NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, yeah, before anyone thinks I hate God or anything. I am a church-going Christian who believes in some key principles my religion was founded on...but lately, every religion on Earth scares me half to hell.

I mean, first off, we have God knows how many dumbasses out there blowing themselves up in the name of their God(s).

Next, we have some super-states/nuclear powers using religion as an excuse to do dumb crap.

And finally, the sanctity of NSG has been breached by several religious fanatics, spreading their fundamentalist dogma and propaganda through the internet.

Can't we just go back in time and kill whoever the hell came up with the idea of religion?

Can't we just go back in time and kill whoever the hell came up with the idea of religion?

Your just asking this now? Most people have asking this for years.

Your just asking this now? Most people have asking this for years.

It's not my fault Edwardis exposed the horrors of religious dogma to me at an early age!

Can't we just go back in time and kill whoever the hell came up with the idea of religion?

Build me a time machine and it's 187 on Moses. :mp5:
Rare are the excuses to include a gun smily.

Build me a time machine and it's 187 on Moses. :mp5:
Rare are the excuses to include a gun smily.

might want to go after Abraham. You know, just to be safe.

Build me a time machine and it's 187 on Moses. :mp5:
Rare are the excuses to include a gun smily.

Go back further, get Abraham.

Or better yet, Zoroaster


Yea i know its spelled zarathushtra

Okay, yeah, before anyone thinks I hate God or anything. I am a church-going Christian who believes in some key principles my religion was founded on...but lately, every religion on Earth scares me half to hell.

I mean, first off, we have God knows how many dumbasses out there blowing themselves up in the name of their God(s).

Next, we have some super-states/nuclear powers using religion as an excuse to do dumb crap.

And finally, the sanctity of NSG has been breached by several religious fanatics, spreading their fundamentalist dogma and propaganda through the internet.

Can't we just go back in time and kill whoever the hell came up with the idea of religion?
It's only now beginning to scare you? Where have you been? :D

:rolleyes:

http://comics.com/comics/chickweed/archive/chickweed-20060926.html

Can't we just go back in time and kill whoever the hell came up with the idea of religion?

Oh, that's a good idea... lets go back in time and kill God... like it's HIS fault we all go overboard and insanely blame Him.

It's only now beginning to scare you? Where have you been? :D

Watching porn, drinking liquor, eating pizza, and hanging out with my friends too much. In that order.

You're not alone. I'm a fairly religious person, but I say with total honesty, I can't stand religious people. I am sick to death of all this crap, but I just can't ignore it because I'm afraid of what they'll do when I'm not looking.

Oh, that's a good idea... lets go back in time and kill God... like it's HIS fault we all go overboard and insanely blame Him.

...You apparently didn't understand the meaning of what I was trying to say. God isn't a someone. God is a thing. You can't kill a thing.

Can't we just go back in time and kill whoever the hell came up with the idea of religion?

Oh dearie me. That wouldn't be very nice.

Religion is not the source of the problem.

If you say that religion is the source of all this violence, would you say that Neitzche's notion of the übermench is the source of The Holocaust?

People kill in the names of many other things. More people were killed in the name of the people (Stalin's purges) than were killed in The Holocaust. More than Darfur.

The source of the problem is the human tendency towards moral absolutism. The notion that "I am right, you are wrong, wrong must be purged"

Your statement I quoted is another source of the problem. Killing someone to prevent the formation of religion wouldn't do a thing. people are creative, and would find another reason to kill eachother. If you went back and killed those who created religion, perhaps today many would be slaughtered in the name of atheism.

I am not a fan of killing people. For any reason.

Hey guys! I'm about to put a stop to this silly religion idea, one at a time, using my time machine.
I'm leaving now for my first mission, and I'm going back about two thousand or so years. Now, back then, there's this guy telling everybody how great it would be to be nice for a change. I'm making sure he gets killed. In a pretty painful way, too, so that everybody will realize how stupid he is. Then, using my modern technology to break in, I can rob his tomb so that they go to look at his body, and see it's not there. The loss of even the remains of their glorious leader will surely quash this silliness.

How should I fix the next religion, anybody know?

It's not my fault Edwardis exposed the horrors of religious dogma to me at an early age!

You too?

I am a church-going ChristianCan't we just go back in time and kill whoever the hell came up with the idea of religion?
Am I the only one who sees the contradiction? Stop going to church or stop writing bullshit on the internet. If you do them both, that only makes you a hypocrite.

Am I the only one who sees the contradiction? Stop going to church or stop writing bullshit on the internet. If you do them both, that only makes you a hypocrite.

The fact that a religious person is sick of the bullshit of over-religious zealots? Sorry to dissapoint you, but this isn't a hypocracy. This is a normal person sick of the bullshit being presented by other people.

The fact that a religious person is sick of the bullshit of over-religious zealots? Sorry to dissapoint you, but this isn't a hypocracy. This is a normal person sick of the bullshit being presented by other people.

Your sick of killing so you propose killing? WHAT?

The fact that a religious person is sick of the bullshit of over-religious zealots? Sorry to dissapoint you, but this isn't a hypocracy. This is a normal person sick of the bullshit being presented by other people.
Is it normal for a Christian to advocate the killing of the very guy who "invented" religion? Why don't you go back in time and kill Jesus Christ? No more inquisition. :rolleyes:

Of course, ignoring the fact that religion would appear anyway.

Watching porn, drinking liquor, eating pizza, and hanging out with my friends too much. In that order.

You could do worse. Carry on, my son.

Is it normal for a Christian to advocate the killing of the very guy who "invented" religion? Why don't you go back in time and kill Jesus Christ? No more inquisition. :rolleyes:

Of course, ignoring the fact that religion would appear anyway.

And if religion didn't come along, would people not find more reasons to kill eachother?

I say with most certainty that they would. People seem pretty hell bent on seperating themselves from each other and then trying to destroy anything that isn't like them. Divide and conquer.

Is it normal for a Christian to advocate the killing of the very guy who "invented" religion? Why don't you go back in time and kill Jesus Christ? No more inquisition. :rolleyes:

Of course, ignoring the fact that religion would appear anyway.

What a great idea.

Hey guys! I'm about to put a stop to this silly religion idea, one at a time, using my time machine.
I'm leaving now for my first mission, and I'm going back about two thousand or so years. Now, back then, there's this guy telling everybody how great it would be to be nice for a change. I'm making sure he gets killed. In a pretty painful way, too, so that everybody will realize how stupid he is. Then, using my modern technology to break in, I can rob his tomb so that they go to look at his body, and see it's not there. The loss of even the remains of their glorious leader will surely quash this silliness.

How should I fix the next religion, anybody know?

How could it fail?

Is it normal for a Christian to advocate the killing of the very guy who "invented" religion? Why don't you go back in time and kill Jesus Christ? No more inquisition. :rolleyes:

Of course, ignoring the fact that religion would appear anyway.

A perfect Christian, no. I am not a perfect Christian, nor do I aspire to be until 2012.

Killing Jesus would not have solved anything, I admit that, you need to take out the base of the pyramid, behind Christianity, there is Judaism, behind Judaism, various forms of paganism, and so on, and so forth.

Your sick of killing so you propose killing? WHAT?

Now where did I say I was sick of killing?

And if religion didn't come along, would people not find more reasons to kill eachother?
Sure they would
I say with most certainty that they would. People seem pretty hell bent on seperating themselves from each other and then trying to destroy anything that isn't like them. Divide and conquer.
Now I wouldn't be so pessimistic. The willingness to kill is just one of the human traits. And while some people hate those who are different, some are their exact opposites. Humans aren't inherently good or bad - although the individuals may lean more in one direction than the other.

Now where did I say I was sick of killing?

Apologies. I thought it was implied in your first post.

A perfect Christian, no. I am not a perfect Christian, nor do I aspire to be until 2012.
A person advocating the destruction of religion (thus including Christianity) is not a Christian. Perfect or not. Period. Thus you are a hypocrtite.

P.S. What does hipo rule has to do with anything?

>the sanctity of NSG has been breached by several religious fanatics, spreading their fundamentalist dogma and propaganda through the internet.>

Hope you are including me in that, I am just playing in character- which requires I be pretty self-assured and holier-than-thou.

His Overwhelming Visage,
The Dominion of the Oldest Gods

Hope you are including me in that, I am just playing in character- which requires I be pretty self-assured and holier-than-thou.

Not until you actually agree with Edwardis on his posts.

A person advocating the destruction of religion (thus including Christianity) is not a Christian. Perfect or not. Period. Thus you are a hypocrtite

Isn't the point of religion to make human life better/more desirable. Then if the destruction of religion would mean the prevention of the Crusades/Jihad (yes, I know some dumb shit would go down anyway), then I would not be a hypocrit because I am advocating a better/more desirable history and future.

P.S. What does hipo rule has to do with anything?

Ughn?

Sure they would

Now I wouldn't be so pessimistic. The willingness to kill is just one of the human traits. And while some people hate those who are different, some are their exact opposites. Humans aren't inherently good or bad - although the individuals may lean more in one direction than the other.

It isn't pessimism. Just experience.

Of course there is a good side of humanity. Of course there are those who are tolerant. But just because some, or perhaps most people are tolerant does not change the fact that some still start wars.

Religion does not kill people. Neither does Communism. Nor does facism, or ideas. Its the people who believe in these ideas.

Those people are easily controlled because of a lack of education and control of information. But to say religion or anything else is the source of mankind's problems is continuing the human tradition of denying our responsibility for our problems.

Maybe I should revise my post to say that religion is extremely outdated and needs to be revamped...as in rewritten. A 2000 year old book, or 1400 year old book, or 20 year old book, isn't going to explain the universe until you can prove it was written by God and not just some lying, cheating asshole manipulating the fate of future billions.

Isn't the point of religion to make human life better/more desirable. Then if the destruction of religion would mean the prevention of the Crusades/Jihad (yes, I know some dumb shit would go down anyway), then I would not be a hypocrit because I am advocating a better/more desirable history and future.Read what Siap said in his last paragraph. Until then, let me break the news to you: advocating the destruction of - among other religions - Christianity does not a Christian make.

Ughn?
You said that "hypocracy has nothing to do with it". I agree, we live in a democracy, not a hypocracy, but still, nobody has brought up hipo rule until you did with that comment.

Maybe I should revise my post to say that religion is extremely outdated and needs to be revamped...as in rewritten. A 2000 year old book, or 1400 year old book, or 20 year old book, isn't going to explain the universe until you can prove it was written by God and not just some lying, cheating asshole manipulating the fate of future billions.

Isn't the search for a new religion what got us Scientology? The cure may be as bad as the disease, if not worse.

And finally, the sanctity of NSG has been breached by several religious fanatics, spreading their fundamentalist dogma and propaganda through the internet.

What I don't understand is why people view fundamentalist Christians as some sort of demented cult. Do you know what the word fundamentalist means? In the case of Christianity, it means following the Bible. Am I missing what's so wrong with that?

What I don't understand is why people view fundamentalist Christians as some sort of demented cult. Do you know what the word fundamentalist means? In the case of Christianity, it means following the Bible. Am I missing what's so wrong with that?

No, I mean like Fred Phelps type of fundies. The extreme kind, not the regular kind.

Isn't the search for a new religion what got us Scientology.

God dammit. That one line destroyed my entire arguement.

What I don't understand is why people view fundamentalist Christians as some sort of demented cult. Do you know what the word fundamentalist means? In the case of Christianity, it means following the Bible. Am I missing what's so wrong with that?
Obviously, you are.

The Bible was written by MAN not God.

Maybe I should revise my post to say that religion is extremely outdated and needs to be revamped...as in rewritten. A 2000 year old book, or 1400 year old book, or 20 year old book, isn't going to explain the universe until you can prove it was written by God and not just some lying, cheating asshole manipulating the fate of future billions.

I have begun reading the works of a "J. Krishnamurti". I recommend it. You may find some of his ideas interesting.

He says that religion is a personal thing, and that one must discover it for oneself, and that organized religions can't help people at all. I don't agree with everything he says, but it is interesting.

For the record, I am not a religious fundamentalist of any sort. I am actually joining a team of scientists that is exploring the creation of the universe, and every flat-earther and fundy out there hates what we do.

Isn't the search for a new religion what got us Scientology? The cure may be as bad as the disease, if not worse.

Oy vey. Scientology.

For some reason I attract scientologists who try to get me to convert.

I have begun reading the works of a "J. Krishnamurti". I recommend it. You may find some of his ideas interesting.

He says that religion is a personal thing, and that one must discover it for oneself, and that organized religions can't help people at all. I don't agree with everything he says, but it is interesting.

For the record, I am not a religious fundamentalist of any sort. I am actually joining a team of scientists that is exploring the creation of the universe, and every flat-earther and fundy out there hates what we do.

I'm a fundy and I don't hate what you do. I think it's interesting actually.

Well you can't 'kill' religion, it's intangible. It's like saying let's have a 'War on Terror' or 'War on Weather', it doesnt work at all.

Plus war and violence are inherent aspects of human nature, the earliest skeletons of men had arrow tips imbedded in their rib cages. So it's natural that we will find reasons to make ourselves feel morally justified in killing, be it religion or whatever.

The Bible was written by MAN not God.

You'll be hard pressed to find someone who will deny this. Its the inspiration of the men that wrote it that comes into question.

Food for the thought:

La Sacra Biblia= The Holy Library.

The Bible is a collection of ideas, many of them in direct opposition to each other.

And there are several different Gospels and other books that were not included in the Bible.

I believe it was the council of Nicea that chose what went it and what didn't.

The Bible itself, in my opinion, shouldn't be treated as absolute truth, even by Christians.

Oy vey. Scientology.

For some reason I attract scientologists who try to get me to convert.

RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 :eek:

http://theunfunnytruth.ytmnd.com/__________:sniper:

Arm yourself they'll do TERRIBLE things to you :eek:

Well you can't 'kill' religion, it's intangible. It's like saying let's have a 'War on Terror' or 'War on Weather', it doesnt work at all.

Plus war and violence are inherent aspects of human nature, the earliest skeletons of men had arrow tips imbedded in their rib cages. So it's natural that we will find reasons to make ourselves feel morally justified in killing, be it religion or whatever.

And for those that believe the Bible, just look at Cain and Able.

Okay, whatever, it's 1:26 AM in Jersey. I'm sleepy. And if I continue to roam NSG for the night, I will lose my sanity, I'm sleeping.

As for that book, I'll check it out, but unless it's under 25 dollars, I ain't reading it.

Plus war and violence are inherent aspects of human nature, the earliest skeletons of men had arrow tips imbedded in their rib cages. So it's natural that we will find reasons to make ourselves feel morally justified in killing, be it religion or whatever.

Absolutely. This is the point I've been trying to make.

RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 :eek:

http://theunfunnytruth.ytmnd.com/__________:sniper:

Arm yourself they'll do TERRIBLE things to you :eek:


For some reason I always attract fanatics. I ran into a speed-addicted communist some summers ago. I ran into a Hari-Krishna in London over the summer and actually argued the Pandavas with him. It was funny, because he wasn't very well-versed in his own theology.

Okay, whatever, it's 1:26 AM in Jersey. I'm sleepy. And if I continue to roam NSG for the night, I will lose my sanity, I'm sleeping.

As for that book, I'll check it out, but unless it's under 25 dollars, I ain't reading it.

If you do get into reading his works, TG me and let me know what you think. Even if you think its totl horseshit, I'd like to know.

Go back further, get Abraham.

Or better yet, Zoroaster


Yea i know its spelled zarathushtra

Abraham it is. Biblical estimates for him are earlier, although, to be safe, I could whack them both, I doubt they're connected, it was later mystery cults that began mixing their ideas.

:sniper:

:mp5:

*reads the new history, in case anyone else needs edited*

You'll be hard pressed to find someone who will deny this. Its the inspiration of the men that wrote it that comes into question.

Food for the thought:

La Sacra Biblia= The Holy Library.

The Bible is a collection of ideas, many of them in direct opposition to each other.

And there are several different Gospels and other books that were not included in the Bible.

I believe it was the council of Nicea that chose what went it and what didn't.

The Bible itself, in my opinion, shouldn't be treated as absolute truth, even by Christians.
Has somebody been reading their DiVinci Code?

There were a total of 7 different Gospels written (that have been conclusively proven, anyway)
3 of those were written during the second century by a group called the gnostics

just FYI, Jesus lived at the beginning of the first century.

the council of _____ (I don't actually remember it's name either. You could be right, but it doesn't seem right to me) only disregarded those 3 "gospels" for obvious reasons (i.e., they were made out by non-eyewitness accounts to be eyewitness accounts. a.k.a. doing exactly what many of you are criticizing the church for "doing")

So, I like how I'm seeing complaints about religious zealots trying to run things their own way, yet those who are making these complaints are themselves trying to run things their way. abuhn?

Has somebody been reading their DiVinci Code?

There were a total of 7 different Gospels written (that have been conclusively proven, anyway)
3 of those were written during the second century by a group called the gnostics

just FYI, Jesus lived at the beginning of the first century.

the council of _____ (I don't actually remember it's name either. You could be right, but it doesn't seem right to me) only disregarded those 3 "gospels" for obvious reasons (i.e., they were made out by non-eyewitness accounts to be eyewitness accounts. a.k.a. doing exactly what many of you are criticizing the church for "doing")

So, I like how I'm seeing complaints about religious zealots trying to run things their own way, yet those who are making these complaints are themselves trying to run things their way. abuhn?


I did read the DaVinci code, although I am not a huge fan of Dan Brown's writings. It was the council of Nicea (Those raised Catholic had to learn the Nicene Creed.)

One thing that is interesting that was not touched upon is the fact that the Gospel of John was written long after the other three Gospels in the Bible, and that is the only one where Jesus claims outright to be the Son of God.

I did read the DaVinci code, although I am not a huge fan of Dan Brown's writings. It was the council of Nicea (Those raised Catholic had to learn the Nicene Creed.)

One thing that is interesting that was not touched upon is the fact that the Gospel of John was written long after the other three Gospels in the Bible, and that is the only one where Jesus claims outright to be the Son of God.(my bold/underline)

Maybe so, but he certainly spends a lot of time in the other three canonical gospels dropping hints.

Is it normal for a Christian to advocate the killing of the very guy who "invented" religion? Why don't you go back in time and kill Jesus Christ? No more inquisition. :rolleyes:

Of course, ignoring the fact that religion would appear anyway.

How do we know he DIDNT kill Jesus? I mean, he may have already done it. Are there any records of Judas other than the Bible? ;)

I did read the DaVinci code, although I am not a huge fan of Dan Brown's writings. It was the council of Nicea (Those raised Catholic had to learn the Nicene Creed.)

One thing that is interesting that was not touched upon is the fact that the Gospel of John was written long after the other three Gospels in the Bible, and that is the only one where Jesus claims outright to be the Son of God.

Matthew 28:17... I have been given all authority in heaven and on earth
not an outright claim, but I didn't look too hard. Not to mention the fact that the gospels are full of Jesus alluding to OT passages that, when placed in context (which most of his audience would have done without thinking) allude to many prophecies that he was filling out.

Yes, the gospel of John was written well after the other three, but was still written (or dictated) by an eyewitness

A perfect Christian, no. I am not a perfect Christian, nor do I aspire to be until 2012.
There is no proof to confirm or deny that TVS....

Oh dearie me. That wouldn't be very nice.

Religion is not the source of the problem.

If you say that religion is the source of all this violence, would you say that Neitzche's notion of the übermench is the source of The Holocaust?

People kill in the names of many other things. More people were killed in the name of the people (Stalin's purges) than were killed in The Holocaust. More than Darfur.

The source of the problem is the human tendency towards moral absolutism. The notion that "I am right, you are wrong, wrong must be purged"

Your statement I quoted is another source of the problem. Killing someone to prevent the formation of religion wouldn't do a thing. people are creative, and would find another reason to kill eachother. If you went back and killed those who created religion, perhaps today many would be slaughtered in the name of atheism.

I am not a fan of killing people. For any reason.

*sigh*

The problem isn't moral absolutism. The problem is being morally absolute about the wrong kinds of things.

Let's be clear about this: if everybody suddenly became a moral relativist tomorrow, the world would not improve one iota. It would not become more reasonable, more moderate, or more just as a consequence. In point of fact, it would probably become exactly the opposite. Why? Well, look at what the crux of what moral relativism preaches: reason doesn't find a way to confirm how we think things are actually is the way things are. History doesn't do it. Will doesn't do it. Nothing does it. The only way to make any sense of the world is to construct our own reality. But hey, in my constructed reality, it's perfectly okay to enslave you if I can make you my slave, because I'm a self-serving bastard, and only my perceptions of force change how I view the world. That's unjust? Maybe in your world, but in my world, you do what I tell you or you get the hose, kapeesh?

Put simply, moral relativism doesn't lead to liberalism unless you construct your worldview as liberal. But if someone decides to construct their worldview as fundamentalist Christian, nihilist, anarchist, or psychopath, that's okay too, because the only real standard of moral relativism is internal consistency of a theory, not whether it actually conforms with what society needs or what actually exists.

By contrast, every major social change for the better in this country and around the world was built by profoundly absolutist people. Martin Luther King and Malcolm X were not relativists but profound absolutists. So was Ghandhi. So was Sojourner Truth and Harriet Beacher Stowe. The inerrant consistancy in any positive development is not and never has been people claiming the mantle of relativism: that there is no right and wrong beyond goofy social constructions imposed upon us by the Man. Rather, they come about as a consequence of people saying "This is wrong, and wrong absolutely" and making a change to end it. Now I don't pretend to know absolutely what the right thing is or how to reach it inerrantly. I'm only human. I can only tell you that I suspect it has to do with universal love for one's fellow man and acting out of such a sense. But I can tell you for certain that absolutism may well be responsible for both the best and the worst in humanity, but relativism never amounts to standing around watching and saying "Well, how do you prove you're doing the right thing", which in the big scheme of things is pretty damn worthless.

*sigh*

The problem isn't moral absolutism. The problem is being morally absolute about the wrong kinds of things.

Let's be clear about this: if everybody suddenly became a moral relativist tomorrow, the world would not improve one iota. It would not become more reasonable, more moderate, or more just as a consequence. In point of fact, it would probably become exactly the opposite. Why? Well, look at what the crux of what moral relativism preaches: reason doesn't find a way to confirm how we think things are actually is the way things are. History doesn't do it. Will doesn't do it. Nothing does it. The only way to make any sense of the world is to construct our own reality. But hey, in my constructed reality, it's perfectly okay to enslave you if I can make you my slave, because I'm a self-serving bastard, and only my perceptions of force change how I view the world. That's unjust? Maybe in your world, but in my world, you do what I tell you or you get the hose, kapeesh?

Put simply, moral relativism doesn't lead to liberalism unless you construct your worldview as liberal. But if someone decides to construct their worldview as fundamentalist Christian, nihilist, anarchist, or psychopath, that's okay too, because the only real standard of moral relativism is internal consistency of a theory, not whether it actually conforms with what society needs or what actually exists.

By contrast, every major social change for the better in this country and around the world was built by profoundly absolutist people. Martin Luther King and Malcolm X were not relativists but profound absolutists. So was Ghandhi. So was Sojourner Truth and Harriet Beacher Stowe. The inerrant consistancy in any positive development is not and never has been people claiming the mantle of relativism: that there is no right and wrong beyond goofy social constructions imposed upon us by the Man. Rather, they come about as a consequence of people saying "This is wrong, and wrong absolutely" and making a change to end it. Now I don't pretend to know absolutely what the right thing is or how to reach it inerrantly. I'm only human. I can only tell you that I suspect it has to do with universal love for one's fellow man and acting out of such a sense. But I can tell you for certain that absolutism may well be responsible for both the best and the worst in humanity, but relativism never amounts to standing around watching and saying "Well, how do you prove you're doing the right thing", which in the big scheme of things is pretty damn worthless.

Thank you for pointing out those who have done so much good for our country. When I wrote that, I had forgotten that. I do not advocate moral relativism. I misspoke when I wrote that. I should have said something like: human nature to judge oneself as superior (morally or whatever other reason) to others and to use this as a rationale for violence against others is the source of many of our troubles.

You are an eloquent writer.

I'm all for going back and stopping the person(s)(?) who invented religion. Unfortunately, I doubt they would ever be found. And if, having improbably found them and stopped them, we would then have to find those others who would crop up to do what we thought we had prevented. The invention of religion (note: I said religion not God - that's a separate matter) was inevitable. There is something in the core of mankind that wants religion. For some reason worship is necessary to us, whether we worship gods, beauty, money, power, we still need to worship something - even atheists worship their own presumed independence from god and agnostics their own intellect. And marching along with that need to adore, worship, revere is the corresponding need to impose our beliefs on others, violently or otherwise. The only way the problem is going to be solved is to eliminate humanity and I don't see that as a viable option.

Thank you for pointing out those who have done so much good for our country. When I wrote that, I had forgotten that. I do not advocate moral relativism. I misspoke when I wrote that. I should have said something like: human nature to judge oneself as superior (morally or whatever other reason) to others and to use this as a rationale for violence against others is the source of many of our troubles.

You are an eloquent writer.

Ah, sorry about that. Relativists are kind of the Dr. Claw to my Inspector Gadget, so I tend to read just about anything that sounds remotely non-absolutist as goofy Derridian stuff to be exterminated with extreme prejudice. Unfortunately, my bent on post-modernism and relativism lead me to foot-in-mouth syndrome as you've just seen. In any case, thanks for taking it well.

*sigh*

The problem isn't moral absolutism. The problem is being morally absolute about the wrong kinds of things.

I agree with this; moral absolutism is just incoherent, not immoral.

In point of fact, it would probably become exactly the opposite. Why? Well, look at what the crux of what moral relativism preaches: reason doesn't find a way to confirm how we think things are actually is the way things are. History doesn't do it. Will doesn't do it. Nothing does it. The only way to make any sense of the world is to construct our own reality. But hey, in my constructed reality, it's perfectly okay to enslave you if I can make you my slave, because I'm a self-serving bastard, and only my perceptions of force change how I view the world. That's unjust? Maybe in your world, but in my world, you do what I tell you or you get the hose, kapeesh?

It's not a matter of "constructed reality"; rather, it is the observation that moral judgments are in the realm of subjective assessments rather than objective truth.

Honestly, I don't see how to come to any other conclusion. The only effective way around it is to redefine morality as something other than a duty or obligation, to make it "you ought to do x if you desire to fulfill your fundamental desires" or "you ought to do y if you want to achieve harmony of the soul" or "you ought to do z if you want to go to Heaven." None of these formulations are satisfactory - even someone with different fundamental desires who didn't care about her soul's harmony and thought that hellfire would prove quite enjoyable would still have an obligation not to murder. All of those bases, furthermore, are fundamentally egoistic; they do not provide us with moral duty, merely with a practical method of pursuing our ends.

If you are trying to demonstrate a categorical imperative, you run into the is-ought problem. The only way around that is to argue that certain moral propositions are self-evident - but if they are, why is there so much disagreement? Almost no one, after all, rejects the basic principles of logic or mathematics.

Put simply, moral relativism doesn't lead to liberalism unless you construct your worldview as liberal. But if someone decides to construct their worldview as fundamentalist Christian, nihilist, anarchist, or psychopath, that's okay too, because the only real standard of moral relativism is internal consistency of a theory, not whether it actually conforms with what society needs or what actually exists.

That is the only absolute standard a moral relativist can accept, yes. But the moral relativist need not keep to absolute standards; I do not need to demonstrate that an apple is somehow objectively better than a pear in order to choose the apple. (It's true that I probably wouldn't begrudge anyone else their choice between apple and pear, but this is not a necessary condition of subjective judgments; conceivably I could, for instance, loathe the thought of anyone consuming a pear, and conduct a purge.)

Ah, sorry about that. Relativists are kind of the Dr. Claw to my Inspector Gadget, so I tend to read just about anything that sounds remotely non-absolutist as goofy Derridian stuff to be exterminated with extreme prejudice. Unfortunately, my bent on post-modernism and relativism lead me to foot-in-mouth syndrome as you've just seen. In any case, thanks for taking it well.

The fact that you actually responded to what I said makes up for any transgressions.

The reason I come off so strongly against moral absolutists is that i have stumbled across many, and many of them feel it is appropriate to do terrible things in order to achieve what they call true justice. With apologies to Neitzche, many of those I have known to claim to want to slaughter monsters have become monsters themselves.

The message I was trying to make throughout this entire thread is that man has a tendency to find a reason why he should live and the man down the way should die. Religions do not cause this, I say contrary to the opinion of the thread starter. I am personally very religious, as are many of my friends and family, albeit we are not all of the same faith. This and my own personal journey has caused me to be very sensitive about religion and what people say about it, and I maintain that if religion never came into being, people would still find reasons to kill each other.

It's not a matter of "constructed reality"; rather, it is the observation that moral judgments are in the realm of subjective assessments rather than objective truth.

Honestly, I don't see how to come to any other conclusion. The only effective way around it is to redefine morality as something other than a duty or obligation, to make it "you ought to do x if you desire to fulfill your fundamental desires" or "you ought to do y if you want to achieve harmony of the soul" or "you ought to do z if you want to go to Heaven." None of these formulations are satisfactory - even someone with different fundamental desires who didn't care about her soul's harmony and thought that hellfire would prove quite enjoyable would still have an obligation not to murder. All of those bases, furthermore, are fundamentally egoistic; they do not provide us with moral duty, merely with a practical method of pursuing our ends.

If you are trying to demonstrate a categorical imperative, you run into the is-ought problem. The only way around that is to argue that certain moral propositions are self-evident - but if they are, why is there so much disagreement? Almost no one, after all, rejects the basic principles of logic or mathematics.

If you're really serious about the same kind of skepticism that generates moral relativism, you're going to be unconvinced that mathematics applies to anything in the real world, or even that the real world exists.

I look at is a matter of pragmatic assessment. Is it slightly possible that there isn't a world out there and I'm being deluded by the Matrix? Yes. But I can't act that way in my own life, otherwise I'm going to spend a lot of time in the hospital from walking into walls and getting burnt by fires I'm convinced don't really exist. In the same vein, is it possible that everything is just a subjective assessment and I'm kidding myself into believing everyone shares my subjective views about a world that may or may not reflect my views? Yes. But I can't act that way; in point of fact, I wouldn't know how to act in such a situation at all except out of rank egoism. To the extent that I believe that others have similar natures and act similarly out of those natures, however, I gain the benefits of being able to make sense of others moral actions and make meaningful social action possible, because I trust others to treat me as I treat them.

As a side note, I agree with you about the pear. Guhh.

The fact that you actually responded to what I said makes up for any transgressions.

The reason I come off so strongly against moral absolutists is that i have stumbled across many, and many of them feel it is appropriate to do terrible things in order to achieve what they call true justice. With apologies to Neitzche, many of those I have known to claim to want to slaughter monsters have become monsters themselves.

The message I was trying to make throughout this entire thread is that man has a tendency to find a reason why he should live and the man down the way should die. Religions do not cause this, I say contrary to the opinion of the thread starter. I am personally very religious, as are many of my friends and family, albeit we are not all of the same faith. This and my own personal journey has caused me to be very sensitive about religion and what people say about it, and I maintain that if religion never came into being, people would still find reasons to kill each other.

True that. If God doesn't exist, if for no other reason than our need to justify the unjustifiable, we would need to invent him. That being said, justifying the unjustifiable is hardly the only reason we have God-talk.

If you're really serious about the same kind of skepticism that generates moral relativism, you're going to be unconvinced that mathematics applies to anything in the real world, or even that the real world exists.

No, they are different kinds of skepticism. I can interact with empirical reality; I cannot interact with moral truth. The sky is blue, grass is green, my computer is black, my hair is brown - these are all things I can verify, not necessarily as to their truth, but as to their material relevance. I can argue about epistemology as I will, but when I go outside, the sky won't change color; it will remain stubbornly blue, even if it is merely the input from the machine projecting information into my brain in a vat. There is nothing about morality in any of that, however. Morality is simply not present in observed reality; nor is it present in reason, which is at the core of my thinking and I cannot avoid accepting.

Perhaps more importantly, objective reality is conceivable - it may or may not exist, but it is conceivable. There is nothing incoherent about the notion that the world in which we live has objective existence. Morality, however, seems to me to have a necessarily relative character; even if the universe was somehow imbued with values, why should I follow them? We not only do not know moral truth, we not only cannot know moral truth, but moral truth doesn't even exist; morality has no place being grouped with notions that can be assessed as true or false.

I look at is a matter of pragmatic assessment. Is it slightly possible that there isn't a world out there and I'm being deluded by the Matrix? Yes. But I can't act that way in my own life, otherwise I'm going to spend a lot of time in the hospital from walking into walls and getting burnt by fires I'm convinced don't really exist. In the same vein, is it possible that everything is just a subjective assessment and I'm kidding myself into believing everyone shares my subjective views about a world that may or may not reflect my views? Yes. But I can't act that way; in point of fact, I wouldn't know how to act in such a situation at all except out of rank egoism. To the extent that I believe that others have similar natures and act similarly out of those natures, however, I gain the benefits of being able to make sense of others moral actions and make meaningful social action possible, because I trust others to treat me as I treat them.

The truth or falsity of the reality I experience doesn't really concern me; what really matters is that what I value is contained within this framework. My desk may not really be real, but it is still relevant to my existence and to my values; if I touch it, I feel something, if I see it, I see something, if I scrape my arm against it, I will feel something I do not want to feel (pain), and if I use it to hit my friend on the head, I am performing a moral wrong.

It isn't pessimism. Just experience.

Of course there is a good side of humanity. Of course there are those who are tolerant. But just because some, or perhaps most people are tolerant does not change the fact that some still start wars.

Religion does not kill people. Neither does Communism. Nor does facism, or ideas. Its the people who believe in these ideas.

Those people are easily controlled because of a lack of education and control of information. But to say religion or anything else is the source of mankind's problems is continuing the human tradition of denying our responsibility for our problems.

right. all mankind is scum period. all people are fundamentally bad.

Hey guys! I'm about to put a stop to this silly religion idea, one at a time, using my time machine.
I'm leaving now for my first mission, and I'm going back about two thousand or so years. Now, back then, there's this guy telling everybody how great it would be to be nice for a change. I'm making sure he gets killed. In a pretty painful way, too, so that everybody will realize how stupid he is. Then, using my modern technology to break in, I can rob his tomb so that they go to look at his body, and see it's not there. The loss of even the remains of their glorious leader will surely quash this silliness.

How should I fix the next religion, anybody know?

Convince an old man that Daoism is correct and have him squash Buddhism. :D

It's not my fault Edwardis exposed the horrors of religious dogma to me at an early age!

I can tell you that Edwardis didn't know what the heck he was talking about most of the time.... if that helps any.

You'll be hard pressed to find someone who will deny this. Its the inspiration of the men that wrote it that comes into question.

Food for the thought:

La Sacra Biblia= The Holy Library.

The Bible is a collection of ideas, many of them in direct opposition to each other.

And there are several different Gospels and other books that were not included in the Bible.

I believe it was the council of Nicea that chose what went it and what didn't.

The Bible itself, in my opinion, shouldn't be treated as absolute truth, even by Christians.

It doesn't surprise me to hear this, but for intellectual honesty I would recommend you research a little bit more about the Council of Nicea.

And to think that Christians shouldn't treat the Bible as absolute truth is an interesting statement. It's either the word of God or it isn't. And for those who believe it's the word of God, they're going to treat it as such. That doesn't sound so odd.

Okay, yeah, before anyone thinks I hate God or anything. I am a church-going Christian who believes in some key principles my religion was founded on...but lately, every religion on Earth scares me half to hell.

I mean, first off, we have God knows how many dumbasses out there blowing themselves up in the name of their God(s).

Next, we have some super-states/nuclear powers using religion as an excuse to do dumb crap.

And finally, the sanctity of NSG has been breached by several religious fanatics, spreading their fundamentalist dogma and propaganda through the internet.

Can't we just go back in time and kill whoever the hell came up with the idea of religion?


Hehe yep me too, you do klnow of course the only thing to do?

Yeah that's right join the one and only all time true religion, join us brother become a Sikh!:D

right. all mankind is scum period. all people are fundamentally bad.

Did you read anything you quoted?