I agree with you here that much has been done in the name of God that was actually immoral, but that is kind of my point; human beings are adrift in a sea of moral relativism. You could literally invent any reason to do what you want to do, and without any objective standard, how could anyone say what you're doing is wrong?

Our legal system up here already has codified that 'idiocy', and it's been in place quite awhile.

The women's only clothing optional spa that tried to say 'no penises allowed' is legally at odds with the provincial human rights code:
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/male-genitalia-policy-spurs-backlash-at-toronto-women-s-spa-1.3456844

The Canadian charter of human rights also lists freedom from discrimination as being no different for choice/behaviour things like religion, alongside birth traits like race or gender. So legally our system doesn't think rejecting a clergy application for being atheist as any different to rejecting it because of race.

And I kind of hate using a 'trivial' and much trumpeted example from America but a bakery not wanting to make a cake based on people's sexual preferences was declared illegal:
http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/

I'll try to summarise my last paragraph better.

The Democratic party needs to reach out to people that didn't vote Hillary. They are instead choosing to condemn those that didn't vote Hillary as racists or friends of racists. They need to be doing the exact opposite. They need to find things to compromise on and reach out to the people that didn't vote Hillary. That doesn't have to necessarily be on any of the ideas I've tossed out above, but they've gotta do something.

A last point, the moral relativism or correctness of the cause here isn't the only thing that matters. If you can't convince a majority of the population that you are on the side of their self interest and liberties and freedoms, then you are going to lose. The things I've listed are examples of the left taking away freedoms that many on the right consider important or even fundamental to them. If no compromises can be made, the Democrats haven't got much reason for optimism about the next election looking any better.

I agree, but that's why the antifa people do far more harm than good, even though their stated intentions may be good their methods aren't.

They allow it to be framed as a choice between actually violent Nazis/right and actually violent PC fascists/left. (This couldn't be better for the Nazis, as the extreme right is far larger, older, better prepared, with far more resources than the extreme left and I think they're orgasmic they're managing to turn the national narrative into a battle of extremist ideals.)

I think that's the moral relativism being attempted, and no reasonable person wants either choice.
All that said, I also think there isn't really a choice to be made between the two, but I still firmly refuse both.

If the choice is between a few people on the left being upset about trigger warnings, etc and ACTUAL FUCKING NAZIS, then they're isn't a choice to be made.

There's no moral relativism here. "Gee, Nazis are bad and all, but some transgender people demanded to be treated as the gender they choose" WTF??

Not a one of you has made a point to reply to. No discussion is possible on a basis of absolute relativism.

That's why, rather generously, each of my comments has asked some variation of the question that's necessary to BEGIN the conversation.

You know what that question is, either answer it or admit that you're too much of a scared little bitch to consider its implications.

You claim that everyone in the world is exactly as moral as everyone else? That all opinions are identically valid? I don't believe that that you do, just that you fear some terrible trap will be sprung if you simply admit that there is such a thing as right and wrong.

That's not the end of my argument; I'm not going to flounce off singing of my victory if you do - it's just an absolute prerequisite to any discussion of ethics that the participants affirm that one set of values may be preferable to another, and that individuals are in some way accountable for themselves.

This is the affirmation that so many are now afraid to make, because it opens them up to suasion and debate where they were previously so much happier wallowing in sloshy relativism.

Except for about 20 seconds extra on the end of the original this is a basically a dupe of:

http://videosift.com/video/Terence-Mckenna-denounces-Relativism

Off the start, there's a good chance I'm older than you .

My real problem isn't the moral relativism angle. It is the mindset of holding America to a higher standard not only when placing expectations on it, but when analyzing a situation and the expected results. The situation with the recent chemical weapons attack isn't at all special. War crimes are almost always committed within the fog of war. The trouble I have is people that are completely willing to accepted circumstantial evidence or even simply motive for accusations against America or an ally, but if it's the other side suddenly the burden of proof becomes much, much higher. List a heading that American forces were involved in a massacre of dozens in Iraq or Afghanistan and people just say yep, must be true. List the same heading that Assad has done the same and the response is show us the proof! That attitude and mindset is what I mean to oppose.

You asked who is 'more' evil, or which actions are more evil. Arming and training Syrian rebels, or Assad waging his campaign against them. Assad rules Syria because his father ruled Syria. His father held onto his control by massacring an entire town when the brotherhood spoke up. In the current conflict, the uprising started up as peaceful protests. Assad broke that peace by shooting the protesters when it became clear they weren't stopping.

When it comes to concern for international law, I don't understand if you've been paying attention to it for the last couple decades. When push comes to shove, NOBODY cares about international laws. Well, at least nobody making decisions on the international playing field. International laws did a great job protecting people in Darfur. International laws did a great job protecting Rwandans. International laws did a great job in Chechnya, Serbia, Somalia and on and on and on. Russia, China and Iran will respond to the situation in Syria based on the perceived benefit to them, just the same as America, Israel and everyone else, and not a one of them will waste a thought for international law at the end of the day. The only thing they will consider is what impact they expect their actions to have and they will choose the one they perceive to have the greatest benefit to them. Syria is long on it's way into a quagmire, and not a place of great value to Russia or China for long if the status quo continues. That is why you see their rhetoric softening, because they just have less to gain by maintaining their relationship with a regime that holds less and less control over it's resources.

What I would like to see if I got to play quarterback is the imposition of a no fly zone over regions of Syria, much like in Libya and northern Iraq after the first Gulf war. That alone could force enough of a line where neither Assad nor the rebels could hope to make serious in grounds upon each other. You might even persuade people to talk then but the 'cease fire', even then, would make the Israel/Palestine borders look pristine. I don't see Obama or Putin being dumb enough to each put their own boots on the ground to start anything over Syria. Neither one of them has reason to care enough. Putin, through Iran has strategic access to all of Iran and most of Iraq as it is, and solidifying relationships through Iraq is more than enough to keep Iran occupied.

i guess in the end I do not choose the non-intervention route because if you allow dictators to use chemical weapons to hold onto power, what exactly IS worth intervening for? During the Darfur genocide all the same arguments kept everyone out because you don't want to worsen a civil war. In Rwanda, same story. In Iraq it took 3 campaigns of murdering 100s of thousands before anyone finally took sides against Saddam, and even then his removal is held up as on of the worst violations of international laws and norms ever. It'd be nice for a change to at least find someone that figures starting the Iran-Iraq war and the Al-Anfal campaign against the Kurds where even worse. Far more people died, and the sole end game of them was to enhance the prestige and power of a mad man.

ok.
i am reading your response.
and trying to follow your logic..
it is..confusing.
i do not mean that in a critical way.it literally is confusing.

so let me understand this.
you think that because people pointing out the hypocrisy on american foreign policy somehow translates to a moral relativism in regards to assad?
that one is more evil than the other?
and to point to one means to ignore the other?

ok.
which one is MORE evil:
1.the assad regime which has been brutal on its own citizens.beheadings,executions in the street.the people are in a constant state of fear.
this is a common tactic for brutal dictators.fear and intimidation and when then start getting out of control? killings and maimings.of the public kind.
assad has been on the human rights watch for decades.
he is a monster.
or.
2.america and britain have been sending weapons and training a weak rebel force (for the past few years btw).after the outbreak of violence of the arab spring and assads decending hammer of escalating violence the rebels find their ranks being filled by alqeada,muslim brotherhood and other radical muslim factions.
which has the culminative effect of not only creating the civil war but prolonging it.
death tolls of innocents rising.
displaced syrians in the millions.

which of these two are "more" evil?
both caused death.
both caused suffering.
or do you think training and arming rebel factions which only serves to prolong the conflict less evil?

while evil is an arbitrary and subjective word the answer is BOTH are evil.
on a basic and human level BOTH bear responsibility.

let us continue.

now america has had a non-interventionism policy so far.just supplying training and weapons and prolonging the civil war and henceforth:the violence,death,maiming and suffering.

then two things quietly happened.
syria russia and china (iran as well) began talks to drop the petrodollar AND assad refusing a natural gas pipeline through syria (probably in order to not piss off russia).

when you realize that americas currency is almost solely propped up by the petrodollar,the current white house rhetoric starts to make more sense.

this is why evidence on who is responsible for the chemical attacks is important because the united states government used THAT as its reason for NOT entering the conflict (even though it already was involved,but not directly).the united states didnt want to get directly involved.
until the pipeline and petrodollar talks started to surface.

and then as if by magic.
a chemical attack is executed.
now assads army was winning,on all fronts.
why would he risk international intervention if he was winning?
now i am not saying that dictators and tyrants dont do dumb things,but that is dumb on an epic level.
doesnt make sense.
doesnt add up.

so the whole drumbeats for war now.
which were non-existent a month ago...
are all about "humanitarian" and "human rights" and a new "axis of evil".

bullshit.plain and simple.

this is about oil.
about the petrodollar.
this is about big business.

bryzenscki called this 20 yrs ago in his book "the grand chessboard"

and that is my counter argument.
and by your last post on my page i think you agree in some fashion.

now,
let us discuss your "final solution".
oh my friend.you accused so many of being naive.
reading your conclusion i can only shake my head.
not that i dont appreciate your time or that i dont see maybe why you feel that way.
i just dont think you grasp the enormity of it and have listened to one too many of the uber-rights "paper tiger" argument.

if we choose the path you think is the best to put assad on his heels.
america launches a limited strike on assad forces.
and lets say those strategic targets are 100% incapacitated (unlikely,but this is hypothetical).
what then?
have you considered what the reaction of russia,china,iran,saudi arabia, might be?
because according to international LAW,without a united nations concensus.russia and china AND iran would have the right to step in,set up shop and tell you to go fuck yourself.they would dare you to cross that line.
and what then?
do you cross it? and under what grounds?
you have (and when i say YOU i mean america) already disregarded every single policy put forth in regards to international law.the irony is the you (america) were vital in the creation of those very laws.(we rocked that WW2 shit son).

so pop quiz jack.what do you do?
do you really think you can ignore russia and china?ignore the international community?
do you really think the american government gives two shits about people dying in another country?
(checks long list of historical precedent)
not..one..bit.

here are the simple facts.
YOU are a compassionate human being who is outraged over the suffering and execution of innocent people.
YOU.
and i and pretty much everybody with a soul and a heart.
but YOUR argument is coming from that outrage.and man do i wish i was your age again.
god i admire you for this alone.
but the simple,hard and ugly fact is:
this country is about its own business of empire.
they could not give a fuck who is dying or being oppressed,tortured or enslaved.
i will be happy to provide the links but please dont ask...i dont wish to see your heart break anymore than it already has.
you and i live under the banner of an empire.this is fact.
this empire only cares about its own interests.

so let us talk about the very thing that is the emotional heart of the matter shall we?
the syrian people.
how do we alleviate their suffering?
how do we quell the tidal wave of dying?

a limited strike on strategic targets would help the innocents how exactly?
by bombing them?this is your logic?
or is "collateral damage" acceptable? and if so..how much?
do you realize that there are no actual 'strategic targets".assads troops are embedded just as much as the rebels are.
so..where do you hit for maximum effect?
and how many innocent deaths are acceptable?
and if the goal is to weaken assads forces,to level the playing field,wouldnt this translate to an even MORE prolonged conflict?
and wouldnt that equal even MORE innocent people dying?

this scenario is WITHOUT russia,china or iran intervening!

you are killing more and more people that i thought you wanted to save!
what are you doing man? are you crazy!

so i ask you.
what are your goals?
is it revenge?
is it regime change?
do you wish to punish assad?

then assasination is your only true option that will get the results you want and save innocent lives.

in my opinion anyways.

this is why i choose the non-intervention or the negotiation route.
yes..there will still be violence but only to a point.
when negotiations begin there is always a cease fire.
in that single move we stopped the violence.
this will also have the effect of bringing other international players to the table and much needed food,supplies and medical for the syrian people.

all kinds of goodies for the syrian people who are in such desperate need of help.
wanna go with me? ill volunteer with ya!

so which path is better for the syrian people?
a limited strike which at the very least will prolong this vicious civil war.
or negotiations which will bring a cease fire,food,water,medical help,blankets,clothes and smiles and hugs for everyone!

are ya starting to get the picture?

i have lived on three continents.
met and lived with so many interesting and amazing people.
learned about so much and was graced and touched in ways that are still incredible for me to explain.
and you have got to be the most stubborn mule i have ever met...ever.

but kid.you got some serious heart.
so you stay awesome.
namaste.

*edit-it appears assad may be the culprit.syria just accepted russias offer to impound the chemical weapons.so we know they have them.lets see what the US does.
i still think you are going to get your wish for military action.so dont be getting all depressed on me now.

You make this point but I am guessing that you are not willing to accepts its inverse, which was the point Kofi was alluding to.

By your logic:
Syria is well within its rights to attack the US because they are actively aiding rebels.
Iran is well within its rights to attack Syrian rebels because they are undermining a client state.
Syria is well within its rights to bomb Israel because they are housing US weapons.

Or as Glenn Greenwald put it :

One could say quite reasonably that this is the pure expression of the crux of US political discourse on such matters: they must abide by rules from which we're immune, because we're superior. So much of the pseudo-high-minded theorizing emanating from DC think thanks and US media outlets boils down to this adolescent, self-praising, tribalistic license: we have the right to do X, but they do not.

@shveddy As goodness itself, what is good or evil is defined by His nature. As our Lawgiver, something is moral or immoral because God says that it is. He gives us commands about how to behave and then we are obligated to obey those commands, and we are accountable for disobeying them. When God issued the command to wipe out Canaan, it would have been immoral for the Israelites to disobey Him. He used them as His instrument and therefore what they did was not immoral. It would have been immoral without Gods command to do so.

There is no absolute morality.

and there are literally no rules on what we can and cant try.

Do you see that these are absolute statements?

On what grounds do you say there is no absolute morality?

Saying there are no rules is a rule; this statement contradicts itself.

This goes to the root of the incoherence that the video, and I, are referring to. It is impossible to have moral relativism without absolute truth, because otherwise you have no grounds for your claim. But you have no grounds for absolute truth either, so therefore every claim to moral relativism contradicts itself.

You say this is reality, but it isn't coherent with reality. Not only is the entire concept logically contradictory, but it doesn't match our experience, which is that some things are absolutely wrong. If people rob and cheat you, you don't say that they are just executing their particular survival strategy, you say that those things are wrong. You know they are wrong because you have a God given conscience which tells you that they are. Therefore, you are living like a theist but denying it with your atheism.

Rabbi - "Moral relativism is the boogeyman but let me tell you how this specific nation should be partially based on an objective truth that .02% believe and I will insist that it is the truth."

Paster - "Evil has no evolutionary explanation yet it exists therefore God exists because the bible says God hates evil and something that doesn't exist cannot hate something that does exist."

Moral of the story - "I'll employ reason and rationality only up until the point that it explains and supports what I believe. Beyond that only God can explain the world around us".

What your analysis is missing is any kind of cultural context. These things don't just happen in a vacuum, and nor are all ideas created equal. In many cases you are just trading one type of chain for another. Yes, mass media certainly has the ability to create and shape the prevailing social norms, and this can inspire counter cultural movements within a society. That's what happened in the 1960s with the sexual revolution, which is a root cause for the sexual immorality we see in society today. But it didn't just happen because people 'gained more knowledge', it happened because there was already a fundamental shift in the cultural ethos. An idea does not begin to grow unless its seed lands on fertile ground. The social mores of this nation were always decidedly Christian, but were steadily eroding by the beginning of the 20th century (for various reasons). The deeper truth is that people rejected traditional morality because they wanted to be free to indulge their carnal desires without restriction. Transcendent moral values were being replaced with moral relativism, fueled by the notion that man was a higher primate and had no moral responsibilities to a creator, leaving people free to invent whatever style of living pleased them. It was only the world wars that temporarily reversed this trend and brought the nation back together under the banner of an American moral imperative. But the foundation, weakened as it was by radical liberal ideology, was thoroughly rotten. America snapped back like a rubber band, bursting open the flood gates during the 60's, and changing the cultural landscape forever. Now traditional values are viewed as archaic, a throwback to a bygone era, and it is the "new" thing which is touted as "enlightenment".

Yet, this new thing is simply what is old in different packaging. The behavior of human beings today isn't noticeably different from anything that hasn't been tried in countless failed civilizations in the past. The song remains the same, despite the shiny new backdrops. Bible prophecy predicts that knowledge will increase in the last times, but it mentions nothing about wisdom. The human condition hasn't changed; men are ruled by their passions, and no matter how much knowledge they gain, the same mistakes are repeated endlessly. Look at the world today and tell me that isn't true. If humans are learning anything it is something they've always known and loved; rebellion. This is certainly the age of self-glorification, but history will tell you that is nothing new either. You're right in that "the church", ie, the catholic religion, tried to impose (a caricature of) Christian morality on the masses, with horrific results. That is a nightmare any decent person should be awoken from. However, as it pertains to describing the essential human condition, it was entirely correct. Sin is increasing in the world, not decreasing. Human nature is inherently sinful.

Everyone has a different way of describing the problem. Most look to place the blame and hand wave everything on to a particular condition. They say it's because of overpopulation. They say it's because of religion (an atheist favorite). They say it's because of ignorance. They say it's because (insert your favorite reason here). The reality is, it's because human beings are corrupt sinners, and always will be corrupt sinners until the end of time; that's why Jesus Christ came. He came to restore us to right relationship with our Creator. Don't place your faith and trust in man, because man cannot save himself, and all men are headed for a day of judgment. As scripture predicts, there will be a one world government headed by the antichrist, a seven year tribulation where all the world will become deluded and follow after the beast. Those who refuse to love the truth will believe the lie that the antichrist will be selling. At the end of the tribulation, Jesus Christ will return as the Lord and judge of all the earth. No amount of knowledge will prepare for you that day; only a saving faith in Jesus Christ.

>> ^Sagemind:

In the past era, we hit a communications Boom.

Williams James wrote about the value of religious experience. It tries to reconcile the disparity between reason and spirituality. This is the "code" that Penn is talking about. It does imply relativism over objectivism which does not gel with people of Penn's rationalistic ilk. His intuitions simply don't allow him to have these kind of contradictions whereas religious people do and also do not see them as contradictions hence their intuitions allow for a kind of dualism between the domain of the rational and the domain of religion. The people in the court are not admitting to the fallibility of their religious beliefs yet also denying the possibility of those same beliefs manifesting in such an obvious and concrete way. So they are at peace with being able to both affirm and deny the factual nature of their metaphysical beliefs without causing disharmony provided the transgression sufficiently big or small. Put it into the realm of the civic where personal gain or other self-serving and un-"virtuous" traits can be attributed and they can happily suspend their metaphysics in favour of the rational that Penn is able to apply to all situations.

It is a kind of metaphysical schizophrenia.

Before any quotes, I'll give my own overarching point: Life without a higher purpose may be ultimately meaningless (I'll get more into what sense I mean), and that makes life more difficult than if there were ultimate meaning, but that has no bearing whatsoever on the truth value of the existence of Yahweh. You cannot derive Yahweh's existence (or any deity or pantheon) from your claim that life is easier that way. [Edit: Turns out I never actually get to that conclusion in my comments below, so you might as well address it here, but after you've read the rest.]

The point was never that a meaningless Universe makes life more difficult; you simply decided that was the point. The point the video makes, and which I have also been making, is that you are suffering from cognitive dissonance by having no ultimate justification for your value system, but living as if you do. You admit that under atheism the Universe is meaningless, and so we've been debating on whether you can find any justification for a value system in a meaningless Universe. The explanation you have ultimately given me is that you believe there is a right and wrong, and people do have value, because you feel it. Do you realize this proves what I have been saying all along?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

Cognitive dissonance is the term used in modern psychology to describe the state of holding two or more conflicting cognitions (e.g., ideas, beliefs, values, emotional reactions) simultaneously.

Your atheism tells you that life without God is meaningless. Your feelings tell you that life is meaningful. These are two conflicting cognitions. Instead of realizing that and re-evaluating your atheism, you say that you don't know why and you don't care. That is the very definition of cognitive dissonance.

But the fact is that somehow, in the context of my own little 80-year microblip in the lifespan of our planet, I do care. I just do. I have nothing more than a pet theory about why I care. I care, and I care a lot. I suppose I'm somewhat curious as to why I care, but it's not of primary importance for me to know. I just do, and it's pleasing to notice that just about everyone else around me does too. The only question for me is how to follow this desire of mine to be good given my circumstances.

The facts are simple: the existence of God explains everything that you feel about wanting to do good, and the love that you have for people and life, and your atheism denies it. Yet you embrace what is contrary to your own experience.

And why should I reject being a slave to chemicals? The chemicals MAKE ME FEEL GOOD, remember? Should I purposefully do things that make me feel bad? Why on Earth would I even consider it? Ridiculous.

So if it makes you feel good its okay to be a slave? You don't mind being enslaved to a mindless irrational process because you get rewarded for it like a rat activating a feeder?

I reject the description that I live my life "as a Christian does", as if Christians invented or have some original claim being good. All humans, regardless of faith or lack thereof, believe in the value of humans (or, any societies that don't value humans go extinct very quickly). We all generally shun murder and violence, foster mutual care, enjoy one another's company, feel protective, have a soft spot for babies and so forth, and have been doing all of this as a species since before Christianity began.

So I would turn it around and say instead that it's Christians who go about their lives living like normal humans, but thinking they're being good because their religion tells them to.

Most people in this world (around 85 - 90 percent) are theists. If we are going to talk about universal belief in this world then it is theism which is normal. That is historically where our morality comes from. Everyone who believes in God has an ultimate justification for right and wrong, but atheists do not. So I will modify this and say that you're living like a theist does but denying it with your atheism.

I can claim that I have a stronger sense of what's right and wrong than the psychopath simply because they are defined as lacking that sense (or, perhaps non-psychopaths are defined as people having that sense). And you're right that I do not claim that my way of determining which actions are appropriate is inherently superior to the psychopath's. As it happens, my way of determining morality puts me among the overwhelming majority, and so it's relatively easy for me to mitigate the negative impacts of people like that by identifying and avoiding them. I don't say that my way should be preferred to the pshychopath's; I just notice that it is, and I'm grateful for that, and for the fact that psychopathy is not a choice.

Actually, psychopaths do know right from wrong, but they don't care.

In any case, what you're saying here contradicts your later claim that my hypothetical about a society approving of child rape is ridiculous, and proves my point. You admit here that you couldn't say that your way of morality is superior to psychopathy, it just so happens that there are more of you than there are of them. You name that as the reason why your way should be preferred. Therefore what you're talking about is a herd morality.

Now think about if the situation were reversed and psychopaths were in the majority. Your version of morality would no longer be preferred, and psychopaths would no longer need to conform to your standards; you would need to conform to theirs. Whatever was normalized in a psychopathic society would be what was called good and whatever the psychopathic society rejected would be called evil. This is proof that everything I said was true. The entire point of my example was to show that if we simply have a herd morality where the majority tells us what is good and evil, then if the majority ever said child rape is good it would be. This is simply a fact. Whether you think it could happen or not is relevent to the point.

You're drowning in a sea of relativism, where a justifies b and b justifies c and c justifies d, and this goes into an infinite regress.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Can you give an example of a justification to infinite regression that would cause some kind of problem unique to non-thesitic morality?

I'll get to this later.

I don't accept that it's any more natural to worship Yahweh than some other deity or pantheon or idol, and I can't imagine how you could justify such a position without referring to dogma. Ask a Muslim. He'll tell you with the same conviction that Allah is the natural way and show you his own dogma. 100 years ago, a Japanese would have told you it was natural to worship the Emperor, and today he'd say it's natural to worship ancestors. My point is that any worship will satisfy our natural urge to worship, which is why almost all people worship something, and the object of worship you're brought up around is the one you're most likely to be comfortable with worshipping, naturally.

The reason I said this was in reply to your assertion that we developed religion because it answered questions and made us feel comfortable. My point was that we all come pre-programmed with a need for worship, which you apparently agree with. That is what is natural to us. It has nothing to do with whether it is more or less natural to worship Jesus. It is actually more natural for us to rebel against God because of our corrupt nature. It's only through personal revelation that we direct our worship in the right direction.

People don't naturally conclude life is meaningless; they know from their experience that it is very meaningful. They are taught it is meaningless through philosophy and the ennui that comes from modern life. You will never find a population of natural atheists anywhere on the planet.

The problem —and one that I fell into myself— is the conflation of two senses of the word "meaningless". For example, I can say without conflict that the planet and humanity is doomed and so forth, so our actions are ultimately meaningless, AND that interacting with people gives meaning to my life. Now, in the first sense, I mean there's no teleological purpose to my life. In the second sense, I mean certain people and things in my life give fulfillment/bliss.

The sense we agreed upon and have been discussing is that that life without God is meaningless. In this sense, it is still equally meaningless whether human civilization implodes or doesn't implode. Therefore the meaning you derive from your feelings is only an illusion created by chemical reactions in your brain.

Your anecdotal evidence about depression doesn't make you an authority on *the single cause* of depression. Some depressives follow your pattern, and others don't. I don't. When I'm depressed, my feeling isn't hopelessness. In fact, these days, I'm feeling rather hopeless, but I'm not depressed.

You can feel hopeless and not be depressed, but the source of the depression is almost always hopelessness. I'll give you some examples. If you put all of the worlds depressed people in a very large room, and gave each of them a check for 10 million dollars, you will have instantly cured around 80 percent of them. The majority of depression comes being stuck in a bad situation that you don't feel like you can change, situations that cause a lot of stress and unhappiness. A lot of money buys a lot of change. Many of the rest are probably depressed because of health issues, and if you could offer them a cure (hope), they would be cured as well. The remainder are probably depressed because of extreme neurosis. There are other causes of depression but you see my point. Hope is the solution to depression.

It's not my hope. I believe that dead is dead. Much simpler than your belief. Much more likely too. You're implying that I'm following some faulty reasoning about the afterlife. Among the things I don't know are an *infinite number of possibilities* of what could happen in the afterlife, one of which is your bible story. My best guess is nothing. Since nobody's ever come back from the dead to talk about it (Did nobody interview Lazarus? What a great opportunity missed!), nobody knows, so there's no reason to speculate about it ever. Your book says whatever it says, and I don't care because to me it's fairy tales. I'd have to be an idiot to live my life differently because of a book I didn't first believe in. Just like you'd be an idiot to live like a non-believer if you believe so much in Yahweh.

On what basis do you say your belief is more likely?

Someone has come back from the dead to talk about it: Jesus Christ. You don't have to believe the bible; you can ask Him yourself. You say there is no reason to speculate (ever); now that is an interesting statement from someone who believes in open inquiry. What you've said is actually the death of inquiry. And let's be clear about this; you have speculated. You are basing your conclusion on no evidence but merely your atheistic presuppositions about reality. You say no one has come back but one man has, but of course you dismiss the account as fantasy (again because of your atheistic presuppositions).

I would also ask how you think the brain understands the complex moral scenarios we find ourselves in and rewards or doesn't reward accordingly? Doesn't that seem fairly implausible to you?

It's quite plausible. I'm no biologist, but I'm sure there's a branch of evolutionary biology that deals with social feelings. My own pet theory is that these feelings are comparable to the ones that control the behaviour of all communal forms of life, like ants and zebras and red-winged blackbirds. It's evolution, either way, IMO.

Of course anything is possible when you summon your magic genie of evolution. "Time itself performs the miracles for you."

What makes someone a bad person?

In the absolute sense, religious faith, only, can bring that kind of judgement as a meaningful label.

In the relative sense where I would colloquially refer to someone as "a bad person" (my prime minister, Stephen Harper is an example), I mean someone who has shown they are sufficiently disruptive to other people's happiness due to acting too much in their own self-interest that they're best removed from influence and then avoided. But I would only use that term as a shorthand among people who knew that I don't moralize absolutely.

So no one is really bad?

Do you think this could have something to do with the fact that the bible says you should do things you don't want to do, or that you should stop doing things you don't want to stop doing?

An interesting question, but no. I don't believe it because everything I see points all religion being a human invention.

Well, I'm fairly sure you've told me before that you hate the idea of God telling you what to do.

Your hypothetical is an appeal to the ridiculous. It simply is a fact that just about everyone —including child rapists, I'm guessing— believes that child rape is wrong for the simple reason that it severely hurts children. If it increases a person's suffering, then it's wrong. I can think of nothing simpler. Your hypothetical is like one where a passage in the bible prescribed child rape. Would it be OK then? Does the bible that say that rape is wrong? Does it say you cannot marry a child?

I've covered this above, but I will also add that if we had evolved differently, then in your worldview, all of this would be moot. We are only in this particular configuration because of circumstance, and not design. It could just as easily be 1000 different other ways. There could easily be scenarios where we evolved to exploit children instead of nuture them.

In both cases, you didn't address my point. 1) I'm stating that Yahweh's laws are far, far more complex than secular morality. You countered that Yahweh's laws were as simple as Jesus' two rules. I showed that was wrong with my AIDS in Africa example (condoms saving lives). You can address that, or you can agree that Yahweh's laws are more complex that Harris' model of secular morality.

I hope I don't need to point out that the bible says nothing about condoms. Gods morality is really as simple as the two greatest commandments because if you follow those you will follow all the rest:

Romans 13:9-10

The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

When you love your neighbor and love God you are basically doing the whole law right there. There are some particulars that can emerge in different situations just like we have laws for different situations, and so Harris would have to accommodate those as well.

2) I also pointed out that Jesus gave us a moral model that requires the individual to determine for themselves based on fixed criteria what's good and what's not. "… as you would have your neighbour do unto you…" implicitly requires the individual to compare their actions with what they themselves would want someone else to do to them. That means relying on their own understanding. This contradicts your other statements that we shouldn't rely on our own understanding. You see? To follow Jesus' second law, you must rely on your own understanding.

Yes, in this case we would rely on our own understanding, as informed by the biblical worldview. What scripture is saying when it says "lean not on your own understanding" is that we make God the Lord of our reasoning. So, when we think about doing unto others, we would think about it in the context of how Jesus taught us to behave.

[you:]What about all of Pagan societies throughout the ages that sacrificed their children to demons?

You're making my point for me. Paganism is religion. Non-believers would never justify a habit of killing their own children.

Yes they would:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,880,00.html

So your answer is yes? You think that without religion, society may decide torturing babies is good because it decided that killing Jews was good?

[me:]If you think I’m being ridiculous, what do you think is more likely: that a society somewhere will suddenly realize that they feel just fine about torturing babies, or that a society somewhere will get the idea that it’s their god’s will that they torture babies? Human instinct is much more consistent than the will of any gods ever recorded.

Yes, I think an entire society could end up agreeing on something that depraved, just like the ancient Greek society approved of paedophilia. You also act as if I am trying to defend all religion, which I'm not. There are plenty of sick and depraved religions out there, and religions can easily corrupt a culture, like islam has done to the Arab culture.

In any case, there are many examples of non-believing societies doing sick and depraved things to their populations. Millions of Christians were murdered by communists in the 1940's and 50's. I highly recommend you read this book:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gracealoneca.com%2Fsitebuildercontent%2Fsitebu
ilderfiles%2Ftortured_for_christ.pdf&ei=PSNiUIyTCsPqiwLYtYGQCw&usg=AFQjCNG-ro4rM7dfvFCkgIvjnmgdhQnSPA&cad=rja

The fact is, in a meaningless Universe you simply can't prove anything without God. You actually have no basis for logic, rationality, morality, uniformity in nature, but you live as if you do. If I ask you how you know your reasoning is valid, you will reply "by using my reasoning".

You're slipping back into solipsism. We agreed not to go there. I'm not going to answer any of those things.

Now you're just trying to duck the issue, and perhaps you don't understand what solipsism is, because this is not solipsism. Solipsism is the belief that only your mind is sure to exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

What I am talking about is right in line with the video. Without God you don't have any ultimate justification not just for any kind of value, but even for your own reasoning. It is a direct implication of a meaningless existence. This is what I mean about a justifies b justifies c justifies d into infinity. You have nowhere to stake a claim which can justify anything which you experience, or even your own rationality. If you feel you do, please demonstrate why you believe your reasoning is actually valid.

>> ^messenger:

stuff