PDA

View Full Version : Effects on society of secularization and moral relativism?


Jae Onasi
09-05-2007, 12:53 AM
This is a tongue-in-cheek look at secularization/pluralization/moral relativism and its effects on society. I've had the 'benefit' (curse?) of seeing the dramatic shift in these issues in the last 20 years. What was right 40 years ago is now wrong, and what is wrong is right. Discuss the effects of moral relativism and secularization on Western culture.

The Atheists Creed

We believe in Marxfreudanddarwin
We believe everything is OK
as long as you don't hurt anyone
to the best of your definition of hurt,
and to the best of your knowledge.

We believe in sex before, during, and
after marriage.
We believe in the therapy of sin.
We believe that adultery is fun.
We believe that sodomy’s OK.
We believe that taboos are taboo.

We believe that everything's getting better
despite evidence to the contrary.
The evidence must be investigated
And you can prove anything with evidence.

We believe there's something in horoscopes
UFO's and bent spoons.
Jesus was a good man just like Buddha,
Mohammed, and ourselves.
He was a good moral teacher though we think
His good morals were bad.

We believe that all religions are basically the same-
at least the one that we read was.
They all believe in love and goodness.
They only differ on matters of creation,
sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.

We believe that after death comes the Nothing
Because when you ask the dead what happens
they say nothing.
If death is not the end, if the dead have lied, then its
compulsory heaven for all
excepting perhaps
Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Kahn

We believe in Masters and Johnson
What's selected is average.
What's average is normal.
What's normal is good.

We believe in total disarmament.
We believe there are direct links between warfare and
bloodshed.
Americans should beat their guns into tractors .
And the Russians would be sure to follow.

We believe that man is essentially good.
It's only his behavior that lets him down.
This is the fault of society.
Society is the fault of conditions.
Conditions are the fault of society.

We believe that each man must find the truth that
is right for him.
Reality will adapt accordingly.
The universe will readjust.
History will alter.
We believe that there is no absolute truth
excepting the truth
that there is no absolute truth.

We believe in the rejection of creeds,
And the flowering of individual thought.

If chance be
the Father of all flesh,
disaster is his rainbow in the sky
and when you hear

State of Emergency!
Sniper Kills Ten!
Troops on Rampage!
Whites go Looting!
Bomb Blasts School!
It is but the sound of man
worshipping his maker.

--Steve Turner

Ray Jones
09-05-2007, 09:22 AM
This is a tongue-in-cheek look at secularization/pluralization/moral relativism and its effects on society. I've had the 'benefit' (curse?) of seeing the dramatic shift in these issues in the last 20 years. What was right 40 years ago is now wrong, and what is wrong is right. Discuss the effects of moral relativism and secularization on Western culture.I'm not sure if these "effects" are solely caused by secularisation itself. Yes, we somehow strive away from what has been usual, "accepted" and was practised in the past millenniums. But why is that? Because of secularization? Or because of religion?

Do we wanna have random sex and screw morals? Do we fear discipline, morality, social behaviour, knowledge, to care for each other?

Or are we more and more sick of religious dogmata, intolerance, fighting religious groups, chasing demons, condemning our friends and beloved for being/thinking different, hearing the same lame answer over and over again, choosing the right god while failing for all the others? Why are there so many religions when only one can be right? In a world that has become small, with not much space left, is there room for a colourful diversity of religions, with every single one claiming to be the right one with all the answers, and condemning all others to hell?

Maybe instead of living towards heaven or hell, some want to live for themselves and those around them, and some fries, and not 10 brands of ketchup to chose from, just with plain old ketchup made from tomatoes, which makes fries so tasty, and that all until the day they die without fear for what will inevitably come:

Worms.



Or flames.

Or fishes.

Or deep space thingers.


However you choose your last journey to be like.




-------

and just for the fun of it ..

We believe in Marxfreudanddarwin
We believe everything is OK
as long as you don't hurt anyone
to the best of your definition of hurt,
and to the best of your knowledge.We also believe that "it says so in [religious text here]" does not make it OK.

We believe in sex before, during, and
after marriage.
We believe in the therapy of sin.
We believe that adultery is fun.
We believe that sodomy’s OK.
We believe that taboos are taboo."The Lord is righteous in all his ways, and holy in ail his works."

We believe that everything's getting better
despite evidence to the contrary.
The evidence must be investigated
And you can prove anything with evidence.Compared to 1000 years ago, when religions had "full control" I think where doing /much/ better now.

We believe there's something in horoscopes
UFO's and bent spoons.
Jesus was a good man just like Buddha,
Mohammed, and ourselves.
He was a good moral teacher though we think
His good morals were bad.Is there more about angels and demons, or burning witches, houses, villages in the name of good morals?

We believe that all religions are basically the same-
at least the one that we read was.
They all believe in love and goodness.
They only differ on matters of creation,
sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.We also believe churches should offer religion flatrates, with instant access to up to 5061 gods (more to come).

We believe that after death comes the Nothing
Because when you ask the dead what happens
they say nothing.
If death is not the end, if the dead have lied, then its
compulsory heaven for all
excepting perhaps
Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis KahnBut when the religions did lie and not the dead, then Hitler and Stalin are gone for good. Deal?

We believe in Masters and Johnson
What's selected is average.
What's average is normal.
What's normal is good.We also believe that what's selected mustn't be average, mustn't be normal, and still can be good. Or that what was once average and normal, wasn't good.

We believe in total disarmament.
We believe there are direct links between warfare and
bloodshed.
Americans should beat their guns into tractors .
And the Russians would be sure to follow./We also believe that warfare, bloodshed and dead people won't feed us.

We believe that man is essentially good.
It's only his behavior that lets him down.
This is the fault of society.
Society is the fault of conditions.
Conditions are the fault of society.We also believe that the glass is not half empty, and neither half full, but larger than needed.

We believe that each man must find the truth that
is right for him.
Reality will adapt accordingly.
The universe will readjust.
History will alter.
We believe that there is no absolute truth
excepting the truth
that there is no absolute truth.Wouldn't that be nice when history alters, so noone will notice what has been done in religion's name?

We believe in the rejection of creeds,
And the flowering of individual thought.I'm not sure does that cause war about nations and gods?

If chance be
the Father of all flesh,
disaster is his rainbow in the sky
and when you hear

State of Emergency!
Sniper Kills Ten!
Troops on Rampage!
Whites go Looting!
Bomb Blasts School!
It is but the sound of man
worshipping his maker.No, it's but the sound of man who you saw last sunday in church.

Achilles
09-05-2007, 11:16 AM
This is a tongue-in-cheek look at secularization/pluralization/moral relativism and its effects on society. Hmmm...not sure why moral relativism is grouped with these other things here.

Secularization is the privatization of religion (to be very general). Pluralization is the tolerance of many religions (which seems to follow in a society in which such beliefs are private). Moral relativism is the idea that right and wrong are dependent upon which culture is examined.

Moral relativism falls under it's own weight though, because all you need is a single example of someone claiming to have "absolute truth" in order for it to dissipate like a puff of smoke in a breeze. Since each flavor of religion has it's own brand of absolute truth and each sect has it's own interpretation of right and wrong (not to say that there isn't some overlap), it seems that the most egregious source of moral relativism is religion.

So again, I'm not sure why it's grouped with these other two things.

I've had the 'benefit' (curse?) of seeing the dramatic shift in these issues in the last 20 years. I wonder what statistics you're using for a basis for this argument. Or more specifically which criteria you're using.

20 years ago would have put us in the mid-80's. Weren't we having a lot of problems with drugs and cocaine related violence back in the mid-80's? Weren't a lot of people complaining about economic recession? I seem to recall that being referred to as the "age of excess" - both parents working and leaving their kids with others so that they could make more money in the eternal race to keep up with the Jones'.

It seems to me that the issues shift all the time, so this nostalgia for "20 years ago" leave me a little confused. I'm sure in the 80's we could have pined for "20 years ago", but that would put us almost smack dab in the middle of the civil rights movement (where blacks and whites were being murdered for speaking out), the assassination of MLK, the beginning of the vietnam war, etc.

But maybe you were using a specific frame of reference for your anecdotal remark.

What was right 40 years ago is now wrong, and what is wrong is right. Indeed. I think many of us are very proud of the work done on the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Discuss the effects of moral relativism and secularization on Western culture. As I mentioned earlier, the argument for moral relativism is so weak that it doesn't take much to cause to it collapse under it's own weight. I think the key to eliminating moral relativism is more education in moral philosophy. Unfortunately, such education currently takes place either at home or at sunday school. In both cases, there are not minimum standards, therefore do more to promote moral relativism than to combat it.

Interestingly, by secularizing a society, a government can begin to take steps toward creating a morally objective set of laws and standards. But it has been my experience that religious groups frequently accuse secularization of promoting moral relativism instead of combating it.

As for the poem, it's a shame the author put more effort into appearing to be clever than he did into actually thinking about what he was writing. He gets far more wrong than he does right.

Web Rider
09-05-2007, 12:23 PM
Discuss the effects of moral relativism and secularization on Western culture.
I'm not real hip to seclurization, but I'm pretty up on Moral Relativism.

Generally I think the worst thing that Moral Relativism has done for society is that it's created alot of do-nothings who fear getting involved for worry of offending somebody. It has also promoted the slightly more active version of these people to defend obviously bad or immoral(as defined by the local or federal government), actions or decisions because the person is of a certain " culture" and that makes it OK.

The worst part is is that the magical culture this person who did something bad is part of doesn't always agree with what the person did. They're just getting they're ass off the line because they're different.

Bad to people who do nothing: It's sad really, they look around the world and know what they think is right, they know certain human rights are well, human rights. But they do nothing when those things are violated(such as in cases of female genital mutilation), because they fear getting all kinds of crap because sombody believes that just because that culture is "different" those people are entitled to their lack, or violation of human rights.

Lastly, it's given rise to a breed of self-proclaimed "intellectuals" who pull "holier than thou" on any given occasion when a Western nation gets involved in a very obvious and blatant human rights violation, yet the "intellectual" proclaims it to be wrong because of cultural relativism.

I don't mind the do nothings, they're just a nusiance, I mostly dislike the "rights advocates" who get people off for being of a different culture(even if they've lived under the laws of X country for ages), and the psuedo-intllecuals who think that all would be right with the world if every culture was allowed to just be itsself.

SilentScope001
09-05-2007, 12:41 PM
I am a big fan of moral relativism, at least in most areas (like politics). There is no objective truth, because we are too limited in determing what is actually true and not. We shouldn't believe ourselves to be so intelligent and smart that we know what is the TOTALLY CORRECT way of doing things.

Think about it: If you present an argument that you believe to be correct, then you must provide proof for that argument. However, once you provide that proof, don't you need to provide an argument to prove that your proof is correct? And then once you provide that argument, don't you need a proof to prove that argument is correct? If you state that you don't want to provide any sort of proof, that you think your argument is totally right without trying to prove to me that your argument is right, then why should I listen to you? You are not persuasive at all. But in the end, no human can do such a thing, therefore, it will be hard for us to figure out what is the truth.

You could be right. You could be wrong. We don't really know.

Moral relativism is something that people have to think about, becuase if they don't, and instead flock to other secular creeds, then they really haven't left religion. Instead of worshipping God, they worship invisible principles such as Kantian thought, except there is no proof that Kantian thought is correct. If this is what society is going, then this is the greater tragedy.

Moral relativism's arguments are not "weak". They aren't something to go and state, "Hah." Moral relativism gains a great boost if atheism is proven correct because then you have NOTHING to judge what is right and what is wrong. No objective person or God who can claim what is right and wrong. It will belong to each indivudal human, each with their own creed of Utiliarnism, Kantian, Liberal Democracy, etc. And, if invisible Gods do not exist, I find no need to worship some invisible principles.

But just because you believe in moral relativism doesn't mean you can't have strong morals. You just have to admit that many people don't share your strong morals, and that in the end, your strong morals may be right, may be wrong. Admitting that there is the possiblity of you being wrong is, well, a good thing.

(Web Rider: If there is such an objective truth that everyone believes is correct, then what if everyone believed, say, Hitler is right? That Hitler won WWII? Then are all those people wrong? Well, maybe. But you then have nobody who would listen to you, and all those Hitler supporters will just see you and call you an "do-nothing" who does not know the truth. How can you convince someone that Hitler is wrong if everyone loves Hitler? You can't.

Cultural relativists state that just because one culture (say, Western Civilization) trimpuhs does not mean that culture's values is correct. All it takess is Germany to win WWII, and then Germany would begin importing its worldview upon other people and stating that its view is right and that it was invetible it would happen due to the fact they won WWII. History and Culture is written by the Winners...but are the Winners good or evil? How can we know if they are good or evil if Winners can rewrite History and Culture? I think from there, people could argue that it is hard to tell if Western Civilization is right or wrong.

And I'd argue that most people are "do-nothings", because they can't do anything, and instead, is busy with much more important stuff.)

Web Rider
09-05-2007, 04:01 PM
(Web Rider: If there is such an objective truth that everyone believes is correct, then what if everyone believed, say, Hitler is right? That Hitler won WWII? Then are all those people wrong? Well, maybe. But you then have nobody who would listen to you, and all those Hitler supporters will just see you and call you an "do-nothing" who does not know the truth. How can you convince someone that Hitler is wrong if everyone loves Hitler? You can't.

Can we just Goodwin's Law this thread here and now?


Cultural relativists state that just because one culture (say, Western Civilization) trimpuhs does not mean that culture's values is correct. All it takess is Germany to win WWII, and then Germany would begin importing its worldview upon other people and stating that its view is right and that it was invetible it would happen due to the fact they won WWII. History and Culture is written by the Winners...but are the Winners good or evil? How can we know if they are good or evil if Winners can rewrite History and Culture? I think from there, people could argue that it is hard to tell if Western Civilization is right or wrong.

And I'd argue that most people are "do-nothings", because they can't do anything, and instead, is busy with much more important stuff.)

Lack of time and lack of effort are different. If I have a fixed amount of ability, and I spent 70% of it on work, and 25% of it on child raising(or any other thing that would occupy you're time), and 5% of it on sheer pleasure, I have no ability left over to spend on worrying about some problem somewhere way away.

However, the people I speak of are people who HAVE time to spare, or have ability going unused, but refuse to use it for, as I said, fear of offending people because cultural relativism has brought about the idea that everybody else is right and you're wrong.

Furthermore, getting to the heart of my post, I never said that Moral Relativism was a bad thing. I said what it's given rise to it something other than the cultural understanding that it should have sought to bring. The idea behind Cultural Relativism was that everybody's different and people need to understand and accept this.

NOT what it's been doing, which, as I said, is: that everybody is right and justified because they're different.

On we go to human rights, we're all human, right? Right.
Biologically, we're all pretty much the same. Sure, about half of us are female and about 10% are lefties and we come in all various shades and colors and heights, weights and builds. But when you strip away the external, we're all the same basic design.
Therefore, we all react in the same manner to the same type of stimuli. When we're sad, we cry, when we're happy, we laugh, when our bladder is full, we pee. When we're cut, it hurts, when we break a bone it hurts and takes time to heal. Right? Right.
If one person does not like pain, because everybody else is human, it stands to reason that most people will not like pain. So, we make laws against hurting people.

Now, this is where cultural relativism screwed up. It tried to say: we've all got different ideas on thing, even on basic things that only idiots would say otherwise, and certain cultures believe different things to be true. Instead, what it did, is it started saying that those people who believe different things are all right, and you can't tell them otherwise. That's destroying their culture.

My point is not that cultural relativism is a bad thing. My point is not that cultural relativism is wrong. My point is that cultural relativism is too easily misconstruded as everybody else's opinions are right. And that's what I don't like about it. It's attempted to sum itsself up so many times it's become a sound byte that does something other than what it intended.

Truth be told I follow a sort of majority relativism. Whatever the majority of people think(like hurting people=bad), overweighs the few small sects, such as the ones that participate in female genital mutilation, that believe that hurting people is OK.

SilentScope001
09-05-2007, 04:07 PM
Can we just Goodwin's Law this thread here and now?

Reason I invoked Hitler is because he's about the only person people can use when trying to cite aboslute evil. I can't put "Bush" in there, or "Devil" in there, or any thing else, in that example.

My point is that cultural relativism is too easily misconstruded as everybody else's opinions are right. And that's what I don't like about it. It's attempted to sum itsself up so many times it's become a sound byte that does something other than what it intended.

Truth be told I follow a sort of majority relativism. Whatever the majority of people think(like hurting people=bad), overweighs the few small sects, such as the ones that participate in female genital mutilation, that believe that hurting people is OK.

Er. Majority relativism just smacks of "Tyranny by Majority." And I don't like to be dictated by the majority of humans what is right and what is wrong. The fear is that it can lead to even more terrible results: In the 1800's, of course slavery was right and those few abolonists who say slavery were wrong were idiots. But when 1865 comes around, the majority changed their views or were forced to change their views, and Volia, Slavery is totally wrong because the majority says so. So, in the past, it is MORALLY RIGHT to believe in slavery, but later, it is MORALLY WRONG to believe in slavery.

And the majority of what? The majority of a culture? Back to cultural relativism. The majority of the Earth? Then why should some human who is far far away has business telling me what is right and wrong when he doesn't live there. If a majority of people live in China and say, "Communism is right," am I wrong because I'm a dirty Cappie and is in the minority? If most people belives FGM/Female Cirmustance is okay, or if most people see that pain is actually a good thing...then am I morally wrong for assuming the opposite?

And no matter what I say, it is likely I'll be seen as morally wrong according to majority relativism, since I hate the majority and want to go against it. That's not very good for me...not good at all.

But, my belief for "ethical relativism"? Everyone is equally wrong and invalid in their views. There, no need to coddle people you hate. :)

Post Script: Don't forget that there are much more conterverisal desicions, which is where ethical relativism really kicks in. For example, if 51% voted for Bush is wrong and 48% voted for Kerry...hm...what majority should we support? And is it really that important what economic policy we follow, that of liberalism or conservativism? You can make good arguments for either.

Totenkopf
09-05-2007, 04:20 PM
Interestingly, by secularizing a society, a government can begin to take steps toward creating a morally objective set of laws and standards.

By what authority? Might makes right? And via what philosophical first principals will this "new" paradigm be created? Problem with moral relativism is that you have competing absolute systems vying for influence, none being judged superior to the other. How would creating a "new" system change that even remotely? You'd have your govt. imposed "secular" belief system and others their own takes on "objective" morality. Your "brave new world" of secularly arrived at "objective morality" hints of the same type of facism you'd likely associate with major world religions.

Achilles
09-05-2007, 05:23 PM
My point is not that cultural relativism is a bad thing. My point is not that cultural relativism is wrong. My point is that cultural relativism is too easily misconstruded as everybody else's opinions are right. And that's what I don't like about it. It's attempted to sum itsself up so many times it's become a sound byte that does something other than what it intended. Where the lines get blurred is where we go from "cockroaches are considered a delicacy in these parts" to "murdering members of a different caste is considered moral in these parts". One of these is cultural relativism and the other is moral relativism.

Truth be told I follow a sort of majority relativism. Whatever the majority of people think(like hurting people=bad), overweighs the few small sects, such as the ones that participate in female genital mutilation, that believe that hurting people is OK. Might makes right?

Web Rider
09-05-2007, 05:42 PM
Might makes right?

Hasn't it always?

to silentscope:
I'm tired, I havnt' slept in over 24 hours. I'll get back to you when I can think.

Achilles
09-05-2007, 07:06 PM
Hasn't it always?Not in any objective way, but then again, you are promoting a subjective worldview. Since China is the most populous nation in the world, I guess all we can do is hope that they never sufficiently militarize, lest we be forced to someday have to accommodate their sense of morality (being the majority view and all).

Web Rider
09-07-2007, 02:12 AM
Reason I invoked Hitler is because he's about the only person people can use when trying to cite aboslute evil. I can't put "Bush" in there, or "Devil" in there, or any thing else, in that example.

devil woulda worked in my opinion. You could have just said *X genocidal tyrant* and it would have worked. I don't really care.


Majority relativism just smacks of "Tyranny by Majority." And I don't like to be dictated by the majority of humans what is right and what is wrong. The fear is that it can lead to even more terrible results: In the 1800's, of course slavery was right and those few abolonists who say slavery were wrong were idiots. But when 1865 comes around, the majority changed their views or were forced to change their views, and Volia, Slavery is totally wrong because the majority says so. So, in the past, it is MORALLY RIGHT to believe in slavery, but later, it is MORALLY WRONG to believe in slavery.
the morality has been dictated by the majority, correct? In a closed system of the US of course, but none-the-less, the majority dictated morality. The majority rarely wants to make things worse for themselves, and once the liberated are inducted into the majority, things don't really go back....Unless you're Clarence Thomas.

And the majority of what? The majority of a culture? Back to cultural relativism. The majority of the Earth? Then why should some human who is far far away has business telling me what is right and wrong when he doesn't live there. If a majority of people live in China and say, "Communism is right," am I wrong because I'm a dirty Cappie and is in the minority? If most people belives FGM/Female Cirmustance is okay, or if most people see that pain is actually a good thing...then am I morally wrong for assuming the opposite?
people of earth. yes, in THEORY, if enough people believed those things were right, the world would bend to those views. Imposed upon us or not, if that many people believed in them, they would disseminate over time to most people.

And no matter what I say, it is likely I'll be seen as morally wrong according to majority relativism, since I hate the majority and want to go against it. That's not very good for me...not good at all.

But, my belief for "ethical relativism"? Everyone is equally wrong and invalid in their views. There, no need to coddle people you hate. :)
Of course, if you always think that whatever the most people agree upon is wrong, then you'll always be on the losing team. But that's just you.

Post Script: Don't forget that there are much more conterverisal desicions, which is where ethical relativism really kicks in. For example, if 51% voted for Bush is wrong and 48% voted for Kerry...hm...what majority should we support? And is it really that important what economic policy we follow, that of liberalism or conservativism? You can make good arguments for either.
Ideally, we should take a utilitarian approach. And in such a case, a compromise, with conservativism with a slight lead, should be reached between political parties. Sadly, everyone is too caught up in "my way or the highway" and not in what's best for everyone.

Not in any objective way, but then again, you are promoting a subjective worldview. Since China is the most populous nation in the world, I guess all we can do is hope that they never sufficiently militarize, lest we be forced to someday have to accommodate their sense of morality (being the majority view and all).
On the china note, there are alot of people in China, yes, 1.5 billion. 1.2 live in India, and there are 6 billion people in the world, give or take. That means that china represents 1/4th of the world. Which, last I checked, is not a majority.

Achilles
09-07-2007, 02:43 AM
On the china note, there are alot of people in China, yes, 1.5 billion. 1.2 live in India, and there are 6 billion people in the world, give or take. That means that china represents 1/4th of the world. Which, last I checked, is not a majority.<snip>
b : the excess of a majority over the remainder of the total : MARGIN <won by a majority of 10 votes>
c : the greater quantity or share <the majority of the time>
4 : the group or political party having the greater number of votes (as in a legislature)

The last one is a bit of a stretch, but it's still applicable, I think. Yes, sir, if you're thinking simple majority, then you're absolutely right. However, if you use any of these other (applicable) definitions, then China is the majority. Unless you can think of any other single nation that surpasses them in population.

If it helps, put it in these terms: imagine a gun in the hands of every man, woman, and child in the world. If China decides to take over and none of the other nations are allowed to form alliances, who has "the majority"? I hope that helps.

In the mean time, if you could address my point, that would be nice too. Thanks :D

Totenkopf
09-07-2007, 03:36 AM
They wouldn't need to form alliances, just have non-aggression pacts. Then they could fall on China like hyenas on a downed zebra.

Dagobahn Eagle
09-07-2007, 08:04 AM
Time for an atheism-defense essay I wrote a few weeks ago for the JREF forum (thread here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=90829), my essay is post #2). I feel it is highly relevant. Note that it's been changed slightly from its original version.
Write-up begins
I'm growing increasingly frustrated by the two-part statement from religious fundamentalists and even moderates that atheism and communism are somehow intertwined, and that every secular country out there has turned into a horrific, poverty-stricken dictatorship and terrified its neighbors until its downfall. While the misconception is in part spread deliberately to create an aversion to atheism, I also see moderates who adhere to it simply because they do not know better. And so, rather than discuss this in every single thread it comes up in, I figured I'd make a thread for the sole purpose of venting my steam, for lack of a more polite and less honest term. I planned to make a YouTube movie out of this, and probably still will, but I've decided to make this thread regardlessly. I know there are threads already on whether or not atheists can be moral, but this one is for a discussion on what effect atheism has, or more importantly doesn't have, on a whole society.

Before I begin, though, let me say that I am not making this thread to state that atheism is better for a country than religious beliefs. I am not writing this to state that religion causes problems in the world. This post is a defense of adherence to atheism - an attempt to stomp out the annoying and disrespectful myth that atheism is a sort of doomsday device that hurls a country into third-world poverty and makes it lash out at as many neighbors as possible before eventually succumbing to its own wicked godlessness.

Firstly, atheism does not lead to communism. It's true that secularism and removal of religion from society happened to be two of the traits of the communist system, but it does not in any way follow that they were its cause*. Although the exact meaning of the term is debated, I simply consider atheism to be the disbelief in gods and life before and after your life here on Earth. If religions inherently promoted freedom, pacifism and a free market economy, it may indeed have posed a risk to remove it from society. However, few religions in the world promote a package of free market economies, peace and democracy. Nowhere in the Bible is there a verse that commands Christians to hold free elections. The Q'uran does not say that property has to remain in private hands. And while many religions promote peace, many likewise do not: to say that the removal of Christianity from society will somehow make it less peaceful goes against the fact that the Bible advocates genocide and war more than it advocates turning the other cheek and presenting your case to the United Nations. There simply is no reason to state that freedom, peace and happiness is dependent on religious beliefs.

Secondly, the statement that atheism inevitably leads to war, dictatorship and poverty are simply not grounded in reality. In fact, looking at the top-ranking countries in the Human Development Index, one could hardly be blamed for jumping to the conclusion that it's simply the other way around:

First of all, 64% of the Norwegian population consider themselves agnostic or atheist, and only a meager three percent of its people regularly attend church. In fact, a 2005 Gallup International poll declared the country the least religious in West Europe. Yet in the HDI, Norway ranks first, and has done so every year since 2001. It is also the most peaceful nation in the world, as ranked by the Global Peace Index**. It is the nation in the world that gives the most of its annual budget, 1%, to foreign aid.

Likewise, in 300 000-people Iceland, which comes in second in the HDI, religion is considered an irrelevance in politics and daily life, and decisions are made without invoking Christianity or the pagan Ásatrú. The little nation does not have a military beyond its coast guard and a small peacekeeping unit for use in conflict areas abroad. While Gallup International declared Norway the country with the fewest religious people, I instantly think of Iceland when the topic of secular, atheist societies is raised, as religion apparently has such a small foothold here.

Sweden, following suit, is a secular nation where 99% of the population fails to attend church regularly, fought its last war in 1814 and has been at peace ever since, peacefully overcoming such issues as Norway's recession from Swedish rule as well as two World Wars and the Cold War. The nation ranks fifth on the HDI, and seventh on the Global Peace Index.

And finally, while Canada has a large number of religious people and its share of religious blue laws, it does not have a state religion and politics are carried out without religion interfering to a much larger degree than those of its neighbor the USA. Canadians vote by politics, not by religion. Canada has dominated the HDI for eight of the last 17 years. It is also the country in the world that provides safe haven to the most refugees. Canada ranks eight on the Global Peace Index.

And these are just a few examples. While several countries high on the HDI ladder, including the US and Ireland, are religious, the majority of nations has some sort of combination of low church attendance, a large number of atheists, a secularized government, and politics largely without religious arguments. The statement that only a few countries have strayed into secularism, and that all which have quickly collapsed into dictatorship and horrible conditions, is, to say it politely, incorrect.

Atheism is not a destroyer of worlds. It is not a virus that doom its host countries to horrific suffering. It is incredibly destructive to view it as such, as it generates fear and distrust towards a phenomenon that does not do nearly the damage it is perceived capable of, and I urge people who fear it to find some other enemy more worthy of your worries. Thank you.

Notes:
*See also Correlation vs. Causation.
**Just to rub it in - the USA with its fundies accusing atheists of so much wrongdoing, is on 96th place. On a list of 128 countries.

The following sources have been used in the writing of this essay: Wikipedia, the Church of Norway, and the US Dept. of State.
Write-up ends
I'll read the thread now and try to catch up.

SilentScope001
09-07-2007, 01:22 PM
Uh. Er....

We aren't alledging atheism of supporting moral relativism. In fact, only one person is defending moral relativism (me). Everyone else is condemning it in the most stringent of terms.

The problem is, well, WHY? Why should one have to support the government? If you support it due to some moral code, well, you haven't really gotten rid of religion. You only replaced it, you replaced religion with secularism, but that is defeating the whole purpose of defeating religion. We are supposed to be free-thinkers, not thinkers of "we must go and do good", because there is no reason for us to do good. This really upsets me to no end...and overall, replacing one tyranny of religion with the tyranny of secularism means nothing, as we still have tyranny of ideolgy, being told that "we must do this, we must do that, or you are evil".

Your essay has made me quite upset at atheism, since in the end, nothing really matters, nothing is really at stake. When in the end, it's just a battle between two groups wanting to dominate the human race, telling them "My way is right, your way is wrong", and nobody really campaging for freedom of thought...I despair. "Better to be enslaved by God than enslaved by Man." But it's just me.

Web Rider
09-07-2007, 01:49 PM
<snip>
b : the excess of a majority over the remainder of the total : MARGIN <won by a majority of 10 votes>
c : the greater quantity or share <the majority of the time>
4 : the group or political party having the greater number of votes (as in a legislature)

The last one is a bit of a stretch, but it's still applicable, I think. Yes, sir, if you're thinking simple majority, then you're absolutely right. However, if you use any of these other (applicable) definitions, then China is the majority. Unless you can think of any other single nation that surpasses them in population.

If it helps, put it in these terms: imagine a gun in the hands of every man, woman, and child in the world. If China decides to take over and none of the other nations are allowed to form alliances, who has "the majority"? I hope that helps.

In the mean time, if you could address my point, that would be nice too. Thanks :D

But people can and do form alliances. So the idea that all of china outweighs the rest of the world because 1.5 billion are united and the rest aren't is bunk.

Achilles
09-07-2007, 02:09 PM
But people can and do form alliances. So the idea that all of china outweighs the rest of the world because 1.5 billion are united and the rest aren't is bunk.You're ignoring the point in favor of quibbling over split hairs, but no matter.
I tell you what, we'll just accept that you only want to acknowledge simple majorities and I'll concede the (completely ancillary) point.

Now, would you care to address my point? Specifically, how do you intend to support your argument that the most popular moral view is the correct one?

SilentScope001
09-07-2007, 02:20 PM
Now, would you care to address my point? Specifically, how do you intend to support your argument that the most popular moral view is the correct one?

I think he already has. Might is right. The majority is uber-strong. If the majority hates you, they'll harm you. Therefore, might makes right, because if you do not believe, you will suffer. You have to believe it or else.

Web Rider
09-07-2007, 02:42 PM
You're ignoring the point in favor of quibbling over split hairs, but no matter.
I tell you what, we'll just accept that you only want to acknowledge simple majorities and I'll concede the (completely ancillary) point.

Now, would you care to address my point? Specifically, how do you intend to support your argument that the most popular moral view is the correct one?

I already told you, it's the correct one because the majority supports it. Sue me for making a circular argument, but that's how it works.

First we have an idea.
Idea spreads.
Majority likes idea.-idea is popular
idea spreads more-more people like it
because so many people like it, it is thought of as correct.

all other ideas(on the subject) are now wrong.

Take murder. We say murder is bad. Why? Because a LOT of people think murder if bad. Majority says murder bad, and it is. We're not talking simple majority here, we're talking a good 3/4ths majority or better. Now, murder in certian contexts is where we disagree. Murder for God, murder for self-defense, murder during war, these are all places where murder is acceptable during specific circumstances. Why the change? Once again we look to the majority: And the majority says that self-preservation is good, the majority agrees that 9/10 times we WANT to live. However, what self-preservation is again we differ. But we agree on the base subject. Is the preservation of you're religion the preservation of self, and is murder in it's name OK? Is murder to protect family and extension of self preservation?

And there are an infinite number of variations to this.

And the majority allows the various minorities to make up their own ideas. Like the majority of the world says it's OK for a country to make up it's on specific rules. And the World Majority doesn't mind unless those specific rules violate the prime rule, which is: murder is bad. If X country says the murder of Y country is good, but the World Majority disagrees, then X country is in the wrong.

It all comes back to the biggest Majority. Between two people, it goes to a 3rd person. To make a majority. between a 100 people, it goes to another dozen or so, to make a majority. Between nations it generally goes to the larger(so yes, you're China Proposal works in isolation, China vs One Other), across the globe it goes to the World Majority. China vs the World does not work.

Right and wrong don't matter, only what the largest number of people agree upon. And that makes it correct. The largest number agrees China can be Communist, as long as everyone else gets to be what they want. But because the Communist views are held by so many, like Capitalisim, it diseminates over time. It is correct because so many people think it is.

Hitler lost because more people thought he was wrong than right. Murder is bad because more people think it's bad than good. Religion is popular because more people think it's good than bad(we're talking about religion in general, if you get into specifics, you get into smaller majorities).

The popular view is right because enough people to matter say so.

Achilles
09-07-2007, 05:15 PM
I already told you, it's the correct one because the majority supports it. Sue me for making a circular argument, but that's how it works.Ok, it sounds like you're acknowledging that it's not logical therefore not supportable or true. This at least gives us a common ground to work from.

First we have an idea.
Idea spreads.
Majority likes idea.-idea is popular
idea spreads more-more people like it
because so many people like it, it is thought of as correct.

all other ideas(on the subject) are now wrong. What this doesn't do is present an argument for what is now "popular" is actually "true". Of course, since you seem to support the idea that there is no such thing as objective truth (which is itself a subjective argument), I'm not sure how much headway we can make there.

Take murder. We say murder is bad. Why? Because a LOT of people think murder if bad. Majority says murder bad, and it is. We're not talking simple majority here, we're talking a good 3/4ths majority or better. So there's no other possible, rational, objective argument for why murder might be "bad"? It's only wrong because most people think so. I guess that begs the question as to how that argument ever got off the ground in the first place though. Any ideas?

Now, murder in certian contexts is where we disagree. Murder for God, murder for self-defense, murder during war, these are all places where murder is acceptable during specific circumstances. Why the change? Once again we look to the majority: And the majority says that self-preservation is good, the majority agrees that 9/10 times we WANT to live. However, what self-preservation is again we differ. But we agree on the base subject. Is the preservation of you're religion the preservation of self, and is murder in it's name OK? Is murder to protect family and extension of self preservation? It sounds like an objective examination of moral philosophy would really add some value here. That would put the argument for moral relativism (e.g. moral subjectivity) in a difficult spot though. We may find ourselves needing to make a decision at some point as to which direction is best for everyone involved.

And the majority allows the various minorities to make up their own ideas. Like the majority of the world says it's OK for a country to make up it's on specific rules. And the World Majority doesn't mind unless those specific rules violate the prime rule, which is: murder is bad. If X country says the murder of Y country is good, but the World Majority disagrees, then X country is in the wrong. Now it sounds like we're mixing objective morality and subjective morality. That can't be good!

It all comes back to the biggest Majority. Between two people, it goes to a 3rd person. To make a majority. between a 100 people, it goes to another dozen or so, to make a majority. Between nations it generally goes to the larger(so yes, you're China Proposal works in isolation, China vs One Other), across the globe it goes to the World Majority. China vs the World does not work. Actually my China scenario works in other ways as well because they will dominate in any one-off comparison. If China and India adopt similar perspectives, then almost 50% of the world's population is represented. If they decided that all anglo's need to be put to the sword, then based on your reasoning, such an act woudl be moral because it was held by the simple majority.

Right and wrong don't matter, only what the largest number of people agree upon. And that makes it correct. The largest number agrees China can be Communist, as long as everyone else gets to be what they want. But because the Communist views are held by so many, like Capitalisim, it diseminates over time. It is correct because so many people think it is. Interesting argument.

Hitler lost because more people thought he was wrong than right. So Hitler's actions were morally justified while he held the majority influence. Gotcha.

Murder is bad because more people think it's bad than good. Right and if that ever changes, then murder is morally justfied and not murdering will be immoral. I understand.

Religion is popular because more people think it's good than bad(we're talking about religion in general, if you get into specifics, you get into smaller majorities). Right, and in a few decade when islam outpaces christianity, we can look forward to knowing that islam is the one true religion and christianity is false.

The popular view is right because enough people to matter say so.Thank you for taking the time to articulate your argument. Take care.

Web Rider
09-07-2007, 06:52 PM
Ok, it sounds like you're acknowledging that it's not logical therefore not supportable or true. This at least gives us a common ground to work from.
The lack of a sound argument has yet to be the downfall of religion. I fail to see how this does not prove my point. Religion stays because it is popular.

So there's no other possible, rational, objective argument for why murder might be "bad"? It's only wrong because most people think so. I guess that begs the question as to how that argument ever got off the ground in the first place though. Any ideas?
Don't patronize me. Why murder is bad follows the simple Pain Examination. Murder is painful to the dead(proved by when it fails), and emotionally painful to non-dead related parties. I don't have to hold you're hand on this. If you can't figure out for yourself why the world has decided murder is bad, perhaps you shouldn't be discussing it.

Now it sounds like we're mixing objective morality and subjective morality. That can't be good!
welcome to real life.

Actually my China scenario works in other ways as well because they will dominate in any one-off comparison. If China and India adopt similar perspectives, then almost 50% of the world's population is represented. If they decided that all anglo's need to be put to the sword, then based on your reasoning, such an act woudl be moral because it was held by the simple majority.
If...IF! All you're ifs. What if this, what if that.

So Hitler's actions were morally justified while he held the majority influence. Gotcha.
yes, they were.

Right and if that ever changes, then murder is morally justfied and not murdering will be immoral. I understand.
correct

Right, and in a few decade when islam outpaces christianity, we can look forward to knowing that islam is the one true religion and christianity is false.
that is how it was before christianity. That is how it was before Islam, that is how it may be in the future.

Achilles
09-07-2007, 07:04 PM
So Hitler's actions were morally justified while he held the majority influence. Gotcha.yes, they were. I've seen all I need to. Thanks!

PoiuyWired
09-07-2007, 10:18 PM
^^ Godwin's Law aside, but its an unfortunate truth, since Truth seems to be non-objective and is little more than "what the majority (of the discussed area) thinks its right". The world(however you define it) is constantly changing, so did our views on things around us, and our view of what is good/acceptable and otherwise. This is based on our understand of things around us, granted, they can probably be marred by deliberate propagands and misinformation and what not.

So yes there is no "Objective Truth", but various versions of "Truth of The Day" succeeded one upon another. Its a matter of popularity contest between ideas, moral fashion trend.

And yes, like "Soup of The Day" that we all know and love, "Truth of The Day" seems to rotate around from time to time, cause people seems to get tired of an idea after a while. :)

SilentScope001
09-07-2007, 10:28 PM
You know, I'm seriously considering changing my ethical system from ethical relativism to moral majoritism! Thanks Web Rider. :)

Totenkopf
09-07-2007, 10:42 PM
The problem, ultimately, with moral objectivism is that it all comes down to your set of first principles. You can have an absolute set of objective morals, but so can the next guy. It all depends upon what foundation you build those morals. Logic merely flows from the principles in question, it doesn't create them.

Achilles
09-07-2007, 11:01 PM
^^ Godwin's Law aside, This Godwin's Law?
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/regarding_mussolini.png

but its an unfortunate truth, since Truth seems to be non-objective and is little more than "what the majority (of the discussed area) thinks its right". Sorry, since you used "truth" both objectively and subjectively there, I'm not able to follow your argument. Perhaps we'd be better off using "moral" and "immoral"?

The world(however you define it) is constantly changing, so did our views on things around us, and our view of what is good/acceptable and otherwise. Zeitgeist is one thing, but morality is another. Just because an act or thought or whatever was acceptable in a specific context at one point in time does not mean that it was moral.

So yes there is no "Objective Truth", How do you objectively defend that? If you can't, then it must be a subjective argument, which in turn would suggest that objective morality is possible. This line of reasoning is why moral relativism isn't supportable.

but various versions of "Truth of The Day" succeeded one upon another. Its a matter of popularity contest between ideas, moral fashion trend. Again, I suspect that we're taking liberties with "acceptable" vs. "moral".

Really, I thought that the Hitler argument would drive this point home and I'm genuinely shocked and amazed (and a little frightened) that it did not.

And yes, like "Soup of The Day" that we all know and love, "Truth of The Day" seems to rotate around from time to time, cause people seems to get tired of an idea after a while. Hmmm...well how do you feel about Web Rider's argument regarding murder (the part where he argued that it was objectively wrong, not the part where he argued that it was subjectively ok...or actually, which ever part you desire to comment on, now that I think about it).

SilentScope001
09-08-2007, 12:01 AM
How do you objectively defend that? If you can't, then it must be a subjective argument, which in turn would suggest that objective morality is possible. This line of reasoning is why moral relativism isn't supportable.

An objective truth must stand on its own merits. In other words, it cannot be questioned and must be universally accepted as true. That's why it is called "objective". As soon as someone is able to question that truth, then it is no longer objective.

So, if you make a statement, and if I question that statement, and if many other people question that statement, then that statement cannot be objective, because if it was objective, then why do people question it?

It is things like this that make ethical relativism defendable.

Really, I thought that the Hitler argument would drive this point home and I'm genuinely shocked and amazed (and a little frightened) that it did not.

Because if the Nazis won, then we as human beings would be horrified if someone claimed that the Jews were actually good, or that Communism is the right way to go.

Be glad that the National Socialists lost, but if the National Socialists won, truth as we know it will change and what would once appear as morally wrong would be seen as morally right and vice versa. That would be because the majority would be under the sway of Nazism, and not under the sway of Liberal Democracy. (As Poiuy said, Godwin's law aside, it's an unfortunate truth.)

Dagobahn Eagle
09-08-2007, 01:25 AM
We aren't alledging atheism of supporting moral relativism. In fact, only one person is defending moral relativism (me). Everyone else is condemning it in the most stringent of terms.The essay was in response to Jae's thread title and her satirical poem or song or whatever it was. She made it quite clear secularization was part of the subject.

Your essay has made me quite upset at atheism, since in the end, nothing really matters, nothing is really at stake.How on Earth did you manage to read such a statement out of my essay?

When in the end, it's just a battle between two groups wanting to dominate the human race, telling them "My way is right, your way is wrong", and nobody really campaging for freedom of thought...I despair.And this is supposed to be the reality of atheistic nations? Didn't I make it clear in the essay that secular nations like Finland and Norway top the Global Press Freedom Index?

First we have an idea.
Idea spreads.
Majority likes idea.-idea is popular
idea spreads more-more people like it
because so many people like it, it is thought of as correct.Ideas spread if they're good, and they are popular for a reason. You make it sound like new ideas are accepted just for the Heck of it.

Why do most people still think Al-Q'aida, and not Bush, was behind 9/11? Because the 'truth' movement has not been able to prove otherwise. Why do Christians no longer burn witches? Because they figured out it was a bad idea.

So yes there is no "Objective Truth"Yes, there is. Either something is true or it's not. 2+2=4. This is objective, demonstratable truth, regardless of how many people on Earth should choose to delude themselves that it's 5 or 2 or 11 or 89.

Web Rider
09-08-2007, 01:31 PM
Why do most people still think Al-Q'aida, and not Bush, was behind 9/11? Because the 'truth' movement has not been able to prove otherwise. Why do Christians no longer burn witches? Because they figured out it was a bad idea.

good and bad are relative. Slavery was popular and accepted for a long time, it was a "good" idea. And therefore spread because it was popular. Since Goodwin's already been invoked, lets continue with Hitler. Hitlers ideas spread because they were popular(and he subjugated enough people to warp the majority).

Witch burning was a bad idea from the start, however, Christians held power, so they said it was a good idea, and it was. They may have known it was a bad idea and the idea simply became popular.

If being a skinny slutty *female dog* a good idea for young girls? No, but that none-the-less prevents it from being a popular and wide-spread idea. So much so that society thinks it's a good idea.

see, ideas only need to be popular, not good ones. The Iraq war was "popular" among people who were decision makers. Was it a good idea? well, that depends on what result we get, so far, doesn't look like it.

SilentScope001
09-08-2007, 07:41 PM
The essay was in response to Jae's thread title and her satirical poem or song or whatever it was. She made it quite clear secularization was part of the subject.

Okay.

How on Earth did you manage to read such a statement out of my essay?

Because you state outright that secular nations are great and, after reading your article, realize that secular nations aren't that great. They seem boring.

And this is supposed to be the reality of atheistic nations? Didn't I make it clear in the essay that secular nations like Finland and Norway top the Global Press Freedom Index?

I am pointing to general trends here, as well as your attidue. Look here, freedom of speech means nothing unless you are able to articulate stuff and not get screamed down that you are wrong. We don't really have much freedom anywhere, to be perfectly honest. It's not about press freedom, it's about freedom to speech, to freely think, to freely criticize.

I'm sure people really are able to debate freely amongst themselves, but there are some things that cannot be discussed openly or be contradicited, like in this society. In other words, secular society is the same as any other society, which is why I despair. And both Finland and Norway do fund newspapers publically...so it does lead to questions of how indepedent they are...

Jae Onasi
09-08-2007, 11:32 PM
Now it sounds like we're mixing objective morality and subjective morality. That can't be good!
welcome to real life.
You either have objective morality or subjective morality. You can't have both, they're mutually exclusive. If you say subjective morality is right, then you're applying an absolute to that, and it's no longer relative.

So Hitler's actions were morally justified while he held the majority influence. Gotcha.
yes, they were.So if I chop a baby up in front of you and say that's OK because it's allowed in my culture, you'll say that it's OK to kill that baby? In some cultures, they say 'love your neighbor.' In some cultures, they eat them. Which do you prefer?

And this is supposed to be the reality of atheistic nations? Didn't I make it clear in the essay that secular nations like Finland and Norway top the Global Press Freedom Index?And the GPFI, which ranks how freely the press supposedly can get a story, as determined by journalists who are notoriously liberal, is a. unbiased and b. relevant to overall freedom?

Web Rider
09-09-2007, 02:51 AM
You either have objective morality or subjective morality. You can't have both, they're mutually exclusive. If you say subjective morality is right, then you're applying an absolute to that, and it's no longer relative.
why? I may have majority morality, but the world is not me and I'm not able to enforce my morality on the world, therefore it is accurate to say that real life represents a mix of objective, subjective, and every other kind of morality conceivable.

So if I chop a baby up in front of you and say that's OK because it's allowed in my culture, you'll say that it's OK to kill that baby? In some cultures, they say 'love your neighbor.' In some cultures, they eat them. Which do you prefer?
why must I choose? Since when has the world been my way or your way. According to everything I've professed, it depends on who you're surrounded by. If you're in my country following the majority-made rules, then no. If you're in any country where the rules say you cant, then it's wrong. if you're in a country that says you can, you can. If the world majority says you can't, then it's wrong.

I refuse to be drawn into these black and white questions you keep posing. I will not play "either or" or "yes" and "no".

Samuel Dravis
09-09-2007, 04:51 AM
APATHY IS DEATH!

:Dwhy? I may have majority morality, but the world is not me and I'm not able to enforce my morality on the world, therefore it is accurate to say that real life represents a mix of objective, subjective, and every other kind of morality conceivable.Not really. Objective means unchanging. There's nothing you've said that could possibly be an objective moral standard. If you consider the 'moral majority' to be an objective standard-- well, it's not, as the others have already demonstrated. Simply being incapable of enforcing your particular view of the world doesn't mean that you or anyone else is following an objective morality. It just means someone has a bigger stick than you and you'd rather keep on their good side.

why must I choose? Since when has the world been my way or your way. According to everything I've professed, it depends on who you're surrounded by. If you're in my country following the majority-made rules, then no. If you're in any country where the rules say you cant, then it's wrong. if you're in a country that says you can, you can. If the world majority says you can't, then it's wrong.Consider this idea, then: overall, the world treats women as a lower caste than men. Christianity is paternalistic, and that's 1/3 of the world population right there. At least another 1/5 is Muslim, etc. In fact, nearly ALL societies are paternalistic to some extent. Lip service to equality doesn't count; only actions are, or can be, moral. You can see where I'm going with this, can't you?

Now-- I want your answer to this. Do you consider treating women as a lower caste perfectly acceptable? Do you, indeed, follow the apparent world opinion on this subject, as you must? Note that I am not asking you to choose; you have already done that. I simply am interested in knowing what you've chosen.



You might say, "I live in the United States, we are above that kind of thing. The world's rules don't apply to my actions because the society I am in endorses them." If you do feel like saying that, please don't bother, because I will both call you on it and will explain in very simple terms why you are mistaken. Then, I will also ask you why, exactly, you consider your country as a collective above the rule of moral law - the totality of human conviction. After all, a country is only a free association of individuals, not a moral entity in its own right. The same goes for the society you live in; be careful not to anthropomorphize such entities. Only people have the capacity for moral action. Since this is so, people must judge their actions by the majority of all humans, not the local majority - otherwise, they'd be in danger of committing immoral acts.

Of course, all of this second part is completely hypothetical, because you will say that you treat women exactly as they should be treated. :)

Jae Onasi
09-09-2007, 09:09 AM
I will not play "either or" or "yes" and "no"
So it's either my way or your way? It's either yes/no or 'both'?

Relative/subjective morality is logically indefensible. You cannot be right and wrong at the same time.

Web Rider
09-09-2007, 02:04 PM
Now-- I want your answer to this. Do you consider treating women as a lower caste perfectly acceptable? Do you, indeed, follow the apparent world opinion on this subject, as you must? Note that I am not asking you to choose; you have already done that. I simply am interested in knowing what you've chosen.

Thinking and believing something is irrelevant. Professing it is all that matters. And the majority of people who stand up and profess things, they profess equality. Regardless of what their beliefs tell them to profess or what the religion of their choice professes.

Does the majority of people who get up on the world stage and say things say women should be second class citizens, regardless of their actions at home? Not to mention that simply painting every christian as a woman-oppressing man is stupid for a: about 50% of all christians ARE women, and many christian men treat women as equals.

Furhtermore I stated earlier, in relation to you're US example, that the world has set forth the precedent of opinion that unless a soverign nation is explicitly doing something that is adversly affecting another soverign nation or the world, then what it's doing is generally OK.

Thus I CAN claim that in the US we do things differently, or at least we claim to do so. Because the world majority, which outranks any other majority, has said it's okay for us to do that within our borders. ie: to form smaller majorities on subjects and make our own decisions.

Initially I think you're idea is flawed because ALL christians don't treat women like second-class citizens, and ALL muslims, while usually subscribing to the idea that women are to be subservient to men, do not all unanimously agree to that. Furthermore, there are still atheists to be considered, Buddhists, non-denominational spiritualists, wiccans, and so on on the subject.

The world, yes, finds it OK when women are treated as subservient as long as they are treated well when doing so. To that much I agree is acceptable. However the world also says that IF you want to treat women as equals or betters, then you are welcome to do that as well, hence my ability to claim that so long as I reside in the US, it is not OK for me to treat women as subservient, even if the world says it's OK to do so, because the world has also given my country the ability to choose to be different.

Samuel Dravis
09-09-2007, 03:01 PM
Thinking and believing something is irrelevant. Professing it is all that matters. And the majority of people who stand up and profess things, they profess equality. Regardless of what their beliefs tell them to profess or what the religion of their choice professes.Quite. And I am saying that the majority acts in a way that is paternalistic towards women, and some core beliefs reinforce that. What people say they do is really quite irrelevant.

Does the majority of people who get up on the world stage and say things say women should be second class citizens, regardless of their actions at home?

[quote]Not to mention that simply painting every christian as a woman-oppressing man is stupid for a: about 50% of all christians ARE women, and many christian men treat women as equals.No, I didn't say they were necessarily as strong as oppressive. I meant their actions betray an opinion that men know better, or should have more power than women.

Furhtermore I stated earlier, in relation to you're US example, that the world has set forth the precedent of opinion that unless a soverign nation is explicitly doing something that is adversly affecting another soverign nation or the world, then what it's doing is generally OK.

Thus I CAN claim that in the US we do things differently, or at least we claim to do so. Because the world majority, which outranks any other majority, has said it's okay for us to do that within our borders. ie: to form smaller majorities on subjects and make our own decisions.Not making a decision on or not being able to enforce said decision on an action does not constitute saying "ok" to it. Countries have armies specifically to stop others imposing their moral values - even if that idea happens to be in the majority. The Cold War was all about that.

I myself do not find it acceptable for other countries to allow human trafficking, but I can't do (much) about it since I lack the power. If you looked at all the people in the United States to see if they condoned it, I venture they wouldn't. The same with the world population - I'm fairly sure they do not like it either. However, sovereignty prevents them from acting on that conviction because we're afraid of the stick. So, I say that not being willing to go to war over an issue hardly equates to "hey do your thing man, more power to you!"

Initially I think you're idea is flawed because ALL christians don't treat women like second-class citizens, and ALL muslims, while usually subscribing to the idea that women are to be subservient to men, do not all unanimously agree to that. Furthermore, there are still atheists to be considered, Buddhists, non-denominational spiritualists, wiccans, and so on on the subject. Sure, I agree that all do not necessarily have to treat women really badly. But I think that a majority treats them differently and that that difference is not explained by physical ability.

The world, yes, finds it OK when women are treated as subservient as long as they are treated well when doing so. To that much I agree is acceptable. However the world also says that IF you want to treat women as equals or betters, then you are welcome to do that as well, hence my ability to claim that so long as I reside in the US, it is not OK for me to treat women as subservient, even if the world says it's OK to do so, because the world has also given my country the ability to choose to be different.But I've told you already, local societies cannot be the measure of morality, so while your local society may think it is acceptable for you to act in this way, you are actually being immoral. If you looked at people one by one from everywhere, found what they do on the subject, and implemented it, you should be treating women like the total majority, should you not? Only in this way will you join the ranks of the righteous.

Web Rider
09-09-2007, 04:34 PM
Sure, I agree that all do not necessarily have to treat women really badly. But I think that a majority treats them differently and that that difference is not explained by physical ability.

You said "lesser" before, now you say "differently". I DO think there are reasons that women should be treated differently, in certain contexts. And much as feminism would like you to believe that women and men are 100% the same in every way except genitals, it's not true. The way and rate at which women build muscle and store fat is different then men. If you run a man and woman through a massive workout program over a couple years, the man WILL come out with more muscle mass. In 9/10 jobs, no, I don't think that there's going to be any performance differences, but many of the jobs in the past required sheer muscle work, and women didn't perform as well in those roles, and that's when the idea was formed.

But I've told you already, local societies cannot be the measure of morality, so while your local society may think it is acceptable for you to act in this way, you are actually being immoral. If you looked at people one by one from everywhere, found what they do on the subject, and implemented it, you should be treating women like the total majority, should you not? Only in this way will you join the ranks of the righteous.

Of course, if I could get everybody's opinion on every subject I'd also be able to develop a perfect world because all opinions on all subjects would be taken into account.

But here we run into the Socratic infinite time for infinite possibilities.

Samuel Dravis
09-09-2007, 05:07 PM
You said "lesser" before, now you say "differently". I DO think there are reasons that women should be treated differently, in certain contexts. And much as feminism would like you to believe that women and men are 100% the same in every way except genitals, it's not true. The way and rate at which women build muscle and store fat is different then men. If you run a man and woman through a massive workout program over a couple years, the man WILL come out with more muscle mass. In 9/10 jobs, no, I don't think that there's going to be any performance differences, but many of the jobs in the past required sheer muscle work, and women didn't perform as well in those roles, and that's when the idea was formed.Right, which is exactly why I said that "this difference [in treatment] is not explained by physical abililty." So, while I do find there is differences between the genders, women are not treated the same when they can be; i.e., in fact, according to popular opinion on what is good, they are treated less well. The question is: do you treat them well or do you treat them as they should be treated?

Of course, if I could get everybody's opinion on every subject I'd also be able to develop a perfect world because all opinions on all subjects would be taken into account.

But here we run into the Socratic infinite time for infinite possibilities.Are you saying that you will not put forth the effort to find out what the general idea is throughout the world, or that you don't care, or that it's impossible to ever find out?

Statistics is a very good way of determining the majority opinion without actually polling every single person. I would say it's quite possible to determine what the majority thinks about the treatment of women.

SilentScope001
09-09-2007, 05:43 PM
In defense of WebRider...

Samuel Dravis: ...Why not ask the women? If the majority of women believe that they are being oppressed and that the males are merely paying lip service, then that would be true within that majority and if Web Rider consider himself a friend of womenkind, he must side with said truth. If the majority of women believe in the oppsoite, that they are being treated fairly or even better off than they are before, then that is true for within that subgroup...and if you still manitan that women are being oppressed even when the women do not believe that they are being oppressed, um...er...I'm going to have to discount that. :)

Lip service is basically the only real way we can determine what a person believe. It may be true that a person can be a hypocrite, but it is usually harder to evaulate if an action supports or is against something, and I am sure that the person you are accusing of being anti-Woman does not see himself as anti-Woman...so it really goes down to "Who do we trust? Samuel Dravis or That Other Guy?" What if your rhetoric is really "lip service" to womankind, what if you are just a mysgonist as that other guy and you are hiding it? Better off just to listen to Lip Service instead of trying to figure out what people 'really' believe.

I could claim that the Democrats really are actually pro-Bush, they just don't know they are pro-Bush but secretly, deep down, they really are, adopting many of Bush's policies and often times choosing the same stuff Bush do. They even eat the same preztels as Bush! But that'll just me laughed out of the Democrats' meeting...if not lynched. :)

Web Rider
09-09-2007, 06:17 PM
Right, which is exactly why I said that "this difference [in treatment] is not explained by physical abililty." So, while I do find there is differences between the genders, women are not treated the same when they can be; i.e., in fact, according to popular opinion on what is good, they are treated less well. The question is: do you treat them well or do you treat them as they should be treated?
I think you missed what I said. The difference in treatment in most situations, yes, is not explained by physical ability. However, it IS explained by physical ability based on the jobs 2000 years ago. I treat women as they should be treated, as human beings.

Are you saying that you will not put forth the effort to find out what the general idea is throughout the world, or that you don't care, or that it's impossible to ever find out?
I said it's impossible to get every opinion, not the "general opinion", but then I'm really only finding out what the people who bother to stand up and be counted think.

Statistics is a very good way of determining the majority opinion without actually polling every single person. I would say it's quite possible to determine what the majority thinks about the treatment of women.
No, really they're not.

Samuel Dravis
09-09-2007, 06:34 PM
I think you missed what I said. The difference in treatment in most situations, yes, is not explained by physical ability. However, it IS explained by physical ability based on the jobs 2000 years ago. I treat women as they should be treated, as human beings.And I say that if the majority opinion says they shouldn't be treated as these "human beings," then they should not. Don't you agree?

I said it's impossible to get every opinion, not the "general opinion", but then I'm really only finding out what the people who bother to stand up and be counted think.So, you don't care to find out what the majority opinion is, just whoever the most vocal subgroup is. I see.

No, really they're not.In what way do you think statistics is flawed? The metadata created by statistics is a direct result of the data input. Unless you feed in bad information, I honestly can't think of a way to make statistical information false. I can see how people would believe that, given that stats is often used in a way that makes it seem to say something it does not - however, if the methodology is good, it cannot provide false information.

Web Rider
09-09-2007, 06:40 PM
And I say that if the majority opinion says they shouldn't be treated as these "human beings," then they should not. Don't you agree?
yes, but it doesn't. /end

So, you don't care to find out what the majority opinion is, just whoever the most vocal subgroup is. I see.
Opinions only matter if people voice them. Otherwise, they're opinion will have no affect on the world, and thus, not matter. And no, I'm not looking for subgroups, only willing donors of their opinion. I ask: what's you're opinion on X? and if they choose not to tell, then their opinion does not count.

In what way do you think statistics is flawed? The metadata created by statistics is a direct result of the data input. Unless you feed in bad information, I honestly can't think of a way to make statistical information false. I can see how people would believe that, given that stats is often used in a way that makes it seem to say something it does not - however, if the methodology is good, it cannot provide false information.
Because generally any statistic conducuted on any subjective subject is done so by a subjective party, who either asks the "right questions" or asks only certain people.

If you only ask the people of San Fran if gay marriage should be legalized, it would be. Now, try asking 10% of every state for it's opinion, to get even the most VAGUE opinion of what the US thinks. Imagine extending that to the world.

Do you see now why I don't trust statistics? There is too much variation even in an area the size of California to be able to say that you could use a survey from X state and apply it to the country, or X country and apply it to the world.

Samuel Dravis
09-09-2007, 07:13 PM
yes, but it doesn't. /endStrange, then, that they appear to be treated less favorably than men.

Opinions only matter if people voice them. Otherwise, they're opinion will have no affect on the world, and thus, not matter. And no, I'm not looking for subgroups, only willing donors of their opinion. I ask: what's you're opinion on X? and if they choose not to tell, then their opinion does not count.Do actions count as opinion? Because I would say that they are much better judges of a person's moral ideas than any pontificating. If they do count, then, people hardly would have to explicitly state their opinion in order to give it.


Because generally any statistic conducuted on any subjective subject is done so by a subjective party, who either asks the "right questions" or asks only certain people.Which is why I explicitly stated nonbiased methodology as a requirement.

If you only ask the people of San Fran if gay marriage should be legalized, it would be. Now, try asking 10% of every state for it's opinion, to get even the most VAGUE opinion of what the US thinks. Imagine extending that to the world.

Do you see now why I don't trust statistics? There is too much variation even in an area the size of California to be able to say that you could use a survey from X state and apply it to the country, or X country and apply it to the world.Not trusting statistics in general is quite different from not trusting a particular methodology. The first is, in my view, insane. The second is quite reasonable. I note that polls conducted to estimate the next president are quite accurate, even considering local populations, to within a few percentage points (pdf (http://www.hhh.umn.edu/img/assets/19781/traugott.pdf)). Is there a particular reason you think that similar accuracies are not feasible with other countries?


In defense of WebRider...

Samuel Dravis: ...Why not ask the women? If the majority of women believe that they are being oppressed and that the males are merely paying lip service, then that would be true within that majority and if Web Rider consider himself a friend of womenkind, he must side with said truth. If the majority of women believe in the oppsoite, that they are being treated fairly or even better off than they are before, then that is true for within that subgroup...and if you still manitan that women are being oppressed even when the women do not believe that they are being oppressed, um...er...I'm going to have to discount that. :)Why do you think women's opinions count more than any other moral being? The very premise of Webrider's argument is that the totality of human opinion is moral.

Lip service is basically the only real way we can determine what a person believe. It may be true that a person can be a hypocrite, but it is usually harder to evaulate if an action supports or is against something, and I am sure that the person you are accusing of being anti-Woman does not see himself as anti-Woman...so it really goes down to "Who do we trust? Samuel Dravis or That Other Guy?" What if your rhetoric is really "lip service" to womankind, what if you are just a mysgonist as that other guy and you are hiding it? Better off just to listen to Lip Service instead of trying to figure out what people 'really' believe.We can evaluate actions based on what the majority thinks is good. Thus, better paying jobs are good, and less paying jobs are bad. If it's the same job, then clearly the one that pays more is better. Thus, if someone does not give the same amount to a woman who is capable of the job, then they are being descriminatory. Whether this type of discrimination is moral or not is the question that I ask Webrider to answer, with his actions. :)

SilentScope001
09-09-2007, 11:59 PM
As per the Second database melt-down, I'm going to have to repost something I typed up...

Why do you think women's opinions count more than any other moral being? The very premise of Webrider's argument is that the totality of human opinion is moral.

Womankind composes of 50-51% of the human race. If they are totally united against mankind, then it will lead to a 50-50 division between those who think women are being oppressed (women) and those who think women are being treated fairly (men), and due to the fact that we really need a supermajority to agree on something for it to be true rather than a regural majority, the entire issue is at stake and we do not know what is morally right or not. Assuming that there will be a large splinter group of men that will go and ally with the women (and a smaller splinter group of women that will go and ally with the men), we'll push that 50-50 to say 65-25, turning the views of womenkind into absolute truth.

We need to take into account both the women's as well as the men's views as well in order to determine what the majority of the human race believes in.

We can evaluate actions based on what the majority thinks is good. Thus, better paying jobs are good, and less paying jobs are bad. If it's the same job, then clearly the one that pays more is better.

Not really. Higher paying jobs may come up with higher stress and more demands than a lower paying job. And how do you define "higher paying"? In monetary means, or more in beniefts as well, such as materinty leave? Women get maternity leave, men probraly don't.

Thus, if someone does not give the same amount to a woman who is capable of the job, then they are being descriminatory. Whether this type of discrimination is moral or not is the question that I ask Webrider to answer, with his actions.

Problem is that, while stats do show that women get paid 80 cents on the dollar that each man makes, well, where I work, my boss does pay equal wages. We'll probraly need some sort of research to determine how many people are actually paying lower wages, do a headcount. Since such a thing may be illegal, a person would be likely to hide his behavior very well or argue that it is mere concidence that Mr. Bob is better at his work than Ms. Smith, and so Mr. Bob gets paid more regardless of gender (and it may be true).

Basically, I'd like a headcount to see how many people do pay lesser wages to women and how many people do pay higher or equal wages to women. Once we can determine that, then we have to ask why. Are they doing it purely for discrimantory reasons based soley on gender...or are they doing it for purely business reasons (they want to save money)...or if the men really do concidentally outperform the women? If it turns out that the people who are paying lesser wages are in the minority, or if they are in the majority, but the reasons WHY they are doing it splinters the group into several minorites, then the Equality group can prevail as the only group that remains...at least fairly united.

Basically, we don't have enough stats to make a clear desicion on the issue and anything we say is nothing more than baseless speculation. (I do agree that stats are pretty accurate, but let be honest, the research project I am speculating is nigh-ho impossible to do due to its high costs.) But let assume all that is true, that there is a majority against paying equal wages and they all agree it is based on discrimnation...then should a business owner morally pay less or not?

Then, EVEN THEN, the businessperson may have to follow the largest majority. It is expected that businesspeople make profits and that the businesspeople also have high employee morale in order to ensure that profits be made. By having wages for women be too low or discrimantory, the women may be angry and react violently via lawsuits or just quitting the job, thereby hurting the bottom line. So even though there may be a majority in support of discrimination, there is also a bigger majority in support of keeping profits and employee morale high, and in the end, this allows the businessperson to decide what majority to support: either the majority of paying equal wages to ensure employee morale or the majority of paying unequal wages for various reasons, mostly, discrimnatory reasons. In the end, he may side with the larger majority (equal wages).

Good thing I usually don't have to think out these stuff on a day-to-day basis, due to my pretty simple theory. :p

Totenkopf
09-10-2007, 12:14 AM
But I've told you already, local societies cannot be the measure of morality, so while your local society may think it is acceptable for you to act in this way, you are actually being immoral. If you looked at people one by one from everywhere, found what they do on the subject, and implemented it, you should be treating women like the total majority, should you not? Only in this way will you join the ranks of the righteous.

Nice soapbox, dude. ;)

Ray Jones
09-10-2007, 09:27 AM
Right and wrong don't matter, only what the largest number of people agree upon. And that makes it correct. Does that mean that, 2000 years ago, earth was really a plate?

Hitler lost because more people thought he was wrong than right.No he lost because he was stupid enough to incite conflicts on all fronts at once, which logistically and resource-wise a no-no. Hitler lost due to tactical and strategic mistakes, not because he was wrong.

Murder is bad because more people think it's bad than good.No. Murder is bad because (objective) morality says so.

SilentScope001
09-10-2007, 09:45 AM
No he lost because he was stupid enough to incite conflicts on all fronts at once, which logistically and resource-wise a no-no. Hitler lost due to tactical and strategic mistakes, not because he was wrong.

No, he lost because basically more NATIONS attacked him than he had allies. If, say, every single person on Earth believed that Nazisim was right, Germany would have no need for pulling off WWII.

Basically, Germany made tactical errors, but all those errors meant nothing if he had nobody fighting him. There were millions of people against them, and that is why Germany lost.

No. Murder is bad because (objective) morality says so.

Prove it. We can't accept whatever people say just because they say it.

SilentScope001
09-11-2007, 07:27 PM
I have some bad feelings that all of Web Riders/Achilles' discussion and Samuel Dravis' post was deleted in the DB Terror Attack.

Don't worry, Samuel I read it, so no need to repost it. Altough I don't remember much of it, I do understand what you say.

1) I do care what people say and not what people do, only because I find it impratical to claim that certain actions can support or not support an idea. Actions, standing by itself, without any sort of justification or explaination, does not seem to mean anything. Murder is wrong, but states and nations do it anyway, but it is not moral to murder because the states and the nations provide justifications for certain types of murders and condemn other murders. If you don't listen to the justifications, then you would only see people dying, and that would showcase a moral picture that is much different than if you account for the justifications.

We do reach an impasse on this issue, however, and I think we probraly won't budge on it. Oh well. At least we learn about each other's values.

2) Assuming that you are right, then your comment that statements are actions, then it is said that it is moral to offer lip service and to claim and totally support equality. However, if you say is true that they don't do actions that support equality, then maybe they are just being hypocrites. Maybe they are not totally thinking about their actions, not knowing that they are wrong, or that that they are listening to the rhetoric. So, it may be right to pull off the higher payments of wages or treat them with other ways of equality, but people don't know it yet. Maybe all it takes is a "immoral" person, who is in fact moral but the majority doesn't know it, to go and convince the "moral" people that they are in fact not fully being moral, and then therefore cause them to evovle their morality to be more in support of equality.

3) Going against the majority, committing an immoral act, is immoral, but that doesn't mean you can't do it. One thing that is interesting about secular ethical theories is that you won't get punished if you commit immoral stuff. There is no Kantian lighting bolt that will strike you if you lie. In fact, without people being immoral, society won't progress at all. If people were all totally moral and good, then slavery would still exist, there would be no discussion over equality, and we'd probraly wouldn't have all those nations and schisms in the first place. In fact, I would consider that Web Rider is in fact committing an immoral act right now, by preaching moral majoritism when it is possible that a majority of people disagree with moral majoritism. In which case, I'm okay with people knowingly choosing to do an immoral action, like paying equal wages to men and women. Why they would do so may be for moral reasons though (keeping women happy, increasing profits and employee morale, sastifiying their own superego, etc.).

4) I'd suppose that if "good" is subjective, as in "good wages", then so would treatment of women in general, not just in terms of monetary wages. It does make it hard to prove anything, either for me or against me, since we are dealing with subjectivie values. Still, it's only a minor point.

Jae Onasi
09-11-2007, 10:00 PM
In defense of WebRider...
Samuel Dravis: ...Why not ask the women?

Let's see--pay inequality, social inequity, occupational inequality, wife abuse being viewed as acceptable in the majority of the world, girls being treated as chattel, women in some parts of the world being burned alive for not bringing enough dowry to a marriage, inadequate maternity leave, inequitable health care in large parts of the world, rape, forced female 'circumcision', education of girls/women being a punishable offense under the Taliban.... Yup, we women believe that's acceptable. Not.

Totenkopf
09-11-2007, 10:20 PM
Let's see--pay inequality, social inequity, occupational inequality, wife abuse being viewed as acceptable in the majority of the world, girls being treated as chattel, women in some parts of the world being burned alive for not bringing enough dowry to a marriage, inadequate maternity leave, inequitable health care in large parts of the world, rape, forced female 'circumcision', education of girls/women being a punishable offense under the Taliban.... Yup, we women believe that's acceptable. Not.


Nahhh.....you're just saying that b/c you're a spoiled western woman. :xp::D

SilentScope001
09-11-2007, 10:22 PM
Let's see--pay inequality, social inequity, occupational inequality, wife abuse being viewed as acceptable in the majority of the world, girls being treated as chattel, women in some parts of the world being burned alive for not bringing enough dowry to a marriage, inadequate maternity leave, inequitable health care in large parts of the world, rape, forced female 'circumcision', education of girls/women being a punishable offense under the Taliban.... Yup, we women believe that's acceptable. Not.

I was doing it to refute Samuel Dravis' view that moral majoritism meant that female/male inequalities are morally acceptable due to actions, claiming that moral majoritism can mean the opposite.

If what you claim is true, that all women are united against this, and note that this is a pretty broad declaration and generalization you are making, then it does lead to the delimma of 50-50, if men remain united for inequality and women remain united against inequality. Only when you get the male splinters (like Samuel Dravis) to go and support the women can you finally push yourself into the majority and get the necessary political and social power to change the things that you dislike the most, and you reach the supermajority needed to claim that to oppose you would be immoral.

Jae Onasi
09-11-2007, 10:39 PM
Actually, it's something like women 51%, men 49%--men have a lower life expectancy than women, so women have a majority because more of us survive longer.


Nahhh.....you're just saying that b/c you're a spoiled western woman.
Of course I am. However, that doesn't make any difference. :D

Ray Jones
09-12-2007, 03:40 AM
If people were all totally moral and good, then slavery would still existSlavery is moral?!

there would be no discussion over equality, and we'd probraly wouldn't have all those nations and schisms in the first placeThat connects to morality how?

n which case, I'm okay with people knowingly choosing to do an immoral action, like paying equal wages to men and women.Same job, same money, how's that immoral?

Why they would do so may be for moral reasons though (keeping women happy, increasing profits and employee morale, sastifiying their own superego, etc.Since these reasons are mainly of selfish nature, I'd find it hard to attach the label "moral" to it.

SilentScope001
09-12-2007, 12:00 PM
Actually, it's something like women 51%, men 49%--men have a lower life expectancy than women, so women have a majority because more of us survive longer.

So you win. :)

But I doubt Samuel Dravis will approve. He'll ask what sort of actions you are doing to actually promote something. He doesn't want talk, he wants actions, and if he feels that the majority of women aren't doing anything to contest the inequality, then he'll argue that prehaps the women are consenting to this sort of thing. Disprove it, will you? ;)

Slavery is moral?!

That connects to morality how?

Same job, same money, how's that immoral?

Since these reasons are mainly of selfish nature, I'd find it hard to attach the label "moral" to it.

Uh. Please read what Sameul Dravis and I was talking about.

We were talking about how society would work if we define morality as "whatever the majority folk say", in other words, moral majoritism, assuming that is moral. I don't want people screaming that the system is wrong when we are already assuming the system is right and we are drawing conclusions about it, like the fact that you can be immoral.

Don't just read an article and start drawing conclusions about my moral system when in fact I was not defending my moral system, I was defending someone elses'. I'd request you read back on what Samuel Dravis and I was debating, at least for common denecy, so that you know why I was stating what I was stating. All my positons were purely HYPOTEHTICAL. Er...

The moral system does sound reasonable, since if you go against the majority, they will smash you into itty bitty bits. If you are against slavery and the rest of society is for it, you will be ridiculed and hated for doing such a thing. Want to suffer the consquences? Do it. But why? Possibly to support something else that the majority agrees in...or maybe it is due to your own hidden desires.

And, Ray Jones...Why shouldn't you support your own self rather than support something else? You need a reason to support something and that reason is likely to be connected to your own self anyway. Also: the Superego is the most "selfless" of the reasons I mention here, the superego is the consience, it is the one that represents society and its view of right and wrong. (Morality is what is right and what is wrong, there is nothing special about it.)

Jae Onasi
09-13-2007, 05:50 PM
OK, this is sort of straying into a late-Classical through Renaissance History of Science and History of the Crusades. If one of you would like to start a thread on historical contributions of religion to science and medicine, that would be fine (history of science and medicine being one of my favorites). If not, I might after I get back from youth group drama practice/dinner later tonight and split off the relevant posts. Otherwise, we should move back on topic.

Ray Jones
09-13-2007, 06:15 PM
Hm, I think it originated from my comment that thousand years ago religion had more if not almost total control, and they weren't doing better than the modern world "suffering" from secularisation. My point is, with positives and negatives on all sides, it is (was) often the fact that religious institutions "collided" with discoveries or inventions of whoever, regardless if religious or not.

Achilles
09-13-2007, 06:23 PM
...and I've been waiting since post 3 to find out how moral relativism relates to secularism.

Ray Jones
09-13-2007, 06:24 PM
Maybe that is the answer exactly.

Jae Onasi
09-13-2007, 10:48 PM
...and I've been waiting since post 3 to find out how moral relativism relates to secularism.

Secularization has pushed religion out of the public arena and into the private, and essentially made all religions and moral systems 'equivalent' in the minds of many (note I did not say 'all'. However, it's a prevalent belief). With many people considering all faiths, or the lack thereof, to be equally valid, a situation is set up were all moral systems are now considered valid. If every moral system is equally valid, there is no definitive moral standard and everything is relative.

@Ray--the only major 'collision' so far has been the incident with Galileo, and in that case it was the Church clinging to an incorrect view that had nothing to do what the Bible says about heliocentrism/geocentrism (which is pretty much nothing). Evolution could arguably be another collision, however, Darwin was a theist and wasn't intending to dismantle religion with his theory.

Samuel Dravis
09-13-2007, 11:31 PM
I have some bad feelings that all of Web Riders/Achilles' discussion and Samuel Dravis' post was deleted in the DB Terror Attack.

Don't worry, Samuel I read it, so no need to repost it. Altough I don't remember much of it, I do understand what you say.Yes, that is kind of annoying. Fortunately, I have a copy of it and the rest of the page on my computer; if anyone wants the page just PM me. I don't want to repost it when it's so far from the discussion.

2) Assuming that you are right, then your comment that statements are actions, then it is said that it is moral to offer lip service and to claim and totally support equality. However, if you say is true that they don't do actions that support equality, then maybe they are just being hypocrites. Maybe they are not totally thinking about their actions, not knowing that they are wrong, or that that they are listening to the rhetoric. So, it may be right to pull off the higher payments of wages or treat them with other ways of equality, but people don't know it yet. Maybe all it takes is a "immoral" person, who is in fact moral but the majority doesn't know it, to go and convince the "moral" people that they are in fact not fully being moral, and then therefore cause them to evovle their morality to be more in support of equality.

3) Going against the majority, committing an immoral act, is immoral, but that doesn't mean you can't do it. One thing that is interesting about secular ethical theories is that you won't get punished if you commit immoral stuff. There is no Kantian lighting bolt that will strike you if you lie. In fact, without people being immoral, society won't progress at all. If people were all totally moral and good, then slavery would still exist, there would be no discussion over equality, and we'd probraly wouldn't have all those nations and schisms in the first place. In fact, I would consider that Web Rider is in fact committing an immoral act right now, by preaching moral majoritism when it is possible that a majority of people disagree with moral majoritism. In which case, I'm okay with people knowingly choosing to do an immoral action, like paying equal wages to men and women. Why they would do so may be for moral reasons though (keeping women happy, increasing profits and employee morale, sastifiying their own superego, etc.).What I was trying to get out of Web Rider was whether he was a hypocrite or not. I take it he treats women well and I suppose I have my answer, or at least as much as I'm likely to get.

I've talked about the static society that a relative morality would create that you write of here before in the Senate; if you'd like to look it's in the "New Abortion Thread" IIRC.

Given that morality is defined as the majority opinion, there can be no 'moral' minority opinion. Still, as you say, most of society doesn't seem to agree with this idea of morality that we've been talking about here. Since this is true, I think few would like to be doing whatever the absolutists tell them to do, following them around like a dog on a leash. Still, if you disagree with the majority then you must be disagreeing with the moral view. If you're going to do that, then why not just say you're going to do whatever you want to and skip the justification part.

1) I do care what people say and not what people do, only because I find it impratical to claim that certain actions can support or not support an idea. Actions, standing by itself, without any sort of justification or explaination, does not seem to mean anything. Murder is wrong, but states and nations do it anyway, but it is not moral to murder because the states and the nations provide justifications for certain types of murders and condemn other murders. If you don't listen to the justifications, then you would only see people dying, and that would showcase a moral picture that is much different than if you account for the justifications.Actions in context should be a good resource for discovering the reasons people do things. In the context of your murderer example, we find that the actions of a murderer correspond with a particular action by the government. It is easy to guess just from that that the people do not like murderers, so we shouldn't either.

The reason I say, "Show me that your actions fit your words!" is the same reason you said to Ray:Prove it. We can't accept whatever people say just because they say it.And we can't, really. If I said that a while back I went out and protested against Kenneth Foster being executed for a crime he manifestly did not commit, I would be lying. Fortunately he got his sentence commuted, no thanks to myself. However, this protesting I would be lying about is something that you might expect from me; it is something that on the face of it seems true. But it is not, is it? Words are very nice, yes, useful, yes-- but they are not always based in reality. In a very real sense, I personally consented to have Kenneth Foster killed. Murdered, even. My public opinion, my words, the respect for life that I like to think I have - that meant nothing. That's why I don't trust words; they lie, they cheat, they steal the will to act away from you. They describe visions of a false reality, where everything is nice and neat and polished, where you can be morally upright even if you do nothing. They let you tell yourself, "I am a good person" so you never have to examine your actions to see if they are actually correspond to what you say. I am not the person I like to think I am. I don't know if I will ever be that person, but as long as I know that there is this disconnect between my views and my actions, I can change myself. I can work towards being who and what I really want myself to be, whether that be towards this relative morality or an absolute one.

To say that we should simply trust people and not validate how their actions correspond with their words is...insane. It's like a little child putting a cloth over her eyes and saying, "You can't see me!" But we do see, don't we? We know. We are responsible. That same responsibility means that we can't just say, "No, I can't see you" and laugh it off - we have to find out what people believe to the best of our ability and (in this case) use that as our moral compass. If people looked at me, what would they think of my actions in Kenneth Foster's case? Perhaps they'd think that someone's life wasn't important enough for me to get off my ass. You know what? I can't refute that, and I am deeply ashamed I didn't do something when it would have counted. But these words here wouldn't have saved his life, would they? They certainly don't do a damn thing now.

Achilles
09-14-2007, 12:03 AM
Secularization has pushed religion out of the public arena and into the private, and essentially made all religions and moral systems 'equivalent' in the minds of many (note I did not say 'all'. However, it's a prevalent belief). Hmmm...how?

With many people considering all faiths, or the lack thereof, to be equally valid, a situation is set up were all moral systems are now considered valid. Awfully big leap in reasoning. Do you have anything to support this?

Seems to be the quickest way around this problem would be to find some way to objectively determine that one set of beliefs really was superior to others, don't you think?

If every moral system is equally valid, there is no definitive moral standard and everything is relative. I agree. Luckily, not every moral system is equally valid. Some are better than others with objective moral systems being the best.

Here's a counter argument for you to ponder:

Multiple religions, all equally supportable and equally valid, all claiming to have access to absolute truths. These truths contradict themselves, as well as each other, to varying degrees.

Which school of thought is "more guilty" of promoting moral relativism: privatized subjective beliefs or the subjective beliefs themselves all claiming to the "real truth"?

So going back to my point in post three, I'm not sure how your (or the author of that not-very-well-thought-out poem) characterization of secularism being the cause of moral relativity is either accurate or supportable.

Jae Onasi
09-14-2007, 12:52 AM
Hmmm...how?

Awfully big leap in reasoning. Do you have anything to support this?
It's simply an observation. I never said I believed it, however I agree for the most part with what your saying (barring your beliefs on Christianity). How many people have you talked to who think Islam is the same as Christianity is the same as Buddhism is the same as New Ageism is the same as Philosophy-du-jour? It's almost as if people are afraid to say they believe in anything for fear of offending someone.


Which school of thought is "more guilty" of promoting moral relativism: privatized subjective beliefs or the subjective beliefs themselves all claiming to the "real truth"?

I don't think most people appreciate the difference, do you? And to be honest, would it make a difference if the end result is the same for most people? In any case, those of us who participate in a given religion obviously don't generally think our religious views are relative (if someone ever gives that kind of thing a thought to begin with). Your view that Christianity is just as relative as any other religion does not make a difference in how I view Christianity as bearing Truth.

So going back to my point in post three, I'm not sure how your (or the author of that not-very-well-thought-out poem) characterization of secularism being the cause of moral relativity is either accurate or supportable.
They're co-contributers to moral decline--with religion out of the picture, everything is OK, nothing is wrong, do whatever feels good as long as you don't hurt anyone (depending on your definitions of 'feels good' and 'hurt', which are now relative) and we're all going to hell in a handbasket because we no longer know if up is down, East is West, or good is bad or bad is good, and polls determine how we should think, feel, and vote. America is filled with people who act like mullets--brightly colored clueless fish that travel in large schools, following each other around aimlessly with no discernible leader, just going where the waves happen to take them next. Note that I am most certainly not saying anyone here is a mullet--whether we all agree with each other or not, we've at least thought about some of these issues now and then and not abdicated our decision-making on morality to whatever the talking heads deem 'good' or 'bad' this week, as so many have.

Achilles
09-14-2007, 01:26 AM
It's simply an observation. I never said I believed it, however I agree for the most part with what your saying (barring your beliefs on Christianity). Oh, so you started a thread about the affects of secularization and moral relativism, but you agree that they aren't related? Sorry, that wasn't clear before, so I was confused.

How many people have you talked to who think Islam is the same as Christianity is the same as Buddhism is the same as New Ageism is the same as Philosophy-du-jour? I honestly cannot recall ever speaking to anyone that thought this.

It's almost as if people are afraid to say they believe in anything for fear of offending someone. I'm sure that we could probably accurately assume that n>1. In other words, I'm sure that if we looked long enough we could probably find a few people that really do this.

Wait. Hold on. I changed my mind. Atheists living in the bible belt. You're right, Jae. I think there are a lot of people afraid to speak about how they really think for fear of repercussions (including, but not limited to, offending people).

I don't think most people appreciate the difference, do you? Is that the question we're trying to answer now? Sorry, I'm still thrown off by post 1 and thread title.

Erm...in that case, no I don't suppose that most people appreciate the difference, hence why many people (mistakenly) equate the moral relativism with secularism.

And to be honest, would it make a difference if the end result is the same for most people? Yes, it very much makes a difference. If a doctor was attempting to diagnose an illness, would it matter which illness the patient actually had? The patient might not care whether they feel crappy because they have ebola vs. the flu, but I bet a lot of other people have a vested interest in the truth.

In any case, those of us who participate in a given religion obviously don't generally think our religious views are relative (if someone ever gives that kind of thing a thought to begin with). Your view that Christianity is just as relative as any other religion does not make a difference in how I view Christianity as bearing Truth. Right, so you have a subjective truth that provides a relative basis for your morality. Just like any other person that takes their morality directly from religion without any manner of examination or challenge. Whether or not you specifically do this is really quite beside the point.

The common argument against moral relativism is that one can pick and choose their morals like shopping in a grocery store. This sounds to me like driving through any part of almost any town or city in the U.S. on a Sunday (Saturday? Wednesday?). Don't like what the catholics are selling? How about protestantism? Not your size? Try on southern baptism? Doesn't go with your shoes? How about mormonism? Or any other myriad of religious options. All demanding center stage because they have it right and everyone else has it wrong. In other words, conflicting moral systems which act as a breeding ground for moral relativism (the alternative being a fight to the death).

They're co-contributers to moral decline Well this seems to contradict what you said in the first section. Could you please clarify your argument?

--with religion out of the picture, everything is OK, nothing is wrong, do whatever feels good as long as you don't hurt anyone (depending on your definitions of 'feels good' and 'hurt', which are now relative) and we're all going to hell in a handbasket because we no longer know if up is down, East is West, or good is bad or bad is good, and polls determine how we should think, feel, and vote. Well if one assumes that religion (ha! which one!?) was a source of moral truth, then I suppose this could be right. However since there is absolutely no evidence to support such an argument, I think my argument stands. Your entire argument hinges on this assumption, so please be thorough with your counter-argument.

America is filled with people who act like mullets--brightly colored clueless fish that travel in large schools, following each other around aimlessly with no discernible leader, just going where the waves happen to take them next. Note that I am most certainly not saying anyone here is a mullet--whether we all agree with each other or not, we've at least thought about some of these issues now and then and not abdicated our decision-making on morality to whatever the talking heads deem 'good' or 'bad' this week, as so many have. And? Surely, you sit next to some of these people on Sundays don't you? What makes their mulletness less mulletty? That they happened to follow your congregation instead of some other? I believe the technical term for that is "cognitive dissonance".

Totenkopf
09-14-2007, 04:51 AM
Still glossed over or conveniently ignored is the fact that since secularists/atheists appear to share nothing more than a lack of belief in God/gods, is the fact that there is no universal objective secular morality. Just like any religious sects, they will be divided on their outlook as to what constitutes "objective". Hence the fallacy that a secularist will have any less of a relativistic grasp of morality than a theist. They'll simply have their version of "objective" morality depending upon whatever philosophy they happen to buy into when formulating their views.

Ray Jones
09-14-2007, 10:24 AM
Secularization has pushed religion out of the public arena and into the privateThat's where religion belongs, as it is a very subjective thing. Also, as I said it before, I doubt religion is where it is just because of secularisation. Mostly religion's situation is to be blamed on religion itself, if it's to be blamed on something else at all. If religion is so correct and right and superiour to secularism/atheism, why do people turn away from religion?


With many people considering all faiths, or the lack thereof, to be equally validCan't second that. While I see any religion equally as religion, I would never put them as equally valid. And I doubt we'll find many who'll see Judaism, Hinduism, Islam and Christianity as equally valid faiths. Not among the followers of these religions, and among the non believers neither.


If every moral system is equally valid, there is no definitive moral standard and everything is relative.That's right, *IF*. But nowhere does it say it is. And you might agree, it ain't.


@Ray--the only major 'collision' so far has been the incident with Galileo, and in that case it was the Church clinging to an incorrect view that had nothing to do what the Bible says about heliocentrism/geocentrism (which is pretty much nothing). Evolution could arguably be another collision, however, Darwin was a theist and wasn't intending to dismantle religion with his theory.I did not say anyone intended to dismantle religion. And another major collision I can think of is the topic of contraceptives and safer sex.

Nancy Allen``
09-14-2007, 06:40 PM
Morality and religion? If anything religion should be a paragon of morality, standing up for what is moral and stamping out what isn't. Such as? Pornography for example, something that many believe not only degrades women but is a source for people to find ideas to try out in real life. That arguement is similar to the one on video games and films. I'm not quite sure how this works but there's even the thinking that people who look for more material look for something harder, even illegal, and not only that but part of the desire is because the material cannot hurt them, and they think the women can't hurt them either, and apparently this leads them to targeting children because they are not a threat. Now if half of this is true it is a very moral thing to act against it, something that religion does militantly.

People will bring up immorality in religion, Bush acting on orders from God for example, or the belief true believers should kill those who do not follow their religion. These people as simply as I can put it cannot see the forest for the trees. They see intolerance and war against others as the be all and end all, ignoring everything else.

Achilles
09-14-2007, 11:35 PM
Morality and religion? If anything religion should be a paragon of morality Which one?

standing up for what is moral and stamping out what isn't. Based on who's version of which standards?

Such as? Pornography for example, something that many believe not only degrades women but is a source for people to find ideas to try out in real life. And what about those women that argue that pornography is empowering? What about men that think that pornography is degrading towards men (appealing to us as nothing more than cavemen)?

I suppose there is an argument that pornography tends to objectify women, but I think religion has been promoting that for quite some time.

That arguement is similar to the one on video games and films. I'm not quite sure how this works but there's even the thinking that people who look for more material look for something harder, even illegal, and not only that but part of the desire is because the material cannot hurt them, and they think the women can't hurt them either, and apparently this leads them to targeting children because they are not a threat. Now if half of this is true it is a very moral thing to act against it, something that religion does militantly. Very interesting speculations. Thank you for sharing them.

People will bring up immorality in religion, Bush acting on orders from God for example, or the belief true believers should kill those who do not follow their religion. These people as simply as I can put it cannot see the forest for the trees. What does this mean?

They see intolerance and war against others as the be all and end all, ignoring everything else.People that point out that religion promote violence and intolerance are hate-mongers? Am I following this correctly?

Thanks for your response.

Nancy Allen``
09-15-2007, 07:52 PM
Which one?

Take your pick from Christianity, Judism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddism, ect. Each in their own way is meant to be moral.

And what about those women that argue that pornography is empowering? What about men that think that pornography is degrading towards men (appealing to us as nothing more than cavemen)?

Leaving religion aside I would agree with the notion of how women are negatively seen in the adult industry, men too. Christianity chief among them has taken up arms against such immorality.

What does this mean?

Taking Christianity as an example, people read about condemning homosexuals so they condemn homosexuals, which is what? Mentioned two times? They either don't read the parts about forgiveness, redemption, the story of Jesus and the importance of the lessons of which makes up the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and are discussed in Acts, Corinthians, Galations, ect, ect or simply disregard it.

People that point out that religion promote violence and intolerance are hate-mongers? Am I following this correctly?

Those who set out to upset theists, those who are intolerant of religion, yes.

Achilles
09-16-2007, 03:52 AM
Take your pick from Christianity, Judism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddism, ect. Each in their own way is meant to be moral. Your statement was, "If anything religion should be a paragon of morality".
From Merriam-Webster's, paragon means a model of excellence or perfection. So which one of these flavors of religion is the paragon? They can't all be the paragon, considering many contradict one another. If you are going to change your argument so that they can all be equally valid, then I should think that objective moral systems should be included.

Taking Christianity as an example, people read about condemning homosexuals so they condemn homosexuals, which is what? Mentioned two times? They either don't read the parts about forgiveness, redemption, the story of Jesus and the importance of the lessons of which makes up the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and are discussed in Acts, Corinthians, Galations, ect, ect or simply disregard it. How many times should god (or paul) have to say that homosexuality is wrong? Apparently you think that twice is insufficient. Others feel that once was clear enough. So what is the magic number?

Yes, I would agree that the parts regarding forgiveness, etc present quite the contradiction. No wonder there isn't one clear interpretation of religion. So many contradictions!

Those who set out to upset theists, those who are intolerant of religion, yes.This would seem to be a very different point from what you attempting to make earlier. No matter.

Nancy Allen``
09-16-2007, 08:08 AM
Your statement was, "If anything religion should be a paragon of morality".

Each are meant to be a model or pattern of excellebce or of a particular excellence.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paragon

How many times should god (or paul) have to say that homosexuality is wrong?

The repetition of forgiveness and tolerance suggests it is more important than homosexuality being wrong.

This would seem to be a very different point from what you attempting to make earlier. No matter.

Because you wished to know about something unrelated to what I was saying.

Achilles
09-16-2007, 11:31 AM
Each are meant to be a model or pattern of excellebce or of a particular excellence. Hehe. Didn't I just get finished providing the definition of the word? And then you turn around and provide it again as though I didn't know what it was. Wonderful.

Many religions have a different message. Most religions contradict each other. Many religious messages contradict other religious messages, within the same religion. So "religion" cannot possibly be the paragon for morality. Unless we're we're willing to accept that we can have dozens of "truths" which are all equally valid. This is also known as moral relativism. Are you arguing for moral relativism?

The repetition of forgiveness and tolerance suggests it is more important than homosexuality being wrong. Ah, so it's your interpretation then. Therefore, whether your interpretation is any more or any less valid that any other interpretation is entirely subjective.

So using the logic in your argument, if we found the commandment to kill was more prevalent than the commandment not to kill, we could then determine that killing would be more correct than not killing, right?

Because you wished to know about something unrelated to what I was saying.Actually, no. I was simply trying to clarify since I didn't understand your point. Perhaps you'd be willing to try again?

Thanks.

Jae Onasi
09-16-2007, 03:35 PM
History-related posts were split off from this thread and merged with the Ancient-Renaissance, Modern Cultural Decline, etc (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=182333) thread. Carry on. :)

Nancy Allen``
09-16-2007, 06:01 PM
Many religions have a different message. Most religions contradict each other. Many religious messages contradict other religious messages, within the same religion. So "religion" cannot possibly be the paragon for morality. Unless we're we're willing to accept that we can have dozens of "truths" which are all equally valid. This is also known as moral relativism. Are you arguing for moral relativism?

It's not something that's worth losing sleep over.

So using the logic in your argument, if we found the commandment to kill was more prevalent than the commandment not to kill, we could then determine that killing would be more correct than not killing, right?

These were times when hands were sliced off for robbery, killing was in accordance with the times.

Actually, no. I was simply trying to clarify since I didn't understand your point. Perhaps you'd be willing to try again?

Fundamentalists and antitheists are the problem with the world. As well as those who use it as a basis for attacking others.

Achilles
09-16-2007, 06:14 PM
It's not something that's worth losing sleep over. For you that may be true. For those that are concerned with morality and moral behavior, the distinction might be an important one.

These were times when hands were sliced off for robbery, killing was in accordance with the times. You didn't answer the question.

Fundamentalists and antitheists are the problem with the world. As well as those who use it as a basis for attacking others.Well then it would seem that my attempt to clarify was related after all. You certainly do make it difficult to keep up.

Nancy Allen``
09-16-2007, 06:25 PM
For you that may be true. For those that are concerned with morality and moral behavior, the distinction might be an important one.

So I'm immoral now.

You didn't answer the question.

I didn't give you the answer you wanted to hear, that religion promotes killing.

Web Rider
09-16-2007, 06:46 PM
So I'm immoral now.
no, you're just blatantly dodging the entire point of this thread and his questions. Which both were related to if things like moral relativism are right or if moral objectivism exists.

I didn't give you the answer you wanted to hear, that religion promotes killing.

he was asking if the "good book" in question had more passages saying killing is right vs passages saying killing is wrong, does that mean killing is OK(or more important than not killing)? Or does it leave it open to interpretation and people deciding for themselves which they want to follow?

(which nicely goes back to my moral majoratism)

Nancy Allen``
09-16-2007, 07:00 PM
Like I said I don't lose any sleep over it.

It also says that we are to follow the law.

Achilles
09-16-2007, 07:00 PM
So I'm immoral now. The wording makes this sound like a question, but the punctuation would suggest that it's a statement. Which of these would you prefer we assume?

I didn't give you the answer you wanted to hear, that religion promotes killing. No, you really didn't answer the question:
"if we found the commandment to kill was more prevalent than the commandment not to kill, we could then determine that killing would be more correct than not killing, right?"
If the answer is yes, then we can all finally admit that the bible promotes killing and move on to discussing what that means. If the answer is no, then your previous argument falls apart and we are left to contemplate the reality that god really does hate homosexuals.

It really is a yes or no question, Nancy. I don't mind if you expand a little to offer your reasoning, but a simple yes or no will suffice.

(which nicely goes back to my moral majoratism)Indeed, it would seem that you and Nancy are both very much on the same page as to how our morals should be determined: by tally.

Like I said I don't lose any sleep over it.Good. Sleep is important.

It also says that we are to follow the law.
Nancy: It also says that we are to follow the law.
Achilles: Which law?
Nancy: The laws of the bible.
Achilles: Which laws of the bible?
Nancy: The ones I like.
Achilles: Gotcha.

Rogue Nine
09-17-2007, 01:25 AM
Okay kids, I'm shutting this thread down for now following the little flamefest that recently occurred between Nancy and Web Rider. The both of you need to calm down and stop baiting each other.

Nancy, consider this your final warning. The next time you step out of line here in Kavar's, I am banning you from this forum.

If you have questions, you know how to get in contact with me.