A Fine Example of Theocracy Indeed

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

How do you mean?

I thought Memes were the New Zeitgeist - Kate Distins book takes a drubbing from Philosophers here

http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=4001

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

I thought Memes were the New Zeitgeist - Kate Distins book takes a drubbing from Philosophers here

http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=4001

I think you're reading too much into my use of the word Zeitgeist. I just meant the standards set by modern society such as how the bible tells us that women should be below men but the women's rights movement changed people's minds or how homosexuality was illegal until very recently. Basically your morality comes from society and not your religion

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I think you're reading too much into my use of the word Zeitgeist. I just meant the standards set by modern society such as how the bible tells us that women should be below men but the women's rights movement changed people's minds or

Ah - and men were all powerful. Um No.

how homosexuality was illegal until very recently.

I think you have done the homosexual issue to death

Basically your morality comes from society and not your religion

Nah - its assimiated into society from religion. You cant escape it.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Ah - and men were all powerful. Um No.

I'm lost. Who said men were all powerful now?

CDfm wrote: »

I think you have done the homosexual issue to death

Nah - its assimiated into society from religion. You cant escape it.

That's a very bold and unsubstantiated statement to make. Would you mind backing it up? As a proponent of evolution I see the evidence pointing to the idea that our way of thinking, including our basic moral code is built into our genes and so morality predates religion by about a million years. Do you have anything to suggest otherwise other than you want it to be the case?

For example, how do you explain the branches in our morality away from the one described in your religion if religion is the source of our morality?

And if something is perfectly moral because it comes from a perfect being then it's always perfectly moral but the old testament is very very far away from what we would consider moral and the new testament, while closer, still has a lot of issues such as women's rights and its stance on homosexuality and slavery.

Could it be, as I suspect, that the holy books are written by men and they incorporate a snapshot of the moral code of the time which is derived from the society of the time? Then as time passes the societal moral code evolves, making some parts of the book obsolete while others are still considered valid. This would explain all of the available facts whereas your theory contradicts all of the available facts. Your theory, if it can be called a theory, completely fails to address the fact of the evolution of morality. If morality came from religion, firstly the morality in the religion would never ever change, which it did between the old testament and the new and secondly, our societal morality would exactly match the religious morality, which it doesn't.

So how do you explain that?

Also, how do you explain the fact that people of other religions and of no religion share pretty much the same basic moral code as you? Some of the high level stuff can be different but they mostly share the same basic rules along the lines of the ten commandments (most, but not all. As would be expected if morality is evolving rather than being decreed by god). You say I can't escape the fact that religious morality is incorporated into society (and not the other way around as I suspect). I do not accept the authority of your bible and yet I have yet to kill, rape or steal from anyone. It appears I have escaped it and I'm doing just fine.

So how do you explain that?


And finally, do you think that without religion we would not be moral?

CDfm

Gulp Sam.

I have never stoned anyone.:eek:

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Gulp Sam.

I have never stoned anyone.:eek:

That's my whole point, that society's morality, including yours, has changed over time independently of religion. The idea that get get our morality from religion is totally incompatible with the fact that it evolves. Perfect morality is not dependent on time or location. When the NT was written society's morality was different to when the OT was written and society's morality now is different to when the NT was written

How do you explain this?

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That's my whole point, that society's morality, including yours, has changed over time independently of religion. The idea that get get our morality from religion is totally incompatible with the fact that it evolves. Perfect morality is not dependent on time or location. When the NT was written society's morality was different to when the OT was written and society's morality now is different to when the NT was written

How do you explain this?

Sam - you do have a point and I do think people can reach conclusions without explicitly looking at it from a religious perspective. Religion can guide you but the interpretation is your own.Euthyphro Dilemma and all that on what is ethical.

Certainly religious beliefs and codes are cited to justify many things, IMHO, often erroneously by knocking out the not judging and the mercy elements.

Im afraid I would make a very bad fundamentalist.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Sam - you do have a point and I do think people can reach conclusions without explicitly looking at it from a religious perspective. Religion can guide you but the interpretation is your own.Euthyphro Dilemma and all that on what is ethical.

Certainly religious beliefs and codes are cited to justify many things, IMHO, often erroneously by knocking out the not judging and the mercy elements.

Im afraid I would make a very bad fundamentalist.

Firstly I'd point out that the Euthyphro Dilemma is only a dilemma if you assume there's a god.

Now, it seems to me what you're saying is that religion is ok as long as you take it with a pinch of salt, applying common sense and your own sense of societal morality before accepting a particular part of it.

That leaves open the question: How is the religion different to any other philosophical document if you are free to pick and choose the parts that make sense to you and leave the rest? What purpose does god serve as the authority behind the religion if his word can be overruled when you, the lowly mortal disagrees with him? Why even mention god if you're going to treat it like any other philosophy?

Btw, if everyone treated religion this way, ie only accepting something if it makes sense independently (actually makes sense and it's not just you've convinced yourself it makes sense) there would be no problem with it. It'd be just another branch of philosophy

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Firstly I'd point out that the Euthyphro Dilemma is only a dilemma if you assume there's a god.

Really that will be news to lots of people.

Now, it seems to me what you're saying is that religion is ok as long as you take it with a pinch of salt, applying common sense and your own sense of societal morality before accepting a particular part of it.

No it isnt.

That leaves open the question: How is the religion different to any other philosophical document if you are free to pick and choose the parts that make sense to you and leave the rest? What purpose does god serve as the authority behind the religion if his word can be overruled when you, the lowly mortal disagrees with him? Why even mention god if you're going to treat it like any other philosophy?

The person who interprets is you in accordance with your own conscience and that includes your religious beliefs and ethics derived from them. Religion is aspirational and general principles to guide you. It does not mean that the could not reach the same conclusions without religion at least some of the time.

Btw, if everyone treated religion this way, ie only accepting something if it makes sense independently (ie it actually makes sense and it's not just you've convinced yourself it makes sense) there would be no problem with it. It'd be just another branch of philosophy

Maybe some religions operate the way you percieve them to but I cant speak for them. You do have inherent philosophies in religion(s).

Húrin

I would say that society and religion both condition each other in terms of morality, and everything else. It seems to be most likely rather than one or the other. For example, the societies conditioned by four hundred years of Protestant Christianity tend to be much more individualistic than others.

Húrin

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You no more get your morality from your religion than I do.

Christians do seem to exhibit different moral standards in some areas than society in general. For example, Christians extol and often practice the virtue of forgiveness, which is not widespread in society. In our culture it seems to be generally acceptable to repay like with like (not talking violent stuff here). The other obvious difference is the way Christians wedding-ringfence sex.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Does that not directly contradict many passages in the bible?

Namely:
- Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19)

Isn't about gay people at all!

Maybe you're not trying to convert me but I'm trying to convert you by pointing out the fallacy in picking one unsubstantiated claim over all others and basing your life decisions on the hope that it's true

If you believed your claim that religious peoples' morality was the same as everyone elses, it wouldn't matter to you that they believed in God. Just because the claims look unsubstantiated to you doesn't mean that they actually are. Probably most people who choose to become Christians find something convincing about it.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

The person who interprets is you in accordance with your own conscience and that includes your religious beliefs and ethics derived from them.

What exactly do you mean by interpret? Do you mean that you are free not to take a moral lesson from the bible if it doesn't match with what you think? And if you are free not to take the moral lesson that comes from God, the omnipotent and omniscient creator of the universe, then how exactly is he a God?

Or do you mean that, for example, even though the bible clearly states "I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent", that you can 'interpret' it until you believe it doesn't really say that or that it's a metaphor or similar so you can support equal rights for women and still tell yourself you're getting your beliefs from your religion? A sort of "if it's not moral, interpret it until it is" approach?

CDfm wrote: »

Religion is aspirational and general principles to guide you. It does not mean that the could not reach the same conclusions without religion at least some of the time.

Absolutely you could, I would say the vast majority of the time because the morality in the bible closely matches the morality of our society. The only time there is ever a difference is when the bible contains morality that is outdated because societal morality has evolved. For example, as you pointed out before, a lot of people are homophobic for reasons other than religion, being homophobic seems to be part of human nature. So isn't it coincidental and lucky that it's also frowned on by God It's almost as if......people wrote down their own moral beliefs and prejudices in the bible and didn't get them from God at all :eek:

CDfm wrote: »

Maybe some religions operate the way you percieve them to but I cant speak for them. You do have inherent philosophies in religion(s).

But from what I understand of what you're saying, your religion operates the way I perceive it. You seem to be telling me that being a cafeteria catholic is the correct approach.

Húrin wrote: »

Christians do seem to exhibit different moral standards in some areas than society in general. For example, Christians extol and often practice the virtue of forgiveness, which is not widespread in society. In our culture it seems to be generally acceptable to repay like with like (not talking violent stuff here). The other obvious difference is the way Christians wedding-ringfence sex.

Yes absolutely Christians often extol the virtue of forgiveness. And do you know who also has been shown to extol the same virtue? Muslims, Jews, Mormons, Jehovah's witnesses, buddhists, agnostics, atheists and flying spaghetti monsterists. Christians don't have some kind of monopoly on forgiveness or morality in general. If that were the case there would be significantly fewer christians in jail than non-christians and that is not the case.

Also, you don't need a religion to tell you that forgiveness is a good thing. Every single person on the planet knows that, whether they extol the virtue or not. You might be able to argue that religion makes you more likely to practice that moral act for whatever reason. I wouldn't agree and statistics have never shown it but it is a possibility. But the argument being put forward is that our morality comes from religion and even if you could show that christians were far more forgiving than others, that would show that to be the case. People still know that forgiveness is a good thing even if they don't practice it. That belief did not come from religion.

Húrin wrote: »

Isn't about gay people at all!

It's the story of how Lot was asked by the male townspeople to send out two angels so they could rape them. Sodomy, the act of male anal sex, is named after it. How is it not about gay people? Also, these people think it is, which is where I got the list:
http://www.gaychurch.org/Gay_and_Christian_YES/gay_and_christian_yes.htm

Is this a case of 'interpreting' as outlined above?

Húrin wrote: »

If you believed your claim that religious peoples' morality was the same as everyone elses, it wouldn't matter to you that they believed in God.

It's the same as everyone else's except where they overrule their current societal morality to hold onto the outdated morality from an old society, such as how they wedding ring-fence sex

Húrin wrote: »

Just because the claims look unsubstantiated to you doesn't mean that they actually are. Probably most people who choose to become Christians find something convincing about it.

Then by all means substantiate the claims. I am honestly eager for them to be substantiated because it would be fantastic if I was going to paradise to see all my loved ones after I die. But before you do, remember that evidence that only you and other people who are already inclined towards believing can see is not actually evidence, it's called lowering your standard of evidence because you want something to be true.

togster

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's the story of how Lot was asked by the male townspeople to send out two angels so they could rape them. Sodomy, the act of male anal sex, is named after it.

I would think it's more about rape that homosexuality tbh.

Zillah

Legally the term 'sodomy' was used for centuries to mean any variety of (what was then considered) deviant sex. So oral, anal, animal...

Only more recently has it come to be more specific.

Sam Vimes

Zillah wrote: »

Legally the term 'sodomy' was used for centuries to mean any variety of (what was then considered) deviant sex. So oral, anal, animal...

Only more recently has it come to be more specific.

Actually now you mention it you're right. Oral sex is still considered sodomy in some places in America

togster wrote: »

I would think it's more about rape that homosexuality tbh.

It's about both is it not?

togster

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's about both is it not?

It's about both. I didn't say it wasn't but the influence is placed upon rape. Is it not?

Sam Vimes

togster wrote: »

It's about both. I didn't say it wasn't but the influence is placed upon rape. Is it not?

Rape is also a theme in the story. You didn't say it wasn't about both but Húrin did which is all I was clarifying

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What exactly do you mean by interpret? Do you mean that you are free not to take a moral lesson from the bible if it doesn't match with what you think? And if you are free not to take the moral lesson that comes from God, the omnipotent and omniscient creator of the universe, then how exactly is he a God?

You have free will and should do the best you can. Its between you and God.

Or do you mean that, for example, even though the bible clearly states "I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent", that you can 'interpret' it until you believe it doesn't really say that or that it's a metaphor or similar so you can support equal rights for women and still tell yourself you're getting your beliefs from your religion? A sort of "if it's not moral, interpret it until it is" approach?

In the Catholic Church you have several women - Teresa of Avila is one who is a Doctor of the Church and was declared so by a Pope and whose writings are considered to be Church Docterine.

The Catholic Church also considers tradition in its practices and in the same way a court in Ireland may consider a British Legal Case to set a precedent.That will mean that society will influence it.

I am not that well up on that part in church teaching -does it relate to church ministry and celibacy etc? Its a bit of a minefield that one. What is your point ?

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

You have free will and should do the best you can. Its between you and God.

That's not really an answer to the question. Is it acceptable for societal morality to evolve beyond what is described in the bible or should we always strive to keep the biblical morality even if it doesn't fit with today's standards, such as with women's rights, homosexuality and slavery?

CDfm wrote: »

In the Catholic Church you have several women - Teresa of Avila is one who is a Doctor of the Church and was declared so by a Pope and whose writings are considered to be Church Docterine.

The Catholic Church also considers tradition in its practices and in the same way a court in Ireland may consider a British Legal Case to set a precedent.That will mean that society will influence it.

I am not that well up on that part in church teaching -does it relate to church ministry and celibacy etc? Its a bit of a minefield that one. What is your point ?

I was asking if you practice what is a commonly held opinion among atheists, that when your religion doesn't match what society says is right, doesn't fit the available facts or appears to contradict itself, do you convince yourself that it's not actually saying what it appears to be saying or that it's not meant in the way that it appears to be meant, with nothing to support the idea that your new reading of it is valid other than that's what must be meant because the other reading seems immoral? The idea of an allegorical reading of the bible supports this theory in that things are taken literally until they're proven wrong or society changes its mind, at which point they move over to the allegory category.

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That's not really an answer to the question. Is it acceptable for societal morality to evolve beyond what is described in the bible or should we always strive to keep the biblical morality even if it doesn't fit with today's standards, such as with women's rights, homosexuality and slavery?

It is Sam -its just not the answer you want.

I was asking if you practice what is a commonly held opinion among atheists, that when your religion doesn't match what society says is right, doesn't fit the available facts or appears to contradict itself, do you convince yourself that it's not actually saying what it appears to be saying or that it's not meant in the way that it appears to be meant, with nothing to support the idea that your new reading of it

Its been the practice in the Catholic Church from the begining to read the Bible this way. Its sometimes termed Platoist or Judeo-Hellenic. THe same is true of other mainstream Christian Churches.

The divisions in the early Church are even documented -take Galatians for example and there is a tradition of dialogue and discussion which is not always clear cut. You may not like it but that is the way it is.

The argument often given on what is moral is that God has an inate goodness that Christians reflect on and look to for Guidance and I suspect that is why you find the mercy and judgement issues difficult.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

It is Sam -its just not the answer you want.

"It's up to me" is not an answer for two reasons:

1. I'm asking you what your perspective is on it. Do you think it's acceptable to overrule or redefine parts of the bible if they no longer match with what society thinks? From what you've said here can I assume the answer is yes?
2. It is most definitely not up to me. The bible is written down in black and white and is supposed to be the word of god. It is not up to me to decide that something written down in black and white doesn't mean what it says based on nothing other than I don't want it to mean what it says. How can you disagree with the statement "I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent", or worse, act as if it's not there, and still call yourself a christian? Can I decide that everything in the bible was written by men, that none of the miracles happened and that God had no involvement, and still call myself a christian?

CDfm wrote: »

Its been the practice in the Catholic Church from the begining to read the Bible this way. Its sometimes termed Platoist or Judeo-Hellenic. THe same is true of other mainstream Christian Churches.

The divisions in the early Church are even documented -take Galatians for example and there is a tradition of dialogue and discussion which is not always clear cut. You may not like it but that is the way it is.

That way of reading is at the same time far more rational and far more dangerous than reading the bible the way it's actually written as opposed to the way you want it to be written.

On the one hand you get people such as yourself, who take the good parts of the bible and pretend the rest isn't there. That way you get people who dedicate their lives to doing good because they think that's what God wants and ignore anyone who tells them not to bother.

But on the other you get people who take the bad parts and ignore the good and you end up with people like Fred Phelps and my crazy aunt. Under normal circumstances these people would probably be a bit mad but they have the authority of God behind them backing up everything they say (as long as they ignore the contradictory bits). When you leave the bible entirely open to interpretation, basically saying it's valid to define black as white if it suits you, there is no way you can tell Fred Phelps that his reading is any less valid than yours because no one has anything to back up any of their assertions. Whether for good or bad, people pick the bits out out that match their world view and then firmly believe that their own personal biases are given authority by the omnipotent creator of the universe

And something that can be said of both readings is that neither of them actually represent christianity. The bible is not a book of philosophy where you are free to pick the bits you like based on what you personally consider good, it's supposed to be the perfect word of god and either you accept it or you don't. It is not up to you to decide which parts of the creator's word have merit and which don't.

Simple question: Do you believe the bible is the word of God?

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Sam - I can only say what I believe. I dont want to go around the houses about others beliefs as its not for me.

On Euthypro here is a link which describes better than I can the essence of what we are discussing in relation to God and Morality.

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5236

As far as I can see CDfm, you are telling me that it's perfectly valid to define christianity as whatever the hell you want it to be and then firmly believe that the authority of God is backing up everything you say and do. Do you not see how that is incredibly dangerous?

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

As far as I can see CDfm, you are telling me that it's perfectly valid to define christianity as whatever the hell you want it to be and then firmly believe that the authority of God is backing up everything you say and do. Do you not see how that is incredibly dangerous?

Sam - it up to you not to believe in God - and thats a personal choice for you.

Then you dont like the answers that you are given on the origan of morality, the philosophy of religion and how its arrived at.

Zillah

Sometimes you have to wonder if they're all there in the head.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Sam - it up to you not to believe in God - and thats a personal choice for you.

Then you dont like the answers that you are given on the origan of morality, the philosophy of religion and how its arrived at.

That's not an answer to my question, whether I believe in God or not is irrelevant to this discussion, especially since it seems that I can believe in God but perfectly validly decide that he's a block of cheese and still call myself a christian because what it says in the bible doesn't matter as much as what I want it to say.

And it also seems that in your opinion the origin of morality is "whatever the hell you want it to be" since you can pick and choose parts of the bible to back up your own personal world view and ignore the rest.

And so I'll ask the question again, do you not see how that is incredibly dangerous? As an atheist I define my own world view the same as you but I acknowledge that I might be wrong where a christian thinks that his view is given authority by God.

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That's not an answer to my question, whether I believe in God or not is irrelevant to this discussion, especially since it seems that I can believe in God but perfectly validly decide that he's a block of cheese and still call myself a christian because what it says in the bible doesn't matter as much as what I want it to say.

What type of cheese?I hope its a good cheese but at least it sounds a bit more civilised than a spagettii monster.

And it also seems that in your opinion the origin of morality is "whatever the hell you want it to be" since you can pick and choose parts of the bible to back up your own personal world view and ignore the rest.

I took you thru how its arrived at and how people arrive at their personal morality for what is moral or not.Im not asking you to accept it.

And so I'll ask the question again, do you not see how that is incredibly dangerous?

I think its perfectly normal.You said you were going to reconsider whenyou develop the technology.

As an atheist I define my own world view the same as you but I acknowledge that I might be wrong where a christian thinks that his view is given authority by God.

So you arrive at your moral decisions differently and I am pleased for you that you acknowledge that you might be wrong.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

What type of cheese?I hope its a good cheese but at least it sounds a bit more civilised than a spagettii monster.

Whatever type of cheese you want it to be. That's the wonder of christianity apparently.

CDfm wrote: »

I took you thru how its arrived at and how people arrive at their personal morality for what is moral or not.Im not asking you to accept it.

But you haven't actually taken me through how it's arrived at. You are telling me that it's up to me to interpret the bible however I see fit, that all interpretations are equally valid and that they're all the word of god, even the ones that contradict the other ones. It doesn't make any sense! There is one correct interpretation of the bible and that is the interpretation that was meant when it was written. Anything else is wishful thinking and fuzzy reasoning.

If it's up to me to decide what is moral, if I am not bound by the morality described in the bible and if I am capable of coming to perfectly moral conclusions independently of the bible, then what purpose does God serve exactly, more than say Aristotle who also philosophised about morality?

CDfm wrote: »

I think its perfectly normal.

And you can't see at all how it might be dangerous to erroneously think your own personal biases are given authority by an omnipotent being?

CDfm wrote: »

You said you were going to reconsider whenyou develop the technology.

If the christian God's existence was proven then what you're saying would be completely out the window. If it was proven that there was one god with one sense of morality and one overall nature, then every 'interpretation' that did not describe that nature correctly would be instantly proven wrong. If there were, however, 6 billion gods each with their own nature that matched one person's personal view then you might be vindicated.

CDfm wrote: »

So you arrive at your moral decisions differently and I am pleased for you that you acknowledge that you might be wrong.

You see CDfm, I don't arrive at my decisions differently. I arrive at my my moral decisions in exactly the same way you do, exactly the same way all human beings do. Our parents and our peers and the society in which we live influence our entire way of thinking, including our moral code. The only difference between me and you is you took your moral code that had already been defined by society, found the bits in the bible that matched what you already thought, ignored the rest and convinced yourself you got it from there in the first place. I'm sorry to tell you mate but you didn't. You knew it was wrong to kill, steal, rape, pillage and cheat long before you heard of Jesus Christ. Most of it's built into your genes and the rest you got from your parents and peers

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If it's up to me to decide what is moral, if I am not bound by the morality described in the bible and if I am capable of coming to perfectly moral conclusions independently of the bible, then what purpose does God serve exactly, more than say Aristotle who also philosophised about morality?

Sam - you may need to read some Immanuel Kant

And you can't see at all how it might be dangerous to erroneously think your own personal biases are given authority by an omnipotent being?

I dont force them on anyone.

If the christian God's existence was proven then what you're saying would be completely out the window. If it was proven that there was one god with one sense of morality and one overall nature, then every 'interpretation' that did not describe that nature correctly would be instantly proven wrong. If there were, however, 6 billion gods each with their own nature that matched one person's personal view then you might be vindicated.

I think thats a bit deep. I do think by being aware of morality helps raise the bar.A sense of God does that.

You see CDfm, I don't arrive at my decisions differently. I arrive at my my moral decisions in exactly the same way you do, exactly the same way all human beings do. Our parents and our peers and the society in which we live influence our entire way of thinking, including our moral code. The only difference between me and you is you took your moral code that had already been defined by society, found the bits in the bible that matched what you already thought, ignored the rest and convinced yourself you got it from there in the first place. I'm sorry to tell you mate but you didn't. You knew it was wrong to kill, steal, rape, pillage and cheat long before you heard of Jesus Christ. It's built into your genes

Ah - Im am inately good:)

CerebralCortex

:rolleyes:

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Sam - you may need to read some Immanuel Kant

I'll take a look

CDfm wrote: »

I dont force them on anyone.

I know you don't because luckily enough you picked the good parts to focus on. The point is that other people do and if they didn't have the authority of God apparently backing them up they might not. No?

CDfm wrote: »

I think thats a bit deep. I do think by being aware of morality helps raise the bar.A sense of God does that.

As I just said, you were aware of morality before you had ever heard of God. It's built into you because our genetically defined sense of morality gave our species an advantage over others that killed each other indiscriminately and so we survived. It's all evolution. Morality can be broken right down to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and that is inherently part of the human reasoning process.

edit: there's actually a glitch in this reasoning process btw. People see things like homosexuality, prostitution and drugs and they know that they wouldn't like to take part in any of those activities and so this imperfectly evolved system misfires and they try to prevent these things from happening at all, not recognising that other people want to do them. We're only very slowly realising that everyone shouldn't be denied something just because we don't like it.

CDfm wrote: »

Ah - Im am inately good:)

Yes you are! You need to learn to give yourself some credit and realise you came to these moral conclusions all on your own and the sky fairy had nothing to do with it