What people see in religion

[XPViking]

Whatever. You may now hop up and down with glee, for you have found a nitpick in my hasty recollection of a statement which I did not even bother attributing to you by name. Yippee. Go tell all your friends. - Darth Wong

Thanks for acknowledging your mistake.

XPViking

[John]

I don't remember anyone claiming that we needed morality. I remember Mike claiming that science has contributed far more to society than art, and some claiming that we could get along just fine without religion, but other than that, nothing like what you've mentioned.

Perhaps I'm recalling it from Mike's Creationism webpage. At any rate, that is the impression I have of him, accurate or inaccurate as it may be.

[Alyrium Denryle]

About three million Catholics (including around 4,000 priests) were sent to concentration camps by the Nazis from Poland alone. But if you actually did some historical research instead of acting like a dipshit and blaming all your problems on an easily-identified Other, you might actually know that already.

Yes Iam perfectly aware that this is about 10 pages late, but...

Those 3 million catholics were not sent to concentration camps because they where catholics, they were sent there because they where poles, who Hitler deemed inferior.

Hitler, when he invaded poland took property away from the poles and gave it to ethnic germans who he shipped in. naturally having nowhere else to put them he placed them in concentration camps.

[Darth Wong]

Mike, for example, doesn't have any use for religion, or deeply religious people ...

I have no use for religion or for people who think their superstitious beliefs override logic and objective reality. If that is what you mean by "deeply religious people", then you are correct.

but seems to think morality is vitally important.

That depends on what you mean by "important". Do you mean "important" in some universal, cosmic sense? Because there's no such thing; importance and necessity are always defined in terms of some goal.

Isn't it hypocritical to blast people for saying we 'need' religion, then turn around and claim we 'need' morality, when both are ultimately meaningless?

We "need" morality in order to accomplish certain goals, eg- reducing the amount of suffering and misery in the world or increasing the amount of pleasure and happiness. Morality is the set of principles and rules which we feel will accomplish that goal, so it is becomes necessary for the goal. If you don't think that objective is "important", then I guess morality isn't important either. But if you do think it's important (and most people do), then morality must also be important.

But what do we "need" religion for? What goal is served by making up imaginary deities and then worshipping them en masse in large ornately decorated structures, which are built specially for the purpose and then purposely made off-limits to any other form of useful activity or commerce? The answer is: nothing, unless you happen to be one of those people who makes his welfare off the collection plate (ie- ministers, priests, etc). Religion is ultimately self-serving; it serves no goal but perpetuating and expanding itself. Therefore, no one "needs" religion except for those who make a living off it.

There is no contradiction here; just you desperately trying to find a reason to link morality to religion when one has nothing to do with the other.

[Nick]

Similarly, profession of the Christian faith (Jesus Christ was the Son of God, yada, yada, yada) says nothing about a person's moral code or lack thereof.

Incorrect. Christianity requires certain moral precepts, like abstinence from premarital sex and not watching pornography. Christianity, as a religion, comes with a moral code. What that moral code is differs from denomination to denomination, but there are core values which all of them hold to be true. The biggest is that God is infallible.

I disagree. If _all_ you know about someone is that they nominally subscribe to the Christian faith, the you know nothing of substance about their moral code (true, there is a distinction between 'nothing' and 'nothing of substance').

There is a vast differerence between a Christian who has a firm belief in the doctrine "Primacy of Conscience" and the need for ecumenical dialogue, and someone who believes unswervingly in "Sola Scriptura, Sola Fidelis" (Scripture alone, faith alone - throwing out large portions of the last 2000 years of Christian thinking, as well as denigrating the significance of good works).

The first individual has been heavily influenced by scientific discoveries and humanist moral standards, and is attempting to reconcile those beliefs with their faith. The second is an unrepentant throwback who is probably a young earth creationist, as well. . .

And so, simply knowing that someone professes to believe in Christianity is basically useless when it comes to predicting their moral code - just as useless as it is to know that someone claims to be an atheist. In fact, like atheism, the boundaries of the category are _so_ broad, that the only reliable information is the central core - a disbelief in God (for atheism) and a belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God (for Christianity)

The following logical fallacies are all equally invalid:

Some Christians are moral people, therefore all true Christians are moral people.

Some Christians have reprehensible morals, therefore all Christians are reprehensible.

Some atheists have reprehensible morals, therefore all atheists are reprehensible.

Red herring. No one is targeting every Christian to ever walk the Earth. The Crusaders had valid scriptural basis for their actions, so their Christian beliefs encouraged those actions. Thus, Christianity, as a belief system, is responsible.

Red herring in relation to what? I was following up on Dice's throwaway comment about Stalin as a representative of atheism. (Aside for Mr Dice: Would consider the phrase, "So Hitler is a valid representative of Christianity, then? Check." to be an innocent comment, with no intention of implying anything?)

The fact is, that all of the statements I made above _are_ logical fallacies. While the various correlations underlying the fallacies are different (and, for some of them, possibly the opposite of what the statement implies), they are all correlations, rather than absolutes.

As far as the Crusaders go (an aspect of this discussion which I have _not_ previously taken part in), that their Christian faith was a strong contributing factor to their taking part in the Crusades is indisputable, but it is hardly the sole cause.

[AdmiralKanos]

And so, simply knowing that someone professes to believe in Christianity is basically useless when it comes to predicting their moral code - just as useless as it is to know that someone claims to be an atheist.

Not quite. You know absolutely nothing about an atheist's moral code from the mere fact that he is an atheist. However, like it or not, you do know something about a Christian's moral code from the mere fact that he is a Christian.

On the issue of morality, Christianity promotes two ideas which are fairly consistent even across vast divides of Christian ideology:

1. We are all irredeemable sinners.
2. God will forgive our sins if we accept Jesus.

These ideas are both highly disturbing, and cannot possibly make up the basis of a workable system of morality without heavy alteration from sources of "worldly" morality such as humanism.

Christian Belief #1: We are all iredeemable sinners

Why are we all iredeemable sinners? The common answer is Adam's "Original Sin", which is inherited guilt and which is unacceptable. One of the fundamental principles of modern justice is that we are each responsible for our own actions, and cannot be held responsible for the actions of our forebears. Every Christian understands that he is not responsible for the Crusades, the Witch Hunts, or the Inquisitions, but this understanding goes out the window when it comes to Adam; why?

An alternative explanation focuses on the notion that all sin is of equal weight, ie- serial murder is the same as stealing gum from the variety store, so all of us are equally iredeemable. This is just as idiotic as the notion of inherited guilt. Some "sins" cause much more damage than other sins; it defies all logic and observation to say that they are equal.

And finally, a third proposed explanation defines sin as a binary proposition; either you are pure as the driven snow or you are a sinner, with no middle ground. Black/white.

These ideas are all highly disturbing. Inherited guilt discards the concept of personal responsibility for personal actions. Equal sin discards the magnitude of crimes. Binary evaluation of morality leads directly to equal sin. No matter which explanation a Christian chooses for this "we are all iredeemable" idea, the result is not good.

Christian Belief #2: God will forgive our sins if we accept Jesus

Several questions leap to mind here, like "what business does God have forgiving person A's sins against person B?" and "what does accepting Jesus have to do with person A's sins against person B?"

This central tenet is how Christians make God a middleman in the process of forgiving between criminal and victim. Normally, the victim is the only one who can forgive the criminal. When the victim is dead, it is impossible for the criminal to receive absolution. But watch out! Here comes Christianity, and the criminal need no longer seek absolution from the victim! He can seek it from a third party, who offers up a completely bizarre method of obtaining forgiveness which has nothing whatsoever to do with the original crime or its victim.

This idea is even more disturbing than the explanations for the "we are iredeemable" idea. The notion that a criminal can be forgiven without the approval or participation of the victim (never mind restitution) is an obscenity against justice.

In short, while we cannot know everything about a Christian's scheme of morality just from the fact that he's Christian, we can know that he's starting off on a bad foot, with some central tenets which encourage all the wrong things (inherited guilt, ignoring the magnitude of a crime, elimination of the victim from the process of forgiveness). If he happens to believe in other things which correct this problem, good for him. But he is starting from a pretty damned shaky foundation, and we definitely know more about his moral beliefs than we do about an atheist's moral beliefs.

[XPViking]

So what moral code do most atheists ascribe to?

XPViking

[Cpt_Frank]

There is no such thing as a universal atheist moral code.
It depends on wether you're a humanist, or perhaps a nihilist etc.

[Nick]

And so, simply knowing that someone professes to believe in Christianity is basically useless when it comes to predicting their moral code - just as useless as it is to know that someone claims to be an atheist.

Not quite. You know absolutely nothing about an atheist's moral code from the mere fact that he is an atheist. However, like it or not, you do know something about a Christian's moral code from the mere fact that he is a Christian.
::snip::
In short, while we cannot know everything about a Christian's scheme of morality just from the fact that he's Christian, we can know that he's starting off on a bad foot, with some central tenets which encourage all the wrong things (inherited guilt, ignoring the magnitude of a crime, elimination of the victim from the process of forgiveness). If he happens to believe in other things which correct this problem, good for him. But he is starting from a pretty damned shaky foundation, and we definitely know more about his moral beliefs than we do about an atheist's moral beliefs.

Hmm, true. . . I guess I tend to take a fairly charitable position because most of my friends who are Christians also take a very dim view of the points you mentioned (i.e. they believe you can only be guilty for your own actions, that true forgiveness can only be granted by the victim, that some crimes are worse than others, etc. - the ones who didn't have problems with those values generally aren't my friends any more. . .). In other words, they tend to have very humanist moral values. I often overlook the fact that in doing so they are going against the nominal doctrines of their faith (even despite the fact that it was the realisation of how large the discrepancy between my own humanist outlook and even the most liberal of Christian doctrine was, that prompted me to stop calling myself even a non-denominational Christian).

I think the problem boils down to the fact that people often use the term Christian to mean whatever they want it to mean (usually something along the lines of 'people that are like me', or 'I am a Christian, this is what I believe, therefore this is what a Christian has to believe and the rest is negotiable'). And so the self-description as a Christian is pretty useless unless it is answered with the question "So what do you think it means to be a Christian?" The answer to this question is the one where the actual moral code will start to show (anything including the word 'infallibility' and either 'Pope' or "Bible' is probably a good reason to stop the conversation at that point. . .). Sometimes a neutral observer might be justified in pointing out that the described beliefs are more those of a deist or a theist, but I guess my POV is that if they feel more comfortable describing themselves as Christian, then there isn't much of anything to be gained by forcing the issue (aside from correcting a fairly harmless bit of circular logic in their definition of the faith they think they believe in).

[Nick]

There is no such thing as a universal atheist moral code.
It depends on wether you're a humanist, or perhaps a nihilist etc.

For humanism, see most of Mike's stuff (my views, and possibly those of Nova Andromeda, Durandal, and probably several others would also fit into this category).

For Nihilism, John's recent posts to this thread seem like good examples.

There also the idelogical atheism that forms part of communism/Marxism, and probably plenty more examples that aren't occurring to me right now :>

However, punching 'secular humanism' or nihilism into a search engine will give you much more information than simply reading the various views on these forums :>

[Nick]

http://www.selectsmart.com/RELIGION/

Speaking of neutral observers. . . quizzes like the one above (go to the main page and navigate to it if the direct link doesn't load properly) can be an interesting way of finding out just how well your actual beliefs line up with those of whatever it is you claim to believe in :>

The one I linked to is pretty simple - AFAIK, it just asks you 20 questions, and compares your responses to those dictated by the doctrines of a given faith (or 'general opinion' for outlooks which are a little short on accepted doctrine).

I like it because it provides a means for calibrating just how well your actual beliefs accord with the official views of your stated belief system.

[lgot]

On the issue of morality, Christianity promotes two ideas which are fairly consistent even across vast divides of Christian ideology:

We are all irredeemable sinners.

God will forgive our sins if we accept Jesus.

well, those are more like Dogmas of Christians and not their moral code. But you can easily discover moral codes anywhere: Not Killing, Monogamy, Not Stealing,Respect the Eldery and such stuff are among their moral codes (therefore they are the sins you previously mentioned).
You must notice that sometimes they kill, steal, etc. But that does not mean there is not such moral codes in the core of such society, just like any society there is rules that are break.

[Wicked Pilot]

http://www.selectsmart.com/RELIGION/

Speaking of neutral observers. . . quizzes like the one above (go to the main page and navigate to it if the direct link doesn't load properly) can be an interesting way of finding out just how well your actual beliefs line up with those of whatever it is you claim to believe in :>

The one I linked to is pretty simple - AFAIK, it just asks you 20 questions, and compares your responses to those dictated by the doctrines of a given faith (or 'general opinion' for outlooks which are a little short on accepted doctrine).

I like it because it provides a means for calibrating just how well your actual beliefs accord with the official views of your stated belief system.

That's very cool. Thanks for the link.

[John]

We "need" morality in order to accomplish certain goals, eg- reducing the amount of suffering and misery in the world or increasing the amount of pleasure and happiness. Morality is the set of principles and rules which we feel will accomplish that goal, so it is becomes necessary for the goal. If you don't think that objective is "important", then I guess morality isn't important either. But if you do think it's important (and most people do), then morality must also be important.

We "need" morality to accomplish certain goals only because we need tools to accomplish those goals. Morality is a tool (since morality is an aspect of culture, which is also a tool) that helps give unrelated people a group identity, which allows them to work together for mutual benefit. Religion can (and does) serve the same purpose, as may language, certain foods, forms of art, etc. As for why it is 'important' to help others...it isn't. We help others out of naked self interest. If you are starving and I give you a piece of bread, I can can tell myself that I did so because God said I should, or because it is moral, etc, but the real reason I did it was so that someday, maybe, if I am starving, you will give me a piece of bread.
On your Creationism webpages you ask why certain forms of sexual relations are considered immoral, but you exclude adultery. So I ask, why is adultery 'immoral'? You might say something about broken promises or keeping one's word, but what it boils down to is, it isn't in your self-interest to raise another man's children. You want to pass on YOUR genes. That's why you labor to provide for your children. That is why men are so unwilling to forgive spousal indiscretion (until recently it was almost impossible for a man to KNOW that a child was his, while the mother's relationship to a child is established inarguably at birth, not withstanding modern fertility practices). Self-interest is also why women are more able to forgive infidelity. Having the father of their children around to help raise them is more important than being his only sex partner.

There is no contradiction here; just you desperately trying to find a reason to link morality to religion when one has nothing to do with the other.

Or, perhaps, you desperately trying to serepate them when, as facets of culture, they exist in dynamic relationships with each other. Obviously it is possible to be religious AND moral, religious AND immoral, moral AND atheist, immoral AND athiest. Religion, morality, language, technology and every other aspect of culture influence, and are influenced by, every other aspect of culture. You may not like hearing it, but your moral code, like every other moral code, is as imaginary, and arbitrary, as any god that was ever devised by the mind of man.

[Darth Wong]

As for why it is 'important' to help others...it isn't. We help others out of naked self interest. If you are starving and I give you a piece of bread, I can can tell myself that I did so because God said I should, or because it is moral, etc, but the real reason I did it was so that someday, maybe, if I am starving, you will give me a piece of bread.

So? How does that contradict anything I've been saying? I don't care what justification you choose to use for your personal moral code, as long as it works and does not generate pain and suffering.

On your Creationism webpages you ask why certain forms of sexual relations are considered immoral, but you exclude adultery. So I ask, why is adultery 'immoral'? You might say something about broken promises or keeping one's word, but what it boils down to is, it isn't in your self-interest to raise another man's children.

Then why do some people adopt? Even when they can have biological children? Stupidity?

Honesty is a virtue. It is a virtue because without it, human society cannot function. If you cannot trust anything that anyone says, you cannot form a workable society. Therefore, while you may disregard the importance of keeping one's word, it is obvious that you simply haven't thought about it.

There is no contradiction here; just you desperately trying to find a reason to link morality to religion when one has nothing to do with the other.

Or, perhaps, you desperately trying to serepate them when, as facets of culture, they exist in dynamic relationships with each other.

You cannot disprove a point by merely stating that you disagree with its conclusion.

Obviously it is possible to be religious AND moral, religious AND immoral, moral AND atheist, immoral AND athiest.

Then you agree that morality has nothing to do with religion. So why the protest?

Religion, morality, language, technology and every other aspect of culture influence, and are influenced by, every other aspect of culture.

Now this is pure bullshit sophistry. You cannot claim that religion and morality are interconnected by defining interconnectivity so loosely that everything is interconnected! By that token, bowel movements and morality are interconnected too!

You may not like hearing it, but your moral code, like every other moral code, is as imaginary, and arbitrary, as any god that was ever devised by the mind of man.

Wrong. My code of morality is based on a few core assumed goals, and I have never denied that. But it is a lie to compare it to religion, because it does not require belief in nonexistent phenomena at any time, in any way. It is based purely on objective reality, and goals which apply to that objective reality.

[Mr Bean]

Nick thanks for the link
According to the Link and taking the test I'm either Secular Humanism or Theravada Buddhism is my religion both tested at over 96% according to my answears

Werid huh?


Guess I better go convert on the basis of one Web Poll

[Darth Wong]

I got 100% secular humanism. No big surprise there.

[John]

So? How does that contradict anything I've been saying? I don't care what justification you choose to use for your personal moral code, as long as it works and does not generate pain and suffering.

Why is it important to not cause pain and suffering? The suffering of others doesn't affect my survival. If your children are starving, and I have food but won't share, and you have a gun, what are you going to do? It's in your self-interest to kill me and take my food. Obviously I won't just sit there, and I might go so far as to call your action immoral, but is it? Really? Or are you willing to let your own kids starve to death so I can be a selfish pig and you can be 'moral'?

Then why do some people adopt? Even when they can have biological children? Stupidity?

Yes. They've been gulled into believing that 'every child is precious' when in fact only their own genetic heirs are worth their time and effort.

Honesty is a virtue.

I agree, but it is still an arbitrary concept.

It is a virtue because without it, human society cannot function. If you cannot trust anything that anyone says, you cannot form a workable society. Therefore, while you may disregard the importance of keeping one's word, it is obvious that you simply haven't thought about it.

Why is it that my disagreeing with you means that I haven't thought about it? Perhaps I came to a different conclusion?

Now this is pure bullshit sophistry. You cannot claim that religion and morality are interconnected by defining interconnectivity so loosely that everything is interconnected! By that token, bowel movements and morality are interconnected too!

In a way they are. Is it considered moral to drop your pants in the middle of the mall and take a big dump on the floor in front of everyone? Or would that be considered immoral?

Wrong. My code of morality is based on a few core assumed goals, and I have never denied that. But it is a lie to compare it to religion, because it does not require belief in nonexistent phenomena at any time, in any way. It is based purely on objective reality, and goals which apply to that objective reality.

No, you are wrong. A hand axe is objective reality. It exists outside of us, and independant of us. Concepts like good and evil, right and wrong, love and hate, exist only within our minds. I die, and my conception of those things dies with me. Sure it's a good idea for you and I to work together. We evolved the ability to work together because it made individual survival easier. But that doesn't mean we 'have' to work together, or that we are 'bad' or 'immoral' if we don't.

[Antediluvian]

I'm a secular humanist. No surprise there.

[Durandal]

100% secular humanist, but I'm more Mormon than Catholic, and I was raised Catholic. :)

[Darth Wong]

Why is it important to not cause pain and suffering?

That is the underlying assumption of humanism. I have never claimed it to be anything but an assumption (see the Objectivism thread). It is no more or less of an assumption than your notion that morality should be based on self-interest.

The suffering of others doesn't affect my survival. If your children are starving, and I have food but won't share, and you have a gun, what are you going to do? It's in your self-interest to kill me and take my food. Obviously I won't just sit there, and I might go so far as to call your action immoral, but is it? Really? Or are you willing to let your own kids starve to death so I can be a selfish pig and you can be 'moral'?

Of course not. I will threaten to shoot you and then take the food. That is an act borne of necessity and desperation, not morality.

I agree, but it is still an arbitrary concept.

Define "arbitrary" in this context.

Is it considered moral to drop your pants in the middle of the mall and take a big dump on the floor in front of everyone? Or would that be considered immoral?

It is rude and unhygienic and illegal. That has nothing to do with morality or immorality.

No, you are wrong. A hand axe is objective reality. It exists outside of us, and independant of us. Concepts like good and evil, right and wrong, love and hate, exist only within our minds.

You obviously don't get it. Good and evil are not objective, but that is not what I was talking about. I was talking about goals (eg- eliiminating pain and suffering) which pertain to objective reality. Pain and suffering are objective (at least when we speak of physical pain and suffering, as opposed to emotional). If we decide to call that achievement of that goal "good", that is a subjective value judgement, hence the assumption inherent in all systems of morality.

This is not remotely comparable to religion, which asks us to believe in fairy tales and other imaginary phenomena. A doctor can verify whether your body is wracked with disease or severely burned, etc. Pain and suffering are objective in that sense. In theory, we may be able to measure pain neurotransmitters as well someday, and be able to quantitatively measure pain. But religion? It is purely subjective. Any goals which pertain to religion pertain to subjective phenomena.

[John]

Of course not. I will threaten to shoot you and then take the food. That is an act borne of necessity and desperation, not morality.

And what is morality but a codification of necessity?

Define "arbitrary" in this context.

Made up out of the whole cloth as the moment demands it. Or, if you will, 'It sprang like Athena, fully grown from the brow of Zeus."

It is rude and unhygienic and illegal. That has nothing to do with morality or immorality.

Aren't those most of the definitions of 'immoral'?

You obviously don't get it. Good and evil are not objective, but that is not what I was talking about. I was talking about goals (eg- eliiminating pain and suffering) which pertain to objective reality. Pain and suffering are objective (at least when we speak of physical pain and suffering, as opposed to emotional). If we decide to call that achievement of that goal "good", that is a subjective value judgement, hence the assumption inherent in all systems of morality.

How can you ever know for sure that I am even experiencing pain? You have only my say so to go on. As for the last, yes! morality is subjective! and thus, arbitrary!

This is not remotely comparable to religion, which asks us to believe in fairy tales and other imaginary phenomena. A doctor can verify whether your body is wracked with disease or severely burned, etc. Pain and suffering are objective in that sense.

No Doc, it doesn't hurt at all. Save the morphine for the guys who need it.

In theory, we may be able to measure pain neurotransmitters as well someday, and be able to quantitatively measure pain. But religion? It is purely subjective. Any goals which pertain to religion pertain to subjective phenomena.

Yes! And morality is equally subjective, since the two grew out of similar needs.

[Darth Wong]

And what is morality but a codification of necessity?

A set of values. When we put aside those values for the sake of necessity, we behave in an immoral fashion. That doesn't mean we won't do it. I would kill to protect my children, but unlike you, I would not claim that this act springs from morality.

Define "arbitrary" in this context.

Made up out of the whole cloth as the moment demands it. Or, if you will, 'It sprang like Athena, fully grown from the brow of Zeus."

Then my scheme of morality is not arbitrary. It is based on a set of principles which do not change as the moment demands it. Your scheme of morality is arbitrary, since you feel that anything you deem necessary or useful to you is moral at any time.

It is rude and unhygienic and illegal. That has nothing to do with morality or immorality.

Aren't those most of the definitions of 'immoral'?

No. You are wasting time with strawman distortions. It is possible to be rude without being immoral. It is possible to be unhygienic without being immoral. It is possible to break the law without being immoral.

How can you ever know for sure that I am even experiencing pain? You have only my say so to go on.

Now you're engaging in pure sophistry. We can tell from the damage to someone's body whether he is experiencing pain, except in special cases where our medical technology is still limited (eg- back pain, which is not exactly a common subject of morality issues). We can determine whether a murder victim suffered a great deal of pain before he died, simply from tissue damage, length of time to die, etc. You are trying to generate ambiguity in order to pretend that objective criteria are just as subjective as religious beliefs, which is simply ridiculous.

As for the last, yes! morality is subjective! and thus, rbitrary!

No, I'm afraid not. By your own definition of "arbitrary", it is possible for something to be arbitrary without being subjective, and it is possible for something to be subjective without being arbitrary. Moreover, my scheme of morality is based on a subjectively chosen goal, applied to objective phenomena. It is ridiculous of you to say that this is no more objective than religious beliefs which discard objective phenomena entirely, in favour of revelation etc.

By the way, you are committing the black/white fallacy, where something is either 100% subjective or 100% objective. Since my scheme of morality is 95% objective (a subjective value judgement applied to goals which pertain to objective reality), you claim that it is no better than something which is 0% objective, such as religion. You do know that this is a fallacy, right?

[John]

And what is morality but a codification of necessity?
A set of values. When we put aside those values for the sake of necessity, we behave in an immoral fashion. That doesn't mean we won't do it. I would kill to protect my children, but unlike you, I would not claim that this act springs from morality.

I never said it sprang from morality, only self interest.

Then my scheme of morality is not arbitrary. It is based on a set of principles which do not change as the moment demands it. Your scheme of morality is arbitrary, since you feel that anything you deem necessary or useful to you is moral at any time.

I'm amoral. There's a difference. Since when is acting against your own self-interest because of some rule you or somebody else made up a smart thing to do?

No. You are wasting time with strawman distortions. It is possible to be rude without being immoral. It is possible to be unhygienic without being immoral. It is possible to break the law without being immoral.

As your wife's grandparent's did when they rejected you arbitraily?

By the way, you are committing the black/white fallacy, where something is either 100% subjective or 100% objective. Since my scheme of morality is 95% objective (a subjective value judgement applied to goals which pertain to objective reality), you claim that it is no better than something which is 0% objective, such as religion. You do know that this is a fallacy, right?

I don't. Please explain. As far as I am concerned, it doesn't matter how right you are...if I win, you were wrong.

post edited to make it more coherent

[John]

Ok, guys, I'm gonna call it quits until tomorrow, cause I've been in the sauce again. Mike, I look forward to crossing swords with you again. Regards, J. S. Ertz.