In article <47530e65$1@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] sanrrcom says...
> Warp wrote:
> > Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >> If the latter, it's nonsensical to say that religious people are more
 
> >> moral or kinder or whatever than areligious people.
> > 
> >   That depends on the definition of morality. Who says your definition 
is
> > better than someone else's?
> 
> I thought that was the point of religion, yes? If you actually start 
> talking about *why* one set of morals is better than another, then 
> you're not longer talking about religion, but science. I have no bones 
> to pick with that approach.
> 
And lets not ignore how they constantly insist that the rules "are" 
universal and not up for interpretation, while imho being some of the 
biggest moral relativists in the known universe, since you kind of have 
to be to cherry pick bits of scripture to follow, then explain away how 
the other bits don't count, while simultaniously *ignoring* the bits you 
insist are right, by doing things to other people that those parts 
actually prohibit (or which are prohibited by other parts they insist 
they are also following). One needs a mind like a pretzel just to 
comprehend some of the arguments made by such people.

-- 
void main () {

    if version = "Vista" {
      call slow_by_half();
      call DRM_everything();
    }
    call functional_code();
  }
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message