Having escaped a cult after 50 years I'm here to say hi!

[Flannel Jesus]

After viewing this forum, he decided his cult wasn't that bad afterall... >.>

I think we advertised ourselves with great honesty. Many ignored the person in his own thread. Others brought in their own pet peeves and started fights. We saved him weeks, perhaps months, that it otherwise might have taken him to realize he deserved a better place to celebrate his new-found freedom.

Luckily, it's more likely that the nearly 20 days it took to get his first response drove him off

[Iwannaplato]

After viewing this forum, he decided his cult wasn't that bad afterall... >.>

I think we advertised ourselves with great honesty. Many ignored the person in his own thread. Others brought in their own pet peeves and started fights. We saved him weeks, perhaps months, that it otherwise might have taken him to realize he deserved a better place to celebrate his new-found freedom.

Luckily, it's more likely that the nearly 20 days it took to get his first response drove him off

Perfect! Even more honest of us to not give a shit right up front.
No one can accuse PN of fake friendliness.
Once it was clear he wasn't going to check back, the thread was just another hole to fill.

Any thread is like a new ewe in heat, eliciting our glorious attempts to mount. I'd say this ewe was well-mounted.

[Flannel Jesus]

Any thread is like a new ewe in heat, eliciting our glorious attempts to mount. I'd say this ewe was well-mounted.

We mounted it about as fast as a taxidermied buck

[Iwannaplato]

We mounted it about as fast as a taxidermied buck

Took me an hour to get this guy up...

and he's showing no signs of mounting anything.

[Flannel Jesus]

It'll be at least 20 days.

[Iwannaplato]

It'll be at least 20 days.

Oh, great, thanks.
I won't be able to sleep now...the images in my head...the horror...the horror...

[Flannel Jesus]

Oh don't be such a prude, it's just nature. Back in my childhood I had to try to sleep through the sounds of decapitated wildlife multiplying just about every month, under the full moon

[Iwannaplato]

Oh don't be such a prude, it's just nature. Back in my childhood I had to try to sleep through the sounds of decapitated wildlife multiplying just about every month, under the full moon

Prude?? On our honeymoon in West Bengel my wife and I made love to the bass agon of elephants mating. But that buck is on the wall not 10 feet from our bedroom, and there's no doe for miles. Every time my wife rolls over I wake up screaming and clutching my lower pjs.

[Flannel Jesus]

Have you spoken to your wife about the possibility of opening your marital bed up to deceased wildlife?

[Iwannaplato]

Have you spoken to your wife about the possibility of opening your marital bed up to deceased wildlife?

Oh, I'm sure you know how well that discussion goes. Shot once in the ass with buckshot, shame on you. Shot twice, shame on me.

[henry quirk]

I said God created man as a free will with natural rights and man has the capacity to recognize and respect those natural rights. Surely, you see the difference, yeah? Our understanding of natural rights is intuitive. We don't reason natural rights out.

So if our intuition tells us we have a natural right, then we have that natural right?

What if I intuitively feel I have a natural right to sell you into slavery, henry?

I think we danced this dance already...

As I say: it's universal, this sense of self-possession. Any where, any when, every person knows he is his own and knows it would be wrong to be used or murdered or slaved or etc. As I say: even the slaver, as he fixes prices to men, knows he is his own. No one has ever truthfully said I ought be property. Now, considering the wide range of biological, psychological, cultural, sociological, societal, philosophical, religious, etc. differences between men and groups of men, it's reasonable to assume over the long haul of history some men or groups of men would have found it natural to be used as commodity or pack animal or food. But no such men or groups of men exist. There's never been a slaver who said or sez as it it right for me to own others, it wouid be right for another to own me. A man may violate another but he never takes his own violation as acceptable or right. This universal could be simply a brute fact, a peculiarity of human biology/neurology, but as it never varies, never goes away, this seems far-fetched to me. You could conceivably breed man to be eyeless or armless; it does not seem to me you could breed away man's innate intuition of self-possession. So, as self-possession is not a biological trait, but it exists, it must be sumthin' other than a function of biology.

You with me so far?

Yes, I am, and I can go along with it, and being an atheist is not an obstacle to my going along with it.

It's universal (everyone lives as though it were true), not material, easily recognizable thru deduction, and immutable. It's part & parcel to free will (causal & creative power), to personhood. That alone makes it objective. But, as I say, it -- the intuition of ownness -- does not seem to me to be a brute fact. Such an immutable, it seems to me, has purpose behind it. Purposefulness/intention, this too is part & parcel to personhood. That is: a Person is responsible for man being a person. Conventionally, this Person is called God.

I agree with, "a Person is responsible for man being a person", but not, " Conventionally, this Person is called God". I think most people mean something else when they talk about God.

But I don't see the problem: Why can't I be both moral and atheist?

I can go along with it, and being an atheist is not an obstacle to my going along with it.

Really? That's surprising cuz I'm talkin' about man's soul and natural rights.

Here, read it again with that in mind...

As I say: it's universal, this sense of self-possession. Any where, any when, every person knows he is his own and knows it would be wrong to be used or murdered or slaved or etc. As I say: even the slaver, as he fixes prices to men, knows he is his own. No one has ever truthfully said I ought be property. Now, considering the wide range of biological, psychological, cultural, sociological, societal, philosophical, religious, etc. differences between men and groups of men, it's reasonable to assume over the long haul of history some men or groups of men would have found it natural to be used as commodity or pack animal or food. But no such men or groups of men exist. There's never been a slaver who said or sez as it it right for me to own others, it wouid be right for another to own me. A man may violate another but he never takes his own violation as acceptable or right. This universal could be simply a brute fact, a peculiarity of human biology/neurology, but as it never varies, never goes away, this seems far-fetched to me. You could conceivably breed man to be eyeless or armless; it does not seem to me you could breed away man's innate intuition of self-possession. So, as self-possession is not a biological trait, but it exists, it must be sumthin' other than a function of biology.

I think most people mean something else when they talk about God.

Which is surprising, especially in a philosophy forum.

Why can't I be both moral and atheist?

If you recognize man as ensouled with a natural right to his life, liberty, and property, then I think you can be a moral atheist. The challenge, of course, is where did the soul and the natural rights affixed to it come from? If not the Maker, then...?

No, henry, *I don't believe there are such things as souls and natural rights, just as you don't seem to believe there are moral atheists. Still, it's a big world, surely there is enough room for both of us. I hope so, cos **I ain't the one who's gonna leave.

*Then how can you go along with what I posted?

**Me neither.

*Then how can you go along with what I posted?

Okay, I'll stop going along with it if it bothers you.

If morality were an objective fact, all nature would be bound by it. Gravity is an objective fact, we cannot avoid it by refusing to acknowledge it, but we are free to make a choice with morality.

We ignore gravity all the time: it called an airplane.

Okay, I'll stop going along with it if it bothers you.

You'll stop? You never did.

We ignore gravity all the time: it called an airplane.

That isn't ignoring it, it's dealing with it.

That isn't ignoring it, it's dealing with it.

If we could ignore gravity we wouldn't need airplanes.

Nitpickers.

Fine.

We thumb our noses at gravity; in the same way we can thumb our noses at morality.

But: you gotta land eventually.

Nitpickers.

Fine.

We thumb our noses at gravity; in the same way we can thumb our noses at morality.

But: you gotta land eventually.

You are like a dog with a bone, henry, you just can't let go.

[Harbal]

I said God created man as a free will with natural rights and man has the capacity to recognize and respect those natural rights. Surely, you see the difference, yeah? Our understanding of natural rights is intuitive. We don't reason natural rights out.

So if our intuition tells us we have a natural right, then we have that natural right?

What if I intuitively feel I have a natural right to sell you into slavery, henry?

I think we danced this dance already...

As I say: it's universal, this sense of self-possession. Any where, any when, every person knows he is his own and knows it would be wrong to be used or murdered or slaved or etc. As I say: even the slaver, as he fixes prices to men, knows he is his own. No one has ever truthfully said I ought be property. Now, considering the wide range of biological, psychological, cultural, sociological, societal, philosophical, religious, etc. differences between men and groups of men, it's reasonable to assume over the long haul of history some men or groups of men would have found it natural to be used as commodity or pack animal or food. But no such men or groups of men exist. There's never been a slaver who said or sez as it it right for me to own others, it wouid be right for another to own me. A man may violate another but he never takes his own violation as acceptable or right. This universal could be simply a brute fact, a peculiarity of human biology/neurology, but as it never varies, never goes away, this seems far-fetched to me. You could conceivably breed man to be eyeless or armless; it does not seem to me you could breed away man's innate intuition of self-possession. So, as self-possession is not a biological trait, but it exists, it must be sumthin' other than a function of biology.

You with me so far?

Yes, I am, and I can go along with it, and being an atheist is not an obstacle to my going along with it.

It's universal (everyone lives as though it were true), not material, easily recognizable thru deduction, and immutable. It's part & parcel to free will (causal & creative power), to personhood. That alone makes it objective. But, as I say, it -- the intuition of ownness -- does not seem to me to be a brute fact. Such an immutable, it seems to me, has purpose behind it. Purposefulness/intention, this too is part & parcel to personhood. That is: a Person is responsible for man being a person. Conventionally, this Person is called God.

I agree with, "a Person is responsible for man being a person", but not, " Conventionally, this Person is called God". I think most people mean something else when they talk about God.

But I don't see the problem: Why can't I be both moral and atheist?

I can go along with it, and being an atheist is not an obstacle to my going along with it.

Really? That's surprising cuz I'm talkin' about man's soul and natural rights.

Here, read it again with that in mind...

As I say: it's universal, this sense of self-possession. Any where, any when, every person knows he is his own and knows it would be wrong to be used or murdered or slaved or etc. As I say: even the slaver, as he fixes prices to men, knows he is his own. No one has ever truthfully said I ought be property. Now, considering the wide range of biological, psychological, cultural, sociological, societal, philosophical, religious, etc. differences between men and groups of men, it's reasonable to assume over the long haul of history some men or groups of men would have found it natural to be used as commodity or pack animal or food. But no such men or groups of men exist. There's never been a slaver who said or sez as it it right for me to own others, it wouid be right for another to own me. A man may violate another but he never takes his own violation as acceptable or right. This universal could be simply a brute fact, a peculiarity of human biology/neurology, but as it never varies, never goes away, this seems far-fetched to me. You could conceivably breed man to be eyeless or armless; it does not seem to me you could breed away man's innate intuition of self-possession. So, as self-possession is not a biological trait, but it exists, it must be sumthin' other than a function of biology.

I think most people mean something else when they talk about God.

Which is surprising, especially in a philosophy forum.

Why can't I be both moral and atheist?

If you recognize man as ensouled with a natural right to his life, liberty, and property, then I think you can be a moral atheist. The challenge, of course, is where did the soul and the natural rights affixed to it come from? If not the Maker, then...?

No, henry, *I don't believe there are such things as souls and natural rights, just as you don't seem to believe there are moral atheists. Still, it's a big world, surely there is enough room for both of us. I hope so, cos **I ain't the one who's gonna leave.

*Then how can you go along with what I posted?

**Me neither.

*Then how can you go along with what I posted?

Okay, I'll stop going along with it if it bothers you.

If morality were an objective fact, all nature would be bound by it. Gravity is an objective fact, we cannot avoid it by refusing to acknowledge it, but we are free to make a choice with morality.

We ignore gravity all the time: it called an airplane.

Okay, I'll stop going along with it if it bothers you.

You'll stop? You never did.

We ignore gravity all the time: it called an airplane.

That isn't ignoring it, it's dealing with it.

That isn't ignoring it, it's dealing with it.

If we could ignore gravity we wouldn't need airplanes.

Nitpickers.

Fine.

We thumb our noses at gravity; in the same way we can thumb our noses at morality.

But: you gotta land eventually.

Nitpickers.

Fine.

We thumb our noses at gravity; in the same way we can thumb our noses at morality.

But: you gotta land eventually.

You are like a dog with a bone, henry, you just can't let go.

Aw, henry, you've saved all our old correspondence, that's so sweet.

[henry quirk]

Aw, henry, you've saved all our old correspondence, that's so sweet.

That's the forum that saves; me, I just remember.

[Harbal]

Aw, henry, you've saved all our old correspondence, that's so sweet.

That's the forum that saves; me, I just remember.

Well thanks for remembering.

[bahman]

I think this question was asked before "What cult?".

Welcome to the forum by the way.