That was like, 50 years ago. Now we're civilized.

Have you never met a christian?

Not to worry; we are doing bad **** now too.

Have you?

I'm saying that no matter how many things you eat off the floor without getting sick, the floor is still dirty.

That's fairly accurate of how most christians react.

Fundies, extremists and most of the US demoninations don't count for the majority.

Well, now we know. And knowing is half the battle!

It is also important to note that the person that posted that picture apparantly, according to his signature, believes in moral relativism. Moral relativism can be used to justify or excuse any behaviour, including any number of possible scenarios related to the event pictured.

Mort doesn't get to set his title.

Oh man, are we back to retarded interpretations of philosophical concepts? We covered this, in great depth, years ago. Moral relativism simply posits that there is no objective moral authority and that ethical frameworks are a social construct. It makes no impact upon the strength of conviction of any partical moral position, only its origin. It doesn't alter the approach to any ethical dilemma, it just makes the observation that the statement 'murder is wrong' is fundamentally different in origin to the statement 'the sky is blue'. It doesn't affect the relative truths of either statement.

Moral relativism does not entail moral nihilism any more than atheism entails hedonism.

Though I imagine writing this is a waste of time, as your belief system by its very construction demands smug superiority to constantly validate the illusion of a moral authority.

I added him to my ignore list last night so I must have mistaken that. I thought it was his signature. If I click to view his post it doesn't show the signature now. I thought maybe when someone was set to ignore it moved it to that area. I should have known better. My bad. However, it wouldn't surprise me if he does believe in moral relativism when you consider some of his outlandish statements such as support for the 9/11 attacks which he apparantly no longer remembers doing. I'll never forget it, though.

You don't think morality is relative? You don't think the hijackers in 9/11, Muslims that burned these Christians, Christians that killed non-Christians in the Crusades, or even modern day people who get their sons and daughter's genitalia cut off are doing things that they fully and coherently believe are moral?

This is one of the major problems I have with assuming that morality can possibly be objective. It ignores our evolutionary origins. Things are good for a society/species/person if it works. We feel empathy for other people's suffering because it was evolutionarily necessary. A completely different perspective is that all other people are competitors to kill. That doesn't seem very conducive to me, but in certain circumstances, it's the only thing you can do to survive. Moral things are what is conducive to the most people, but even that comes down to time and place.

Just ignore opposing views. Classic Wookie.

oh i am sorry mort. i was not aware you were alive when lynch mobs were prevalent. my mistake. i am glad we cleared that little snafu up.



and what the hell is this. come on, i know your not an idiot.

you also have to apply that logic to muslims too though.

Violence and conflict is an inevitable product of life, religion is merely an excuse. To suggest religion is the reason for violence is to completely misunderstand humanity.

I dunno, I'm an atheist and I've never hurt anyone

*is smug*

img-smug.gif

-smugs kyle with infidel sex-

Mmmm. Hot infidel sex.

/me joins infidel orgy

I never said otherwise.

greed, jealousy, and fear are inerrant parts of human nature. these often breed violence. religion need not be a factor. furthermore not all religious people are violent and not all atheists are peaceful.

Greed, jealousy and fear are inherent parts of society, not human nature.

FEAR is not an inherent part of human nature?

I believe it is environmental.

That is NOT TRUE!



Errr.... Well...

Zully is right, though he does not even realize the extent to which he is correct! The problem here is not human nature! Human nature is kind, and loving, and sharing! Everyone comes into this world innocent and loving everybody, it is only through suffering that they learn to be bad. Going around telling everyone that they are inherently evil and must fight against their own nature is the exact opposite of the truth!

So cavement weren't scared of whatever predators they had?
I dunno, that one I don't agree with.

That would be enviromental.

Unless it's instinctual. Fight or flight isn't a learned reaction.

Human beings are born with very few instinctual behaviors. Nearly everything has to be taught.

i am not saying that humans are bad by default, i am saying that people have the capacity to do "bad" things as well as good without necessarily having to be "taught" to do them.

I am.

I think that we are born "bad" but taught to be "good."

Then again, "good" is a point of view , Anakin .

Violence is an inevitable product of religion because it galvanises a social group through conflict with an out-group. A collective identity is formed and legitimised by opposition to external forces; they are defined by what they are not rather than what they are.

This is indeed true of many different sorts of social groups, but religion is unique in its closeness, cultural rigidity and single-minded clarity in its absolute 'truth'. Any action that is legitimised by a religious belief is above any 'normal' social or moral authority, and so the power of religion (and the brutality of that action) cannot be questioned. An opposition to that brutality only strengthens the religious belief as it enhances the collective persecution. Søren Kierkegaard wrote about this extensively, how religion can transcend 'universal' moral standards; he argues that the sacrifice of Abraham was the "teleological suspension of the ethical." Religion, by its supernatural nature, cannot submit to any 'natural' authority and cannot be moderated by rationality.

Religion requires social conflict to enhance symbolic boundaries to keep it from imploding internally. Catholocism is framed by the internal conflict between the church of piety and the church of power, and this stimulates reform to restore its evangelical outreach and internal theological identity. Religions make extraordinary promises if individuals give up social status, social norms, or even personal survival, and this is a perfect vehicle for socially marginalised groups to gain seemingly supernatural powers if they submit to a religious authority.

It is possible that religions actively seek violence because it is functional in strengthening collective identity, but I don't think this is likely. I think it is more likely that the modern religions that we see today are the ones that have created sufficient conflict, externally and internally, to protect itself and survive; a sort of crude 'survival of the fittest' of competing religions. Historically, religion is a product of violence and conflict, and now violence and conflict are a product of religion.

Whether humans are born 'good' and corrupted by society, or born 'evil' and redeemed by society, is a very deep and profound question that Locke wrote about (while running from smoke monsters), but my argument treats religion as a social construct so doesn't rely on any particular answer to that question.

still violence as a product of religion is not "inevitable" violence is a product of human interaction. "religion" is just a tool, its like blaming guns for killing people, and not the person pulling the trigger, or me blaming my pencil for misspelling a word on a spelling test.

also, morals are relative.

Yeah, that must be it. I said it, but I don't understand the words that are coming out of my mouth. Darn those damned ideas to hell for going right over my head.