You completely missed my point; I very well know that being father and human isn't something positive per se; I only wanted to say he wasn't some kind of monster slain by the noble knight. I find it exaggerated to celebrate so excessively the execution of someone who could have very well been you, and when looking at all the news that had those big titles like Burn in Hell, I think this is all ridiculous. Considering he wasn't even active lately within Al-Qaida, and that one man was hunted by a whole nation only because of vengeance, celebrating his death is only one of the parts that fuel the process of violence and endless retaliation.
Endless retaliation will always occur if America is still in the country fighting. Same goes for any other country, of course.
Plus, violence is used so much because its the highest power, if you're right, it doesn't have to matter to the opposition - they have a gun, you don't, the end. Whilst I will never, EVER believe that is the method we should cross, it is how many people live life.
Also, I don't know how much people celebrated his death, perhaps it was exaggerated. It is rediculous and neither side of the conflict is perfect, which is often what people don't see. As previously mentioned in this thread:
(Most) People are idiots
Hooray for the death of Bin Laden, don't overdo it - is that what we're both saying?
Oh, just to clarify - before I was against HahiHa, now I think I'm agreeing with him. I don't want it to seem like it was a misunderstanding from both of us - it was me lol
Plus, violence is used so much because its the highest power, if you're right, it doesn't have to matter to the opposition - they have a gun, you don't, the end. Whilst I will never, EVER believe that is the method we should cross, it is how many people live life.
Well, you're right there, violence can often only be fought by violence, and history has seen worse things than that, which leads me to think morals have in general not gotten worse.
Hooray for the death of Bin Laden, don't overdo it - is that what we're both saying?
Without the basis of religion of any form, it's declining. You can argue all you'd like but it's empirically validated that religion has the most standard moral system. Humans aren't born with an inherant sense for right or wrong, if they were we wouldn't have children soldiers in Africa right now. Even if you take the diety out of the religion all together most religions teach a moral standard to follow. If you are raised without any moral standards you can only assume what you see around you is right... and well when we get into secular moral standards that's when we see a decline in morals all together.
[/quote]No, that's not from an "inherent sense of right and wrong," that's from greed given by modern society.[/quote] Not in the least. They are brainwashed to do such atrocious things that they are desensatized to the actions they are commiting. The children that are succumbed to such a horrible lifestyle are used in the most dangerous jobs and wind up suffering both physically and emotionally. The most disturbing thing however, is that after a while, the children start to become numb to the wrongs that they are doing. After a while, it becomes so natural, they don't even realize the atrocious crimes they are committing.
Without the basis of religion of any form, it's declining. You can argue all you'd like but it's empirically validated that religion has the most standard moral system. Humans aren't born with an inherant sense for right or wrong, if they were we wouldn't have children soldiers in Africa right now. Even if you take the diety out of the religion all together most religions teach a moral standard to follow. If you are raised without any moral standards you can only assume what you see around you is right... and well when we get into secular moral standards that's when we see a decline in morals all together.
Your argument has no basis.
Even though it's completely theoretical, I believe there's something there.
There definitely is, as things go on people can observe and develop an understanding - this is probably how religion started in my opinion, but reliance on a deity should be a thing of the past. Moral standards is something people can learn of, its even in evolution (even if not portrayed that way) - also, anything BAD that happens, especially inexplicibly is the pinnacle for the origination of morality.
It is better to decline morality rather than follow a false religion where everything is dictated for you - the first option allows moral growth from the PEOPLE, whereas FOLLOWERS cannot do the same.
@redbedhead Boy, where do I start? What is greed? Want for something, right? Defined by Google: greed/grÄ"d/ Noun: Intense and selfish desire for something, esp. wealth, power, or food. I was right. Well, in your scenario of life, you prove my point by saying people are doing atrocious crimes to get what they want.
Indeed, and that, Paarfam, is why sacrifice is the only true profit. You want money? You invest time. You want time? You invest time to make time. You want quality time? That can take anything from time to money.
You want some of these things efficiently? It takes someone elses sacrifice to make that happen.
Wow, I said that poorly. Apparently oration skills is also something I need to invest in.
Let's use rhetoric shall we? In the case of Syllogism Major premise: Religion is basis for moral standards Minor premise: Moral standards are needed Conclusion: Moral standards are met with Religion
Who's to say it was the basis of moral standards? Mythology originated before Religion, and therefore why is that not the basis for morality? They certainly had ethical debates in it, even the term "honor" meant more than "morality" today - to some it still does.
there is truth in what you say redbedhead, religion gave us our morals yes, but just because people are losing their religion doesnt mean they they will or have to lose their morals /|\\
