If God is so merciful, then why did Jesus have to be sacrificed?

[Immanuel Can]

Greek philosophers...

...were polytheists. So your point?

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel is claiming that ethics only exists within religion?

Don't misrepresent me. I said that Secularism has no ethics.

Prove me wrong, then...tell me one -- just one -- ethical principle that Secularism requires of you. I'll take any one.

Go ahead.

But you won't, because you can't, because you can see I'm right.

[thedoc]

...has your theism made you that illiterate?

To those particular signs, yes.

What "particular" signs may those be to which you allow no trespass? Nothing particular was ever mentioned!

You really are thick, aren't you?

[thedoc]

Prove me wrong, then...tell me one -- just one -- ethical principle that Secularism requires of you. I'll take any one.

Go ahead.

But you won't, because you can't, because you can see I'm right.

Atheists will never rise to the occasion because they can't.

[Harbal]

Don't misrepresent me. I said that Secularism has no ethics.

Prove me wrong, then...tell me one -- just one -- ethical principle that Secularism requires of you. I'll take any one.

Go ahead.

But you won't, because you can't, because you can see I'm right.

Religion doesn't have to have ethics either.

[Dubious]

To those particular signs, yes.

What "particular" signs may those be to which you allow no trespass? Nothing particular was ever mentioned!

You really are thick, aren't you?

...only if I believe that a crucified Jew who hated Gentiles was going to save my soul and grant me eternal life for having believed in him for approximately the span of a human life. You theists really expect a hell of a lot for not much! I'd expect any kind of super intelligence to be thoroughly unimpressed by your expectations. Nevertheless, happy trails in leveraging your investment beyond the confines of reason but based on the distance between thick and insane, I'll gladly take the former.

[uwot]

Greek philosophers...

...were polytheists. So your point?

Bit of a broad brush, Mr Can. As it happens, many Greek philosophers, including Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, agreed with Xenophanes' claim that ‘God is one, supreme among gods and men, and not like mortals in body or in mind,’ who ‘without effort sets all things in motion with the power of mind and thought.’ They understood that people prefer their gods in human form, the Romans took note and when it came to inventing a religion that everyone could go along with (which is what catholic means), they inserted this figure Jesus Christ, and as many saints as you can shake a stick at. Eastern Orthodoxy is just an offshoot of Greek Orthodoxy and Catholicism has splintered into as many factions as please their adherents, one of which is yours, Mr Can. Like everyone else, you believe in a story you find coherent and convince yourself that anyone who doesn't share your vision is incoherent.

[uwot]

Atheists will never rise to the occasion because they can't.

We can. We do. And Mr Can ignores us.

[Dubious]

Prove me wrong, then...tell me one -- just one -- ethical principle that Secularism requires of you. I'll take any one.

Go ahead.

But you won't, because you can't, because you can see I'm right.

Atheists will never rise to the occasion because they can't.

That's only because sanity is measured by one's perception of reality, a realm from which theists have long ago achieved escape velocity. Atheists expect to rest in peace not keep on going after they're dead. In short, there is no expectation of rising to the occasion for brains that still feed on oxygen.

[Greta]

Prove me wrong, then...tell me one -- just one -- ethical principle that Secularism requires of you. I'll take any one.

Don't kill. Don't steal. Don't misrepresent and lie. Do not treat people like things. Do you need more?

Besides, religious "morality" is full of outmoded and irrational quirks. For this reason I consider secular humanism to be far more objective and more appropriate to a global community as opposed to the successors of warring Abrahamic tribes.

[Harbal]

Besides, religious "morality" is full of outmoded and irrational quirks.

You mean there are more like henry?

[Belinda]

Dubious wrote:

...only if I believe that a crucified Jew who hated Gentiles was going to save my soul and grant me eternal life for having believed in him for approximately the span of a human life. You theists really expect a hell of a lot for not much! I'd expect any kind of super intelligence to be thoroughly unimpressed by your expectations. Nevertheless, happy trails in leveraging your investment beyond the confines of reason but based on the distance between thick and insane, I'll gladly take the former.

Dubious has a proper measure of scepticism, and obvious ability to argue a point of view. Yet, priests have not taught the Christian narrative so it makes sense to someone like Dubious. The Christian narrative makes sense for reasonable people as well as for the gullible and the emotionally reactive, only if it's told appropriately for reasoning adults. I stopped going to any church because of the poor quality of the sermons which are not composed for sophisticated adults. Humanists do a lot better .

[Immanuel Can]

Don't kill. Don't steal. Don't misrepresent and lie. Do not treat people like things. Do you need more?

You haven't given one yet. Where or how does Secularism itself require you not to kill? Where does Secularism say, "Thou shalt not steal"? Where does it say it's wrong to misrepresent and lie? What Secular rationale proves it's "wrong" to treat people any way you like at all?

You see, to show that Secularism has a moral content, you have to show that Secularism requires secularists to believe in these things. In other words, you have to show that it's "unSecular" to kill, to lie, or to treat people like things.

Secularism needs a moral force to prevent or interdict such acts: but it has none. For it contains no moral precepts at all. It neither says, "Do this," nor "Don't do this."

For that matter, it cannot even tell you if Secularism itself is "right" or "wrong." Those words have no Secular connotation except the connotation "you might like this," and "you might not." But so what? I might "like" chocolate, and I might "like" vanilla...who's to tell me what's right or wrong?

[Harbal]

Where or how does Secularism itself require you not to kill?

Where does religion itself require you not to kill, steal or lie? There may be groups within the category of "religious" who say these things are wrong, but then there are groups within the category of "secular" who say they are wrong.

You see, to show that Secularism has a moral content, you have to show that Secularism requires secularists to believe in these things.

Can you show that religion requires the religious to believe in them?

Secularism needs a moral force to prevent or interdict such acts: but it has none. For it contains no moral precepts at all.

Neither has religion. A particular religion may well have them but so may a particular type of secularism.

For that matter, it cannot even tell you if Secularism itself is "right" or "wrong."

I think it would tell you it is right. Does religion tell you what's right or wrong? What does religion say about contraception, about whether it's okay to have more than one wife or if drinking alcohol is alright.

I might "like" chocolate, and I might "like" vanilla...who's to tell me what's right or wrong?

You would have to ask God which is the best flavour, whereas I would decide for myself.

All secularism necessitates is that you run your life/society on non religious principles, it is for any particular set within it to determine there own moral code. Because it is unlikely that there is such a being as God, it follows that it is also unlikely that you got your morality from him, you just mistakenly think that's where it came from.

[thedoc]

...only if I believe that a crucified Jew who hated Gentiles was going to save my soul and grant me eternal life for having believed in him for approximately the span of a human life.

There is no mention of this in the Bible, so it is a fiction of your twisted interpretation of Christianity. Just making an unsupported claim does not make it so.