"God" as metaphor for our childhood innocence.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Also, as to the premise of this thread, I find it hilarious how Grinchlike a lot of James's editorializing is lately. Between the suggestion that childhood innocence is a bad thing that people shouldn't have any interest in preserving or reclaiming and the signature that shows one of the most architecturally beautiful spaces I've ever seen and then mocks and belittles people for spending time there, he's doing a great job of making antitheists come across as ideologically opposed to any positive emotion except smugness.

With the premise of childhood innocence, that kind of magical thinking which persists in the membrane  will help develop a sense of wonder and awe to the universe, which is great for emotional development in the child life. For the negative side effect, well there are adults who just can't give up some of their childhood nostalgia when tasking the hard cold facts of the world around them. When you start basking in immaturity in more serious ways that is detrimental to those around you, who will start questioning the person social development.

With the churches, you can give credit for many having illustrious buildings that showcases some of the beautiful architecture on the planet Earth, all build by great artists as Leonardo Di Vinci.  My beef with the churches comes to viewing the whole religion industry as just a giant con that has outlasted it's usefulness in a world which is driven by science and technology. With the church organ why not instead just stay in your pajamas and cracked up some music on your iPhone or on your vinyl player? Why not learn ethnical issues through staying on the couch by reading a book from a prominent philosopher who seek to deconstruct the morality of human beings? Anything a church provides  you can do more for a secular reason. Besides my own disconcerting bafflement on the nature of religion, churches have become a one way escape profit machine that has managed to escape not paying taxes. Under a state and church separation the clergy men should play their fair share for all the money going to their industry. Going against the concept of churches is not an argument against positivism but a reaction against the nature of the role of religion in the modern technological advanced world.

So what does a triple-decker toadstool sandwich with arsenic sauce taste like, exactly? I've often wondered.

Based on my empirical evidence I can't tell you what a sandwich would taste like.

No sandwiches either? Wow, you really are advocating an austere lifestyle!

Go ask the green goblin who stole the Christmas season.

I just did and he, as other posters can see, refused to answer.

More substantively: there's a number of directions I could go with this, but first and foremost, why do you expect somebody who "seeks to deconstruct the morality of human beings" to have anything of value to say about normative ethics? That strikes me as the province of people who seek to construct the morality of human beings, not deconstruct it.

First and foremost that is just an example of a person who wants to dig dive into a philosophical position that the reader feels is more truer to his views on human nature. The reader wants to seek out a path that is not stating rhetoric which he first heard espoused in a human ethnics class that he took while in college. Second, the book by this writer is looking to debunk the myths of philosophy that have been accepted as guidance for many years as being rubbish junk. The position of the reader is to seek questioning and making logical sense of what is truly right and what is wrong in a world driven by laws.

Do you have a specific moral philosopher in mind or is this writer you're describing more of an ideal-type?

[James Monroe]

Also, as to the premise of this thread, I find it hilarious how Grinchlike a lot of James's editorializing is lately. Between the suggestion that childhood innocence is a bad thing that people shouldn't have any interest in preserving or reclaiming and the signature that shows one of the most architecturally beautiful spaces I've ever seen and then mocks and belittles people for spending time there, he's doing a great job of making antitheists come across as ideologically opposed to any positive emotion except smugness.

With the premise of childhood innocence, that kind of magical thinking which persists in the membrane  will help develop a sense of wonder and awe to the universe, which is great for emotional development in the child life. For the negative side effect, well there are adults who just can't give up some of their childhood nostalgia when tasking the hard cold facts of the world around them. When you start basking in immaturity in more serious ways that is detrimental to those around you, who will start questioning the person social development.

With the churches, you can give credit for many having illustrious buildings that showcases some of the beautiful architecture on the planet Earth, all build by great artists as Leonardo Di Vinci.  My beef with the churches comes to viewing the whole religion industry as just a giant con that has outlasted it's usefulness in a world which is driven by science and technology. With the church organ why not instead just stay in your pajamas and cracked up some music on your iPhone or on your vinyl player? Why not learn ethnical issues through staying on the couch by reading a book from a prominent philosopher who seek to deconstruct the morality of human beings? Anything a church provides  you can do more for a secular reason. Besides my own disconcerting bafflement on the nature of religion, churches have become a one way escape profit machine that has managed to escape not paying taxes. Under a state and church separation the clergy men should play their fair share for all the money going to their industry. Going against the concept of churches is not an argument against positivism but a reaction against the nature of the role of religion in the modern technological advanced world.

So what does a triple-decker toadstool sandwich with arsenic sauce taste like, exactly? I've often wondered.

Based on my empirical evidence I can't tell you what a sandwich would taste like.

No sandwiches either? Wow, you really are advocating an austere lifestyle!

Go ask the green goblin who stole the Christmas season.

I just did and he, as other posters can see, refused to answer.

More substantively: there's a number of directions I could go with this, but first and foremost, why do you expect somebody who "seeks to deconstruct the morality of human beings" to have anything of value to say about normative ethics? That strikes me as the province of people who seek to construct the morality of human beings, not deconstruct it.

First and foremost that is just an example of a person who wants to dig dive into a philosophical position that the reader feels is more truer to his views on human nature. The reader wants to seek out a path that is not stating rhetoric which he first heard espoused in a human ethnics class that he took while in college. Second, the book by this writer is looking to debunk the myths of philosophy that have been accepted as guidance for many years as being rubbish junk. The position of the reader is to seek questioning and making logical sense of what is truly right and what is wrong in a world driven by laws.

Do you have a specific moral philosopher in mind or is this writer you're describing more of an ideal-type?

Not a specific philosopher generally, but an academic professor who just wrote a controversial book which is arguing how skewed the concept of morality is in Western Civilization and that there are no such ethnics, provided the concept of ethnic is factual in a morally just universe. The writer could be best described as Sentient, arguing for a controversial position that a vegetable has no more of a moral understanding than a pet dog does of abstract conceptually. 

[afleitch]

No.

To be charitable and put my non-believer hat on, belief in god if anything is more of a refuge for misplaced adult anxiety rather than any substitution for childhood innocence. The relationship between children and caregivers isn't analogous and that comparison is somewhat disingenuous given what we know about child development.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

I extend my belated apologies to John Dule, his pseudo-neckbeard atheism now looks like a scholarly analysis by one of the most sagacious philosophers of religion by comparison with the recent inane adolescent edgelord ramblings of James Monroe.

I tend to calibrate the intellectual quality of my responses to fit the topic at hand, so I rarely feel the need to put in much effort on religious subjects.

You put in as much effort to make an argument against religion as those do in justifying their blind faith. Remember, if you state against any religion sentiment you will get labeled as a neckbeard.

Dude I'm somewhat anti-theist and I think you're an obnoxious pseudo-intellectual.

[James Monroe]

I extend my belated apologies to John Dule, his pseudo-neckbeard atheism now looks like a scholarly analysis by one of the most sagacious philosophers of religion by comparison with the recent inane adolescent edgelord ramblings of James Monroe.

I tend to calibrate the intellectual quality of my responses to fit the topic at hand, so I rarely feel the need to put in much effort on religious subjects.

You put in as much effort to make an argument against religion as those do in justifying their blind faith. Remember, if you state against any religion sentiment you will get labeled as a neckbeard.

Dude I'm somewhat anti-theist and I think you're an obnoxious pseudo-intellectual.

I was complimenting John Dule for speaking his own mind out on organized religion.