"God" as metaphor for our childhood innocence.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Sure, most theists are man-children-- but that goes for non-theists as well.

Look at that user Bushie. The man who exemplifies the hedonistic nature of laziness and lustrous lore of materialism that bodies the American consumer. Read his posts you can see how such indoctrination has led a decline in critical thinking and many intelligent methods in our society.

I don't think an atheist Bushie would have been much better. His problems were prereligious and even premoral. He was our very own Chris Chan and, like with the actual Chris Chan, at some point enough gawking was enough and the time to pull the plug came.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Sure, most theists are man-children-- but that goes for non-theists as well.

Look at that user Bushie. The man who exemplifies the hedonistic nature of laziness and lustrous lore of materialism that bodies the American consumer. Read his posts you can see how such indoctrination has led a decline in critical thinking and many intelligent methods in our society.

I don't think an atheist Bushie would have been much better. His problems were prereligious and even premoral. He was our very own Chris Chan and, like with the actual Chris Chan, at some point enough gawking was enough and the time to pull the plug came.

His religious doctrine from his church friends and all the relatives in his life tell me otherwise. That sort of indoctrination becomes so integral with the lifestyle that it becomes a sort of gateway against any justifiable criticism of a lustful lifestyle, whose theology tells him he should do what he wants with his own life. The South in general is just an hotbed of all the anti-intellectualism rampart in the nation, which is no further supported than the dogma preached daily by the Fundamentalist preachers on a Sunday morning.

This isn't the longest contentless, semantically void post I've ever seen on this forum, but it's up there. Good job. 8/10.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Sure, most theists are man-children-- but that goes for non-theists as well.

Look at that user Bushie. The man who exemplifies the hedonistic nature of laziness and lustrous lore of materialism that bodies the American consumer. Read his posts you can see how such indoctrination has led a decline in critical thinking and many intelligent methods in our society.

I don't think an atheist Bushie would have been much better. His problems were prereligious and even premoral. He was our very own Chris Chan and, like with the actual Chris Chan, at some point enough gawking was enough and the time to pull the plug came.

Recent developments suggest any modern Chris Chan comparisons are a huge insult to Bushie.

Sure. I'm comparing him to Classic Chris before the complete iatrogenic break from reality set in.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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?