ERICOPOLY

Just drive around some towns and look at the "Jesus Saves!" signs. Never have I seen "Jesus May or May Not Save!" on such a sign, nor do they seem to have any modesty in expressing this opinion of theirs publicly. To all the religious persons who are tired of the arrogance of the atheists: Keep your views to yourselves. Take them off of the public radio waves, take them off of cable TV, take down your billboards espousing your views, remove your bibles from hotel rooms and carry your own, don't come to my front door and ask me to listen to your viewpoints (I don't walk up to your front door and ask you to hear my atheist views), agree out of respect for the atheists to remove your "one nation under God" verbage, etc... etc...

No, for me, I am going to view them as good or evil from the context of my social unit. Similarly, Bush is a good moral man to some Christians and to others (families of civilians bombed in Pakistan) he may be viewed as a cruel evil man.

Where does morality fit in with religion? I see morality as merely the manifestation of social instincts. A moral person cares for how his actions affect the good of the social unit. To me that is 100% social evolutionary advantage. The more the social unit works together... "united we stand divided we fall", that kind of stuff. We have instinctual pressures to work together within our social units, which can be church groups, sports teams, nations, etc... Most of the "top of the list" immoral acts throughout history have been crimes done by one social unit unto another. Think of the Mountain Meadows massacre, the bombing of Tokyo, etc... Social instincts drive us to work together to meet the goals of our social unit (we call this morality), but when our social unit needs to be defended from another that we are at war with we respond by protecting our social unit from percieved harm from other social units -- that's when we get to the immorality of war (Mountain Meadows, the bombing of Tokyo, etc...) Both morality and immorality in this case are just the manifestations of social instincts. The role I see that religion plays in promoting morality is merely as a venue. A concert needs a venue. Religion is a gathering of people into a social unit (the venue), and that social unit can then exercise social instincts (morality). Do you believe in good and evil? If morality is only based on evolution/natural selection there is nothing inherently good or evil. Madoff is only an extension of his childhood/genes/environment as his Hilter as is a child molester. Am I right or do you view it differently? What would make you believe in a deity? If you are seriously interested in this, I'd recommend Mere Christianity. Not to be a cop out, but he explains it much better than I do. Good and evil are nuanced. I believe in suffering, empathy and guilt. An empathetic person that eases the suffering of others is deemed as "good". One lacking in empathy for others is "evil". The "evil" person may just be working for the good of his social unit -- see "immorality" in the context of war. Good and evil to me belong in the context of those three things (there may be more than three things at work here, but those are my "big three" from 10 seconds of thinking).

Where does morality fit in with religion? I see morality as merely the manifestation of social instincts. A moral person cares for how his actions affect the good of the social unit. To me that is 100% social evolutionary advantage. The more the social unit works together... "united we stand divided we fall", that kind of stuff. We have instinctual pressures to work together within our social units, which can be church groups, sports teams, nations, etc... Most of the "top of the list" immoral acts throughout history have been crimes done by one social unit unto another. Think of the Mountain Meadows massacre, the bombing of Tokyo, etc... Social instincts drive us to work together to meet the goals of our social unit (we call this morality), but when our social unit needs to be defended from another that we are at war with we respond by protecting our social unit from percieved harm from other social units -- that's when we get to the immorality of war (Mountain Meadows, the bombing of Tokyo, etc...) Both morality and immorality in this case are just the manifestations of social instincts. The role I see that religion plays in promoting morality is merely as a venue. A concert needs a venue. Religion is a gathering of people into a social unit (the venue), and that social unit can then exercise social instincts (morality).

So for you if the eye can't "just happen" by accident, it's much easier for you to believe that it's creator "just happened"? The Deity seems more complex than the eye. Me, I favor the less complex of the two as more likely to happen by accident. Or if forced to accept that the Deity created the eye, I would have to restructure the religion a bit to explain that the Deity must have had a creator, who in turn had a creator, etc... etc... Deities are more complicated than eyes, that's my line and I'm sticking to it. I just don't know if religions take into account that the Deity must by definition be at least as complicated than what it is able to create. So to use the argument that our world is so perfect that it could only have been created by a deity who in turn could not have been created... Is it offensive to religions to suggest that their God may have been created. Why would it be? Why do they believe that this God was not created by a long chain of Gods? Where is their proof that it wasn't?

It goes deeper than that even. The dog has a special intelligence to recognize our facial expressions and thus understand our emotions. The wolf does not. Look up the Nova program on this -- I found it on Hulu.

Religion doesn't answer the question of what created the deity. Or what created the something that created the deity. It gets infinitely recursive. Thus it provides not an answer in the form of intelligent design. Not for me anyhow, because I see the infinite recursion in the logical loop. A programmer would call that "a bug".

Yes, dogs were selectively bred when they pleased their human "pack". There are evolutionary advantages to the well adjusted male human that pleases the human "pack" -- women attracted to power for example. One gains power through social interactions. Women are also attracted to men who can provide for them and their children. There are many non-dog examples in the animal kingdom where their is caring for one another and cooporation. They are social instincts, not hammered out in morals.

It (morality and meaning) comes from social instincts. If one's social instinct is to kill someone and take his shoes, how is that any worse (or better) than someone who is willing to risk his or her life for a loved one? I find it interesting that the large family dog isn't brought along to church on Sunday, yet it won't kill you while you sleep and eat you. But a lion will. ;) I was searching for the wolf, but the lion will do. The dog has evolved instincts to live in a social unit with humans. This did not come down from The Ten Commandments. Dog's don't read stone tablets.

It (morality and meaning) comes from social instincts. If one's social instinct is to kill someone and take his shoes, how is that any worse (or better) than someone who is willing to risk his or her life for a loved one? I find it interesting that the large family dog isn't brought along to church on Sunday, yet it won't kill you while you sleep and eat you.

It (morality and meaning) comes from social instincts.

How about we use our morals to take away the right of Christians to practice religion, but allow all other religions in our country? I say that would be tyranny. You would disagree. It's not tyranny, you'd say, because in your language it would be simply "We have to enforce some morals." I'm sorry I thought we were trying to have an intelligent discussion. Clearly I was mistaken. It entered The Twilight Zone stage hours ago when you argued that discrimination was merely a moral viewpoint.

How about we use our morals to take away the right of Christians to practice religion, but allow all other religions in our country? I say that would be tyranny. You would disagree. It's not tyranny, you'd say, because in your language it would be simply "We have to enforce some morals."

Ahhh... the slippery slope defense. Very clever! Let me ask you this. How can we justify the legality of marriage between two consenting heterosexual persons? For that logic would... support the legalization of polygamy, prostitution, euthanasia, gambling, drug use, drug sales, drunk driving (as long as no one gets hurt), public drunkenness, indecent exposure (or public nudity), the right to bear arms, duels, elimination of all zoning laws, speeding (as long as no non-consenting adult or his/her property is impacted), etc. Yet how can you reconcile this basic fact. We have in fact legalized heterosexual marriage between two consenting adults and yet we haven't fallen down that slippery path. Eh? My comments are not a slippery slope at all. A slippery slope is typically an argument where one argument leads to another and then another (A to B to C, etc.). What I am saying is that it seems to me that your logic that "one should not enforce our morals on others" should result in you holding those other (libertarian) positions if it is consistent. If you don't hold to those positions, then you probably don't actually believe the argument you made. Or I am missing something? Aren't laws based on morals? Must all laws be in 100% agreement? If it is supported by 99%, isn't that enforcing our morals on the 1%? I guess I don't understand your logic. I believe prostitution should be legal for all decent folks -- except for bible thumpers. I believe gambling should be legal for all decent folks -- except for bible thumpers. ... ... There are two messages here. 1) libertarian positions 2) discrimination Prostitution can either be legal or illegal, but not legal for some like me and illegal for others (those damn faggots). That would be a libertarian bigot.

Romney actually could quite possibly be guilty of a sex crime. Massachusetts' anti-sodomy law wasn't repealed until 2002. Under that law, even oral sex between married couples was a criminal violation.

Ahhh... the slippery slope defense. Very clever! Let me ask you this. How can we justify the legality of marriage between two consenting heterosexual persons? For that logic would... support the legalization of polygamy, prostitution, euthanasia, gambling, drug use, drug sales, drunk driving (as long as no one gets hurt), public drunkenness, indecent exposure (or public nudity), the right to bear arms, duels, elimination of all zoning laws, speeding (as long as no non-consenting adult or his/her property is impacted), etc. Yet how can you reconcile this basic fact. We have in fact legalized heterosexual marriage between two consenting adults and yet we haven't fallen down that slippery path. Eh?

So forcing someone who is against say abortion or birthcontrol to pay for it for someone else, is not using the state to enforce their morals upon others. No, I don't believe it is. That argument is more in the category of wanting to repeal taxation based on the argument that a portion of the taxes financed the killing in Iraq.

I can't vote for Republicans because they advance the agenda of the religious conservatives. Which leaves me with only Obama to vote for. I knew we would get to religion. :) Seriously. Clinton and Obama I were against gay marriage. Not that anyone with a brain believed Obama when he said that (it was clearly a lick your finger and see which direction the wind is blowing flip flop like Romney on abortion). Clinton had "don't ask don't tell" and even signed DOMA. Hard to believe that is the deal breaker. Does that mean abortion is the issue that prevents you from voting Republican? Even if the Supreme Court changed its opinion, which is unlikely, it would become a state issue, and remain legal in the first trimester in most states. Or am I missing something? The Bible thumping religious extremists support the Democrats because... hmm, I can't quite finish that statement, can you help me out? They don't. Outside of the African American community they are steadily moving Republican. No doubt that many conservative Christians vote based on their moral values, just as you apparently do. You are just on opposite sides. The side I am on wants, for example, to allow everyone the right to marry no matter what their morals are. The other side wants to use their morality to keep from people the right to marry. It's not simply a mere disagreement over morals as you portray it to be. Those people are all about using the power of the state to enforce their own morals upon others! That's tyranny. The Democrats haven't gone far enough on this issue, but they're further along than the Republicans. That's an example of why I would vote Democrat over Republican.

I can't vote for Republicans because they advance the agenda of the religious conservatives. Which leaves me with only Obama to vote for. I knew we would get to religion. :) Seriously. Clinton and Obama I were against gay marriage. Not that anyone with a brain believed Obama when he said that (it was clearly a lick your finger and see which direction the wind is blowing flip flop like Romney on abortion). Clinton had "don't ask don't tell" and even signed DOMA. Hard to believe that is the deal breaker. Does that mean abortion is the issue that prevents you from voting Republican? Even if the Supreme Court changed its opinion, which is unlikely, it would become a state issue, and remain legal in the first trimester in most states. Or am I missing something? The Bible thumping religious extremists support the Democrats because... hmm, I can't quite finish that statement, can you help me out?

I can't vote for Republicans because they advance the agenda of the religious conservatives. Which leaves me with only Obama to vote for.

Moore, The Republicans don't seem interested in taxing capital gains and dividends at the rate of ordinary income. That was the recommendation under the first Bowles-Simpson plan. The "Zero Plan". I believe the Republican's call this "rasing taxes on the rich" or "class warfare" whenever Obama suggests something of the like. What flavor do you see them supporting? I know you asked Moore, but I couldn't resist. Republicans like Democrats desire to tax dividends and capital gains twice and thus at a higher rate than ordinary income. :) The Democrats just want to do it at a substantially higher rate. The problem is that Obama calls for something different. He just wants to raise the tax rates on the rich, although he has proposed lowering corporate tax rates, while eliminating certain deductions. Simpson-Bowles plan was to lower income tax rates and eliminate deductions (Romney has broadly called for this too). If I am not mistaken, Simpson - Bowles calls for a corporate tax rate of 26% versus the current 35% and just three individual tax rates - 9, 15 and 24, versus the current 10, 15, 25, 28, 33 and 35. I personally think Republicans could support that assuming there was some seriousness from the other side about slowing spending growth. Okay, so which of the three Simpson-Bowles plans is the Republican candidate ready to sign? Moore lays it out that Obama has stood in the way of getting any of the plans adopted. I haven't heard Romney enunciate his favorite of the three plans. Thus I doubt his sincerity. He just takes what the Republicans want from those plans and runs on that. Thus he is truly going to reach a deal with the Democrats on this, right? No, I believe he will not. Thus, how will the Republicans get anything done with this "me, me, me" attitude? For example, Romney does propose new lower tax rates, but he does not propose counting income and dividends as regular income. He still wants those taxed at 15%.

Moore, The Republicans don't seem interested in taxing capital gains and dividends at the rate of ordinary income. That was the recommendation under the first Bowles-Simpson plan. The "Zero Plan". I believe the Republican's call this "rasing taxes on the rich" or "class warfare" whenever Obama suggests something of the like. What flavor do you see them supporting?

It does appear that the expansion of home ownership was one of his priorities: We're creating... an ownership society in this country, where more Americans than ever will be able to open up their door where they live and say, welcome to my house, welcome to my piece of property. - President George W. Bush, October 2004.

Like this lifting of state tyranny in Texas? http://www.wnd.com/2003/06/19490/ Citing the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause, the high court said in its 6-3 ruling that states cannot punish homosexual couples for engaging in sex acts that are legal for heterosexuals.

To quote Parsad from Feb 23rd: Yankee only post on political threads which is unlike any other poster here. Even Ben Graham and that other guy post about LVLT..."