Where I put my foot down is prosyletization and trying to shove ones beliefs down another’s throat. And persecution (either overtly or subtly) of individuals who don’t “buy” it.

Granted, as of yet, I have not seen any of that on your blog. You simply express your views on the matter.

So, in order to feel you out, I propose a litmus test of sorts.

1) Do you think that religious teaching has no place in public education? Not religious studies, but teachings found in many “charter” schools and madras’.

2) Do you think it improper for politicians to invoke their deity and their faith in their deity to get elected? No, scratch that “to get elected”, how about…anytime.

3) Do you think that religious organizations should lose their tax-exempt status and/or face legal fines and penalties if they either 1) accept federal tax dollars and 2) preach politics from the pulpit?

4) Do you think that an atheist or secular humanist is just as capable of holding public office as the next guy?

I wish I could think up some more but these are some of the main issues that concern me. Not some vague “outside” influence on humanity.

And, maybe this litmus test could provoke some talking points. I’d like that.

As it is plain as day, if you answered yes to all of these questions then we are well on the same page.

Also, we enable the confinement and torture of animals in order to satiate an irrelevant industry that has lied to the public and manipulated the government. You know, the so-called “food pyramid”. Human beings are not a species that requires the consumption of meat, and we are the only species on the earth that makes a choice to consume milk into adulthood.

People also turn a blind eye to animal testing all in the name of protecting the consumer. Yeah, right, more like protecting industry from lawsuits by making sure products are safe.

We all know poverty is directly tied to crime, “a simple google search” will attest to that. Where the hell is morality on this issue? We allow the spending of half a trillion dollars on a war, the end result of which can never be moral or just. Couldn’t we have spent that money on a mission to end poverty? Where is the outcry? The uproar?

Simple, morality has little to do with survival of the species. Survival of the species has mostly everything to do with the ability to procreate. By which I mean providing an environment in a society whereby it is safe, conducive and comfortable to do so. As population on the planet grows, this environment will become evermore fractured as resources become more scarce; water is one we need to look out for. We can survive without oil, albeit archaically…

This comment is growing long and I see I simply need to post it in my blog.

Thanks for reading (LOL, I like that), I welcome your comments there at ungodlycynic.blogspot

“See, there’s your conundrum. If it’s your contention that all people derive their morals from the word of god then you have to address the contradictions between the thousands and thousands of gods that have been postulated into existence as there is no universal set of morals across the board (not to mention the contradictions that exist within any one single paradigm). Which of all of the gods’ words establish THE universal moral code?”

I contended no such thing. The word of God may for all intents and purposes be man made and all the gods you have cited may be figments of our imagination.

My point is quite different and I hope you will consider the distinction.

I argue that we derive the need to be morally right from an external source since we need not be morally right always to ensure survival. In fact I argue further that morally wrong acts are necessary for survival under certain circumstances. So the purpose of morality is questionable if you really think about it.

Morality need not be dictated to us by any “word of God” but may in fact be an imprint which has very little to do with natural survival instincts. Now I am perfectly comfortable (and you should have realized this if you read my post carefully enough) with replacing the notion of an external force with the conclusion that there is no real justification for accepting the present analysis of what is generally right and wrong. This is due to the fact that what is now accepted as right and wrong is merely the imposition of collective will over individual preference. If you can concede this point, then yes, there is no debate indeed.

Thank you for reading.

I merely suspect that you’re referring to a Xian god. I said that up front and stand by it. However, with your objective, non-affiliated stance now declared, that raises exactly the point that would logically follow: which god’s word should we choose as the standard? Are you asserting that all gods espouse identical moral frameworks? If so, you need to examine some other works of religious literature and do a little research for yourself. There is nothing even close to a consensus. Again – to which god’s moral framework should we subscribe? The Muslim god? The Sufi? The Aztecs cut the beating heart from an unwilling victim every day in order to appease their god. Is this moral? By their standard it was. Not doing so, according to their doctrine, would’ve caused the end of days, the sun never rising again. Buddhists and Shinto actually have no godhead at all. Do you truly believe that generations of Japanese were immoral until Westerners showed up and introduced them to the concept of god?

See, there’s your conundrum. If it’s your contention that all people derive their morals from the word of god then you have to address the contradictions between the thousands and thousands of gods that have been postulated into existence as there is no universal set of morals across the board (not to mention the contradictions that exist within any one single paradigm). Which of all of the gods’ words establish THE universal moral code?

I’m sure you know this but, since it’s your blog, you’re free to pretend that you’ve cleverly sidestepped the whole issue. You haven’t. You’ve merely acknowledged that it’s you who’s not wiling to, as you say, join the debate. And, as there is clearly no debate (defined to be “a formal method of interactive and position representational argument”), I’ll move on. There’s no debate here. Just a preacher, his choir, and a few who bravely continue to pose meaningful arguments to which you respond with the always dissatisfying “I’ve already written a thousand words of incoherent babble on that matter.” You don’t want a debate. It might make you have to actually consider the utter preposterousness of your position.