Does is not impede societal development that many people now tolerate and want to tolerate intolerance, simply because of extremely liberal views. Free speech, the freedom to express ones self and allow others to do same goes both ways.

But, is it good for society that clearly abhorrent ideologies, that have proven to lead to genocide and plunge nations and their people into the deepest depths of misery, that should have no place in society or any discourse, only in dusty archives, that should be irrelevant in a modern society, are still being perpetuated in all corners of the world. Conflicts that should have ceased long ago are still very much kept alive, because people fail to realize or are scared of what needs to be done.

Time is running out for this pathetic race if its members keep skirting around and avoiding to address issues and confront those who fear progress, who want to restore a world with values that have long been deemed to be not just unnecessary, but dangerous.

"But the mere endurance of a belief system or custom does not suggest that it is adaptive, much less wise. It merely suggests that it hasn’t led directly to a society’s collapse or killed its practitioners outright."
The Moral Landscape - Sam Harris

Well, we have to define what we consider a collapsed society or one that is on the verge or is fated to collapse given the norms, laws and practices coupled with its people's living standards.

It's down to each individual to decide what they consider intolerant. But to impose one's views onto others is not on. So as far as I'm concerned, we're free to have our views. However, when someone expresses a view which we object to, like gloating over someone else's misfortune, we have every right to counter their ignorance.

Edgar_Fudge wrote:It's down to each individual to decide what they consider intolerant. But to impose one's views onto others is not on. So as far as I'm concerned, we're free to have our views. However, when someone expresses a view which we object to, like gloating over someone else's misfortune, we have every right to counter their ignorance.

You're missing the point. It's not just down to the individual, but society as a whole, what can be considered moral and conducive to well-being. It is not an imposition of one view onto another, but rather the muting of views that have already proven to be quite detrimental and not in the least beneficial to society and conducive to the well-being of its members. Its the systematic erasing of dangerous, divisive and morally bankrupt views and replacing them with ones that promote what the former ones obstruct.

MattHunX wrote:

Edgar_Fudge wrote:It's down to each individual to decide what they consider intolerant. But to impose one's views onto others is not on. So as far as I'm concerned, we're free to have our views. However, when someone expresses a view which we object to, like gloating over someone else's misfortune, we have every right to counter their ignorance.

You're missing the point. It's not just down to the individual, but society as a whole, what can be considered moral and conducive to well-being. It is not an imposition of one view onto another, but rather the muting of views that have already proven to be quite detrimental and not in the least beneficial to society and conducive to the well-being of its members. Its the systematic erasing of dangerous, divisive and morally bankrupt views and replacing them with ones that promote what the former ones obstruct.

Secular liberals in particular have no room to stand on moral pulpits, have no foundation to speak of moral bankruptcy. They would be laughed off stage when trying to reprimand those they find immoral.

Viva la Vida wrote:

MattHunX wrote:

Edgar_Fudge wrote:It's down to each individual to decide what they consider intolerant. But to impose one's views onto others is not on. So as far as I'm concerned, we're free to have our views. However, when someone expresses a view which we object to, like gloating over someone else's misfortune, we have every right to counter their ignorance.

You're missing the point. It's not just down to the individual, but society as a whole, what can be considered moral and conducive to well-being. It is not an imposition of one view onto another, but rather the muting of views that have already proven to be quite detrimental and not in the least beneficial to society and conducive to the well-being of its members. Its the systematic erasing of dangerous, divisive and morally bankrupt views and replacing them with ones that promote what the former ones obstruct.

Secular liberals in particular have no room to stand on moral pulpits, have no foundation to speak of moral bankruptcy. They would be laughed off stage when trying to reprimand those they find immoral.

That's one of the aspects and problems of this issue that need to be addressed. So far the only place and way it is being addressed is through the arguments against religion and against the blatant audacity of many of its adherents to still claim monopoly over questions of morality. Secularist through science could make claims about morality. But, as it has been rightly asserted by Harris in his new book, many scientist and secularist don't realize they have the tools to approach and deal with this issue, they still believe it falls out of the purview of science. It clearly does not.

MattHunX wrote:

Edgar_Fudge wrote:It's down to each individual to decide what they consider intolerant. But to impose one's views onto others is not on. So as far as I'm concerned, we're free to have our views. However, when someone expresses a view which we object to, like gloating over someone else's misfortune, we have every right to counter their ignorance.

You're missing the point. It's not just down to the individual, but society as a whole, what can be considered moral and conducive to well-being. It is not an imposition of one view onto another, but rather the muting of views that have already proven to be quite detrimental and not in the least beneficial to society and conducive to the well-being of its members. Its the systematic erasing of dangerous, divisive and morally bankrupt views and replacing them with ones that promote what the former ones obstruct.

Oh yes, the beehive mentality. Lobotomy, anyone? You'd love that.

Edgar_Fudge wrote:

MattHunX wrote:

Edgar_Fudge wrote:It's down to each individual to decide what they consider intolerant. But to impose one's views onto others is not on. So as far as I'm concerned, we're free to have our views. However, when someone expresses a view which we object to, like gloating over someone else's misfortune, we have every right to counter their ignorance.

You're missing the point. It's not just down to the individual, but society as a whole, what can be considered moral and conducive to well-being. It is not an imposition of one view onto another, but rather the muting of views that have already proven to be quite detrimental and not in the least beneficial to society and conducive to the well-being of its members. Its the systematic erasing of dangerous, divisive and morally bankrupt views and replacing them with ones that promote what the former ones obstruct.

Oh yes, the beehive mentality. Lobotomy, anyone? You'd love that.

Anything constructive to say, or are you only here to throw some asinine, useless comment in, then move on, as you've been doing on a lot of threads lately?

Why do you equate what I propose with lobotomy? Essentially misconstruing it and blowing it out of proportion.

MattHunX wrote:..... the blatant audacity of many of its adherents to still claim monopoly over questions of morality.

They do, in fact it's not only their adherents who point this out, purveyors of the enlightenment, like Jurgen Habermas have pointed to the failure of godless morality, and argued that the secular sphere must borrow from the religious in order to posses a moral language.

The religious may not have a monopoly on moral behavior, but they do hold a monopoly on questions of morality, because they believe in human duty, an inherent "should". You don't.

Viva la Vida wrote:

Secular liberals in particular have no room to stand on moral pulpits, have no foundation to speak of moral bankruptcy. They would be laughed off stage when trying to reprimand those they find immoral.

What the fuck is this shit?

Viva la Vida wrote:

MattHunX wrote:..... the blatant audacity of many of its adherents to still claim monopoly over questions of morality.

They do, in fact it's not only their adherents who point this out, purveyors of the enlightenment, like Jurgen Habermas have pointed to the failure of godless morality, and argued that the secular sphere must borrow from the religious in order to posses a moral language.

The religious may not have a monopoly on moral behavior, but they do hold a monopoly on questions of morality, because they believe in human duty, an inherent "should". You don't.

How the fuck do you know he doesn't?

Paul G wrote:

How the fuck do you know he doesn't?

Well if he does, than he wouldn't be an atheist. He'd be believer, parading around like an atheist.

I don't think it's beneficial, I think it's only tolerated because of the extreme difficulty in determining an objective way to differentiate between acceptable speech and inacceptable speech.

Viva la Vida wrote:

Paul G wrote:

How the fuck do you know he doesn't?

Well if he does, than he wouldn't be an atheist. He'd be believer, parading around like an atheist.

You're wrong, one can believe there are things that should be done as a result of the greater good to society. A god is not necessary for this view.

Viva la Vida wrote:

MattHunX wrote:..... the blatant audacity of many of its adherents to still claim monopoly over questions of morality.

They do, in fact it's not only their adherents who point this out, purveyors of the enlightenment, like Jurgen Habermas have pointed to the failure of godless morality, and argued that the secular sphere must borrow from the religious in order to posses a moral language.

The religious may not have a monopoly on moral behavior, but they do hold a monopoly on questions of morality, because they believe in human duty, an inherent "should". You don't.

Well, if anything your position of faith becomes quite apparent when you claim the religious hold monopoly on questions of morality. They clearly don't. The religious get their morality from what they believe to be moral absolutes inspired and passed down by a deity millenia ago in the form of scriptures. Text that clearly expect it's readers and followers to hold slaves and to execute insubordinate children amongst other equally immoral acts.

Sityl wrote:

Viva la Vida wrote:

Paul G wrote:

How the fuck do you know he doesn't?

Well if he does, than he wouldn't be an atheist. He'd be believer, parading around like an atheist.

You're wrong, one can believe there are things that should be done as a result of the greater good to society. A god is not necessary for this view.

You should probably read what I wrote again, and see what you are missing here.

(And your statement is gibberish, because the problem such statements are trying to address, are not what best serves the greater good of society, but rejection of a duty to serve the greater good of society. You can't even see that moral problems are concerned with the foundation, you naively take as a given.)

Viva la Vida wrote:

Paul G wrote:

How the fuck do you know he doesn't?

Well if he does, than he wouldn't be an atheist. He'd be believer, parading around like an atheist.

Should I even bother to argue with someone who cannot see how a person can be moral without religion? Are you of the opinion that those who do not believe do not have a sense of morality, one that does not come from any religion or supposed god? Do you believe morality can only come from religion and religious teachings? If you do, it is pointless to argue with you further.

MattHunX wrote:
The religious get their morality from what they believe to be moral absolutes inspired and passed down by a deity millenia ago in the form of scriptures.

No they don't, the christian belief is that the moral law is written into the heart, that morality is a part of the fabric of reality, that human beings are called by god to a duty to love ones neighbor as themselves. A rejection of God is seen as rejection of duty.

This is the view of nearly all religions that concern themselves with morality.

MattHunX wrote:[

Should I even bother to argue with someone who cannot see how a person can be moral without religion?

Should I even bother arguing with someone who thinks I said that a person cannot be moral without religion?

Viva la Vida wrote:

MattHunX wrote:
The religious get their morality from what they believe to be moral absolutes inspired and passed down by a deity millenia ago in the form of scriptures.

No they don't, the christian belief is that the moral law is written into the heart, that morality is a part of the fabric of reality, that human beings are called by god to a duty to love ones neighbor as themselves. A rejection of God is seen as rejection of duty.

The belief that moral law is written into the heart is not a belief that was always held by christians. It is only a recent invention by christian apologists and those of other faiths to get rid of the notion of having to base their morality on scriptures, in effect to evade any questions in relation to scripture based morality.

What do you say to those who do not even know of this god, or simply those who choose to reject him, but still behave morally? And are priests "called" to molest children as a sign of love and duty by god?

MattHunX wrote:

The belief that moral law is written into the heart is not a belief that was always held by christians. It is only a recent invention by christian apologists and those of other faiths to get rid of the notion of having to base their morality on scriptures, in effect to evade any questions in relation to scripture based morality.

You are quite clueless.

Here is Paul speaking about the Gentiles and how they observe the moral law absent of scripture:

Romans 2:14-15:

"For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law.They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness.."

To go old school:

Jeremiah 31:33

"This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.

And to teach other individuals as clueless as you the common christian view on morality has never been deontological. SO your attempt to argue that it was invention of modernity is an epic fail.

All this just goes to show how naive and unlearned the understanding of religion and Christianity is among atheist, even those who have went to church.

What do you say to those who do not even know of this god, or simply those who choose to reject him, but still behave morally?

My view would be the same as Paul's view on the gentiles.