Would the world be better off without religion?

My post "Go straw man go!" was a tongue in cheek pre-emptive strike given that your tactics are so predictable!

Your statement is a moral judgement because it seeks to define whence moral judgements arise, and hence attempt to define on what basis something is or is not moral.

It is quite a sweeping moral judgement, encompassing all of morality and stated in absolute terms ('All' moral judgements are.........) How can you deny that your statement is absolute in it's terms?

You propose a moral absolute, but deny the existence of moral absolutes.

Moreover it seeks to prove a negative, i.e. there are no moral absolutes, which it utterly fails to do. Omniscience would be required to prove a negative such as this one.

I have yet to meet a relativist that is consistent. They all become absolutists at some point.

It is part of human nature, and it is why relativism bothers people. They know inherently that some things are right and some things are wrong.

Everybody at some point draws a line and says 'that's just wrong.'

Real
The problem you have with morals is the same problem you have with Creationism; you can't give any evidence for your fantasies.

You responded to Asherman with;

They do not "know" certain things are "inherently" right or wrong; they believe it so just as you believe in your God. What they believe to be right or wrong is relative to their religion, culture, society and times.

Slavery is an example. Your fellow conservative Christians who lived in the South believed slavery was just and proper. The "particular institution" was supported by the Bible in both Old and New Testaments. With the exception of a very few die-hard Southern Christians I believe most everyone today, in the South, believe slavery is wrong and immoral.

Is the immorality of slavery an absolute because that is what is believed today by a vast majority of Christians? Of course not. It is not currently viewed that way by the world's population and todays view on slavery in America may, in the future, change if certains conditions change.


Your answer to Setanta was a cop-out; the type of answer someone would give if they were cornered like a rat in a trap. You can't answer this question and your to vain to admit your wrong.

Our notions of what is "proper" or "improper" are the product of our cultural history. Cultures vary, sometimes marginally and other times by a whole lot. If there were some "moral" absolutes "hardwired" into us, taboos would be the same regardless of cultural context. Indeed, there are a number of moral values that tend to be similar over many cultures. Among those taboos are:

* Prohibitions against killing one of your own kin/tribe. The strictures and exceptions to the general rule vary and are not universal, but intra-group homicide is commonly regarded as taboo.

* Disloyalty to the group is a taboo that ranks right up there with intra-group homicide. To betray the group by consorting with, or even having sympathy for outsiders is almost universally condemned. In most cultures that I'm familiar with, betrayal of a close friend or family member is perhaps an even stronger taboo than betrayal of the larger group. The more homogeneous a group is, typically the greater is the expectation of loyalty to the group, its culture, religion, leaders, and policies.

* Prohibitions against stealing from one of your own kin/tribe. Again this isn't a universal taboo, but it is very common to most groups.

* Sexual taboos are especially common, but vary greatly in detail. Most commonly there are taboos against incest, and adulatory. The importance of marital fidelity for wives is commonly greater than for husbands. Marital arrangements vary quite a lot from strongly matriarchal to patriarchal structures. Homosexuality taboos are a mixed bag. It seems that our species likes sex for its own sake, and that most of us have at least occasional same-sex urges. The taboo against homosexuality appears to one that can vary even within a particular culture. By this I mean that in many cultures at various times homosexuality is accepted, and in some cases (Sparta) encouraged.

This is by no means an exhaustive list of common taboos, but I think its fairly representative. Is this "proof" for at least some "moral absolutes"? I don't believe it does. I think that our notions of "right" and "wrong" evolved during that distant time when humans were still almost totally at the mercy of nature. Survival and procreation were the twin imperatives for our species, and there was greater safety within a closely knit group, or tribe. We humans seem to be basically herd animals, but each of us is also driven by our own ego. Our distant ancestors had to find a way to make the group secure, so we evolved some basic Laws to insure the group's survival and prosperity.

Tribal members had to suppress some of their individuality and desires for the overall good of the group. To accept intra-group homicide weakened the tribe of the warriors and mothers it needed to survive. Members of the tribe had to fully trust one another to be effective in the competition with other tribes for resources. The natural affection we have for family was extended to the clan and tribe. Theft of property, or the affections of another individual's family member, threatens the ties that bind us to our group. Individuals want to secure for themselves and their families the greatest resources possible, and so society has to protect "property" so long as it doesn't threaten the group's survival.

As long as our species has been around (actually not all that long), we have struggled with the problem of constructing the best social structures possible to insure our tribal survival. We have been constantly at war with competing tribes for scarce resources, and we are constantly having to balance individual desires against society's needs. Those taboos that evolved 100,000 years ago are with us still. They are enshrined in our cultures and in our religions. They are sanctified and said to be derived from our ancestors and our gods. Shucks, until very modern times it was taboo even to question the moral standards of our group.

We in the West abolished slavery, an institution that was common to societies since before history was ever written down, only two hundred years ago. Slavery is still accepted and practiced in Africa and parts of Southern Asia. Why did we REALLY abolish slavery? Because it violates some moral stricture, or for some other reason? A good case could be made that with the Industrial Revolution, slavery ceased to be a "social good" and became a "social disgrace" because we went from being a muscle driven world to a machine world. Of course, that's far too simplistic an explanation. The way Christianity came to be practiced in the West had already increased the emphasis on humanitarian values, and had a history of raising the the slave caste to "human" status.

Our notions of what is "good and proper" and what is "bad or improper" isn't fixed for all time, but is continually evolving as the circumstances of human existence change. During the last several hundred years the pace of change has been steadily increasing. In that time the world has shrunk and cultures that once were seldom in contact are today living cheek-by-jowls. Cultural differences and taboos keep bumping up against one another. The weapons of war have become very efficient and much more lethal. Homogeneous societies are now the exception rather than the rule; even Japan is not what it was only 75 years ago. The resources we struggle over today are those that fuel the World Culture and economy.

Oh well ....

Nonsense, the statement is not at all concerned with whether or not any given judgment is moral, it simply points out that any judgment which is claimed to be a moral judgment is subjective. Absolutely no valuation of morality is entailed in the statement that moral judgments are subjective.



I don't deny that the statement is absolute. I do deny that the statement is a moral judgment, which you only assert in the attempt to prop up your feeble and unconvincing argument that i have contradicted myself. The statement that all moral judgments are subjective is not of itself a moral judgment, because it does not assert (or "seek" to assert) that the subjectivity of moral judgments is "good" or "bad," nor "right" or "wrong." Continuing to assert that the statement is a moral judgment itself, in the face of a definition of morality which clearly states that morality concerns itself with "right" and "wrong," only provides evidence that you don't reason well. It also shows how desperate you are to prop up a failing argument in which you ave involved yourself. Continuing to assert that the statement is a "moral judgment," while not even offering an explanation as to why this were so, not only does not make it so, it makes you look the fool.



This is a lie--the statement i made does not have the character of a moral statement, it does not assert that the subjectivity of morality is either good or bad, or right or wrong.



It does not "seek" to prove anything. It is a statement about the nature of morality, and the "proof," if one were as obsessed with "proof" as you are in this case, is offered in the basis upon which i make the observation, which is that there is no moral statement upon which all people agree. The statement itself does not "seek" anything.

You're not very good at this sort of thing.

Nonsense, people "draw a line," and state "I think that is wrong." That is a subjective statement. You are just desperate to demonstrate that your imaginary friend is the source of all morality, and this is one of your more pathetic efforts.

Supposing that everyone says, without subjective reference, that some "this" is wrong. Do you assert that all people can agree that some one "this" is wrong? That's the burden of your proof if you wish to assert that moral judgments are not subjective. You fail to offer a shred of evidence for the existence of moral absolutes.

Asherman's last post is very perceptive, and very much to the point.

Religion is man-made, truth is God-made...

ah but what is truth mon ami?

Whatever Rex says it is, 'cause God told him . . . now sit down, and be quiet ! ! !

Is that the way yer parents dressed ya as a kid, Set?


No wonder!

The opposite of a lie... hehe

Truth extracts the lies from religion.

So if I say I always lie, am I telling the truth?

That's a snappy chapeau i got there, no?

Looks like the last Emperor


but cuter


kiss kiss setty

I wanna Tarboosh for my avatar!

You look wunnaful!

Nice fez.