(like stealing, which is done nowadays through illegal electronic copies of many things),which may sound like things are getting worse. It also shows people how big and urgent their task is.
However - and I have to admit that churches are emphasizing the bad side a lot - the good examples of positive attitudes that are on the rise can and should be used to show how God is working in the world and leaving his mark,TBC
Like one of the video responses says, it doesn't matter if morality is increasing or not, because even if it increases a lot, it won't be satisfactory to God's eyes.
That said, I can answer the question: without the assumption that religious leaders are only trying to keep the church benches full, there are advantages to each position. Preachers have to point at new forms of sin, i.e., values that society is forgetting or crimes that are being committed in a new way ...
(like stealing, which is done nowadays through illegal electronic copies of many things),which may sound like things are getting worse. It also shows people how big and urgent their task is.
However - and I have to admit that churches are emphasizing the bad side a lot - the good examples of positive attitudes that are on the rise can and should be used to show how God is working in the world and leaving his mark,TBC
I will post a video response later. Just wanted to say thanks for taking the time to post such an entertaining series of discussion. As for the question you pose, history suggests that religious leaders have no incentive for saying things are going well. Most religions have a strong element of fear in them...fear of death, fear of hell, fear of suffering, etc. If things are said to be "going well" then there is less fear and less need for the comfort of religion.
what do you think of the notion that relegion is nurture and not nature? somewhat like the discusion over sexuality wheter one is hard wired or thaught to be so.
I think the main purpose of most religion is to propogate the religion. Thus, if saying morality is declining will support the church's teachings, it is said. JMO
BTW: I'll add to your list of immoral acts. The killing of Falun Gong practitioners in China for the purpose of selling their organs to others, happening in China since year 2000, recently revealed.
Breathing has no moral import. Ethics deals with actions which are freely chosen. Most (IMO all) serious models of ethics do not require a God. Simply because invoking the G-word eliminates the need for a rational justification. Personally I think utilitarianism comes closest to the mark. Specifically, one ought to act in such a way as to promote the greatest happiness / least suffering overall.
It reminds me of something my English teacher said in creative writing class, "A good story has to have certain ingredients. You need a hero who overcomes some problem, you need a villian", etc.etc. I have never been to a church were the sermon was "Wow, everything is terrific, God has triumphed, ain't life wonderful". Sometimes I'm amazed by how much power Christians give to the Devil.
I don't believe in the Devil, however I know that evil does exist. I think it's all too convenient for us to say "the Devil made me do it", when it's really all about our greed or envy. The cold financial reality of all churches is that if they don't stress the point that evil is on the rise, donations will go down. To be fair, a lot of preachers may actually believe that things are really getting "worse".
So, I believe that there is no incentive for the church to claim that morals are improving. They honestly do believe that man has "fallen" and that "things" were better in the magical (Biblical) past. That, coupled with the financial incentive, means that the fire and brimstone sermons are here to stay. I'm worried that Fundamentalist types are so preoccupied with "The Endtimes" that it will become a self fulfilling prophesy.
Though as I said, it is often necessary to approach harsh truths softly to the general public. For example, instead of tossing around threats of fire and brimstone, it would be better to try and attract people to the positive things in the religion; and, if some are so inclined, present it from a philosophical angle.
Although a certain amount of tact may be necessary to soften the blow, my position is that religious leaders should only be encouraged by truth and have no prospect for self-gratification. In other words, there should be no incentive or disincentive for telling people that morality is improving or otherwise. If morality is declining, then that truth should be expressed.
? so my response to this question would be that religious leaders can only tell people the state of morality in the world in accordance to the morals predetermined by their religious institution
This being so, Who's to say what is moral or immoral, and being that morals are subjective, can one even say that there is a right or wrong, or is it just something that is moral or immoral to the individual or group?
All we have to determine meaning in a word or thing is it's definition. And given the definition of Morals and morality, all I can personally determine is that they are entirely subjective, since peoples' morals differ based on geographic location, religion, age, up bringing, etc...
Violent crime is a very poor benchmark of morals. Morals are a much broader concept than violent crime. And actually violent crime comitted is different that violent crime reported.
Also crime doesn't deal with all aspect of life that are legal, but immoral.
Finally, I do have to clarify my position. Although negative morals are clearly descending, positive moral acts are increasing greatly. It's important to have a positive viewpoint for improvement; to encourage positive moral acts and have supportive fellowship.
A word to meadowrue, I never argued that sexuality or sex is immoral. Sex in itself is not immoral. However any sexual contact outside the context of marriage is immoral and a sin, given the conditions of sin have been met.
n general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion ,No democracy is known to have combined strong religiosity and popular denial of evolution with high rates of societal health. Higher rates of non-theism and acceptance of human evolution usually correlate with lower rates of dysfunction, and the least theistic nations are usually the least dysfunctional.
This statement is totally false! Look at the Soviet Union which was state imposed atheism. It was a dismal failure.
Also Hasidic Jews have not only rates of drug abuse at 0, but in fact zero incidents.
The statistics you state count those who engage in immoral activity early in life, bottom out, then join a religion as recovery as those member of those religions when participating in those activities.
The data supporting the conclusion is recent data gathered well after the collapse of the Soviet Union,the statistics you state have nothing to do with the data concerned and are therefore irrelevant,you are also cherry picking when you mention Hasidic jews and drug abuse,the data supporting the conclusion looks at societal health on a global basis.TBC
The strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms
Your data on the south is not cross reference with the specific individual, but with only regional trends.
Please get a masters degree in statistics from an accredited university.
You are a bigot against God and religion. I notice you don't even try to refute the dismal failure of state imposed atheism. Please deal with your mental illness appropriately.
In regard to The Soviet Union and state enforced Atheism , this has absolutely no bearing on the global societal health of TODAY, I suggest you stop living in the past.If the data showed that the U.S. enjoyed higher rates of societal health than the more secular, pro-evolution DEMOCRACIES OF TODAY, then the opinion that popular belief in a creator is strongly beneficial to national cultures would be supported ,as this is not the case your arguement is therefore refuted.
That was one great run on. Unfortunately your lack of syntax and grammar renders your argument useless. The theory of evolution is a basis for religion. Your dichotomy is based on a total lack of understanding of the history of religion.
Please take an English course, since evidently you have given up on the masters in statistics.
That's because you have no argument! You have no degree, you have no education, you have no data. All you have is a hatred of God and those who love God.
I forgot to add you have no knowledge of the US.
You have knowledge of vulgarity and hatred, though.
You live near Oakland, John. You should know about the epidemic of murders currently occurring. The issue is moral, not legality. Acts such as wife beating are not longer illegal. On this issue, you are wrong!
I could have mentioned many other issues, such as people flying jets into buildings, internet sexual predators and other none of which ever happened fifty years ago.
Third, rule of law is a pathetic benchmark for morality. Plenty of acts are legal and not moral. For example murder. Police and soldiers and celebrities routinely murder with no consequence. Also you chart does not take into account offenses such as embezzlement. For example what Enron did to its employees is not in unprecedented, but the degree to which they did it was unprecedented.
John, you and I both live in the SF Bay Area. I would be happy to bring to you my years subscription of New England Medical Journals. I doubt you would find any of that information on the web.
The fact that the CDC has issued guidelines that girls from age 13 on should received the vaccine for cervical cancer, which is only transmitted sexual, is proof that a significant amount of girls from age 13 are sexually active.
Like I said, in a 20 year period the rate of sexually transmitted disease increased by a factor of 20. This statement is a fact! Just because you could not find it on the internet, doesn't mean anything. The CDC is not in habit of publishing all its research on the web.
Cataa your argument that the increase in sexually transmitted diseases in the last twenty years is an indicator of issues of contraception is pathetic. Most contraception or birth control methods are independent of protection of sexually transmitted disease. Examples: oral contraception, the shot, the patch, IUD, abortion, RU486, the morning after pill, withdrawal, oral-sex, anal-sex, and rimming do not protect against sexually transmitted disease.
First, I never presented the profanity on youtube a proveative of the decline in morality, but as illustrative of the decline in standards. It is to be read in context with the succeeding statement from Steve Allen.
Basic conclusion: The world is a lot dirtiest [more profane, obscene, vulgar] than previous generations.
Crime is an interesting and complex example. It's amazing that I searched on the web and could only find charts of recent years showing the recent decrease in crime. Go USA. However, I have a book that has a graph going back to 1950 and it shows a long term increase in violent crime by 5 times from 1950 to 1990. [source: Uniform Crime Reports from the FBI]
There is a reason the Bible slanders Canaan. Archeologically the Israelites are Cannanites. They were a subgroup who separated from the Cannanites. Hence many of their stories (Abraham, Isaac and the sacrifice) are derivative of Cannanite stories (but with a little twist).
politics knowingly fool christians to nullify the US-constitution and you claim increasing morality. Not Even Doom Music justifies this Youtube submission. I like the shift from belief to trust. Message boards are way older than 5 years, welcome to the internet. The statistic is pretty worthless.
politics knowingly fool christians to nullify the US-constitution and you claim increasing morality. Not Even Doom Music justifies this Youtube submission. I like the shift from belief to trust. Message boards are way older than 5 years, welcome to the internet. The statistic is pretty worthless.
Telling people that ethics and morality are bad and getting worse is the oldest trick in the book. The Abrahamic religions have been doing this ever since they invented "the fall" and now all humans are supposedly born tainted with evil. Hinduism has a similar claim about an idyllic time in the past, the "Satya Yuga," but we are conveniently in the worst age of immorality today, the "Kali Yuga."
The incentive for this rhetoric is simply fear. Fear causes people to huddle close to what is familiar. So religious leaders can enforce a unity among their followers by inciting fear of the outside world, fear of those who do not share the same religion and who are thus immoral. It's the old us vs them playbook. Watch how many times the Bible does slanders Canaan.
"The Fall" is actually an elementary idea found in many religions. However the interpretation of it as negative is exclusive to the monotheistic religions.
You're right about the Yugas. But it is also a honest call that we can do better.
The decrease Castaa's chart is largely due to "Victimization reported to police." This has many flaws. First, it is estimated by the same governmental agencies that less than ¼ of all rapes are reported. In the early 90's, when the decreases began, its was uncovered that police agencies are simply sweeping many crimes away to improve their city's statistics. Finally, legality and morals are two different animals.
the chart can searve as a bench marker for morals. After all if crime is DOWN then there is less people doing crime. As for rape, back in the day I dont think a woman would have even reported that she was raped. 1\4th is alot better than a time when woman had few rights at all. They are justifiably more vocal now.
I can't recall ever hearing a religious leader stand up and say the world is doing well ethically. It's by far in their best interests to leave everyone thinking there's a lot more work to be done. That encourages new practitioners through the usual guilt tactics and encourages existing practitioners to be more generous so the church can increase it's push to 'spread the good word'.
bravo you kinda took my advise as for your question, thier incentive is to make people happier about themselves in a sort of false of security. People who are happier donate more money to the church. I dont think thats really right to do that but then again we tell kids the same thing when they are little but they grow up to understand the world. In this case however, its grownups being diseaved.
I don't think it's that cut and dry of a reason. And I think unhappy people can be just as generous as happy people, though I can understand how happy people might be more-so. Anywho, I think religious leaders tell people they're good because that's what they truly believe. That is a core belief in many religions, that humans have the innate ability to do good.
yet good and evil are relative to each idevidual person. I would bet right now, in some forien land, or even the person who lives next to you would really want to cause you harm or to kill you. Would you show simpithy to a 60 year old man holding an a-k 47 and wants to make you into swiss cheese? I really dont think so...because he obviously doesnt want to show simpithy for you.
It doesn't have to do with feeling sympathy for someone. What it has to do with is, is that man good, despite the fact that he's holding a gun to me? Somewhere, deep down in there, he probably is. But due to circumstances he's been driven to choose violence to solve whatever he's dealing with. That's wrong, and perhaps even evil. But he could always choose not to shoot me, and that would be good.
no its not but its a dang good question. I think your seeing the world a little to positively. There is alot of hate and pain in this world. I understand we are all human and as such all have feelings of affection love and hate, but personally, i do think there are people who are trully corrupt out thier and dont have any 'good' in them, at least in my point of view, at all.
No, I understand that there are many, many horrible things going on in the world, and I understand that mankind is capable of hideous acts. But I'd rather focus more on doing good in the world rather than mourning over the bad.
I only said that because i was responding to what you have said. Yes it is always better to think positive, but to possitive to just as bad. To think that we live in some utopia free from hate and fears is upsurd. I think the terrorists of 9/11 gave us a needed jolt and bursted the 'bubble' of false safety.
therefore showing people that the God they believe in makes sense and giving them courage to move on with their faith.
SoGeraldo 5 years ago
(like stealing, which is done nowadays through illegal electronic copies of many things),which may sound like things are getting worse. It also shows people how big and urgent their task is.
However - and I have to admit that churches are emphasizing the bad side a lot - the good examples of positive attitudes that are on the rise can and should be used to show how God is working in the world and leaving his mark,TBC
SoGeraldo 5 years ago
Like one of the video responses says, it doesn't matter if morality is increasing or not, because even if it increases a lot, it won't be satisfactory to God's eyes.
That said, I can answer the question: without the assumption that religious leaders are only trying to keep the church benches full, there are advantages to each position. Preachers have to point at new forms of sin, i.e., values that society is forgetting or crimes that are being committed in a new way ...
SoGeraldo 5 years ago
(like stealing, which is done nowadays through illegal electronic copies of many things),which may sound like things are getting worse. It also shows people how big and urgent their task is.
However - and I have to admit that churches are emphasizing the bad side a lot - the good examples of positive attitudes that are on the rise can and should be used to show how God is working in the world and leaving his mark,TBC
SoGeraldo 5 years ago
I will post a video response later. Just wanted to say thanks for taking the time to post such an entertaining series of discussion. As for the question you pose, history suggests that religious leaders have no incentive for saying things are going well. Most religions have a strong element of fear in them...fear of death, fear of hell, fear of suffering, etc. If things are said to be "going well" then there is less fear and less need for the comfort of religion.
daleshankins 5 years ago
I look forward to your forthcoming video reply.
Castaa 5 years ago
what do you think of the notion that relegion is nurture and not nature? somewhat like the discusion over sexuality wheter one is hard wired or thaught to be so.
bibg 5 years ago
I think the main purpose of most religion is to propogate the religion. Thus, if saying morality is declining will support the church's teachings, it is said. JMO
BTW: I'll add to your list of immoral acts. The killing of Falun Gong practitioners in China for the purpose of selling their organs to others, happening in China since year 2000, recently revealed.
Talk25 5 years ago
And by overall, I mean everyone, all sentient beings.
UnivAnom 5 years ago
Breathing has no moral import. Ethics deals with actions which are freely chosen. Most (IMO all) serious models of ethics do not require a God. Simply because invoking the G-word eliminates the need for a rational justification. Personally I think utilitarianism comes closest to the mark. Specifically, one ought to act in such a way as to promote the greatest happiness / least suffering overall.
UnivAnom 5 years ago
It reminds me of something my English teacher said in creative writing class, "A good story has to have certain ingredients. You need a hero who overcomes some problem, you need a villian", etc.etc. I have never been to a church were the sermon was "Wow, everything is terrific, God has triumphed, ain't life wonderful". Sometimes I'm amazed by how much power Christians give to the Devil.
cortmeister 5 years ago
I don't believe in the Devil, however I know that evil does exist. I think it's all too convenient for us to say "the Devil made me do it", when it's really all about our greed or envy. The cold financial reality of all churches is that if they don't stress the point that evil is on the rise, donations will go down. To be fair, a lot of preachers may actually believe that things are really getting "worse".
cortmeister 5 years ago
So, I believe that there is no incentive for the church to claim that morals are improving. They honestly do believe that man has "fallen" and that "things" were better in the magical (Biblical) past. That, coupled with the financial incentive, means that the fire and brimstone sermons are here to stay. I'm worried that Fundamentalist types are so preoccupied with "The Endtimes" that it will become a self fulfilling prophesy.
cortmeister 5 years ago
Sorry for spelling your name wrong, Jon. I just saw how it was spelled on your profile.
amjiva 5 years ago
Though as I said, it is often necessary to approach harsh truths softly to the general public. For example, instead of tossing around threats of fire and brimstone, it would be better to try and attract people to the positive things in the religion; and, if some are so inclined, present it from a philosophical angle.
amjiva 5 years ago
And to answer your question...
Although a certain amount of tact may be necessary to soften the blow, my position is that religious leaders should only be encouraged by truth and have no prospect for self-gratification. In other words, there should be no incentive or disincentive for telling people that morality is improving or otherwise. If morality is declining, then that truth should be expressed.
amjiva 5 years ago
John, considering your definition of morality, I ask, can something like necrophilia be considered immoral?
amjiva 5 years ago
? so my response to this question would be that religious leaders can only tell people the state of morality in the world in accordance to the morals predetermined by their religious institution
larsdotnet 5 years ago
This being so, Who's to say what is moral or immoral, and being that morals are subjective, can one even say that there is a right or wrong, or is it just something that is moral or immoral to the individual or group?
larsdotnet 5 years ago
All we have to determine meaning in a word or thing is it's definition. And given the definition of Morals and morality, all I can personally determine is that they are entirely subjective, since peoples' morals differ based on geographic location, religion, age, up bringing, etc...
larsdotnet 5 years ago
If you're afraid you'll warm the planet with breathing, then plant more trees and shrubbery to take up the carbon dioxide.
Heh, did you find that statistic about violent crime from one of my comments? :O
I might do a video response.
TheAbsurdTruth 5 years ago
Violent crime is a very poor benchmark of morals. Morals are a much broader concept than violent crime. And actually violent crime comitted is different that violent crime reported.
Also crime doesn't deal with all aspect of life that are legal, but immoral.
pointsoforigin 5 years ago
Finally, I do have to clarify my position. Although negative morals are clearly descending, positive moral acts are increasing greatly. It's important to have a positive viewpoint for improvement; to encourage positive moral acts and have supportive fellowship.
A word to meadowrue, I never argued that sexuality or sex is immoral. Sex in itself is not immoral. However any sexual contact outside the context of marriage is immoral and a sin, given the conditions of sin have been met.
pointsoforigin 5 years ago
n general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion ,No democracy is known to have combined strong religiosity and popular denial of evolution with high rates of societal health. Higher rates of non-theism and acceptance of human evolution usually correlate with lower rates of dysfunction, and the least theistic nations are usually the least dysfunctional.
Blackfingernail 5 years ago
This statement is totally false! Look at the Soviet Union which was state imposed atheism. It was a dismal failure.
Also Hasidic Jews have not only rates of drug abuse at 0, but in fact zero incidents.
The statistics you state count those who engage in immoral activity early in life, bottom out, then join a religion as recovery as those member of those religions when participating in those activities.
Get your numbers straight!
pointsoforigin 5 years ago
The data supporting the conclusion is recent data gathered well after the collapse of the Soviet Union,the statistics you state have nothing to do with the data concerned and are therefore irrelevant,you are also cherry picking when you mention Hasidic jews and drug abuse,the data supporting the conclusion looks at societal health on a global basis.TBC
Blackfingernail 5 years ago
The strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms
Blackfingernail 5 years ago
Look who is cherry picking now.
Your data on the south is not cross reference with the specific individual, but with only regional trends.
Please get a masters degree in statistics from an accredited university.
You are a bigot against God and religion. I notice you don't even try to refute the dismal failure of state imposed atheism. Please deal with your mental illness appropriately.
pointsoforigin 5 years ago
In regard to The Soviet Union and state enforced Atheism , this has absolutely no bearing on the global societal health of TODAY, I suggest you stop living in the past.If the data showed that the U.S. enjoyed higher rates of societal health than the more secular, pro-evolution DEMOCRACIES OF TODAY, then the opinion that popular belief in a creator is strongly beneficial to national cultures would be supported ,as this is not the case your arguement is therefore refuted.
Blackfingernail 5 years ago
That was one great run on. Unfortunately your lack of syntax and grammar renders your argument useless. The theory of evolution is a basis for religion. Your dichotomy is based on a total lack of understanding of the history of religion.
Please take an English course, since evidently you have given up on the masters in statistics.
pointsoforigin 5 years ago
Oh, I forgot to add, don't forget your broomstick tomorrow night!!!
pointsoforigin 5 years ago
Your continual use of the argumentum ad hominem says rather more about your intellect than mine.
Blackfingernail 5 years ago
That's because you have no argument! You have no degree, you have no education, you have no data. All you have is a hatred of God and those who love God.
I forgot to add you have no knowledge of the US.
You have knowledge of vulgarity and hatred, though.
pointsoforigin 5 years ago
You live near Oakland, John. You should know about the epidemic of murders currently occurring. The issue is moral, not legality. Acts such as wife beating are not longer illegal. On this issue, you are wrong!
I could have mentioned many other issues, such as people flying jets into buildings, internet sexual predators and other none of which ever happened fifty years ago.
pointsoforigin 5 years ago
Since the internet wasn't really around 50 years ago, it'd be hard for an internet predator to exist...
TheAbsurdTruth 5 years ago
That the point. You can't blame a culture for something it doesn't do.
pointsoforigin 5 years ago
Third, rule of law is a pathetic benchmark for morality. Plenty of acts are legal and not moral. For example murder. Police and soldiers and celebrities routinely murder with no consequence. Also you chart does not take into account offenses such as embezzlement. For example what Enron did to its employees is not in unprecedented, but the degree to which they did it was unprecedented.
pointsoforigin 5 years ago
John, you and I both live in the SF Bay Area. I would be happy to bring to you my years subscription of New England Medical Journals. I doubt you would find any of that information on the web.
pointsoforigin 5 years ago
The fact that the CDC has issued guidelines that girls from age 13 on should received the vaccine for cervical cancer, which is only transmitted sexual, is proof that a significant amount of girls from age 13 are sexually active.
pointsoforigin 5 years ago
Like I said, in a 20 year period the rate of sexually transmitted disease increased by a factor of 20. This statement is a fact! Just because you could not find it on the internet, doesn't mean anything. The CDC is not in habit of publishing all its research on the web.
pointsoforigin 5 years ago
Cataa your argument that the increase in sexually transmitted diseases in the last twenty years is an indicator of issues of contraception is pathetic. Most contraception or birth control methods are independent of protection of sexually transmitted disease. Examples: oral contraception, the shot, the patch, IUD, abortion, RU486, the morning after pill, withdrawal, oral-sex, anal-sex, and rimming do not protect against sexually transmitted disease.
pointsoforigin 5 years ago
This statement is a truism. It is a reference point of moral degradation. I am comparing it to the culture 50 years ago.
pointsoforigin 5 years ago
Ooh when racism was rampant and lynchings still happened!
TheAbsurdTruth 5 years ago
What is this statement suppose to mean?
pointsoforigin 5 years ago
Let's deal with Cataa's fallacies of composition:
First, I never presented the profanity on youtube a proveative of the decline in morality, but as illustrative of the decline in standards. It is to be read in context with the succeeding statement from Steve Allen.
Basic conclusion: The world is a lot dirtiest [more profane, obscene, vulgar] than previous generations.
pointsoforigin 5 years ago
Crime is an interesting and complex example. It's amazing that I searched on the web and could only find charts of recent years showing the recent decrease in crime. Go USA. However, I have a book that has a graph going back to 1950 and it shows a long term increase in violent crime by 5 times from 1950 to 1990. [source: Uniform Crime Reports from the FBI]
Bedevere13 5 years ago
Was it rate or volume?
TheAbsurdTruth 5 years ago
It's number of violent crmes reported per year.
Bedevere13 5 years ago
Getting a few houseplants might be a viable alternative to killing ones self for converting oxygen to carbon dioxide.
mf0rz 5 years ago
There is a reason the Bible slanders Canaan. Archeologically the Israelites are Cannanites. They were a subgroup who separated from the Cannanites. Hence many of their stories (Abraham, Isaac and the sacrifice) are derivative of Cannanite stories (but with a little twist).
pointsoforigin 5 years ago
True that. "Israel" = "El dominates" or "may El show his strength."
El was the Canaanite high god, head of their polytheistic pantheon.
bassandit 5 years ago
Very good.
pointsoforigin 5 years ago
politics knowingly fool christians to nullify the US-constitution and you claim increasing morality. Not Even Doom Music justifies this Youtube submission. I like the shift from belief to trust. Message boards are way older than 5 years, welcome to the internet. The statistic is pretty worthless.
olllj 5 years ago
politics knowingly fool christians to nullify the US-constitution and you claim increasing morality. Not Even Doom Music justifies this Youtube submission. I like the shift from belief to trust. Message boards are way older than 5 years, welcome to the internet. The statistic is pretty worthless.
olllj 5 years ago
Telling people that ethics and morality are bad and getting worse is the oldest trick in the book. The Abrahamic religions have been doing this ever since they invented "the fall" and now all humans are supposedly born tainted with evil. Hinduism has a similar claim about an idyllic time in the past, the "Satya Yuga," but we are conveniently in the worst age of immorality today, the "Kali Yuga."
bassandit 5 years ago
The incentive for this rhetoric is simply fear. Fear causes people to huddle close to what is familiar. So religious leaders can enforce a unity among their followers by inciting fear of the outside world, fear of those who do not share the same religion and who are thus immoral. It's the old us vs them playbook. Watch how many times the Bible does slanders Canaan.
bassandit 5 years ago
"The Fall" is actually an elementary idea found in many religions. However the interpretation of it as negative is exclusive to the monotheistic religions.
You're right about the Yugas. But it is also a honest call that we can do better.
pointsoforigin 5 years ago
The decrease Castaa's chart is largely due to "Victimization reported to police." This has many flaws. First, it is estimated by the same governmental agencies that less than ¼ of all rapes are reported. In the early 90's, when the decreases began, its was uncovered that police agencies are simply sweeping many crimes away to improve their city's statistics. Finally, legality and morals are two different animals.
pointsoforigin 5 years ago
the chart can searve as a bench marker for morals. After all if crime is DOWN then there is less people doing crime. As for rape, back in the day I dont think a woman would have even reported that she was raped. 1\4th is alot better than a time when woman had few rights at all. They are justifiably more vocal now.
jaykia 5 years ago
Unethical religious leaders have a great incentive to tell people things are bad, when they aren't, by using the only-our-group-will-be-saved message.
Key is in targeting areas of improvement and contrasting them with area of degradation.
This is a point made by thetheifess and influenced the modification of my position.
Also comparing morals with legality is a poor measure. Many actions are legal (killing by soldiers and police), but are not moral.
pointsoforigin 5 years ago
this is one of the few times i kind of agree with you.
jaykia 5 years ago
I can't recall ever hearing a religious leader stand up and say the world is doing well ethically. It's by far in their best interests to leave everyone thinking there's a lot more work to be done. That encourages new practitioners through the usual guilt tactics and encourages existing practitioners to be more generous so the church can increase it's push to 'spread the good word'.
BipedalHumanoid3 5 years ago
bravo you kinda took my advise as for your question, thier incentive is to make people happier about themselves in a sort of false of security. People who are happier donate more money to the church. I dont think thats really right to do that but then again we tell kids the same thing when they are little but they grow up to understand the world. In this case however, its grownups being diseaved.
jaykia 5 years ago
my mistake i ment its NOT really right to do that sorry
jaykia 5 years ago
I don't think it's that cut and dry of a reason. And I think unhappy people can be just as generous as happy people, though I can understand how happy people might be more-so. Anywho, I think religious leaders tell people they're good because that's what they truly believe. That is a core belief in many religions, that humans have the innate ability to do good.
thethiefess 5 years ago
yet good and evil are relative to each idevidual person. I would bet right now, in some forien land, or even the person who lives next to you would really want to cause you harm or to kill you. Would you show simpithy to a 60 year old man holding an a-k 47 and wants to make you into swiss cheese? I really dont think so...because he obviously doesnt want to show simpithy for you.
jaykia 5 years ago
It doesn't have to do with feeling sympathy for someone. What it has to do with is, is that man good, despite the fact that he's holding a gun to me? Somewhere, deep down in there, he probably is. But due to circumstances he's been driven to choose violence to solve whatever he's dealing with. That's wrong, and perhaps even evil. But he could always choose not to shoot me, and that would be good.
thethiefess 5 years ago
But this really isn't answering Jon's question. So. . . I'm gonna think up a video response to this I think.
thethiefess 5 years ago
no its not but its a dang good question. I think your seeing the world a little to positively. There is alot of hate and pain in this world. I understand we are all human and as such all have feelings of affection love and hate, but personally, i do think there are people who are trully corrupt out thier and dont have any 'good' in them, at least in my point of view, at all.
jaykia 5 years ago
No, I understand that there are many, many horrible things going on in the world, and I understand that mankind is capable of hideous acts. But I'd rather focus more on doing good in the world rather than mourning over the bad.
thethiefess 5 years ago
I only said that because i was responding to what you have said. Yes it is always better to think positive, but to possitive to just as bad. To think that we live in some utopia free from hate and fears is upsurd. I think the terrorists of 9/11 gave us a needed jolt and bursted the 'bubble' of false safety.
jaykia 5 years ago