DarianF

Evidence based thinking I believe is very important, including skeptical inquiry and rationality. But I would never take it to the extreme where mystical things were not possible. The universe is huge and incredible, so to discount anything completely would be unwise. The other extreme is blind faith, which is dogged belief without evidence. Evidence based thinking, with a healthy level of open mindedness is the way I try to approach things.

If there is no independent verification of all the claimed results, then all the claimed results are worthless.

Very good points. Can't argue with that. They are very dangerous for all the reasons you cite. Unfortunately, if they hold all the knowledge we can only do our best with what we have. That's why I'm always willing to admit that I'm wrong, but I do favour evidence based thinking to draw the conclusions. We can only make our conclusions based on the best available evidence we have at the time and if new evidence demonstrates we are mistaken, then we should be willing to be flexible. An the other hand, do they really hold as much secret knowledge as we think they do, or do they just want us to think they have all this super secret shit, so we fear them more? Maybe most of it is a bluff.

Perhaps some examples you could list would be helpful. What are some objective laws / natural laws and what is their original source, in your opinion? Furthermore, if you don't get your morals from the Abrahamic texts and that verison of god, then which version of god are you referring to and how does this god communicate the objective morals?

There's nothing wrong with it, we're just discussing different perspectives. And I'm genuinely curious about your points. But let's take this specific point of different countries with different moral codes... In the west, holding hands with your wife or girlfriend in public is considered fine - a sign of affection and commitment. But in Muslim country, this could land you in serious trouble with the law. Which is right, which is wrong? We here would make the argument for freedom of our people in public to hold hands and that is self-evidently right for us. But they would argue the exact opposite. To them, we are being highly offensive. It's a simple example, but I'm sure we could all think of dozens more.

Yes, natural law, which predates organised religion and its claims to be a source of morals. I can't speak for @peter but I think that was his original point in essence. He's welcome to correct me if I'm wrong. However speaking from my point of view, I argue that humans developed as a species as social beings. We have no choice. It's essential for survival. Obviously, certain behaviours over time that lead to a better chance of survival are enshrined as what we would now call 'natural law'. To survive as a group over the long term, there are certain behaviours that are favourable and others that are detrimental. We don't need a sky fairy on a mountain to hand it down to us.

Here's a couple of interesting talks that shed light on the moral discussion:

Fucking degenerates. If humans of the past were like these pathetic excuses for men, we would never have survived this long as a species. It's against nature (not just religion).

Morals can also be culturally relative. For example, what is perfectly moral or acceptable in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia, etc, may be abhorrent and illegal in the West. But what is considered moral or legal in the West, maybe be morally reprehensible or even illegal in the aforementioned countries.

Use red light, wherever you can. Stay away from blue or white light. Go to any amateur astronomy club to see why red light is so important for night vision etc. It's much better to put you into a sleepy state. https://www.nps.gov/articles/dark-adaptation-of-the-human-eye-and-the-value-of-red-flashlights.htm

Happy anniversary. That's impressive.

Of course, it's important to understand. But just because they believe something, doesn't make it true. Maybe they are just crazy. Edit: For example, these Bohemian Grove guys are worshiping the owl god, Moloch, apparently [ https://battleplan.news/watch?id=5ebc5477244ac5001d2386ff ]. Does that mean I believe there is an owl god called Moloch? Of course not. I think they are bat shit crazy, like any religious cult members or fundamentalist sects. But the fact they are a crazy cult and THEY believe it, that makes them dangerous. So just because people worship the devil or god and that makes them take whatever actions based on their religious beliefs, doesn't mean I have to accept their entities are actually real. So yes, understand them. Very important, but as an objective observer.

Okay, thanks for clarifying.

This is the basic point, I would argue. If you were a good and decent person before finding religion, you couldn't claim it was religion that made you a good person. Maybe you found it useful later, but if you never found religion, you would still be a good a decent person regardless. Human morality and social behaviour predates organised religion and religious texts by a substantial amount of time.

It would help if you defined precisely what you mean by this question. Give the exact definitions of each option so we know what you're referring to, if you don't mind.

Imagine before this covid scam. If anyone can remember back that far... if you saw an adult forcing a child to wear a device over their face that obstructed their comfort and breathing. You would call the police and child protection. Now, it's normal.

I totally agree.

Humans evolved as a social species. What we call ethics or morals today developed naturally as a matter of the essential survival of our species. It didn't all magically come down from a mountain suddenly. Church or no church, it doesn't matter.

If that pisses you off, wait till you see some of the stuff posted here (make your blood boil - especially the masks on kids shit): As for your point about child development, there's plenty of good science that shows masks are a disaster for kids' natural development.

The ones that can't be mentioned ;-)

When would you say the main push of this Russian agenda started? Post soviet collapse, or earlier? Is there a date or event that marked the obvious beginning of the end?

That's possible in part, but I doubt it's that simple.

I don't mean just in recent weeks. Over time, the west has lost all moral credibility. From Vietnam onwards (especially), it has been a disaster.

The west doesn't need the kgb to pollute their perfect image. They have done that well on their own.

You don't need god or any divine edicts to be a moral and ethical human being (dear god, please don't let us get our morals from the Bible ). That's the whole point of the secular humanist perspective.