, Richard Dawkins, should be your benchmark, no?

just jesus.

his morality is completely ratonal.

even the animals cooperate.

cooperation works.

only you see a win/win as a negative.

 

[Cypress]

You know that there is no such thing as a militant atheist; it is a contradiction.

"All Scientists Should Be Militant Atheists"​

By Lawrence M. Krauss, physicist

The more we learn about the workings of the universe, the more purposeless it seems. Scientists have an obligation not to lie about the natural world. Because science holds that no idea is sacred, it’s inevitable that it draws people away from religion.

Five hundred years of science have liberated humanity from the shackles of enforced ignorance. We should celebrate this openly and enthusiastically, regardless of whom it may offend.

If that is what causes someone to be called a militant atheist, then no scientist should be ashamed of the label.

All Scientists Should Be Militant Atheists

Scientists are often reluctant to disagree with religious ideas. The Kim Davis controversy shows why they shouldn’t be.

www.newyorker.com

 

[Daylight63]

Way to throw militant atheists under the bus

No Perry, it's not about me. In the four years you have been posting here under various socks, you have never held out any famous atheists as a gold standard for morality.

What you do seem prone to doing is quoting religious teachings and religious figures as the gold standard of moral belief.

Unlike you, I can find a moral core in the principles of the unrepentant atheist Karl Marx. Marx had a very Christian message - to raise up the poor and oppressed, and to lay low the rich and powerful. That is an unmistakably a Judeo-Christian ethos Marx had faith in, much to his credit, even if he wanted to strip away the religious context.

Cy, I know you've never really read the Bible. But there are good things in there. Chief among them is that people knew YOUR kind even back in the day.

Matthew 6:5 has your number.

Instead of praying to be seen, you "preach" to be seen. You blather on about the "importance" of Jesus while yourself failing at every turn to live up to what you espouse.

Go read the bible, THEN blather on about Jesus. But right now Jesus has your number

 

[Daylight63]

What you do seem prone to doing is quoting religious teachings and religious figures as the gold standard of moral belief.

I think it's fascinating that you don't see or understand what I'm doing. I'm hoisting YOU on your own pitard. YOU are the one who blathers on about Christianity when talking about morality.

Yet you can't even follow the easy stuff Jesus proposed.

That's the funniest part about all this and how I know your general level of intellect: You see I don't have to be a RELIGIOUS person to see and identify HYPOCRITES.

Primarily because I understand Christianity a whole lot better than you do.

 

[Bai Lan]

Cy, I know you've never really read the Bible. But there are good things in there. Chief among them is that people knew YOUR kind even back in the day.

Matthew 6:5 has your number.

Instead of praying to be seen, you "preach" to be seen. You blather on about the "importance" of Jesus while yourself failing at every turn to live up to what you espouse.

Go read the bible, THEN blather on about Jesus. But right now Jesus has your number

bless you my child.

 

[Cypress]

Nope. His clear message was "Butcher the rich, the successful and those who add value to society in violent revolution."

Pure communism was supposed to be a utopian society without the need for government or coercion according to Marx. Revolution was supposed to be transitory and ephemeral.

The core idea of Marx's program was to lift up the poor and oppressed, and for the rich and powerful to get a comeuppance.

That is a distinctive Judeo-Christian ethos which made Christianity so unique and radical 2000 years ago. As much as Marx hated organized religion, he couldn't help be inculcated with the Judeo-Christian ethos he inherited from his culture.

 

[Bai Lan]

My OP says nothing about Jesus.

No, Herodotus is not a "first hand account." Herodotus was not a witness to the historical events he writes about.
Herodotus got his information by talking to eyewitnesses, interviewing people who knew the eyewitnesses, or from talking to people who knew the cultural oral tradition.

You're free to travel the country and demand universities shut down all research about ancient history.

Because without secondary sources and oral tradition, you might as well forget about learning about antiquity. Without secondary sources we would be ignorant of Persian emperor Xerxes, Hypatia of Alexandria, the Athenian statesman Solon, Indian emperor Chandragupta, etc.

only people who cant think for themselves rely primarily on second hand accounts.

 

[Daylight63]

That is a distinctive Judeo-Christian ethos which made Christianity so unique and radical 2000 years ago. As much as Marx hated organized religion, he couldn't help be inculcated with the Judeo-Christian ethos he inherited from his culture.

^^^^THis sort of thing is a fascinating insight into your thinking. On so many of these posts you DEMAND that Christianity be given some space in the philosophy.

You start off with some bizarre concept that no body knew to love their children or knew murder was bad before the "Axial Age" and you seem to suggest that UNLESS you admit to Judeo-Christian input you are DENYING HISTORY.

It's bizarre how IMPORTANT it is to you that people access to the central role of Christianity. To be quite frank you sound like a thumper to me (Bible Thumper). But you also talk like you are an "agnostic".

Here's my theory on what you actually are: you have a strong core of belief in God. SOMETHING is in your head. You were raised in whatever faith (clearly NOT normal Protestantism given your astounding lack of knowledge in this area) but you have some religious inclination in your thinking. You are TERRIFIED of insulting God in case he's real and will punish you.

But you also don't want people to think you are some gullible mouthbreather overly credulous nobody. NO, you HAVE to be the smartest guy in the room. So you blather on about agnosticism in some weird attempt to mollify God in case he's listening to you. You wan't to let God know you are still OK with him and you're not outright denying him. That way in case you find he IS real you'll have an out on Judgement Day.

This is what you appear to be to me. You are free to deny it as you like. But that's the gist of it, Cy. And given that I've discovered SO MUCH about your limitations in the past couple of months I'm willing to bet I'm probably right.

And of course you'll deny. Exactly as I would expect.

 

[Cypress]

You see I don't have to be a RELIGIOUS person to see and identify HYPOCRITES.

Lying about all the sock puppets you've had hardly qualifies you as a person of who can get on a high horse and pass judgement, lol

 

[Daylight63]

Lying about all the sock puppets you've had hardly qualifies you as a person of who can get on a high horse and pass judgement, lol

This accusation still stands yet you have never shown such a person exists.

I have no sock puppets. You make accusations you don't bother to back up.

That makes you a bad person.