pop morality

[dyresand]

Objective morality doesn't exist.
Let's be honest here were subject moral beings.

1. Evolution played a part in our morality we know certain things
are bad because we just do like killing people or doing something to harm others.
We also know slavery is wrong even if slavery was objectively alright we wouldn't
agree on it.

2. Were not the only beings that have morals animals do as well. So does your
pets they know if they pee or poop in the floor you would get angry.

3. The well being of others this again we are empathy driven mammals
we care about one another.

4. You have to accept your morals objectiveness and not count on objective morals
because they don't exist.

5. objective morals from a god like being is arbitrary. to put it this way
god of the bible is amoral why would you wan't moral objectives from a
being like god.

[downbeatplumb]

Not all Germans were nasty you know, some of them had a conscience and opposed the Nazis many coming to a sticky end. But many people did rather evil things because their own morality was circumvented by strong motivators like nationalism, politics and religion. The army had also had to make an oath to Adolf Hitler which people took seriously back then.

But my point and question is... (the point) The Germans of Nazi Germany did not see themselves as evil (the vast majority) Because their pop morality told them what they were doing was right! They could not challenge this because they had removed all absolutes of God and repplaced them with state written propaganda (and they used science just like we do) to justify their efforts and changes. Their only measure of right and wrong/their morality was corrupt by the state. so what ever the state said was always right and what it said was wrong was always wrong.. Again much like where we are now.

You know what I'm pretty sure that a lot of people back then and now believe that killing jews is moral. There is a name for these people. Muslims and Christians. But most of the secular world look/looked at genocide and say it's a bad thing. But your right morality moves around.
So what?

(the question)
So how then do we know in this soceity who like Nazi German has separated the state from God, have not made an 'evil' left turn like the nazi's did? Is it because your 'morality' says you are a good person? If so, I point back to the germans of Hitler's germany... They too thought they were all good people. and what they were doing was right, because they like us have nothing absolute to judge our pop morality by.

Empathy can be circumvented by demonising people. I don't think of any group of humans as less than human which is what happened in Nazi Germany. So I can see that this has not happened to me.

So then I ask again, what would stop you from following the path of the people of Nazi germany if pop morality made a hard left into evil?

Empathy.

What makes you think we haven't long ago made that turn, and their just hasn't been an 'allied force' to stop us?

My Empathy.

[Drich]

I sometimes wonder Drich if, owing to your obvious sociopathic tendencies (taking your posts on this forum and others as the benchmark) whether you are capable of understanding what people mean when they invoke empathy? Or care? Or love?

This is not a personal attack rather more just an observation. I have over the years tended to conclude your posts contain as much malice as anything else, and an intense need to gain a 1 up at all costs. These of course are traits usually found in sociopaths.

In just wondering what sort of arguments or debates are worthwhile, or whether we bother to engage? I look forward to your answer to my query in my previous post.

If it puts your mind at ease I am not a sociopath, ( I was tested when I was younger/although I did/do have a touch of the autism/ass-burgers) I see things differently is all. I can feel/invoke empathy love and care etc.. However my mind seeks searches and assembles/disassembles everything. as a kid this was madding for a parent because i would often wander off visualizing how something works, or I would get triggered by something i saw or something someone said and start day dreaming rather than partake in 'normal stuff.' By the time i learned to control my 'gift' it was too late for school, so I had to teach myself... everything. (which is why arbitrary rule based academics I suck at/spelling grammar etc, while other physics/logic based disciplines I accel at.)

While I grew up along side people like all of you, I was never completely invested in any of it though. I can and do enjoy limited detachment from society, but only in so far as to not hold anything sacred, that I do not see a value in revering that way. Growing up I found the rules of a society to be trivial and often times based on tradition and what people felt comfortable with. This was illustrated by living in a home that represented two polar opposite cultures. The things my Father and his family held on to, were completely different than the things my mother and her family held on to, for completely different but equally trivial reasons.

My mother's family would often question and wonder why my father would follow stupid american traditions when to them it made sense to act and behaive a different way, and vise versa. All of that taught me was to be objective and to not blindly hold to tradition/culture simply because that's what everyone else does. To break down social patterns and use them if and when they were needed, rather than rituallistically bending my knee to them each and every time society demands it.

Now put the two things together and you have someone who can honestly objectify and analyze the sacred social structure (and Religion, And anything else people get so emotionally attached to they can see straight) for its good, bad and ugly attributes without being pressured to conform to popular morality or thought.

For instance whether you like it or not the United states of America would not be anything like it is today with out slavery. say what you will but it was the taxes the government collected from the work and profit of rich white land owners, that we were able to buy out the french and Spanish colonies, and without this money (which we had no other way of generating at that time) this continent would have been subdivided into french, Spanish, and English colonies possibly even today, if infact hitler did not take control when he invaded those nations, taking the resources those colonies/states offered for himself making him and his ideals unstoppable...

Yes, on an individual level I feel for and would hate to have been a slave, but on a survival of a diverse species level (because hitler was building a single master race if you remember) the slaves and the work/money that slave labor provided had to be done at the time it was done so the survival of multinational humanity.. The same could be said about the American Indians. They were in their infancy/stoneage (by choice) when the rest of the world was well into the ironage/just shy of pre industrial age. again from a species stand point what was done how ever brutal and 'immoral' was needed for the continual survival of a diverse species.

We can not simply ignore or judge our pasts without weighing both the positive and negative attributes even the most appalling events yield. Like for instance the slaughter Germany leveled against the Jews. Bought them back their holy Land. to you this may seem trivial, but it was on top of every jews prayer list for almost 2000 years! The millions that Germany slaughtered was the price "Moral Man" demanded in 1948. We know this to be true because after WWI when the same nations that won WWII (minus Japan) divided up the world, no consideration was given to the Jews. But after WWII and the world was told millions died in camps, and after we saw the pictures, pop morality then demanded that they be given back their home so nothing like this could happen again..

Nothing I've said here is untrue, it's it not something we want to acknoweledge because self righteous morality does not like to acknoweledge anything 'good' to come out of immoral acts, but in truth it is out of 'immoral acts' that the state of human survival hinges on. its because in western culture, you do not like to talk about or be reminded of what harsh brutality affords us. you like to think yourself as better than our forefathers, better than the rest of the world because you yourself do not have to get your hands bloody, but you all fail to ever look at the blood on your feet.. Because WE all stand on the backs of men who thankfully did what they had to do to put us in the position where selective empathy and self righteousness is a luxury we can afford to have if indeed we are so inclined to delude..

Or is it??? That's the bases of the question I want you all to ask yourself. Is your empathy and self righteous/ current version of pop morality some how better than the morality of Hitler's germany, or 18th century America or even late 19th century America? where millions suffered and died.. If so how would you know if nothing you believe strays outside of the right and wrong defined by pop culture affords you? Again all of these cultures mention, saw themselves as 'moral' and what they did as being 'moral' just as you do because their morality like yours is/was sourced from the culture. So then how do you differ?

[Drich]

actually no. I do not seek to contrive a morality from the bible. I simply look at and accept the sin and evil in my life and have sought and receive atonement for those sins. Which affords me the freedom to live apart from the law God uses to identify sin.

My behavior then becomes my direct offering of Love to God. I try and live what others may identify as a 'moral' life not because it is right, and I receive anything for it. I do so simply because it is the closest thing I can do to emulate the righteousness God has identified in the bible, as an expression of my faith and love towards him. "Right or wrong" be damned.

That is the difference between living a morality based life and living an atonement based life. If one understands atonement, then he knows their is no right we can do that can off set the wrong. So life ceases about trying to be right/moral, and becomes about seeking God.

Actually no.. Their is no virtue in what I do. All that I do is but a dirty rag to God, therefore 'my'/Christian righteousness is not sourced from our deeds, it is a gift so no man can boast about what he has done to 'earn' his righteousness.

Atonement cancels the Law as a means to righteousness for the Christian. Or 'righteousness' is sourced from Christ/Our righteousness is literally the works and deeds of Christ in other words He gives us his righteousness to replace our own. This is the 'white coat' I mentioned earlier.

Our deeds here are then little more than a reflection of what is in our hearts. If we belong to Christ, then in our heart we wish to follow his foot steps. If we belong to the world then again our deeds reflect our master. But make no mistake in biblical Christianity our deeds do not buy our righteousness. they are how we express our love honor and respect for God.



This 'atonement based' lifestyle of yours is just another variant of pop morality.  It isn't different in any way.  You live according to what you consider the virtuous thing to do, which is cleave to God.  That's just another arbitrary set of morals.

[Ivan Denisovich]

---

I didn't read what Drippy said that way. I've certainly seen plenty of Christians who try to draw parallels between the two, since they consider them both simply "perversions", but the argument I'm seeing there is that society, based on Judeo-Roman-Christian sexual values that spanned roughly three millennia, formerly (as a whole) prohibited homosexuality and/or viewed it as sinful, harmful, and perverse. 

But that changed.

The reason it changed, according to most people today, is that we discovered that the Biblical version of "morality" was in fact the prejudices of ancient societies enshrined in scripture, and did not fit with actual information about homosexuals, nor what science is discovering about the nature of human sexuality in general. Of course, the Christians see it as "we moved away from God's Plan for a Man and a Woman", blah blah blah.

Others here have tried to point out that the "God's Plan" we see in the Bible is simply immoral by every modern standard:

* It does not prohibit rape against women except in terms of their financial value to the men who "own" them.
* It specifically allows for permanent, heritable human enslavement (for other races, not fellow Hebrews, of course).
* It orders the murder of people for exercising the right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
* It demands genocide of entire peoples, for the crime of living on "holy land" and being the wrong faith ("wicked").
* It goes on and on in this way. 

We learned better. Rape is bad. Don't own people. Freedom is good. Genocide is a war crime. Et cetera.

So, in an attempt to suggest a slippery slope, they ask us emotion-evoking questions, "What about people having sex with their pet turtles? Or children? What about the children!?!"

But it's just not the same question. Measurable, demonstrable harm is done by people who have neurochemistry that predisposes them to rape, be it of unwilling adults or of children incapable of giving consent. We, members of society, determine what is and is not tolerable moral behavior, and yes, it evolves though time. Thank goodness for that, or we'd still have slaves!!!

The real question to ask Drippy, here, since he claims that the Bible is the Ultimate and Unchanging Moral Authority™, is how can he condemn slavery or rape, since they are not prohibited by that Bible of his?

The suggestion that "moral relativity" (or whatever term of derision is being used this week) is inferior to that which comes from some Divine Lawgiver is demonstrably false. I'd say that moral relativity is the only type that has any chance at all of being fair to all, someday.

As hard as it might be to imagine, it's plausible that someday it will be discovered that no harm comes from sex with children, that pedophiles are genetically predisposed to it, and such, so that society accepts that as normal behavior (there is some evidence that at least some of the ancient Greeks did just that), but so far the research seems to point strongly in the other direction, and so I suspect it will never  be accepted by future societies... I hope that remains the case. 

Even the right to declare the nature of the universe, when it conflicts with what people thought the Bible says, had to be hard won. The simple fact is that Drippy has no argument, except "well the Bible says...", and only by ignoring that almost literally every right we cherish today was established in defiance of  Biblical Law (see above) can that argument be made.

---

I wish I would be able to put it so eloquently.

But don't you know that god is like Soviet Union? And I'm not speaking about nonexistence. Just as SU was progressive by definition as homeland of Revolution god is just by definition too. Neither SU could cease to be progressive nor god can cease to be just regardless of their doings.

[Jenny A]

@ Dritch

Just assuming for the sake of argument, that there is a god (and that is a rather big assumption), at what point in time have people ever agreed about what god's righteousness is?

Man does not have to agree on righteousness. Righteousness is God, for us righteousness can be found in his law, and the understanding that we can never obtain righteousness through following the law. that righteousness for us can only come through atonement.

Yes I understand that you think no one can be moral by your god's standards, and so we must seek atonement.  That is the point of the whole Christian myth isn't it?  Well that settles heaven versus hell.  But it doesn't help with morality in the real world where we must still get along with one another. And it's no great consolation to me if your god forgives you for theft, rape, murder, or as is more likely, general unkindness. That's where relative current mores come in.  You dismiss man's morality as pop morality.  Call it what you want.  We need it.  It's what makes society run.

 Man's conception of god's will appears as variable over time as man's morals.

completely agree. which is what I told true christian.

In other words, in practice, it is not an objective standard anymore than pop morality is an objective standard.

 You may argue that you know, but I fail to see how your view is superior to that of other Christians here and now, elsewhere, or past.  If the standard is unknowable, than it is of no practical use.

No the standard is knowable in the Law of moses as well as the extention of the Law though Christ.
The problem is that 'morality' seeks to justify sin and make allowances in the law that were never supposed to be there.
Morality even on a high 'christian' level is nothing more than man's perversion of God's righteousness. it is the allowance of sin in God's law baring some circumstance or minimalization of sin in general.

I think you greatly exaggerate the clarity of the law of Moses even as further explained by Jesus and Paul.  Parts of it may be clear, but much of it is not.  Some of it is just plain contradictory (in the OT men are required to marry their brother's widows and also prohibited from marrying their brother's widow). Other parts are so morally repugnant that it's hard to believe anyone could consider them in anyway associated with a righteous pig, let alone a god.

For God all sin is the same. a white lie is deserves the same sentence as murder.

That is a very dangerous idea.   Every society of men has always maintained a sense of proportion about varying degrees of turpitude for the simple reason that some crimes injure society more than others.  Treating all crimes alike is tantamount to asking for murder to be as common as white lies.

For us because we lie alot and can not seperate ourselves from this sin/slave to sin, and because 'we' hold to the idea that we are 'Good' people. we put lying on the low end of our scale of sin/evil. Now because murder is something that most of us can live a life without doing, and because we are all 'good people' those who murder must be wicked. So then we must augment God's law/righteousness to fit our sliding scale. This augmentation is morality.

And a damned good thing we do too.  As you keep saying, people are not capable of being morally correct at all times.  Better we should lie than murder, and better we should tell white lies than commit fraud. Morality is useful.  As you explain it, your god's law is dangerous because it treats all moral infractions equally.

Morality says it is ok to lie so as to not hurt someone's feelings, to steal food to keep your family from dying of starvation..

Righteousness says It is never ok to lie or to steal no matter what.

Actually, current morality in the western world says it's okay to lie so as not to hurt someone's feelings or to steal food to keep your family from starving. That isn't the case in all societies. It is, as you point out, relative.

Righteousness on the other hand seems pretty variable too, as it is as variable as god's will.  Sometimes it's okay to steal land from the Canaanites or sacrifice your virgin daughter, and sometimes it's not.  No wonder people can't agree on exactly what it is that god wants. More importantly, we can't agree on what god wants.  So in practice, following god's will turns out to be relative too.

Now because God knows we can not live by His righteousness he provides atonement. Atonement says I forgive you when you lie not to hurt someone's feelings. I (God) Forgive you for stealing to feed your family, but we must own our sin, not justify it with circumstance as morality allows for.. Why? Because Morality begets/spawns Selfrighteousness. Self righteousness if a word that describes a morality that can be bent or twisted to do anything even marching jews to a death camp, and everyone still feel like they are 'good people.' When in fact the very core of selfrighteousness is Evil and evil that loves the sin that we want to be apart of and yet still see ourselves as 'good people.'

Oh, I see, you want to solve our real world moral problems by saying we must own our sin.  I agree, we must own our own immorality.  Why else would we even try to be moral?  But, I don't see that looking at all sin as equal is going to get us there. Nor is thinking that it will all be forgiven later.  

We can use morality to justify things we should not.  But more often it is people's view of god's morality that is used to justify evil.  Many people terrorizing Jews, killing Aztecs, burning heretics, executing Muslims, or whipping servant women for wearing ribbons, felt they were doing god's will.  Man's attempt to see god's will is as slippery as the modern notion of relative morality.  

My question demonstrates that 'we' are never in a position to see our own self righteousness without the benefit of an unchanging absolute like God's righteousness.

Once again, if we cannot define the absolute law to the letter, it is not useful as an absolute for determining our behavior now. Christians are incapable of agreeing on what god's law is, so it is not a useful absolute standard.  

That aside, from what I see in the Bible, god's law is a crude, barbaric standard that shows at every crack and seam that it was created in a harsher time, where there was more casual cruelty, and less equality.  It's a damned good thing, your god seems incapable of enforcing it because it is by today's standards gross and evil.  And I do mean evil.

You see, the extreme variability of man's understanding of god's will suggests that god's will is an idea created by man to bolster particular men's views of morality and nothing more.  It's better to leave god out of it, as then we can discuss what morality is best in a rational manner.

That's the thing God's will hasn't ever changed since it was made know to moses and extended by Christ. The change you are talking about is 'christian morality' which is nothing more than self righteousness itself.

I am suggesting that a god unable to either make his will clear to all men or enforce it here on earth, and a nonexistent god look the same.  That suggests to me that there is no such law making god.

God has a very simple plan. show us via the law that we can never abide by it.
provide atonement so we don't have to to be found righteous.
allow us the freedom to worship to the best of our ability.
Eternally separate those who want to retain their own righteousness.

Again, a very dangerous idea for the real world.  Real world consequences affect real world behavior and it's real world behavior that matters.

Your god and the afterlife he promises, are no concern of mine until there is some credible evidence he exists.  And he is a dangerous fantasy because it is dangerous to suppose you will be forgiven equally for all moral infractions or that anyone other than the person you injure can forgive you. It is also dangerous to suppose that lying and murder are equally bad.

I suggest this standard:  on any given moral question the rule should be that which a person who is not yet born and does not yet know what his race, gender, sexual orientation, or place in society will be would consider to be the best rule.  Applying this standard requires dispassion and reason, and would result in fairness. I will not hold my breath for the standard to be applied though because our morality is not entirely born of reason.  It is a product of empathy, which is why our moral standards are higher with regard to those we know or can otherwise identify with, than it is with regard for those we don't know or can't identify with.  The "other" is always given less rights be it because they differ in income, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, nationality, language, profession, or dress. Biblical morality demonstrates this clearly.  Hebrews are expected to treat those they identify with (other Hebrews) better than those they don't (everyone else).  The adult male Hebrews writing the OT naturally give more rights to adult male Hebrews.  The adult Christian men writing the NT naturally give more rights to adult Christian men.  Naturally, they denigrated the rights of Jewish men who rejected Christianity.  

Far from behaving better when applying god's standard, people use god's standard to justify their lack of empathy for others.  Thus, the differing standards for: the chosen people versus all other people; my gender versus other genders; people of my faith versus people of other faiths; people of different incomes versus people of my income and so on.  Selfish people have used god's standard to justify everything from socialism (easily justified by Jesus's teachings) to capitalism (easily justified based on god's obvious preference).

This is still performance based morality.. which means no matter how well intentioned it is still subject to self righteousness, and will eventually degrade and fail.

As is your attempt to follow god's law.  I am interested in doing the best we can with what we have. You appear interested in being forgiven.

[Drich]

Drich
Homosexuality and Abortion are two good examples of how pop morality has changed it's 'values' concerning these two subjects. Just one or two generations ago these two social issues were THE most Immoral thing one could do in this society. Now the most immoral thing one can do is try and prevent someone from being gay or having an abortion.

The most? I don't think so, Drich.
Good old-fashioned murder has probably always been the standard.

Drich
So my question is, if you have a heart that blindly accepts everything society tells you is 'moral'/You justify your morality by using common/pop arguments, and you have no system of checks and balances outside of what society defines as 'moral' how then are you any different than dark age Christians, North Koreans, ISIS, Taliban, Nazis, the US slave traders/owners, The US citizens who supported the wholesale slaughter of the Indians Etc??

Society doesn't determine my sense of morality. Morality is a direct of result of my capacity for empathy. That's how and why I can make the determination that certain actions of a fictional character would be immoral if he were real, as well as how I could come to the conclusion that a currently accepted societal norm is NOT okay. I don't require anyone to tell me when something is immoral. If I can visualize something happening to myself or my children and know that it would cause needless pain, grief, anguish, and/or suffering, I can reasonably assume that no one else would want it done to them.

but if not society who teach you empathy?

In my Nazi illustration Empathy was turn off for the Jews. Nazis used 'science' to 'prove' that the jew was not really human, that they were a semian form of a roach and were sapping all of the natural resources and infecting and killing the pure 'germans.' over time and through much propaganda empathy was removed from the jews because Germany sucessfully took away their humanity/human classification.

We have done similar things with unborn babies and even partially born babies. anyone we deem an active terrorist, or radicalized muslim.. So as you can see it has happened in your life right under your nose, and you gave little to no thought about it. Meaning you have no issue when the people who shot up Paris where themselves killed, or when a woman 'exercises her right to choose.' In both cases is not a human life extinguished? in both cased were they not killed in horrific ways? If you were to kill a 2 year old the way an abortion clinic kills an unborn or partially born baby would it not get a different response from you? You could even take the same child and look at a pre birth death verse a post birth death, and use the same method on the same child and one method is fine while the other deserves life in prison...

If your empathy is not being controlled by the pop culture then why is your reaction not the same? Why does propaganda deem it ok in one instance and immoral in another?

So again my question then becomes if Pop culture controls your empathy (as in the case with Nazi Germany) what can you use to determine if the culture goes too far/turn evil?

[Nihilist Virus]

I sometimes wonder Drich if, owing to your obvious sociopathic tendencies (taking your posts on this forum and others as the benchmark) whether you are capable of understanding what people mean when they invoke empathy? Or care? Or love?

This is not a personal attack rather more just an observation. I have over the years tended to conclude your posts contain as much malice as anything else, and an intense need to gain a 1 up at all costs. These of course are traits usually found in sociopaths.

In just wondering what sort of arguments or debates are worthwhile, or whether we bother to engage? I look forward to your answer to my query in my previous post.

If it puts your mind at ease I am not a sociopath, ( I was tested when I was younger/although I did/do have a touch of the autism/ass-burgers) I see things differently is all. I can feel/invoke empathy love and care etc.. However my mind seeks searches and assembles/disassembles everything. as a kid this was madding for a parent because i would often wander off visualizing how something works, or I would get triggered by something i saw or something someone said and start day dreaming rather than partake in 'normal stuff.' By the time i learned to control my 'gift' it was too late for school, so I had to teach myself... everything. (which is why arbitrary rule based academics I suck at/spelling grammar etc, while other physics/logic based disciplines I accel at.)

While I grew up along side people like all of you, I was never completely invested in any of it though. I can and do enjoy limited detachment from society, but only in so far as to not hold anything sacred, that I do not see a value in revering that way. Growing up I found the rules of a society to be trivial and often times based on tradition and what people felt comfortable with. This was illustrated by living in a home that represented two polar opposite cultures. The things my Father and his family held on to, were completely different than the things my mother and her family held on to, for completely different but equally trivial reasons.

My mother's family would often question and wonder why my father would follow stupid american traditions when to them it made sense to act and behaive a different way, and vise versa. All of that taught me was to be objective and to not blindly hold to tradition/culture simply because that's what everyone else does. To break down social patterns and use them if and when they were needed, rather than rituallistically bending my knee to them each and every time society demands it.

Now put the two things together and you have someone who can honestly objectify and analyze the sacred social structure (and Religion, And anything else people get so emotionally attached to they can see straight) for its good, bad and ugly attributes without being pressured to conform to popular morality or thought.

For instance whether you like it or not the United states of America would not be anything like it is today with out slavery. say what you will but it was the taxes the government collected from the work and profit of rich white land owners, that we were able to buy out the french and Spanish colonies, and without this money (which we had no other way of generating at that time) this continent would have been subdivided into french, Spanish, and English colonies possibly even today, if infact hitler did not take control when he invaded those nations, taking the resources those colonies/states offered for himself making him and his ideals unstoppable...

Yes, on an individual level I feel for and would hate to have been a slave, but on a survival of a diverse species level (because hitler was building a single master race if you remember) the slaves and the work/money that slave labor provided had to be done at the time it was done so the survival of multinational humanity.. The same could be said about the American Indians. They were in their infancy/stoneage (by choice) when the rest of the world was well into the ironage/just shy of pre industrial age. again from a species stand point what was done how ever brutal and 'immoral' was needed for the continual survival of a diverse species.

We can not simply ignore or judge our pasts without weighing both the positive and negative attributes even the most appalling events yield. Like for instance the slaughter Germany leveled against the Jews. Bought them back their holy Land. to you this may seem trivial, but it was on top of every jews prayer list for almost 2000 years! The millions that Germany slaughtered was the price "Moral Man" demanded in 1948. We know this to be true because after WWI when the same nations that won WWII (minus Japan) divided up the world, no consideration was given to the Jews. But after WWII and the world was told millions died in camps, and after we saw the pictures, pop morality then demanded that they be given back their home so nothing like this could happen again..

Nothing I've said here is untrue, it's it not something we want to acknoweledge because self righteous morality does not like to acknoweledge anything 'good' to come out of immoral acts, but in truth it is out of 'immoral acts' that the state of human survival hinges on. its because in western culture, you do not like to talk about or be reminded of what harsh brutality affords us. you like to think yourself as better than our forefathers, better than the rest of the world because you yourself do not have to get your hands bloody, but you all fail to ever look at the blood on your feet.. Because WE all stand on the backs of men who thankfully did what they had to do to put us in the position where selective empathy and self righteousness is a luxury we can afford to have if indeed we are so inclined to delude..

Or is it??? That's the bases of the question I want you all to ask yourself. Is your empathy and self righteous/ current version of pop morality some how better than the morality of Hitler's germany, or 18th century America or even late 19th century America? where millions suffered and died.. If so how would you know if nothing you believe strays outside of the right and wrong defined by pop culture affords you? Again all of these cultures mention, saw themselves as 'moral' and what they did as being 'moral' just as you do because their morality like yours is/was sourced from the culture. So then how do you differ?

You stop short of saying slavery is bad. Focusing on how it has helped the species. You even say that the near genocide of native Americans was beneficial to the species.

So explain how eradication of religion, particularly Islam and Christianity, would not further the species. The drawbacks of Islam, I presume, require no explanation. The drawbacks of Christianity are how it is anti-progressive. Certainly it is anti-progressive in terms of civil rights, as you are proving single-handedly, but it is also anti-progressive in terms of scientific advancement.

You should support the eradication of Christianity:

1. You can claim you no longer have pop religion
2. Eradication of Christianity, I assume, can do nothing if not accelerate the endgame that you presumably believe in
3. Eradication of Christianity will advance the human race

You can play your part in this by living a rational life and finding empathy for all living creatures.

[LadyForCamus]

but if not society who teach you empathy?

But empathy is just not as simple a concept as 'you are either taught it or not.' To a degree, our species is hard wired for it, probably for evolutionarily advantageous reasons. I've posted this article before but I'll offer it to you as well.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the...ce-empathy

[Whateverist]

You stop short of saying slavery is bad.  Focusing on how it has helped the species.  You even say that the near genocide of native Americans was beneficial to the species.

Because some times eradication can be how God shows His love.