Would the world be better off without religion?

real life wrote:

plainoldme wrote:

Real Life -- I agree with Pentacle Queen and take her statement one step further. The question the thread asks isn't stupid but your examples are. Posting that business about cannibalism is just plain silly.

When I was in Catholic high school (1965-69), there was a kid named Stanley who asked a similiar question during religion class. Since the priest has to drink all the communion wine, even if something falls into it, Stanley asked if a missionary was saying mass and a trantula crawled into the chalice, would he have to drink the wine? Your cannibal question is on that same level.

Don't call a question silly just because you don't want to answer, or can't answer it, plainoldme.

Either all moral judgements are equal, i.e. all things are 'equally moral'.......

..........or they are not.

If all moral judgements are equal, then:

Quote:

'Cannibalism is acceptable because one animal may eat another,'

is equally moral to

Quote:

'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.'

If all moral judgements are not equal then obviously both are measured against an absolute standard to determine which is 'more moral.'

So, which is it?

I'm not saying I don't want to answer it.

Cannibalising a dead body is permissible to save one's own life.

Cannibalism for the sheer enjoyment, including purposeful killing of a living human being, is moral because one animal may always eat another.

All moral judgements are valid

NOT all moral judgements are valid.

All moral judgements are valid

I see. If I reply, then you must be right, eh?

So if I didn't reply, would you have been wrong? (emoticon removed in the interest of good taste)

If that's the best you can come up with, perhaps it's better for you that you didn't address the question.

The world would be better off without religious institutions.

Wouldn't it be fun if nobody could put a name to their own religion because it was simply an expression of their own feelings and beliefs cobbled together from their own experiences?

The answer to "what religion are you?" would be unique for everyone. They would have to describe it, and they would call it "My religion".

The way it is now, people don't have religion, religion has them.

real life wrote:

I see. If I reply, then you must be right, eh?

So if I didn't reply, would you have been wrong? (emoticon removed in the interest of good taste)

If that's the best you can come up with, perhaps it's better for you that you didn't address the question.

Anton is correct that with regard to a logical response to the comments of others, you are usually a run-away train.

This is a perfect example. Anton definitely did not either write or imply that any reply on your part makes you wrong--he specified the type of response you made, not the simple fact of your response. In fact, what he wrote was: Seeing you saw fit to reply as above, perhaps, the comment hit home.. His comment was specific to the manner in which you had replied, not simply the fact that you replied at all.

So, his point is well taken. Logic consistently fails you, and your arguments are so often based on a failure to understand what has been said to you, a willful refusal to understand what has been said to you, or a willful misrepresentation of what has been said to you. The question of morality always finds you sooner or later--and usually sooner than later--asserting that all moral judgments are equal in the estimation of those with whom you discuss the topic, from which you proceed to "accuse" them of believing in a moral absolute, even though the person in question very likely has denied this. However, you always insert that nonsense either without a logical basis, or with no basis at all. So for example, if i point out that moral judgments are subjective, you will leap on that to assert that i have said that all moral judgments have the same value, and that therefore, i in fact believe in moral absolutes. This is in large measure conditioned by your contempt for those who you describe as "moral relativists." However, saying that moral judgments are subjective doesn't mean that all moral judgments have equal value, it in fact means that different people value moral judgments differently--the very antithesis of a moral absolute.

Anton's got you pegged, you just go around and around in the circle of your thought, and never understand, and apparently don't try to understand, what others are saying to you.