Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
nivek

Moral values without religion

Recommended Posts

Guest Joseph
(snip for context)

I don't entirely disagree.  What I disagree with is your example.  Most Christians I know would say it's both, not one or the other, and that neither one makes you bad.

 

Never heard a "christian" agree that they practice symbolic cannibalism and that such a "viewpoint" is as acceptable to them as that of the terms "holy communion."

 

It's only the fundies who would say that the later description is bad.  For something to be good or evil, the vast majority of people have to see it as such, I think.  It is relative to society.

 

Fuck society. Society is a bunch of morons who are normally misled by propoganda which they will not seek to inform themselves beyond.

 

Much more likely you will find that the learned and informed minority of a given culture have a proper perspective of a given concept or subject.

 

Reminds me of Men in Black where the statement is told to will smith something like "a man is a good thing, but people are crazy." That's an extremely paraphrased version.

 

For example, we consider murder evil.  But let's say by some freak occurence that every single woman of child-bearing age suddenly gets pregnant -- via alien abduction, cellular mutation, solar radiation, whatever.  Let's say this happens consistently every year on the same date for the next few centuries.  Let's also say that the odds of multiple births are also much higher now.  If the human population explodes that much, until we find a way to get people off the planet and colonize Mars, countries are going to try forcing sterilization on women of certain ages.

 

Much of the population problems of third world countries are the direct result of the Catholic band against birth control methods. The world is already beyond the means to deal with current population trends, and it didn't take solar radiation, only the lies of a given theological group which applies well to hopeless third world masses which are uneducated prey upon which such sects breed.

 

Many Christians would view this as immoral, but if it's necessary to keep the population down so that people have food and water, would most people stop considering it as immoral?  I think so.

 

I think that "The Church" doesn't give a rats ass about the suffering found in today's world so long as it does not have to face up to the direct causal relationship that the policies and dogmas it enforces upon mankind have done and are doing and shall continue to do.

 

Or at least, they would view it as a necessary evil.

 

Such was once slavery and in our own day abortion. Socio-economic horrors forced upon mankind due to lacking a better method of dealing with such issues in our own day. As man grows in knowledge and technology the need for such social evils should deminish, not increase but only after various horrible sectations are destroyed and/or the masses are educated to a point so they can question the destructive commands of an ancient theological group.

 

What I wanted to stress in this is the relative nature of our moral systems and how no single viewpoint is an absolute, neither is any one viewpoint the correct one. Even my own in seeing the "evils" of certain theological belief sets must hold in comparison to the hope given to those that would be without it without such beliefs existence...perhaps it would be even worse to be without the basic needs in this life and to also know that there is nothing to hope for in the end. Therefore no one should think that they hold the single correct viewpoint, for even in the lies of various theological sets and even in their destructive qualities there is other viewpoints to see them from inwhich they are more of a blessing than curse.

 

Again, it is only relative to viewpoint in the end as to whether you or society as a whole accept any given act as "good" or "evil." Nothing is inherently evil or good.

 

One of my favorite examples is the planet of rape. It goes like this. In a few centuries we find a planet inwhich the women must rape the men in order to have offspring. Further study shows that people get married but that sexual relations for the male of the species is exceptionally painful physiologically. Therefore the customs of rape have taken place in this world so that offspring could be produced. It is a normal way of life for these people and culture and ensures that their way of life continues on. Christian missionaries hear about it and quickly go there and teach the women that rape is an "absolute evil." Immediately this species begins to die out as converts stop the practice of rape. Over the next few centuries many struggle to survive but as their numbers die out and humans move to the planet, the laws are changed so that rape becomes a crime. Within three hundred years of this planets discovery the natural species dies out due to missionary actions and society's actions which deemed their natural act was an evil...when in fact it was nothing more than nature's way.

 

How different would our laws and moral systems be if the woman had to eat her mate's head during copulation? If we were sentient Praying manti then our "moral systems" would be entirely different. How could anyone think it correct to judge any other culture by another culture's laws?

 

I think that one thing which Star Trek got right, perfectly right, was the "Prime Directive" in realizing that as much as we would like to play "god" or to push our version of god upon others, the correct thing to do is to allow evolution of another world to come as that world deems. If our own history is taken as example then conquest and destruction of indiginous peoples is the natural way of man, I just hope that as we progress beyond our Earth that we do not take such ego along for the ride.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I wanted to stress in this is the relative nature of our moral systems and how no single viewpoint is an absolute, neither is any one viewpoint the correct one.

 

Yeah, I would agree with this.

 

I think that one thing which Star Trek got right, perfectly right, was the "Prime Directive" in realizing that as much as we would like to play "god" or to push our version of god upon others, the correct thing to do is to allow evolution of another world to come as that world deems. If our own history is taken as example then conquest and destruction of indiginous peoples is the natural way of man, I just hope that as we progress beyond our Earth that we do not take such ego along for the ride.

 

I agree with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget torturing and killing gay people.

 

Oh, and killing anyone who works at an abortion clinic, or has even considered getting an abortion. Because they're not human beings, they're Ev1L!11!1!!!!1!

 

And let's not forget constantly villifying liberals and anyone who shows signs of having a heart, because we are responsible for everything that's even remotely evil on this planet. :rolleyes:

 

Oh, and torturing people in the name of driving out demons.

 

What else am I forgetting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.