What does the upside down star(pentagram) mean to you?

Setanta wrote:

snood wrote:

I don't know how someone would (for instance)teach a child right from wrong with this mindset.

Then either you have not been paying attention, or you do not wish to see. It is a simple matter to explain to a reasonably intelligent child above a certain age the difference between objective principles and subjective principles. Before they are old enough to distinguish such matters, "Because i said so, and i'm the Daddy (or Mommy)" would suffice. Do you contend that a two-year old comprehends the meaning or morality and contentions of absolute truths? If you do, i'll laugh at you. Before a certain age, children understand right and wrong only as what they are permitted and what they are denied. Time enough to teach them about ethics and socially-acceptable behavior when they are old enough to comprehend.

That statement reeks of self-righteousness.

And . . .

Merry Andrew wrote:

I have to side with Snood on this. Are any of you prepared to argue that genocide -- just to name one thing -- is not demonstrably and universally evil? This is not a matter of individual judgement. This is a universally accepted truth. Certainly, many of the things which we tend to label "good" or "evil" reflect nothing more than our individual or cultural preferences. But that's not the same as saying that evil, pure evil, does not exist.

Yes, it is exactly the same as saying the "evil, pure evil, does not exist." That's exactly what i'm saying.

You got kids, Setanta? I think its germaine, because that's one of them things that's really different from theory to practice.

No Snood, i don't have children--if i did, at my age, i'd have grandchildren, as well.

Now you can comfort yourself that you're entitled to dismiss my arguments.

I have, however, had a big hand in caring for my nephews when they were small, and lived in a stair-step family, in which one was always responsible for siblings and cousins who were younger. Additionally, believe it or not, i remember my own upbringing.

I know, whether or not you want to get snotty about it,

that it is possible to teach children about ethics and social responsibility without an appeal to religious morality

Oh, and by the way - Mesquite? Bite me.

snood wrote:

Oh, and by the way - Mesquite? Bite me.

Now Snood, what have I said in this conversation to cause you to go there?

Bite me twice.

A couple of things. "Religious morality" is a loaded as hell term, and not really necessary to use here. Does the argument over whether or not there is universal good and evil automatically presuppose having an argument over whether or not religion is meaningful? I don't think so.

I think some things are clearly and universally recognizable as evil. The reason I asked about having raised kids is because they pick up on everything - and mostly not what we say, but what we do. So our own "moral code" is passed on, and I don't know how I would do that consciously or even unconsciously without having some bedrock understanding of what is simply right and what is simply wrong. I hope that makes some sense.

snood wrote:

A couple of things. "Religious morality" is a loaded as hell term, and not really necessary to use here. Does the argument over whether or not there is universal good and evil automatically presuppose having an argument over whether or not religion is meaningful? I don't think so.

Your own reaction to my remarks about the religiously-minded (and i am only usually moved to comment in the presence of fanaticism) leads me to point to religiously-based morality. Additionally, it is religion which most commonly posits the existence of moral absolutes. Whether or not one's moral absolutism were religiously motivated is not terribly important; it is undeniable, though, that one is most likely to encounter moral absolutism in a religious context, or in a writer who lives in a society with a religious heritage.

Quote:

I think some things are clearly and universally recognizable as evil. The reason I asked about having raised kids is because they pick up on everything - and mostly not what we say, but what we do. So our own "moral code" is passed on, and I don't know how I would do that consciously or even unconsciously without having some bedrock understanding of what is simply right and what is simply wrong. I hope that makes some sense.

You have presupposed that one has a "moral code." Morality, and the concept that there is "universally recognizable . . . evil" are statements of absolute concepts--and of course, i have all the while simply pointed out that these are subjective judgments, and not absolutes. I counter your constant nitpicking here, and attempts to create analogies which will support you position, by insisting that there is no reason to continue to discuss this if you can't provide a plausible argument that morality, that absolute, universal statements about what is good or evil, have a basis in the natural world. Frankly, i doubt that you can, although i'd be willing to entertain the notion. Attempting to create evidence by analogy from human experience don't get it, though, because one can always point to the preferences of those who make such a contention, which is, once again, subjective judgment.

I have to admit, without in some way referencing the inspiration of what you would call supernatural, I am finding it hard to think of any demonstration of good or evil. I don't say that there isn't any - but just that I'm not smart enough to think of one.

I have also seen young children brought up in Christian and non-Christian homes and there IS a difference in their perception of good and bad. I am not saying that all Christians are good. Just as in anything you have your bad apples. However, when children are brought up in a truly honest religious family they get exposure to others with the same moral values. They have a wider exposure to those things that are considered right and good. No, I am not talking about fanatical religionism.

Intrepid wrote:

I have also seen young children brought up in Christian and non-Christian homes and there IS a difference in their perception of good and bad. I am not saying that all Christians are good. Just as in anything you have your bad apples. However, when children are brought up in a truly honest religious family they get exposure to others with the same moral values. They have a wider exposure to those things that are considered right and good. No, I am not talking about fanatical religionism.

Sounds sort of like you think Christians have some sort of lock what is right or wrong, good or bad. That is not something that I can relate to from my life experiences and it is not something that I can see in evidence from the posters on A2K. IMO your statement that I have highlighted above, works just as well without the word religious.

By excluding fanatical religionism, I take it you mean those that take biblical text more seriously and literally.

Intrepid - just for the record, I read the same posts as every one else, and I didn't take away from it that you think Christians are better than everyone else, or that they're the only ones who know right from wrong.

snood wrote:

Intrepid - just for the record, I read the same posts as every one else, and I didn't take away from it that you think Christians are better than everyone else, or that they're the only ones who know right from wrong.

Whatever his post said, you can be sure that Intrepid DOES believe wholeheartedly that christians are better than everyone else. All his ilk do.

I do think children raised within a faith tradition have a greater exposure to an equivalent set of morals.......

Intrepid - just for the record, I read the same posts as every one else, and I didn't take away from it that you think Christians are better than everyone else, or that they're the only ones who know right from wrong.

I have also seen young children brought up in Christian and non-Christian homes and there IS a difference in their perception of good and bad.