Forums → WEPR → Moral
| 34 | 17708 |
We an say what oral is, but some imes we don't know is something moral or not. So ask here.
Esemple:
Is it moral to kill someone and save other two by doing this?
- 34 Replies
The emotional attachment to life, all life, is a fundamental part of those morals as well.
I would go even further and say this is the underlying reason for morals; for morals stem from empathy, and empathy makes you feel this emotional attachment to a life other than yours.
Utter crap. Brain functions are brain-functions. No brain - no brainfunction. And if you'd be so good to look up a book on the subject from later than the '90s...
That is not quite what Ishtaron meant, I think. And he is kind of right: we still have only a vague understanding of how all our brain functions create our consciousness. He is wrong in saying that our brain is not understood in the slightest, though; we do know much already. There simply is a LOT more to learn yet.
Furthermore, the energy that does allow the brain to function fades after death but energy cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore that energy must either go somewhere else or be converted into another form, but science doesn't have any evidence to indicate what happens to that energy.
It may not be exactly what you were implying, but I still feel compelled to say there is no such thing as a vital energy as proposed in the out-dated concept of vitalism. Neural signalling works through electrical currents created by differences in charged chemicals between the neurons, creating an electric potential. Once the body dies, the brain stops getting oxygen, the neurons stop working, and no more currents are sent. There is no energy set free to roam around, however, as all chemicals are still in the neurons; and with the necessary outward inputs a living neuron can still transmit signals, even in a dead body; or did you never hear about Luigi Galvanis experiments with frog legs?
You'd need to make a connection between life and brain function.
This was not the question. Life in GENERAL of course starts with something way lower than a brain. But than we'll have to ask "what is life"?
To be able to talk about an "afterlife", or "rotolife" we'll have to discuss organisms, and especially what can "be alive" without a physical body.
The only candidate for this must be a "soul", what must be related to self-awareness, what must be attached to cosciousness, and we could prove that consciousness is nothing but a brain-function, what as you recognised can not be separate from the brain. But as we can clearly see without brain there is no personality/consciousness/soul, therefor there is no afterlife.
Anything less than a complete organism will land you with question as "do my appendix have a soul", what is just nonsense.
Any clearly physical part of the body is obviously can be seen what happens with after death (= rotting), so we don'thave to touch them.
-------
protolife is even easier. You have your parents. Their body through sheer chemical reactions create a sperm and an egg. They again by sheer chamical reaction merge, then divide and build a physical body with many attributes, including consciousness. All here clearly shows there isno need to anything supernatural, and every function of the body depends on the existance and work of the physical body, therefor nothing produced by the body can exist without a functioning body. End of story.
At the very least, the fetus has just a much of a brain the day before it is born as it does the day of its birth. So by your reasoning, there's something special about passing through the vaginal canal that gives us proper brain function.
Absolutely NOT!
The brain develops in its structure until - imma no sure - the first year of the newborn! And its weight grows even further! And it constantly reforms itself.
Why should anything happen during the actual birth-process? This is just something I clearly not said at all!
Yes, a fetus of that age is the point it starts to develop a brain. That's why (amongst other factors) the possibility of abortion is determined (right of the individual to life and all that). That's the point we start classifying it as an (semi-) individual organism instead of just a bunch of funny-formed cells.
It's also worth noting that dead people still have brains
They do, but as I CLEARLY SAID you'd need a WORKING BRAIN. You simply misquote/quotemining me. Stop that, it is considered lying.
mental states, and the like. These are deep and fascinating questions that can't be reduced to biological explanations.
Why not? As far as I can see you argument here it is "I don't know, therefor goddidit".
Does a sense of ethics arise with a higher level of consciousness merely as a biological/evolutionary advantage?
Absolutely!
Let's see modern ethic, or start with the very primitive ones which suffice to the first civilisations (like the hamurabbi tablets and whatnot), or even go to the animal level?
For example "thou shall not kill your own kind if you don't absolutely have to" is clearly the very foundation of a species to survive. All species keep to this, else they soon die out.
Equally comes such things as stealing: if people randomly take what they desire at the moment they'll bring away crucial things from stuff. And what happens if you steal the foundation of a building? It'll collapse.
On the other hand such "morals" religions give us, like "you must kill an ox every time you menstruate" (plenty of such thingsin the Bible, or in any other religion) gets eliminated, because they are not useful, and cost expenses.
This was not the question. Life in GENERAL of course starts with something way lower than a brain. But than we'll have to ask "what is life"?
The line I was taking is what's called a reductio. It's based off of the faulty premise that you gave regarding the necessity of a brain for life. Maybe I'm just misreading it, so I'll just leave the point aside.
But my main point still stands. While a brain is still necessary for life, it's not sufficient (as my points about dead brains illustrates). What you need for an interesting argument is the sufficient condition here.
Absolutely NOT!
The brain develops in its structure until - imma no sure - the first year of the newborn! And its weight grows even further! And it constantly reforms itself.
Why should anything happen during the actual birth-process? This is just something I clearly not said at all!
Yes, a fetus of that age is the point it starts to develop a brain. That's why (amongst other factors) the possibility of abortion is determined (right of the individual to life and all that). That's the point we start classifying it as an (semi-) individual organism instead of just a bunch of funny-formed cells.
You've misread me again. I was using another reductio. But look - even taking this point (and your previous points) this would lead us to the conclusion that a newborn baby doesn't have any brain function. And, taken in the context of this thread, would entail that newborns aren't worthy of moral consideration.
But obviously nothing magical happens during birth. Reread my post to see what I'm on about.
They do, but as I CLEARLY SAID you'd need a WORKING BRAIN. You simply misquote/quotemining me. Stop that, it is considered lying.
Ah, you're right. I did misquote you. I was thinking that you had said that 'Brain => brain function". But what you in fact said was "No brain => no brain function". This is trivially true and is of no interest.
Why not? As far as I can see you argument here it is "I don't know, therefor goddidit".
I haven't provided an argument, though I can if you'd like. It would be a separate matter, however. But this goes as far back as the Logical Positivists in the mid 20th century. These questions simply cannot be reduced to sciences like biology or neuroscience - at least not a full explanation. I'm not giving an argument here, I'm just stating a fact as an authority on the matter. And no, I believe that 'goddidit' because I don't believe in god.
For example "thou shall not kill your own kind if you don't absolutely have to" is clearly the very foundation of a species to survive. All species keep to this, else they soon die out.
Equally comes such things as stealing: if people randomly take what they desire at the moment they'll bring away crucial things from stuff. And what happens if you steal the foundation of a building? It'll collapse.
This explanation makes no sense whatsoever. You're suggesting a proto-consequentialist ethical framework. But this doesn't match up with evolutionary ethics. And I'm not sure what you mean by stealing the foundation of a building. Why not steal the higher pieces? If you're trying to make some sort of metaphor here, then make it clear to your readers.
The emotional attachment to life, all life, is a fundamental part of those morals as well. You can even see that right here in the forums, just go over to the thread on the death penalty. The majority of the people opposing the death penalty were of the opinion that taking any life is inherently wrong, a very emotional perspective considering the subject.
That's specific to humans. Human life ≠ All life. The killing of termites and roaches rarely receives as much attention, despite occurring on a far larger scale for relatively petty reasons.
And death-penalty? Xianity is PRO-DEATH SENTENCE.
No, actually, it isn't.
Yep, we do have. Go to a cemetery. Pick up a book about the decomposing of the body. Pick another what explains brain functions (especially higher-brain functions, like consciousness).
Evidence? No.
And birth... Thought everyone learnt about procriation in secondary school in details. Like sperm cell + egg cell => baby?
Relevant? No.
Cell-differentiation maybe what you did not get? Also secondary-school stuff.
In any way pertaining to any part of the discussion? Not that I can see.
Utter crap. Brain functions are brain-functions. No brain - no brainfunction. And if you'd be so good to look up a book on the subject from later than the '90s...
Decomposition tells what happens to the brain. No brain => no brain-function.
Actually it does. It describes how from the merge of two cells (which creation by the parents is also described as a mere chemical reaction) builds up a brain, what produces the brain-functions. No brain => no brain function => no consciousness.
Conclusion: nothing there is to sustain an afterlife. And there was not even a chance for a "life before birth" (remember: no brain = no brain function).
In addition to what Moe already said,
Repetition ≠ Validation, Redundancy ≠> Legitimacy, ¬(Restatement = Confirmation). In other words:
Saying something multiple times does not make it true. Please repeat this handy catchphrase untill it becomes hardcoded into your subconscious.
Anything less than a complete organism will land you with question as "do my appendix have a soul", what is just nonsense.
Is this supposed to be a slippery slope argument? Or a reductio ad absurdum? Such a question, however nonsensical, has nothing at all to do with the discussion.
The only candidate for this must be a "soul", what must be related to self-awareness, what must be attached to cosciousness, and we could prove that consciousness is nothing but a brain-function, what as you recognised can not be separate from the brain. But as we can clearly see without brain there is no personality/consciousness/soul, therefor there is no afterlife.
Well, no. In fact, that's a terrible candidate. I think that everyone here can agree that having a soul is not dependent upon being conscious. On another note, saying something multiple times doesn't actually make it true.
They do, but as I CLEARLY SAID you'd need a WORKING BRAIN. You simply misquote/quotemining me. Stop that, it is considered lying.
That isn't quote mining. Here's a facetious example of what quote mining looks like (see above for the original statement). The only thing Moe quoted was your conclusion, in its entirety. Therefore the context is intact and you are a hypocrite.
For example "thou shall not kill your own kind if you don't absolutely have to" is clearly the very foundation of a species to survive. All species keep to this, else they soon die out.
That's completely wrong. Many animals kill members of their own species without any vital imperative. All species do not need to habitually slaughter their kin, however, so yet another slippery slope falls flat.
for morals stem from empathy
Actually, I rather think they stem from selfishness. People adhere to a moral system because they believe it benefits themselves. Even oppressive morals taught by fundamentalist thoughts conform to this, saying that it will grant access to higher rewards. No one conforms to a system of morals they think are harmful to themselves, even if it benefits others.
Empathy is used as an excuse to try and justify it to others when it's actually the fear of social rebuke that keeps the vast majority of people in line with moral behavior. Most do not care beyond their immediate social group what happens to others if there's no chance of it spreading to them.
It isn't until you get to higher levels of moral reasoning that we get universal systems of right and wrong for more objective reasons, and not until the theoretical high that you get people acting on these systems regardless of their own well being. The vast majority of people operate at the first two levels (Stages 1-2 and 3-4) of Kohlberg's classifications of moral reasoning.
But my main point still stands. While a brain is still necessary for life, it's not sufficient (as my points about dead brains illustrates). What you need for an interesting argument is the sufficient condition here.
Your point does not stand, and I explain now as I see somewhere the point is missed.
So, let's make the hypothesis there is an afterlife.
The question is, is it possible, and how is it possible if it is possible.
When someone discusses "afterlife" it is inevitably discussed as THE PERSON as an entity lives further, with memories, personality and consciousness.
So it is not just some "energy can not be destroyed, thus everything is immortal", because that is just not we're looking for.
So we must find something what produces the thing we will looking for, and contains the attributes of personality, consciousness and memories.
We know that life as we know it originates from the body. We know, that different parts of the body are responsible for different function.
So we must do a "live autopsy", and one-by-one remove parts of the body and locate personality, consciousness and memory, at least the prime organ which produces these during its function, and have to figure out how it makes them.
Skin? muscles? diggestive system? No. The answer is the brain. Make the brain working, and you have a thing with personality, consciousness and memories.
Must the brain be attached to eg. a heart? The answer is a definite no. If we sustain the necessary supplies to the brain to make it function, it'll still work as nothing happened.
Therefor we do not have to examine anything else but the brain.
Memories: identified source of them is protein molecules. Sry, nothing mysterious. Let these molecules consumed (= rotten, artificial extraction, chemical blocking etc.), and the "erson" will have no memories.
Consciousness and personality: they are identified as brain-functions. Yes, we don't know exactly how they work (for being complex and all), but if you stop the brain, there is nothing to sustain he electromagnetic activity what IS the personality/consciousness.
It is like generating an energy-field. Stop the accumlator, and the field will dissipate. Won't go anywhere, it'll just disappear, because there isnothing to hold the structure of the field.
This of course means there is nothing to "live after death". There is no soul. There is no afterlife.
this would lead us to the conclusion that a newborn baby doesn't have any brain function.
I dunno where you get this religious nonsense. Definitely not from me (else you could show where you reduct it from).
These questions simply cannot be reduced to sciences like biology or neuroscience - at least not a full explanation. I'm not giving an argument here,
Then what you do is preaching, what is a form of SPAM. I demand your post be deleted, according to the regulations..
And I'm not sure what you mean by stealing the foundation of a building. Why not steal the higher pieces?
Because it is an EXAMPLE. A "reductio". Stealing the "top pieces" is the same as stealing the bottom pieces, but stealing the bottom pieces gives more spectaculars.
@twillight2 - I'm not sure what you're trying to do at this point other than troll me, so I'm not going to engage with you. Besides, this has nothing to do with the topic of the thread (which, recall, is morality) and the discussion has long since moved on.
I do think there is some relevance between there being a god or an afterlife to morality, but I'll leave it to you (or someone else) to make this connection.
I'm not sure what you're trying to do at this point other than troll me, so I'm not going to engage with you. Besides, this has nothing to do with the topic of the thread
You was the one asked about afterlife. Answering your question is defined as "trolling"?
I must assume you are trolling Moegreche.
But to settle the question of moral once and for all:
religion is amoral at best. Religion bases its followers behaviour on the slavemaster's (=god) ad-hoc orders, and that has nothing to do with moral.
As all current society are moralists, we can conclude these societies has nothing to do with religious values (and especially not xian values, as Ishtarion tried to imply).
And the basis of the secular moral systems, from which the relative moral systems selects out as survivors, are fundamentally origin on the basis that life is valuable for a secular cause, and one of the cause that life is valuable is, that there is no afterlife, else there is no loss with killing, and if afterlife is "a better place", killing should actually be supported, and not punished.
Just to summarise page 2-3 of this topic.
religion is amoral at best.
Religion isn't much related with values. Culture perpetuates values and religion just comes along for the ride. As the culture changes the way of interpreting religion changes, whereby the religious find justifications for their morals in their texts.
Religion bases its followers behaviour on the slavemaster's (=god) ad-hoc orders, and that has nothing to do with moral.
There are other religions than theistic ones, and not all theistic religions have morals given to them by any gods that they might believe exist.
As all current society are moralists, we can conclude these societies has nothing to do with religious values (and especially not xian values, as Ishtarion tried to imply).
Non-sequitr. You're drawing a conclusion on nothing. What you're saying here doesn't even connect. Not all societies are the same, existence of morals outside of religious context doesn't make religious morals not exist, and stating this doesn't mean people don't have Christian values.
And the basis of the secular moral systems, from which the relative moral systems selects out as survivors, are fundamentally origin on the basis that life is valuable for a secular cause, and one of the cause that life is valuable is, that there is no afterlife, else there is no loss with killing, and if afterlife is "a better place", killing should actually be supported, and not punished.
This is just your view. There are other reasons why "Do not Kill" is a moral position most civilizations have had towards people of their own groups.
religion is amoral at best. Religion bases its followers behaviour on the slavemaster's (=god) ad-hoc orders, and that has nothing to do with moral.
Amoral is something that isn't up for moral appraisal. There are obviously moral standards associated with religions - i.e. things that one ought or ought not do based on certain standards set forth by that religion.
Now, you do bring up a problem of "ad-hoc orders". While the tenets of religions aren't ad hoc, there is what's called the Euthyphro Dilemma. But this is a separate issue about the justification of theistic-based morality - not its existence. (Remember, I'm just focused on your claim that religion is amoral.)
As all current society are moralists, we can conclude these societies has nothing to do with religious values (and especially not xian values, as Ishtarion tried to imply).
This conclusion is just too quick, and it might be based on order of explanation confusion. So some atheists challenge religiously-based morality on this following sort of incoherent story. Imagine Moses coming down from Mount Sinai with the 10 commandments - one of which was to not kill. It's not as if people were running around killing each other before that with no idea that such behaviour was wrong.
Instead, religious text (at least the stuff dealing with what we ought to do) is meant to codify our divinely-instilled sense of morality. Part of the Genesis story (eating the apple from the tree of knowledge) is meant to explain how we became moral agents. Genesis 3:5 is translated along the lines of allowing man to know good from evil. In that same chapter, there is also reference to becoming like God (which I can only assume means understanding right and wrong in that specific sense).
But, of course, this was all well before any religions were formed. And, of course, this is intended as a metaphor. But, metaphor or not, the theistic line is that our moral nature stems from God.
When someone discusses "afterlife" it is inevitably discussed as THE PERSON as an entity lives further, with memories, personality and consciousness.
No, it isn't. That's just a popular notion.
We know that life as we know it originates from the body.
No, we don't. The body is an organic product. Therefore, its very existence requires the involvement of life. It cannot be the prerequisite of its own prerequisite.
Make the brain working, and you have a thing with personality, consciousness and memories.
No, you don't. All you have there is a functional brain. All the rest requires sensory input and development.
Memories: identified source of them is protein molecules.
No, it isn't.
Consciousness and personality: they are identified as brain-functions.
Erroneously, because they aren't.
I dunno where you get this religious nonsense.
It's a rewording of your own conclusion. Are you sure you're not really a very, very confused theist? Look:
Conclusion: nothing there is to sustain an afterlife. And there was not even a chance for a "life before birth" (remember: no brain = no brain function).
A developing fetus is 'before birth'.
You say that there is no life 'before birth', on the grounds that no brain = no brain function.
Therefore, by your premise that brain function and life are codependent, you conclude that an unborn fetus has no brain function and, even more strangely, no brain.
Moe countered this with the following statement:
At the very least, the fetus has just a much of a brain the day before it is born as it does the day of its birth.
To which you reply with:
Absolutely NOT!
Clearly, even you do not understand what you're trying to say here.
Then what you do is preaching, what is a form of SPAM. I demand your post be deleted, according to the regulations..
1 No, it isn't.
2 No, it isn't.
3 The conventional approach to silencing those who challenge your views is by shouting "WITCH! INFIDEL! HERESY!", but I suppose your method is equally effective.
Because it is an EXAMPLE. A "reductio". Stealing the "top pieces" is the same as stealing the bottom pieces, but stealing the bottom pieces gives more spectaculars.
It's a poor example and a faulty analogy.
religion is amoral at best. Religion bases its followers behaviour on the slavemaster's (=god) ad-hoc orders, and that has nothing to do with moral.
A gross exaggeration of an unfair generalization, and therefore, completely invalid.
(and especially not xian values, [...]
This is starting to irritate me, now.
There are obviously moral standards associated with religions
Religion has no moral. The Master Says So is not in the field of moral, because the system lacks reason.
There is no "theistic-based morality", only "theistic based behaviour". Far from being the same.
Imagine Moses coming down from Mount Sinai with the 10 commandments - one of which was to not kill. It's not as if people were running around killing each other before that with no idea that such behaviour was wrong.
Well, firstly there is no "do not kill" commandment in the 10 Commandmenst of the Bible. Let me list what the Bible lists as The 10Commandment:
#1 Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.
#2 Do not make molten images.
#3: Keep the feast of the unleavened bread.
#4: The firstborn male shall be sacrifised to Elohim
#5: work for 6 days, rest for 1.
#6: Observe the Festival of Weeks.
#7: Thrice a year all men shall appear in the Temple.
#8: Thou shalt not offer blood sacrifices with leaven.
#9: Thou shalt bring your first fruits to the house of the Lord.
#10: Do not boil the goat in its mother's milk.
THIS is the Ten Commandment in the Bible, not that random list you hear about in sunday-scools. There is no "do not kill" commandment here.
But even the sunday-school made-up version has no contradiction for the Mose-story: the blasphemy-laws come first on that list. So killing/murder according to that is way less a crime than eg. not believing in Yahwe, and by it the Bible is a propaganda calling to commit genocide, thus illegal, and should be banned, all religions based on these doctrines (judaism, christianity, islam) shall be banned. Amongst other issues trespassing the law.
Still, this list is ad-hoc. Not based on any principle, just a random list which you supposed to obey without criticism. Thus has nothing to do with moral.
------------
When someone discusses "afterlife" it is inevitably discussed as THE PERSON as an entity lives further, with memories, personality and consciousness.No, it isn't. That's just a popular notion.
Then define "afterlife". Your appendix will have its own afterlife? And how will you (as a complex organism) be in your afterliffe without your appendix? Or brain?
Any other estimation makes the question obsolate - not worthy to pay any attention.
The body is an organic product. Therefore, its very existence requires the involvement of life.
Dead bodies tell otherwise.
No, you don't. All you have there is a functional brain.
As the consciousness/personality/memory are functions of the brain, YES, YOU DO.
The rest of FishPreferred's comment are equally just empty denials, aka. trolling, so won't touch it. And other way of trolling, like "
A developing fetus is 'before birth'." where s/he tries to mislead the conversation.
Religion has no moral. The Master Says So is not in the field of moral, because the system lacks reason.
There is no "theistic-based morality", only "theistic based behaviour". Far from being the same.
"(morals) Standards of behaviour; principles of right and wrong"
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/moral
So yes, religion does contain morals.
Dead bodies tell otherwise.
Now you're just being silly. A dead body was alive before.
.
But I guess what twillight2 actually meant was that what sustains life in an individual is the body, not any kind of supernatural energy or soul. That I would agree with.
.
I also agree that the concept of a soul is not needed to explain consciousness, which I'm sure is essentially what twillight2 is trying to get at. How can we link it to morals? Supposedly, a religious person acts morally because it is the only way to get to heaven. So if you could convince a religious person that there is no afterlife, does that mean that said person will suddenly see no reason to continue and behave morally? I think not; it will definitely impact that person, but as I am convinced morality does not originate from beilef but from ourselves (I say empathy, Kasic says selfishness), that person will simply ned to find another reason to continue their moral behaviour. That reason will likely be society.
So yes, religion does contain morals.
Your link says otherwise actually. But approach the question from another angle:
what is the reason for moral? To do things better. What does boiling a goat in milk have to do with anything? And more importantly: where the Slavemater Order originates from? Because the basis of morality comes from reasoned, observed events in the real world, and not some ad-hoc claims.
But just to give a nook where you can move: as the commandments of the Slavemaster are ad-hoc, all religion's morality (used the word in the widest sense) originates from 1 basis: do as your superior orders.
I wouldn't name this a "system"...
Now you're just being silly. A dead body was alive before.
A dead body is still a body.
And you definitely did not hear about birth-defects. like babies growing without brains. They have a body. But were never alive.
Supposedly, a religious person acts morally because it is the only way to get to heaven.
My question here is, why would you make the effort to go into that heaven? I mean we're talking about eternal life, the most horrid concept in history. No matter where you spend an eternity, it is the most terrible thing anyone can come up with.
And religion's teaching about behaviour... We still talking about xianity, right? The religion that condones slavery, considers rape as marriage-ritual, advocates killing children, executing genocide, encourage thieving, glorifies murder, oppresses women, advocates killing homosexuals, and forbids "boiling the goat in its mother's milk" (must be an important everyday issue if it landed as the 10th Commandment, eh?).
And according to the One Commandment of religions you can't even discuss changing these "moral guidences".
EDIT: THIS is what was left out from the definition of moral when only claiming it "comes from stories telling how to behave": "Moral actions guide us toward life and happiness."
Now religion, as it is only blind obedience to the Master who gives ad-hoc orders is amoral, as the orders are not based on good or bad, but randomness and momentary ideas.
Your link says otherwise actually.
When you say that, please actually show me where it says so.
what is the reason for moral?
Irrelevant. The actual origin of morals does not change the fact that religions have morals. As defined before, morals is just acting according to a good/bad code. The reason why you may disagree with religious morals is that you have a different notion of good/bad, but that doesn't make their version inexistent.
What does boiling a goat in milk have to do with anything?
This isn't a moral, this is a ritual.
And more importantly: where the Slavemater Order originates from?
See above. A moral can be a bad thing, but is still a moral.
A dead body is still a body.
You missed the point...
And you definitely did not hear about birth-defects. like babies growing without brains. They have a body. But were never alive.
They likely died very early, but they were still alive. A brain is absolutely no prerequisite for life; just look at microbes, plants, or brainless animals like sponges.
My question here is, why would you make the effort to go into that heaven? I mean we're talking about eternal life, the most horrid concept in history. No matter where you spend an eternity, it is the most terrible thing anyone can come up with.
I too grew to abhor the notion of eternity, but many people don't share this view. For many, a life after death is a welcome alternative to actual death, a consolation that they will not simply cease to exist. Why do you think many people want to leave something on this world, be it a scientific innovation, a monument or anything? They don't want to be forgotten. People cannot stand the idea of being completely forgotten.
And religion's teaching about behaviour... We still talking about xianity, right? The religion that condones slavery, considers rape as marriage-ritual, advocates killing children, executing genocide, encourage thieving, glorifies murder, oppresses women, advocates killing homosexuals, and forbids "boiling the goat in its mother's milk" (must be an important everyday issue if it landed as the 10th Commandment, eh?).
And according to the One Commandment of religions you can't even discuss changing these "moral guidences".
Yep. Still talking about that Christianity. But it changed with society, as would be expected from a human cultural thing rather than from an actually god-enforced thing.
You must be logged in to post a reply!