http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_Destiny


http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-2536600093.html

I believe he was referring to the Crusades. In Europe, political leaders doubled as religious leaders and vice versa. In addition to the Crusades, the 30 Year War was ostensibly an intra-Christian war. The irony, as with any war, is that with involvement of mercenaries and the general breakdown in social order, a great deal of violence was committed by Protestants and Catholics against people within their sects.

This may be one reason why so many 'old Europe' countries are lukewarm about most religion and why states have either taken over religion (England) or have a real separation between church and state.

Those are very large numbers but don't measure up to the 20th century genocides of the non-christians Attaturk, Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, and Hitler (although Christian bigotry was one of his tools).

I disagree that genocide should be measured purely by numbers killed. Genocide is more of the elimination of a culture than people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide


In that case, the genocide of all the natives in both American continents was the largest. It lasted directly for around 400 years, affected two entire continents, and the effects are still largely felt to this day.

To stay with the topic, genocide can happen with any group and is a social force that has no relation to religion. In the 1400s to this day, Christians have had the best weapons, more effective economic doctrine to get power (capitalism), best centralized power setup (the state), and a religion that can be very imperialistic depending on the interpretation. This combination led to the most effective imperialistic genocidal campaign in human history.

Do I consider the intent much different than the brutal Islamic expansion in the 800s? No, but that Islamic campaign and the numerous others by different religions never had the power or capabilities of the Christians.


The only legitimate argument that exists, to my knowledge, that can argue the superior imperialistic and genocidal justifications in Christianity to other religions is that in Christianity, God (or Jesus) tells its followers to actively convert non-Christians. That process usually leads to imperialistism or genocide when practiced by a militaristic group. But, I don't really use that argument because militaristic religious nuts will forcefully spread their religion whether it tells them to are not so it really doesn't matter. All in all, strong nationalism causes problems....

Mao's Great Leap Forward was a cultural genocide. I fully acknowlege that Christianity was/is guilty of this but I wanted to remind everyone that communism and nationalism are skilled murderers as well. From my under-grad days, I remember the campus lefties were in denial about their heroes and were happy to lay all evil on religion's doorstep. I just want to be sure you're not in an environment producing moral blind spots.

Heck, the Old Testament is about the Jews escaping slavery and committing genocide several times over at the instruction and with the assistance of the Judeo-(and now)Christian God. Plus, Noah's flood would probably be the greatest genocide in history (percentage-wise, at least, in the lower population), and the Tower of Babel disintegrated a culture.

But those only count if you believe the Bible.

:D

Pierce is obviously a heathen. May he be exorcised in the blood of jesus christ, and his soul be saved miraculously from most inevitable damnation!! A wandering star, if you will, for whom it is preserved; A blackness, a darkness forever!!!

God is going to get you. *condescending shake of head side to side* That's all this is about.




"Born great the first time, kthnxbai." :)

Haha. I am fully aware. Even though my political views are towards the left (it has become more diverse as of late), I do not idealize any leftist leader. Keep in mind that the left is as diverse as the right. My idealization of leftist authoritarian leaders such as Mao, Stalin, Chavez, and such are strong as Radar's idealization of George W Bush.

As I said in my last post and you seemed to have reinforced, strong nationalism tends to be the major problem and that can happen in societies of both left and right, religious or atheist. Even though many political views do have a right or wrong, the vast majority is completely subjective and by declaring your subjective view as the "right way", it will only lead to oppression down the road. This includes my own views as well.

Nicely put.

Pie, thank-you for your input and now thoughtfulness.

I appreciate both.
..........................................................

As far as I know they still are the primary evolutionary theories from which to choose Phage. Though my understanding is that punctuated equilibrium is more of an observation based on the fossil record than it is a theory in the usual sense.

Taken at face value, a true enough statement. However it does fail at being able to cover all scenarios. For example in the application of the laws of chance there comes a point where although the stated formula is 1 chance in so many, it is also a point at which the possible becomes no longer possible.
Emile Borel, an eminent French expert on probability stated it this way, "Events whose probability is extremely small never occur."

Phage, its not a fact that any species have evolved from another species, let alone all species, but a presumption. Were it so, there there would be countless transitional specimens found throughout the fossil record between all of the species and their ancestors.

Thank-you for the words of wisdom.
And you are correct, I have not yet gotten to the evidence for my positions.
....................................................................................................

Thank-you Dana for your helpful responses.
I have no disagreement about the social advantages and accomplishments derived from our selfishness.

Thank-you again Dana, when given the time I would like your, and the others thoughts on some of the scientific evidence against evolution.

Thanks a lot richlevy(FSM), I'll check it out as soon as I can with the holidays and all. ;)
Regarding religious organizations, its my belief that men have made far larger than God has desired. Small community groups that can care for individuals needs is the largest I would like to see them.

I agree with your point.

mmmmmmmkay.

I've avoided this thread, and it looks like for good reason. If I may, let me jump back to the original question.

There are two dominant perspectives on what moral values consist of. I'll call them "from above" and "from below". All of the other moral systems, utilitarianism, natural law, divine command ethics, moral relativism, nihilism, they all fall into one of these two categories.

The "from above" view does NOT require some big in-the-sky deity. All it states is that moral value exceeds individual acts, and individual acts can have the property of the value. In other words, there is something external to an action that can either apply or not apply, and that something is not determined by the act itself. An act can be "good", and that "good" means something apart from the act itself.

The "from below" view holds that there is nothing that exceeds the act itself, and that all moral language is only just language - it is a way of grouping together a bunch of features about certain kinds of acts, and referring to them by common characteristics.

Natural Law ethics is a "from above" perspective. It holds that there are universal values that exceed individual acts (the value of human life, the inherent dignity of sentience, the rights of persons, etc.), and individual actions may be judged by that external standard. In order to make sense of this, we should recognize that "the value of human life" is not a moral argument. It is a value premise, and moral arguments then proceed from it. There is no moral argument for the value of human life - it has to be taken as a given, and then arguments about how we ought to act proceed from it.

Utilitarianism (maximize pleasure, minimize pain) is also a "from above" view, I think. It takes as its starting premise that the suffering of sentient beings is bad, and then develops from that a system of ethics. But, it takes as a given the starting premise that suffering deserves primary place in our decisions about how to act. There is no argument as to why pain and pleasure should be the starting grounds for moral argument (many other moral systems, including eastern religions, do not include these as starting premises), it's just a given, and then argument proceeds from that point.

All arguments from evolutionary psychology are "from below" ethics. If we argue that certain actions become codified as "moral" because they had evolutionary advantage, we are using moral language to group together "things that had evolutionary advantage." There is nothing that exceeds the acts themselves, only a set of features that they share in common. To use the word "good" can never mean anything more than "this action is similar to other actions that, taken together, helped sustain human society."

Whew.

So, here's how this fits. I think it is impossible to get from naturalism (atheism, lack of any non-material or non-natural dimension to reality) to any of the "from above" view on morality. If you deny that there is anything higher than brute physical interactions of molecules and forces, then there can be nothing that exceeds individual transactions of energy. In a naturalist worldview, it's nonsense to say that an action has a property (rightness, or goodness) apart from the very physical properties of the actual transaction. When I strike someone on the face, there is only the complex physical interaction of my hand meat striking their face meat, and the electro-chemical interactions of their nervous system producing something that their brain meat perceives as pain. There is nothing in that transaction that matters, apart from the physical interactions. It's nonsense to presume otherwise.

Many people are fine with that. "We don't need a superseding property of morality" they say, "the physical descriptions are enough." That's fine.

But if all of moral language is "from below", there is a greater problem, I think. If moral language is merely descriptive of evolutionary advantage, then we have no reason to continue to act "morally".

We have no moral obligation to evolution. That's all fine and dandy that the moral prohibition on killing got us this far, but what is that to me? I'm here. I have no obligation to the scheme that got me here, and no obligation to whatever members of my species might follow me on this planet. Why should moral notions that evolved to promulgate our species continue to have any sway over my decisions?

And now we come down to it. I know many atheists and naturalists who are extremely ethical people, generous and kind, thoughtful and selfless.

I do not think that belief in something non-natural is needed in order to be a good person.

But I don't think atheists have any good reason for being good.

I am with you up to your hitting someone in the face analogy. Then I honestly have no idea where you are going with it. The best guess I have is that you assume morality from the "bottom up" is individual based, which I strongly disagree with.

First, I would like to point out that morality in humans is environmentally produced. A persons morality will be based upon the society around them.

Lets think about this for a second. Ever wonder why people in rural America tend to have a different moral code than the people in urban America? Ever wonder why people in Western societies have a different moral code then, lets say, Indonesian hunter gatherers?



Because morality is so constricted within groups I find it really hard to argue that morality comes from anything besides the society a person is raised in. It makes sense as well. How does a child learn right from wrong? From the teachings of their parents and observations from society, not some genetic or god-given force. A child does not have to be religious or not to observe that stealing or cannibalism is deemed wrong in a certain society.

Obviously there are disagreements about morality in certain societies as well. Sex is a good example. Some people, mainly religious, think that all non-reproductive sex is ethically wrong. Many others, disagree with that strongly. While there is a variation with sex in our population keep in mind that even the "sexually liberated" people will still look down on prostitutes and think they are "whores". This shows that even though there is small variation within populations, there are still constrictions that very few people stray from (also keep in mind that prostitutes do not look at their job with pride and only do so because they have very limited options).

This also explains why we can have different views on where morality comes from. Because of nationalism, many will think that their society's morals are the "absolute" morals for the "top down" thinkers because they have been taught from birth that their way is the correct way. Others, who tend to stray from religious doctrines, feel that they have a choice over their morals (the small ethical variations still accepted by society) and go for a more "bottom up" approach.


Morality comes from society and whether an individual takes the "top down" or "bottom up" approach, it does not change that fact.


So, atheists have the same reason to be moral as theists do. That reason is because we really do not have a choice. I was raised in an environment where many actions are deemed wrong and no matter how hard I try, I do not think I can break that social conditioning.

And even if I could, I do not see the point. If I do not have morals I will be quickly rejected from society and my evolutionary instincts tell me that is bad because until recently, it would have greatly increased my chances of death. So maybe morality evolved to allow better interaction and sustainability between humans. Acknowledging that, I still do not see how my breaking of morality will help me in any way. Being in tune with my society is my greatest chance of survival and keeping my morality in check is one great way to ensure that I stay in tune with my society. So yes, I do have a good reason to be moral.

It might be stated as a given, but I would not say there is no argument for it. An individual can through personal experience determine that pleasure is good and pain is bad, and then infer from observation of others that they generally hold the same views. At that point you simply need to determine that you care about the wellbeing of others and you have your start for Utilitarianism.

Indeed! Such a moral system has no looming force which will punish for bad behavior so there isn’t any force holding you back from being evil (ineffectual as it might be). Instead people determine their own morals and hold themselves to them purely through their own merit. For many people this would mean that between an ethical atheist and the ethical theist, the atheist would be worthy of much more respect.

In fact you could argue that switching from a religious viewpoint to a godless viewpoint would be a dramatically selfless act. Not only do you give up an assumed “worth” to your spirit or consciousness or whatever, but once given this moral freedom you decide to use it for the betterment of others rather than becoming a hedonist. I mean think about it: Even Jesus’s sacrifice wasn’t his will, it was obedient. He was also assured that he wasn’t giving up anything terribly important because there was life after death.

More than that: Even people who end up believing in a "from above" view have to use a "from below" methodology to decide which one to follow.