Milo was an early participant in the alt-right movement, until it morphed into a White Supremacy movement.

Of course, if one buys into the "from the goo to the zoo to you" (i.e. macro-evolution) paradigm, then there is nothing particularly good or bad about racism.

If we're just highly evolved pond scum, we're all just doing what are current state of evolution is programming us to do.

SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST, BABY! THE STRONG LIVE, AND THE WEAK DIE!

Wait, if a person believes in evolution, they should find nothing particularly good or bad about racism?

It might be time to step away from the keyboard for a bit.

Not necessarily. A thoughtful, consistent Naturalist will recognize that no conclusion drawn in the form of what might be termed "moral oughtness" (e.g. "One ought to do x..." or "One ought not to do x...") will always run afoul of the so-called Naturalistic Fallacy. In other words, one cannot deduce an "ought" from an "is." Naturalism can describe what is, but not what ought to be the case.

But since all of us are made in the image of God, we all have (to varying degrees) a conscience governing our sense of right and wrong.

If people are just highly-evolved pond scum as a result of millions of years of random physical processes, then a human's sense of right and wrong can't correspond to any actual universal, objective state of affairs, since we are always "evolving."

LOL. Not the first time, and I'm sure it won't be the last, that your Christian arrogance has shone through on the issue of morality.

OK, lets go through this again lagtight and lets go through this each and every time you return with this false REPEATED premise that somehow religion, or faith, somehow imparts a superior moral set or a limitation to doing 'wrong', which is not only complete BS but the opposite of the truth.


Let's talk about reality TODAY.


If I am despotic, immoral leader who cares about nothing but power and who does heinous things (to kids, to women, to democracy, etc) and I need to BUY a voting base name a group more for sale and willing to compromise all their other morals and turn a blind eye to all their moral failings, if just offered a few things as a bribe, then evangelicals?

If I am the next but worse Trump and looking to build a base that can get me into power and keep me there simply by bribing them with something I don't care about anyway, which group is more easily corruptible than evangelicals.

It seems to me you have crafted a total and absolute lie that religion, beliefs translate to stronger morals that lead to a less corruptible and thus more moral person and yet factual evidence seems to suggest the exact opposite. But I am open to you showing me evidence otherwise.

Please provide some evidence to substantiate your position. If you need me to do same, I submit Donald Trump as my first piece of evidence and how much he leaned on evangelicals and how steadfast they were/are in their support despite him, as a person, being antithetical to what they should accept in a leader.

I have never argued that religion translates into stronger moral behavior. I have never argued that religious people are more moral than non-religious people.

What I have argued is that God is the foundation of morality. I have argued that all persons are made in the image of God, and that all persons have a conscience and can, in varying degrees, discern right from wrong.

My post was purposely not limited to religion and i included 'faith' deliberately so your reply here is not a good one at all laggy and i think you know that.

The core of my question to you is based on this consistent exchange will I will paraphrase from this exchange while adding direct quotes from you. And you make parallel arguments like this all the time.

If you can be very specific and just reply to my numbered questions at the bottom that would appreciated.

A good proximation of Laggy's comments over time on this - buying into evolution, boils down to "...survival of the fittest" thus there are no real governors on things like racism or any way to say there there is anything "particularly good or bad about racism"

"...But since all of us are made in the image of God, we all have (to varying degrees) a conscience governing our sense of right and wrong.

If people are just highly-evolved pond scum as a result of millions of years of random physical processes, then a human's sense of right and wrong can't correspond to any actual universal, objective state of affairs, since we are always "evolving."


----------


This type of argumentation above is used by many 'religious' people to suggest that any/all of 'religion', 'faith', 'literal interpretation of the bible', 'belief in god' provides a moral framework that makes this group of people less likely to do 'bad things, make immoral choices' as compared to people who do not.

1 - Do you agree that you CONSTANTLY make the proximate type argument I have summarized above? An argument that without those things (evolution believers without 'faith') do not have these inherent governors thus allowing to do things like 'slavery' and not see it as 'wrong', 'bad', etc. And if not how specifically would you change it to better reflect your view?

2 - If you are going to maintain that proximate argument is still valid/true then please explain if you think Evangelicals basically showed that as long as they were offered a few core planks of their ideology they would basically turn a blind eye to all the worst aspects of Trump's lack Morality and his ongoing heinous actions and continue to give him the support to stay in power regardless?

3 - What other group, outside White Supremacist/Nationalists/Xenophobes do you think a Despotic could more easily target and get to support them? And if you name a group explain as I ask John above to do how they would identify and coral them?

Good post and good questions.

My responses:

1': I agree with your representation of my argument.

2': I think many Evangelicals were able to separate Trump's moral failings from his public policy positions. It was a "big picture" approach, and a recognition that God can (and often does) strike a straight blow with a crooked stick. Most Evangelicals who voted for Trump probably wouldn't want Trump to be a deacon or an elder in their church. A reprobate Trump is preferable to a reprobate Biden as POTUS.

3': Virtually zero Evangelicals would vote for someone who they believed to be a despot, in my opinion. Progressives would be far more likely to vote for a despot than a conservative or liberatarian would.

1. good.

2. What does 'separate" mean in that sense? It sounds like you are saying 'they know and just don't care'? They 'separate' it out by not caring about Trumps failings or his immoral actions??

Why make Trump POTUS and the most powerful man in the world if they would not think him worthy of being a Deacon? Why compromise yourselves and give such a bad man so much power?

3. They did. They voted for and supported Trump and his family separation, literal program of take away their babies and send the adults home so they will be too scared to ever coma again program, amongst other terrible things.

Show me something beside your 'guess' that progressives would do that? I can show you recent history (Trump) when Evangelicals did it.



Lastly do you now find it curious that when discussing who is most likely to support a despot, put aside all morals the list starts with White Supremist and Evangelicals at the top and you add in Progressives.

Are you not ashamed that Evangelicals need to be in this discussion at the top by default and see why it is so silly for your argument in point 1 to be repeated over and over by you?

I choose not to engage this derail further, as I do not share your characterization of Trump being an evil guy.

The anti-Trump forces are literally Satan-inspired (in my opinion) and are about a million times more evil than Trump and his Evangelical supporters.

Perhaps we can discuss this in a separate thread at some point.

This a new excise from P&S. If these aren't wanted in the RGT forum, mods can reply here or just PM me, and I will start deleting these when they crop up in P&S instead.

We can discuss it here.

Ok so you don't have to call Trump evil.

Lets just address Trump's moral character, philandering, divorce, reported abortions, ...his abuse of children are these not things at odds with what Evangelicals would call 'good and moral positions'?

You are Evangelic and you are looking at Trump. Everything he embodies as a person is antithetical to your belief systems.

But because he wants power, he is willing to advocate and use any power you give him to push an anti abortion agenda despite the fact he has been clear on the record he is pro choice and is rumoured to have paid up to 8 women to have abortions of his children. But for Trump that is an easy 'give' as a man who will compromise his position to obtain power.

Do you not agree Laggy that Evangelicals that decided to support Trump are rationalizing away what should be clear reasons for them to not support such a man and push him to power because they believe the gains they will get with him are worth turning a blind eye to".

If not explain, why not?

And more broadly if Trump's moral failings list 'are not enough', tell me what type of moral failings you think a potential leader would have to show before Evangelicals would say 'enough... we cannot support such an immoral man'?

No thanks.

Have a great Memorial Day!

As expected.

You repeat this specious claim and very dishonest representation time after time and thread after thread despite the fact you CANNOT and have NEVER defended it. You just state it as if a truism and then when challenged predictably say "I choose to no longer discuss this" as soon as you get pinned with your lie and hypocrisy.

In this case you got caught by your own words. You offered to continue the debate in its own thread and when tame granted that, you then immediately thought 'oh sh*t' and now are ducking out.


Anyway I have saved my argument to cut and paste in reply to the next time and next thread you post that same lie again. And we BOTH know you will d exactly that.


For a guy who cries about trolling in threads you do know what you are doing here is trolling right?

I would be delighted to discuss with you how morality does (or doesn't) comport with various theistic and atheistic frameworks.

But I do not care to discuss the "Trump with Respect to Evangelicals" angle.

If you search through my posts in P&S, you may have to go back a couple of years to find a post of mine in a Trump-related thread. To me, Trump discussions are never edifying.

The bolded is a lie.

I said we could "perhaps" pursue the topic "at some point". Please don't misrepresent what I said. Thanks.

Edit: See #10 above

I've said this about a trillion times already, but here goes number a trillion and one:

I have never asserted that religious people are more moral than nonreligious people.

I have asserted that only a theistically-based moral philosophy would be true (or something to that effect).

Note to OP: I still can't find a word better than moral to collectively refer to the notions of sin, righteousness, obedience, etc.

Question for Cuepee, et al:

How can the Materialist/Naturalist make a moral argument without committing the Naturalistic Fallacy?

I don't agree I was lying or being hypocritical. But, suppose I was being a lying hypocrite; would that be a bad thing? If so, why would it be a bad thing.

Is "ducking out" a bad thing to do? If so, why?

Would it be morally wrong for me to post "that same lie again?". If so, why?

Is it bad to be a troll? If so, why?

Looking forward to your responses, Cuepee.

I will answer my own questions:

It is morally wrong to be a lying, hypocritical troll because we are made in the image of God, and as such lying and hypocrisy are ungodly actions.

I don't mind if you don't know what to say, although I don't know why you don't just use righteousness or obedient to god. Just don't say you won't do something and then keep doing it. That is dishonest and hypocritical.

I thought I explained this twice before, but here goes again:

Depending on context, I sometimes need a word that refers to righteousness, obedience, sinfulness, etc, collectively. I don't know of any other word that describes those aspects collectively other than morals or moralilty..

I'm stuck in an English Language Vortex, and can't get out!!!!

Two more things....

Is it unrighteous to be dishonest? If so, why?

Is it unrighteous to be a hypocrite? If so, why?

My point is not about Trump specifically and i pointed that out as I asked you to reply about any future despot and not just Trump specifically.

the fact remains, and it is indisputable, that when America was faced with a deeply immoral man, who was intent on trying to destroying American democracy in an attempt to not just get a second term but to do much worse, one of the key audience groups he found most willing to turn a blind eye to all his failings and support him regardless was Evangelicals.

You have no counter to that TRUTH.

Evangelicals and White Supremist. That is the basket and what a One/Two punch that it is.

And yet time and again you present this lie you cannot substantiate, not even a little bit, that somehow belief in God or Faith provides some buttress for morality that non believers (from the goo to the zoo) do not have.

You state that as if a truism, when not only is it now but all the facts in play demonstrate the EXACT opposite. It is those who are religious, and the more religious (Evangelical) the are, the easier they are to buy and corrupt.

SO yes Laggy once again you show yourself to be a deeply and possibly irredeemably corrupted person, who cannot even seem to prevent himself from spreading this lie, time and again despite you KNOWING you cannot defend it, thus why you ALWAYS flee, and find a reason to never try.

You are an immoral person laggy. Sorry to say it but it is true. The purposeful use and repeating of something YOU KNOW to be an obvious lie, makes that statement accurate.

no laggy it is not.

You can try to play the game that you never intended it but you certainly created the invitation and tame responded in kind and so did i.

You, as usual, are playing dishonest games to avoid a truism. You have no intention of trying to prove our your CONSTANT contention that a belief in God or Faith provides a moral buttress to doing wrong that atheist or non believers do not have and suggestions or illusions you put forth that the latter poses some greater threat to society or individuals because 'what is stopping that person doing wrong if...'


And what you do not understand is that it is pure projection.

I have known many 'Born Again Evangelicals' in my life and they all share this one commonality. That is that they feel that 'if not for them finding Faith and God they would never have got off of the sinful or debaucherous road they were on and there might have been no limit to how bad things would have got for them and what actions they may have undertook'.

They are actually quite happy to tell you how they were 'saved' and 'would not have been if not for God'.

And that is all fine. But then many of them. as you do, project that on to others. You assume ALL others must also be in the same place as you were pre your faith discovery and similarly compromised and similarly vulnerable.

Where you go wrong is 'stating' that as if an established truth when it is not. Not even close to being true as proven by recent historical and prior examples.

OK, but since you have more Medieval views of biology and don’t buy into evolution, this seems like you’re changing the subject. You basically approve of Milo’s brand of trolling and cruelty, right? Or at least before he went full white supremacist.