Welcome to Gaia! ::

I've also got an english version (No you aren't supposed to translate it... it's part of what makes each practitioner similar, and thus closer together). It does say that those who do not believe are to, basically, be converted by the sword.

I'd like to hit y'all with this fact, though. One out of every (I believe) four people, follow the Islamic faith. Of those, the sect responsible is only a couple hundred thousand. The world holds six-bilion people. this means that 1.5 billion are Muslims, and of those 1,500,000,000 only about 200,000 are the hostiles that are being refered to. This leaves 1,499,800,000 people that actually disagree with the strong-arm tactics that those particular radicals are using.

(the numbers above are all approximated, but based on real data)

Thus I ask once more that people avoid hasty generalizations. Hasty generalizations are one among many on the list of fallacies that need to be avoided in both speeches, and in general conversations (and debates...).


I can understand disagreeing with radicals, but it is not fair to assume anything of that magnitude. If I started publically making comments to the effect against Islam, I would not likely live for much longer. Why? because it is not true, and the last thing that the vast majority of Muslims need is another person kicking up dirt, trying to cause violence or hate.

Hm.

If we just work on activey caring and loving for people, that should solve many problems.

After all, "things done out of love are beyond good and evil."

Good and evil are tools of the puppet master and the shepherd. They exist only in the minds of the puppet and the sheep.

I choose to view it more like this:

Instead of Governments and socialites, deities and spirits/cosmic entities. It could be plausible from that perspective, because those are the sorts of things that transcend time. As such, by introducing the concepts to people, it is then a means to manipulate others to whatever the desired end is.

I'll try and present this in a way that will make the most sense...

By your statement, I could disbelieve in homosexuals and thereby remove their presence in society and the impact that they have around the world.

Just because someone doesn't believe in something, doesn't exclude them from the influence that it has. You may be an Atheist, Dras, I don't know. However, would you say that you are free from the influence that religion has on the world? No (well, you could, but I would ask you to more thoroughly examine your position), by the simple fact that the majority of people believe, and their beliefs guide them As such, the people who are directly influenced by any "divine plans" interact with you. While you may not be directly influenced by any of these beings, or an atheist may not be directly influenced by a God or Goddess of any variety, they will be indirectly.

You also should avoid going into the amount of Christians versus atheists in jail. It makes sense, through the simple fact that there are so many more people that call themselves Christian.

My logic has merely not been explained in enough detail. No one has to believe in good or evil. It might make the world a lot better if the words were dropped. Maybe, instead of good and evil, we could use "benefit and cost."

As for the Atheists... when you think about it, many people that are atheists, have a religious back ground. Someones parents, or their parents parents (and so on) were religious, and whether it is placed in religious context or not, moral values are passed down through families and society. Thus, if "good and evil" were the machinations of a deity (or some other non-terrestrial being), then everyone would be influenced by it, through the fact that they have all been taught the ideas while growing.

You may not be Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Zarathushti, Ba'Ha'I, Hare Krishna, Hindu or any other religion, but a lot of the values of religion have been engrained into who all of us are.

Many agree that pleasure-murder is not an ok thing, much like ***** and infanticide. We don't like the idea, and we associate it with "evil," even though people have proven their ability to make the "wrong" choice and enjoy it. So we assign things to being "good" or "evil" as our ethical standards would see it. It can be said, and has, that there is a universal moral standard out there. People didn't like that. Here's another idea. Some entity beyond our knowledge and power had set these things up after the humans came around. As the neocortical brain developed it is possible their had been some primal interaction with said being(s). From their, the people would embrace the knowledge and power et cetera given to them by the entit(y/ies) in exchange for agreeing and following their ideas of "right" and "wrong." The ideas were passed down from generation to generation. Now, just because one generation decides that the old Spirits are no longer real, doesn't mean that the ideas have left them. If the ideas do not leave them then it could be said that, while they were the "atheists" they were still being influenced by prior machinations.

You're just looking at it with too narrow a spectrum.

Anyone who tries to persuade/dissuade someone to do/not do something based on the reasoning that it's good/bad seeks to be a puppet master. They seek to make that person a puppet.

For the exact reason that morals are totally relative. Nothing is inherently good or evil and nothing makes them good or evil except your opinion as based on your own goals and desires.

Like I always say: There is no good or evil. There is only like and dislike, want and don't want.

Actually, in the rare cases of "wild children" where that exact thing has happened, I don't believe they did, nor tried to attack other people.