|
i wish i would have joined this thread earlier...
i think sargeman is being misunderstood. there seems to be some confusion between the terms "amoral" and "immoral". sargeman proposed that without religion people would be "amoral" (without morals or concept of morals). whereas csflim automatically translated that as "immoral" (recognizing a moral framework, yet going against it).
people can constantly modify the specifics of morality, but who can claim to know the source of our awareness of the principle of morality apart from an outside (perhaps divine?) source?
and finally... can we please put to rest the crude notion that religion is responsible for all the world's ills? violence and aggression from atheistic states is certainly no better than theocracies or purportedly religious movements. jealousy and greed cause most human conflict, believing the religious facade composed by the manipulators does not bring us closer to truth.
__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.
~ Winston Churchill
|