Religious Decline and Old Tactics - Do modern people find standard appeals unconvincing?

[Anal birth]

I'll take that as you conceding to not understanding the argument and or being intellectually lazy especially after I posted multiple links and even gave you easy search results included on this site. Nice try to make me waste my time any further.

If that's what you want then, sure.

Here's one for you. The bible says that slavery is moral (in fact it goes into quite specific detail about two different types of Slavery, both of which Jesus endorses), but most Christians think slavery is immoral. Does that not make Christian morality subjective?

I will try and explain myself one last time. But I have no interest in repeatedly addressing the same point regarding paedophillia, your argument is a reductio ad absurdum and it isn't even my viewpoint. Its quite interesting that you have the cheek to suggest that I'm lazy when all you do is repeat the same, fallacious logic and just try and scream over me.

I base my morals based on one universal truth, what is good for me is good for the whole in the sense that, being murdered is bad for me because I die, therefore killing people is bad for the whole. Satre says that you can pretty much extrapolate this out to cover all morality. As it is still all founded on one simple, objective truth, I view it as objective.

If there are pitfalls in my reasoning, then the same pitfalls apply for religious reasoning when it comes to morality. The only actual difference between my reasoning and how Christians reason is who, if anyone the morality comes from. Christians think that their space magician gave them their morality (and they can think that if they want to), I think that my morality comes from the necessity for our species to survive.

It felt like we were talking past each other, instead of to each other so if its just going to be like that then what's the point in carrying on. You can claim it as a win for yourself if you want, I really couldn't care less.

 

[X Prime]

You could have condensed your post into "I'm not owned you're owned!!!"

It would have saved everyone, including yourself, time.

 

[Mr Bunny]

You could have condensed your post into "I'm not owned you're owned!!!"

It would have saved everyone, including yourself, time.

For example.

Snip

lol, didn't read.

 

[X Prime]

No, actually I am the biggest idiot in this thread because I read that overlong dreck.

 

[Mewtwo_Rain]

If that's what you want then, sure.

View attachment 2664828

Here's one for you. The bible says that slavery is moral (in fact it goes into quite specific detail about two different types of Slavery, both of which Jesus endorses), but most Christians think slavery is immoral. Does that not make Christian morality subjective?

I will try and explain myself one last time. But I have no interest in repeatedly addressing the same point regarding paedophillia, your argument is a reductio ad absurdum and it isn't even my viewpoint. Its quite interesting that you have the cheek to suggest that I'm lazy when all you do is repeat the same, fallacious logic and just try and scream over me.

I base my morals based on one universal truth, what is good for me is good for the whole in the sense that, being murdered is bad for me because I die, therefore killing people is bad for the whole. Satre says that you can pretty much extrapolate this out to cover all morality. As it is still all founded on one simple, objective truth, I view it as objective.

If there are pitfalls in my reasoning, then the same pitfalls apply for religious reasoning when it comes to morality. The only actual difference between my reasoning and how Christians reason is who, if anyone the morality comes from. Christians think that their space magician gave them their morality (and they can think that if they want to), I think that my morality comes from the necessity for our species to survive.

It felt like we were talking past each other, instead of to each other so if its just going to be like that then what's the point in carrying on. You can claim it as a win for yourself if you want, I really couldn't care less.

You're ramming your head against the wall. Since before the 1970's most churches have disregarded what was allowed in the old testaemnt. What you are trying to do is simply a book that adhered to a world full of slavery. Which was acceptable at the time, not just because "religion existed" because slavery still exists today. So where is your evolution of these people still pushing slavery TODAY?

Also, I didn't try to win a debate, I tried to use simple common sense to explain something to you but instead you chose to do this

Even worse is you didn't even address the argument presented out to you multiple times and then like a stereotypical mong you went back to the original straw man you built that I literally addressed six times or more.

Also, notice how the concept of slavery was never brought into morality, and arguing slavery is immoral is still questionable. Look all around you outside of western countries slavery STILL exists. So who is more correct, the minute western countries or the majority of the world? I'd agree that it's the west, but that's why the point is morality is not objective unless formed from the perspective of somethign higher power.

In regards to your universal truth, some scenarios won't fit that moral concept. So what then? Do you flip a coin, ignore the scenario and plug your ears because it exists, here let's ask an easy one: Is pirating moral? Is pirating moral if you plan to buy the things you pirate later on down the road? This is one moral argument that MOST people have a hard time agreeing on but you think your moral code addresses all of it, it doesn't even scratch the surface of morality and ignores the more complex issues of morality with basic bitch nonsense.

No. The pitfalls are not the same, and why they aren't is this simple reason. Your morality is based on human perception, when you adhere there is a higher perception or a line in the sand that everyone agrees too then no one can argue against it. If I say all men are created equal, you can't counter with from a god perception "But this Black man was treated unfairly." The cherry pick will be ignored and disregarded for the concept of treating everyone equally. What we have now in Atheism + is a concept of "Yeah well one person wasn't treated fairly so white people should push equity and minorities should be given superiority because because." Someone could use your moral code to justify such an immoral qualm, so what do you say to this person? "You're doing it wrong." They will argue it's subjective and what they are doing is helping minorities while you the bigot merely hinders progress or helping "everyone."

This is why your argument lacks complexity. Because when you address it you find out it doesn't have a concept of "one size fits all." If I tell you that the community doesn't agree with troonign children, molesting children, is against rape, current day slavery as "all men are created equal." That we are to follow the law as the basis of most modern Christians adhere to your only argument is "Well Atheist can do it too." Then my question to you is: Why aren't they? Mic drop.

No. I didn't talk past you, you just didn't want to acknowledge the argument and began running into a direction that was never argued. I don't care if you believe in God. If you're going to tell me modern day insanity is from religion, you are a liar. If you going to tell me 1970-1990's moral scene such as when communities were common is worse than now... I'm going to call you either a liar or blind or a shut-in who has never actually ventured into society.

Most people would argue with any rationale segregation is wrong to some extent, yet modern day Atheist + sides with people who agree with it. So which is it? They ignore the countries that push slavery to condemn countries that ended it. So which is it? They say all cultures are equal even when they push child brides and screwing of children? So which is it? They ignore Muslims such as in the EU/UK raping women because "helping the historically oppressed comes first." Which is it?

You are still trying to make this a battle of "Atheism vs. Religion." What I'm telling you is that back in those days many atheist were part of the church and had no issues, outside the religious extremist who were a minority. So how is it with the major decline of religion people are now resorting to doing the worst under the assumption using YOUR moral guide code (Universal code) to justify their actions of "Doing what's in the best interest of everyone." Almost like that premise can easily be manipulated to do bad things, and then you look back at your own claims of religion and realize, just like religion, atheism, science, and more can be used for dogmatic purposes. Shocker. Almost like bad people exist and manipulate the masses regardless of religion, and what happens when years from now when religion is basically non-existent in these countries and we still see this moral decay, then what? Going to blame religion then too?

 

[Queen Elizabeth II]

Please forgive my sloth in responding, it's only now that I've had a reaction that I'm even aware that you had responded to me. I can't quote you either, so while I am responding to your individual sections I cannot seem to mark them out @wtfNeedSignUp

Oh, I don't think for one moment that St Fentanyl will be as long lasting a feature of the cultural landscape as Jesus. However, just because something is short lived does not mean it lacks profound influence. The Statue of the Goddess of Freedom erected in Tianamen Square may have long since been demolished, but images of her still linger on the fringes of Chinese society and overtly in places with greater liberty such as Macau and Hong Kong. Yes, even oppressed Hong Kong enjoys far greater civil liberties than their home teritory counterparts.

Religions don't really tend to have consistent values either. Jews have become bankers because Europeans had not yet permitted themselves to comit ursury. Divorce was frowned upon in the west for a time, now one can procure an annulment even more simply than one can aquire a divorce in some territories. I understand the reasons and logic behind the change, but that does not mean the change was any less of a change. If you look at most of the great figures of a religious tradition, one of the earliest things a secular religious studies freshman learns (or should learn) is that traditions are not static. Even the most orthodox and conservative faces were not carbon copies of their predecessors. Jesus may have been a Jewish apocalyptic prophet, but he openly spat in the face of many core Jewish traditions. Ghandi and Vivekananda may have come from high castes and practiced their chosen branch of Hinduism to the most extreme, literal and conservative degree concievable but that did not prevent them reaching out to the chandalas (untouchables, outcaste) in order to create a "universal", or monolithic hindu identity that prior to them did not exist.

Thanks to, or cursed to, modern social media; people can share their ideas and change their mode of thinking far faster than they used to. The Enlightenment and the Protestant Reformations may have been limited by literacy, the time it took for books to circulate and for individuals to share the concepts contained within to the masses but the internet has sped up this process to record times. I have to say, I think this is largley for the worse.

As for the massive gulf in the ability to speak. I agree, there is or there certainly is in Europe. Some years have passed since I was last in the United States so I confess my local knowledge is rather lacking although we certainly do feel the influence and the influence is certainly only more profound here in the 52nd state of the USA. (Because Puerto Rico should have already become the 51st state already, whatever happened to "No taxation without representation"?)

What we have is a society in disharmony. I don't profess by any means to be a diplomat or sociologist by any means, but I do observe and I have noted the wisdom in, of all people, what Xi Jinping is trying to achieve at the moment. Historically multiracial societies can and have worked (Al-Andalus, Ottoman Empire, Rome etc) but multi cultural ones never have. We have progressed beyond the failures of multiculturalism in the west well into the realm of individual hedonism.

We're far, far beyond the point where bringing together social blocks together in the name of a common purpose for the flourishing and betterment of the state as a greater good than the individual as historically has been the case. We're at a point where merely persuading people to work together as one rather than trying to murder each other would be an achievement in itself.

This is not something I can put down soley to leftism. I think to a certain degree it owes elements to multiple sources; from the notion of an individual soul and will in Christianity, to the concept of the individual as an independant unit, to Enlightenment, to the development of the pill. Some of these had a basis in socialism, many of them did not and pre existed socialism by centuries. At the same time, it's not to say the opposite is not plagued with problems in itself. A huge issue that has plagued the middle east and the orient for centuries has been the lack of individualism; the hive mind does not readily permit for individuality and to great cost to the societies that despite their great age and splendour were static and easily torn down by the Europeans. Even the most forward and progessive of East Asian societies like Japan and South Korea are still socially stuck in a fixed point in time. I would say somewhere in the mid 1950's for Japan and the 1980's for the South Koreans.

Regarding women...Man has known of woman in primarily three roles since inception; and it might actually be the most ancient and authentic part of wicca bizarre as it is to acknowledge; Maiden, mother and crone. Or to use the modern incarnation; The pleasure giver (post legal age), the (single) mother, and the old bat who is long past her sell by date.

The role of woman has changed dramatically each century depending on time and context. Napoleon saw women only as baby makers not too long ago in Western History, and yet three hundered or so years prior the Ottoman's were openly being ruled by Kosem Sultan, a former whore and a Greek, of all people; a feat of female Turkish rulership that to this very day has yet to be repeated or become socially feasible let alone acceptable in Turkey itself. The role of woman has constantly been revaluated in the context of the time by each generation, Our generation is sadly most notable for stepping beyond re evaluation and far into the realm of sci fi fantasy fanfiction creation instead. That does not mean ideas that we take as core and static are indeed that.

Regarding death....I'm going to speak for myself for a moment. I've noticed a tendency among Atheists raised amongst the most conservative denominations like I myself was an apathy towards death. Certainly, death is terrible and not something anyone wants and we would all reject it if we could. However, compared to the notion of myself and everyone I know and love being endlessly tortured because some woman ate an apple in time immemorial, and knowing that according to Our Lady of Fatima even the majority of Catholics were going to end up in hell despite their best efforts....Oblivion honestly is preferable.

We are the product of our experiences; and the worlds that saw the birth of Egyptian religion, Christianity, Islam etc hosted lives that were short, hard and all too swiftly cut even shorter. Death was on the forefront of everyones mind, people would be confronted with the realities of death far more frequently than westerners are today. Everyone thinks of death at some point, but some of us take it as either pointless to think about as Confucious did because it would happen regardless what we thought about it and it was impossible to know what came after, or if you were a slave working in a roman salt mine millenia ago; death likely was preferable to life and eternal darkness wasn't problematic at all. It would have been a relief as awful as that is to consider. The time to dwell on an afterlife is a symptom of a pampered class and increasingly stable society; look to Ancient Egypt no less for the origins of the European origins of theological thanotology. Originally it was only the King who would ascend to another life, and this slowly dripped and trickled down into the potential for an afterlife for all.

I can't say for certain why new and old religions are adapting at breakneck speed. In my own humble non-peer reviewed opinion for this topic; I blame an abundance of leisure time, a lack of hard work and social media chiefly for this. There are likely other factors, but the devil certainly maketh work for the hands too predisposed to times of stillness.

 

[Anal birth]

@Mewtwo_Rain This is just going round in circles so this is going to be my final post.

Ephesians 6:5

Your first paragraph shows that even when you believe in a moral lawgiver that morality can be subjective and undermines every single thing you've said in this thread. If Christians believe in objective morality they have to support slavery, as their lawgiver says it is moral, opposing it shows that subjective morality is possible within such a belief system.

This is why your argument lacks complexity. Because when you address it you find out it doesn't have a concept of "one size fits all." If I tell you that the community doesn't agree with troonign children, molesting children, is against rape, current day slavery as "all men are created equal." That we are to follow the law as the basis of most modern Christians adhere to your only argument is "Well Atheist can do it too." Then my question to you is: Why aren't they? Mic drop.

When you make these claims you have to provide evidence, your anecdotal experience is worthless and meaningless - provide data to back this up. Until then you can't prove that atheists are somehow less moral and that is somehow linked to their lack of belief in a moral lawgiver. It may, just may be possible that more kids and people in general are becoming transgender because they feel more comfortable doing so in a society that is more tolerant to their choices. For all we know, there could've been the same percentage of people experiencing gender dysphoria beforehand but had to repress it. I don't think anyone believes that people people only became gay when it became socially acceptable, instead that they just repressed it. If you want to argue against this point, and imply that parents are forcing children to become trans, you need cold, hard, evidence. Not one case, not two cases, but evidence that this is pervasive throughout society.

Most people would argue with any rationale segregation is wrong to some extent, yet modern day Atheist + sides with people who agree with it. So which is it? They ignore the countries that push slavery to condemn countries that ended it. So which is it? They say all cultures are equal even when they push child brides and screwing of children? So which is it? They ignore Muslims such as in the EU/UK raping women because "helping the historically oppressed comes first." Which is it?

We do? I haven't seen a single person defend the rape gangs in yorkshire aside from the Police who turned a blind eye. I may be wrong but I think it ended up going to court, anyway after public outcry.

You are still trying to make this a battle of "Atheism vs. Religion." What I'm telling you is that back in those days many atheist were part of the church and had no issues, outside the religious extremist who were a minority. So how is it with the major decline of religion people are now resorting to doing the worst under the assumption using YOUR moral guide code (Universal code) to justify their actions of "Doing what's in the best interest of everyone." Almost like that premise can easily be manipulated to do bad things, and then you look back at your own claims of religion and realize, just like religion, atheism, science, and more can be used for dogmatic purposes. Shocker. Almost like bad people exist and manipulate the masses regardless of religion, and what happens when years from now when religion is basically non-existent in these countries and we still see this moral decay, then what? Going to blame religion then too?

Citation needed.

My whole point is that you don't need a moral lawgiver. In the system you advocate for people can still be evil despite there being a god because for whatever reason they reject it, nevertheless there is a system of good ways to act in the sense of things that are good for humans. All I'm saying is that I don't think you need a god to reach that. You can come to that conclusion without it. My suffering is bad for myself and society, however you imagine that suffering, everything from being scammed to being killed. Therefore we base everything on what causes the least suffering to each other. To enforce that you have to find some way to discourage imposing suffering, currently the obvious method is imprisonment. People can reject this view, of course, it happens in religion too, but I still maintain if you view us as a collective it is objectively best to not harm each other.

I think the only real difference between the two of us personally is the source of that morality, I would say we actually have very little difference in our moral codes. Seemingly my irk is with the inconsistencies of religious morality whereas you believe everything is breaking down as we move away from religion. I think, in a way we're taking it out on the wrong people so I'm going to leave it here.

 

[Mewtwo_Rain]

@Mewtwo_Rain This is just going round in circles so this is going to be my final post.

Ephesians 6:5

Your first paragraph shows that even when you believe in a moral lawgiver that morality can be subjective and undermines every single thing you've said in this thread. If Christians believe in objective morality they have to support slavery, as their lawgiver says it is moral, opposing it shows that subjective morality is possible within such a belief system.

This will be my last response to your response:

There are two forms of morality perception: Human perception or perception from a god/higher being. The problem with human perception is that it is subject to change therefore subjective. Just as slavery was once thought acceptable and in some countries it is. If it was objective, then ALL humans would agree slavery is wrong. Just as you must admit all humans must breathe oxygen. Yet, humans understand the latter but do not instantly agree with the former. Objectivity means that even if you deny the oxygen claim it doesn't matter. You'll still die by denying that irrefutable truth. Morality is not the same, if I start ensalving people and no one punishes me then I've gotten away with it despite your claims it is immoral as their is no absolute punisher. You have to take into account time period, social norms, and even the legal system when looking at human perception of morality. Most law makers don't follow their own rules, yet you contest that humans have objective morality, then why do their own rulers deny it.

In a line in the sand the mob WILL punish those who violate the rules where as when left to humans you end up with a lolbertarian outcome where people will ignore immoral actions that don't directly effect them to not get involved or have to care until it effects them. which is dangerous. There's also the possibility they become sympathetic to those who violate morals and rules. Which we see now.

The reason why "God perception" morality is a better concept, because there is no "if" or "why" it just is. You are supposed to follow regardless of a reasoning. That doesn't mean religion as a tool of control is perfect, but it keeps the gerbil brain normies in line. Without it we see the catastrophic results. when people do not have someone to tell them something is wrong or a line in the sand (god perception) then they will listen to what OTHER humans say, and since humans can't agree with most forms of morality guess what? They will do unspeakable things to each other, to their children and even to their neighbors because someone else told them it was ok, that it was virtuous, that it was brave and stunning. Japan is a canary in the coal mine having a "atheistic religion" as it's forefront and troonism was huge there not long ago.

ntil then you can't prove that atheists are somehow less moral and that is somehow linked to their lack of belief in a moral lawgiver. It may, just may be possible that more kids and people in general are becoming transgender because they feel more comfortable doing so in a society that is more tolerant to their choices. For all we know, there could've been the same percentage of people experiencing gender dysphoria beforehand but had to repress it. I don't think anyone believes that people people only became gay when it became socially acceptable, instead that they just repressed it. If you want to argue against this point, and imply that parents are forcing children to become trans, you need cold, hard, evidence. Not one case, not two cases, but evidence that this is pervasive throughout society.

That wasn't my argument, but I can at least prove Atheism + has justified those immoral actions and defending groomers and monsters and including to these atheistic feminist and progressives. You're not going to get a full citation because it would require me going up to everyone and showing you the stats, just as I can't prove 75% of muslim believe in Jihad even though most studies imply a majority do. Also "more comfortable" Are you serious? Five year old often feel slight gender dysphoira, but even EXPERTS are saying it's child abuse to encourage them transitioning, and the suicide rates from it are showing this . You are literally blind to make this dumb argument and coming off as one of the progressives, continue worshipping Atheism + but don't be surprised when actually moral people call you out for your intellectually dishonest bullshit. The fact you tried to play that card "Oh it's more acceptable now." NOT WITH CHILDREN, I literally pointed this out and you ignored it because it destroys any credibility you had on the claim. There are literally tons of articles pointing out that this transitioning children is not only dangerous but considered child abuse by many specialist on the subject and just because a girl plays with G.I. Joe doesn't mean she's a boy. Yet parents are encouraging a girl who does that to become as such, and children being conditioned to believe trannies are good and straight people are evil which even psychologist have noticed, is grooming which is not acceptable even by your "moral code." How can you disregard that obvious sentiment pointed out in an article I cited and quoted specifically to bring light to that notion going on? Troons are grooming children guy, troon story hour with sexualization of children didn't come out of nowhere. Have you not heard of schools pushing sexual LGBTQ stuff on kids five and up?

You can't even follow your own moral code, and you wonder why I said "God perception" morality is superior to "huamn perception" because you're a hypocrite defending the indefensible despite the evidence to the contrary. Just admit it you think trooning children is a-ok. You think that children can make their own decision to become a troon despite specialist, and a majority of experts saying NO IT'S NOT. Note: I know you're not actually saying this, but that crap makes me angry. Actually angry.

We do? I haven't seen a single person defend the rape gangs in yorkshire aside from the Police who turned a blind eye. I may be wrong but I think it ended up going to court, anyway after public outcry.

Considering there have been countless progressives begging for the release of Muslim rapist because they didn't' know any better. You are ignorant on the subject that at least 4 people have mocked you for already, instead of doing proper research you pull this shit? Really. I'll still counter debate it but here goes:

Austria: Muslim migrant who raped 10-year-old boy at swimming pool in ‘sexual emergency’ has sentence cut

"Senate president Thomas Philipp said: 'Four years are appropriate here.'" Why? Does Austria need more Muslim migrant rapists on the streets? If he were a native Austrian, would his sentence have been cut? Or would keeping him too long in prison be "Islamophobic"? He might not have known that...

www.jihadwatch.org

Sexual Emergency in Austria: ‘He didn’t know the boy didn’t want to be raped’

What we see here again is that Austrian judges apply Mohammedan dhimmi laws. As in the case of Elisabeth Sabbaditsch-Wolf, who was convicted for saying Muhammad was a pedophile, (the judge ruled he…

sheikyermami.com

There are tons of cases like this over the last four years. These gangs rape people and then get reduced sentences, or progressive tards defending them and stopping them from being deported. Where have you been this last 20 years living under a rock? If you don't even know crap like this then why are you debating it as if you are well informed when you constantly prove you're not? I wouldn't be so uptight with you if you'd take a week research these cases and then bring your conclusions at this point I'm having to basically inform you from years worth of what's going on beneath the surface of society.

My whole point is that you don't need a moral lawgiver.

Let me refresh your own comment:

aside from the Police who turned a blind eye

Who made that legal system, the politicians, who told the police to turn a blind eye because they're migrants or a minority? The politicians? Who's running the legal system? Who's corrupting the legal system? It's funny because you've given me all I need to dispute your argument.

When you depend on people to follow their own moral system, they often disregard it. A god whether they exist or not is a line in the sand can not. Only a human could chose to disregard it which shows the immoral hypocrisy of humans and their willingness to corrupt their own rules and not abide by them. At least a fake entity or god, or what have you isn't compromising their rules. Humans? They do ALL the time. You just conceded. I don't even have to source anything, you presented enough evidence to destroy your claim.

In the system you advocate for people can still be evil despite there being a god because for whatever reason they reject it

Which is why the community punishes the person who disregards it as they used to. Now people have subjected themselves to a law/legal/moral system by humans : The government and it is corrupt and not doing ANY such protections of the innocent from those who would undermine it. At least people chased pedophiles in the church and gave them a good what-two.

, nevertheless there is a system of good ways to act in the sense of things that are good for humans. All I'm saying is that I don't think you need a god to reach that

What I'm saying is you don't have to believe in god, but a lack of god perception moral system, leads to hypocrisy and people defying their own morality code sooner or later down the road, whether atheist, or religious or whatever. Humans are further flawed than the (real) or non-existing gods that they adhere too. Show me one politician who hasn't corrupted the legal system for their own benefit.

You can come to that conclusion without it.

Yet, most people don't. Heck even the whole Covid situation disproves this concept. After contradiction after contradiction the government can't make up its mind and constantly violates its own ethics on a day to day basis. People no longer believing in a god now fear death that they have basically become social invalids to the eyes of everyone.

Therefore we base everything on what causes the least suffering to each other. To enforce that you have to find some way to discourage imposing suffering, currently the obvious method is imprisonment. People can reject this view, of course, it happens in religion too, but I still maintain if you view us as a collective it is objectively best to not harm each other.

The problem is now the legal system benefits those who cause the most suffering not those who are innocent. It used to be we put sexual violators to death, now we put them in a permanent vacation or cut their sentence short by half because they didn't understand their sexual emergency wasn't morally acceptable. Taken to its fullest extent people are becoming apathetic to the needs of evil doers. This is the failing of a human perception of human hypocrisy, and human stupidity. If everyone was like you or I I might trust the moral system, well ... Most people aren't like that. That's something you can't easily prove but can easily observe if you actually gain some experience in human understanding.

Evil doers should be harmed, it puts a stop to it, did for many years. Yet we using flawed human perception think we should coddle those who would do great evil, and look where its got us. Your good intentions paved the very road to Hell that many warned about because you thought human perception was above stupidity, what you didn't realize is, smart intelligent humans aren't in control of this madhouse of a world, the inmates are.

my irk is with the inconsistencies of religious morality whereas you believe everything is breaking down as we move away from religion. I think, in a way we're taking it out on the wrong people so I'm going to leave it here.

It's not about religion itself, it's about a higher than human perception claim of morality. Often religion was the tool that used such an imprint on society, as we have disregarded a higher position of authority on morality we know regard human perception as the best perception of morality and you know what? It's ending up far worse than ever before. Some people want to take pity on rapist and child molesters because they are minorities and historical oppression matters more than the act they perpetuated itself. Some people would rather criminals be comfortable and have a good time in prison instead of making them face punishment opening the door that they might as well do it since they get a long-term vacation afterwards. Some want to return to vigilante justice to hopefully return to some normalcy but that would defy the moral (legal sytem) system put in place. Most everyone else would rather watch the world be reset or burn because we screwed up.

You can't even get people to stop being religious about Covid, yet you think removing or letting religion die is a way forward when people have replaced their beliefs with those of celebrities, politicians, youtubers. The problem with many smart and intelligent people is they often project their mindset onto others and believe that everyone is like themselves, the reality is they aren't. It's not that I don't wish they were, but they are not, and it's pretty evident by how society is degrading right after god was removed and bashed in society. If you need a citation for that, then there's no further argument to be had, it's above your pay grade of understanding at that point.

Edit: Some more links to food for thought:

Mom whose Muslim migrant rapist was kept in UK denounces leftists on plane who stopped deportation – Geller Report

I’m a Pediatrician. How Transgender Ideology Has Infiltrated My Field and Produced Large-Scale Child Abuse.

Transgender ideology is intruding into the lives of the most innocent among us, and with the apparent growing support of the medical community.

www.dailysignal.com

The Trans Sexualization of Our Children has Begun - Harbingers Daily

How we got here is not complicated. Sexualizing children’s identity makes sexualizing their behavior inevitable. So, what now?

harbingersdaily.com

Houston Library Features Child Molester Reading Trans Books To Children

State records say the 200-pound, 5-foot-11 man was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child and is at a 'moderate' risk for reoffending. His YouTube channel shows him becoming transgender.

thefederalist.com

Minnesota-area Drag Queen Exposes Crotch to Children

Local parents calling out the attempted sexualization of children

www.churchmilitant.com

But remember without citation "Trans grooming children" is just not true or an anecdote smh

 

[Queen Elizabeth II]

Even though I'm catching up this is something I love about the Kiwi Farms.

Only here could I watch a debate between "Anal Birth" and "Mewtwo".

The only other time I can envision those words coming together is on a hentai gallery.