Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article

from Girl Child Wednesday, January 03, 2007 - 06:01 (Agree/Disagree?) Rain Child I am interested in talking with other survivors of TF in Australia. Please contact me via email. I have Questions, Questions, Questions??????????? (reply to this comment)

From Rain Child Wednesday, January 03, 2007, 06:24 (Agree/Disagree?) First, please tell me a little more about why you want to know, as although I would love to help you, I have no wish to speak to a reporter. If I e-mail you, you will automatically receive my full name. That is why I'd rather answer your questions here (Not this thread, though, it's full and loads slowly, maybe you could start a new one with all your questions?) at least until I've figured out what your story is. If it wasn't past midnight (again) I'd meet you in chat. Maybe you can come on a little earlier tomorrow night? Sorry to sound like Deep Throat, but I'm trying to build a life for myself and my son, and I need to protect that from any journalist after a sensational story.(reply to this comment)

From fragiletiger Monday, August 13, 2007, 02:22 (Agree/Disagree?) you so are turning into mum(reply to this comment)

From fragiletiger Monday, August 13, 2007, 02:22 (Agree/Disagree?) you so are turning into mum(reply to this comment)

From rainy Monday, August 13, 2007, 02:43 (Agree/Disagree?) But I think I was right about girlie. She was welcome to ask more, but never did.(reply to this comment)

From fragiletiger Monday, August 13, 2007, 02:50 (Agree/Disagree?) you need a secret identity for your secret identity (reply to this comment)

From AndyH Monday, August 13, 2007, 08:17 (Agree/Disagree?) Yes, an anonymous email is always a good idea. Mine is chunkylover2007@hotmail.com(reply to this comment)

from rainy Thursday, December 21, 2006 - 01:04 (Agree/Disagree?) Okay, let's all have a big laugh at the latest mess religion has caused: THESSALONIKI, Greece - Rival groups of monks wielding crowbars and sledgehammers clashed Wednesday over control of a 1,000-year-old monastery in a community regarded as the cradle of Orthodox Christianity, police said. ADVERTISEMENT Seven monks were injured and transported by boat to receive treatment. They were released after several hours, police said. No one was arrested but three monks were banned from re-entering the Orthodox sanctuary of Mount Athos, located on a self-governing peninsula in northern Greece. Esphigmenou monastery is the scene of a long-running dispute between Orthodox Church authorities and rebel monks who occupy the facility. Both Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, leader of the Orthodox Christian church, and Greece's highest administrative court have ordered their eviction, but the monks have refused to budge. The rebel monks vehemently oppose efforts to improve relations between the Orthodox Church and the Vatican. The fighting Wednesday broke out between the rebel monks and a group of legally recognized monks who were outside. The outsiders attempted to force their way into the monastery's offices in Karyes, the administrative center of the monastic community, to begin construction of a new building. Occupying monks attacked those outside with crowbars and fire extinguishers. Esphigmenou's rebel abbot, Methodius, said his monks had been provoked. "We were attacked and had to respond," he said. "They should be ashamed to call themselves men of the cloth." In October, a court in the nearby city of Thessaloniki handed down two-year suspended sentences against nine monks and former monastery members for illegally occupying Esphigmenou's offices. Supplies to the rebel monastery are brought in by supporters using dinghies from the nearby island of Thassos. Esphigmenou is one of 20 monasteries on Athos, where women are banned. (reply to this comment)

from openmind Saturday, December 16, 2006 - 23:28 (Agree/Disagree?) guys ... I made a recent discovery ... I think that actually I could be God ... because the girls I sleep with ... they seem to shout "O God... O God" does this have anything to do with "woman's intuition" somebody explain please? anyone? help? (reply to this comment)

From Sunday, December 17, 2006, 11:31 (Agree/Disagree?) we never doubted for a second that you are godlike creature, why are you surprised?(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Sunday, December 17, 2006, 07:29 (Agree/Disagree?) How could you be God, when I am He? Get thee behind me Satan. Wait, no, You can be God, I'll be Satan, let me get behind thee.(reply to this comment)

From sar Sunday, December 17, 2006, 05:48 (Agree/Disagree?) Hard to tell. Do you believe in Richard Dawkins?(reply to this comment)

from history-do your home work! Saturday, December 16, 2006 - 09:27 (Agree/Disagree?) Ancient beleif systems http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=2767965664962692973&q=jordan+maxwell Sons of God http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=1425045877181913152&q=jordan+maxwell Ocoult http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-3422425898569739700&q=jordan+maxwell hidden symbols http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=5368249979680883398&q=jordan+maxwell world of commerce http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=3648930131443936554&q=jordan+maxwell toxic religion http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-1902662444941995024&q=jordan+maxwell God is just----indoctrination http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-1381571498257958362&q=jordan+maxwell hidden symbols in everyday life-we look but we do not see! Part one http://www.dark-truth.org/okt20-2006-6.html Part two http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-4306735945697288438&q=jordan+maxwell Part three http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=2233997338138922977&q=jordan+maxwell Part four http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=2392398489053775506&q=jordan+maxwell part five http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-8629717732608750704&q=%22The+Subversive+Use+of+Sacred+Symbolism+in+the+Media%22+with+Michael+Tsarion Part six http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=219076393586369255&q=%22The+Subversive+Use+of+Sacred+Symbolism+in+the+Media%22+with+Michael+Tsarion The naked truth--awaken the sheeple http://www.dark-truth.org/okt20-2006-6.html World of lies-the real reason isreal is so important. Banking and trade routes! http://www.dark-truth.org/okt20-2006-6.html Much more at http://www.dark-truth.org/videos.html (reply to this comment)

From Rain Child Saturday, December 16, 2006, 16:18 (Agree/Disagree?) Homework, I'm not going to look up all these links. Would you be able to briefly summarise your main point and how it relates to the above article? Much appreciated.(reply to this comment)

from Rain Child Friday, December 15, 2006 - 17:51 (Agree/Disagree?) This is interesting http://www.discover.com/issues/dec-06/features/god-experiments/?page=1 (reply to this comment)

from sar Monday, December 11, 2006 - 20:00 (Agree/Disagree?) Good article. I just found it odd that the author recognises that there would still be bad stuff without religion, such as wars, but seems to think that morals and community stem from religion. (reply to this comment)

From Rain Child Friday, December 15, 2006, 17:53 (Agree/Disagree?) Well religion was traditionally the figurehead of morals and community in most cultures. Of course now it's become all about the individual.(reply to this comment)

From sar Saturday, December 16, 2006, 04:35 (Agree/Disagree?) Hmm, I guess I wasn't very clear. My point was that just as there would be wars without religion, there would be morals or good values without religion. We don't need religion for wars or morals. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that religion is the source of morals. The Romans had a successful and logical legal system before Christianity influenced the rulers. The laws were based on what was good for society. You were shamed if you broke the law. They were a secular society and had a code of, what would probably be considered morals, without religion. There are, I think two reasons why Christians equate morality with religion. Firstly, they believe the Biblical version of history. Secondly, when the Roman empire spread, Christianity was, upheld to be as you said as the figurehead of morals and community. The Roman system pre-Christianity would probably be better described as an amoral system rather than a moral, but that's a whole other argument. Most people also equate morals with good values and I was basing my comment on that perception of morals.(reply to this comment)

From Rain Child Saturday, December 16, 2006, 05:19 (Agree/Disagree?) You certainly don't understand me correctly if you think I would suggest religion was the source of all morals! I'm most commonly debating exactly the opposite. By 'figurehead' I meant religion was the face put onto it, the reasoning used to keep the masses in order, keep them worshipping, tithing, following the rules etc. Of course any human with a beating heart and functioning mind has an instinctive code of morals. But as Oddman says (And he says it far more eloquently) Religion is a very effective tool for dealing with entire nations and cultures. Just look at how we were all kept in line in The Family! I agree that American politics have really mixed 'family values', 'morality', and Christianity all into one giant soup. Family Values are basically the excuse given to keep the superstitions of religion alive. I'd also like to point out that the above article is not entirely my viewpoints, but I thought it interesting as I was reading a lot of across-the-board bashing of religion and I think it's important to separate religion as an individual's belief which means something to them, and should be respected, and religion as a means of control and keeping people in line, which is not true religion, but clever manipulation.(reply to this comment)

From vix Sunday, December 17, 2006, 07:41 (Agree/Disagree?) I don't believe that humans have an instinctive code of morals. IMO it's impossible to separate culture and socialisation from one's moral reasoning. As for the value or non-value of religion, the problem with the view that you hold as you express it in the last paragraph above, is that while it's good and well to want to afford respect to religion's benevolent face, there doesn't seem to be a way of doing so without also accepting (and therefore indirectly condoning) its malevolent underbelly. (reply to this comment)

From rainy Monday, August 13, 2007, 01:56 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm feeling SO vindicated on this one today, Vixen. Dawkins agrees with me that humans have an instinctive code of morals. :) Read pages 222 -226. This makes SO much sense to me.(reply to this comment)

From vix Monday, August 13, 2007, 02:02 (Agree/Disagree?) Heh, I know he does. I thought of you last time I read that :) I have to say, I rarely *really* disagree with you when we have those seeming variations in viewpoints, it's more about how I am choosing to frame it on the day. Discussions on such matters are usually just an exercise in attempting to follow a line of reasoning to its logical end. As far as I remember, we ended up on pretty much the same page, but maybe I'm wrong - haven't taken time to read the thread. (reply to this comment)

From AndyH Monday, August 13, 2007, 07:58 (Agree/Disagree?) I believe in ethical relativism, but there is definitely a universal sense of right and wrong, based on empathy. This is exhibited by toddlers who demonstrate empathy before they could have been conditioned to have societal morals. (reply to this comment)

From vix Monday, August 13, 2007, 08:09 (Agree/Disagree?) That's true, that toddlers can exhibit empathy before being conditioned to do so (although one shouldn't make this assumption too lightly since it is impossible to say when an infant would first begin to become conditioned thus), but i still hesitate to afford empathy a moral context in itself, as that tendency to empathy may just as well have served some self-preserving purpose in our distant past and as such may be nothing more than an evolutionary relic. (reply to this comment)

From Rain Child Sunday, December 17, 2006, 11:30 (Agree/Disagree?) Nope. Plain old not happy with this, Vix, Oddman, and Neoubs. I cannot be convinced that humans do not have instinctive morals, inherent rights, and that right and wrong do not exist all on their own as simply something that just is. Any human, no matter if they were raised in a glass tank or whatever, upon coming into contact with another human, would know that it was wrong to: hurt that person (they could see the pain and relate it to times when they had also suffered pain) kill that person (it doesn't take a genius to realise that it is not your place to deny another of the only life they have) refuse to help that person if they were in desperate need and it was within the first person's power, (again, it's called empathy, a human trait which is not taught by religion) or to take something that belonged to that person. Those are the basics of morals. Do unto others. It's inborn. We are humans. we see other humans have the same needs as we do. We work it out. Not rocket science. And the other point - I'm not talking about respecting religion's malevolent face. I'm talking about respecting people, their private beliefs, and the things that nurture their souls and give them joy and strength and a sense of being.(reply to this comment)

From vix Thursday, December 21, 2006, 03:57 (Agree/Disagree?) Rain, let me first say that I do sort of agree with you on the main point that you are arguing. There *is* a lot of good in humanity. I have looked after enough small children in my time to know that even a very young and relatively undeveloped mind is capable of rather an astonishing degree of emotional intelligence. Children can be wonderfully empathetic, compassionate and kind. But that does not indicate an instinctive set of morals, IMO. I'd argue that it has more to do with the amazing way in which children absorb whatever values they are shown. Implicit learning is a very powerful thing. One thing that makes this discussion more difficult is that we don't, of course, know for sure how humanity came to be. Knowing the exact circumstance of the appearance of our species might drastically change the parameters within which these philosophical questions would be judged. I look at it from an evolutionary perspective and as such I'd say that I would agree that the very fact that humanity has evolved into a species capable of complex moral reasoning would seem to indicate that over time a certain inclination toward morality has become inherent. However, it is impossible to know this for sure, as moral reasoning is so closely linked to socialisation and involuntary absorption of values. I think that what I take exception to, really, is your consistent use, in discussions on this subject, of the phrase 'knowing right from wrong' in connection with instinct. I don't believe it's that straight-forward. How can right and wrong exist all on their own? Surely the right or wrong of an act would depend, perhaps not entirely but certainly substantially, on the context in which it takes place. For right and wrong to exist as distinct entities, in and of themselves, they would (IMO) need to be firm, steadfast and entirely unambiguous. In other words a given act would always be wrong, and more than that, always the same degree of wrong. This is clearly a problematic standard to maintain. Consider also, if right and wrong do, in fact, exist on their own, who's to say that our present concept of them is the true and correct one? Has humanity managed, in your view, to reach total enlightenment? If we compare (western) morality as we know it today with that of even a couple of hundred years ago, the two are dissimilar enough to indicate that we can expect rather a different set of values to have emerged within the next couple of hundred years. Isn't it quite presumptious to confer on our present concepts of right and wrong the degree of robustness that your position would seem to demand? I suppose I could accept the argument that yes, right and wrong can exist on their own as unchanging entities, but only in the now. This position is no less problematic. One would have to decide which concept of right and wrong is superior - clearly there is more than one set of definitions at any given time. The only way one could reasonably follow that line of thought (IMO) would be to define right and wrong on the merits of each individual case (each case having its own place in the now), which again leads us back to the position that there is no unchanging, absolute right or wrong. I'm also curious as to how you justify the concept of inherent rights. This is probably a discrepancy in terminology, though, because while I don't agree with you that the rights you've mentioned in various threads are *inherent* to humanity, I do believe that they are noble and just rights that should be afforded to everyone. The difficulty I have in agreeing with you is that in order for something to be an inherent part of something else, it would have to be essential to that being, and permanent. Now, the right not to die cannot ever be inherent to humanity. While you might say, well, it's not about not dying, it's about having the right not to die at the hand of another human being, it is still only a right as conferred by another human - You are saying, in effect, I, as a matter of principle, will not take the life of another human being, because I value that life as highly (or, in certain cases, more highly) than my own. I cannot confer on myself a right to live, I can only uphold the right of someone else to live. To my mind, that makes one of the basic human rights (the right to life) a matter of responsibility rather than right. Seen from that perspective (as far as I'm, concerned anyway), this basic human right (as well as all others) is not an inherent one, but an intellectual one. That doesn't make it any less important that if it were capable of definition as inherent, it just makes it a rational position rather than a natural one, in other words based on something other than biology alone. Eh, I'm not sure I really understand all of what I said. I find it very difficult to convey my opinions in an adequately coherent manner, so I apologise if I've made rather mess of it. Anyone who wants to, please pick holes in it - I'd like to further consolidate my views. Also please excuse spelling and grammatical errors or excessive wordiness, I am not going to edit this. (reply to this comment)

From rainy Thursday, December 21, 2006, 04:14 (Agree/Disagree?) AAAAHHHH!!! This is too hard! Right and wrong in my opinion (and I do realise it is only my opinion) have never changed. of course so many cultures have claimed that so many ridiculous things were either right or wrong, but that didn't make it so. People can claim anything. Right and wrong, in my opinion (you're gonna hate this) are based on people's inherent rights. Wrong = taking away someone's property, be it their physical possessions, their dignity, their life, their safety, their opportunities, their freedom. Right = standing up for these things, caring, nurturing, protecting, loving, and these things do define humanity lived to its fullest and healthiest. In my opinion...which is probably not supported by cold evidence, maybe because it's not a cold subject, only trauma, abuse, or other interference causes the abberations which lead to neuroses and things like cruelty, evil, etc. I believe humankind is naturally predisposed to kindness and love, and must be damaged to become the opposite of those things.(reply to this comment)

From vix Friday, December 22, 2006, 18:15 (Agree/Disagree?) I am going to apologise in advance because this will, I'm sure, become ridiculously long. I can't help it, I am bad enough when I *haven't* had wine. But you'll be pleased to hear that one of my new year's resolutions will be to restrict my comments here to one-sentence length :-) I also apolgise in advance for muddled thinking and incoherent structure. As always i welcome challenges to my argument. Finally, I make the usual apology in case of grammatical errors; I'm not going to proofread or edit and even if i did, I doubt that I would catch every mistake. I admit that your assertion that right and wrong have always been makes a certain kind of sense, but there are some problems with it. Firstly, it could only really be correct if the human race started out at a comparable level of collective and individual consciousness to what we are possessed of now. Social and cultural environments would also have had to be comparable throughout. Knowledge and understanding has to have been comparable. From an evolutionary perspective, at least, none of those conditions are present. When you look back into history at a specific act and make a value judgement on it, you are imposing upon the relevant social and cultural landscape a code of ethics that would not have existed at that time. Without a comparable basis for moral reasoning there is no way (IMO) that an act that clearly qualifies as wrong at our own moral reasoning point should be automatically judged to have been wrong at the time of its inception. Or maybe another way to put it would be that the act itself might have been wrong but the actor was not knowingly committing a wrong act. in which case I would argue that the act itself could not legitimately be classed as wrong (I realise that I am getting into a very problematic area here, as regards intention and culpability and related issues. Please keep in mind that I am addressing a very specific context). There are many, many events or practices that could never (or at least with great difficulty) be justified in context of your or my understanding of right and wrong, that nevertheless might have been absolutely necessary at that particular point in history and therefore surely justifiable, on some level at least. Once a given act can be justified it ceases to be wholly wrong, IMO. Take, as an example, the practice of infanticide. While it's an abhorrent concept to us now, and completely unthinkable to most normal, decent parents, there are times in human history where such an act might have been necessary. It was still murder, but was it wrong? Did those parents who left their children to die of exposure commit an immoral act, or were they simply acting on a set of values that were valid within the present set of circumstances? You said, 'of course so many cultures have claimed that so many ridiculous things were either right or wrong, but that didn't make it so. People can claim anything'. I don't think I can agree with you that the course of changing cultural trends throughout human history connotes deviance from a predetermined morality. It seems more correct to me to conclude that our present understanding of right and wrong is the end of a process. In five hundred years there will be a different moral reasoning point which will also be the end of a process, and so on. I'm going to take a break now and then I shall be back (if you're lucky!) with part two.(reply to this comment)

From rainy Friday, December 22, 2006, 20:35 (Agree/Disagree?) hmmm...well, I see that I can't really argue about morals throughout the history of humanity because #1, I wasn't there, and #2, I don't know much about evolution. let me then qualify that my opinions of what has always been right and wrong apply to humanity since they developed the capacity to care, to love, nurture, empathise, etc. Since we began to think in the way which is unique to humans. I don't know when that was, haven't managed to get that Richard Dawkins book out yet. :) I really have only my own life, experiences, and knowledge from which to draw my conclusions. So let me tell you about my own experience with instinctive morals. When I left The Family, it was an overnight decision. One day I was in, practicing and believing, and praying and participating fully; the next day, it was over. Time to discover everything for myself, time to start from scratch. I simply walked away, without a fuss, without giving a reason to anyone, not even myself. I knew there was another person in there, and I'd never met her. It was about time I did. First thing: All rules and ideas of right and wrong were completely out the window. Judge no-one. take everything as brand new, and learn everything, starting on an empty slate. I was a little sponge, listening and learning from everyone. I promised myself never to do wrong, and off I went. I had perfect faith in my instincts. I did plenty of drugs, many of my friends were gay, I embraced them completely from the outset, I slept with a few people, hung around with a few low-lifes, tried everything without judgement. I'm not proud of that part of my life, but I'm not ashamed of it. I can honestly say that in that time I never cheated a person, never knowingly wronged anyone, never gossiped maliciously about anyone, never passed up a person who needed my help, never did anything dishonest in the workplace, and never did anything which I felt would degrade me. ( I did inadvertently hurt the feelings of a friend, but looking back, it couldn't be helped, and had very little to do with me) I was quite happy with who I was, and looked myself in the face and liked the girl who had trusted her instincts to guide her through the maze of morality and had found a simple and straight path. Most of the way I was living would have been greatly frowned upon by Christians and The Family, they would have seen it as immoral. This comes back to my assertation that cultures can claim anything to be immoral, that does not make it so. Morals are not just taught. True morals are instinctive. I believe that because I found it to be true for me. Enter the man who took my new-found life away from me. well, true, nobody can take anything away from you without your consent. And that is how I betrayed myself. That is where I lost my path. And now I was living as a respectable suburban housewife with a baby, running a childcare business, but internalising this man's messages, allowing him to foist his twisted sense of morality upon me, I no longer had a path. I couldn't look myself in the face anymore, I couldn't even find myself. He would torture me with myself and my past, making me feel guilty and worthless, and the more I tried to atone and be perfect, the more I lost touch with my instincts, until I was a shell of a person, alternating between weeping and apathy, wanting to die, and wanting to just apologise to the whole world for ever having lived. That was the time of my life when to look at me, most Christians would have thought I was a model example of a woman, a housewife and a mother. I wasn't drinking, drugs were a faint memory that might never have happened, I had no friends, and my acquaintances were all upstanding middle-class families. Again...I was trying to follow society's moral code instead of my extinctive ones, the ones that just ARE. Good news...I'm on my own and finding me again. And this site has helped heaps.(reply to this comment)

From rainy Friday, December 22, 2006, 21:43 (Agree/Disagree?) *instinctive, although in many cases they are extinct, lol(reply to this comment)

From vix Friday, December 22, 2006, 18:21 (Agree/Disagree?) Ew, sorry, I've noticed one that I simply have to correct: Fourth par.: 'There are many, many events or practices that could never (*or at least not without great difficulty) be justified in context of your or my understanding of right and wrong...(reply to this comment)

From vix Friday, December 22, 2006, 19:00 (Agree/Disagree?) ON to the next point: Heh, yeah, I guess there's not much chance that we're going to agree on the issue of inherent rights. But that's okay :-) Regarding your definition of wrong, I thought that might be the gist of what you'd say. I would agree with you that all of those things can be classed as wrong when you consider them in the broadest terms. But it's still far from straight-forward, IMO, and breaking it down to specifics becomes extremely problematic. Sar has already mentioned some possible considerations. Incidentally, your answer to her, ‘I think it's best not to strictly define some of those things, because there's an immeasurable list of possibilities’, demonstrates that you do, apparently, hold the view that wrong, at least, is not a constant, which would seem to support my argument that right and wrong cannot exist as entities in and of themselves. 'Right = standing up for these things, caring, nurturing, protecting, loving, and these things do define humanity lived to its fullest and healthiest.' Those are very noble ideals and I wholly agree with you that they can be defined as right. Hmmm. This just crossed my mind: Isn't it curious that defining what is right or good is (at least to my mind) far easier and infintely more straightforward than defining wrong or evil? Maybe I will amend my position thus: I believe that right and good can be said to be constant (as encapsulated above) but the nature of wrong or evil is changeable according to specific context. I almost agree with you on this one. I would qualify it slightly differently, though. I think that a human being starts out tabula rasa, or neutral. In practice this really means something closer to what you believe, because children are definitely predisposed to loving and wanting to be loved. They are also predisposed to seeking to please, and toward absorbing whatever core values are present in their immediate environment. Most people end up somewhere on the side of decent, because parental instinct in most relatively healthy individuals ensures that care, nurturing and protection is the default parenting mode. Therefore I suppose it could be argued that nature does, in a sense, indirectly perpetuate a set of core values that is largely on the side of good and right. Still not sure that I'd go so far as to agree that human biology predisposes only kindness and love, though. (reply to this comment)

From rainy Saturday, December 23, 2006, 03:34 (Agree/Disagree?) Vix: "Incidentally, your answer to her, ‘I think it's best not to strictly define some of those things, because there's an immeasurable list of possibilities’, demonstrates that you do, apparently, hold the view that wrong, at least, is not a constant, which would seem to support my argument that right and wrong cannot exist as entities in and of themselves." No, I don't think it supports that argument. They can exist in and of themselves and still be changeable depending on circumstance. That statement does support my view that knowledge of morals is inborn and instinctual, which allows for flexibilty. If there were strict 'laws of nature' so to speak, we would not need to carry morality inside us, we could just learn it in school. I stand by my assertation that morals are not merely taught, (although they can be) and are not the product of society; (though a good society will encourage them) they are part of the human psyche. And more. Something indefinable. Perhaps an undiscovered force?(reply to this comment)

From vix Saturday, December 23, 2006, 04:14 (Agree/Disagree?) I think (If I remember correctly) I wrote that before I got down to the point where I amended my position slightly to say that in my view right could legitimately be considered to be constant. If we take wrong to be the absence of right, then I suppose that on a very broad scale it, also, can be said to be constant. After reading what you've said here and in your other comment I think that we might actually agree on the reality of what we are discussing, I am just taking a slightly different route to dissection due to a theoretical base that differs ever so slightly from yours. I think some of the variance in position might arise from the use of 'right and wrong' within the discussion, rather than 'good and evil'. Maybe my reasoning on this doesn't make sense, really, but I would be more inclined to agree with you completely if you used the terms good and evil rather than right and wrong. I might say it like this: Good (and right) are, to a certain degree, rooted in human instinct, and are fairly straightforward, existing in and of themselves as a constant. Evil might also be said to be constant. But wrong, no, I don't think wrong can be considered constant. Wrong depends on too many variables. Don't have time to justify that just now, and maybe after thinking about it for a bit I'll have to discard it as faulty reasoning, but for now I am going to take that view. (reply to this comment)

From rainy Saturday, December 23, 2006, 04:25 (Agree/Disagree?) Up already? I see your point; I chose 'right and wrong' over 'good and evil' as I felt they were the more secular term, but evil does seem much more definable than wrong. Maybe we need another word?(reply to this comment)

From vix Saturday, December 23, 2006, 04:44 (Agree/Disagree?) Heh, I've actually lazed half the day away already - it's afternoon here now :-) Going out in a few minutes to get the last few things for Christmas dinner (brussels sprouts anyone?), and maybe another little trinket or two for the girls. Later on we will make hot chocolate and cosy down together to watch The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (the animated version). Did you ever watch that as a child? I LOOOOOOVED it, and watching it again for the first time since I was a child (last Christmas) was quite surreal. I think I am finally beginning to feel some Christmas spirit - Just in the nick of time, too! (reply to this comment)

From rainy Saturday, December 23, 2006, 04:49 (Agree/Disagree?) Kidding me! It only seems a couple hours ago you said it was 3:00 AM! Yes, used to watch The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe all the time, could recite it all (Which incidentally is almost word-for-word from the book, unlike the real-life movie) Where on earth did you find that? Have fun!(reply to this comment)

From vix Saturday, December 23, 2006, 04:54 (Agree/Disagree?) It was re-released on DVD last year (to capitalise on the cinema release of the Disney version, I suppose). (reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Saturday, December 23, 2006, 05:42 (Agree/Disagree?) It's playing on ITV tomorrow as well.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Saturday, December 23, 2006, 06:38 (Agree/Disagree?) I always liked the animated version. But I think Disney did a really good job on the movie that came out last year.(reply to this comment)

From vix Friday, December 22, 2006, 19:17 (Agree/Disagree?) Fuck, really beginning to make mistakes now. That last paragraph refers to your comment, 'In my opinion...which is probably not supported by cold evidence, maybe because it's not a cold subject, only trauma, abuse, or other interference causes the abberations which lead to neuroses and things like cruelty, evil, etc. I believe humankind is naturally predisposed to kindness and love, and must be damaged to become the opposite of those things.' (reply to this comment)

From Lorem Ipsum Wednesday, December 27, 2006, 01:58 (Agree/Disagree?) "But I must explain to you how all this mistaken idea of denouncing pleasure and praising pain was born and I will give you a complete account of the system, and expound the actual teachings of the great explorer of the truth, the master-builder of human happiness. No one rejects, dislikes, or avoids pleasure itself, because it is pleasure, but because those who do not know how to pursue pleasure rationally encounter consequences that are extremely painful. Nor again is there anyone who loves or pursues or desires to obtain pain of itself, because it is pain, but because occasionally circumstances occur in which toil and pain can procure him some great pleasure. To take a trivial example, which of us ever undertakes laborious physical exercise, except to obtain some advantage from it? But who has any right to find fault with a man who chooses to enjoy a pleasure that has no annoying consequences, or one who avoids a pain that produces no resultant pleasure?" "On the other hand, we denounce with righteous indignation and dislike men who are so beguiled and demoralized by the charms of pleasure of the moment, so blinded by desire, that they cannot foresee the pain and trouble that are bound to ensue; and equal blame belongs to those who fail in their duty through weakness of will, which is the same as saying through shrinking from toil and pain. These cases are perfectly simple and easy to distinguish. In a free hour, when our power of choice is untrammelled and when nothing prevents our being able to do what we like best, every pleasure is to be welcomed and every pain avoided. But in certain circumstances and owing to the claims of duty or the obligations of business it will frequently occur that pleasures have to be repudiated and annoyances accepted. The wise man therefore always holds in these matters to this principle of selection: he rejects pleasures to secure other greater pleasures, or else he endures pains to avoid worse pains." (reply to this comment)

From rainy Friday, December 22, 2006, 18:53 (Agree/Disagree?) If you're online now, Vix, log in to Yahoo!(reply to this comment)

From vix Friday, December 22, 2006, 19:02 (Agree/Disagree?) Ok, but I won't be able to chat for long, it's three in the morning... (reply to this comment)

From ange Thursday, December 21, 2006, 07:18 (Agree/Disagree?) Yes, what we consider to be right and wrong is determined by what we see as “people’s inherent rights”. However, people’s inherent rights are culturally determined. It’s the old nature vs. culture debate, and a lot, maybe even the majority, of what we do comes from social conditioning. But just because something comes from social conditioning, it doesn’t necessarily follow that it’s bad. This is one debate where I have to agree with vix. (reply to this comment)

From sar Thursday, December 21, 2006, 07:48 (Agree/Disagree?) I think you meant nature vs nuture?(reply to this comment)

From ange Thursday, December 21, 2006, 07:59 (Agree/Disagree?) Yes, that one too. :-)(reply to this comment)

From sar Thursday, December 21, 2006, 07:57 (Agree/Disagree?) *nurture(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Thursday, December 21, 2006, 06:34 (Agree/Disagree?) You're a beautiful person rainchild. We ought to clone you. But to twist your brain noodles a bit, in your moralist opinion what is the correct course to take when you are wronged. Is it moral to respond to immoral actions with immoral actions? Or in such cases do otherwise immoral actions i.e. violence become moral? What happens when two persons hold claim to the same one thing? A Palestinian and an Israeli both claim the same land, but to stand up for their land would be to take away the others property. Two people after the same opportunity. Two people, one life saver. I agree, man hands misery to man. People who have been abused or subjected to trauma are more likely to develop disorders. I agree, to commit acts such as brutal murder, torture, desecrating a corpse, raping a child, one would need a level of psychosis. But I don't feel it takes neurosis or disorders of any form to just act immoral. The whole question of what is moral and what isn't has also never been sufficiently answered. I'm almost thinking there is no such thing as moral vs immoral. Rather, it is acceptable vs. unacceptable. Artificial social morals. Society, or the human race determines what conduct is acceptable for the time. I wish I shared your faith in humanity. Experience and logic prevent me from accepting the assumption that humans are predisposed to kindness. (reply to this comment)

From rainy Friday, December 22, 2006, 21:40 (Agree/Disagree?) not ready to debate all the situations in which wrong is actually right yet :) This comment is in response to the last sentence: "Experience and logic prevent me from accepting the assumption that humans are predisposed to kindness." I would like to hypothesise that if doing right and being kind were not instinctive and natural, religion would never have gained the foothold it did in practically every culture that ever existed. Religion capitalised on the human insitinct for knowing wrong from right and adhering to morals, and the natural human desire to help our fellow man. In fact, it was born from it.(reply to this comment)

From sar Thursday, December 21, 2006, 06:13 (Agree/Disagree?) You have a very sweet and simple view of humanity. You surely must acknowledge that there are times when what you have classed a right becomes wrong and vice versa. You also use very broad terms in referring to what I assume you class as inherent rights - terms that have a nice ring, but are largely indeterminative (what do you mean by freedom? property? opportunity?). You also make no mention of intention in defining wrongs. Is that because you think it has no relevance? I would recommend that you read Isaiah Berlin's Two Concepts of Liberty if you can get ahold of it. I can't find a link on line with the whole essay, but it is well worth reading and not very long. I would be interested as to how you would look at this topic after reading what he says. (reply to this comment)

From rainy Thursday, December 21, 2006, 12:16 (Agree/Disagree?) True, I completely polarised right and wrong, and referred to everything in the extreme. It's a technique I often use when things are clouded in my head. I exaggerate all possible outcomes to see which direction they are heading when they are subtle. Does that make any sense, or is it one of my private mind things nobody else gets? Anyway, I don't have an answer about all the subtleties yet, I'll think about it at work today. My gut reaction though, is that you just know, deep inside you if it's right or wrong. At the moment you're faced with a decision to risk your life to save someone, you will know what to do. I also think you would know if you were taking advantage of another person merely for your own gain...it wouldn't feel right. Therefore I think it's best not to strictly define some of those things, because there's an immeasurable list of possibilities.(reply to this comment)

From vix Thursday, December 21, 2006, 12:58 (Agree/Disagree?) 'I exaggerate all possible outcomes to see which direction they are heading when they are subtle. Does that make any sense, or is it one of my private mind things nobody else gets?' It makes perfect sense, Rain, and I do it all the time too. It can work both ways (I think of it as reducing or expanding the position or argument) and I use one or the other depending on whether I am concerned with micro- or macro-. I'm going to comment on some of the things you've come back with as soon as I have the time, thanks for an interesting and challenging exchange. You said earlier on that you don't much like 'pointless circles', but I'd class this as anything but pointless. I'd like to add that I find it a great pleasure to benefit, if only in temporary hopefulness, from your expression of the way in which you view the world. Oddman is right, you are a beautiful person. (reply to this comment)

From rainy Friday, December 22, 2006, 22:15 (Agree/Disagree?) (warm and fuzzy)(reply to this comment)

From Rain Child Sunday, December 17, 2006, 23:52 (Agree/Disagree?) Can't believe I typed malevolent when I meant to say benevolent -that's what I get for posting before 6:00 AM!(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Sunday, December 17, 2006, 18:07 (Agree/Disagree?) The only way to gain conclusive statistics on human behaviour and intrinsic morals would be to isolate a large number of humans at birth, and raise them with zero moral education. No should, no shouldn't. No punishment. No praise. No adult interference. No application of force. The controlled environment experiment is not in itself conclusive, as in reality, no person would grow up under such circumstances. The data would have to be combined with various stats gathered from experiment cases where each individual is brought up under varied moral codes. For instance, some would be given a reverse set of morals. Should a child brought up without contamination by moral education, be given motive to commit murder (i.e. Jealousy, Hate) would he/she hesitate? Further, if a child is brought up under severe indoctrination, and made to believe that murder is moral, would he/she feel it contrary to her conscience? To conduct this experiment would be a infringement of human rights in the extreme, so we will never know under our current society. Too bad. It would make such great TV. (reply to this comment)

From steam Thursday, December 21, 2006, 11:21 (Agree/Disagree?) To bad in an abstract intelectual sense I hope. To good in the sense that our own upbringing shows how horrible such an experiment would be.(reply to this comment)

From Rain Child Monday, December 18, 2006, 00:00 (Agree/Disagree?) I think we can already see in the suicide bombers who feel honoured to do it and go to paradise, and the old Kamikaze pilots, in fact, almost all soldiers, that you can teach people that in some circunstances murder/suicide is the right thing to do and they will truly feel it is right. But to see suffering in another human...and to know you are the cause or that you could stop it, I think it's inborn to know what's right and what's wrong, and either has to be suppressed, or the person's inborn moral code has to be damaged by serious abuse. So what I'm saying, I think, is that you can indoctrinate people theoretically, but when it came down to the practical, at the moment or just after and for the rest of their lives, their inborn conscience would kick in.(reply to this comment)

From GetReal Sunday, December 17, 2006, 21:28 (Agree/Disagree?) Yeah well I guess it would be kind of interesting to do that but doesn't the fact that hundreds of kids that had nothing but cult indoctrination with no other values got up and said fuck this I want out give a little incite into what whould happen . I'm sure the cruel " punishment , interferance , force" has plenty to do with the amount of hate/rage involved but the fact is assholes tried to force a way of life on helpless empty minds and many with out any help rejected it out of hand. I remember listening to "word time " and thinking something is just soooooooooo wrong (anyone else feel the same )lol.(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Sunday, December 17, 2006, 23:55 (Agree/Disagree?) A few problems with that assertion. One being that we were not totally cut-off from society. We were in a jail facing the world. We saw what was on the other side of the fence. We were not in a sterile environment so to speak. We did have help. We had help in the pop-culture we had gained access to. We had help in the rumors via the grapevine about our older siblings that had left. We did know there was another way of life, and we did know that the other life entailed a different set of morals. Due to the application of force, we had reason to dislike the treatment we were receiving, therefore we had reason to spurn the moral code behind it. On the other hand, I do think rebellion is a natural human instinct. It's neccessary for the young to question the old, the rules, the rulers. It is neccessary, because the young must eventually take over the pride. The old must die. I always think thought is the area in which humans are evolving. We may not be growing wings any time soon, but our thoughts and ability to process information is constantly evolving. On a separate subject, resentment was an emotion I noticed only after adjusting to the world and accepting/understanding that we were abused. It was only after I understood the full impact TF upbringing had on my ability to live a normal healthy life, that I understood what was stolen from me. My education, my innocence, my childhood. All along, I felt it was wrong. I didn't like it. I felt violated. I felt these people had no right to treat me like that. I was angry. I felt hate. But it wasn't abuse that led me away from TF. As I grew older, and started understanding what I read, I realized I did not agree with what TF stood for. I did not agree with the religious beliefs and doctrines. That is why I left TF. Only on leaving did I learn that I was subject to treatment that under law, was considered abusive and therefore illegal.(reply to this comment)

From vix Sunday, December 17, 2006, 11:47 (Agree/Disagree?) Some reactions to other humans are instinctive, sure, but I don't agree with you that every human automatically possesses empathy and all those other values that you mentioned. Empathy, as just one example, has to be learned. Of course there is an innate ability to learn such emotional interactions, but it is still a learned behaviour. (reply to this comment)

From Rain Child Sunday, December 17, 2006, 11:54 (Agree/Disagree?) In my perfect world, everyone would be trusted to have their little foibles (drugs, alchohol, cigarettes, religion)and use them responsibly: i.e. not push them on anyone else, not expose their children to them unnecessarily, not make important decisions either under the influence or based on these things, know when they've had enough, not let them take over, not capitalise on them, and most importantly of all, NEVER allow these thing to become part of politics. Okay, it's a little off your point...(reply to this comment)

From vix Sunday, December 17, 2006, 12:02 (Agree/Disagree?) Heh, I'm struggling to see the link at all :-) (reply to this comment)

From Rain Child Sunday, December 17, 2006, 12:04 (Agree/Disagree?) There wasn't one...I jumped all over the place because I could see where that argument was going..."Is too!" "Is not!" "Is too! "Is not"(reply to this comment)

From vix Sunday, December 17, 2006, 12:08 (Agree/Disagree?) Heh, never! You're entitled to your opinion and I'm not trying to change your mind. (reply to this comment)

From Rain Child Sunday, December 17, 2006, 12:15 (Agree/Disagree?) I know. I just realised I had nothing more to add on that that I haven't already said...I don't really like pointless circles. Anyway, that thought occurred to me just now as an interesting way to think of religion, as just another harmless vice if used responsibly, but like other vices, with the potential to ruin lives, so I wanted to share it with you.(reply to this comment)

From sar Saturday, December 16, 2006, 06:13 (Agree/Disagree?) Ah, ok. I agree with most of what you think on this then. Though people that allow themselves to be manipulated also scare me. They are believing without challenging. I don't see how that deserves respect. (reply to this comment)

From Rain Child Sunday, December 17, 2006, 01:57 (Agree/Disagree?) Walking home tonight I passed a church community of what looked like Torres Strait Island people. The sense of community was palpable, their voices rising together in beautiful harmonies as they sang hymmns and the children ran freely with the elder ones looking after all of them. I was so happy to see that as Torres Strait Islanders so often feel displaced here and are seen as criminals and low-lifes. I know they traditionally do have this village raising a child concept, but it is lost in modern Australian cities. They are particularly susceptible to alcohol which did not exist on their islands before whites brought it to them. I immediately thought of this debate, and how if we took our anti-religion stance too far we could rob people like this of the one thing they have found which gives them dignity, a sense of community and belonging, and a reason to stay clean and sober in the face of poverty and injustice. Maybe it is a lie, but it's real for them, and isn't that what matters?(reply to this comment)

From sar Sunday, December 17, 2006, 05:21 (Agree/Disagree?) I guess its value decision. You think the good outweighs the bad. I think religion may be an easy answer for creating a sense of community and keeping people clean and sober, but I think that can be done without religion. I think the bad outweighs the good when you look at the religious extremes - the Family, the Jonestown massacre, African relgions where they mutilate their children to death on suspicion of witchcraft, etc. Also they may appear to be happy and all while at church, but chances are they beat their children at home (its a Christian tradition). If you take the religion away, maybe replaced with education, they would see that they can have dignity in themselves, stay clean and sober and be successful in whatever their idea of success is. But if you want a lie, a better one would be to do to alcohol what the USA did to marajuana in the 1950s.(reply to this comment)

From Rain Child Sunday, December 17, 2006, 11:35 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm not saying as a whole the good outweighs the bad - but for those people who have lost their original culture at this point in time it's providing them with something they can't get from anywhere else. I haven't seen any atheistic organisations where everyone comes together once a week to sing together and speak of brotherhood and goodwill and catch up with each other and bring a plate of food to share and see how everyone's going with their children. Perhaps there should be something like that.(reply to this comment)

From sar Wednesday, January 10, 2007, 17:19 (Agree/Disagree?) I don't know of any atheist organisation that would do that sort of thing, in fact I have only ever come across one atheist organisation. I assume most atheists don't make an organised religion out of disbelief. There numerous non religious events that have the beneficial attributes. To name a few: community fairs or fetes, parties, pub meets, gigs, parent groups, all sorts of societies. I think it is important that parents have a social life with other parents, but I also think that they can meet just as easily in a town hall, or other community centre, as in a church.(reply to this comment)

From AnnaH Sunday, December 17, 2006, 09:19 (Agree/Disagree?) I think that the simple fact that nearly every civilization since the beginning of time has created a religion to outline morality shows that morality is something inherent in most people. Perhaps it begins with the most basic characteristic of morals: empathy. You realize that one someone hurts you or treats you unfairly that it is wrong when it happens to you so consequently it must hurt others in the same way and you come to the conclusion that it is bad behavior and should be avoided. That is my explanation for why the "Golden Rule" is present in almost every religion you come across. I disagree with you that the bad in religion outweighs the good. Of course things like the Inquisition or religious massacres are so terrible we tend to think they are more dominant but when you look at these events in the context of religion throughout the world I assure they are not common and they are much smaller. I've said this before, that for every Muslim fanatical terrorist you see there is another million simply trying to practice their faith and live their lives in the best way they can. You see cult leaders like Warren Jeffs and think he is representative of Mormons but there is half of the population of Utah and many more throughout the world that doesn't approve of him, that merely go to church and live unobtrusively (except for those annoying door-to-door calls). I think religion does give people much more than it does harm. I'm glad that society is realizing that we don't need it to be good people, but that hardly means we should abolish it. (reply to this comment)

From vix Sunday, December 17, 2006, 11:53 (Agree/Disagree?) I think that the golden rule is present in most religions simply because it's a very effective way of controlling behaviours. IMO, it most likely evolved because it was the best way of rationalising a set of subjective values. By the same token, if humanity had evolved differently (assuming we did, indeed, evolve), there may never have been religion at all. (reply to this comment)

From openmind Sunday, December 17, 2006, 18:08 (Agree/Disagree?) guys ... this is an interesting debate and all but ... what does it got to do with the price of tea in China???(reply to this comment)

From sar Sunday, December 17, 2006, 18:33 (Agree/Disagree?) Ah, now there's an interesting question! 1. The price of tea in China is directly affected by the agricultural produce and economic stability of the country together with the tax that is levied on tea. Economic stability benefits from political stability which can be overturned by religious or ideological revolutions. 2. Were a dictator to come to power using religion, s/he could forbid tea, thus raising the price. 3. Were a religion, which considers tea drinking immoral, to become mainstream in China, that would effect the price of tea. 4. Were tea drinking to become a religious ritual, that could impact on the price of tea. I could go on, but I think the question should be what does the price of tea in China have to do with this thread?(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Monday, December 18, 2006, 07:03 (Agree/Disagree?) Leave it to a law student to take this many words to say "supply and demand".(reply to this comment)

From AnnaH Sunday, December 17, 2006, 12:49 (Agree/Disagree?) Are you saying that in these civilizations that a leader emerged with this concept to control the people? If you are, that's not too hard to believe. I know I said that empathy is something inherent but now that I think about it, that's probably not the case. Maybe there's only a handful of people in any hundred that are capable of looking outside of themselves and questioning their behavior enough to come to this understanding of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I do think that some people need religion to give them a set of ground rules and control their behavior because they are not capable of setting those limits for themselves. (reply to this comment)

From sar Sunday, December 17, 2006, 09:51 (Agree/Disagree?) "I think that the simple fact that nearly every civilization since the beginning of time has created a religion to outline morality shows that morality is something inherent in most people." We are of course ignoring amoralist views, which could be an alternative conclusion reached on your observation. (reply to this comment)

From AnnaH Sunday, December 17, 2006, 11:37 (Agree/Disagree?) Could you elaborate on that?(reply to this comment)

From sar Sunday, December 17, 2006, 13:22 (Agree/Disagree?) I can try. Moralists have rights and wrongs. Amoralists have beneficial or not beneficial to oneself and depends on a number of factors. People live in clusters and group together for survival. People don't hurt people within their clan because they rely on people within their clan. They also take the view that if people don't hurt people within their clan then people within their clan won't hurt them. Its fine to hurt to people of other clans unless (a) that clan is stronger in which case it would be better to make alliance; (b) alliance that clan is needed to make their clan stronger because there is a clan that poses more of a threat; or (c) that clan is already an alliance in which case hurting them would have knock on effects for their other or future alliances. I think that ties in with your view that some "morality" is inherent in most people, but takes the view that it is not "morality" for the sake of doing what is right or nice, but merely self preservation, which is, of course, instinctual. Might I just add that I am not expressing my views, but a view.(reply to this comment)

From AnnaH Sunday, December 17, 2006, 13:27 (Agree/Disagree?) Hmm...interesting. I never thought of it like that. It's a more ruthless way of looking at the development of civilizations but I don't think that explains religion unless you're arguing that it was developed by amoralists to keep the masses in subjugated. (reply to this comment)

From sar Sunday, December 17, 2006, 13:58 (Agree/Disagree?) hehe, no sorry, I was saying it could explain the common ground rules.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Sunday, December 17, 2006, 09:47 (Agree/Disagree?) Excellent work, Anna! This needs to be displayed on a billboard over Time Square! (reply to this comment)

From Oddman Saturday, December 16, 2006, 05:01 (Agree/Disagree?) Unless all the books I've read were wrong, Romans had plenty of religions, long before Christianity came into the picture. No matter how far back you go, it seems all major societies have had some form of religion or ideology, that dictated what conduct was acceptable, desired, or at times, required. On a personal level, I don't think religion or faith is needed to maintain a moral standard. However, if one wishes to manage a large society, it seems to be a very effective tool. If a dictator oppresses people, managing a society through the use of fear, the people will not follow. By using a omnipresent yet invisible deity, the oppressor shifts the blame to something that won't be assasinated, ousted, tortured and hung. Linking nature to the celestial deity is pure genius. A leader can chant the hollow cry of hope, only when there is hope. Religion can provide something to cling to when there is no reason to have hope. Religion was merely a tactic. A tool. A weapon. A method. We're still suffering from the fall-out.(reply to this comment)

From sar Saturday, December 16, 2006, 06:03 (Agree/Disagree?) I am aware that the Romans had religions, but they didn't have a single religion and their laws and views of morality were not based on any sort of religious perceptions. Their legal system was not set up by a dictator, but was called for by the lower classes who went on strike because they wanted fair trials. The twelve tables was then set up. It set out a list laws and prescribed punishments for breach. The Romans had large clan like families and it was not beneficial to anyone for their to be fighting between families. What were considered crimes initially were things that would make you want to get revenge, such as killing a person or a member of their family, physically harming a person or a member of their family, ruining someone's property, acting in bad faith (i.e. lying about defects of a product one was selling) in commercial transactions, etc., it also set out how various commercial transactions should be conducted. These things were not considered crimes because religion said they should be so, but because it would make one angry if it were done to them and if the law did not set out punishments there would be fighting between families. Punishments were initially severe and basically amounted to legal revenge. The laws (including what one was allowed to do and what one was not) developed on a rational basis. Rights of slaves were introduced because of a large slave revolt. It wasn't because the Romans developed a conscience. Jurists rationalised things in a somewhat moralistic fashion, but by looking at what is good for society and commerce rather than what religious morals should be inforced. That is until religion came along and there was a Christian emperor and he introduced Christian moralities into the law. That wasn't, if I remember correctly, until Constantine in about 300AD. The Romans had a relatively effective method of managing society until then - approximately 750 years of peaceful society for the most part without religion. There are some things that I think religion might have played a part, such as when paterfamilias' lost the right to kill their children, but those instances are minimal. Augustus was the first Roman dictator and that was 27BC. There was a rational basis for why things were meant to be done a certain way. They were allowed to develop. They had religion for hope and good luck and all that, but it wasn't their basis of morality. (reply to this comment)

From Oddman Saturday, December 16, 2006, 18:26 (Agree/Disagree?) I didn't say religion is essential to a moral society, I said it was a tool used by oppressors to impose certain sets of morals, artificial morals that at times went against instinctual morals. That those sets of social morals differ from our current social morals is rather irrelevant to the assertion that religion did play a part in setting the morals considered appropriate for the time. (reply to this comment)

From vix Sunday, December 17, 2006, 06:55 (Agree/Disagree?) I find your mention of artificial vs. instinctual morals quite interesting - In my view all morality is artificial and a product of social conditioning, and I'm not sure there is such a thing as an instinctual morality. Surely humanity's evolutionary instinct dictates anything but moral conduct. Could you explain what you meant by that term, please? Similarly, I agree with Ne Oublie (if I understood him correctly) that what we now call basic human rights are not inherent to humanity but a social construct. I'm only mentioning that here because I didn't take part in that discussion a while back and I thought it relates rather nicely to this one. (reply to this comment)

From Oddman Sunday, December 17, 2006, 07:27 (Agree/Disagree?) If what we consider morals today are in fact "social morals" then they are certainly artificial. Thou shalt not break the law. Thou shalt not fuck in public. These are not intrinsic morals, but something we picked up as we grew up. If you want to be part of society, then you follow societies rules and morals. But outside the boundaries of social rules, humans still have intrinsic values, instincts and patterns. Survival. Domination. Competition. Breeding. To certain extents, the raising and protection of offspring. To certain extents, the protection of the clan, family, pack, herd, tribe, pride. If society did not suppress these instincts or the manifestation thereof, these would be the codes by which we live. In all fairness and logic, these instincts should be considered a set of morals also. Artificial morals would dictate that a soldier under fire should collect the wounded when retreating. Instinctual morals would likely dictate that a wounded -no longer useful- battle force be left behind. In situations where their apprehension would prove detrimental to the survival of the fit and healthy, logic would dictate that the wounded should be executed prior to retreat. Artificial morals would dictate "Thou shalt not kill". Intrinsic morals would likely dictate "Thou shalt not kill unless".(reply to this comment)

From vix Sunday, December 17, 2006, 07:37 (Agree/Disagree?) Ah, I thought that might be what you were getting at. I suppose it's only a matter of semantics, but I'd argue that your 'intrinsic morals' are a different thing altogether and have nothing to do with morality. (reply to this comment)

From vix Sunday, December 17, 2006, 08:47 (Agree/Disagree?) P.S. Oddman, I can't remember what position you held in that discussion about human rights, but I remember thinking you produced some excellent justification. I'd like to read it again, do you know which article it was under? (reply to this comment)

From Oddman Sunday, December 17, 2006, 09:12 (Agree/Disagree?) I never really came to a solid conclusion, but it was a wonderful debate in that it challenged my preconceived notions and assumptions on the issue. You can find the thread at the link below, but there's so many topics discussed all over the place, so it's a bit of a pain to find. http://movingon.org/article.asp?sID=2&Cat=44&ID=3875(reply to this comment)

From sar Sunday, December 17, 2006, 05:43 (Agree/Disagree?) I wasn't drawing comparisons with morals of then and now. I merely wished to point out that while religion may an effective method of controlling society, there are other, perhaps more effective ways of managing society and that the rights and wrongs in Rome were decided logically in what would be beneficial/harmful to society, rather than according to religious values. I was using examples that are the same today merely so its easier to relate to. Of course I agree that religion was a tool used by oppressors and add that it is probably necessary if you want to impose a moral code that has no logical basis. ...but I thought you were saying that it had a beneficial value? (reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Sunday, December 17, 2006, 06:30 (Agree/Disagree?) "he rights and wrongs in Rome were decided logically in what would be beneficial/harmful to society, rather than according to religious values" Thanks sar, I needed a good laugh on a Sunday afternoon! You should try stand up!(reply to this comment)

From sar Sunday, December 17, 2006, 09:45 (Agree/Disagree?) If I clarify that I was refering to the rights and wrongs in Rome between 450BC and 17AD (pre Emperors), would you find that less amusing?(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Sunday, December 17, 2006, 10:31 (Agree/Disagree?) You're right! Those ancient Romans were all about logic, and not at all superstitious. Must have come from ol' Romulus and Remus, don't ya think? Speaking of ancient legal structures, however, an Icelandic friend was telling me about the Lawsayers from the Icelandic Commonwealth. While having only a single government employee is brilliant, what is even better is the idea that if one guy can't remember all the laws then they must not exist!(reply to this comment)

From sar Sunday, December 17, 2006, 13:56 (Agree/Disagree?) I don't suppose you've read any of the works of the Roman jurists. We still use their reasoning in the UK in contract and property. Civil law countries use alot more of it. In fact, when there isn't a precedent in English law, judges look to Roman law to see if they've figured it out. That could say something bad about our logic or good about theirs. I'm not saying that didn't have superstitions, just that their superstitions didn't interfere. If your reference to lawsayers was in any way triggered by my saying that I didn't think there were any Roman laws forbidding religions or whatever, I was merely acknowledging the fact that while they do not come up in the Institutes of Gaius, or Justinians institutes (which was a compilation of all the Roman laws that existed at the time) they may have existed at some time and been destroyed. If do actually think the lawsayers situation is brilliant, then I understand why you would think the Romans illogical.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Monday, December 18, 2006, 06:58 (Agree/Disagree?) Seeing how I'm not about to take up legal rulings from the Roman Republic era as teatime reading, I shall indeed rely on your specialist knowledge on that. Although, based on your statements above, I do question the logic behind a legal system which ignores a (significant?) part of the culture/soceity which it is intended to defend. My comment about Lawsayers was, as I stated, simply in the context of ancient legal systems. It was a recent discussion which I had, so was relatively 'fresh' in my mind. My appreciation of that system was again as stated, and stems from my belief not only in small government, but in the principle that individual rights are not something to be 'given' by governments, but rather to be 'restricted' by governments only in extreme cases when necessary to allow social cohesion. As such, it would be illogical for the list of crimes or laws to be such that a given citizen could not recall them - as opposed to the current deluge of legislature in this country, creating crimes at an alarming rate.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Sunday, December 17, 2006, 06:36 (Agree/Disagree?) *the(reply to this comment)

From Rain Child Saturday, December 16, 2006, 15:22 (Agree/Disagree?) That's fascinating, Sar. I really do appreciate your knowledge of history and am asking the below question out of interest, not as the beginning of a debate: Wasn't the Roman Emporer considered "God", with the ability to create any law he chose? And during the time Christianity was outlawed and they were feeding Christians to the lions, etc. wasn't that part of the legal system based on religion?(reply to this comment)

From sar Saturday, December 16, 2006, 16:37 (Agree/Disagree?) Octavius changed his name to Augustus in or around 27 BC and gave himself god like powers. Before that Roman rulers had very limited law making powers and any laws they did make were subject to the laws made by the committees. As far as Christianity being outlawed, I am not sure the accuracy of that. From what I understand that the Christians were being fed to lions because they were accused of arson, rather than because they were Christian. Its likely that there was religious reason for the accusation, but there is no evidence of there being any law of Rome forbidding a religion. I know that there was persecution of Christians predating the fire, but I believe that was by Jews and not the Romans. I'm not sure precisely where it was either, but if it was outside Rome, the Romans generally left them to keep their own laws and customs. There was some influence of religion, i.e. they swore an oath to their gods to tell the truth at trial, but they didn't need religion to know that it was wrong to steal. There would be consequences while they were on earth and they would be shamed - not as in within their hearts but as in the people they stole from would get a bunch of people together to stand outside their house and shout insults at them - bad for business. I guess their moralities stemmed from the needs of society and commerce and were enforced by laws. I suppose it would make an interesting contrast to compare the methods used by the Jews with those used by the Romans (rule of law vs rule of religion?), but I know very little about the Jewish legal enforcement system of the day and this is long enough. (reply to this comment)

From Sunday, December 17, 2006, 11:44 (Agree/Disagree?) christians were fed to lions becouse they didn't aknowledge emperor to be God. They claimed there was only one God and that Caesar didnt' qualifie for that position.(reply to this comment)

From what history class taught me Saturday, December 16, 2006, 16:00 (Agree/Disagree?) Constantine was not a Christian either, despite popular Christian tradition. He was a Roman emperor and believed in the Roman gods et al. His mother and sister were Christian converts and he legalized Christianity so that his mother and sister could worship their god in the open without fear of reprisal. Christianity was fairly commonplace at the time anyways, and his legalizing of it was merely a formality and sort of a public acceptance of a new god in what was traditionally a very accepting religion. Yes, Constantine did build churches etc., but he was a brilliant man and saw the commercial possibilities and benefits if he could capitalize on the popularly spreading religion. Is was because of his loyalty to Rome that he built his churches in Byzantium (modern day Istanbul) away from his beloved capital city. It was after he died that they tried to make Constantinople (modern day Istanbul) the religious capital of the Roman empire, and thus religion (Christianity) became a major political issue for the first time on an international scale causing a rift in the church resulting in The Great Schism, and the split of the Roman Empire which directly contributed to the overthrow of Rome as a world power (outside of the papacy of course, which continued to dominate European politics for centuries). Oh, and when they were feeding Christians to the lions, it was a religious thing that came and went depending on the emperor. Yes, the emperors were gods but they had many others. They would've accepted Chritians had they aknowledged the ceaser as a god too. Some emperors didn't mind, and others (like Nero) had very fragile egos and needed the Christians to help distract from the fact that he was a terrible emperor, and that he was ruining Rome. Caligula did it because he was sadistic, and other emperors did it for a while then stopped, then started again. So while it was a religious issue, it wasn't an issue of religion as per Roman religion or tradition.(reply to this comment)

From Rain Child Saturday, December 16, 2006, 17:37 (Agree/Disagree?) Why would they have accepted Christianity if Caesar had been recognised as a god?(reply to this comment)

From Sunday, December 17, 2006, 11:59 (Agree/Disagree?) Caesar could tolerate competition - that is being one of gods. Romans allways had more gods than one and since Augustus the emperor was considered to be one of them. But if Christians claimed that Caesar wasn't God and that there is only one God -their own -well to the lions with them and let's not talk about it anymore. (reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Sunday, December 17, 2006, 12:07 (Agree/Disagree?) And here we find why it is that Christianity is classified as a 'monotheistic' religion.(reply to this comment)

From Rain Child Sunday, December 17, 2006, 12:03 (Agree/Disagree?) Oh, I get it now. If CHRISTIANS had recognised Caesar as God. Now it makes sense.(reply to this comment)

From vix Sunday, December 17, 2006, 08:14 (Agree/Disagree?) ^^^ Maybe not my place to answer since the question was not directed at me, but probably because religion has nothing to do with rational consideration ;-) (reply to this comment)

From vix Sunday, December 17, 2006, 08:17 (Agree/Disagree?) Sigh, I shall be generous and amend that to say *because religion typically has little to do with rational consideration. Happy Holidays! :-P(reply to this comment)

From sar Saturday, December 16, 2006, 16:46 (Agree/Disagree?) Ah yes, apologies for the gross generalisation on Constantine.(reply to this comment)

From Rain Child Saturday, December 16, 2006, 16:04 (Agree/Disagree?) So he's not just a pretty face! :) That was amazing(reply to this comment)

from conan Thursday, December 07, 2006 - 15:33 (Agree/Disagree?) I happen to be a fan of Dawkins'. Not that I think everything he says his undisputed fact but he makes some great arguments about a lot of topics and says what a lot of people are afraid to even think. That being said, I wanted to put here an excerpt of one chapter in Chuck Palahniuk's book 'Haunted'. This is a work of fiction despite having several real events detailed graphically inside. It’s one of those fragments of literature that sticks with you, (with me anyways) and makes me wonder why I was unaware of this particular angle of “God-bashing” before reading this book. I found it to be a fairly fresh angle, as well as amusing at the base of the issue; an impotent, terrified deity. Anyways, enjoy! “”Until Genesis chapter eleven,” says the Reverend Godless, “we had no war.” Until God set us to fight each other, for the rest of human history. … … Reverend Godless, he says “On a plain in the land of Shinar, all people toiled together.” All humanity with a shared vision, a great noble dream they worked side by side to fulfill in this time before armies and weapons and battles. Then God looked down to see their tower, the people’s shared dream, inching up, just a little too close for comfort. And God said, “Behold, they are one people…and this is only the beginning of what they will do…Nothing that they propose to will now be impossible for them…” His words, in His Bible. The Book of Genesis, chapter eleven. “So our God,” says Reverend Godless, his bare arms and calf muscles stippled with the black marks of shaved hair growing back in each pore, he says, “Our all-powerful God got so scared he scattered the human race across the face of the earth, and shattered their language to keep His children apart.” Part female impersonator, part retired U.S. Marine, the Reverend Godless, sparkling in his red sequins, says, “An almighty God this insecure?” Who pits his children against each other, to keep them weak. He says, “This is the God we’re supposed to worship?”” (reply to this comment)

From Rain Child Friday, December 08, 2006, 00:16 (Agree/Disagree?) I like it. I recently read a wonderful essay on the similarity between the god of the Bible and an abusive husband. However, I have to say, that in order to use this particular angle, the 'God-basher" would be acknowledging God and the Bible which he claims are no more than fairy-tales to him. We don't go picking apart Hindu and Greek mythology do we? And I think we should look at Christians that way, they have this thing that they do, it helps them define themselves, and we just accept it and take them where they're at. I guess that's condescending though, because if you felt they were on your level, you'd want to help them use their minds. Maybe. Hang on, I'll get you some excerpts from the God-is-an-abusive-husband thng: God as Abuser: Similarities Between the Christian God and Abusive Spouses From Austin Cline, God and Spousal Abuse: It's common for Christians to compare the relationship between humanity and God to that between husband and wife. God is the "man" of the house to whom humanity owes obedience, respect, and honor. Usually this relationship is portrayed as one of love, but in far too many ways, God is more like an abusive spouse who only knows how to love through intimidation and violence. A review of classic signs and symptoms of spousal abuse reveals how abusive the "relationship" people have with God is. Victims are Afraid of the Abuser: Abusers instill fear in their spouses; believers are instructed to fear God. Abusers are unpredictable and given to dramatic mood swings; God is depicted as alternating between love and violence. Abused spouses avoid topics which set off the abuser; believers avoid thinking about certain things to avoid angering God. Abusers make one feel like there is no way to escape a relationship; believers are told that there is no way to escape God's wrath and eventual punishment. Abusers Use of Threats and Intimidation to Force Compliance: Violence is a primary means by which abusers communicate, even with their spouses whom they are supposed to love. Abusers aren't just violent towards their spouses — they also use violence against objects, pets, and other things to instill more fear and to force compliance with their wishes. God is portrayed as using violence to force people to comply with certain rules and Hell is the ultimate threat of violence. God might even punish an entire nation for the transgressions of a few members. Abusers Withholds Resources from Victims: In order to exercise greater control over a victim, abusers will withhold important resources in order to make the victim more dependent. Resources used like this include money, credit cards, access to transportation, medications, or even food. God is also depicted as exercising control over people by controlling their resources — if people are insufficiently obedient, for example, God may cause crops to fail or water to turn bad. The basic necessities of living are conditioned on obeying God. Abusers Instill Feelings of Inadequacy in Victims: A further means of exercising control over a victim is instilling feelings of inadequacy in them. By getting them to feel worthless, helpless, and unable to do anything right, they will lack the self-confidence necessary to stand up to the abuser and resist the abuse. Believers are taught that they are depraved sinners, unable to do anything right and unable to have good, decent, or moral lives independent of God. Everything good that a believer achieves is due to God, not their own efforts. Victims Feel they Deserve to be Punished by Abusers: Part of the process of encouraging the victim to feel inadequate involves getting them to feel that they really do deserve the abuse they are suffering. If the abuser is justified in punishing the victim, then the victim can hardly complain, can she? God is also described as being justified in punishing humanity — all people are so sinful and depraved that they deserve an eternity in hell (created by God). Their only hope is that God will take pity on them and save them. Victims are Not Trusted by Abusers: Another part of the process of making the victim feel inadequate is ensuring that they know how little the abuser trusts them. The victim is not trusted to make her own decisions, dress herself, buy things on her own, or anything else. She is also isolated from her family so that she can't find help. God, too, is depicted as treating people as if they were unable to do anything right or make their own decisions (like on moral issues, for example). Emotional Dependency of the Abuser on the Victim: Although abusers encourage victims to feel inadequate, it is the abuser who really has problems with self-confidence. Abusers encourage emotional dependency because they are emotionally dependent themselves — this produces extreme jealousy and controlling behavior. God, too, is depicted as dependent upon human worship and love. God is usually described as jealous and unable to handle it when people turn away. God is all-powerful, but unable to prevent the smallest problems. Blaming the Victim for the Abuser's Actions: Victims are typically made to feel responsible for all of an abuser's actions, not just deserving of the punishments inflicted. Thus victims are told that it's their fault when an abuser gets angry, feels suicidal, or indeed when anything at all goes wrong. Humanity is also blamed for everything that goes wrong — although God created humanity and can stop any unwanted actions, all responsibility for all evil in the world is laid entirely at the feet of human beings. Why Do Abused People Stay With Their Abusers?: Why do women stay with violent, abusive spouses? Why don't they just pack up and leave, making a new life for themselves elsewhere and with people who actually respect and honor them as equal, independent human beings? The signs of abuse described above should help in answering these questions: women are so emotionally and psychologically beaten down that they lack the mental strength to do what is necessary. They don't have enough confidence to believe that they can make it without the man who keeps telling them that only he could possibly love such an ugly and worthless person such as they. Perhaps some insight on this can be gained by rephrasing the question and asking why people don't abandon the emotionally and psychologically abusive relationship they are expected to develop with God? The existence of God isn't relevant here — what matters is how people are taught to perceive themselves, their world, and what will happen to them if they make the mistake of trying to leave the relationship in order to make a better life for themselves elsewhere. Women who are abused are told that they can't make it on their own and if they try, their spouse will come after them to punish or even kill them. Believers are told that they can't accomplish anything of value without God, that they are so worthless that only because God is infinitely loving does he love them at all; if they turn their backs on God, they will be punished for all eternity in hell. The sort of "love" which God has for humanity is the "love" of an abuser who threatens, attacks, and commits violence in order to get his own way. Religions like Christianity are abusive insofar as they encourage people to feel inadequate, worthless, dependent, and deserving of harsh punishment. Such religions are abusive insofar as they teach people to accept the existence of a god which, if human, would have long ago been shut away in prison for all his immoral and violent behavior. (reply to this comment)

From conan Friday, December 08, 2006, 00:47 (Agree/Disagree?) I wasn't really trying to 'prove' anything. I was using the excerpt to show the futility of the Christian god using the basis of their beliefs. Actually, futility is the wrong word. More like the insipid contradiction of an ‘almighty god’ so volatile and vulnerable that he would do such a thing. I guess I’m sure that you probably are aware by now that I don’t consider the Bible to be anything more than a collection of fairy tales, but what the hell. There are so many ways to do that, but that was fresh in my mind having recently read the book as part of my ‘pick a random book and read it’ program so I included it here for everyone’s benefit. :-D(reply to this comment)

from Hydra Tuesday, November 28, 2006 - 13:24 (Agree/Disagree?) I haven't read the book, only the article, which probably renders the comment I'm about to make worthless. I'm pretty much on the same page when it comes to much of what Dawkins has to say about religion, at least according to the author of this article. But on the flip side, it astounds me that someone as brilliant as Dawkins can totally overlook the fact that religion alone is not to blame for some of the worst genocides and attrocities committed mankind against mankind. Might I mention, Mao, Stalin and the Khemer Rouge as a few examples. These genocides and murders of millions propagated through anti- or non-religious ideologies were right on par (and in some ways even surpass) the grand scale of meyham produced in the name of religion. I cherish logic and reason over the superstition of religion, but my personal view is that it is the extremists on both ends of the spectrum that are the problem, not necessarily the religious or anti-religious ideologies. (reply to this comment)

from AndyH Tuesday, November 28, 2006 - 08:54 (Agree/Disagree?) I keep trying to read this, but it's just too nauseating. His faults aside, he's my hero, and if there's going to be yet one more intolerant person, he might as well be speaking for the underdog. He's giving religion a taste of it's own medicine. Tolerance is a two way street. (reply to this comment)

From Rain Child Tuesday, November 28, 2006, 11:19 (Agree/Disagree?) Hmmm...how do I explain where I'm coming from. Okay, I want logic in my life now. Need it. I'm no longer willing to accept things that don't make sense just because I've been taught them, fed them, and told that morally I must believe them. I want -need- freedom of the mind. BUT having grown up in that evangelical on-fire environment, I want to now get as far away from that sort of thinking as I can. And that "Only I'm right" attitute is the main part about it that I hate. I don't want to be like that about my new-found logic anymore than I want to encounter people who are that way about their religion. This stuff is about people's personal journey. People's religion is an integral part of who they are. I really don't feel that we need to get on our soapboxes to peddle anti-religion. It's not a 'stuff'. It's just the absence of superstition. It's just normality. Anyway, I'm not actually out to bash Richard Dawkins, just thought I'd bring another viewpoint into this...for balance.(reply to this comment)

From AndyH Wednesday, November 29, 2006, 09:31 (Agree/Disagree?) Rain, we're more on the same page then you realize. It is about a personal journey, but they go along way to make it very public, including attacking people who disagree. This is why Dawkins feels that he must retaliate. I believe in showing respect for all living things, the religious community needs to respect the importance of science, and the scientific community needs to respect the individuals right to believe whatever they wish. There was a time when I thought I should try to "save" people from their faith. It was just one step along the way. You can't save someone from themselves. No preacher has a gun to his congregations head, so what they want to do with their minds is not my problem. (reply to this comment)

From Rain Child Wednesday, November 29, 2006, 12:30 (Agree/Disagree?) Yeah...but I think the fact that we are not religious means we should not be acting religious about being non-religious. If our philosophy is truth and logic, we can afford to sit back and relax like the rational beings we are. And I do agree that cultures would still have expressed this control and these traditions and values in other ways if it hadn't been for religion. That was a very good case about the various communist regimes. We would still be having wars over culture and modernisation. We would still be having 'leaders' passing judgement. America and the Arab world would still be thinking only they were right and the other was evil. Religion is just an excuse. Are we giving it too much attention?(reply to this comment)

From AndyH Wednesday, November 29, 2006, 13:56 (Agree/Disagree?) I concur. That's why I opted to sit back and relax and not read that article. It's just more pissing and moaning, no matter what side is doing it. I really can't be arsed to give a damn. (reply to this comment)

From Rain Child Wednesday, November 29, 2006, 23:56 (Agree/Disagree?) Touche(reply to this comment)

From loch Wednesday, November 29, 2006, 10:22 (Agree/Disagree?) Andy, I had a dream about you last night and I don't know why. Stay out of my head kind sir, the voices that remain there will keep you bad company. ;)(reply to this comment)

From AndyH Wednesday, November 29, 2006, 12:05 (Agree/Disagree?) Awesome! I hope it was a good dream. I'll try to stop by again sometime. ;)(reply to this comment)

From loch Wednesday, November 29, 2006, 14:34 (Agree/Disagree?) It was good, it involved various forms of illegal substances. And that, is always a good thing. (reply to this comment)

From AndyH Wednesday, November 29, 2006, 14:47 (Agree/Disagree?) Yeah! They didn't have THAT in Heaven's Children. (reply to this comment)

From Rain Child Wednesday, November 29, 2006, 12:25 (Agree/Disagree?) Why is that SOOO Heaven's children?(reply to this comment)

From vixie Tuesday, November 28, 2006, 08:58 (Agree/Disagree?) Hello Andy :-) I know what you mean, he is a hero of mine too. (reply to this comment)

From vixie Tuesday, November 28, 2006, 09:13 (Agree/Disagree?) Eh, scratch that. I'm not sure I have any heroes. But I do admire his intellect. (Movingon has tentacles, I think. I must escape while I still can.) (reply to this comment)

From AndyH Wednesday, November 29, 2006, 12:09 (Agree/Disagree?) Oh give it up, you'll always come back. No heroes? *rolls eyes (reply to this comment)

From also Wednesday, November 29, 2006, 12:09 (Agree/Disagree?) Hello! :)(reply to this comment)

from vixie Tuesday, November 28, 2006 - 08:36 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree with some of the author's misgivings. I do think Dawkins can get a bit too scathing. However I still very much enjoyed reading The God Delusion, because when I want to examine my thinking (especially in areas that are highly contentious in terms of the 'hardwiring' I received in the cult) I don't always want to be given a subtle 'food for thought' type of insight - rather I look to be beaten over the head a bit, forcefully and with a great deal of passion, so that I really take notice. Then, when I go away and think about it, I simply discard the elements that don't sit well with me. I'd still prefer to err on his side of the argument. (reply to this comment)