Let me be clear.
I am nothing special.
Awhile back I asked God for wisdom.
Because He’s good and keeps His promises…he gave me some.
I’m not on par with Solomon.
But I’ve got more than enough wisdom to confound heathens.
The following exchange took place on a blog that has blocked me from commenting.
The “JB” referenced is me!
The comments that made poor Scottie feel “wrung out” are here.
Nan doesn’t want to “give publicity” after she wrote an entire article about the blog she won’t reference.
I’m a big fan of publicizing anti-Christian stupidity.
Especially if it riles up anti-Christians!
It’s not difficult to rile them up.
All you have to do is ask some questions.
Scottie’s big idea (which he probably doesn’t know is stolen from Sam Harris) is:
Positive things that improve our wellbeing as a society are right and moral, things that negatively impact society’s wellbeing are immoral.
To create a “stiff wind for him to fight uphill all day”, any of these questions will suffice:
- What do you mean by “well-being”?
- Whose well-being are we using to gauge morally correct behavior?
- To which society are you referring?
- Is it moral when our well-being causes others to suffer?
I could go on but that’s more than enough to get your comments blocked on the majority of free-thinking blogs.
It delighted me to learn that I’m “damaging the doctrines of grace and reconciliation that Yeshua was reforming…”
I call it a victory when the atheists bring Jesus to defend them from me.
UPDATE: 2/16/2018
It seems Scotty wants to make sure everyone knows he doesn’t support his own thesis.
I thought I had adequately portrayed his futile thinking but he apparently disagreed.
I believe it is a sin to kill people because of their sexual orientation.
Scotty doesn’t believe sin exists.
Scotty says morality is determined by the opinion of the majority.
Scotty must now flip-flop between these two points of view in order to keep from admitting his worldview doesn’t work.
UPDATE #2: 2/16/2018
Scotty has taken my advice and called for help.
I doubt the godless cavalry will arrive.
62 Responses
Yeah that whole bearing false witness can get you in trouble.
I thought one of Ark’s favorite things is to post links?
Normally, that is true. He can’t wait to post links to nonsensical YouTube videos.
In this case, he doesn’t HAVE a link. He was lying and he got caught. And like a 4-year old, he will stay in his room until he confesses. It makes no difference to me. I don’t miss him.
@Ark – If you didn’t lie, then post the link.
I’m being fair, respectful, and honest.
The ball is still in your court.
Personally, I think it’s a good idea for you atheists to stay away from here. You always look silly when you’re not talking to each other. Maybe spend your time helping Scotty rebuild his self esteem.
You’re actually doing him a favor by not letting anyone else see his rambling.
LOL! He’s left FOUR comments that nobody can see except us!
Meanwhile, poor Scotty is in utter shambles over at Nan’s place and NOBODY has the stones to come here and defend him. Atheism is a very lonely religion.
It’s embarassing, really. 🙂
And also hilarious.
He keeps telling me “his terms”…
LOLOL!
His terms!!!!
We’ve heard his terms. That’s why he’s back to shouting at the void.
If he didn’t care so much about being heard, he would just leave and never come back. (As you did with his blog.)
But he can’t do it… He cares very, very much.
It warms my heart to think about that.
I’m going to say officially that Ark lied about the link. He made it up to try and force me to answer his stupid question. So there it is.
“I believe Doug Pearce, AKA: Arkenaten, told an outright lie about my posting on his blog.”
Now, we can forget about him for the rest of our lives.
It’s really too easy to bait him.
Almost seems unfair…
Are we terrible people for toying with a deranged man this way?
How can we be terrible when there’s no such thing as sin?
Ah, good point. I feel better now.
If you ever DO use another name to comment, may I suggest using the name “Arry”?
Lol!!
(That’s just a little nod to the only person I know who is obsessed enough to comment on other people’s blogs however he can.)
Oh, Hi Ark!
Nobody can see your comments because you’re stubbornly refusing to admit you lied to us.
You claimed to have a link to a comment posted by me using another (alias) account.
All you have to do is post that link or admit you were fibbing and then you’ll be allowed to comment again.
Frankly, confessing the lie won’t make us think less of you than we already do.
The ball is still in your court, Dig-Dug. Post the link or confess the lie.
I guess another question I would have for them would be why would we make up morality that restricts our natural tendency to sin yes I will use that word and I don’t buy that it’s what is good for the community I think in their system it is all for one and one for me because I am not beholding to anyone for how I act. It’s about what makes makes me feel good not what is right.
That is a great question which will most assuredly go unanswered.
They seem to believe if they repeat a response enough times we will believe it.
Correct.
And it makes them angry when it doesn’t work out that way.
Scotty and I are not actually having a conversation. I’m just supposed to accept whatever he says and thank him for his thoughts. He isn’t accustomed to being told he’s incoherent.
“The fact is Mel we make up our morality both individually and a collect community / society . We always have. The idea that it came from a god has never been shown. Mankind, humans decided what was right based on what we understood at the time.”
Can you show me where the idea that we “make it up” comes from?
Also: what do we need to “understand”?
Either we make it up, or we’re looking to something OUTSIDE OURSELVES to give us clues.
If there’s something outside ourselves that we need to “understand” it undermines the idea that we’re just making it up… #contradictions
It’s all about feelings.
The gang is back on Nan’s blog discussing how disrespectful and mean I am.
Hilarious!
They seem to have completely forgotten how they spoke to me when I was on their blogs.
Personally, I don’t respect inconsistencies and self-righteousness. 🙂
So I’d wear that disrespectful label if I were you.
The label doesn’t bother me.
I’m astonished that they don’t understand how being personally offended is NOT the same as raising a valid argument. That mindset destroys a person’s ability to reason.
Maybe they know and just don’t care.
Truth is important to Theists. But Naturalists are just operating on instinct. Maybe offense feels good!
Maybe.
But I don’t know how you can be offended by something unless you believe it’s true.
Poor Scotty is “trying to clear my name and show how John is outright lying”
I posted a screenshot of his quotes. There’s no way quoting him constitutes a lie.
As I said, he genuinely thinks he comes across as intelligent, as long as you read his quotes at Mel’s…
Sorry, but just having a bunch of your friends tell you how smart you are doesn’t make it true… The quotes HE copied and pasted here demonstrate he doesn’t understand the discussion.
Sorry, Scottie.
He also believes that “a response” is equivalent to “an answer”. In his mind, typing a bunch of words about killing means he has addressed my question and “tied everything up neatly”.
Wrong John and sidekick.
John again we did all this at Mel’s blog. It doesn’t transcend humans and humanity at all. You want to now run with the natural law crap again.
Here is what I wrote on Mel’s blog so I don’t have to type it all out again.
So who really is after truth here? This is for those reading who can clearly see I did answer John and Mel, and Mel even agreed with me on the sin / crime issue. I don’t have a burden of proof here either. So I think we are done John. All answered and tied up neatly. Hugs
LOL!
Proclaiming that we’re “tied up neatly” doesn’t make it so. Sorry.
Repeating your insipid comments from Mel’s blog doesn’t accomplish anything either. Those comments are incoherent no matter how many times you copy and paste them.
To recap:
Morality doesn’t come from personal opinion.
Morality doesn’t come from majority opinion.
Morality doesn’t come from nature.
Morality doesn’t come from religion.
Your problem persists, Scotty. You can’t explain where you got the idea that killing people is wrong.
You’re over your head, Scotty.
I think you should recruit some help. Retreat to the sanctuary of one of your cohort’s blogs and conspire a plan. It’s not nice of Jim, Kia, Ark, Nan, Taboo, Shelldigger, Judy, and all the other intellectual giants to leave you floundering all alone.
Don’t take it personally if they refuse to help though. They’re pretty scared of me.
“Killing another person is a crime. It also is really bad for their well being as a living human.”
We agree.
“It is wrong to kill. Period. No minority or majority status needed, no religious component needed.”
We agree again.
You have correctly removed the “majority opinion” element of morality. You have removed the “religious” component. Morality transcends people, cultures, laws, and social norms. Right and wrong exist apart from our personal opinions.
Do we agree?
You’re going to lose him…
A man who keeps bringing up specific religious tenants can’t follow this train of thought.
Scotty isn’t seeking truth.
I know.
But I want to record the effort so when our fellow Christians show up and accuse me of being unkind and harsh I can respectfully encourage them to kiss off.
He really seems to think that if people will just slog through all 50 Billion comments at Mel’s blog it will all make sense.
But the two comments he has copied make me lol. It’s a freaking yes/no question!
Clearly the Moral Law exists. But that fact makes him uncomfortable. It’s interesting to watch him dance between denial and what all humans know to be true. Right and Wrong are constant, regardless of human opinion.
Yep.
But the simple truth that morality is built into human beings smacks hard against godless theology. There is no reason to “evolve” a sense of guilt or remorse. The claims of “well-being for humanity” are stupid. If there’s no eternal purpose to humanity, why should I give a crap about anyone’s well-being?
LOL!
He is still commenting so others reading “can clearly see” that he has responded to everything.
On atheist blogs, Scotty gets high-fives for his commentary. The poor guy actually believes he’s making points.
John read what is written above that I copied right from our conversation. Heck read all of them Killing another person is a crime. It also is really bad for their well being as a living human. I have said it and will again one last time.
It is wrong to kill. Period. No minority or majority status needed, no religious component needed. The rest is fluff. The question is : Is it wrong to kill / murder? The answer is yes. Now John you can then add more to it, is it wrong to end life when a person is near death and it is a mercy or is it wrong to execute people who have committed horrendous acts. The answer to the first is hard but knowable, the second is easy. The first is no it is not wrong to help a dying person out if there is no way to save their quality of life ( I worked in ICUs and witnessed the horror of drawn out underpeventable death through life saving efforts to have the persons again die in a little while & repeat it all over again ) As for state sponsored killing that is always wrong. The point John in all my answers on Mel’s blog is it is a crime to kill / murder. No need to make it any more complicated.
What you really seem to want is to say that because it is wrong it must be a sin. But we already went over that. SIn is a transgression of divine law. As I do not agree there is a divine ( god or deity ) there is no divine law. Therefore no sin. It is a crime to kill. Now I said all that also on Mel’s blog to you. Please stop lying. Hugs
Last one John, as it shows clearly I addressed killing.
@John that is easy to answer. How would being murdered affect your wellbeing. The wellbeing of your family? Now extend that to society as a whole. The negative effects of murder on the wellbeing of both the person and the extended effect on society clearly makes murder a crime against humanity. That is why we say it is immoral. Simple. Hugs
To everyone reading this post. You see I did answer and address all the concerns John asked me. His claim I wouldn’t answer is fictitious and you really need to read the conversation yourself. Bye. Hugs
You DID NOT answer the question, Scotty.
So here’s another chance!
It is always wrong to kill a person because they’re a homosexual even if the majority says it’s okay.
Agree?
Also I answered here.
So everyone can see your claim I did not answer is a lie. John is a moral thing to lie to make yourself look better? Hugs
Here John, for your readers.
Not I did answer. Hugs
I honestly don’t know how you do it John. So many words I get worn out and bored trying to read all those lengthy posts only to have you respond in like three sentences. No wonder Scottie was worn out.
I don’t know how people argue with natural law, the idea that we simply know certain things are wrong. C S Lewis does a great job of explaining it in Mere Christianity.
Actually, I don’t get it. I wasn’t wore out at all. The conversation never rose to the level of serious engagement of ideas. In fact, I had a wonderful night out with my wife while it was going on, so I’m quite refreshed! 🙂
I was waiting for them to give me a coherent answer to my question, “What standard are you basing your morality?” To which, I got a couple hundred comments on what’s wrong with Christianity and all the other favorite anti-Christian talking points. And they were gushing all over each other about giving such brilliant answers, in spite of the fact they never actually answered the question. To quote Scrooge, I will retire to bedlam now.
Thanks John.
Hello Mel. I answered that question so many times you must have dozed off. Look at Johns first screen cap. The answer is right there. But you know that. I won’t bother to respond to the snide remarks and I also will only point out I did answer Johns four questions, but any one who wants to know the truth can go to your blog and slog through the entire conversation. Hugs
I said it’s always wrong to kill people because they are homosexual even when the majority disagrees. You never said whether or not you agreed.
Yes John, I did respond to that. You simply did not like the answer because it was not a yes or no. We even talked about the difference a minority versus majority has to do with wellbeing of humanity as a whole and the entire planet. If you are in doubt read the entire comments and replies we went through. Hugs 🤗
“It was not a yes or no…”
Aaaaaaand, that ought to tell everyone what they need to know. Lol.
Honestly, I didn’t expect him to even show up and comment…let alone ADMIT THAT HE WON’T ANSWER THAT QUESTION!! 😀
His adherence to dogma is truly astounding.
No Scotty, you did not respond to that at all. This is my blog. I won’t get blocked for telling the truth. You’re a liar.
It’s not a yes or no answer??!!! You won’t say it is wrong to kill people because they’re homosexuals!? So much for your “crimes against humanity” BS. If the majority says to toss gay guys off a roof, it’s morally ok to do so.
I would throwing gay guys off a roof “sinful”. That’s one of the many advantages to Christianity.
Love it John how you misrepresent things. The reason I wouldn’t give a simple yes or no is you phrased the question to me in the discussion so either would be wrong. You did not ask it as you claim to have. Your original question brought religion and minority status into play so I had to address these issues also. In fact if you look at my response as I wrote it , you will see I it spelled out for you ( pay attention ) how killing is against the wellbeing of individuals and not beneficial to the wellbeing of humanity. Posture and rant John, but as long as you misrepresent the conversation and your part, I am done with you here. You show yourself truly. I suggest anyone who wants to know the truth of what was written, and replied to, go to Mels post and read the comments. Decide using your own reason instead of being told what transpired. Bye. Hugs
You STILL haven’t answered the question.
You’re a coward.
You show yourself truly.
I say it’s a sin to kill homosexuals.
You can’t say for sure that it’s wrong.
Which one of us is the compassionate one?
I need that emoji of banging your head against wall when I read all those posts. It proves that God has hidden the wisdom from those who think themselves wise. I think that could be required reading for the seminar to see what you will be talking about. God bless you and Mel. Hugs.
If you don’t knock off the “hugs” I’ll have to block you.
Duly noted.
I can at least appreciate the honesty of someone who says “I deem something as moral when I like it and immoral if I dislike it”. It’s at least system that I can work with and have a discussion about.
It is absolutely frustrating to me when someone claims “moral progress” without defining their terms and appealing to an actual standard. It’s inevitably increasingly frustrating when they refuse to define standards and blame me for being difficult and not just “knowing what they mean” >_<.
Yep.
I DO “know what they mean” because I’ve got a conscience of my own. I tried to bring Scotty along by suggesting that “natural law” is a higher moral standard than the opinions of individuals…but he wasn’t having any of it.
And he flat rejected the “it’s moral because I like it” suggestion. The reason he was exhausted by the conversation is because he kept flip-flopping between points of view. Mental gymnastics can wear a fella out.
Sounds like an Olympic event! I’m in!
Mental Gymnastics, Answer Skating, Slippery Sloping, and Cross-Country Rambling.
I’ll start training right away. ^_^
There’s also a fair amount of “rowing,” if you catch my drift…
Boo.
At least you didn’t end with Hugs.
No hugs OR puns, huh?!
… Can I compose a haiku?
Oops, already did.