Ugh, yes it was, although they had (and continue to have) a very narrow definition of "responsibility". They also believe that the more hours I work the better person I must be :roll:

Responsibility means taking care of myself without causing undue burden on my fellow man. Multiple generations used to live under one roof. Why is it now irresponsible to live that way? I don't like the idea of living with my parents, but it is a happiness and lifestyle choice, not a responsibility issue. If we care about the environment, it is actually MORE responsible for multiple generations to live together. — ZhouBoTong

You make me think it is a fool's game to compare that past with the present, but awareness of people being very concerned about morality is highly important to me. Unfortunately in trying to make my argument with you, I realize this is opening a huge can of worms! :grin: and I love it. This is why we come here, isn't it? To think about what we think.

For very, very sure, most people did not live in multiple generation homes but were more apt to be driven away by age 14 because there just wasn't enough food for a lot of people, and Social Security is about the needs of people too old and crippled to work, with no one to care for them. Especially girls were unwanted, so by age 14 they were married off to older men who wanted someone to wash their clothes and cook for them. By age fourteen some young men were pony express riders.

The men women married could, of course, get what they wanted from their young wives by hitting them. I read a book written by a journalist who interviewed pioneer people and I was surprised to read of the resentment of a war being fought to end slavery while the reality of these married women was ignored. I have also known some of them. They died many years ago. so there is no chance of knowing them today, but would you believe me when I say they were tormented women who were very glad when their husbands died and they finally had their freedom. Neither a son nor daughter would want to stay in such a home. Except, the oldest son who would inherit the land, had reason to stay. You can bet, the father made a different investment in this son, then other children, because that son was an extension of his mortality, and fathers, the head of the household, held all the power. What we have forgotten today is the importance of submitting to power and how this goes with being responsible and self-government.

In our abundance, we have very different lives and history books do not convey the consciousness of the past. Marriage was about survival, being an adult, family duty, not love, and sure as hell, not about happiness! Do you understand family duty? Are you being a good child or a good man? I am saying our consciousness is very different today, I am not judging you in a changed reality. We used to think age 30 was still youth. :roll: The guardians of truth are confusion and paradox. It is paradoxical that a 14-year-old boy could work as a man and still be considered a youth, right? A human life was cheap and poverty was great. There is no way a discussion about government assistance would have come up because the consciousness just wasn't right for that.

I say too much but quickly I want to say, outside of the can of worms, we need to know of the Age of Reason to understand what morality has to do with our liberty and democracy. I really hope we can discuss this more.

I agree about the importance of math. Unfortunately, the video is blocked where I live because of copyright issues. However, I have several videos on math and a few books. Not that my brain can do higher math, but the explanations of math get my attention.

Aristocles, Socrates would have agreed with you, and this thread goes nicely with the one on morality.

Socrates thought the sophists who taught rhetoric were immoral. Rhetoric being about power and politics. Rhetoric leading to the war with Sparta which Athens lost.

Rhetoric is the art of persuasion, which along with grammar and logic, is one of the three ancient arts of discourse. Rhetoric aims to study the capacities of writers or speakers needed to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations. Wikipedia — Wikipedia

We might think of this time in history as a replaying of Sparta's take over of Athens. Sparta was the first military-industrial complex and enemy of Athens. Germany was was the second military-industrial complex and this time it was our democracy that won the war, but the US then imitated Germany in every significant way. That is both times Sparta won because the way of Sparta became the controlling force both times. This is important because the democracy of the US that came out of the Age of Reason and centered on arguments for truth and the highest morality, is now what it defended its democracy against, and it is rhetoric for political power that rules the day, not the ideology of the Age of Reason that was the foundation of our democracy.

Wow I am very impressed by your explanation! Comparing religious thoughts and arguments with mathematical thoughts and arguments is consciousness expanding. That is beautiful.

What should religion do for us today? Mythology is essential for transmitting cultural knowledge and transitioning youth to adulthood.

The problem with mythology comes with interpreting it concretely instead of abstractly.

Driving on the right is not ethically superior to driving on the left and even evil people would choose to travel on the conventional side for their own convenience, even if there were no law. — Congau

Ah, I think there is a moral reason for having and following the traffic law. Not having driving agreements, or violating the traffic agreements, can have very bad consequences. If the law says to drive on the left or the right does not matter. What matters is having a system of agreements and going along with it, That is being moral. Amorality is a failure to have laws.

However, some dictator's awful wrongdoings free up society after the dictators' downfall, to the extent that incredible growth and prosperity follows.

Hitler's awful rule was followed by the bourgeoning of the consumer society, with more wealth to nations than ever before had been thought possible. Germany went completely democratic, Jews were more tolerated after wwII than before, social benefits to the poor, downtrodden, sick and misalinged were pumped up, taxes took on an equalizing role. Technology doubled every three years, medical science performed near-miracle-strength healing via aggressive advancements.

All because of one fucking bad dick tater. — god must be atheist

So there is hope after Trump or is he just the set up for worse dictators to come?

:lol: That comment got a really bad grammarly tone detector judgment. I would like to know how that judgment is made.

Slavery is moral then? It fits both those categories. — DingoJones

That depends on your society. It is not possible in a society based on democratic principles. Slavery in the US was based on the Bible, not democratic principles. Textbooks were printed in the North and there was hope of preventing a Civil War through education. However, the South became aware of the textbooks printed in the North undermining slavery so the South began printing its own textbooks supporting slavery. The North won the war and that brought an end to slavery.

Unfortunately, the US modeled its industry after England's autocratic model and autocracy is the enemy of democracy. Because of this, the US is not fully living with democratic morality. I really want to stress this point, because we stopped educating for democracy in 1958, and only when democracy is defended in the classroom is it defended. Autocracy is much stronger in the US with nothing to stop it from fully replacing democracy.

I am sure many people would agree with ZhouBoTong answer to my question "Would you live with your parents to avoid the responsibilities of being an adult?"

No, but I might live with my parents if it gave me more freedom to live the way that I wanted. — ZhouBoTong

Every child would want that and I think it is what people who vote for Trump want. They want a "Lion King" like the one in the Disney movie and the Bible. A king who makes life good for them, instead of accepting the responsibility of making life good. The problem is children are not moral. They are obedient like dogs but they are not capable of having good moral judgment. Unfortunately, that is now the problem with education. It prepares the young to be obedient but not to have good moral judgment. and this creates a culture that wants Trump to fix everything for them. So they can have want they want without the responsibility that interferes with their freedom. It is also what leads to a thread like this one with zero understanding of liberty and what morals have to do with democracy.

Social customs. Societal needs. — god must be atheist

Is that an explanation of reason or something different from reason?

No, but I might live with my parents if it gave me more freedom to live the way that I wanted. — ZhouBoTong

That is sweet but perhaps a little immature. The past standard for an adult was a person who welcomed responsibility. That had something to do with our understanding of the difference between being a child or an adult.

The US Declaration of Independence could also be called a Declaration of Responsibility. The American Revolution was about throwing off the control of kings, who saw their subjects as children, and taking responsibility for self-government.

I think I made a comment relevant to your question on a different thread. What is the essence of religion? Is it cosmology? No, we have a secular fully developed cosmology - no religion required. Is it god? No, we have Buddhism which remains silent on the matter. We may continue this line of questioning until we arrive at the essence, the thing religion wouldn't be a religion without and that, in my opinion, is morality. Morality is the cornerstone of religion and religion would cease to be religion sans morality. — TheMadFool

Buddhism and Hinduism and Taoism are not religions equal to the God of Abraham religions, Judaism, Islam, Christianity. The god of Abraham religions are organizationally different from the others and this is very important, because it is that organization that results in the power to force the will of the religious organization on others. The god of Abraham religions and war go hand and hand, with war being good for the religions and the religions being excellent for war.

Morals that are understood as a matter of cause and effect do not require religion. The reason for staying virgin until marriage is it takes two parents to raise children. Institutions are not good substitutes for parents.

A strong democracy demands strong families, and strong families are not dependent on the government, and not being dependent on the government or any other institutions means having liberty. Liberty is not equal to freedom but means being responsible for the consequences of of one's words and actions. We are no longer educating for this, because of the change in our bureaucratic order that crushes individual liberty and power and stands as authority over the people. Celebrating Presidents Day is hypocritical because those men were independent leaders without being tyrants. Trump is independent but also a tyrant who is undermining our democracy.

As weird as this may sound, I am happy to give up some autonomy if it means increasing my liberty. That may sound like a contradiction, but it works. If I live under a dictator, but doing so gives me access to a free education, then I have given up some autonomy in exchange for some liberty. The problem with dictators is that some are awful tyrants. History does not show that dictators are inherently bad. It just shows that one bad dictator can undo the progress of multiple generations. I am not worried about living in a "free society" (yes, yes, only the privileged mind of someone living in a free society could say such a thing :roll:), I am worried about the things I am free to do. — ZhouBoTong

It sounds terrible! Would you live with your parents to avoid the responsibilities of being an adult?

Do we expect this to change? Or should we just start coming up with a better option than democracy? — ZhouBoTong

What is a better option than democracy? Change is the purpose of public education and should be the purpose of public broadcasting and newspapers. We need a new American revolution to throw out the scoundrels who use our institutions for self serving purposes and to get our nation back on track with the ideals that gave us democracy in the first place.

Do we expect this to change? Or should we just start coming up with a better option than democracy? I actually largely agree with this idea, but I get the sense from you that you are very much in favor of increasing democracy and personal liberty. How will democracy ever work if the masses are too ignorant to realize their power?

Also, if we wanted MAXIMUM personal liberty we could NOT have democracy, right? It would only be a matter of time before someone voted in a way that would limit personal liberty. — ZhouBoTong

Things are dramatically changing. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. It is a matter of if the change is good or bad. Rick Steves recently did a program about Germany and Hitler's rise to power, and the show came with a warning about our need to protect our our liberty. We adopted the German model of bureaucracy and the German model of education for technology, and no one seems interested in this. The increase in federal power should have us alarmed. The more the federal government supports industries the more power the federal government has to control our lives. There is much to talk about but who is ready for the conversation?

The way democracy is defended is by defending it in the classroom, not by defending us with a military budget and power that is crushing. Any walls around our nation to keep "those people out" are walls that keep us in. Our ability to cross from one country to another is being closed and controlled by the federal government. You may be able to get a "real identity" card that allows you to cross boarders but your freedom should not be confused by the real loss of freedom we are experiencing. We are marginalizing people as we never did before. The privacy act gave the federal government the ability to track us through education, medical care and banking, but not through the libraries that refused to cooperate with it. The libraries could stand firm against the federal governments control because the federal government does not fund our libraries, and as the federal government funds more and more industry our liberty is increasing threatened.

Defending our liberty in the classroom means preparing everyone to make moral decisions without religion. Defending our democracy means teaching a set of American values. It means understanding we defend our liberty by obeying the laws, and if we think a law is wrong, such as ordering Socrates to drink hemlock, it is our duty and responsibility to speak out and if possible change the law. Our liberty does not mean we can violate laws we don't like, and Socrates agreed to drink the hemlock.

I think we have a problem with understanding liberty and democracy. Democracy is an imitation of the gods who argued until they had a census on the best reasoning.

Jim Hightower is perhaps the best voice on democracy and liberty of our time. Here is a link to google search. https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=Hightower+and+democracy&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

I think the word "freedom" is problematic especially in a population that does not strongly believe a moral is a matter of cause and effect. I prefer the word "liberty" because it has a stronger connection with morality. People with liberty are the least free because they understand the responsibility of having good moral judgement. They agree with Cicero and understand the consequences of their actions and words are what they are and can not be changed by sacrificing animals, burning candles or saying prayers.

As Socrates argued about education being essential to democracy, and Jefferson devoted his life to having a well educated public, because this is how to have a strong and united republic, we need to pay much more attention to what education has to do with good moral judgment and what that has to do with a culture that does not need to function like a police state to keep people safe. We might change our focus from education for technology to a focus on history and our environments.

PS We respect everyone because we are respectful people.

So, when I said there's a kind of morality that's religious I was referring to those moral principles that were plucked from religion, assessed to be worthy, and then adopted by people. The connection between god/the divine with this kind moral code is perhaps best described as filial - they are offsprings of divine morality and the link terminates there for some and maybe most. — TheMadFool

Whose story of God are you using? Do you prefer one holy book over another? Why?

How divine is it to destroy the planet we live on? Whose morals are effectively opposing this? Or do you accept global warming as a wonderful sign we are in the last days and feel happy about this?

Interesting topic. After thinking about it for a bit I have a question...do you think our belief in a more inclusive and egalitarian society has anything to do with this loss? Perhaps an equal percent of the population (or even a little higher than in the past) agree with the importance of science and reasoning, but now the masses have more power in society? I certainly believe that more power for the masses has many benefits, but it seems there will have to be downsides as well (at least in the short term anyway). — ZhouBoTong

The masses are too ignorant to have power. They have extremely little control of their lives and have willingly given up their power, and far too many are thrilled by the idea of robots running everything. And they sure as blazes are ignorant about autocracy being the enemy of democracy and that our lives could be radially different with everyone enjoying much more personal power and liberty. In the US we have become what we defended our democracy against. We have the organization of the enemy that crushes individual power and liberty and we have prepared our young to think this is new and improved and that they are superior to the rest of humanity. They are supporting the most expensive military might in the world.

↪Athena
Interesting point but stating religious morality as the only alternative is a little reductive dont you think. Morality is much more complex than a two path ideological frame work. There are other debates intrinsically woven into this discussion that arent present in a religion only base of morality. — LuckilyDefinitive

Morality is based on reason, or on faith. I can not think of another foundation for morality.

History shows this is certainly true. However, I sometimes think it is the "knowing" part that is more dangerous than the "will of God" aspect. Don't get me wrong, the "will of God" has a long history of convincing people they "know" what is best. But I worry that any moral system that people consider to be "objectively correct" would lead to strong feelings, which have the potential to be acted upon (but I can agree that religion has been the biggest cause of this up until now). — ZhouBoTong

It is the Christian Right that supports the conservative presidents and the skyrocketing growth of our military budget and wars fought without being budgeted, such as Bush's invasion of Iraq. The mentality is also what gave the world Hitler. These folks know the will of God is what they want. They know this by faith not reason.

Democracy is rule by reason. Trump and his supporters are not about rule by reason, and it looks like the end of the democracy we defended in civil wars and two world wars. That is the result of no longer defending democracy in the classroom, and ignoring autocracy is the enemy of democracy and allowing it to control our economy and therefore everything else.

Democracy is a social order that respects human dignity and differences, and government is only one aspect of democracy. Only one aspect of democracy.

I thought Socrates gave his life for freedom of speech and Athens's democracy. He had the opportunity to escape and live elsewhere but he chose to respect the law and the decision for his death because without respect for their rules, a state cannot exist. Of course he could have avoided the whole mess by recanting what he said as Galileo did. Defending his right to say what he believes needs to be said, is a defense of freedom of speech and this becomes a defense of democracy.

I read several comments about Socrates's choice, written by what has to be young people, because they all seem to miss the point, that what is important is not the individual but everyone and the ideal. Sort of like Patrick Henry saying "give me liberty or give me death". It is the ideal and good of all that matters, and we must be willing to die for that. As a Muslim suicide bomber or any of the past martyrs gave their lives for a cause. Human sacrifice is the ultimate price to pay for the ideal and benefit of all. Socrates died for freedom of speech and his democracy as thousands of Americans died to defend their democracy, only all those deaths have been for nothing because we stop defending our democracy in the classroom.

As for the problem with capitalism, that is a lack of democracy. We have autocratic industry and therefore the evil of autocracy. We need to replace autocratic industry with the democratic model and put an end to those evils.

Oh yeah, I know of the The Project for a New American Century. Not a very democratic organization but with a lot of power to control the expense and use of our military.

The rate of homeless deaths in the US is on the increase.
https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&hs=BR&channel=fs&ei=TkxHXteBOPvG0PEPt5Si2Ao&q=rate+of+homeless+deaths&oq=rate+of+homeless+deaths&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i22i29i30l4.356100.361400..362500...0.2..0.200.1900.7j13j3......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j0i67j0j0i131j0i273j0i22i30.K4747MBpt8k&ved=0ahUKEwjX4PzgttLnAhV7IzQIHTeKCKsQ4dUDCAo&uact=5

The cause of the rise in deaths, is not famine and a boarder view of the rise in deaths supports the notion that there are limits to growth.

A neoliberal is not a liberal. Google the term. — Noah Te Stroete

What happened in 1980 to bring about this change? Does this have something to do with Reagan and the Texans who got Eisenhower, Reagan and Bush elected? Would another term for this group of people be the Republican Right?

It is very hard to test, because the fact that we are brought up under threats, both social and legal, means that if we are suddenly without these outside forces and potential punishments it is a very specific situation. We are, then, precisely, people who have been under threat, released from threat. A real test would have to be, what happens if people are raised not under threat and have freedom from potential incarceration? Adn the only way to test that would be to take over an island. — Coben

We have the necessary information because of anthropology and the fact that primitive people living on isolated islands can be studied. Primitive human beings on islands with plenty of resources tend to be gentle people who share and are highly moral because it is our nature to want to have social harmony and be a well liked and valued member of the group.

However, nomadic people from the harsh environments such as where mongols live, have a more aggressive nature. Where humans do not have adequate resources and do not live in a Garden of Eden of environment, they are not nice people and tend to think the notion of a god or goddess who takes care of them is absolutely ridiculous. These people are hunters and do not have to consciousness of agrarian people. Genghis Khan and his followers killed everyone in their path and razed the ground so it could return to pasture for their horses, until a man from China who had agrarian consciousness convinced Genghis Khan to 'harvest" the living in settlements and cities. That is to ask for a tribute and allow everyone to live if it is paid. What is important here is the notion of concepts and how the environment shapes our concepts and understanding of life. The Mongols were highly moral people, intolerant of lying and stealing and committed to providing shelter and food to strangers. He thought it was the city people who are highly immoral because in the city lying and stealing are essential part of survival. You want to discuss this?

We also know people become aggressive or gentle because of child rearing practices. Our nature is not exactly what Christians think it is, but is dependent on our environment, resources, and child rearing practices.

Thank you for the links. I actually had the good fortune to work with one of Kahneman's doctoral students for a short while so I'm fairly familiar with his work, but I will take another look. What I was looking for was some support for your assertions about the possible effects of education, specifically that it "is possible to use education to manifest a culture that promotes morality and decreases social problems." I don't recall anything in Kahneman which demonstrated anything of this nature - could you point me to the particular experiment or implication you're referencing here. — Isaac

Oh, ah, that assertion comes from knowledge of the Age of the Enlightenment and development of thinking leading to science and democracy. :lol: Picking through my brain to find the thoughts behind my thinking is a challenge because my thoughts today are a combination of so many thoughts. You know what I mean?

Can we being with the Greeks and the notion that a moral is a matter of cause and effect and science is about cause and effect. Science is to democracy, what religion is to autocracy or monarchies.

Destroying our environment is immoral because that damage to our planet threatens life on this planet. Native American consciousness was spiritual and animated like most primitive people's consciousness. We might do well to have that consciousness and think of plant and animal life and rivers as having spirits, and then think about the morality of destroying a mountain and streams to extract a mineral. A main objection I have of Biblical morality is it is way too narrow and materialistic and way to dependent on superstitious notions of good and evil supernatural powers, instead of practical, if you destroy the environment or act on the wrong decision, the consequences will be bad. The natives depending on nature had to learn how to live in harmony with nature. I think that is a pretty important concept.

Then there is Cicero, and hey, there is no supernatural being that is going to save our sorry asses. No amount of animal sacrifices, or burning of candles, or incantations are going to make our wrongs right. What happens is the consequence of our actions, and therefore, we better do our best to make the right decisions. Understanding this is essential to understanding democracy and our liberty!

This thinking is also important to our willingness to go to war or not. The US war on Iraq was immoral and the consequences are extremely bad, and it was this war that determined me to bring an end to Christianity. I believe Christians have done so much harm to our planet and the rest of the world, the belief needs to be brought to an end.

Around age eight our brains become physically changed and so does our thinking. This is when critical thinking begins and parents stop looking like gods who should not be questioned. When I hit that age I began questioning religious truths and when a Sunday school could not give me a satisfactory answer to my question, I decided religious folks may not have truth. I reasoned if they had truth, there would be one religion, and so many different opinions of God's truth. Not people going to this church and sure they know God's truth better than people who go to that church. Obviously that meant I would have to study all the religions and determine truth for myself.

I think it is important to study the world religions as you have and I don't anyone can know what Jesus was thinking without also studying Buddhism. The class system of Hinduism and all the strange looking gods are a turn off, but I really like their explanation of being a better human being!

It is very hard to test, because the fact that we are brought up under threats, both social and legal, means that if we are suddenly without these outside forces and potential punishments it is a very specific situation. We are, then, precisely, people who have been under threat, released from threat. A real test would have to be, what happens if people are raised not under threat and have freedom from potential incarceration? Adn the only way to test that would be to take over an island.
I think it is important to understand the difference between eastern and western logic and what Rome had to do with closing our consciousness and making it so materialistic. While Greek logic became more linear than eastern logic. Which goes back to what I said about the importance of knowing Buddhism, because I really don't think we have a good understanding of Jesus without a more eastern perspective.

You do seem to have a well rounded education, so are you familiar with Quabala? (sp?) The off shoot of Hebrew. And I very much regret the lack of my understanding of Semitic languages and their tie to math. I am afraid without that understand we are missing a huge part of understanding. And I hope no one throw stones at me, but I think understand Aztec consciousness is just as important as any other knowledge.

I’m optimistic and think most of us would act morally save for a few opportunists. But then again it would be interesting to see some statistics on whether people abide by laws out of principle or because they fear being punished. — NOS4A2

The South depended on slavery and did terrible things while seeing themselves as good Christians. There was a time when good Christians beat the devil out of their children, and today we recognize that as abuse and know it is very harmful. Christianity without education for higher order thinking skills is not a good thing. Christianity sustained ignorance and mistreatment of human beings for hundreds of years. I would not expect humans to do better without better education.

If by law you mean a legal framework codified and enforced then it's just the tip of the iceberg. There are other moral laws people follow and it's my suspicion that these are invariably religious morals.

Given that the above is true, people can be divided into two categories: Category 1, the religious-good, are those people who use religion as a guide for their behavior and category 2, the legal-good who either have no idea or simply don't care about religion and the only thing that keeps them from transforming into thieves, murderers, etc is the legal system.

If the law broke down or didn't exist then the legal-good would immediately complete their metamorphosis into criminals and chaos would ensue but the religious-good who are guided by religious morals would continue to be good as they were never actually dependent on the legal system.

If this tells us anything, it is that there must exist at least one set of laws to prevent immoral behavior. The legal system just happens to be the first line of defense. — TheMadFool

Looks to me like you want to return to the good old days when Martin Luther thought witch hunters were necessary, and God chose who would rule and who would serve?

Man's understanding of the gods and law is older than Christianity and really the Christian God is not that good. He is jealous, revengeful, fearsome and punishing, the role model of an abusive husband. He is the same God worshiped by Muslims and Christians and Muslims share more in common than say Mormons and Catholics and Evangelical Christians. All these people worship a god of war except the Quakers who do not refer to the old testament and follow Jesus. While Buddhism and Hinduism provide excellent teachings on morality.

The God of Abraham religions did not give us the highest morals and peace. Democracy and science, with science being understood as knowledge of the universal laws (God), lifting humanity higher than what Christian Europe could accomplish before the age of reason. It is about how to come to know the laws, through the authority of the bible or through science and reason?

The union of our nation that was built on reason, is being shredded! Our liberty is being destroyed and our growing dependency on authority over us is frightening. — Athena


I am not sure how I feel on this. Some days I see the religious "nones" increasing and people generally being more open to (and demanding of) peace. But then the next day, I see the push toward the idea that "all opinions are equal" and wonder if that idea is the death of democracy.

Well, I was expecting to argue a bit more...but I think I agreed with almost everything :up: — ZhouBoTong

:lol: Isn't it awful when there is nothing to argue.

I think our most serious problem is we lost the memory of what science (reason) has to do with over coming evil and what morals have to do with liberty and democracy. This happened because we stopped transmitting the culture that is the foundation of democracy and began preparing our young for a technological society with unknown values- this manifest exactly what we defended our democracy in two world wars because we replaced education for Greek and Roman philosophy with German philosophy and we adopted the German model of education for technology and the German model of bureaucracy that crushes individual liberty and power.

The problem isn't Christianity becauseminterpreting the Bible abstractly brings out the best in it and reduces the problems arising from ignorance and superstition. Because it was Greeks who were the first to write the Christian Bible it is filled with Greek concepts such "the word" or logos meaning reason, made manifest in speech (discovering truth) is the controlling force of the universe. This is why when the Roman and Greek documents were rediscovered and literate people knew Greek and Latin we had the renaissance bringing a love of reason back, and why it could win out over ignorance and superstition and replace the kingdom (a belief in God's will controlling everything) with democracy (rule by reason and the people who can cure disease, stop flooding, and more). But dang, we imitated Germany, and now, we live with the beast that is stronger than ever, and good Christians are thrilled about us being the end of times and proving the Bible is right- belief not reason. They do not see the human decisions that are manifesting our reality and their freedom to make better decisions.

:grin: I sure hope there are comments, questions or arguments to advance this discussion.

Well that certainly provides a potential explanation of a large chunk of the planet not reaching higher levels of moral reasoning. — ZhouBoTong

Nothing makes people more willing to fight for what they believe than the notion that they know the will of God and are fighting for God. In the US both the south and the north believed they were fighting for God, making the civil war a terrible struggle. Germany was the seat of the Holy Roman Empire and the Protest Reformation and these people fought terrible wars against each other, with the 30 years almost destroying Germany opening the way for Prussians to take control of Germany leading us to the world wars and finally to the US being the strongest military force on earth with the Christian Right supporting Bush in a war against non Christians, while Muslims fight for their existence against the Evil Empire that is the US.

Allowing the corporate oligarchy to dictate the law and its resulting morality is considered utmost evil in Islam:

The words of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) may be applied to the secularist: “Wretched is the slave of the dinar and the slave of the dirham and the slave of the khameesah (a kind of luxurious garment made of wool with patterns). If he is given he is pleased and if he is not given he becomes discontent. May he be wretched and doomed, and if he is pricked with a thorn may it not be pulled out (i.e., may he have no help to remove it).” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (2887). — Sunnah on the problem of prioritizing the corporate oligarchy


While trade and commerce are clearly permitted, all the while taking into account that usury is strictly forbidden, it is not permissible in Islamic law to give free rein to greed.

Furthermore, the believer resolutely rejects a system in which the corporate oligarchy dictates the law with a view on turning greed into the core moral value of society, i.e. a false god, because associating such corporate lawmakers as partners to Allah is impermissible behaviour for the believer. According to the Quran, the punishment for such behaviour is eternal damnation. — alcontali

Thank you very much for this explanation.

If you sincerely want more information google "higher order thinking skills" and read the links that are attractive to you. Your knowledge of the subject would be improved by learning about how our brains work and Daniel Kahneman is the best authority on that. Google "fast and slow thinking" to learn more about that. To clarify, there is are different methods of teaching children how to think, and we can prepare them to be fast thinkers or slow thinkers. Literally interpreting the Bible and basing all decisions on what one believes is slow thinking and the lowest moral level dependent on fear of God's punishment and hope for God's blessing.

The highest moral level can be explained with a pyramid of thinking skills and this is found on the upper right of this page https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=Higher+order+thinking+skills&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

So...teaching creationism in bible school is immoral. Or that christ has risen. Or most other bible stories.

I agree with that.

then how come the religious claim that the core of their (and others') moral behaviour is based on the bible?

Are you ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY sure that lying to children is ALWAYS immoral?
19 hours ago
Reply
Options — god must be atheist

There is an important difference between story telling as Hebrews did to get across a point and teach morals, and interpreting them literally. Hebrews understood the stories as stories and I am not sure why Christians interpreted them literally but it is the literal thinking that is the problem, and not all Christians interpret the Bible literally. Christians who interpret the bible literally are the problem and Texas education promotes this. Teachers took Texas to the supreme court because Christians had forced creationism into science books and were forcing teachers to teach creationism as though the story were equal to science. The teachers won, but still the Texas Republican Agenda in 2012 was to prevent education for higher order thinking. To be clear, the Texas Republican Agenda was to assure ignorance and unquestioning obedience to authority. The political ramification to this should alarm everyone.

What form would education take? Number one, it would return to transmitting the culture we defended in two world wars. Number two, it would prepare everyone for higher order thinking skills. And number 3, would stop specializing students and return to giving everyone a well rounded education with a focus on individual interest and talents.

No more "group think"! and back to education for independent thinking.

↪Athena
What happened in 1958? — Pfhorrest

The establishment of the Military Industrial Complex. The 1958 National Defense Education was only part of the establishment of the Military Industrial Complex but perhaps the most significant part because of the resulting cultural change. President Eisenhower explained the reasoning for establishing the Military Industrial Complex and he warned us of the dangers of it in his farewell speech.

Huh, wasn't Bush a conservative, elected by conservatives and strongly supported by the Christian Right? Why are you lying this wrong on liberals?

I will make a note to return to this thread. Security gaurd said it is lock up time, bye..

Surely the informal social agreements of small populations, enforced by social pressure, is not possible for large populations, but I must argue, education for good moral judgement is vital to our liberty. In is possible to use education to manifest a culture that promotes morality and decreases social problems. The US stopped doing that in 1958 and the cultural change is not a good one.

The level of moral judgement a person attains depends on the person's belief system and education. Now if the belief system explains it is our nature to be evil and therefore there must be authority over the people, then the stage of moral development will remain low.

For the level of moral judgement to increase, there must be education for higher order thinking. That is where a person thinks about what he thinks and is moved to pursue information and expand his consciousness. That is a totally different level of thinking than average Christian thinking, and the 2012 Texas Republican agenda was to prevent education for higher order thinking.

Text books in Texas are very much controlled by Christians, however, when teachers protested teaching creationism and having it put in science text books, the supreme court ruled against including creationism in science books and against teaching it as science. That is, at the supreme court level, reason trumped religious belief.

We desperately need to return to understanding what morality has to do with liberty and what education has to do with good moral judgement or the lack of it! the 1958 National Defense Education Act decision to end education for good moral judgment and leave moral training to the church, was a huge mistake! The following social upheaval did improve some things, but we now have a technological society with unknown values and too few people to figure out what our values should be. We have intensified our dependency on religion and that is a problem. That is behind Trump becoming our president and mass amorality.

When the only God is an impossible to believe God, the nation is split between the believers in that God and non believers. The union of our nation that was built on reason, is being shredded! Our liberty is being destroyed and our growing dependency on authority over us is frightening.