Comments on: tough http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/ Two prophets, living together. Sat, 11 Feb 2012 00:52:27 +0000 hourly 1 By: Max Stirner http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/#comment-175176 Max Stirner Wed, 05 Oct 2011 13:55:21 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/#comment-175176 The answer is that morality is an artifact of evolutionary psychology and social signaling and makes no logical sense. The answer is that morality is an artifact of evolutionary psychology and social signaling and makes no logical sense.

]]> By: Teralek http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/#comment-168664 Teralek Wed, 16 Jun 2010 08:44:44 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/#comment-168664 Which comes first the egg or the chicken? Are abstract objects independent from space time continuum? I believe so, in this manner I believe that Universal ethics is an abstract object, such as numbers. As example your bones are part of your identity and construction, as maybe "ethics" are part of God's conscience - a pre-requisit, if you will... Which comes first the egg or the chicken? Are abstract objects independent from space time continuum?
I believe so, in this manner I believe that Universal ethics is an abstract object, such as numbers.
As example your bones are part of your identity and construction, as maybe “ethics” are part of God’s conscience – a pre-requisit, if you will…

]]> By: Why the Argument from Morality (AfM) Fails « Evaluating Christianity http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/#comment-144652 Why the Argument from Morality (AfM) Fails « Evaluating Christianity Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:00:05 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/#comment-144652 [...] Some theists have tried to answer the Euthyphro Dilemma by asserting that morality isn’t what God commands but merely a reflection of his “nature” or “character.” This doesn’t answer the objection but simply moves it back one level of abstraction; now the question is whether God’s nature is arbitrary or can be evaluated by an independent standard. (This was beautifully and parsimoniously illustrated by the “Jesus and Mo” comic.) [...] [...] Some theists have tried to answer the Euthyphro Dilemma by asserting that morality isn’t what God commands but merely a reflection of his “nature” or “character.” This doesn’t answer the objection but simply moves it back one level of abstraction; now the question is whether God’s nature is arbitrary or can be evaluated by an independent standard. (This was beautifully and parsimoniously illustrated by the “Jesus and Mo” comic.) [...]

]]> By: Chris http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/#comment-141323 Chris Fri, 03 Apr 2009 01:49:28 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/#comment-141323 Somewhere in Proverbs (I think) it says the man who calls his brother a fool is in danger of hellfire. Does that mean Jesus is going to hell? Somewhere in Proverbs (I think) it says the man who calls his brother a fool is in danger of hellfire. Does that mean Jesus is going to hell?

]]> By: you http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/#comment-68915 you Wed, 16 Jan 2008 15:30:08 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/#comment-68915 I somehow got to remeber this one for the next familly dinner. Just the look on their faces, LOL! I somehow got to remeber this one for the next familly dinner. Just the look on their faces, LOL!

]]> By: yelinna http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/#comment-64129 yelinna Sun, 25 Nov 2007 03:48:32 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/#comment-64129 This was damn funny... and circle logic... or whatever they call it. This was damn funny… and circle logic… or whatever they call it.

]]> By: ricard http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/#comment-53033 ricard Wed, 22 Aug 2007 09:19:59 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/#comment-53033 This is a very good illustration of the classic paradox of goodness and divinity. It's blissfully powerful, in that it alone is sufficient to refute, irreversibly and forever, any notion that goodness derived from, or sanctioned by, God, is nonsensical. It shows that connecting goodnes with God in any way is at least nonsensical and at most impossible to maintain meaningfully. Any rational person who was also religious (no oxymoron or contradiction intended) should, on knowledge of this logical conundrum, give up religion for ever, or at least abandon all the moral dimensions of religion and just embrace some vague metaphysical mysticism. This is a very good illustration of the classic paradox of goodness and divinity. It’s blissfully powerful, in that it alone is sufficient to refute, irreversibly and forever, any notion that goodness derived from, or sanctioned by, God, is nonsensical. It shows that connecting goodnes with God in any way is at least nonsensical and at most impossible to maintain meaningfully. Any rational person who was also religious (no oxymoron or contradiction intended) should, on knowledge of this logical conundrum, give up religion for ever, or at least abandon all the moral dimensions of religion and just embrace some vague metaphysical mysticism.

]]> By: louis http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/#comment-52938 louis Tue, 21 Aug 2007 18:00:31 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/#comment-52938 pretty dang funny. i love it when each panel is funnier than the previous one! pretty dang funny. i love it when each panel is funnier than the previous one!

]]> By: Hobbes http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/#comment-52798 Hobbes Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:24:29 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/#comment-52798 This one is priceless. Ti, I know what you're talking about. I once wrote a letter to the editor in response to another person's letter that suggested we "return to the laws of the Bible." I pointed Deuteronomy 21:18-21 which states that if a mans son will not obey his parents, he must be taken before the village and stoned to death. Then I asked if that is what the person was suggesting, or shall we pick and choose what Bible laws we want to enforce? After the letter was published, I got a phone call from a reader. The man actually thought I was advocating for such punishments, and said that he agreed with me. He said that's what God's law says, so that's what we must do. Needless to say I was astounded. I don't have a habit of calling people idiots (other than Bush, of course), but this guy deserved everything in my formidable arsenal of expletives. It's scary to know we have folks who can be every bit as dangerously fanatical as any fanatical Muslim, or one of any other religion, for that matter. This one is priceless.

Ti, I know what you’re talking about.

I once wrote a letter to the editor in response to another person’s letter that suggested we “return to the laws of the Bible.” I pointed Deuteronomy 21:18-21 which states that if a mans son will not obey his parents, he must be taken before the village and stoned to death.

Then I asked if that is what the person was suggesting, or shall we pick and choose what Bible laws we want to enforce?

After the letter was published, I got a phone call from a reader. The man actually thought I was advocating for such punishments, and said that he agreed with me. He said that’s what God’s law says, so that’s what we must do.

Needless to say I was astounded. I don’t have a habit of calling people idiots (other than Bush, of course), but this guy deserved everything in my formidable arsenal of expletives.

It’s scary to know we have folks who can be every bit as dangerously fanatical as any fanatical Muslim, or one of any other religion, for that matter.

]]> By: tie http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/#comment-52752 tie Mon, 20 Aug 2007 10:02:36 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/#comment-52752 that ^ was sarcasm btw ;) that ^ was sarcasm btw ;)

]]>