It’s my birthday today and I was up all night last night, so I forgot to use Spell Check. I’m actually better at this spelling stuff than it may appear from this particular post. Really I am. Really...I am. I really am. I am! Really. No kidding. Really. Cut me some slack already!

“would have followed him if he just showed himself more”

More? (long period where I just sat blinking at my monitor trying to figure out if I had somehow missed a joke) How about at all? If your god really gave a crap about any of his ‘unbelieving children’ he would get off his lazy ass and make a bonafide appearance that could NOT be disputed. Not a saints face in a tortilla, not a fencepost that looks like the BVM if you squint and cock your head just so, and not statues crying tears of “blood”. If that is the kind of evidence that we are ignoring I have to tell you that I am 6 foot 6, incredibly muscular, own a mansion and a yacht, and am the second most influential person in the world. Oh, and chicks dig me.

It is in writing so it must be true.

BTW: Happy B’day Brock

But come judgement day when you wimper and whine about how you “would have followed him if he just showed himself more”, you’ll have another thing coming.

Even if he showed himself in some undeniable manner, it wouldn’t lead me to follow Christianity OR the Bible, it still would simply prove there was a higher power.

I personally tend to think there is, but not in any way do I think it’s the same being as Christians describe. I think we already have everything we need to make our way in this world without relying on fairy tales and ignorantly following others. If we all just used our creator-given reason, the evils and struggles of the world would come into much tighter focus than the Bible or any other religious text could dream of explaining.

Take cover boys…the rebels have sent their crack sniper DB onto the battlefield!

DB

How would you pronounce the word “house”?  How about the word “about”?  I’ll bet you’d call a house a “hoose” and about would be “aboot”…for if you just celebrated Thanksgiving…(dramatic music)…you must be...(loud dramatic music)…Canadian (dun, dun, duhhhh!).  I once worked for what was the largest company in your country…I believe Bill Gates could afford to buy it with lunch money now though.

I do agree that there are only two options (God or no god) but certainly not the way you’ve described them

Just off the top of my head I can think of a couple more options:

1.  There is no God, there’s a God-dess
2.  There is a God, but YOU don’t have it right

It could be that the Muslims are right or the Mormons or the Buddhist.  I personally think the Hari Krishna have it right…levitate and bother people in airports.  I know; those other religious groups are being misled by Satan.  Well what do you know…they say the same thing about you!  Ain’t that somethin’?

Brock

I accept your explanation and your “theory” brings up some interesting possibilities.  It could mean that in another “dimension” I’m not a blood thirsty, drunken, lecherous ex-GI, but a kind and gentle grad student at UC Berkley’s College of Women’s Studies.  God I hope I’m not gay…not that there’s anything wrong with that!  Or is there DB???  How’s that for chumming?

Oh Yeah Happy, B’day Brockster!

Les,
“Not that it matters as I don’t believe that day will ever come.”
That’s all I needed to hear to make my point.

Eric,
“If your god really gave a crap about any of his ‘unbelieving children’ he would get off his lazy ass and make a bonafide appearance that could NOT be disputed.”
You overlook the fact that if he did that we WOULD all be robots, we’re not! We have free choice and therefore faith is the step you must take.

Mild bill,
Wow! you’ve managed to put 2 and 2 together and find out I’m from Canada! Give yourself a pat on the back! Is that supposed to discredit me??
“Just off the top of my head I can think of a couple more options:
1. There is no God, there’s a God-dess
2. There is a God, but YOU don’t have it right.”

Both of those “other” options fall under the theist option. You’ve really outdone yourself.

“It could be that the Muslims are right or the Mormons or the Buddhist...I know; those other religious groups are being misled by Satan. Well what do you know…they say the same thing about you!”
No, buddhists believe it’s right for other religious groups to believe what they believe, which instantly tells you that’s not the right path-only one can BE right.
If you knew what mormans really believed you’d probably piss yourself laughing, as for muslims I haven’t researched them enough to say anything with real confidence.

If you knew what mormans really believed you’d probably piss yourself laughing

I do know what mormans believe, but much of the things other christians believe are just as laughable (like 800 year old people for example).

That’s all I needed to hear to make my point.

I’m glad you feel you’ve made your point. It’s just such a fucking shame that you seem to be incapable of seeing anyone else’s point. Your ability to ignore any questions asked of you to spout off the same tired clichés over and over again is almost without equal.

DB

If you knew what mormans really believed you’d probably piss yourself laughing

So I am to believe you are expert on Mormons, although you can’t spell Mormon???  I can’t say I’m an expert on Mormons, but I know a little about them.  While I was in junior high school, a giant temple was built in the shadow of my school.  That was the Washington Mormon Temple, in good old Kensington, Md.  If you’ve ever driven through Maryland on I 495, you can’t miss it.  It looks like some kind of fantasy castle; quite beautiful actually.  Some of my classmates were Mormon; they seemed like pretty decent types.

I was in the USAF for many years.  One of our largest bases is a little place called Hill AFB, near Salt Lake City.  They take care of some of the finest killing machines in our arsenal, including Minuteman III ICBMs (those would be ballistic missiles to you peace-loving folks up north).  They take care of all the F-16 and A-10, fighter aircraft in the world.  They also manage all of the conventional weapons in the USAF arsenal…several million tons of them!

I had a boss who lived there and was a Mormon (actually a “jack” Mormon…non-practicing).  He told me all about their history and beliefs.  The most interesting guy he told me about was Ervil Labaron.  This guy was a cross between Hitler and Rasputin!  He went around slaughtering unbelievers and sinners and survived numerous attempts on his life.  Here’s a little description of him:

In the name of his peculiar god, he splattered blood across the deserts of Mexico and the mountains of Utah and most of the territory in between. He ordered the killing of one of his wives, his brother, his pregnant teenage daughter, rival cultists and non-believers, and anyone else he felt like snuffing out

Naturally we talked about there religious beliefs.  They seem pretty quirky, but no more so than other Christians.  I see some interesting parallels there though:

Early Christians “borrowed” the Jewish religion and embellished it.

Mormons borrowed the mainstream Christian religion and embellished it.

Early Christians claim Jesus was the Messiah.  Jews don’t believe that.

Mormons say the Messiah appeared in America and the Hebrews are really the American Indians.  Mainstream Christians don’t believe that.

I know…it’s incredible isn’t it?  I actually know something about Mormons!  That’s not the amazing part; it’s amazing that I didn’t “piss myself” as you so eloquently phrased it (of course unless you know different.) Actually, I don’t feel like I have to attack other people’s religious beliefs as you do.  I would never initiate a “first strike” against anyone’s personal beliefs. I didn’t especially agree with Brock’s beliefs about the afterlife, but didn’t really feel like I had to “convert” him to my way of thinking.  If Brock assaulted my beliefs however, that could necessitate measured retaliation.

It amazes me that you couldn’t comprehend my number 2 possibility:

Just off the top of my head I can think of a couple more options:

1. There is no God, there’s a God-dess

2. There is a God, but YOU don’t have it right.

Both of those “other” options fall under the theist option. You’ve really outdone yourself.

I’ve outdone myself?  I was just asking what appeared to be a reasonable question.  If there is a God and your religion has totally mischaracterized his message (as you imply the Mormons have done) then you don’t see a problem with that?  I think that’s quite important.  Why would I assume you have any more of a “plan” than the Mormons or Muslims or Buddhists??? 

I didn’t intend to discredit you with my “Sherlock Holmes-like” deduction of your “Canadian-ness”…it was just a joke homey or is it hoser:?  I will say this; you really shouldn’t assume you are the sole possessor of knowledge.  I’ve been to a whole lot of places and hung out with an extremely diverse group of people in my lifetime.  So in the future D Bizzle, just chizzle my nizzle!  And go back to sniper school...your accuracy is way off!

DB

I forgot one other interesting observation.  In reply to one of Eric’s comments about God showing himself to us, you said:

You overlook the fact that if he did that we WOULD all be robots, we’re not! We have free choice and therefore faith is the step you must take.

I shall use the Bible to show you how irrational that statement is.  During the Exodus, God apparently showed his power to the Hebrews on several occasions.  He visited plagues down on Egypt, which allowed the Hebrews to escape bondage.  The parting of the Red Sea would have been a pretty convincing display of God’s power…don’t you agree?  Well then why were the Hebrews building altars to Baal and worshipping pagan gods immediately afterwards?  It seems they didn’t turn into robots; only the stupidest damn people that ever lived!

I live near a bay on the Gulf of Mexico.  I assure you if I witnessed God parting the waters of my little old 6-mile wide bay, I would believe.  I would probably not erase all memory of it and build altars to Ozzie Osborne two weeks later.  That story is so contrived and idiotic that only the most gullible would believe it...but I digress.  That sort of blows a hole in your Theory of Robotic Worship…you need to reformulate your hypothesis and gather more data, my northern amigo!

Mild Bill,
Mormons are a cult, and a racist one at that.
They believe that their god, who has a physical body.(already ridiculas, how is he omnipresent) They believe he lives on the planet “Kolob” (not sure of spelling) which there is no record of. They believe that this dude has hundreds of wives. They think that everytime someone has a physical baby here on earth, then he and one of his wives has a “spirit” baby and it gets born into the physical baby. They believe that he gets the babies the same way we do, sex, which is hilarious, I forget what the number is but there’s some crazy about of babies being born every second here on earth, which would make him pretty busy up there. When does he get to do common god stuff? He’d be having turbo-sex every second. Then get this, they believe if he has a “good” spirit baby, then it gets born into white skin, if it’s a “bad” one it gets black skin. Of course you never hear about any of this because it’s a cult, based on sexual lust and just pure crap. It’s like those masons, they don’t even realize that their cult worships satan until they’re in it so deep that they can’t get out.

Yes, MB I’m sure that humans are and would be stupid enough to rebel against God even after showing himself. I’m refering more so to after Christ had come. But ya your right, it probably wouldn’t make us robots, but it would for sure decrease the amount of faith that God wants us to have.

I know you guys are too “smart” and “open minded” to believe in one set of truths. But picture for a second if you were somehow able to know you were on the right path, would you not continue on it? Or would you continue to speculate against it and everything else and go nowhere. I know it somehow makes you feel like YOUR the one who is giving it REAL thought and being wiser in the end. Like I say, read Proverbs and learn about wisdom. The reason why I come off more cocky and confident than lets say, buddhists is because I know that if there is ANY way, it has got to be THE ONLY WAY. It’s not like I’ve ruled out the possibility of being wrong, it’s that what I believe only allows one right way, and anyone in the world can go that way if they choose to.

DB,

You like to throw around the word cult, but you don’t seem to understand what it means.

CULT
1 : formal religious veneration : WORSHIP
2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator
5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

You will notice that the first two can be applied to just about every religion, so you are part of a cult.

Hello.  I’ve just entered this site and found it to be quite interesting.  I’ve recently become a follower of Jesus Christ and this site seems to challenge my beleifs quite a bit, which is good.  One thing I have noticed with many of the posts, is that athiest people seem to be trying to become ‘better people’.  What is the motivation for an athiest to become a better person?  Better yet, could Les define what it means for him to become a better person.  Thanks, and I look forward to some further discussion.  And DB, as for the whole cult thing, I just assumed that cults were something like the Waco, Texas thing.  But I guess that’s what the media, or whoever, wants people to think a cult is. Maybe we need to go back a little further, and find out what the english word ‘cult’ was originally derrived from, ie: the Greek/Hebrew meaning.

Howdy Hires! Glad to have you join in the fun. The more the merrier.

One thing I have noticed with many of the posts, is that athiest people seem to be trying to become ‘better people’. What is the motivation for an athiest to become a better person?

A good question. One of the major reasons has to do with the social nature of human beings. In short, if I don’t want to spend my entire life lonely and without friends then I had best learn how to get along with at least some of the people I meet otherwise I’m likely to be ostracized and shunned. If I’m particularly bad at social relations my own family may even avoid dealing with me any more than they have to. Not exactly a pleasant way to go through life unless you enjoy being a hermit and few people do. Thus it is in my own self-interest to improve and better my social skills if I don’t want to be alone.

This applies also to knowledge. The more I improve myself through education and experience the more likely I am to land a good job, be able to afford to pay my bills and earn the respect of my peers. I’m sure if you thought hard enough about it you could come up with a number of good reasons one might have to improve themselves other than “God demands it.”

Like most things with atheists, each one will have his own set of motivations for improving him or herself that will vary from person to person and certainly there will be some who do decide they have no good reason to improve themselves. Though that’s hardly unique to atheists. I’ve met many believers of every religion who even with an external motivating force seem unwilling or unable to bother to improve themselves.

Better yet, could Les define what it means for him to become a better person.

For me it means recognizing my faults and learning how to overcome or, at the very least, deal with them effectively. For example I didn’t learn that I had Adult ADD until I was in my thirties, but rather than use that as a crutch and an excuse I’ve accepted it as part of me that can’t be changed and set about learning how to deal with the problems it causes in day to day life as well as how to make use of the advantages it does grant me. My ADD still causes problems and makes life difficult at times, but I am determined to live with it as best I can. My motivation is my family. I have a wife and a daughter for whom I want to be the best I can for their happiness as well as my own.

Thanks for the heads up valhalla,
I was meaning to use the word as “appears to be somewhat ok, but secretly is misleading and demonic” sort of a word. Comparing it to the masons is what I was going for. I wasn’t wrong in saying that was a cult, but I guess I didn’t specify which meaning you were to interpret, sorry.

DB

Wow

Then get this, they believe if he has a “good” spirit baby, then it gets born into white skin, if it’s a “bad” one it gets black skin.  Of course you never hear about any of this because it’s a cult, based on sexual lust and just pure crap.

Actually I have heard about that.  I think the Mormons had to change the way they viewed blacks after Karl Malone joined the Utah Jazz basketball team .  I think there were other Christian churches that also held “unfavorable” views of people of color. Remember that curse of Hamm thing?

Yes, MB I’m sure that humans are and would be stupid enough to rebel against God even after showing himself.

I understand that the Christian worldview requires you to have a pessimistic outlook on human nature, but I do not buy that.  It is also a 180 degree turn from your original statement, where you said if God did reveal himself we would then be like robots.

I’m refering more so to after Christ had come.

I believe you are being disingenuous here.  In your original posting you made no mention of how people would act after Jesus’ return.  Eric asked why God doesn’t reveal himself to us NOW.  You said he doesn’t because then we would be robotic and not be able to exercise our free will.  I then gave you a biblical example of God revealing himself that did not hinder the Hebrews’ exercise of free will.  Instead of conceding that you misspoke, you back track and modify your original statement.  I call foul.

But ya your right, it probably wouldn’t make us robots, but it would for sure decrease the amount of faith that God wants us to have.

When did God ever say he wanted us to have blind faith?  I’d like you to quote a verse to support that...not what some preacher said, but what God said.

The reason why I come off more cocky and confident than lets say, buddhists is because I know that if there is ANY way, it has got to be THE ONLY WAY.

Have you spoken to any Buddhists about the confidence level of their beliefs?  I would guess not; you’re just making another baseless supposition to support your position.  Apparently all other religions are on this Earth to cause you amusement.  They don’t have the same amount of faith in their beliefs as you have in yours; they just maintain their beliefs to piss you off.  Could it be that Buddhists are just trying to respect the beliefs of other religions?  Their lack of arrogance proves they are not as devout as you? 

Nothing baffles me more about Christianity than your refusal to concede that adherents of other belief systems believe as strongly as you do.  I was at an Easter service in a Baptist church last year.  The preacher gave a sermon about how several of the apostles gave their lives in defense of Christianity.  He said no one just throws their life away like that for something that is not real.  I immediately recalled that 19 “gentlemen” of the Muslim faith did exactly that on September 11, 2001!

Thanks for the Re-Birthday wishes guys. They were touching. Oh, and someone made me a yellow cake, but we couldn’t find it. I’m doubting it ever existed in the first place.
MB, what the fuzz do you mean you don’t exactly agree with my beliefs about the afterlife? Dude, I go to all the trouble to figure this stuff out, present it to you in a clear and precise way, and you have the nerve to say you don’t agree with it? I don’t agree with you not agreeing. How’s that? How do you not believe in something that is real? What kind of fool are you? I’m gonna assume you just don’t have the mental capacity to make your own decisions. Ahh, what’s the use? Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!

And Hires, “What is the motivation for an athiest to become a better person?” Is this a serious question? I mean seriously. What an effete snob you must be if you asked this question in all seriousness! Don’t ruin my mood man! You’re this close! Don’t make Mild Bill cut ya!

*Message brought to you by: Reincarnation - Reduce! Reuse! Reincarnate!

Les,

I appreciate your answer to my question.  I do understand.  And yes, I did come up with some good reasons why one might improve themselves other than God demanding it.  I was curious to know what you thought, and what you valued in life, which you explained. 

I would now like to bring up something else.  I have read many arguments on this site.  Many of which are similar to people getting upset with arrogance, and saying that certain statements that were made are not ‘fair’.  They are appealing to some kind of standard of behavior they expect the other man to know about.  But the other man rarely says, “Forget your standard.” But what seems to take place, almost always, is he tries to explain that what he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if it does, there is some special excuse.  It seems that most people, when they argue, are going by some rule of fair play or decent behavior.  They argue to show that the other man is in the wrong.  Am I wrong?  But there would be no sense doing that unless there were some agreement as to what was Right and what was Wrong. 

Do you agree?

I would now like to bring up something else. I have read many arguments on this site. Many of which are similar to people getting upset with arrogance, and saying that certain statements that were made are not ‘fair’. They are appealing to some kind of standard of behavior they expect the other man to know about. But the other man rarely says, “Forget your standard.” But what seems to take place, almost always, is he tries to explain that what he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if it does, there is some special excuse. It seems that most people, when they argue, are going by some rule of fair play or decent behavior. They argue to show that the other man is in the wrong. Am I wrong? But there would be no sense doing that unless there were some agreement as to what was Right and what was Wrong.

Do you agree?

Not really, no. I think part of the reason we have these arguments is because we don’t have an agreement on what is right and wrong. That is a large part of what these arguments tend to be about.

Yes, I often accuse people of being arrogant when they try to dictate to me what I know, think or feel. Is it wrong for them to try to tell me something they couldn’t possibly know? Yes, I feel that it is, but obviously many of them do not. The word “arrogant” has a negative connotation to it, though, which can be useful to get people to stop and consider what they’re doing and why it bothers me. I have been guilty of arrogance at times myself and I make an honest effort to avoid repeating that mistake.

There are formal rules to debate that are agreed upon by various academics and debating societies and I try to follow them in general when having discussions here at SEB despite never having any real formal training in it, but I also largely take my cues from the person I’m addressing. For example, you have been most considerate and polite and I have tried to respond in kind. When presented with someone who’s obviously just trash talking me I will usually respond in kind right back at them.

With people like DB it’s a little harder as they aren’t necessarily trying to trash talk me, but they aren’t familiar or experienced enough at debating a topic to avoid doing things like that. They are making an honest effort at real discussion, but they lack the experience to handle it properly. I try to be as respectful of those situations as I can, but I will resort to trash talking when it seems the only way to get the point across.

Les,

I think you have misunderstood my point.  Although, based on the way you interpreted the question, your answer makes sense.  So I believe I must clarify what I was trying to say. 

When I was talking about people arguing, I was referring to the more everyday type quarreling.  Like when someone says, “How would you like it if I did that to you?”, “That’s my seat, I was there first.”, or “Leave him alone, he didn’t do anything to you?”.  People say things like this everyday, children as well as adults.  What people are saying is that the other mans behavior does not happen to please him.  He is referring some type of standard that he thinks the other man should know about. 

It seems that there is some type of fairness standard that both people agreed upon.  If they had not, they might as well fight to the death right then and there.  They are trying to prove each other wrong. There would be no reason to do this if there was not an agreement for Right and Wrong.  In the same way, there would be no sense saying that a football player committed a foul unless there were an agreement to the rules of football. 

Now this “Law of Human Nature”, shall we put it, is very different from the laws of nature such as gravitation (which was interestingly discussed on your site earlier).  The difference between these two laws is that with gravitation, a body does not have the choice of whether to obey it or not, but one can choose to disobey the ‘Law of Human Nature’.  If you leave a man unsupported in mid-air, he has no more a choice of falling than a rock has.  But the law that is peculiar to his human nature, which is the law he does not share with animals or fruit, is the one he can disobey if he chooses. 

Does this help clarify my original point?

Yes it does. You’re basically describing societal rules and laws as opposed to natural laws. The point that both people in any given dispute agree upon a preconceived standard of fairness, however, is open to debate. Even football players and coaches argue over the rules they agreed to.

Les,

You are correct when you say that players and coaches argue over the rules they agreed to for the game.  But that does not change the fact that the rules are there. 

One agrument I was expecting someone to bring up is this: some people say the ‘Law of Human Nature’ is unsound, because different civilizations and ages have had quite different moralities.  But this is not true.  There have been differences in their moralities, but these have not gathered to something great.  If you compare the moral teachings of the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Chinese, Romans, and Greeks, what will really strike you is how similar they are to each other, and to our own.  A totally different morality would be something like this: a country where soldiers were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud to double-cross all the people that were the nicest to him.  You might as well imagine a place where two and two made five.  Men have always agreed that you ought not put yourself first.  Selfishness has never been admired.  Men have disagreed as to whether you should have one wife or four.  But they have always agreed you could not have any woman you wanted.

The incredible thing is this.  Whenever you find a man saying that he doesn’t believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man complaining that you stole his parking spot, or sat in his chair he had reserved.  He’ll be complaining ‘it’s not fair’ before you can say Stupid Evil Bastard. 

It seems, that we are forced to believe in a real Right and Wrong.  Are we agreed upon this?

Hires,

How about a country where one race was the property of another, where a wife was the property of her husband, and only men of one race were allowed to be in positions of power.

Those were the societal norms of the U.S. at the time of it’s foundation. There were a few people that were starting to see that some of this wasn’t right, but they were as yet in the minority. Compared to the U.S. today, you will find virtually no rational person that will agree with those things were acceptable. So where is the overriding belief of a “real” right and wrong we are all forced to abide by?

Even you want to look at contemporary societies only, just look at the middle east. Many societies in that region feel it is not only acceptable, but your duty, to kill your daughter/sister if she commits adultery (it is even sanctioned by law in a few countries). In the U.S. or Western Europe you may find a few husbands that would want to kill their wives for adultery, but you are unlikely to find any fathers or brothers wanting to do so.

Again, I ask where is the panacea of a “real” right and wrong? All I see is societal right and wrong, not a universal code that all societies follow.

You are correct when you say that players and coaches argue over the rules they agreed to for the game. But that does not change the fact that the rules are there.

Quite true.

One agrument I was expecting someone to bring up is this: some people say the ‘Law of Human Nature’ is unsound, because different civilizations and ages have had quite different moralities. But this is not true. There have been differences in their moralities, but these have not gathered to something great. If you compare the moral teachings of the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Chinese, Romans, and Greeks, what will really strike you is how similar they are to each other, and to our own. A totally different morality would be something like this: a country where soldiers were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud to double-cross all the people that were the nicest to him. You might as well imagine a place where two and two made five. Men have always agreed that you ought not put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have disagreed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed you could not have any woman you wanted.

You raise several different points as one here and I’m going to address them all.

1) Different cultures throughout history have had quite similar moral teachings in at least a general sense.

True enough for the most part, but this is hardly surprising. As I’ve said before mankind is a social animal and our chances for survival are greater when we cooperate and compromise with each other. At a very general level it is better for long-term survivability of everyone in a particular culture if they agree on certain ideas such as killing each other at random for no apparent reason as being a bad idea, or “wrong.” Cultures were the opposite idea is taught wouldn’t tend to survive for very long.

2) You go one to describe a society with a diametrically opposed concept of morality as an example of a truly different concept of right and wrong.

Well, it certainly fits the bill.

3) You go on to lay claim to certain assumed truths such as “men have always agreed that you ought not put yourself first” and “selfishness has never been admired” which may or may not be true.

It’s entirely possible that societies did develop where men thought it best to always put themselves first and where selfishness may have been admired, but the lack of cooperation such a society would have suffered from would doom it to a short existence. Every successful society has built upon the successes of previous societies by adopting what worked in addition to developing new ideas. The study of this phenomena is called “Social Evolution.”

The incredible thing is this. Whenever you find a man saying that he doesn’t believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man complaining that you stole his parking spot, or sat in his chair he had reserved. He’ll be complaining ‘it’s not fair’ before you can say Stupid Evil Bastard.

Please define for me what you mean by “real Right and Wrong.” Real as opposed to what? A “fake Right and Wrong?” I am going to make an assumption that you mean “absolute Right and Wrong” as opposed to a “relative Right and Wrong.”

You start off by making a point that various cultures over the years have agreed in general on basic morality and that they only differ in the superficial details such as whether one is allowed a single wife or multiple wives. To me that implies that you believe there are some “absolute” moral concepts (the general ones everyone agrees on) and some “relative” moral concepts (the details that vary from society to society).

Then you go on to express amazement that someone who claims he doesn’t believe in a “real Right or Wrong” would complain about being wronged as though this person is somehow being hypocritical.

If said person is a believer in Right and Wrong being relative then he believes that how right or wrong any particular action may be is dependent on the observer(s) making the judgment. Being an observer himself there is nothing hypocritical about him feeling wronged at losing his parking spot based on his personal concept of what is fair. The person who took his spot may or may not agree that it was wrong to do so and as such the truth for that individual is, also, relative to what they believe is fair.

There are a number of possibilities in such a situation. They may both agree that it’s unfair to take someone’s chair (or parking spot) and the taker may give it back. Or they may both agree that it’s wrong and the taker doesn’t care that he’s in the wrong and refuses to give it back. Or they may disagree on whether it was wrong and as such the taker may refuse to give it back. Or they may not agree on whether it was wrong but one of them decides to concede to the view of the other to avoid escalating the confrontation into something more serious.

Or are you suggesting that it’s a universally accepted truth that taking someone’s chair or parking spot is always considered “wrong” by everyone? Seems to me this is one of those details you wrote off earlier as being superficial.

It seems, that we are forced to believe in a real Right and Wrong. Are we agreed upon this?

Apparently we are not. In part because I can only assume what you mean by the phrase “a real Right and Wrong.”

Brock

Apparently YOU are mentally defective if you don’t realize that I’m too mentally defective to understand your afterlife theory.  To quote one of my favorite philosophers, boxer Marvelous Marvin Hagler, “I only believe in two things…destruction and destroying”.  So with a thought process like that, how would you expect me to grasp such high-level concepts.

I’m just sitting here in great anticipation reading the “Right/Wrong” saga between Les and Hires.  I’m sure Hires is trying to make a point there somewhere, but I haven’t figured out what it might be.

It’s like he’s using the Socratic Method of teaching with Les!  They are going through the definition phase now…defining real right and wrong.  After that I assume, Hires will ask his “pupil” a question based on the agreed upon definition of right and wrong.  Then he will challenge the pupil’s answers until the hapless Les is a quivering pile of Jell-O.  I’m sitting here with a bag of popcorn waiting for the action to start!

I think Valhalla has it right again…it’s difficult to define universal right and wrong.  There are so many different “flavors” of right and wrong after all.  Killing someone is wrong.  Killing someone in self-defense is right.  What would it be if I was defending myself and a stray bullet hit an innocent person?  What if a person I thought was trying to harm me turned out to be no threat outside of my own mind?

I give this “definition phase” of the Socratic Method a B- for being unnecessarily vague and general.  If there’s a point to be made, let’s get it out there Hires.

I give this “definition phase” of the Socratic Method a B- for being unnecessarily vague and general.  If there’s a point to be made, let’s get it out there Hires.

ohmigod THANK you. Yes, can we get on with this one, please? What is Hires getting at?