NationStates Jolt Archive

Where would a sense of morality and law come from? If history has shown us anything, christians are, at the best, intollerant bigots who want to slaughter the "demon worshiping pagans", and force their religion down ones' throat and up their ass. Not to mention they're all suffering from mass schizophrenia/hystaria. And of course, if you're a catholic priest...well, you've got a thing for little boys, don'tcha?

(Note: I know all christians aren't intollerant bigots. This is just a rebuttle to the "In a completely atheist culture..." thread, because the poster seems to have assumed atheists are moral-less and such, so I'm countering by saying that christians are bloodthirsty barbarians and mentally insane. I would like to thank Nietzsche for the sole fact that He > Jesus.)

WOW! your like one big stereotyping monster aint ya!

Especially about the thing with the catholic priests.

So, what point are you trying to make here anyway :confused:

You know, like in the all-seeing, all-knowing, all-dancing, all-speaking in tongue Christian hive mind... :rolleyes:

WOW! your like one big stereotyping monster aint ya!

Especially about the thing with the catholic priests.

So, what point are you trying to make here anyway :confused:

The point was to point out the silliness in the other thread about moral guidance for atheists.

He made it clear that his "Stereotyping" was to point out how silly real stereotyping is

In a society of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

Where would a sense of morality and law come from?

Fear of God of course. Meaning the morals would be the Bibles morals, and not morals based on sense.

I always wondered why some Christians are so eager to declare that without God there would be no morals. It implies that they themselves would happily commit rape, rob their neignours blind and dine on fresh baby every evening if it ever was shown that their faith was wrong and cannot imagine other people being any different.

Where would a sense of morality and law come from? If history has shown us anything, christians are, at the best, intollerant bigots who want to slaughter the "demon worshiping pagans", and force their religion down ones' throat and up their ass. Not to mention they're all suffering from mass schizophrenia/hystaria. And of course, if you're a catholic priest...well, you've got a thing for little boys, don'tcha?

(Note: I know all christians aren't intollerant bigots. This is just a rebuttle to the "In a completely atheist culture..." thread, because the poster seems to have assumed atheists are moral-less and such, so I'm countering by saying that christians are bloodthirsty barbarians and mentally insane. I would like to thank Nietzsche for the sole fact that He > Jesus.)
Awww... gee, I missed last weeks, Pagen Hunt and the Force feeding of the bible.

so I missed my chance to win the Gold-embossed, Autographed by Moses, book of Genesis... :(



:p

In a society of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

yet everyone will listen to the one with the sexy voice.

In a society of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

Until they finally get their hands on him and kill him out of jealousy.

Fear of God of course. Meaning the morals would be the Bibles morals, and not morals based on sense.

I always wondered why some Christians are so eager to declare that without God there would be no morals. It implies that they themselves would happily commit rape, rob their neignours blind and dine on fresh baby every evening if it ever was shown that their faith was wrong and cannot imagine other people being any different.

God is the measure of morality, for He is perfect.

I really think a lot of the "it just feels right" and the "common sense" comes from God anyway. I think that a lot of you just don't want to think that.

Until they finally get their hands on him and kill him out of jealousy.

and thus we know how the game "Blind Man's Bluff" was created...

God is the measure of morality, for He is perfect.

I really think a lot of the "it just feels right" and the "common sense" comes from God anyway. I think that a lot of you just don't want to think that.

Well, I'm a moral-relativist, so..

God is the measure of morality, for He is perfect.

I really think a lot of the "it just feels right" and the "common sense" comes from God anyway. I think that a lot of you just don't want to think that.

*nods* you're not alone with that idea.

God is the measure of morality, for He is perfect.

I really think a lot of the "it just feels right" and the "common sense" comes from God anyway. I think that a lot of you just don't want to think that.

Or maybe what you attribute to god really comes just from common sense and feeling combined with tradition...

That theory has one advantage
I know I exist and I know my feelings exist ...

I really think a lot of the "it just feels right" and the "common sense" comes from God anyway. I think that a lot of you just don't want to think that.

I am more then willing to admit that my gut feelings about right and wrong are largely based on those found in the Bible. I was raised in a western nation satiated with it after all.
I do however oppose the idea that those gut feelings are always right. If reasoning disagrees with gut and Bible, reasoning wins.

Or maybe what you attribute to god really comes just from common sense and feeling combined with tradition...

That theory has one advantage
I know I exist and I know my feelings exist ...
Oooh! Sssh! Quiet! There are christians around, and you know how they hate logic and reason! *hands you bible and other goodies* Quick, hide!

Well, I'm a moral-relativist, so..
I always think that is interesting....and a little scary.
Or maybe what you attribute to god really comes just from common sense and feeling combined with tradition...

That theory has one advantage
I know I exist and I know my feelings exist ...
It makes more sense than what I hear from others......;)

I am more then willing to admit that my gut feelings about right and wrong are largely based on those found in the Bible. I was raised in a western nation satiated with it after all.
I do however oppose the idea that those gut feelings are always right. If reasoning disagrees with gut and Bible, reasoning wins.

if my reasoning goes against the Bible it's usually because I am trying to justify doing something immoral.

The point was to point out the silliness in the other thread about moral guidance for atheists.

He made it clear that his "Stereotyping" was to point out how silly real stereotyping is

So to counter-act stereotypes, you start more of your own? I don't understand that logic. At best, you become exactly what you're objecting to. I'll point out the facts that-
A) there are thousands, if not millions of Christian priests in the world, and you can't judge them all by the actions of a few, though I do agree that those few deserve a very long, painful death (preferably involving rusty implements of torture) However, i digress.
B) theres more than a single sect of Christianity. Throughout history, they broke away from the main churche precisely BECAUSE of the various injustices of the period. It's like saying that everyone who's skin is brownish is an Islamic terrorist hell-bent on destroying the western world.

Did I forget anything?

if my reasoning goes against the Bible it's usually because I am trying to justify doing something immoral.

No, it is because you are trying to justify an action that is immoral according to the Bible. Big difference.
You probably already do that with certain "outdated" parts of the Bible. I at least assume you do not believe that a woman raped within city borders should be executed ?

Oooh! Sssh! Quiet! There are christians around, and you know how they hate logic and reason! *hands you bible and other goodies* Quick, hide!

Ever hear of the Jesuits? Who will argue over logic for hours?

In a completely Christian culture, people would regocnise that sin is not a reason to demonise people, because we are all sinners.

Or maybe what you attribute to god really comes just from common sense and feeling combined with tradition...

That theory has one advantage
I know I exist and I know my feelings exist ...

And this is everything. Really, it is, because what else can exist beyond what you know through experience?

Oooh! Sssh! Quiet! There are christians around, and you know how they hate logic and reason! *hands you bible and other goodies* Quick, hide!

Thats not fair either ... Smukee and a lot of other Christians on here Deal exclusively with logic and reason up to the point where logic and reason fail and faith takes over

I respect those that have faith even if I don't share it ... I just don't respect their faith when it tries to intrude where logic is the best tool, but not everyone does that. Using faith where faith is the best tool is not something to be looked down upon any more then lack of faith in those areas are either.

In a society of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

Actually, in a society of the blind, the one-eyed man would be executed for being different and therefore disruptive. His best bet would be to keep it quiet that he could see and possibly even close his eye.

No, it is because you are trying to justify an action that is immoral according to the Bible. Big difference.
You probably already do that with certain "outdated" parts of the Bible. I at least assume you do not believe that a woman raped within city borders should be executed ?

I think I would be justifying things that you would agree were immoral.

I am not going to get into the whole new covenant/ old covenant, and the types of laws that existed in the old testament in this thread, mostly because I am tired of arguing it with people who set up straw men to protect their little corner of the world where "Christians are stupid and evil" and don't really care to find out different.

And this is everything. Really, it is, because what else can exist beyond what you know through experience?

Plenty of stuff can exist beyond that point sure ... I am not all seeing.

But I personally cant just attribute things to beings that I have no knowledge and experience. Maybe that is a failing but it also is a strength.

People had no experience with the physical aspects that create lightning ... did that make their explanation right when they attributed it to god? No they made a leap to fill in the gaps

similar thing here I am not making that leap, and just pointing out that my theory does not take into account the unknown and unfalsafiable

That is a strength

So to counter-act stereotypes, you start more of your own? I don't understand that logic. At best, you become exactly what you're objecting to. I'll point out the facts that-
A) there are thousands, if not millions of Christian priests in the world, and you can't judge them all by the actions of a few, though I do agree that those few deserve a very long, painful death (preferably involving rusty implements of torture) However, i digress.
B) theres more than a single sect of Christianity. Throughout history, they broke away from the main churche precisely BECAUSE of the various injustices of the period. It's like saying that everyone who's skin is brownish is an Islamic terrorist hell-bent on destroying the western world.

Did I forget anything?

Its called satire ... sheesh

I think I would be justifying things that you would agree were immoral.

Try me.

Try me.

not you, a moral relativist can justify any action to decide it is moral.

I really think a lot of the "it just feels right" and the "common sense" comes from God anyway. I think that a lot of you just don't want to think that.
That's it.
Starting with your little comment, every time I hear a christian say "you just don't want to believe" or "you just don't want to think that" I'm going to go out, buy a Bible, and burn it.

http://www.valerieloveland.com/houses/viking/114_1500.JPG

Barbeque time.

not you, a moral relativist can justify any action to decide it is moral.

excuse me if this sounds impolite but WTF??? if tou agree that one can justify any action to be moral on what grounds do you name the immoral?

excuse me if this sounds impolite but WTF??? if tou agree that one can justify any action to be moral on what grounds do you name the immoral?

do you understand the difference between objective morality and relative morality?

Where would a sense of morality and law come from? If history has shown us anything, christians are, at the best, intollerant bigots who want to slaughter the "demon worshiping pagans", and force their religion down ones' throat and up their ass. Not to mention they're all suffering from mass schizophrenia/hystaria. And of course, if you're a catholic priest...well, you've got a thing for little boys, don'tcha?

(Note: I know all christians aren't intollerant bigots. This is just a rebuttle to the "In a completely atheist culture..." thread, because the poster seems to have assumed atheists are moral-less and such, so I'm countering by saying that christians are bloodthirsty barbarians and mentally insane. I would like to thank Nietzsche for the sole fact that He > Jesus.)

You're note saved me from flaming you.

do you understand the difference between objective morality and relative morality?

of course. with that statement you have acknowledged realtive morality. thus my question is how do you thereafter argue for objective morality? (or did i misinterpret?)

I think I would be justifying things that you would agree were immoral.

Possibly. The question remains: is it a bad thing to disagree with God or me on moral issues ?
To use another example: according to many people God considers sex between two people of the same gender to be a bad thing. I don't.
This disagreement is purely objective; I have no desire to make love to another man. It is not my opinion for selfish reasons.

Does this mean I am a bad person ?

of course. with that statement you have acknowledged realtive morality. thus my question is how do you thereafter argue for objective morality? (or did i misinterpret?)
I argue objective morality because that is the side of the fence I am on. I realize and can acknowledge and even argue if needed from a relative morality standing, but I will never believe it's anything worthwhile.


Possibly. The question remains: is it a bad thing to disagree with God or me on moral issues ?
To use another example: according to many people God considers sex between two people of the same gender to be a bad thing. I don't.
This disagreement is purely objective; I have no desire to make love to another man. It is not my opinion for selfish reasons.

Does this mean I am a bad person ?

everyone is a bad person. ;)

God is the measure of morality, for He is perfect.

I really think a lot of the "it just feels right" and the "common sense" comes from God anyway. I think that a lot of you just don't want to think that.


I can think of a range of things that have occurred that 'just felt right' and they werent really compatible with the whole "God is love" thing......

I argue objective morality because that is the side of the fence I am on. I realize and can acknowledge and even argue if needed from a relative morality standing, but I will never believe it's anything worthwhile.

And do you believe it possible that the morality as described by the Bible is not THE true objective morality ?

I argue objective morality because that is the side of the fence I am on. I realize and can acknowledge and even argue if needed from a relative morality standing, but I will never believe it's anything worthwhile.

everyone is a bad person. ;)

1) i got the fence thing... i am a bit confused as to how you could argue successfully for moral relativism (presumably against objectivism as it is the only other option) and still adhere to objectivism (or what you are actually saying is that there is an argument for moral relativism that makes sense to you but does not persuade you)

2) rofl:)

I can think of a range of things that have occurred that 'just felt right' and they werent really compatible with the whole "God is love" thing......
what types of things?
and
where do you think that feeling comes from? (not a hypothetical question)



And do you believe it possible that the morality as described by the Bible is not THE true objective morality ?

I believe there are people who miss the entire message of the Bible, I believe there are people who use the Bible for unscrupulous purposes, I do think that God is the source of THE true objective morality.

1) i got the fence thing... i am a bit confused as to how you could argue successfully for moral relativism (presumably against objectivism as it is the only other option) and still adhere to objectivism (or what you are actually saying is that there is an argument for moral relativism that makes sense to you but does not persuade you)
I can argue both sides of any issue, it's a gift (or a curse, haven't decided)



2) rofl:)
you laugh, but it's true.

I do think that God is the source of THE true objective morality.

Well.. there we disagree ;)

Well.. there we disagree ;)

because you don't believe there is a God yes?

I can argue both sides of any issue, it's a gift (or a curse, haven't decided)

you laugh, but it's true.

1)a gift most certainly... i can usually argue both sides of an argument because i don't believe either... but i do tend to sympathise with one over the other and then when i argue the one i dislike most there is always a mute "but..." on the back of my mind

2) only if you accept morality:p

what types of things?.

Violence


where do you think that feeling comes from? (not a hypothetical question)
.

The primeval instincts to hunt, fight for (food, territory). That kind of thing.




I

because you don't believe there is a God yes?

I am undecided on the question of his existence. The thought of there being multiple gods somehow feels much more "true" to me,but that is a feeling - not rationally reasoned.

That aside, even assuming He exists in the way a Christian denomination of your choice believes He does, I do not agree with the viewpoint that He would always be right on the question of right and wrong.

God is the measure of morality, for He is perfect.

I really think a lot of the "it just feels right" and the "common sense" comes from God anyway. I think that a lot of you just don't want to think that.

I don't know if there's any point in asking this but I'll do it anyway..

I hope this doesn't sound rude or anything but is god perfect? What makes you think he is or do you just assume so?

Why is god perfect?

I'm sorry, I'm just unable to reconcile what I consider to be perfection with what percieve around me and what I've read in the bible..

Trilby63;12108296']I don't know if there's any point in asking this but I'll do it anyway..

I hope this doesn't sound rude or anything but is god perfect? What makes you think he is or do you just assume so?

Why is god perfect?

I'm sorry, I'm just unable to reconcile what I consider to be perfection with what percieve around me and what I've read in the bible..

God is perfect because.........well, to tell the truth the whole thing goes into this circular logic thing.

I could explain but it would be poor debating.

so you are saying that god cannot be logically proven/disproven?... then i agree. i also conclude that your morality is therefore illogical (as it is based on an illogic concept - illogic as in beyond the scope of logic rather than false). so the question then is what is higher: logical truth or religious truth? for most of those who posed this question the answer tends to be logics.;)

so you are saying that god cannot be logically proven/disproven?... then i agree. i also conclude that your morality is therefore illogical (as it is based on an illogic concept - illogic as in beyond the scope of logic rather than false). so the question then is what is higher: logical truth or religious truth? for most of those who posed this question the answer tends to be logics.;)

I can agree with that. I can also point out that moral relativism is also illogical.

God is perfect because.........well, to tell the truth the whole thing goes into this circular logic thing.

I could explain but it would be poor debating.

I thought so..

Bloody god..

If he'd only explain it..

I can agree with that. I can also point out that moral relativism is also illogical.

please do elaborate.:)

Trilby63;12108363']Bloody god..

If he'd only explain it..

An actual explanation of the underlying principles of Gods moral reasoning would indeed be of great interest to me.

please do elaborate.:)

If you think about relative morality the basic idea is "all things are relative" meaning things that are wrong in one situation are right in another.

"One common argument against relativism suggests that it inherently contradicts, refutes, or stultifies itself: the statement "all is relative" classes either as a relative statement or as an absolute one. If it is relative, then this statement does not rule out absolutes. If the statement is absolute, on the other hand, then it provides an example of an absolute statement, proving that not all truths are relative. However, this argument against relativism only applies to relativism that posits truth as relative - i.e. epistemological/truth-value relativism. More specifically, it is only strong forms of epistemological relativism that can come in for this criticism as there are many epistemological relativists who posit that some aspects of what is regarded as "true" are not universal, yet still accept that other universal truths exist (e.g. gas laws)."

ala Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism)

If you think about relative morality the basic idea is "all things are relative" meaning things that are wrong in one situation are right in another.

"One common argument against relativism suggests that it inherently contradicts, refutes, or stultifies itself: the statement "all is relative" classes either as a relative statement or as an absolute one. If it is relative, then this statement does not rule out absolutes. If the statement is absolute, on the other hand, then it provides an example of an absolute statement, proving that not all truths are relative. However, this argument against relativism only applies to relativism that posits truth as relative - i.e. epistemological/truth-value relativism. More specifically, it is only strong forms of epistemological relativism that can come in for this criticism as there are many epistemological relativists who posit that some aspects of what is regarded as "true" are not universal, yet still accept that other universal truths exist (e.g. gas laws)."

ala Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism)

since when does epistemological relativism have anything to do with moral relativism?:)

since when does epistemological relativism have anything to do with moral relativism?:)

relativism is relativism

if rape is wrong in America and yet not wrong in <whatever country doesn't offend> that is illogical

if rape is always wrong then that is an absolute, it is objective, if there is no objective morality then that is illogical.

God is perfect because.........well, to tell the truth the whole thing goes into this circular logic thing.

I could explain but it would be poor debating.

Part of the most basic requirements of religion is faith. God's failure to be provable through logic is a way of ensuring that faith. No-one should believe in God because they can point to a math-style proof and say "yep, he's there all right." Also, I can logically justify my faith. If what I believe is true and I'm right, I go to heaven. (I personally don't believe that non-belief means go straight to hell, do not pass Go, do not collect $200, but let's just say I do) A non believer would go to hell. If you're right, then nothing happens to either of us.... I choose the safer option.

relativism may be relativism but epistemological relativism is not moral relativism

you have yet to prove your point and therefore both examples are useless

oh and just in case you were living with this impression, rape is not immoral everywhere in the world (let's not even get into animals but:) for example in afghanistan it is a cultural practice that if a woman betrays the honour of the family (e.g. cheats on her husband) she is to be gangraped by all the males in the family :)

relativism may be relativism but epistemological relativism is not moral relativism

you have yet to prove your point and therefore both examples are useless

oh and just in case you were living with this impression, rape is not immoral everywhere in the world (let's not even get into animals but:) for example in afghanistan it is a cultural practice that if a woman betrays the honour of the family (e.g. cheats on her husband) she is to be gangraped by all the males in the family :)

if rape is immoral all over the world then that is an absolute (rape is immoral) and goes against moral relativism. ;)

Part of the most basic requirements of religion is faith. God's failure to be provable through logic is a way of ensuring that faith. No-one should believe in God because they can point to a math-style proof and say "yep, he's there all right." Also, I can logically justify my faith. If what I believe is true and I'm right, I go to heaven. (I personally don't believe that non-belief means go straight to hell, do not pass Go, do not collect $200, but let's just say I do) A non believer would go to hell. If you're right, then nothing happens to either of us.... I choose the safer option.

:rolleyes: well... i wouldn't call forfeiting my life, character and principles to a possible god a safe option if you know what i mean:p

if rape is immoral all over the world then that is an absolute (rape is immoral) and goes against moral relativism. ;)

did i not just say it is not immoral in afghanistan? or where you not listening?

did i not just say it is not immoral in afghanistan? or where you not listening?

pardon me, if rape is not immoral in Afghanistan and is immoral in America then that is illogical as well.

pardon me, if rape is not immoral in Afghanistan and is immoral in America then that is illogical as well.

:( i'm dissapointed... they say you are one of the christians that listens to reason


your whole argument lies on your quote from wiki which makes the logical jump from epistemological to moral relativism. can you demonstrate this is not a logical jump and therefore relativism is illogical or can you not?

Actually, there's something to this.

In a society where we delegate the power to determine right and wrong to an alleged deity, and thus, in practice, to the people who teach and interpret that deity's word, how can we be sure that our morality is genuine and good? What happens if those we rely on get it wholly wrong?

We don't need religion to tell us the Golden Rule; we have empathy. We don't need religion to tell us to care for our families and friends; we do this instinctively, and feel the need to without referencing the Bible. But few forces are better than religion at getting us to suppress those feelings of love and compassion towards some - gays, heretics, and so on - while continually insisting and believing that we are in the right.

:( i'm dissapointed... they say you are one of the christians that listens to reason


your whole argument lies on your quote from wiki which makes the logical jump from epistemological to moral relativism. can you demonstrate this is not a logical jump and therefore relativism is illogical or can you not?

I am disappointed that you don't understand my position

let's work with what's given

rape is immoral in America

rape is not immoral in Afghanistan

why?

rape can not be both moral and immoral at the same time, it's illogical.

explain to me how it is a logical position to be a moral relativist.

Actually, there's something to this.

In a society where we delegate the power to determine right and wrong to an alleged deity, and thus, in practice, to the people who teach and interpret that deity's word, how can we be sure that our morality is genuine and good? What happens if those we rely on get it wholly wrong?

We don't need religion to tell us the Golden Rule; we have empathy. We don't need religion to tell us to care for our families and friends; we do this instinctively, and feel the need to without referencing the Bible. But few forces are better than religion at getting us to suppress those feelings of love and compassion towards some - gays, heretics, and so on - while continually insisting and believing that we are in the right.

A good point. If everyone has a direct line to God, if God speaks directly and clearly to each and every individual, the problem would not exist. He seems, as you say, to have delegated responsibility for interpreting his will to humans, humans who are by the definition prevalent in Christianity, flawed and destined for sin. And yet we should follow the teachings of those people.

explain to me how it is a logical position to be a moral relativist.

You are equivocating.

Obviously, rape cannot be both OBJECTIVELY immoral in Afghanistan and OBJECTIVELY immoral in the US - but when cultural relativists call something immoral, they are not saying that it is OBJECTIVELY immoral. They are saying that it is relatively immoral - that from a given cultural perspective (Afghan or US, in this case) rape is moral or immoral. To the moral relativist of the cultural relativist persuasion, there is no other kind of moral truth - all morality is merely the judgement a culture puts upon a particular act.

Note that this position has no necessary connection to our right or lack of right to judge other cultures or enforce our morality upon them.

Actually, there's something to this.

In a society where we delegate the power to determine right and wrong to an alleged deity, and thus, in practice, to the people who teach and interpret that deity's word, how can we be sure that our morality is genuine and good? What happens if those we rely on get it wholly wrong?

We don't need religion to tell us the Golden Rule; we have empathy. We don't need religion to tell us to care for our families and friends; we do this instinctively, and feel the need to without referencing the Bible. But few forces are better than religion at getting us to suppress those feelings of love and compassion towards some - gays, heretics, and so on - while continually insisting and believing that we are in the right.

you are right. this whole religiously justified morality is about being "right" rather than doing the good thing to do.

morality is the product of values and norms and also individual attitudes (upbringing, personality etc.) and it is therefore a consequence of the social contract. -> this would also explain why there were functioning societies before moses came down from the mountain :p

You are equivocating.

Obviously, rape cannot be both OBJECTIVELY immoral in Afghanistan and OBJECTIVELY immoral in the US - but when cultural relativists call something immoral, they are not saying that it is OBJECTIVELY immoral. They are saying that it is relatively immoral - that from a given cultural perspective (Afghan or US, in this case) rape is moral or immoral. To the moral relativist of the cultural relativist persuasion, there is no other kind of moral truth - all morality is merely the judgement a culture puts upon a particular act.

Note that this position has no necessary connection to our right or lack of right to judge other cultures or enforce our morality upon them.

interesting.....

it's still a bunch of puddle hopping to me though.

I am disappointed that you don't understand my position

let's work with what's given

rape is immoral in America

rape is not immoral in Afghanistan

why?

rape can not be both moral and immoral at the same time, it's illogical.

explain to me how it is a logical position to be a moral relativist.

yes, soheran already explained it (cheers btw). i do understand your position but it is based on confused language(again as explained). there is also the issue that you take moral objectivism as a premise (you assume it) and from there you argue against moral relativism. for a valid argument you must not start from a preset conclusion :p

yes, soheran already explained it (cheers btw). i do understand your position but it is based on confused language(again as explained). there is also the issue that you take moral objectivism as a premise (you assume it) and from there you argue against moral relativism. for a valid argument you must not start from a preset conclusion :p

I start from a preset conclusion because you basically asked me to.

interesting.....

it's still a bunch of puddle hopping to me though.

fair enough. no one says you should abandon your god (faith) based moral objectivism, merely to accept it is illogical and admit you choose the faith position over the logical one. then we will have nothing to argue about :p

I start from a preset conclusion because you basically asked me to.

no i only asked you to disprove moral relativism, not to assume the opposite.

fair enough. no one says you should abandon your god (faith) based moral objectivism, merely to accept it is illogical and admit you choose the faith position over the logical one. then we will have nothing to argue about :p

of course I choose the illogical over the logical, how else would I have faith in God?

of course I choose the illogical over the logical, how else would I have faith in God?

so why are you preaching here? (no offense but one cannot argue the illogical)

Personally, I don't understand how we can make religion the source of morality when there are many different religions that often have competing and mutually exclusive claims on what is right and what is wrong. Since we can't judge which religion is true, we can't judge which religious morality is true and which is false. Continuing the earlier example, if Muslim living in America raped a woman because of his beliefs or if a Jew or Christian in America stoned a woman to death because of Old Testament beliefs, both should be considered equally wrong, not because it violates any religious prohibition. Quite the contrary, they could be acting completely in line with the letter of their various holy books. That doesn't mean it's right though and it doesn't mean that their position is valid or worthy of respect.

One example that I have found interesting is the right that some American Indians have won to allow them to use peyote as part of their spiritual rituals. For everyone else, it is illegal. I am personally against prohibition of most drugs, but I am also against allowing people to claim a religious right to avoid laws. Similarly, I think it's absurd that a Quaker can get out of military service or the draft just by being a Quaker, whereas someone who is not religious but is a pacifist can't. Pure bunk, either both are subject to the rules or neither are subject to the rules.

so why are you preaching here? (no offense but one cannot argue the illogical)

Doesn't sound like preaching to me. Professing one's belief in response to an interrogatory is not preaching.

It's called answering a question.

God is the measure of morality, for He is perfect.

I really think a lot of the "it just feels right" and the "common sense" comes from God anyway. I think that a lot of you just don't want to think that.

you would not call that preaching?:rolleyes:

you would not call that preaching?:rolleyes:

Nope. She's answering a post.

i have no problem with the bit after "i think" although i will not accept it until she has argued for it. before that... well let's just say that she should have started that response with "i think"

i have no problem with the bit after "i think" although i will not accept it until she has argued for it. before that... well let's just say that she should have started that response with "i think"

Why? I don't see everyone else beginning their sentences with "I think".

Is there some special rule for religious statements that don't apply to idiotic statements, and not to political statements?

i have no problem with the bit after "i think" although i will not accept it until she has argued for it. before that... well let's just say that she should have started that response with "i think"

when stating belief it is not required to qualify it with anything, kind of like when you state an opinion.

statements of fact require qualifiers in the form of sources, if I do not quote a source you can assume I am not arguing fact ;)

oh good then... are we agreed then that moral relativism is the logical position?

oh good then... are we agreed then that moral relativism is the logical position?

No.

oh good then... are we agreed then that moral relativism is the logical position?

not logical, I agree that my position is illogical.

just because one is illogical does not by default make the other one logical.

No.

i was talking to smunkee... but alright... entertain me: "logical realtivism is not the logical position because...":)

oh good then... are we agreed then that moral relativism is the logical position?

What kind of moral relativism?

i was talking to smunkee... but alright... entertain me: "logical realtivism is not the logical position because...":)

See Smunkee's post just above.

not logical, I agree that my position is illogical.

just because one is illogical does not by default make the other one logical.

ok i might have made a limited options fallacy. if they were completly opposed positions then one being illogical would imply the other being the logical.

so we now have: morality is objective (established illogical), morality is relative, morality is subjective, morality does not exist. (am i missing something?)... which one do we go for?:p

(am i missing something?)

Morality is objective but not unchanging.

ok i might have made a limited options fallacy. if they were completly opposed positions then one being illogical would imply the other being the logical.

so we now have: morality is objective (established illogical), morality is relative, morality is subjective, morality does not exist. (am i missing something?)... which one do we go for?:p

they are all illogical?

they are all illogical?

as in morality does not exist or as in logic does not exist?:)

so we now have: morality is objective (established illogical), morality is relative, morality is subjective, morality does not exist. (am i missing something?)... which one do we go for?:p

There can be a difference between positions including "morality is subjective" and positions including "morality is relative," but it's easy to combine the two as well - "moral truth is relative to individual sentiments."

Morality is objective but not unchanging.

it is the subject to time and therefore not objective :p

There can be a difference between positions including "morality is subjective" and positions including "morality is relative," but it's easy to combine the two as well - "moral truth is relative to individual sentiments."

relative refers to culture (usually) and subjective to individuals. your combinations of the two reduces it to subjetive, but i see why they seem similar. the big difference is that in relativism one may make moral judgements in cultural contexts while in subjectivism one may not.

as in morality does not exist or as in logic does not exist?:)

logic is ill equipped to deal with things like morality.

logic is ill equipped to deal with things like morality.

Or life.

relative refers to culture (usually) and subjective to individuals.

So? Usual use is not necessary use.

your combinations of the two reduces it to subjetive,

No, it doesn't, because there's yet another position: morality is subjective and does not have a truth value (beyond simple sincerity.) Take emotivism.

the big difference is that in relativism one may make moral judgements in cultural contexts

In cultural relativism. Which is a load of nonsense.

Not all moral relativists are cultural relativists.

Or life.

or God

or God

Careful, you'll fry Nomans brain...

logic is ill equipped to deal with things like morality.

if i heard that in a mundane context i'd laugh (hard) and say something along the lines: "oh how wonderfully convenient". i have yet to be proven how logic is inconsistent with, say, moral subjectivism though...

*waiting*

if i heard that in a mundane context i'd laugh (hard) and say something along the lines: "oh how wonderfully convenient". i have yet to be proven how logic is inconsistent with, say, moral subjectivism though...

*waiting*

why is rape wrong in America?

if i heard that in a mundane context i'd laugh (hard) and say something along the lines: "oh how wonderfully convenient". i have yet to be proven how logic is inconsistent with, say, moral subjectivism though...

*waiting*

Let's approach this from another angle.

You are familiar with concepts such as neural networks, simulated annealing, and fuzzy logic, correct? Non-boolean logic?

So? Usual use is not necessary use.



No, it doesn't, because there's yet another position: morality is subjective and does not have a truth value (beyond simple sincerity.) Take emotivism.



In cultural relativism. Which is a load of nonsense.

Not all moral relativists are cultural relativists.

point taken... my definition of the words got a bit skewed:p

Careful, you'll fry Nomans brain...

just escaped catatonia there :p

Let's approach this from another angle.

You are familiar with concepts such as neural networks, simulated annealing, and fuzzy logic, correct? Non-boolean logic?

uhm i must admit i am not... would you explain or am i to get a wiki/google flamming?

why is rape wrong in America?

Because it's wrong in Europe and we don't want a wrongness gap.

why is rape wrong in America?

You're confusing ethics with meta-ethics.

Logic may be incapable, in and of itself, of explaining why a given act is right or wrong, but that does not mean that it cannot be used to analyze the nature (as opposed to the content) of moral judgment.

You're confusing ethics with meta-ethics.

Logic may be incapable, in and of itself, of explaining why a given act is right or wrong, but that does not mean that it cannot be used to analyze the nature (as opposed to the content) of moral judgment.

you are missing the point of me asking the question.

or maybe you aren't.......hmm.......

I think logic is the sum knowledge of all things observed, since morality is an idea and is not observable logic can not be applied.

You're confusing ethics with meta-ethics.

Logic may be incapable, in and of itself, of explaining why a given act is right or wrong, but that does not mean that it cannot be used to analyze the nature (as opposed to the content) of moral judgment.

blunt but is there really the need to go into prescriptivism here? i mean sure it will just support my claim that what she does is preaching, but according to that what everyone says is preaching:(

why is rape wrong in America?

Well, I'll tell ya what, I'll manhandle you down to ground and in the process break your jaw, then i'll tear town your pants, bend you over a bathtub wall, and force my throbing wang deep in to your previously vrigin rectum. Without Lubrication. WITHOUT lubrication. Then as you scream and bleed...you'll know why rape is wrong.

Well, I'll tell ya what, I'll manhandle you down to ground and in the process break your jaw, then i'll tear town your pants, bend you over a bathtub wall, and force my throbing wang deep in to your previously vrigin rectum. Without Lubrication. WITHOUT lubrication. Then as you scream and bleed...you'll know why rape is wrong.

I know why I think it's wrong, because I have been a victim.

I wonder how someone can say that rape is wrong in one circumstance and not in another and claim that their view is logical.

you are missing the point of me asking the question.

or maybe you aren't.......hmm.......

I think logic is the sum knowledge of all things observed, since morality is an idea and is not observable logic can not be applied.

uhm behaviour is observable and attitudes expressed... why is that beyond the scope of logic? (i mean logic is applied more to ideas than actually observable facts)

I wonder how someone can say that rape is wrong in one circumstance and not in another and claim that their view is logical.

Easy. Raping a person inflicts damage to them mentally, emotionally, and physically. It risks damage to oneself in those ways, too, as well as legally. So it's wrong in all sorts of ways, assuming one assigns "wrongness" to the quality of harming another being.

On the other hand, raping my pillow doesn't harm anyone, so it's not wrong in that circumstance.

Easy. Raping a person inflicts damage to them mentally, emotionally, and physically. It risks damage to oneself in those ways, too, as well as legally. So it's wrong in all sorts of ways, assuming one assigns "wrongness" to the quality of harming another being.

On the other hand, raping my pillow doesn't harm anyone, so it's not wrong in that circumstance.

but are the women in Afghanistan less than American women? if not then why isn't rape considered immoral there?

I have heard (not today) from a moral relativist that rape is not wrong unless society agrees it is.

that seems illogical to me, that a woman has a right to consent unless the men around her think she doesn't.

Easy. Raping a person inflicts damage to them mentally, emotionally, and physically. It risks damage to oneself in those ways, too, as well as legally. So it's wrong in all sorts of ways, assuming one assigns "wrongness" to the quality of harming another being.

On the other hand, raping my pillow doesn't harm anyone, so it's not wrong in that circumstance.

True, in essence, if there is a god, AND a hell. God is in turn, a Devine Rapist. If you figure, the idea of hell- a punnishment, for not loving god. Which means you are forced to love God. That is Forced Love, forced love is Rape. Plain and simple, if theres a hell and a god, then that god is, a rapist. akward aint it?

True, in essence, if there is a god, AND a hell. God is in turn, a Devine Rapist. If you figure, the idea of hell- a punnishment, for not loving god. Which means you are forced to love God. That is Forced Love, forced love is Rape. Plain and simple, if theres a hell and a god, then that god is, a rapist. akward aint it?

rape has nothing to do with love.

I know why I think it's wrong, because I have been a victim.

I wonder how someone can say that rape is wrong in one circumstance and not in another and claim that their view is logical.

excuse me but i used to words moral/immoral. and the rape example in afghanistan is not immoral by the interpretation of islamic fundamentalists of the word of allah (which happens to refer historically to the same god on which you base your oh so objective morals) as i have already explained. it may be harmful for the victim but it is not immoral by the perpetrators or the society they live in.

I wonder how someone can say that rape is wrong in one circumstance and not in another and claim that their view is logical.

It's quite easy (see most varieties of consequentialism), but also irrelevant.

Cultural relativists aren't exactly saying that "rape is wrong in one circumstance and not in another." They would not (necessarily) say, to continue with the previous example, that we should treat rape in Afghanistan (operating under the questionable assumption that Afghan culture deems rape to be moral) as more acceptable than rape in the US. What they WOULD say is that when we call rape immoral, we cannot cite an objective standard independent of our cultural morality to say so; any such statement must be based on cultural as opposed to absolute standards.

So, from a given cultural perspective rape might be just as immoral in Afghanistan as it is in the US, but the truth value of that statement is specific to that particular culture - if the Afghans disagree, there is no objective standard we can cite to prove them wrong.

I think logic is the sum knowledge of all things observed, since morality is an idea and is not observable logic can not be applied.

The manifestations, justifications, and so on of morality are all perfectly observable.

but are the women in Afghanistan less than American women? if not then why isn't rape considered immoral there?

I have heard (not today) from a moral relativist that rape is not wrong unless society agrees it is.

that seems illogical to me, that a woman has a right to consent unless the men around her think she doesn't.

your totally right, if you could compare rape to murder- a society that believes murder is right, and lets people murder eachother, isnt right, no matter what the people there believe. Just like rape, if rape is popular, and a society says its alright and infact encourages it, then it is not only the job, but the moral duty of other societies around the world, to smite and destroy such a society.

excuse me but i used to words moral/immoral. and the rape example in afghanistan is not immoral by the interpretation of islamic fundamentalists of the word of allah (which happens to refer historically to the same god on which you base your oh so objective morals) as i have already explained. it may be harmful for the victim but it is not immoral by the perpetrators or the society they live in.

None the less, it is still immoral, and they should thus be punnished by other societies.

rape has nothing to do with love.

Forced Love, not Love love, its forced love, you are forced to love someone or something in a certain way, or you will be horribly punnished, that is rape.

Forced Love, not Love love, its forced love, you are forced to love someone or something in a certain way, or you will be horribly punnished, that is rape.

No love is an emotion not an act ... you are forced to have sex

Not Love

Where would a sense of morality and law come from? If history has shown us anything, christians are, at the best, intollerant bigots who want to slaughter the "demon worshiping pagans", and force their religion down ones' throat and up their ass. Not to mention they're all suffering from mass schizophrenia/hystaria. And of course, if you're a catholic priest...well, you've got a thing for little boys, don'tcha?
I consider myself a Christian and neither am I intolerant, nor a bigot, nor do I want to slaughter anyone, be they "demon worshiping pagans" or anything else.
I don't preach, I don't like being preached to (unless I go to church and chose to submit myself to preaching), and neither do I force my religion down anyone's throat, nor up their ass.
And I'm most definitely not suffering from mass schizophrenia, nor hysteria.
(Note: I know all christians aren't intollerant bigots. This is just a rebuttle to the "In a completely atheist culture..." thread, because the poster seems to have assumed atheists are moral-less and such, so I'm countering by saying that christians are bloodthirsty barbarians and mentally insane. I would like to thank Nietzsche for the sole fact that He > Jesus.)
I don't give a shit what your reason for this thread is - but your generalizations are simply utterly ridiculous, insulting, and don't even fit most Christians I know. Flamebaiting much? http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/Flamey.gif
By the way - did you just call me a bloodthirsty barbarian and mentally insane? You have the great chance to take that back now.
Well, I'm a moral-relativist, so..
...why bother? ...why not shut the fuck up? ...I like pissing people off? ...I can't help but make a flamebait?
What's it going to be, huh?
Oooh! Sssh! Quiet! There are christians around, and you know how they hate logic and reason! *hands you bible and other goodies* Quick, hide!
And another one of your fine generalizations. Fuck that!
Reason and logic are part of my daily life as a scientist and linguist as much as my beliefs are part of my spiritual life.
Try me.
Pray that I don't put you on trial. You know how all Christians are bloodthirsty and insane, and I might just feel like nailing an unbeliever to the cross and poke them a little... http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/PokeJesus.gif

Besides, it's intolerant - not intollerant, and it's hysteria, not hystaria. http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/AngryGerman.gif

God is the measure of morality, for He is perfect.

I really think a lot of the "it just feels right" and the "common sense" comes from God anyway. I think that a lot of you just don't want to think that.

Try using the brain and thinking for yourself. "Just feels right"!!!!!!!!!

but are the women in Afghanistan less than American women? if not then why isn't rape considered immoral there?

They're not "less than" American women. As for whether they consider it immoral to rape someone there, obviously they do not assign "wrongness" to the quality of harming another person.

I have heard (not today) from a moral relativist that rape is not wrong unless society agrees it is.

True. But here's the fun part, define "society" and define the "agreement" they are making.

The fact is, "right" and "wrong" can't exist in a vacuum. They're utterly dependent on people who believe this is wrong, this is right, etc. People don't agree all the time on their beliefs. It's that simple.

that seems illogical to me, that a woman has a right to consent unless the men around her think she doesn't.

"rights" don't exist in a vacuum either. There is no such thing as an objective "right" that is somehow separate from society, people and cultures. There is nothing at all illogical about this - illogical would be assuming that there is an objective, alien series of right, wrong that is magically independent of people.

Try using the brain and thinking for yourself. "Just feels right"!!!!!!!!!

I think for myself. do you?

your totally right, if you could compare rape to murder- a society that believes murder is right, and lets people murder eachother, isnt right, no matter what the people there believe. Just like rape, if rape is popular, and a society says its alright and infact encourages it, then it is not only the job, but the moral duty of other societies around the world, to smite and destroy such a society.

are you american by any chance?:rolleyes:

no, no society has the right to judge another by its own standard.

In a completely Christian culture, there would be good people and bad people just like any other system. Depending on a number of factors, the society might be more liberal, more restrictive, more open or closed; it's not the religion that produces the intolerance, it's the way the religion is used that produces it. A Christian culture could easily have a secular government while still maintaining its religious culture.

For example, the US is overwhelmingly Christian and its culture has been profoundly affected by Christianity and yet it has more personal and civil freedom than the vast majority of nations on Earth including the professed atheist states like North Korea, China, Vietnam, and the former USSR.

are you american by any chance?:rolleyes:

no, no society has the right to judge another by its own standard.

I think I do, seeing as how my society is overwhelmingly superior in all aspects to those of the radical Muslims or repressive Communist states. Our ideas are the best, and they will come out on top on the end; that's why so many people want to emulate the Western way of life...because it is simply the best and no other can even remotely compare to it.

I think I do, seeing as how my society is overwhelmingly superior in all aspects to those of the radical Muslims or repressive Communist states.

Yeah, that's what the Nazis thought too about theirs. I mean, not that your cultural supremacism is in any way similar to their cultural supremacism... for example, you probably shun lederhosen.

I think I do, seeing as how my society is overwhelmingly superior in all aspects to those of the radical Muslims or repressive Communist states. Our ideas are the best, and they will come out on top on the end; that's why so many people want to emulate the Western way of life...because it is simply the best and no other can even remotely compare to it.

oh no... not this cultural superiority bullshit again:headbang:

Christianity is the way to go. I do not want to burn in hell when I die. I want to live in eternity in Heaven. God is good! Everyone needs to get to know the Lord God as their one and only Savior. He is Awesome and can save you! Yes I am a Christian.

are you american by any chance?:rolleyes:

no, no society has the right to judge another by its own standard.

Negative. Not if a society is brutaly oppressing itself and people they deem inferior. Whats so wrong with being an American, I am one, and you know, if you would like to see that kind of stuff go down, and not do anything about it, then you are not fit to be a human being. If you want to just let things like the holocaust go on, or the massive amounts of rape and tourter in the middle east. You are sick. Culture and Society do not stand infront of what is right. If a society acts like that, and horribly abuses women and or minorities, it deserves to be destroyed by its neighboors, if it cannot or will not reform. Because- A society that excists as such, is damageing to the enitre human race, and is part of the problem, and is infact helping the process of pushing the whole human race backwards, and for fruther advancement, and the freedom and decency of others, needs to be destroyed without mercy.

If you dissagree, you can come over here, and I'll will hire someone to rape the living shit outta you, and I'll pay off anyone who knows, so I get away with it- then you will know how it feels to live in such a society.

Which christians? Which bible translation from aramaic? What time period? There is no more a unified christianity than a unified islam.

oh no... not this cultural superiority bullshit again:headbang:

you are hilarious.

no, no society has the right to judge another by its own standard.

You just did.

oh no... not this cultural superiority bullshit again:headbang:

Well, let's see: on every single metric of human economic and social development, Western states are superior.

We are happier, healthier, more educated, wealthier, more peaceful, are more politically stable, more tolerant of others' beliefs and ideas, have greater personal, political and economic freedoms, and are vastly more technologically advanced than any other civilization on Earth. We attract more immigrants than any other system on Earth, and our system is emulated as the path to success in developing nations worldwide.

If that's not superiority, I don't know what is.

*snip from the OP*

A wise man once said, "Without religion, you'd still see good people doing good things and bad people doing bad things. But for a good person to do bad things, that takes religion."

That's a very good question to ask. Ultimately, morality will come from the same place as before.

I think I do, seeing as how my society is overwhelmingly superior in all aspects to those of the radical Muslims or repressive Communist states.

Plenty of "repressive Communist states" incorporated Western culture. So did the Nazis.

Our ideas are the best, and they will come out on top on the end; that's why so many people want to emulate the Western way of life...because it is simply the best and no other can even remotely compare to it.

On what basis do you say so?

Western culture currently dominates the planet; that is plenty of reason for emulation, but hardly one for judging it to be better than the alternatives.

Yeah, that's what the Nazis thought too about theirs. I mean, not that your cultural supremacism is in any way similar to their cultural supremacism... for example, you probably shun lederhosen.

No, no, no, NO. I am not advocating American or even Western values in any way shap or form. In fact I loath most of those values. I am preeching that it is the need for ANY culture, or ANY society- To destroy ANY society that is presenting a backwards move for the human race in terms of genocide and mass rape and oppresion. If that means a country like Japan would have to destroy America because America began to move back into the days of slavery and or the native american slaughter, I would support Japan full throttle.

Actually, in a society of the blind, the one-eyed man would be executed for being different and therefore disruptive. His best bet would be to keep it quiet that he could see and possibly even close his eye.

If they were all blind, how would they know his eyes were open?

Well, let's see: on every single metric of human economic and social development, Western states are superior.

So? What does that prove about Western CULTURE?

If you want to judge cultures by that standard, anyway, the winners would probably be the South and East Asian cultures... they have the best overall track record.

Yeah, that's what the Nazis thought too about theirs. I mean, not that your cultural supremacism is in any way similar to their cultural supremacism... for example, you probably shun lederhosen.

As far as I know, accepting peoples' beliefs, allowing the democratic election of leaders, providing comprehensive social and educational services, maintaining peace and stability within and without, and providing a stable, open and prosperous environment for people is a lot different than a belligerent and murderous regime that rounded up its enemies and tortured them to death in camps solely designed to kill as many people as possible.

In fact, it's the people that oppose the Western values of economic, political and personal freedom that have the most in common with the Nazis. Seeing some militant fanatic beat women to a pulp, stone homosexuals and murder rape victims while taking the time to videotape a man sawing an innocent victim's head off with a machete is not my idea of an equal society.

Negative. Not if a society is brutaly oppressing itself and people they deem inferior. Whats so wrong with being an American, I am one, and you know, if you would like to see that kind of stuff go down, and not do anything about it, then you are not fit to be a human being. If you want to just let things like the holocaust go on, or the massive amounts of rape and tourter in the middle east. You are sick. Culture and Society do not stand infront of what is right. If a society acts like that, and horribly abuses women and or minorities, it deserves to be destroyed by its neighboors, if it cannot or will not reform. Because- A society that excists as such, is damageing to the enitre human race, and is part of the problem, and is infact helping the process of pushing the whole human race backwards, and for fruther advancement, and the freedom and decency of others, needs to be destroyed without mercy.

If you dissagree, you can come over here, and I'll will hire someone to rape the living shit outta you, and I'll pay off anyone who knows, so I get away with it- then you will know how it feels to live in such a society.

well i guess if letting peoples live as they want and nations govern themselves as they see fit according to their own culture, rules, norms, values etc. is sick then i am the most perverted creature on the planet. and no i will not come over there, in a culture that feels it must destroy any other culture that disagrees with its skewed notions of right. (and i'd rather not even get into the politics of it)

Well, let's see: on every single metric of human economic and social development, Western states are superior.

We are happier, healthier, more educated, wealthier, more peaceful, are more politically stable, more tolerant of others' beliefs and ideas, have greater personal, political and economic freedoms, and are vastly more technologically advanced than any other civilization on Earth. We attract more immigrants than any other system on Earth, and our system is emulated as the path to success in developing nations worldwide.

If that's not superiority, I don't know what is.

Uh, yeah, however we got to this point by brutally oppressing and taking advantages of the rest of the societies in the world. America and the rest of the world is no better than a Parasite!

God is the measure of morality, for He is perfect.

I really think a lot of the "it just feels right" and the "common sense" comes from God anyway. I think that a lot of you just don't want to think that.

Religion cannot coexist with science.

Well, let's see: on every single metric of human economic and social development, Western states are superior.

We are happier, healthier, more educated, wealthier, more peaceful, are more politically stable, more tolerant of others' beliefs and ideas, have greater personal, political and economic freedoms, and are vastly more technologically advanced than any other civilization on Earth.

Happier? Look at the rates of depression and other rates of mental disorder.

Politically stable? Har. We have a new leadership every 4 years. We flip-flop between this and that policy.

Oh, but I see you changed the goal posts. Now it's about "Western states." So you can now include education. Because that's what supremacist assholes like you are about - taking credit for that which you haven't earned.

If that's not superiority, I don't know what is.

I am superior to you. On every metric of human development. My penis is bigger, I'm smarter, I make more money, I have more fun and I have more friends. Do you accept my superiority? Do you acknowledge your own inferiority, to me?

In fact, it's the people that oppose the Western values of economic, political and personal freedom that have the most in common with the Nazis.

Bullshit. Nazi Germany was the pinnacle of Western Civilization, and most people at the time thought so until they started inconviniently invading France.

So? What does that prove about Western CULTURE?

Without a culture that espouses those values, they don't exist. I consider "Western" to be a lot broader than just the US/EU.

If you want to judge cultures by that standard, anyway, the winners would probably be the South and East Asian cultures... they have the best overall track record.

And I consider them to be close to the West when it comes to those things. If you look, however, many of the Asian states have democratic governments and high levels of personal freedom relative to other parts of the world. India, South Korea and Japan are excellent examples of Western ideas adapted to local cultures.

the Western values of economic, political and personal freedom

The Western World has no monopoly on any of those values, Western culture is much more than those values, and plenty of Western cultures have rejected those values.

well i guess if letting peoples live as they want and nations govern themselves as they see fit according to their own culture, rules, norms, values etc. is sick then i am the most perverted creature on the planet. and no i will not come over there, in a culture that feels it must destroy any other culture that disagrees with its skewed notions of right. (and i'd rather not even get into the politics of it)

I am not advocating Americas dominance. No nation should have global dominance. I advocate that ANY culture or society that is brutally wrong and oppresive needs to be destroyed for the betterment of the rest of the Human Civilization. Just because a lot of people in one area think rape, murder, tourter and racism are correct, doesnt make it so. And such a society should be eliminated.

Religion cannot coexist with science.

science cannot explain religion and religion cannot explain science, but they can coexist, in the same way that I exist in the same world as my hamster even though we are very different.

Bullshit. Nazi Germany was the pinnacle of Western Civilization, and most people at the time thought so until they started inconviniently invading France.

If I recall correctly, quite a few people considered the US and UK to be the pinnacles of Western civilization. I don't recall the Nazis being particularly admired outside of Germany, especially considering that they were clearly in opposition to the values of much of the Western world.

Religion cannot coexist with science.

my young lad this is called trolling... stop it while you are still intact.

Without a culture that espouses those values, they don't exist.

I see no evidence for that. Correlation is not causation. Western societies have plenty of advantages beyond alleged cultural ones - some of which (like those derived from imperialism) more attributable to cultural depravity than cultural excellence.

I consider "Western" to be a lot broader than just the US/EU.

Define it, then.

And I consider them to be close to the West when it comes to those things.

Now, maybe. Were they hundreds of years ago, when they were far ahead of Europe?

If I recall correctly, quite a few people considered the US and UK to be the pinnacles of Western civilization. I don't recall the Nazis being particularly admired outside of Germany, especially considering that they were clearly in opposition to the values of much of the Western world.

If I recall correctly, quite a few people considered Germany to be the pinnacle of Western civilization. Their economy and technology, for example. And their advanced ideas regarding social progress. And who says anything else is "the values of the Western world?"

Seeing some militant fanatic beat women to a pulp, stone homosexuals and murder rape victims while taking the time to videotape a man sawing an innocent victim's head off with a machete is not my idea of an equal society.

Speaking of gay rights... you are aware that there are plenty of cultures that have better track records on that question than Western culture? Many of them, in fact, were forcibly displaced by Western expansion.

A good number of the world's anti-sodomy laws are relics of Western imperialism.

Happier? Look at the rates of depression and other rates of mental disorder.[/QUOTE

Maybe that's because we actually diagnose and treat those problems rather than ignore them. The problem is, most of the world doesn't even have the means to diagnose or treat people with problems.

[QUOTE]Politically stable? Har. We have a new leadership every 4 years. We flip-flop between this and that policy.

At least we can change our leaders when our policies or needs change.

I'd rather have that than some dictator who ruins the country and bleeds it dry through theft and then shoots or imprisons those who disagree with him, or some corrupt sheikh who drives around spending ill-gotten oil money on cars, sex slaves and palaces while his people toil away in poverty, disease unemployment, repression and forced ignorance.

Oh, but I see you changed the goal posts. Now it's about "Western states." So you can now include education. Because that's what supremacist assholes like you are about - taking credit for that which you haven't earned.

We are the most educated people on Earth; no other system can produce the quality or quantity of educated people that Western education can. In particular, Japan and the EU have excellent public education systems, and the university system in the United States is the best in the world.

I am superior to you. On every metric of human development. My penis is bigger, I'm smarter, I make more money, I have more fun and I have more friends. Do you accept my superiority? Do you acknowledge your own inferiority, to me?

Human lives, opportunities, or futures don't hang in the balance of your cock size, so no.

funny how moral relativism, hell, exclusively christian society lead into cultural supremacy:headbang:

@ vetalia: at a time when the british empire was declining from its position of the most powerfull political entity in the world the nazis were seen as the pinnacle of western civilisation in britain, france, spain, italy etc.

@ barbaric tribes: do not rush social darwinism. societies will fail by their own devices if the are not fit for survival, but there is no justification for one country to invade another on cultural principles. (WWII example: we would say france was a better civilisation at the time than germany, yet germany invaded it on the grounds of imposing its cultural superiority - was that correct? how would you know who has the right to invade who and whose values are the right ones? what if those you think should win do not?)

Speaking of gay rights... you are aware that there are plenty of cultures that have better track records on that question than Western culture? Many of them, in fact, were forcibly displaced by Western expansion.

A good number of the world's anti-sodomy laws are relics of Western imperialism.

Yes, and it's morally wrong. We are not infallible, and it is our responsibility to remedy the damage we've caused in the past.

Yes, and it's morally wrong. We are not infallible, and it is our responsibility to remedy the damage we've caused in the past.

no it's our responsability to stay the fuck out of people's lives when they do not want our "superior" culture imposed on them for the precise reason that we are not infallible.

If I recall correctly, quite a few people considered Germany to be the pinnacle of Western civilization. Their economy and technology, for example. And their advanced ideas regarding social progress. And who says anything else is "the values of the Western world?"

And yet no other nations besides Germany and Italy ended up a freely elected fascist government...I wonder why? Perhaps because the admirers of the Nazis were really a small but vocal minority that really wasn't particularly influential to begin with?

Well, let's look at all of the Western nations and see what they have in common. They all have democratic governments, open academic environments, personal and economic freedom, acceptance or at least tolerance of others' beliefs and lifestyles, stable political and geopolitical structures, and respect for the implementation and rule of law in their countries.

funny how moral relativism, hell, exclusively christian society lead into cultural supremacy:headbang:

@ vetalia: at a time when the british empire was declining from its position of the most powerfull political entity in the world the nazis were seen as the pinnacle of western civilisation in britain, france, spain, italy etc.

@ barbaric tribes: do not rush social darwinism. societies will fail by their own devices if the are not fit for survival, but there is no justification for one country to invade another on cultural principles. (WWII example: we would say france was a better civilisation at the time than germany, yet germany invaded it on the grounds of imposing its cultural superiority - was that correct? how would you know who has the right to invade who and whose values are the right ones? what if those you think should win do not?)


However, if England and America let Germany be the culture it wanted to be, then most of Europe would still be beneath the Swastika, and there would be no more "Jewish Question."

Maybe that's because we actually diagnose and treat those problems rather than ignore them. The problem is, most of the world doesn't even have the means to diagnose or treat people with problems.

And maybe it's because ours is a high-pressure society with increasingly fewer spiritual and emotional opportunities, high rates of crime and suicide.

But OK - statistics that show the US and other western states have the highest percentages of mental disorder are invalid, because you say so. ;)

At least we can change our leaders when our policies or needs change.

Oh we can? Like how we impeached Clinton and got him out of office. No wait, it didn't do that. Our policies needed change years ago, and did we get it then? No. So clearly, we change our leaders TOO LATE, not WHEN change is needed.

I'd rather have that than some dictator who ruins the country and bleeds it dry through theft and then shoots or imprisons those who disagree with him, or some corrupt sheikh who drives around spending ill-gotten oil money on cars, sex slaves and palaces while his people toil away in poverty, disease unemployment, repression and forced ignorance.

Hmm, such a tough choice. A non-western dictator or a western one? Who's better, "some corrupt sheikh" or Hitler? Oh wait - now you'll say Hitler wasn't part of Western Civilization. Nyah nyah nyah. Anything so long as you're always in the "superior" side.

We are the most educated people on Earth; no other system can produce the quality or quantity of educated people that Western education can. In particular, Japan and the EU have excellent public education systems, and the university system in the United States is the best in the world.

Japan is part of the "West?" What an interesting geographical education you've had.

Human lives, opportunities, or futures don't hang in the balance of your cock size, so no.

Actually, they do. So yes. Plus, you ignored every other way I'm superior to you. It seems you just don't want to admit to being inferior. Why? You can declare billions of people to be inferior to you, but when it comes to anyone being superior to you you hesitate. Is that because you're a hypocrite, or is it just intellectual dishonesty?

no it's our responsability to stay the fuck out of people's lives when they do not want our "superior" culture imposed on them for the precise reason that we are not infallible.

Sure, but this standard only works if you consider INDIVIDUALS, not necessarily cultures as a whole.

If no one in another culture wants our intervention, then of course we shouldn't intervene - but if there is a group of people being actively oppressed by another group of people, and the oppressed group wants our aid, then we have a responsibility to aid them, even if the culture doesn't think that oppression is a problem.

And yet no other nations besides Germany and Italy ended up a freely elected fascist government...I wonder why? Perhaps because the admirers of the Nazis were really a small but vocal minority that really wasn't particularly influential to begin with?

Well, let's look at all of the Western nations and see what they have in common. They all have democratic governments, open academic environments, personal and economic freedom, acceptance or at least tolerance of others' beliefs and lifestyles, stable political and geopolitical structures, and respect for the implementation and rule of law in their countries.

france didn't go fascist for the fear of civil war, britain didn't go fascist due to the first past the post electoral system. there are no other nations to speak of at the time.

no it's our responsability to stay the fuck out of people's lives when they do not want our "superior" culture imposed on them for the precise reason that we are not infallible.

And yet they seem to have no qualms about getting in to ours; I believe the radical Islamic factions have been trying to overthrow the West and impose their violent, backward society on us for decades now. If they want to try and force their culture on us, we will have to reciprocate and force ours on them.

You can't isolate cultures from one another; they have always been in contact, and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. When they conflict the better one has to win, and that's the West. And we are winning, slowly but surely. If the fundamentalists kept to themselves and lived their 7th century lifestyle of ignorance and poverty without trying to spread it, there would be no problem. But they are trying to spread it, and they are a threat to progress.

However, if England and America let Germany be the culture it wanted to be, then most of Europe would still be beneath the Swastika, and there would be no more "Jewish Question."

and the problem with that would be? (not to mention that your view of the nazis is skewed by years of demonisation and propaganda, and the fact that there was still the soviet union around to keep them in check - and the other way around too)

I believe the radical Islamic factions have been trying to overthrow the West and impose their violent, backward society on us for decades now.

Hardly, paranoia about the Islamic hordes invading Europe aside. Transformation of the US into a Shariah-ruled Islamic state is nowhere near the top of the list of goals.

They are more concerned with imposing their will upon their own countries for the moment.

and the problem with that would be?

I don't know about you, but some of us find genocide problematic.

Sure, but this standard only works if you consider INDIVIDUALS, not necessarily cultures as a whole.

If no one in another culture wants our intervention, then of course we shouldn't intervene - but if there is a group of people being actively oppressed by another group of people, and the oppressed group wants our aid, then we have a responsibility to aid them, even if the culture doesn't think that oppression is a problem.

not necessarily... it is not our responsability to arbiter for one group in disfavour of another. that group is responsable for its own fate and how it fights that oppresion

and the problem with that would be? (not to mention that your view of the nazis is skewed by years of demonisation and propaganda, and the fact that there was still the soviet union around to keep them in check - and the other way around too)

OH, so your one of those types of people. You know, the whole, "Whats so bad about the holocaust? oh nothing, all those filthy subhuman Jews got what they deserved." Fuck you, and fuck everything you stand for.:upyours:

The Soviet Union would not keep Nazi Germany in check. If you think so, then go back to history class. At the beggining of the war to two were allied and Stalin had absolutley no intetnion of invading Germany. Stalin too, also wanted to get rid of the Jews. Like yourself. The Russian army at the outset of the war was a joke as well.

Religion cannot coexist with science.
But it can. I consider myself a religious scientist - and that doesn't mean I'm spouting nonsense. Well, most of the time I ain't. And if I do, it's on purpose!

not necessarily... it is not our responsability to arbiter for one group in disfavour of another.

Yes, it is. It is our responsibility to help others in need. Always has been. Always will be.

Since we would object to oppression of ourselves, we must similarly object to the oppression of others. We are not possessed of more moral worth than others are.

that group is responsable for its own fate and how it fights that oppresion

How can a group be responsible for something that may not be its own fault?

And yet they seem to have no qualms about getting in to ours; I believe the radical Islamic factions have been trying to overthrow the West and impose their violent, backward society on us for decades now. If they want to try and force their culture on us, we will have to reciprocate and force ours on them.

You can't isolate cultures from one another; they have always been in contact, and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. When they conflict the better one has to win, and that's the West. And we are winning, slowly but surely. If the fundamentalists kept to themselves and lived their 7th century lifestyle of ignorance and poverty without trying to spread it, there would be no problem. But they are trying to spread it, and they are a threat to progress.

and this clash of cultures justifies invading other countries how? the superior culture does always win when there is no military element involved, but that is no excuse to go about starting wars for supremacist reasons. (otherwise even the romans conquered greece)

And maybe it's because ours is a high-pressure society with increasingly fewer spiritual and emotional opportunities, high rates of crime and suicide.

But OK - statistics that show the US and other western states have the highest percentages of mental disorder are invalid, because you say so. ;)

No, because there are almost no statistics for the rest of the world. Incomplete statistics are meaningless if they can't be accurately compared to other parts of the world. Even so, you have to overcome any number of cultural issues to get good data; in a lot of cultures, these problems likely go underreported for fear of social persecution.

Oh we can? Like how we impeached Clinton and got him out of office. No wait, it didn't do that. Our policies needed change years ago, and did we get it then? No. So clearly, we change our leaders TOO LATE, not WHEN change is needed.

And yet we still can change them even if it is too late. Good luck doing that in North Korea, China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran or any of the dictatorships and oligarchies out there; a lousy leader is going to stay in power as long as he wants so long as he can convince the elites that he deserves to stay. Just look at that nutjob Ahmadinejad...he's terrible and yet can hold on to power thanks to the clerics behind the curtain.

Hmm, such a tough choice. A non-western dictator or a western one? Who's better, "some corrupt sheikh" or Hitler? Oh wait - now you'll say Hitler wasn't part of Western Civilization. Nyah nyah nyah. Anything so long as you're always in the "superior" side.

Hitler was a part of Western civilization. However, we were ultimately capable of defeating him and stopping his murderous rampage. We learned from our mistakes and made sure it would never happen again, something non-Western cultures have failed to do so far.

Japan is part of the "West?" What an interesting geographical education you've had.

The "Western culture" isn't geographic, it refers to the common values espoused by the states of the US and EU, and anyone who shares those values should rightly be considered a Western state.

Actually, they do. So yes. Plus, you ignored every other way I'm superior to you. It seems you just don't want to admit to being inferior. Why? You can declare billions of people to be inferior to you, but when it comes to anyone being superior to you you hesitate. Is that because you're a hypocrite, or is it just intellectual dishonesty?

Well, first things first we'd need some proof.

Secondly, I think that those billions of people living in poverty and ignorance would really like to be able to decide what they want for their country rather than be forced to accept whatever their dictators or corrupt theocrats fprced on them. The West is great in that people can decide what they want rather than have someone else force it on them without the ability to change or protest it.

There's a reason why so many people flee the rest of the world and come to Western nations, and why so many nations try to emulate Western economic and political structures...because they work and are the best method for achieving the highest living standards of their people.

I don't know about you, but some of us find genocide problematic.

of course you as individuals do... but as a culture we do not... let's not forget that the british invented concentration camps in the boer war and the genocide upon which the US is built. hell even the shittiest imperial power in europe, belgium, which at the time had the most "advanced" constitution was indulging in genocide and sportive manhunting in the congo... need i say more?

and this clash of cultures justifies invading other countries how? the superior culture does always win when there is no military element involved, but that is no excuse to go about starting wars for supremacist reasons. (otherwise even the romans conquered greece)

I don't support wars of imperialism. They are wrong and betray the Western values of self-determination and diplomatic negotiation; you will never get someone to accept your ways through violence. It always bounces back and ultimately destroys the culture that attempts it.

We will not win the culture war if we do not allow people the freedom to choose what they want for themselves. However, we do need to facilitate that environment and that is why pushing for democratic and economic reforms is so important.

of course you as individuals do... but as a culture we do not...

So?

not necessarily... it is not our responsability to arbiter for one group in disfavour of another. that group is responsable for its own fate and how it fights that oppresion

You are ignorant of human suffering and human needs. Somtimes political correctness and being compassionate of societies bullshit gets in the way of doing the right thing and in essance, saving the world. (Don't scream Iraq at me just because I'm an American, I don't really agree with it) Just as you just said it was alright for Germany to do the holocaust because German society went along with it. That is ablsolutley discusting. I can't imagen a rational and good person saying a such a thing. The only thing that is needed for the Triumph of Evil is for good men to do nothing. Humanity needs to work together and crush nations who endorse genocide and mass rape.

Hardly, paranoia about the Islamic hordes invading Europe aside. Transformation of the US into a Shariah-ruled Islamic state is nowhere near the top of the list of goals.

The problem is, that is what they are saying and they have shown it to be one of their goals. What is happening now is the opening shots of a war against anyone who disagrees with them, and the US/EU are great targets because of their past history and their current dominant roles in world politics.

And, of course, if you keep the people poor and ignorant it is easy to make them the scapegoats.

They are more concerned with imposing their will upon their own countries for the moment.

And we need to stop them if possible. However, our current method of doing so is not working; we're going to need a lot more trade agreements and diplomatic pressure and a lot less force if we want to change things. The war in Iraq is argualy going to be one of the greatest setbacks in the war against radical Islam and it will greatly hamper further reform in the region for a long time.

of course you as individuals do... but as a culture we do not...

Individuals comprise the culture, and individuals are the ones who change the culture. We are all indirectly responsible for the crimes committed by the governments we put in to power and it is up to us to take the actions necessary to right those wrongs. Every time a Western nation's leadership commits a crime against Western values, it is up to the people of that country to do what is needed to right that wrong and bring them to justice.

That applies to every nation, whether it's the US, France, Japan, Canada or anyone else.

OH, so your one of those types of people. You know, the whole, "Whats so bad about the holocaust? oh nothing, all those filthy subhuman Jews got what they deserved." Fuck you, and fuck everything you stand for.:upyours:

The Soviet Union would not keep Nazi Germany in check. If you think so, then go back to history class. At the beggining of the war to two were allied and Stalin had absolutley no intetnion of invading Germany. Stalin too, also wanted to get rid of the Jews. Like yourself. The Russian army at the outset of the war was a joke as well.

yes just because the nazis weren't all demon worshippers means i am an anti-semite now :rolleyes: the jews are one of the most successful groups in the world... i have nothing but respect and admiration for them. if anyone is subhuman then it is wannabe US supremacist "intelectuals" (oh and chavs :p )

and you should go back to the history class. germany and russia had a non-aggression pact and split poland between themselves but they were by no means allies. it was merely a convenient move for the both. germany wanted to avoid a two-front war and stalin wanted to prepare for war or avoid it if possible. however hitler's plans were always for russia, you know ost lebensraum and fight the communist/bolshevik scourge of europe and all that?

of course you as individuals do... but as a culture we do not... let's not forget that the british invented concentration camps in the boer war and the genocide upon which the US is built. hell even the shittiest imperial power in europe, belgium, which at the time had the most "advanced" constitution was indulging in genocide and sportive manhunting in the congo... need i say more?

And so Your just going to let this happen? Becuase that is what you are saying. Just because your from a different nation? quit being so soft. A nation that gets involved with such a thing needs to be reprimanded and or eliminated. People like you would just let the Nazis walk all over them becuase your more concerned with making sure Genocide acceseble to everyone, because you rather see than then for god forbid another nation invade another on moral grounds.

No, because there are almost no statistics for the rest of the world. Incomplete statistics are meaningless if they can't be accurately compared to other parts of the world. Even so, you have to overcome any number of cultural issues to get good data; in a lot of cultures, these problems likely go underreported for fear of social persecution.

So, let's see the statistics that are complete and show that "the West" is superior in every way to everyone else.

And yet we still can change them even if it is too late. Good luck doing that in North Korea, China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran or any of the dictatorships and oligarchies out there;

Of course they can do that. THey can change things too-late all the time. You're just arguing that it's not so bad here, because for us "too late" isn't nearly as much time. Big deal - too late is too late.


Hitler was a part of Western civilization. However, we were ultimately capable of defeating him and stopping his murderous rampage. We learned from our mistakes and made sure it would never happen again, something non-Western cultures have failed to do so far.

And yet here you are blathering about our supremacy.

"We" didn't learn jack shit. People like you woulda supported the Nazis and will again - as long as it suits your need to feel superior. As long as the right words are muttered.

Hitler and his nation was part of Western Civilization. Hence, Nazi Germany is superior. Yes?


The "Western culture" isn't geographic, it refers to the common values espoused by the states of the US and EU, and anyone who shares those values should rightly be considered a Western state.

And what pray tell, if a state doesn't "share" those values?

Besides, what values are these again? I'd like to know what every single person's values are, it's good to know from Vetalia's Telepathic Genius.

Well, first things first we'd need some proof.

You don't seem to think any of us need proof about "western" superiority. Why should I bother giving it to you? In fact, I'm so superior that I don't need to show off my superiority.

Secondly, I think that those billions of people living in poverty and ignorance would really like to be able to decide what they want for their country rather than be forced to accept whatever their dictators or corrupt theocrats fprced on them. The West is great in that people can decide what they want rather than have someone else force it on them without the ability to change or protest it.

If they're ignorant, how can they decide what they want? I mean, they're also inferior, remember. So they are even less well-equipped to make that kind of decision.

And if I get to decide what I want for the country, how come I only get to decide on who gets to decide on who gets what they want for the country? You seem to imply that the US system is pure democracy, when it's at best a representative one, and even the best "representative" doesn't truly represent anyone but himself.


There's a reason why so many people flee the rest of the world and come to Western nations

Mm. Economics. Economics makes for superiority? So, you DO recognize that I'm superior, since I make more money, yes?

, and why so many nations try to emulate Western economic and political structures

The ones that don't seem to get invaded or have their governments overthrown. That might have something to do with it.

yes just because the nazis weren't all demon worshippers means i am an anti-semite now :rolleyes: the jews are one of the most successful groups in the world... i have nothing but respect and admiration for them. if anyone is subhuman then it is wannabe US supremacist "intelectuals" (oh and chavs :p )

and you should go back to the history class. germany and russia had a non-aggression pact and split poland between themselves but they were by no means allies. it was merely a convenient move for the both. germany wanted to avoid a two-front war and stalin wanted to prepare for war or avoid it if possible. however hitler's plans were always for russia, you know ost lebensraum and fight the communist/bolshevik scourge of europe and all that?

Don't put words into my mouth your failure as a human being. I never said all Germans were Nazis, nor ever did I say all Nazis wanted to kill Jews. However you ARE saying you'd just let the Nazis kill all the Jews. Becuase you want to make sure the fucking Nazis are treated fairly.

An you need to go back to history clss, When Hitler invaded Russia, Stalin freaked out and went into a depression and was scared for his life for the first week of the war, becuase he though Hitler would never do such a thing and considerd him an ally. Of course, a week later, Stalin became his old self, and we all know how the Eastern front turns out......

Yes, it is. It is our responsibility to help others in need. Always has been. Always will be.

Since we would object to oppression of ourselves, we must similarly object to the oppression of others. We are not possessed of more moral worth than others are.



How can a group be responsible for something that may not be its own fault?

this goes into cultural supremacy again. just because you value freedom and all that doesn't make it an objective moral value. and "do unto another what you wish them to do unto thineself" is a bit streched if it has come to apply to international relations... i mean i'm sure you wouldn't want, say, iran getting involved in your domestic conflicts in case of a civil war for example.

they are responsable for how they live their lives... the fact that they live is obviously not their fault... would you say that you are not responsable ffor your life because it is not your fault that you exist?:rolleyes:

this goes into cultural supremacy again. just because you value freedom and all that doesn't make it an objective moral value. and "do unto another what you wish them to do unto thineself" is a bit streched if it has come to apply to international relations... i mean i'm sure you wouldn't want, say, iran getting involved in your domestic conflicts in case of a civil war for example.

they are responsable for how they live their lives... the fact that they live is obviously not their fault... would you say that you are not responsable ffor your life because it is not your fault that you exist?:rolleyes:

Yup, just let people like Hitler, Bush, and religous extremism march all over the face of the earth.

The problem is, that is what they are saying

Not really. Sure, it surfaces in some of their more extreme rhetoric, but what they most often mention are things like Israel/Palestine, the invasion of Iraq, the troops in Saudi Arabia, and so on.

They are far more concerned with Western penetration into the Middle East than with destroying the Western world.

and they have shown it to be one of their goals.

I don't see how.

What is happening now is the opening shots of a war against anyone who disagrees with them,

What is happening now is an explicitly targeted campaign against countries that they see as unjustly imperializing in the Middle East.

Sweden is a very liberal country; hardly amenable to Islamic fundamentalism. How many of its skyscrapers have had planes slammed into them? How many of their subways have gotten bombed?

There is no mystery. They told us why they did what they did. Our intelligence agencies said exactly the same thing.

and the US/EU are great targets because of their past history and their current dominant roles in world politics.

Notice the countries in the US/EU that are targeted, however.

The US was targeted, and the US has been messing visibly in the Middle East for fifty years.

The UK and Spain were targeted, of all the countries in the EU, because not only do they have the right "past history" and "dominant roles in world politics," but because they sent troops to Iraq. That, in fact, was the specific reason given for the attacks.

And, of course, if you keep the people poor and ignorant it is easy to make them the scapegoats.

Radical Islam is fiercely opposed to the present social order in the Middle East. This is one of the reasons for its popular appeal.

And we need to stop them if possible.

Absolutely. Unfortunately, the countries with the power to stop them are far more concerned with pursuing their own interests. Radical Islam does not scare them, nor should it; it is a distraction that will utterly fail to deliver upon any of its promises, foremost among them an end to Western imperialism in the Middle East.

I see no reason to support one particular set of brutal rulers over another particular set of brutal rulers.

However, our current method of doing so is not working;

Perhaps because we have no method.

Don't put words into my mouth your failure as a human being. I never said all Germans were Nazis, nor ever did I say all Nazis wanted to kill Jews. However you ARE saying you'd just let the Nazis kill all the Jews. Becuase you want to make sure the fucking Nazis are treated fairly.

An you need to go back to history clss, When Hitler invaded Russia, Stalin freaked out and went into a depression and was scared for his life for the first week of the war, becuase he though Hitler would never do such a thing and considerd him an ally. Of course, a week later, Stalin became his old self, and we all know how the Eastern front turns out......

well i refuse to be a human being in your little world. i said i respected the jews but what right do they have above nazis? let them all be treated fairly - and the only way you can do that is to let them sort it out among themselves. and again russia and germany were never allies despite various treaties they had. stalin may have believed hitler was his ally, hitler never regarded stalin as such.

Yup, just let people like Hitler, Bush, and religous extremism march all over the face of the earth.

no, how about we kill eveybody just to make sure we haven't missed any religious extremists. how's that?

this goes into cultural supremacy again. just because you value freedom and all that doesn't make it an objective moral value.

So?

Whether or not it is an objective moral value has no bearing on whether or not it is a good moral value. It clearly is, because it respects the dignity of human beings.

For what it's worth I am not particularly fond of my culture.

and "do unto another what you wish them to do unto thineself" is a bit streched if it has come to apply to international relations... i mean i'm sure you wouldn't want, say, iran getting involved in your domestic conflicts in case of a civil war for example.

Iran? No. Because I highly doubt they would follow that principle.

they are responsable for how they live their lives...

They are responsible for the choices they make. They are not necessarily responsible for the situations in which they live their lives.

And so Your just going to let this happen? Becuase that is what you are saying. Just because your from a different nation? quit being so soft. A nation that gets involved with such a thing needs to be reprimanded and or eliminated. People like you would just let the Nazis walk all over them becuase your more concerned with making sure Genocide acceseble to everyone, because you rather see than then for god forbid another nation invade another on moral grounds.

eh... as i said, you (as an american) historically lack the moral highground to preach to me about genocide.

Where would a sense of morality and law come from? If history has shown us anything, christians are, at the best, intollerant bigots who want to slaughter the "demon worshiping pagans", and force their religion down ones' throat and up their ass. Not to mention they're all suffering from mass schizophrenia/hystaria. And of course, if you're a catholic priest...well, you've got a thing for little boys, don'tcha?

(Note: I know all christians aren't intollerant bigots. This is just a rebuttle to the "In a completely atheist culture..." thread, because the poster seems to have assumed atheists are moral-less and such, so I'm countering by saying that christians are bloodthirsty barbarians and mentally insane. I would like to thank Nietzsche for the sole fact that He > Jesus.)

Interesting one, it seems you are attacking Christianity mindlessly and without much logic because some idiot said that atheists couldnt have morals. I don't think this is really that debatable, a completely christian culture is doomed to failure, almost all of europe was at one point very nearly 100% fundamentalist christian. It was a place where anyone who disagreed with the church could get strung up. That was an all-christian society, and thank you to all those people in times past that have stood up to this shit and said no and ended the abomination.

...

If you dissagree, you can come over here, and I'll will hire someone to rape the living shit outta you, and I'll pay off anyone who knows, so I get away with it- then you will know how it feels to live in such a society.

Well, I'll tell ya what, I'll manhandle you down to ground and in the process break your jaw, then i'll tear town your pants, bend you over a bathtub wall, and force my throbing wang deep in to your previously vrigin rectum. Without Lubrication. WITHOUT lubrication. Then as you scream and bleed...you'll know why rape is wrong.

Threatening, trolling and flamebaiting. Three strikes and you're out.

Have 3 days off and come back and post more of the non-rulebreaking posts you do, rather than this threatening and baiting stuff.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia

So?

Whether or not it is an objective moral value has no bearing on whether or not it is a good moral value. It clearly is, because it respects the dignity of human beings.

For what it's worth I am not particularly fond of my culture.



Iran? No. Because I highly doubt they would follow that principle.



They are responsible for the choices they make. They are not necessarily responsible for the situations in which they live their lives.

1) this whole dignity of humans beings is yet another western cultural construct (just as the human rights)

2) of course you aren't... you just think it is better than anyone elses and that justifies you imposing it on them

3) they wouldn't follow principle... but according to what you say they would follow pragmatism in such a situation and would get involved if they had something to gain and this would be morally justified

4) is it not? and who are you to decide what is fair or not in this world and impose your opinion on everyone else?

of course you as individuals do... but as a culture we do not... let's not forget that the british invented concentration camps in the boer war

They were prison camps, an unpleasant by-product of war, but not built with the aim of wiping out an entire race.
On the other hand the Nazi concentration camps were intended to kill their occupants, a task which was carried out as part of an organised programme of genocide.

They were prison camps, an unpleasant by-product of war, but not built with the aim of wiping out an entire race.
On the other hand the Nazi concentration camps were intended to kill their occupants, a task which was carried out as part of an organised programme of genocide.

they were concetration camps. they were not intended to kill their inhabitants but they were quite efficient in doing so, especially the politically active ones. the nazis had both concetration camps (e.g. daschau) and death camps (e.g. auschwitz)

1) this whole dignity of humans beings is yet another western cultural construct (just as the human rights)

I think it's only Westerners who propagate this nonsense.

Compassion and respect for others are not only hard-wired into our brains evolutionarily, but are also essential cultural elements for any society that lasts longer than a month.

"What you do not like when done to yourself, do not do to others." - noted Westerner Confucius

2) of course you aren't... you just think it is better than anyone elses and that justifies you imposing it on them

Imposing my culture? I don't want to.

Imposing my morality? Absolutely. The same way we impose morality upon murderers.

3) they wouldn't follow principle... but according to what you say they would follow pragmatism in such a situation and would get involved if they had something to gain and this would be morally justified

What?

4) is it not?

That is part of the definition of "responsibility."

and who are you to decide what is fair or not in this world and impose your opinion on everyone else?

Who are you to say I cannot?

morality, i have argued earlier, is in at least a considerable part resulting from culture... so you are imposing your culture. (from a cultural relativist perspective your example with the murderer is not valid)

as for "Who are you to say I cannot?" i should call this shifting of the bulshit. but to answer the question i am someone who objects to you imposing your opinion on thw whole world as it means you are also imposing it on me. if you don't i don't really care.

they were concetration camps. they were not intended to kill their inhabitants but they were quite efficient in doing so, especially the politically active ones. the nazis had both concetration camps (e.g. daschau) and death camps (e.g. auschwitz)

So when you said the British invented concentration camps, not only was that untrue, it was also irrelevant to the issue of death camps?

I gather the phrase 'concentration camps' was invented by the British during the Boer War. However, the idea was not new.

So when you said the British invented concentration camps, not only was that untrue, it was also irrelevant to the issue of death camps?

I gather the phrase 'concentration camps' was invented by the British during the Boer War. However, the idea was not new.

it is relevant as it proved my point of the aggresive imperialist and in no way morally justifiable nature of the western culture. it was not about death camps it was about the western cultural "supremacy".

concetration camps as we understand them today were inented by the british in that war. prison camps of course is a much older idea.

I really think a lot of the "it just feels right" and the "common sense" comes from God anyway. I think that a lot of you just don't want to think that.

I just assumed it was a bad bean burrito.+

it is relevant as it proved my point of the aggresive imperialist and in no way morally justifiable nature of the western culture. it was not about death camps it was about the western cultural "supremacy"..

I don't see how it proved anything of the kind. People have done shocking things to other people since records began.
If I see Person A about to shoot Person B, is it wrong to intervene?
If Culture A seeks to wipe out Culture B, is it wrong to intervene?


concetration camps as we understand them today were inented by the british in that war. prison camps of course is a much older idea

Oh, you have picked the wrong person to argue history with.
The French had been using concentration camps in Algeria for 70 years by the time the Boer War broke out.

Politically stable? Har. We have a new leadership every 4 years. We flip-flop between this and that policy.

Are you saying a typical dictatorship is more stable? For all my problems with America, you guys have probably the most stable political system in the world. By which I mean your elections system has continued every 4 years for over 200 years.

If I recall correctly, quite a few people considered Germany to be the pinnacle of Western civilization. Their economy and technology, for example. And their advanced ideas regarding social progress. And who says anything else is "the values of the Western world?"
Why are you so loathing of Western culture? Why are you lying about Nazis representing Western culture?

And maybe it's because ours is a high-pressure society with increasingly fewer spiritual and emotional opportunities, high rates of crime and suicide.
So says the atheist. ;)

Oh we can? Like how we impeached Clinton and got him out of office. No wait, it didn't do that. Our policies needed change years ago, and did we get it then? No. So clearly, we change our leaders TOO LATE, not WHEN change is needed.
So is your system too stable or not stable enough? By your standard, a lifetime dictatorship is the epitomy of stability, apparently.

Actually, they do. So yes. Plus, you ignored every other way I'm superior to you. It seems you just don't want to admit to being inferior. Why?
Why are you acting like a child in a playground? "My cock is bigger than yours, I have more friends than you" come on, that's stupid.

However, if England and America let Germany be the culture it wanted to be, then most of Europe would still be beneath the Swastika, and there would be no more "Jewish Question."and the problem with that would be?
Here is why postmodernism shouldn't be allowed to get into politics. It's so dangerous that it will inevitable lead to fascism.

Do you really not see the problems with Nazi rule in Europe?

and this clash of cultures justifies invading other countries how?
Vetalia didn't advocate that.

of course you as individuals do... but as a culture we do not... let's not forget that the british invented concentration camps in the boer war and the genocide upon which the US is built. hell even the shittiest imperial power in europe, belgium, which at the time had the most "advanced" constitution was indulging in genocide and sportive manhunting in the congo... need i say more?
You think we support all that shit?

Of course they can do that. THey can change things too-late all the time. You're just arguing that it's not so bad here, because for us "too late" isn't nearly as much time. Big deal - too late is too late.
So two years is the same as two hundred years?

It's really sad; you used to be a good debator, now you're just an illogical troll.

i said i respected the jews but what right do they have above nazis? let them all be treated fairly
By letting the Nazis kill them all?

eh... as i said, you (as an american) historically lack the moral highground to preach to me about genocide.
Neither do you; you're a Brit.

See? I can make stupid points too. Just because a nation produces genocidal maniacs, doesn't mean that everyone from that nation must support them.

I think it's only Westerners who propagate this nonsense.

Compassion and respect for others are not only hard-wired into our brains evolutionarily, but are also essential cultural elements for any society that lasts longer than a month.

"What you do not like when done to yourself, do not do to others." - noted Westerner Confucius

Yes, that's the Golden Rule, which is found in almost every religion, belief system, culture and ideology. Even if not always obeyed.

Where would a sense of morality and law come from? If history has shown us anything, christians are, at the best, intollerant bigots who want to slaughter the "demon worshiping pagans", and force their religion down ones' throat and up their ass. Not to mention they're all suffering from mass schizophrenia/hystaria. And of course, if you're a catholic priest...well, you've got a thing for little boys, don'tcha?

(Note: I know all christians aren't intollerant bigots. This is just a rebuttle to the "In a completely atheist culture..." thread, because the poster seems to have assumed atheists are moral-less and such, so I'm countering by saying that christians are bloodthirsty barbarians and mentally insane. I would like to thank Nietzsche for the sole fact that He > Jesus.)

Even if this is just a rebuttle I find this very insulting, I had hoped we put this issue to pasture the last time. :headbang:

Are you saying a typical dictatorship is more stable? For all my problems with America, you guys have probably the most stable political system in the world. By which I mean your elections system has continued every 4 years for over 200 years.


I'm just being pedantic, but I think the Isle of Man have them beat for that. Like I say, pedantic. Ignore me.
Still, it does support my earlier claim that people shouldn't argue with me about history...

My take on it is that Morals are a product of society.

So they are relative to the particular society you are looking at.

Society comes in all shapes and sizes from a family unit, to a local community, to a nation, to worldwide.

Different morals apply at all levels. From social graces (least well held) all the way up to reasonably conserved ideas of good and bad.. murder is bad for instance (though even these are often considered fine under certain circumstances)

In my family it was rude to leave food on your plate. In other families it would be rude to not leave food on your plate.

On a community level it may be acceptable to say "Hi guys" when greeting someone.. in another "Hi guys" would be considered informal and rude.

etc etc.....

When you are looking at .. its ok for a woman to be nude in Sweden but not ok for her to show any part of her body outside the home in (guessing here) Saudi Arabia it may look like there are getting to be big differences... but they are no more than at the family unit level. (gross I know but my folks used to walk around the house nude, whereas plenty of other families would have not been happy with that)

At the next level up.. ie worldwide they may as well be objective morals as until we meet another interstellar race there is nothing to be relative against.

If the diversity of family values can be shoe horned into community values and the diversity of communities can be shoe horned into a set of national values .. then surely we can shoe horn national values into a set of international values.

I would suggest that the UN Charter on human rights (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html) is probably the best place to look for a set of effectively objective morals.......

Seems much better than looking at one particular community (say a religious community or a cultural community).. at least to me.

There was a post here asking "If something is morally wrong in the US, but not morally wrong in Afghanistan, which is it? It cannot be both at the same time"

You don't understand. For a moral relativist, there *are* no morals. Nothing is right or wrong. Period.

In a completely Christian society....

...Scientific knowledge would stagnate.
...Bigotry and persecution would increase.
...No "In a completely Christian culture" threads.
...Morality would be meaningless as it is ascribed to some magical being in the sky who sits on his ass caring about trillions of organisms.

Even if this is just a rebuttle I find this very insulting, I had hoped we put this issue to pasture the last time. :headbang:
You're not the only one. ;) And I'm still waiting for a reply to my post - which probably is very unlikely to come.

There was a post here asking "If something is morally wrong in the US, but not morally wrong in Afghanistan, which is it? It cannot be both at the same time"

You don't understand. For a moral relativist, there *are* no morals. Nothing is right or wrong. Period.

so if nothing is wrong then why do you moral relativist people get angry when asked if society would fall apart if you guys were in charge?

You're not the only one. ;)
Hey, tell that to your buddy. It's his fault I wrote it.

so if nothing is wrong then why do you moral relativist people get angry when asked if society would fall apart if you guys were in charge?

"We"? Stop using all that goddamn "We" Bullshit. I am not a representive of those who think similarly. You got that? I don't care what you lot think, I just think you should look back at your own past before calling people "morally inferior". If anything, Christians and such have so much blood on your hands, I'm suprised you haven't drowned in it yet.

Helspotistan, you've got it sussed.

Has Nomanslanda gone? I've got to go out soon...
I must admit I respected his 'have a moral standpoint; see it through to the bitter end' attitude.

Even if this is just a rebuttle I find this very insulting, I had hoped we put this issue to pasture the last time. :headbang:

Yep, though it helped me kill time last night.

so if nothing is wrong then why do you moral relativist people get angry when asked if society would fall apart if you guys were in charge?

nothing is objectively wrong... but it can certainly be viewed to be wrong by a particular society... in order to find a set of "Objective" morals all you need to do is look at a large enough society.. ie the entire population of the world.

Hey, tell that to your buddy. It's his fault I wrote it.
Pointing the finger a lot? Playing the blame game much?

Last time I checked it was YOU and only YOU who made this thread.
"We"? Stop using all that goddamn "We" Bullshit. I am not a representive of those who think similarly. You got that? I don't care what you lot think, I just think you should look back at your own past before calling people "morally inferior". If anything, Christians and such have so much blood on your hands, I'm suprised you haven't drowned in it yet.
Listen, pal - you're really walking the line here.

If you don't care what "we" think, get lost. Play with your imaginary friend. Dig a hole. Play hide.

But please stop insulting people of faith simply because they are people of faith. That's just rude and will get lots of reactions that you might not want.

I am a Christian and I don't have any blood on my hands.

Pointing the finger a lot? Playing the blame game much?

Last time I checked it was YOU and only YOU who made this thread.

Listen, pal - you're really walking the line here.

If you don't care what "we" think, get lost. Play with your imaginary friend. Dig a hole. Play hide.

But please stop insulting people of faith simply because they are people of faith. That's just rude and will get lots of reactions that you might not want.

I am a Christian and I don't have any blood on my hands.

Maybe I ought to rephrase it: You don't. No, of course you don't. But, the faith you believe in..does. More than Stalin and Hitler could even begin to imagine. "No king has spilled more blood than christ".

Maybe I ought to rephrase it: You don't. No, of course you don't. But, the faith you believe in..does. More than Stalin and Hitler could even begin to imagine. "No king has spilled more blood than christ".

A poor quote I have to say and inaccurate it would be accurate if you said no king has shed more blood then has been shed in Christs name.
I tend to blame it to humanity and my favourite one is "Christ told people to love one another, and a few centuries later people were killing each other over who's version of love one another was better."

Maybe I ought to rephrase it: You don't. No, of course you don't. But, the faith you believe in..does. More than Stalin and Hitler could even begin to imagine. "No king has spilled more blood than christ".
I officially GODWIN your answer right there.

Besides, that argument doesn't even work for those two guys you mentioned, for they most definitely killed more people than 2000 years of Chrisitanity "could achieve". Or when and how did the Christian faith manage to kill 65+ million people?

And first it's "all the Christians" and then suddenly it's "the Christian faith"?

The Christian faith itself does not kill and has not killed anyone. People have done so, for various motives, some of which were supposedly religious, but if you asked me, those who tried and try to justify their deeds by referring to Christianity are misguided in their faith.

If you follow the teachings of Christ and believe in God then there really is no justification at all to kill anyone.

Killing in the name of Christ is like fucking for virginity. It doesn't match.

Are you saying a typical dictatorship is more stable?

Depends on what is "typical." Many dictatorships are quite stable. Look at post-Saddam Iraq for stability, then look at Saddam's Iraq.

Why are you so loathing of Western culture? Why are you lying about Nazis representing Western culture?

So which "culture" did Nazis represent, if not a Western one?

And please, try the "y u r hatin teh west" line on someone who might fall for it and go, "No! I LOVE western culture, and everything about it! Oo-rah!"

So says the atheist. ;)

Har yes, because if I don't believe in God, I must not have any conception of spirituality?

So is your system too stable or not stable enough? By your standard, a lifetime dictatorship is the epitomy of stability, apparently.

A lifetime of one ruler is pretty much by definition, more stable than a new one every coupla years. Whether "stability" is all important is up to you - Vetalia is the one who was trumpeting that as a hallmark of how superior his culture is to everyone else's. Not me.

Why are you acting like a child in a playground? "My cock is bigger than yours, I have more friends than you" come on, that's stupid.

It's no stupider than "My culture is better than yours." And frankly, it's a bit more precise and accurate, so maybe it's a bit less stupid.


So two years is the same as two hundred years?

When it comes to something being done TOO late, yes. If something is too late, it doesn't matter if it's 5 minutes or 5 hours. Think of a bad event that happens, say your house burns down. You call the FD of course, they show up 45 minutes later by which time your house is toast. Are you really gonna say, "Well, at least they didn't show up 46 minutes later! THAT would really suck! Phew!"

It's really sad; you used to be a good debator, now you're just an illogical troll.

Darn. And your idiotic opinion about how "illogical" and "good" my debates are sure does matter to me a whole lot. Hang on, I gotta go cry myself to sleep; someone on the internet doesn't understand the concept of logic and is calling me a troll.

I officially GODWIN your answer right there.

What exactly does this mean? The verb, to Godwin. Does it mean you think you auto-win the argument if someone mentions nazis? Or does it mean, "Aha! My skill at pointing out when someone uses the term, nazi, is unequalled!"?

What exactly does this mean? The verb, to Godwin. Does it mean you think you auto-win the argument if someone mentions nazis? Or does it mean, "Aha! My skill at pointing out when someone uses the term, nazi, is unequalled!"?
It doesn't mean I think I win an argument:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law

And I'll simply dismiss your second guess. Again, please don't try to raise other debators' tempers. It only makes you look foolish.

"We"? Stop using all that goddamn "We" Bullshit. I am not a representive of those who think similarly. You got that? I don't care what you lot think, I just think you should look back at your own past before calling people "morally inferior". If anything, Christians and such have so much blood on your hands, I'm suprised you haven't drowned in it yet.

wow. you are.........I have no words.

It doesn't mean I think I win an argument:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law


Then what does it mean? I'm well aware of what the law is, are you? You seem to think it means you won some sort of argument.

Check out the law again. Here, I'll quote it for you:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

Nothing about 'winning.' In fact, pointing it out isn't even a statement of anything but the obvious. It's not relevant, it doesn't address the comparison at all (other than pointing out that it exists), and it's a silly internet meme to boot. Redundant, silly and pointless.


And I'll simply dismiss your second guess. Again, please don't try to raise other debators' tempers. It only makes you look foolish.


If you think I'm trying to raise your temper, perhaps that's just because your temper is raised and you think I did it on purpose. I'll write how I write and if you think that looks "foolish," guess what? I don't give two shits. I'm not here to look "smart" or "look" like anything, for that matter.

Then what does it mean? I'm well aware of what the law is, are you? You seem to think it means you won some sort of argument.
Comparing the Christian faith with the atrocities carried out by Hitler and Stalin is a little more than far-fetched in my opinion, especially when it comes down to making a headcount on "who killed more".
And it's poor debating when you point to Adolf and go "but he is a bad man". Especially when the comparison is faulty as I have pointed out in my post above. Didn't really read it, did you?
Check out the law again. Here, I'll quote it for you:
Oh, I did think you could read - but do you understand?
Nothing about 'winning.' In fact, pointing it out isn't even a statement of anything but the obvious. It's not relevant, it doesn't address the comparison at all (other than pointing out that it exists), and it's a silly internet meme to boot.
That's why I wrote a little bit more than just a short reference to Godwin's law, eh?
Besides, let me quote a little piece from the article as well:
"There is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress."
So there. If you don't like it - guess what: I don't give one to half a dozen shits, either.
Redundant, silly and pointless.
Just like your comments directed at me.
If you think I'm trying to raise your temper, perhaps that's just because your temper is raised and you think I did it on purpose.
My temper wasn't raised, but what exactly were you trying to achieve with
"Or does it mean, "Aha! My skill at pointing out when someone uses the term, nazi, is unequalled!"?" if not that?
It definitely doesn't have anything to do with the debate at hand, now does it?
I'll write how I write and if you think that looks "foolish," guess what? I don't give two shits. I'm not here to look "smart" or "look" like anything, for that matter.
Then why are you here? :rolleyes: I'm here to have fun, enjoy myself, and participate in debate.
Whatever. Have a nice day.

Both culteres are terrible. FOR CHRIST'S SAKE EVOULUTION EXISTS! That's why I'm a theist, but not really a Christian

Fear of God of course. Meaning the morals would be the Bibles morals, and not morals based on sense.

I always wondered why some Christians are so eager to declare that without God there would be no morals. It implies that they themselves would happily commit rape, rob their neignours blind and dine on fresh baby every evening if it ever was shown that their faith was wrong and cannot imagine other people being any different.

Well you're thinking all Christians take the Bible literally. Believing in God and being a nit-wit are mutually exclusive. In my opinion, god is love, and love = morals, so yes, such is correct. A lot of animals (most, acually) have no moral sense, and their life isn't the hell you describe.

I'm sure it's been pointed out already, but we have historical records of completely Christian culture. This was found during Middle Ages in Europe.

Or what is more commonly know as "The Dark Ages."

I'm sure it's been pointed out already, but we have historical records of completely Christian culture. This was found during Middle Ages in Europe.

Or what is more commonly know as "The Dark Ages."

Ah, yet again your prejudiced and erroneously founded typecast, your tradition anti-Christianity sentiment, bolstered and dependent on the ignorance of your audience...

Most modern historians dismiss the notion that the era was a "Dark Age" by pointing out that this idea was based on ignorance of the period combined with popular stereotypes: many previous authors would simply assume that the era was a dismal time of violence and stagnation and use this assumption to prove itself. The term is now widely considered to be pejorative.
wiki link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages)

No wonder you used it. :rolleyes:

Ah, yet again your prejudiced and erroneously founded typecast, you tradition anti-Christianity sentiment, bolstered and dependent on the ignorance of your audience...

Most modern historians dismiss the notion that the era was a "Dark Age" by pointing out that this idea was based on ignorance of the period combined with popular stereotypes: many previous authors would simply assume that the era was a dismal time of violence and stagnation and use this assumption to prove itself. The term is now widely considered to be pejorative.

No wonder you used it. :rolleyes:
Compared to the Roman Empire, it was a time of stagnation.

Ah, yet again your prejudiced and erroneously founded typecast, you tradition anti-Christianity sentiment, bolstered and dependent on the ignorance of your audience...

Most modern historians dismiss the notion that the era was a "Dark Age" by pointing out that this idea was based on ignorance of the period combined with popular stereotypes: many previous authors would simply assume that the era was a dismal time of violence and stagnation and use this assumption to prove itself. The term is now widely considered to be pejorative.

No wonder you used it. :rolleyes:
Yes, many historians point out that "Dark Ages" is perjorative. Boy, you sure got me on that one...

If you want to explain to us why the Christian culture of the Dark Ages was good, please do. If you want to list the many reasons why that Christian culture is a model we should follow, please do. If you want to describe the many ways in which Christian culture of the Dark Ages is misunderstood and underappreciated, please do.

But if you just want to cry about how "anti-Christian" I am, you might as well save your breath. It's not news. :D

Compared to the Roman Empire, it was a time of stagnation.
But "many historians" imply that only ignorant anti-Christians use the term "Dark Ages"! Obviously anybody who uses that term must know nothing about the time period, and must just be trying to pick on the poor, misunderstood Christian culture that thrived during those centuries!

But "many historians" imply that only ignorant anti-Christians use the term "Dark Ages"! Obviously anybody who uses that term must know nothing about the time period, and must just be trying to pick on the poor, misunderstood Christian culture that thrived during those centuries!

A bit Eurocentric, aren't you?

Weren't there any other cultures around at the time? Eh?

Plenty of killing and barbarity abounded that had nothing at all to do with Christianity at the time.

A bit Eurocentric, aren't you?

Weren't there any other cultures around at the time? Eh?

Plenty of killing and barbarity abounded that had nothing at all to do with Christianity at the time.

She would rather pretend that the Roman Empire was overrun by Christian Barbarian tribes... ;)

She would rather pretend that the Roman Empire was overrun by Christian Barbarian tribes... ;)

I'm not even talking about the European area - I'm talking about China, India, etc.

I guess no one was living there who could write or make toilet paper.

She would rather pretend that the Roman Empire was overrun by Christian Barbarian tribes... ;)

I thought the dark ages came AFTER the fall of Rome... which was the topic of discussion from what I can tell

I thought the dark ages came AFTER the fall of Rome... which was the topic of discussion from what I can tell

What, you think the barbarian tribes that overran Rome disappeared the next day and the entire continent became a homogenized Christian culture from Rome to Germany?

What, you think the barbarian tribes that overran Rome disappeared the next day and the entire continent became a homogenized Christian culture from Rome to Germany?

Let's ask the Cumans.

What, you think the barbarian tribes that overran Rome disappeared the next day and the entire continent became a homogenized Christian culture from Rome to Germany?

It was a 524 year long period, who is talking over night here?

It was a 524 year long period, who is talking over night here?

Why are we only talking about Europe? Wasn't there anyone else alive in the world at the time?

More to the point, were they all Christian? I think not.

Why are we only talking about Europe? Wasn't there anyone else alive in the world at the time?

More to the point, were they all Christian? I think not.

I don't know why we are I was only commenting on the topic at hand

It was a 524 year long period, who is talking over night here?

And there were barbarian tribes and cultures in Europe and outside of it during entire period attacking it from within and outside... If anything, the Christian churches and monasteries should be credited with preserving and saving for posterities sake the remnants of the Roman and Greek world artifacts that we have today (from their respective regions)...

And there were barbarian tribes and cultures in Europe and outside of it during entire period attacking it from within and outside... If anything, the Christian churches and monasteries should be credited with preserving and saving for posterities sake the remnants of the Roman and Greek world artifacts that we have today (from their respective regions)...

I agree to an extent they were a source of organization during those periods ... though on the down side they used their exclusive knowledge of some things as a class separator and control tool as well ... but at least it was preserved.

Was this thread meant to be a sarcastic rebuttal to the other one or a rebuttal in all seriousness?

Was this thread meant to be a sarcastic rebuttal to the other one or a rebuttal in all seriousness?

Yeah it is supposed to be satire

Part of the most basic requirements of religion is faith. God's failure to be provable through logic is a way of ensuring that faith. No-one should believe in God because they can point to a math-style proof and say "yep, he's there all right." Also, I can logically justify my faith. If what I believe is true and I'm right, I go to heaven. (I personally don't believe that non-belief means go straight to hell, do not pass Go, do not collect $200, but let's just say I do) A non believer would go to hell. If you're right, then nothing happens to either of us.... I choose the safer option.

so assuming god exists, and requires people to have faith in him to get to heaven, he would be stupid enough to be impressed by my hypocritical show of obedience? I'd rather be an honest atheist than a hypocritical believer. besides, if that god would send me to hell just because of not picking up the right faith (well, any faith actually), I'd rather go to hell anyway than keep company with such a god.

:p so assuming god exists, and requires people to have faith in him to get to heaven, he would be stupid enough to be impressed by my hypocritical show of obedience? I'd rather be an honest atheist than a hypocritical believer. besides, if that god would send me to hell just because of not picking up the right faith (well, any faith actually), I'd rather go to hell anyway than keep company with such a god.

Is this a message in a Bottle? Who's slave account are you anway?