Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Yeah, I'm referring to his criticisms of your argument. I'm staying far away from the theological aspect of it, as I really can't back any opinion I'd presume to have there. I'm smart enough to know that you can't criticize someone else's arguments there, as it's all opinion-based. Indeed, don't get me wrong, I indeed know that it's down to their perception-saying that because it seems your impression's otherwise.

I'm arguing his belittling of your argument, as to me, he just seems to be immaturely picking a side without justification... I'm not asking him to tell me why he thinks God exists, but on what basis he can state that you're forcing your beliefs, on what basis he can state that you're not using reasoning (or on what basis he can state that his reasoning's better than yours-namely, no basis, as I haven't seen him defend anything, I've just seen him spit words), and just what the heck kind of an argument "Why not think AT ALL before posting?" is.

Sorry (argh I did it again! gotta stop posting here!), I was just a bit annoyed at the time. I'll try to control my temper in the future.

Not to be on the negative in a sorry post, but Sui, you're arguements are pretty weak, I'll give you credit for wording it in a way that makes it sound nice, and for finding the loop hole in my "opinions dont have to relate" argument (if you think about, we could just spew the same argument at echother forever), but I failed to find any meat on your argument.

_________________

If Sui had no meat in his argument, then yours is beyond anorexic.

You have no idea how to debate. You give nothing but bare bones with absolutely no substance.

I challenge you to actually take each of his points of debunk them instead of suddenly declaring they have no meat(convenient for you, eh?).

You can't just say someone's arguments are weak without doing a damn thing to prove it. Until you do, you're wrong.

OK, this is seriously my last post on this thread.


Listen, Rosalie, I'm sorry if I ever offended you about anything but why not chill out? If you come off as a jerk in every post it deflates your credibility and no one will listen. You're Lucky Sui came along and worded things in a way that sounded like he wasn't screaming at us while trying to force his beliefs down our throats. But, Just a suggestion, please dont take offence to this, I dont mean any. Just dont let your agner get into your posts (like I've done, which is why I'm avoiding some of these topics).

_________________

The only reason I'm frustrated is that I'm used to people actually backing up points in their debate instead of making unfounded one line accusations and ganging up for no good reason other than to defend a preacher.

OK REALLY REALLY LAST POST HERE.

I know what you mean, I think sometimes it just requires some studying of other threads and stuff for arguments to amount to anything.


Toastpaint.

_________________

I'm a Christian, with a question for you. Why do you so badly want to disprove God?

_________________
Acually, I don't think Homestar wears pants.

Hmm, it sounds to me like you're admitting to having failed to extract the meaning of her words, the meaning that I seem to have extracted pretty well. I mean, even if someone is screaming at you, you can both tell them not to scream and tell them that what they're screaming is wrong. Apparently, though, you needed someone else to determine what they were screaming-as such, don't say that I have weak skills of debate when you can't even figure out what someone means and I can.

Also adding to your list of weak points is the fact that you choose to step out of the argument JUST as we reach the point where you're asked to say why a person saying you're wrong is wrong, themself. Your excuse of not wanting to get into trouble is utterly transparent.

It's like the Black Knight fleeing King Arthur, saying he doesn't want to kill him, and saying it AFTER King Arthur has proven himself an expert in improvised amputation. Seemed pretty ridiculous when you were watching Holy Grail, right? Well, it still is ridiculous.

Except that that's not the moral. The moral is "if you're going to teach ID as a science, why not teach Pastafarianism, which has the same amount of scientific backing?" Here, look at their website.

_________________
"You get the Most Annoying Transsexual I've Ever Spoken To award." -The Zephyr Song

*sigh*

Rosalie, do with this statement what you will. But though you claim to base your beliefs on logic and common sense, I only see that your judgment is clouded by anger and ego. You see what Didymus does as “evil”, even though you don’t know what he actually preaches at his church. Even though you’ve never met him, and you don’t know what kind of parent he would be first-hand. Please, I’m begging you - find help for your anger issues. Or at least channel them into something vaguely productive.

And please, no more posts on how everyone is out to get you - that just confounds how self-centred you seem. If you have a personal issue with someone, PM them. That includes me, if you've a problem with what I've just said.


And TOASTPAINT...........



That sentence was cut-off - can technically be what? And aren’t moral values concerned with the essence of what’s right or wrong? No, I still believe there will always be outside influences on a person’s moral development, and that morality is a social construct. Even if a person rebels utterly against society’s (or their parents’) sense of morality, their decision is based on those outside influences (and their need to oppose them).

There’s no doubt in my mind that upbringing has at least part influence in a person’s moral development - I read a lot on it. Like my example of the rebel, there will be some spur in their psychological development that lead them to want to rebel. The same goes with people who accept society’s authority.

But even though I believe that outside influences are involved, it’s not as simple as “What other people say”. It’s a question of how your upbringing has taught you to interpret those outside influences.



Illogical or not, the impact of centuries of any religious tradition can’t be ignored, if you’re looking at drives any society. There are subtleties invovled that you may not even notice. Even the fact that some atheists and Christians alike celebrate Christmas and Easter may have basis in that. The impact on our collective morality?.... Well, the most respected anthropologists are still tied on that, so who knows. I say it’s a possibility.

Also.... There may be nothing logical about faith and deep belief, just like there’s nothing logical about a mother loving her child. But if we didn’t have our beliefs, we’d be hollow shells. No matter how illogical they are.



I was using that as an example of how religious tradition could affect your morality through centuries of conditioning - whether or not you’ve disregarded the religion. It basically comes down to upbringing again. If you belong in a community that teaches that unjust killing is wrong for religious reasons (if nothing else), then that will have an impact on your own thinking on the matter. But, as I say, there are usually other factors.

Myself as example - I’m agnostic now, but I was raised in a Catholic context. And the very first impression I had of unjust killing came from religion - the Ten Commandments. That’s how I first realised it was wrong. Other people have different experiences obviously, it depends. And there’s Simon Zeno above.

Another take - if the Bible was written by Man and not God, it’s possible that the “no killing” rule is just one of those universal truths. As in, it applies as much today as in Moses’ day. So if the Bible contains these universal truths, why not teach your children about them through the Bible? Yeah, as you say, this belief existed before the Bible, and it exists in other religions. As a good friend, a Muslim, once said to me: “Each faith is a stream flowing to the same river”. Christianity in its purest state is one of those, imo.



I’m not making any moral assumptions of him, and I didn’t say any of that. But I know that his trusting in the Bible doesn’t automatically make him a bad person either.



Mind you, your child wouldn’t have a choice but to listen to anything you’d have to teach them.

I’m splitting hairs, I know, and I get your argument that children should be informed about other religious points of view. But I think what you do yourself will probably have more effect on your child’s development than anything you tell them.

Example, if you’re a Christian, and you truly believe that Christian belief is fact, then your child will pick up on that. So if you then tell them that they should consider alternatives that you yourself would never consider, you could be giving off confusing messages. And you’d be a bit hypocritical, imo.

I’d say that would be better for Christian parents to teach their children to tolerate other religions, maybe even learn from them. But teaching their kids to see them as truly valid? That only applies if their Christian beliefs aren’t that strong.

But there is no logical way the FSM cannot demean theism as much as it does ID, as it is not entirely ID centric. Please t hink about it for a second, they're pushing a flying foodstuff as a valid world belief because if you can't prove it wrong, it must be true - who do you think that's mocking there?



For the record, I despise people who sigh in arguments at someone even though they finally have some level of support. It's extremely patronising. It's the ultimate "I'm right and your pathetic". It's fair enough if people aren't making any level of sense - but clearly, since someone is interpretating what I'm saying pretty well, this is not the case.

And how can it do anything but make me angrier?

So shut it.



Well, yeah. And you've still failed to prove otherwise.


No it's not. I am a very opinionated version, and as thus, express myself passionately. The only reason I am so angry with my points is the way in which people chose to defy common logic.

And what about Sui? Oh snaps, you ignored everything he said, didn't you?



Actually, I've flicked through his LJ and some of his old possts, so I have an idea of his sermons(Thus me being unhappy with his views on paganism).

But this isn't about that. It's about him forcing his children to believe what he does. And you're dodging that subject.

I just think "do-gooders" like Didymus need a kick in butt once in a while when they're doing something blatantly harmful, and perhaps selfish.



That's not the issue. There is a principle here - and that is if you teach a religion as fact purposely demonising other alternatives, that is just a roundabout way to for forcing your beliefs, which is very, very wrong in principle.

And your current posts contains sweet fanny all to prove me wrong on that.



Why isn't this productive?



No. Didymus is only one of many, many people who partake in this activity of "spiritual programming". This needs to be out in the open and people need to see what he's doing is wrong instead of continuing to worship him blindly just because he seems like a "NICE GUY". All that glitters is not gold, after all.



What the heck does that even mean, and how am I meant to know what it means?



It was meant to read "can't technically be instilled".



No. If someone has a moral belief that something is right because they were told that, it is not their righteousness, it comes from someone else. They do not believe it. It does NOT make you a better person just for "doing what you're told". A truly good person should come to those conclusions by themselves.



Prove this please. Already there have been suggestions on animal behaviour, and the fact that even far more primtiive humans found killing wrong. You have brought nothing to the table to defend your statement.
Morality may be a social construct in some ways, but rather, as I said earlier, Moral Values. No way in heck does "Right and Wrong" changes just because someone coaxed the majority into believing one way or the other.



Or perhaps they came to conclusions on their own which conflicted with outside influence.



And because you influence people's moral development, you can program children into being homophobes, racist, bigots, etc. Heck, there's probably thousands of kids who hate gays purely because they watched Pat Robertson(who I'm quite glad would never be allowed on the airwaves here).



Right and Wrong are logical humanitarian concepts and not what the masses decide them to be, otherwise you are offending every single minority all at once. End of.



I celebrate Christmas as it's old a derivative of Yule, which is part of my religion. Despite the name, it is not exclusively Christian, and many religions have some kind of holiday around that time. I happen to like Christmas quiet a lot, actually.

Yes, centuries of religious tradition can't be ignored, and that includes everything that went before Christianity too. That doesn't change what Right and Wrong are, though.



There's plenty logical about a mother loving her child. Love is a beneficial emotion when it works out for the best, and one we need to prosper. You appear here interpret me as some kind of cold logical machine, yet you earlier say I am too emotional. Hmm.



Yet the earliest pagan societies - the more earth based, goddess loving ones before the Olypians "took power", would have still certainly not considered killing appropriate behaviour, and would have been, as a whole, less violent. Your point does not hold for this reason. The "Ten Commandments" were just the current mask of morality for a long time(interestingly, there's nothing about gay people in them, heh).



Yes. Most certainly it is.



That is one of the most incredibly absurd logical jumps I've ever seen. What if some neo-nazi cult who believed killing is wrong published a pamphlet about their ever-so-slightly-less-violent-but-still-hateful beliefs, would you teach your children about these values through that?
Think about what you're saying. Just because it contains these values, you use it to force your beliefs on them? So... many... holes.



Questioning can be a taught behaviour too, to an extent.



Not unless you're pushing it in their face. Otherwise, how would they know or realise exactly what you're doing?



No, it's called being openminded. That's like saying acting straight and teaching your kids it's okay to gay is hypocritical. In fact, that's exactly what it's like.



Why does it? If your Christian beliefs were truly strong, you wouldn't be so insecure as to have to avoid any mention of other religions having a good point too. I'd say the opposite is true, if anything, and that the attempt to force your beliefs on your children is some kind of sick desperate attempt to justify them by spreading them.

Actually, if you look to the bottom of her post, she did regard what I said, and made a very valid argument against it-the children will probably take Christianity anyway, because they see their parents doing it, even if the parents aren't actively influencing it. I concede that WHF has a valid point. Indeed, I don't have a problem with that-it's just something that happens. So long as it comes along with the lesson of religious tolerance, and that the parents are believing what they think is right, but in the end, the child should decide what they think is right as to what to believe, not just believing in whatever their parents believe because they're their parents. But yes, to reiterate, in that case, WHF, I see your point.



Oh, that you didn't get it is not anyone's fault. Most people know it, so we're used to saying it, sometimes forgetting who doesn't know it. It essentially means 'we're off-topic, let's get back on-topic, people'.

Thanks Sui. And Rosalie, this is a perfect example of your anger and ego clouding your judgement. You were in such a rush to prove me wrong, you didn't even read my post properly. But if you say you're not that way, fine, I'm not your therapist. I'm just saying what I see.



I don't approve of forcing your children to believe in anything. It's counter-productive and possibly damaging. But as I've said before, if you truly believe in something (i.e. if you believe, and have done so since childhood, that Christianity is the only valid faith), this will be transferred to your children somehow. You may not agree with this, but there's nothing you can do to stop it.



That’s because I’ve done nothing to prove you wrong on this point. In fact, if you read my posts properly, I’ve actually agreed with the point on demonising other religions. Though I think you're fighting a losing battle, if you're trying to persuade someone who has deeply held beliefs to suddenly abandon them with your current "I'm right and you're wrong" approach.



That doesn't convince me at all. I've studied psychology, and I've seen through numerous case studies that psychological influences are so sublime that you can assimuate them on a sub-conscious level. As in, you don't know it's happening, but you're getting influenced by your surroundings. The main theories say that this is most prevalent between the ages of 6 months and 3 years, so you don't even remember it.

During these years, you get a sense of the values of those around you, and as well, you learn from those around you how to interpret the values of the wider world. In your later childhood years, these values will be taught more actively - but those early development years will be crucial in how you interpret what others tell you later.

Therefore, if a child's parents have strong beliefs, this can be transferred to the child simply through their actions and their dealings with the world - it often doesn't have to be told, or forced. Depending on what kind of re-enforcement the child got, the child can then conform to these beliefs on their own terms, or reject them completely.

But when you talk about someone who blindly accepts authority’s rules, you’re talking about a person who has been instilled passivity and subserviance as a child. This is damaging, and it often comes about through emotional abuse. But that doesn’t have a corrolation with when a child learns from their parents a certain set of values, through observation of their parents' view of the world.



Gladly. Like Sui, I think there's a strong case for there to be two sides to human nature - the animal side, and the human social side. Human beings are a social animal, therefore we must learn how to survive both in the wild (as an animal) and within our own society (dealing with other humans). In the case of the former, we survive by building shelter, defending against predators, etc. In the latter, we survive by abiding to very socio-specific rules on how we must behave - if we didn’t, our natural instincts tell us that we will be left behind by the pack. And this is a dangerous position to be in if you’re a social animal, because without experience we wouldn’t have the skills of non-social animals to survive on our own. So we must behave according to (at least some of) the rules of our society.

And immediately, the concept of morality is born. In its essence, what’s right and wrong comes down to what will enhance the survival of the society, and what could potentially destroy it. This concept varies - the concept of morality that we have is different from that of 15th-century Mongolia, say. This is because we have a different kind of society from them.

I’ll take the Biblical Hebrew society as example (to stay vaguely on topic). If you read the Torah through unbelieving eyes, you could easily say that the rules supposedly given to Moses by God were actually created to uphold the Hebrew society’s hierarchies and maintain its survival.

There’s one rule that morally forbids wearing cloth of two different materials. For us, that’s ridiculous - but for them, it upholds the authority of the priests (who were allowed to wear this cloth), and thus the monotheistic tradition is mantained. There are other rules morally restricting marriage between Israelites and other tribes. That’s to uphold the Israelites’ racial purity. Again, ridiculous and racist to us - but they saw inter-marriage as a threat to the monotheistic tradition and to their survival as a tribe.

That’s my definiation of “morality” - it’s ever-changing and socio-specific. I don’t know what exactly you mean by “Right and Wrong”, unless you’re talking about universal values. If you are, then I think they can be attributed to human being’s social tendancies. Like, punish those who kill or hurt people - why? - because if we don't, they could potentially decrease the population and open us to threats from the outside.

You might mean tolerance in your defintion of “Right and Wrong”. Every society has a different definition of tolerence. The Christian tradition technically has it - though it’s not always obvious. The secular society is different again. So even the concept of tolerance is socio-specific, in my opinion.



Perhaps, but it’s not worth ruling out how a person is influenced by their surroundings psychologically. I’d say that a rebel would have had a different upbringing than someone who passively follows the rules.



Absolutely. In psychology, this is called a receptive personality. Though again, upbringing is the key to this - it’s usually people with low self-esteem who could potential become receptive to Pat Robertson or any other perceived figure of authority.



No, what I meant is that a mother’s love it isn’t something that she has to think about (so it’s not technially logical, per se). It’s more instinctual and emotional. Faith goes through the same process, in my opinion. It may not make logical sense to anyone else, but it can feel as natural to you as a mother’s love.



I’m sorry - I don’t understand your logic here at all, and you obviously didn't understand mine. What I meant was that if the Bible makes sense to you, if you agree with what says on the fundementals of how to be a good person, what’s wrong with sharing this with your children? Some fundementalist Christians may say that you should follow every word of the Bible - that includes the Old Tesaments’ anti-Canaanite and anti-whatever teachings. But I would say that most balanced Christian parents would only want to teach their children the parts that they could understand and would apply to their lives. And, again, I fully agree that forcing these beliefs is damaging - but that’s not what I’m talking about.



Not necessarily - what if they see you disappear to church every Sunday, or if they see you read the Bible in your spare time? They’ll definately pick up on that, and it may arouse their own curiosities about the religion. And if they see that it's an important part of your life, they may take it as an important part of their lives - no forcing necessary.



What I actually said was that it would be better if Christian parents taught their children tolerence of other religions - and it’s a Christian virtue to do so, in fact. That would involve mentioning them. But the thing is, most Christians couldn’t in genuine faith teach their children that other religions are fully correct.

Because Rule Number One of Christianity....... in order to find the path to God, you must only follow the teachings of Christ. That’s what the Bible says. You and I may have our doubts, and we may not like it. But from the Christian perspective, it’s a rule you can’t change unless you completely change your religious beliefs.

Simple. It's mocking the notion that if you can't prove it wrong, it must be a valid scientific theory.

_________________
"You get the Most Annoying Transsexual I've Ever Spoken To award." -The Zephyr Song

...Huh? A very opinionated version of what? And really, I don't see how we're "defying common logic".



Well, if you had kids, what would you teach them? If you believe that something is true, of course you're going to teach it to your kids. And I don't view it as "forcing" them. "Forcing" them would be telling them, "If you don't follow this religion, I will shove you into a meat grinder." or something like that.

And that last part...uggh. No comment.



As some of us have already said, it's impossible for all beliefs to be true. And I don't see how we're "demonising other alternatives". None of us has done that. We're certainly not trying to insult members of other religions.



All of your anger towards us is counterproductive. It's not helping you get us to agree with you.



We are NOT "blindly worshipping" him. I know I'm not. Yes, I respect him, but I don't view him as some sort of supreme, godlike being.



This is a purely hypothetical situation, but what if someone came to the conclusion that murder wasn't wrong? Would you still feel this way?



My view has always been that Christmas is about, well, Christ. If you want to celebrate a winter holiday, that's fine with me, but it's not Christmas



What?



Kids aren't stupid, Rosalie. Eventually, they'll get curious and they'll ask, or they'll find out on their own.



No, actually, it isn't. You can't choose your sexual orientation, but you can choose your religion. And, as we've said before, it's not possible for all religions to be equally valid.



Huh?

_________________

Glad to see you're so unbiased and tolerant, as usual.

As for "Spiritual Programming", I object to your use of terminology. You make it sound like we're hooking electrodes up to their brains or something. The last time I checked, all we were doing was TEACHING, pretty much the same thing teachers do to them in school. In fact, it seems to me that the only reason you could possibly have for objecting to that is that it happens to be the truth that we are teaching them.

And since I do believe my religion is the truth, I don't see any compelling reason to offer other religions as valid alternatives. I mean, do modern science teachers offer the Ptolemaic universal model as an alternative to the Copernican? Yet you expect me to offer false religions as valid alternatives to the true one.

You call our Bible "a dusty old book." That's a far cry from offering any substantial evidence not to trust it. In fact, you are guilty of what C. S. Lewis called "chronological snobbery." Yet you claim to be "unbiased." Here's a hint: chronological snobbery is not a logical argument.

You claim you are against people forcing their opinions on others, but isn't that all you've been doing in this thread, trying to force your beliefs about how children ought to be taught on us?

You claim you back all your views up with logic. All I've seen is you ranting and raving that you're right and the rest of us wrong, and when we don't buy it, you resort to ad hominem attacks and insults. You have in fact alienated people who otherwise might agree with you. Heck, you even insulted one of the Admins. Fine example of your tolerance, to be sure. Personally, I find that hilarious. Keep it up.

_________________

Can we just drop this please? No one is getting anywhere with this so-called "debate"

Just reading this frusterates me like no tomorrow. I know if I say anything more someone will get on my case about how "Biased" I am.

So yeah. This is rediculous and I hope this thread get's locked soon x.x

_________________
Oh STEVEN! I think this may finally be it you guys! After 200 hundred emails I'm finally gonna get to make out with da-da-da DEAR HOMESTAR?!

Why are you personally going after Didymus? You can NOT say that you personally know what kind of person he is and wether or not he'd "force" his views on his children.


You know what? I totally agree.

_________________

I completely agree as well. Nobody is getting anywhere with this argument. It's not constructive at all.

_________________

Thank you for saying something that I can now use in a completely different way from what it was meant and prove my point. BWA-HA-HA-HAAAAAAA!

That's what I like to say about religion. OK, so back when science wasn't really that big a deal, religion was pretty easy to accept. "OK, so this thing says that there's a God that'll punish me if I sin. That sounds easy enough to believe. Not like there's any evidence to the contrary!"

Then we learned that there was a bit more stuff than we thought there was in the Universe. "OH! Well, um, I guess God must have created all that too, even though there is no evidence in the Bible whatsoever that he did."

Then, as we grew to learn more and more, we learned that the Universe was, like, tens of billions or more years old and not 6,000 as the Bible had always said. Christians proceeded to try and "debunk" this "lie" (not really Christians in general, but this website... well, at least it used to, but now it seems to be going off in a different direction since when the book was written), using "Science" to back their stuff up. However, according to Philip Plait's book, Bad Astronomy (a book that I highly reccomend, incidentally), it really is extremely bad science. And really, it's not even science at all. Still, the Christians will undoubtedly continue to back their beliefs up until there is not one speck of proof that Christianity is valid in any way except for its moral value (which, incidentally, is pretty big... but still not enough).

You get my idea. Christians will go on believing something that has less and less validity. "Come back here! I'll bite your legs off!"

And in regards to the above posts, I also agree. That was just my last two cents, I guess.

_________________
So, so you think you can tell Heaven from Hell, blue skies from pain. Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail? A smile from a veil? Do you think you can tell?

What's your idea of evidence in the Bible?
I only ask because Genesis 1:1 pretty much sets that God created everything in the Universe.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Welll... er. I'm gonna go...... place. But still, you seem to be IGNORING the rest of the post and just going, "Oh, THAT bit's wrong!"

_________________
So, so you think you can tell Heaven from Hell, blue skies from pain. Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail? A smile from a veil? Do you think you can tell?

Actually, if you check it again, you did indeed ignore everything Sui said in that particular point. You didn't pay attention to him until much later with a less relevant point.



You're really going to need some very solid backing for that. Parents are only one of a number of influences, including television, school, and friends. But of course, if you're clever like the people I'm talking about and tell them not to listen to them if they tell otherwise, because they're obviously evil, then that's a clever little trap, isn't it?



Just to point out, never use that in an argument. The last person that did used it as an excuse to defend his prejudice that all fat peoplea re fat purely because it's their fault and they should be looked down on because of it.



And I never picked up my parent's beliefs, because they never really presented them to me. I ended up being brought up christian pretty much because of school, orto a lesser extent my grandmother.



Childhood values rarely ever stick, though. You could use the same argument for believing in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny - do you still?



I don't see how that would work for religious beliefs. Though I see your point to an extent, I picked up my rebellious streak from my mother who works in SIPTU(The "Union" for non-Irish people) and gets angry at people a lot.



I strongly believe that this is what people like Didymus are doing, at least according to what he has said earlier. But we'll see what he has to say for himself later.



These "Behavioural rules" are more akin to enforced law than actual right and wrong, which do not always overlap. And most of the "addedums" to Law would be based on logic-based idealogy, such as acceptance of minority.

This is really more of a society thing, it's not really saying where right and wrong comes from.



That's conformity. You really have to disprove that Right and Wrong is a logical humanitarian construct before you outline something that's quite a bit different.



Whoa there, hold on. That was a massive jump. You sort of missed out on one of the most important bits of what I was asking. I suggest you join the dots if you want me to deal with your view in more detail.



But you're forgetting that we aren't like other animals - we are capable of thinking in logical and rational terms. If logic usurps common knowledge, why should we consider the "set ways" right, purely because they're there?

This is the essence of Liberalism Vs. Conservatism.



That's a societies view on morality. Everyone has their own deduction of what's right and wrong to do, it doesn't change that at essence it's based entirely on who you're hurting/helping, and why.

If the whole world believed it was okay to exterminate short people, would that make it okay? No. It might be society's skewed view of morality, but it does not adhere to logic and common sense - short people are not inherently threatening and killing them serves no logical purpose.



Let me explain to you something.

Inherently, no person is born with a right over anyone else. We are given no indication as to this, we are all born with strengths and weaknesses.

If you kill a person, you are removing there right to life. But who gives you the right to do that? Why is your existence so much important than theirs?

Similiarly, if you hurt someone in any other way, you are causing them pain. Why? What gives you the right to do that?

Cause of pain, or attempt to do so, or deceit which may result in this, without justifiable reason is what should be considered wrong, because that's all that really makes sense.

Right should be attempting, even if it not suceeding, in adding to the lives of others, or at least not causing pain.

Of course, it gets more complex than that, but every complex system needs some basic building blocks.

Killing people(without an extremely just cause) will never be right because it's removing a right that you had no business, in any philosphical or social sense, removing.

That's pretty basic. Right is doing good(to other people) and wrong is doing bad(to other people.) It's based on how you're trying to make other people feel and what reason you have for doing it.

"This book says so" has absolutely no backing except, well, a book.

Otherwise, you get into utter moral relativism and any chance of minority rights falls apart.

What I just said holds up against logic. "Because everyone else thinks so" does not. It might make it more acceptable, but it's certainly not good, just, fair, or right.

I will never accept that majority ruling is what's right, because then you're pretty much teaching me to hate myself. Do you understand this? It's easy to say that right is what society thinks, when you haven't been screwed over by society.

[quote=Didymus]Glad to see you're so unbiased and tolerant, as usual.[/quote]

When you begin with lines like this, I know I'm in for a treat.



I'm sorry you have such a problem with a perfectly valid observation.



No, the problem I have is that you're teaching them your absolute truth in a manner which will not allow them to see any alternatives.



Because, shock horror, they might see them as valid alternatives? Though I think we already established you don't give a crap about their beliefs, only yours.



False to you. Not neccessarily to your children. Why don't you get that? You are talking about science which is hardly comparable to religion. Teaching them universally accepted truths like things fall down and fire is hot, like the afforementioned teachers may do, is not really comparable to unprovable faith.

Very, very much getting into Intelligent Design territory here.

Going by your logic, Intelligent design is a perfectly acceptable idea if the science teacher believes it to be true. See? You're NOT like a teacher at all.



I find it annoying how selective you are in what you respond to, yet I make an attempt to respond to everything. I said numerous times I have no problem with what you believe - it's how you act on it that counts. You're purposely putting it in a ridiculous light - it's no different from me being disgusted by you shouting abuse at a gay person in the street. Would you say that I was forcing my beliefs by telling you it was wrong to do that?

It's disgust, dear. Get used to it.

Also, I can't force my beliefs on you near as much as you can on your children.

Though I expect you'll just ignore this since it doesn't suit your argument, so whatever.



If you had most of the board against you, you wouldn't find it so easy, either. Most people aren't as good as Sui at keeping calm with such opposition, especially ones that are so utterly frustrating in their refusal to accept some of the most basic concepts of debating.

And I've still backed up my views with a heck of a lot more than you have - that's pretty certain.

While you have a lot of validity in what you're saying (more than a lot of people do in this thread), you're not doing a very good job of showing it.

_________________
So, so you think you can tell Heaven from Hell, blue skies from pain. Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail? A smile from a veil? Do you think you can tell?

Please, please don't assume we're all like that. I know you said "not really Christians in general", but...I dunno. I just hope you realize that most of us aren't completely loony.

(For the record, I believe in evolution. And I'm a devout Christian. I don't really view the two as being mutually exclusive.)

_________________

If I thought that most Christians were completely loony, would I be talking to you right now?

*hugs Mandy*

And Didymus is quite possibly the coolest guy ever.

_________________
So, so you think you can tell Heaven from Hell, blue skies from pain. Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail? A smile from a veil? Do you think you can tell?

It's scary that the website that was posted is pretty damn professional looking...

Yeah.

"We believe God has raised up ICR to spearhead Biblical Christianity's defense against the godless and compromising dogma of evolutionary humanism. Only by showing the scientific bankruptcy of evolution, while exalting Christ and the Bible, will Christians be successful in “the pulling down of strongholds; casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” (II Corinthians 10:4,5)."

Holy Snap...

_________________
So, so you think you can tell Heaven from Hell, blue skies from pain. Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail? A smile from a veil? Do you think you can tell?

Solid evidence for what - that parents influence their children through their behaviour? If so, I was only giving parental influence as one example of a very important influence. There would be other influences too, of course, like siblings or grandparents or what not. But here, I'm talking about very very early development - those crucial first three years, like I said before. It's those first three years that the fundementals of your personality and everything you will become are set up. Television and school aren't a factor yet, but parents and other people are.

There's quite a good book by psychologist Oliver James on this early development called They F*** You Up (don't yell at me, admins, that's what it's called). Not exactly the most scientific book on the subject, but I think it gives a good insight to the main theories on early development that are out there.



When I'm talking about early develoment, I'm not talking about picking up your parent's beliefs exactly as they believe them. I mean, a toddler can hardly understand their parents' beliefs. But what they do learn is how to respond to them once they do understand them. You get a basic understanding of how your parents (or anyone close to you) respond to the outer world and how this applies to you accordingly.

Like the example you gave (first off, I'll say that I'm not presuming anything about your upbringing, but throwing out a few ideas) - if your parents didn't share their religious beliefs with you, is it possible that since a certain response to religion wasn't created in your early childhood, that you grew up thinking that there isn't one religion that has validity over another?

Err..... I don't know how clear that is. In other words, I know a lot of atheists and agnostics for whom religion wasn't a factor in their lives until later in their childhoods (myself included). So perhaps since their parents didn't present a certain reverring response to any one religion in front of their children, their children don't end up reverring the religion themselves.



You can't present belief in Santa Claus as being an example of a "value".

Though actually, I'll use this as an example of what I was talking about before. Say you have a religious family who tell their kids about Santa Claus. Now this is a very experimental idea, but say that the reponse to Christianity has been created in early childhood is one of reverence. But it's only until the children are more cognive (maybe four or five) that the idea of Santa Claus is introduced. First off, the response to this idea of a Santa Claus is only periodical (i.e. only at Christmas that he's mentioned at all), and it's presented as more about fun and wonder, rather than as a focus of reverence or belief.

So there are three factors then which tell you that the idea won't stick - the fact that the parents don't believe in Santa themselves (the lack of reverence), the absence of the idea through the children's daily lives (except at Christmas), and the idea of Santa has been introduced quite late in the children's development. This wouldn't be true of their particular beliefs in Christianity (unless they're not very pious at all).



Though that's my idea of what "morality" is, and how it becomes a social construct. Relating to your other points, about conformity, I'd say that that's what morality can become - it's the rules, written and unwritten, that we need to conform to in our behaviour if we are to be productive members of society.

Because, taking the example you gave of what's right and wrong, you say what's "right" is that everyone is equal and has equal rights, and what's "wrong" is when one group denies another their rights. (Am I right about that?)

That's very much a sense of morality that is a social construct, imo - it relates to how we all interact with each other, and how we can best contribute to society. If your society was the society we live in now (and it's increasingly becoming that way), then as a collective, people will consider anyone who breaches the rights of others as being "immoral".

But then another society believes that it is "moral" to curb the rights of individuals, to prevent these individuals from corrupting the whole somehow. I'll state now that it's largely a case of ignorance that creates a mindset like this, unless we're talking about criminal behaviour. But this is just an example of how the concept of "morality" is socio-specific and open to very wide interpretation.



You were asking me how morality is a social concept, right? I don't know if I've answered it in this post in a way you'll understand (it might have gotten a bit twisted). If not, drop me a PM (because it's off-topic here).



Yes, unlike animals, we're capable of logic. But we still have many of the same priorities as other social animals - food, shelter etc, and how we must behave as part of the whole. I'd say that some of the "set ways" that humans have created for themselves are very changable - like my definition of "morality" - and this has been going on for several millennia. But there deep down there are core elements to how we fit into society, imo, that are largely driven by instinct.



I get what you're saying, though I'm not sure your example of killing short people is the best here - short people don't present any perceived threat to society, so why would any society decide to kill them?

But no, I essentially agree with you - as regards prejudice against any group, raising awareness that they don't present a threat to society will be the key to changing attitudes generally. It's only when this awareness is raised that it becomes "common sense". It's achievable, but it takes time and serious effort.

I'll add this - if we manage to change these attitudes generally, what does it matter if there are a few dissenters? There will always be people who think that such-and-such group don't deserve to have rights, or that they're morally wrong, or whatever. You'll be wasting your time if you try to appeal to everyone - it's only worth getting a significant portion of society on your side.

So I'm saying that if you know that what you think is right, it shouldn't matter if there are still some people who'll disagree. It's not your problem.