Stephen Colbert

2009-10-12T17:39:26Z

FreedomQ: jesus died lol

[[Image:Stephencolbert2.jpg|thumb]]

Stephen Colbert is God, He is the original creator who created the world in six days. He is the God of all beings in this universe. He has other names such as Yahweh and Jesus. He has again arrives at earth and brings salvation to people. Lord Stephen has three parts, The Balls, The Finger, and the Eyebrow, which is called Trinity. The Balls, each of the two are bigger and weights more than the universe combine, symbolizes the infinity power of Him. The Finger, with each wag, symbolizes the punishment and condemnation of sinfulness. The Eyebrow is his message to Earth, with each rise and fall, the will of Lord and God Stephen is being heard by his followers. Lord Stephen is a vengeful God, with his purgatory-On Notice Board, and his hell-Dead To Me Board, he chastises the sinful. But he is also a merciful God, pray to him, and he will answer your prayers. Honor him, and you will go to His Heaven.

==The Colbert Report==

The place where Lord and God Stephen, and His angles and faithful follower lives, which is commonly known as Heaven. It is a place where His glory is being honored and His messages being heard. It is the show which is crucial to Salvation, it is a Holy Show. Watch it, and the road toward the Pearl Gate will be cleared for you, and you shall be greeted by Saint Jon Stewart to the Heaven and world of Lord Stephen.
The Holy Show, Colbert Report, has given convenience to the unfortunates who cannot access a TV or computer, by producing its own Holy Book, millions of times holier than The Bible, called I AM AMERICAN AND SO CAN YOU! To the children of impoverished who could not hear the message of Lord Stephen, they now shall have the equal chance to enter the Heaven as rest of us do. There is no need to wonder about life anymore, because, Lord Stephen has answered all your questions in that book; read it, and you will be blessed by His Eternal Light.
Being the Holy Show, it is the only show worth watching, its book and its website are also the only book and website one should see. Anything else is heresy, and are condemned as sinful, whose viewers are considered as traitors and will be send to Hell with Satan Andrew Schlafly

====
Such words are of the faituful followers of Lord Stephen Colbert, and any change to it, by anyone whose master and commands are not from Lord Stephen or Saint Jon Stewart, will face Eternal Fire of Hell in The Judgment Day

== See also ==

*[[The Daily Show]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Actors]]
[[Category:Television Show Hosts]]
[[Category:Comedians]]
[[Category: Liberals]]
{{liberalism}}

Morality

2009-10-12T17:39:22Z

FreedomQ: this is true

'''Morality''' is a concern with what is right and what is wrong in one's personal conduct; it is usually contrasted with [[ethics]].

== Morality versus law ==

Jurisprudence is traditionally (but not completely) divided between those who advocate Natural Law and those who advocate Legal Positivism. Both agree that morality is distinct from the [[law]], but it is only advocates of Natural Law who believe that law should be based on morality, whereas Legal Positivists believe that there is no inherent connection.
Natural Law supporters point to examples such as [[slavery]], which was once legal in many places, but is now illegal, because people had the law changed because they considered slavery immoral. A legal positivist would not argue against there often being a causal connection between morality and law, as clearly according to this example and many others there is, but would say that there is no ''inherent'' connection: and thus say that law is not based on morality.

The most commonly used example to illustrate the difference between the two camps is to imagine a scenario where a law against vehicles being used in a town centre after 21:00 were to be instituted, in an effort to reduce pollution. Then, imagine that someone is caught in the town centre after 21:00 riding a bike. An advocate of natural law would suggest the person not be punished, because bikes do not cause pollution, and it was reduction of pollution that was considered the moral issue in making the law. A legal positivist would instead look to whether or not a bike is a vehicle as defined by the statute, and base punishment on that.

Natural Law theorists would argue against those who say that the law should not be used to enforce morality.
Instead they believe that morality is actually the basis for much of the law.
Laws against theft, for example, are based on the idea that taking someone else's property is morally wrong.

==Morality based on theistic religion==

Thomas Brewton points out that things like the [[Ten Commandments]] or the [[Code of Hammurabi]] were sets of rules to establish moral behavior, enforced in the context of religion.<ref>The Conservative Voice: [http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/9332.html "Morality and Political Order"] by Thomas Brewton</ref>

According to some theists, only by basing morals on [[God|God's]] standards can morality have any sort of absolute basis.
Janine M. Ramsey:
{{QuoteBox|Evil and good do objectively exist because they emanate from the fact that there is an unchanging, omniscient (all-knowing), and holy God. These are not subjective opinions invented and written down by man. Rather, ‘good’ expresses the innate characteristics of God Himself that He has built into every human being, and every human being is responsible to live up to those standards. And the absence of good defines evil.<ref>Ramsey, 2004</ref>}}

One standard objection to this view is the [[Euthyphro]] dilemma, posed by Socrates in the dialogue Euthyphro, in which Socrates asks whether a thing is made pious (or just, right) because [[Divine command theory|the Gods love (approve of, command) it]], or if the Gods love certain things because they are just and right. If the former, then it seems that God's commands would not be objectively valid, but arbitrary whims. If the latter, then morality has an independent existence from God's commands; God is good because God always does the right thing, but they are not made the right thing simply because God commanded them. Morality would then need to have some further, independent ground which might be discoverable independent of religion.

==Morality based on evolution==
Some [[biology|biologists]] argue that morality grew out of behavioral rules shaped by [[Theory of evolution|evolution]]. They see social behaviors displayed by some [[primate]]s as the precursors of human morality. They cite examples such as [[rhesus monkey]]s which, when given a chance to get food by pulling a chain that delivers a shock to another monkey, have been known to [[starvation|starve]] themselves for a considerable time.<ref>"Primates and Philosophers" by Frans de Waal</ref>

Dr. [[Frans de Waal]] argues that primates are social animals, and must constrain their behavior in order to live in a group. He maintains that these constraints have shaped behaviors from which human morality has emerged. He does not assert that chimpanzees are moral, but argues that emotional bases that can be observed among primates are the foundation for the evolution of human morality.

He points to the display of both [[empathy]] and self-awareness among apes, and asserts that human morality begins with a similar concern for others and the understanding of social rules about the treatment of others. <ref>New York Times: [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5124&en=84f902c89c5a9173&ex=1332043200&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink "Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior"]</ref>

However, these arguments presume evolution to be true.
The stance that God created such creatures to act in a way that we would consider moral has at least as much scientific validity as the evolutionary position.

Evolution actually provides no basis for morality:
{{QuoteBox|'''Jaron Lanier''': ‘There’s a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature.’ 
'''Richard Dawkins''': ‘All I can say is, That’s just tough. We have to face up to the truth.<ref>'Evolution: The dissent of Darwin,’ ''Psychology Today'' 30(1):62, January/February 1997, quoted in ''Creation'' 20(3):44, June 1998.</ref>}}

Peter Singer argues that a distinction must be made between the origins and the justification of morality, allowing that evolutionary explanations can be given for the existence of brains or minds able to reason, and hence able to determine what is moral, but that morality has its own logic and is not determined by contingent facts of evolution.<ref>The Expanding Circle: Ethics and Sociobiology, 1983</ref>

== Morality based on atheism ==

Lacking a transcendent, objective moral authority (such as the Bible), atheism relies on subjective sources. The basis of morality for some [[atheism|atheists]] is their own opinion.
[[Bertrand Russell]], for example, said that his opinions on right and wrong were based on his feelings.<ref>'''Bertrand Russell:''' You see, I feel that some things are good and that other things are bad. I love the things that are good, that I think are good, and I hate the things that I think are bad. I don't say that these things are good because they participate in the Divine goodness. 

'''Frederick Copleston:''' Yes, but what's your justification for distinguishing between good and bad or how do you view the distinction between them? 

'''R:''' I don't have any justification any more than I have when I distinguish between blue and yellow. What is my justification for distinguishing between blue and yellow? I can see they are different. 

'''C:''' Well, that is an excellent justification, I agree. You distinguish blue and yellow by seeing them, so you distinguish good and bad by what faculty? 

'''R:''' By my feelings. 
(1948 radio debate; http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p20.htm)</ref>

In practice, atheists may adopt the morality of the society they grew up with, which in the case of the Western society is generally one with a Christian heritage.
[[Richard Dawkins]] said, "I’m a passionate Darwinian when it comes to science, when it comes to explaining the world, but I’m a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to morality and politics".<ref>''The Science Show'', ABC Radio, 22nd January, 2000, quoted by Walker, Tas., [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5177 National emergency in Australia], 29th June, 2007. (Creation Ministries International)</ref>

Although atheism provides no basis for absolute morality, this does not mean that atheists cannot be moral people. Rather, it does mean that atheism itself provides no moral boundaries to constrain the actions of people.
As mass murderer [[Jeffrey Dahmer]] said in an interview:
{{QuoteBox|If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing...<ref>Dahmer, Jeffrey, in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, 29th November, 1994 [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4145/105/]</ref>}}

Other atheists, such as Peter Singer, argue that our powers of reasoning provide a basis for morality. This view is shared by many theists, such as Richard Hare and Immanuel Kant, who do not deny the existence of God but think that morality is not derived from, but rather is exemplified by, a divine power.

Atheists have shown strong moral backsliding relative to Biblical code. They cut their hair, have sex with women on their period, wear clothes made of more than one fabric, and may even curse their parents (punishable by death under biblical law).

=== The effects of atheism ===

It is contended that in broadly condemning "[[religion]]", atheism frequently focuses on [[Christianity]], which is seldom defined according to its source (the New Testament), and which they often include Hitler in, and which they blame for atrocities such as the [[Inquisition]] and the [[Crusades]]. In addition, when confronted by the fact that the objectively baseless moral authority of atheism allowed atheists such as [[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]], [[Mao Zedong|Mao]] or [[Pol Pot]] to easily justify their atrocities (which seemed ''reasonable'' measures to them), they are observed seeking to disassociate the two. Harris attempts to do so by judging such men as "not especially rational", with this perhaps establishing Harris as the authority of what is, and then he proceeds to implicate religion for the evil of their regimes. <ref>Sam Harris, ''An Atheist Manifesto'' Dec 7, 2005</ref> In response it is seen that the authority for the religion at issue at issue (Christianity), is what transcendentally condemns them.<ref>http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Atheism1.html</ref> (Jn. 10:10; Rm. 9:1-3ff; Gal. 6:10)

It is argued that while atheism did not directly ''cause'' these atrocities, because atheism provides no objective transcendent moral boundaries, it ''allows'' these atrocities to occur, while fostering "political religion" due to the tendency to worship mortal men in place of God.
{{QuoteBox|...atheism has been tried as a basis for life in many countries in the 20th century. The results have been some of the biggest bloodbaths of all time under communist despots above the law, e.g., Stalin, Mao and [[Pol Pot]]. For example, the Inquisition killed 2000 people in three centuries; Stalin killed that many before breakfast.<ref>Sarfati, 2004 & 2008. See also Morris.</ref>[www.scholarscorner.com/apologia/deathtoll.html Atheism's Body Count]}}

== Bibliography ==
* Morris, Grantley, [http://net-burst.net/hot/war.htm A History Professor’s Criticism of My Webpage].
* Ramsey, Janine M., [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3126 What basis, morality?], 11th May 2004 (Creation Ministries International).
* Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2207 Bomb-building vs. the biblical foundation], 24th December 2004 and 2nd December 2008. (Creation Ministries International)

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Religion]][[Category:Ethics]][[Category:Virtues]]

Moral relativity

2009-10-12T17:39:17Z

FreedomQ: this is true

Moral relativity is the wrongheaded idea that there is no absolute Right or Wrong, and that anyone can freely use his own conscience to decide what is moral. A moral relativist will not say that [[theft]] or [[murder]] is wrong, because he believes it is up to the murderer or thief to decide whether his behavior is justified.

Unsurprisingly, moral relativity is exclusively a [[liberal]] belief, as conservatives believe that God is the ultimate arbiter of Good and Evil:

'''"There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death."''' (Proverbs 14:12)

Moral relativity and related foolish thinking is what allows liberals to support [[abortion]], [[gay rights]], and [[drug abuse]]. Moral relativity erodes principled [[self-defense]] and thereby leads to misguided demands for [[gun control]] as well as psychiatric problems resulting from a lack of mental self-defense.

The [[Theory of Relativity]] has generated a huge following by advocates of moral relativism. The idea of moral relativity exist independent of (and substantially predates) the theory of relativity, but some moral relativists irrelevantly invoke the theory in attempts to lend legitimacy to this version of morality.

Advocates of moral relativity seized on the theory of relativity to legitimize their views. Historians such as Paul Johnson wrote about how the theory of relativity caused a sea change, justified or not, in 20th century thought.
[[category:philosophy]]

Moral relativists have shown strong moral backsliding relative to Biblical code. They cut their hair, have sex with women on their period, wear clothes made of more than one fabric, and may even curse their parents (punishable by death under biblical law).

==See Also==
[[Nihilism]]

Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Stephen Colbert

Morality

Moral relativity