[quote]Sloth wrote:
Man you guys are moving this thread along at whiplash speeds…
Controversial thread title posted, op vanishes?[/quote]
I need to stop. I have work I need to do, but we have tomorrow off and right now motivating myself to work on this proposal is difficult. I’m trying to procrastinate less this year (one of about 10 big yearly goals I have), but right now failing miserably!
Ok, time to do this crap while the fiance is at her friends!
You won’t procrastinate less if you’re trying to procrastinate less.
You will just procrastinate your goal to procrastinate less.
Stop procrastinating, now.
Don’t “be trying”. Don’t try. Do it.
[quote]kamui wrote:
You won’t procrastinate less if you’re trying to procrastinate less.
You will just procrastinate your goal to procrastinate less.
Stop procrastinating, now.
Don’t “be trying”. Don’t try. Do it.
[/quote]
Yoda knowledge up in this bitch. Nice.
Also for the above quote I wasn’t really meaning “you” as much as the general T-Nation bitcher about the world (which I’m squarely a part of having bitched about Obama, Christie, Democrats, and Republicans often :)).
Now no more posting till this shit is done. Good talk K.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Man you guys are moving this thread along at whiplash speeds…
Controversial thread title posted, op vanishes?[/quote]
Not at all. In fact, I just came to look at it after being gone all weekend and was shocked at all the comments. I need to go back and read through it. I apologize for giving that impression. And the title wasn’t meant to be controversial. It was based on an article that I posted in the first post.
A world without religion would be great, but it will not happen any time soon. Luckily I live in one of the worlds most secular countries. Meanwhile enjoy the good things like Bach and the Cologne Cathedral.
[quote]kamui wrote:
“have lagged behind ethically” compared to what ?
During millenia, religion was everywhere and was everything. There was no alternative ethical standard.
So back then, if religion lagged behind something, it lagged behind… itself.
Non-religious ethical standards are a very recent phenomenon. So recent it’s absurd to pretend they are superior or inferior to the “old” religious standards.
They are so young they haven’t proven their viability and sustainability, let alone their superiority.
Irreligion is a cultural toddler. It make a lot of noise, and it looks rather healthy right now but its survival is far from being certain.
For all we know, in two or three centuries, it might very well be looked as a strange but ultimately unimportant parenthesis in our history.
[/quote]
Damn right.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Here you go, Sloth mi amigo.[/quote]
Son of a gun, I got a sense of vertigo just watching it in a minimized video viewer. I couldn’t imagine how it must have felt to be there. I’d probably have had to belly crawl to get that close to the edge. Absolutely stunning view, Push. Thanks for sharing.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
“have lagged behind ethically” compared to what ?
During millenia, religion was everywhere and was everything. There was no alternative ethical standard.
So back then, if religion lagged behind something, it lagged behind… itself.
Non-religious ethical standards are a very recent phenomenon. So recent it’s absurd to pretend they are superior or inferior to the “old” religious standards.
They are so young they haven’t proven their viability and sustainability, let alone their superiority.
Irreligion is a cultural toddler. It make a lot of noise, and it looks rather healthy right now but its survival is far from being certain.
For all we know, in two or three centuries, it might very well be looked as a strange but ultimately unimportant parenthesis in our history.
[/quote]
Lagged behind ethically compared to contemporary ethics considering the different era’s of different moralists and philosophers.
If we are talking today, we can look at the church position on say homosexuals, always a topic that comes up, I’m kinda tired of the subject but it’s an important one, as well as womens rights. Hows womens rights been historically thoughout the different religions in general? Would you say that churches and religious institutions embody fairness between the sexes? They are always behind. Need I bring up the enlightenment? Behind back then too. [/quote]
You say this like Tuesday is inherently better than Monday. Ok, so your modern ethics has a different/newish position on homosexuality…And?
[/quote]
Not just my newish ethics… Society as a whole is quicker to adjust morally than the Church, when the Church is supposed to be the moral leaders, they are the ones who lag behind society, and ultimately cave to society’s ethics. Do I need to do a historical breakdown of this again? Or do I need to site more examples? It’s easy to grasp and plain for everyone to see.
[/quote]
What’s there to ‘adjust’ to really?
Aside from technology, not much if anything, has changed about the human condition.
In essence, people still lie, cheat, steal, murder, gossip, etc.
Because technology has allowed us to sanitize some of these things so as to put a more appealing veneer on evil does not make it less evil.
More often than not, as with you case with homosexuality, the church’s or a church’s stance is misconstrued by people with a chip on it’s shoulder, misrepresenting, dare I say ‘baring false witness’ on the true teachings espoused by an institution on the basis of what a few fundamentalist types may say.
One cannot legitimately say 'the church needs to change their stance on issue ‘X’ when you don’t actually know what a church’s actual teaching on the topic is in reality.
Society is a flimsy judge of morality.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
“have lagged behind ethically” compared to what ?
During millenia, religion was everywhere and was everything. There was no alternative ethical standard.
So back then, if religion lagged behind something, it lagged behind… itself.
Non-religious ethical standards are a very recent phenomenon. So recent it’s absurd to pretend they are superior or inferior to the “old” religious standards.
They are so young they haven’t proven their viability and sustainability, let alone their superiority.
Irreligion is a cultural toddler. It make a lot of noise, and it looks rather healthy right now but its survival is far from being certain.
For all we know, in two or three centuries, it might very well be looked as a strange but ultimately unimportant parenthesis in our history.
[/quote]
Lagged behind ethically compared to contemporary ethics considering the different era’s of different moralists and philosophers.
If we are talking today, we can look at the church position on say homosexuals, always a topic that comes up, I’m kinda tired of the subject but it’s an important one, as well as womens rights. Hows womens rights been historically thoughout the different religions in general? Would you say that churches and religious institutions embody fairness between the sexes? They are always behind. Need I bring up the enlightenment? Behind back then too. [/quote]
You say this like Tuesday is inherently better than Monday. Ok, so your modern ethics has a different/newish position on homosexuality…And?
[/quote]
Not just my newish ethics… Society as a whole is quicker to adjust morally than the Church, when the Church is supposed to be the moral leaders, they are the ones who lag behind society, and ultimately cave to society’s ethics. Do I need to do a historical breakdown of this again? Or do I need to site more examples? It’s easy to grasp and plain for everyone to see.
[/quote]
Hold up a second, you act as if I agree that morality is whatever the flavor of the moment is. If society wasn’t agreeing with you now, and still agreed with me on a host of issues, would you change your conclusions to mine?
[/quote]
I would only adjust my ethics if what you proposed made sense ethically. That’s generally how moral progress seems to work.
Look at how it worked with slavery. Someone looked at another man and saw him in the same light as himself, rather than a slave.
Some dude looked at a gay dude and his love for his lover as similar to the way he loves his wife and children.
If I had a certain way of looking at the world that could be improved by someone, I’m certainly open to it. I was pretty homophobic myself for a long time, didn’t like the idea of gay marriage, it took me to see a very good friends child come out that I had known for many years to come to grips with my hypocrisy.
It’s one of the hardest things, to admit to ourselves and to change. [/quote]
Slavery is always an interesting thing to bring up with respect these moral relativism conversations.
So by your standards, slavery was not wrong generations ago when it was widely practiced and accepted by society as a whole, correct?
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Man you guys are moving this thread along at whiplash speeds…
Controversial thread title posted, op vanishes?[/quote]
Not at all. In fact, I just came to look at it after being gone all weekend and was shocked at all the comments. I need to go back and read through it. I apologize for giving that impression. And the title wasn’t meant to be controversial. It was based on an article that I posted in the first post.
[/quote]
Heh, It dawned on me that as busy as the thread had become, I couldn’t remember you participating.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
I would only adjust my ethics if what you proposed made sense ethically. [/quote]
So because society has a position at any particular moment doesn’t make that position actually a “good” or an “evil.”
So, just because the Church “lags” behind your society, doesn’t make the Church wrong.
[/quote]
I don’t see any ‘lag’ so to speak. Society tends to be stupid. Society places greater value on Miley Cyrus grinding a metal ball and licking a sledge hammer more so than thousands dying in political unrest in places such a Syria or the Ukraine. So if I were to operate by societal standards, I should care more which star is fucking which other star, than conditions of war, human strife and struggle.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
I would only adjust my ethics if what you proposed made sense ethically. [/quote]
So because society has a position at any particular moment doesn’t make that position actually a “good” or an “evil.”
So, just because the Church “lags” behind your society, doesn’t make the Church wrong.
[/quote]
I don’t see any ‘lag’ so to speak. Society tends to be stupid. Society places greater value on Miley Cyrus grinding a metal ball and licking a sledge hammer more so than thousands dying in political unrest in places such a Syria or the Ukraine. So if I were to operate by societal standards, I should care more which star is fucking which other star, than conditions of war, human strife and struggle. [/quote]
I think it was Kamui that pointed out the much of it is religious practice catching up with foundational religious belief. Christ certainty didn’t send the Apostles out to convert by the sword. But we too had to master some of the more primal urges that have been with humanity since, well, forever ago. Like, taking “stuff.” We talk about the religious angle of coming to the new world for instance, but in the end its the spices, minerals, land, lumber, and ores that are launching those ships. The secular material wants. And, much of the “good” stuff that makes us so much better has happened while the world is still very religious. A couple of other things.
I’m not sure we get a check mark because we have amoral things like ultra-sounds (better medical care). Not sure how luxuries of technology are a moral plus for us. We only see further because we stand on the shoulders of giants.
It is a great excuse 
Norwegian parody
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
Species and cultures won’t go extinct tomorrow.
We are destroying them now.
And even ONE of these irreversible but avoidable events would be enough to make my point.
[/quote]
We are more aware and doing more for species at this point than any other in human history.
So by this token 2014 is far more moral from a species standpoint than any other time in human history.
See below: Ooops, we did such a good job of protecting that now we have some other issues. Again, you’re just speaking from the heart on stuff you want to believe and you won’t back off for some reason off your initial poor point.
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2158676,00.html[/quote]
Oh brother. We are not more moral now than in the past. We have learned of methods to sanitize our evil to make it appear less evil than it once was. But it is still evil, even with a pretty face. Calling ‘evil things’ good and ‘good things’ evil, also does not make anything the case.
Man kind has certainly found new ways to prop up the evolutionary weak forces and make them live where in the past they may not have, but we also have to technology to completely wipe ourselves off the map, and we ain’t afraid to use it.
2014 has no moral advantage over the past.
And Kamui’s points are not good, they are excellent, it is you, using a centuries old debunked ontology of moral relativism who is speaking from a disadvantage. Using emotive language, declaring victory where you have none, and massacring historical facts has you speaking from a position of weakness.
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, we have the luxury of living off the spoils of the victors. The bloodiest work has already been done for us. Now we get to live in the powerful nation-states (with their well-developed militaries, unspeakable WMDs, and police forces) that developed from it, using the resources secured and captured so we can make pace-makers, air-conditioning, and our i-phone.
Was it bloody? Yeah. We would do better? I seriously doubt a hyper-secular, materialistic-consumerist people would let ignorant superstitious savages impede the securing and use of resources needed for forming the nation-state and global economy needed for their cheap consumer products today.
The question is always was it bloody. How about was it constrained relative to what it could have been? I know there are secularists and even atheists who admit that religion helped maintain order among a people, at least. So what if even those sensibilities lost out to some some hypothetical materialistic secular-acquisition. Would those hunting grounds and waters been left undeveloped, to the use or non-use of the traditional societies using them? Absolutely not. The fact that our morality is now being measured by a wealth, and the monopolization of power of larger nation-states, made possible by the taking and settling of resources and borders in yester-year certainly doesn’t suggest it.
Will the religious be commanded to participate in the economy in ways that violate their moral conscience? Sure. Will it happen relatively peacefully? Sure. Why? Because nation-states monopolized their power longer ago.
[/quote]
I would say we have the luxury of living in times where we finally realized how fucking stupid it was to kill over and over again in the name of God and developed human ideas about things like religious tolerance.
Do we still kill in the name of God some? Sure, probably always will. We kill in the name of other things as well and probably always will.
We war with other nations less than we did in the past and the 21st century so far has seen a lot of relative peace compared to previous times.
I never really attempted to say we are definitely more moral, but I took a big contention with the idea that we are less moral. If we are less moral than our predecessors then what are we basing that on? So far it has been K’s opinion largely. He has nothing measurable. Nothing concrete.
He says we don’t respect our elders at a time when society can do more for elderly people to help them live longer and healthier than ever before. He mentions our children in a time where our children are healthier, have access to more education, and are forced to work less than any other time in history. My niece is almost 18 months old. She is INFINITELY better off than the average kid born in 1914 or 1814. Her future is so much brighter. She will get to be educated, she will have access to all sorts of comforts, she will be able to participate in elections and society based on how she feels and what SHE wants to do.
The idea somehow that kids right now are worse off than before is preposterous. How many young people fought in wars in the older days? TONS of them.
Of course none of this plays well and never has because all anyone wants to talk about is how great it used to be (horseshit) and how horrible it is right now and will be tomorrow (double horseshit). Part of this is because it is EXACTLY how politicians talk.
In 2008 McCain and Obama BOTH talked about how horrible right now was and how if you trusted them they will fix things and make the future better. In 2016 Dems and Republicans will do the same thing again. Until 2020 and 2024 where we will repeat that. [/quote]
Forget the actual fact that in the history of the world most wars were secular in nature to an absurd positive proportion to that of religiously based conflicts. That being said, war, killing and strive should have no place in religious practice though some have chosen that road. And for that, their ‘sin’ is double.
Years ago, I found the Encyclopedia of Wars at a book sale. Normally obscenely expensive but for $20 I could take it of the bookseller’s hands.
It chronicles over 1800 wars (fights, etc) up until the year 2003. It is NOT comprehensive but it’s a great work. From that work, and other more comprehensive sets one can deduce that religious wars/conflicts add up to less than 10% of all major conflicts in recorded history (one set claims that it is between 10-14%).
So to purport that religion is the root of most conflicts and wars is unsubstantiated.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
Species and cultures won’t go extinct tomorrow.
We are destroying them now.
And even ONE of these irreversible but avoidable events would be enough to make my point.
[/quote]
We are more aware and doing more for species at this point than any other in human history.
So by this token 2014 is far more moral from a species standpoint than any other time in human history.
See below: Ooops, we did such a good job of protecting that now we have some other issues. Again, you’re just speaking from the heart on stuff you want to believe and you won’t back off for some reason off your initial poor point.
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2158676,00.html[/quote]
Oh brother. We are not more moral now than in the past. We have learned of methods to sanitize our evil to make it appear less evil than it once was. But it is still evil, even with a pretty face. Calling ‘evil things’ good and ‘good things’ evil, also does not make anything the case.
Man kind has certainly found new ways to prop up the evolutionary weak forces and make them live where in the past they may not have, but we also have to technology to completely wipe ourselves off the map, and we ain’t afraid to use it.
2014 has no moral advantage over the past.
And Kamui’s points are not good, they are excellent, it is you, using a centuries old debunked ontology of moral relativism who is speaking from a disadvantage. Using emotive language, declaring victory where you have none, and massacring historical facts has you speaking from a position of weakness. [/quote]
I never declared victory. The only people declaring victory ironically are the people who weren’t even in the discussion (you and Push). Why you both feel the need to drive around and declare a winner when Kamui and I are just discussing things is not just irrelevant, but it’s selfish on your guys part to think you’re high up enough that your opinion on who is winning or losing is giving an actual shit by either of us.
But, like Push I guess I will see things your way SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU DECLARE SO.
Since you have 0 facts in your rebuttal and pure emotion (which is ironic to call out someone else’s emotion in your own emotion filled rant, but I digress) I will just say spare the people who were talking your unnecessary judgment.
Centuries old debunked, listen to yourself preach away and pretend your viewpoint is any better than anyone after a discussion in which you contributed nothing to.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]espenl wrote:
A world without religion would be great, but it will not happen any time soon. Luckily I live in one of the worlds most secular countries. Meanwhile enjoy the good things like Bach and the Cologne Cathedral.[/quote]
You enjoy the material things, peace, security and comfort that you have because western civilization, founded and guided by religion, has delivered it to you. Not because of secularism.[/quote]
What an absolutely absurd statement to make. Thank God Religion delivered us all these abundant treasures we have.
It wasn’t until the Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment when we slowly began the descent away from religion that our Western Civilization even began.
What an unbelievably conceited thing for a believer to say. “You can thank religion for what you have.”
Wow. Uhmm, I came in saying don’t get rid of religion, but the believers are stopping in to take credit for everything good that has happened despite the insurmountable evidence that as we have become more secular we have seen less wars, bloodshed, and poverty.
We can thank men and women for what we have and the increase in knowledge that led us to today.
Whatever, the circle jerk crowd will jump in, defend one another and then laugh and declare victory because that is how the circle jerk crowd works. And you will call me Harold and the old man trolls of the forum will be merry knowing that though they are old they can always act young on the internet.