GOD darn IT CHRISTIANITY

[Dirty_Taco]

Post removed

[SkateR]

Just copied and printed that and I'm hading it in for my philosophy class.

[Dirty_Taco]

Post removed

[pinobot]

Just copied and printed that and I'm hading it in for my philosophy class.

darnit SkateR, you'd make a great christian.

[jitspoe]

Are morals learned or inherent?  If they are learned, who teaches them?  I imagine it's probably a combination, but there is definitely some learned aspect of morality.  Some societies kill and even eat other humans and it's not considered "wrong" to them.

Also, you might want to properly credit an essay like that -- almost looks like you're taking credit for writing it.  (Since we're on the topic of morals)

[Smokey]

he did... lewl..

[S8NSSON]

Nice words DT...

hmmm perhaps the first moral/religious debate on the paintball forums. Where is fryth when i need him?

* Dirty_Taco clears throat and takes a deep breath

God is dead--and with him, Moral Law.

   Without God, there is no longer any objective standard by which to judge good and evil. However, most people still seem to think that a universal morality can be grounded in something other than God's laws: in what is good for people, in what is good for society, in what we feel called upon to do. But explanations of why these standards necessarily constitute "universal moral law" are hard to come by. Usually, the arguments for the existence of moral law are emotional rather than rational: "But don't you think rape is wrong?" moralists ask, as if a shared opinion were proof of a universal truth. "But don't you think people need to believe in something greater than themselves?" they appeal, as if needing to believe in something can make it true. Occasionally, they even resort to threats: "but what would happen if everyone decided that there is no good and evil? Wouldn't we all kill each other?" This question presupposes that people refrain from killing each other simply because they have been taught that it is evil to do so. Is humanity really so absolutely bloodthirsty and vicious that we would all rape and kill each other if we weren’t restrained by superstition?

   The real problem with the idea of universal moral law is that it asserts the existence of something that we have no way to know anything about. Believers in good and evil would have us believe that there are "moral truths"--that is, there are things that are morally true of this world, in the same way that it is true that the sky is blue. They claim that it is true of this world that murder is morally wrong just as it is true that water freezes at 32 desgrees. But we can investigate the freezing temperature of water: we can measure it and agree together that we have arrived at some kind of "objective" truth, insofar as such a thing is possible. On the other hand what do we observe if we want to investigate whether it is true that murder is evil? There is no tablet of moral law on a mountaintop for us to consult, there are no commandments carved into the sky above us; all we have to go on are our own instincts and the words of a bunch of priests and other self-appointed moral experts, many of whom don't even agree. As for the words of priests and moralists, if they can't offer any hard evidence from this world, why should we believe their claims? And regarding our instincts--if we feel that something is right or wrong, that may make it right or wrong for us, but that's not proof that is it universally good or evil. Thus, the idea that there are universal moral laws is mere superstition: it is a claim that things exist in this world which we can never actually experience or learn anything about. And we would do well not to waste our time wondering about things we can never know anything about.

   When two people fundamentally disagree over what is right or wrong, there is no way to resolve the debate. There is nothing in this world to which they can refer to see which one is correct--because there really are no universal moral laws, just personal evaluations. So the only important question is where your values come from: do you create them yourself, according to your own desires, or do you accept them from someone else. . . someone else who has disguised their opinions as "universal truths"?

   Haven't you always been a little suspicious of moral truths, anyway? This world is filled with groups and individuals who want to convert you to their religions, their dogmas, their political agendas, their opinions. Of course they will tell you one set of values is true for everybody, and of course they will tell you that their values are the correct ones. Once you're convinced that there is only one standard of right and wrong, they're only one step away from convincing you that their standard is the right one. How carfully we should approach those who would sell us the idea of "universal moral law" then! Their claim that morality is a matter of universal law is at base just a devious way to get us to accept their values, rather than forging values of our own which might conflict with theirs.

   So, to protect ourselves from the supersititions of the moralists and the trickery of the evangelists, let us be done with the idea of moral law. Lets us step forward into a new era, in which we will make values of our own rather than acceptings moral laws out of fear and obedience. Let this be our new creed:

   There is no universal moral code that should dictate human behavior. There is no such thing as good or evil, there is no universal standard of right and wrong. Our values and morals come from us and belong to us, whether we like it or not; so we should claim them proudly for ourselves, as our own creations, rather than seeking external justification for them.

Will: Were you gonna plagiarize the whole thing for us? Do you have any thoughts of your own on this matter? Or do you, is that your thing, you come into a bar, read some obscure passage and then pretend - you pawn it off as your own, as your own idea just to impress some girls, embarrass my friend?

Will: See, the sad thing about a guy like you is, in 50 years you're gonna start doin' some thinkin' on your own and you're going to come up with the fact that there are two certainties in life: one, don't do that, and two, you dropped 150 grand on a f***in' education you could have got for a dollar fifty in late charges at the public library!

http://www.crimethinc.com/library/english/nogods.html

teehee!

[pinobot]

Our morality is based on our instinct, that's why people in a remote location that never even heared of a guy called Jesus are not so different to us.
Lets see:
Animals would fights over territory, territory to an Animal  means resources (food/water/other stuff).
Humans fight over territory, territory to a human means resources.
Animals (of the same species) don't usually kill each other, only enemies.
Guess what, so do humans.
Humans live in a group that's has a leader.
What do you know, a lot of animals do exactly that.
You can go on forever finding similarities between humans and animals, you wanna know why, because we're also animals.
Have you ever heared about a species that got extinct because they killed each other for a lack of morality, it's all cowdung, don't get me started.

[S8NSSON]

Agent Smith: I'd like to share a revelation that I’ve had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species, and I realised that humans are not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment; but you humans do not. Instead you multiply, and multiply, until every resource is consumed. The only way for you to survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern... a virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer on this planet, you are a plague, and we... are the cure.

[IronFist]

Post removed

[Dirty_Taco]

Post removed

[Smokey]

If you actually for a second, thought i wrote that myself, then wow you're slow. First off i would never take the time to think that through and write it for a gaming forum, especially where the community is comprised of primarily 12 year old germans and idiots. I simply don't have enough time for that. I didn't credit the authors with the writing because, well, heres why:

   ...we hope you'll use this as a tool in your own efforst--not just to hink about this world, but also to change it. This book is composed of ideas and images we've remorselessly stolen and adjusted to our purposes and we hope you'll do exactly the same with its contents. . . But please by all means use the images for posters, take sentences for your own writing, reinterpret ideas and claim them as your own inventions, turn in the articles as papers for your sociology class--if you must turn those papers in, that is!

you did. GUD JAWB

[Eiii]

Dear god, what have I spawned? Just some things:

Without religion (or, at least mostly western religion) I think the world would be a much better place. Less wars, and such. Jits seemed to be implying that solely religion teaches morals. That's not true at all. Without religion, most people would have just as many morals.

I'm mostly talking about Christianity.

[jitspoe]

Sadly it can't really be proven one way or the other.  Where did you learn your set of morals from, just out of curiosity?

[Eiii]

My parents, the earlier stages of school, why? Do they only enforce morals at church now?

[Smokey]

who else laughed at the kid with the mullet?

[Dirty_Taco]

Post removed

[jitspoe]

Proving the absence of something is a rather difficult task -- even if it's a simple object or concept.  I don't have a football, for example, but proving it to a skeptical person would be nearly impossible.

[Dirty_Taco]

Post removed

[Smokey]

Silly of you all to not notice the true problem in that video, the kid has a mullet...