Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Instead of banning Harry Potter I've chosen to address issues with my children like poverty and lack of health care and education. You chose your battles and the ones you chose are telling. If footloose is your fancy that's your choice but it will speak volumes about you to your children later in life. Make those choices wisely.
I think it's better for my kids to see me battling issues of meaning like feeding the poor in my area then picketing the "rock your butt" song in the local parade. IMO of course. I guess it's individual but still, even if lyrics do resinate with your kids somehow I doubt they'll have as much influence as seeing the homeless people outside their state building would.
Au contraire . . . several posters on this thread have claimed that despite the fact that they were subjected to such "music," they were not negatively impacted.
You can't have a concept of moral absolutism and truth absent religion.
Quite right. But that wasn't my point. I meant that we don't need to share a specific religion (e.g. Christianity, Judaism, classical paganism) in order to have a moral and philosophical foundation for further discussion. If two people don't at least agree that truth and morality are objective - and relevant to how we live our lives - conversation on this subject is futile.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
Only religion provides a black and white "good" vs. "evil" standard for the world that man must conform to.
In that sense, it should be crystal clear to you that most people do have a religion. Even sophisticated moderns who pretend they don't have a religion have a religion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
Hence why so many people find solace in religion, it eliminates the need to think critically.
On the contrary, it is impossible to think critically without religion of some kind. To critically evaluate anything at all requires an objective standard - a belief that truth exists, that truth is knowable, and that truth matters. Those are religious claims. Remove one of these pillars and critical thought evaporates.
Quite right. But that wasn't my point. I meant that we don't need to share a specific religion (e.g. Christianity, Judaism, classical paganism) in order to have a moral and philosophical foundation for further discussion. If two people don't at least agree that truth and morality are objective - and relevant to how we live our lives - conversation on this subject is futile.
We can have an agreement that truth and morality are objective and have such a vast difference in the basis for that objective morality and what morality entails as to likewise derail a sensible conversation.
We can have an agreement that truth and morality are objective and have such a vast difference in the basis for that objective morality and what morality entails as to likewise derail a sensible conversation.
Yes, but at least we can make a degree of progress. We can talk about what is good, and how we can know what is good, and the means of arriving at the good. We can talk about human nature, the purpose of human existence, and the human obligation to pursue the good. At some point there may be an impasse, but at least you'll know what the other side really believes and why.
The problem in this forum is that most posters don't know themselves what they really believe. They know what they like and what they want, and thunder against anyone who challenges their sacred likes and wants, but that's where it seems to end.
The problem in this forum is that most posters don't know themselves what they really believe. They know what they like and what they want, and thunder against anyone who challenges their sacred likes and wants, but that's where it seems to end.
Oh, my. Really?
(Which begs the question on why you deign to post here yourself. But thanks for the laugh. )
Yes, but at least we can make a degree of progress. We can talk about what is good, and how we can know what is good, and the means of arriving at the good. We can talk about human nature, the purpose of human existence, and the human obligation to pursue the good. At some point there may be an impasse, but at least you'll know what the other side really believes and why.
I guess if that is what you wanted to do it might have been a good place to start. It looks like you instead
- assumed what constitutes bad / immorality like sex (GASP!) and even that others in this group would share that assumption of what constitutes immorality.
- assumed that pop culture has a causal relationship to this morality.
In those assumptions, I think you might have lost many people's interest. At least you have lost mine.
We can have an agreement that truth and morality are objective and have such a vast difference in the basis for that objective morality and what morality entails as to likewise derail a sensible conversation.
You are assuming quite a lot. There are other perspectives that are also valid world views - constructivism is one and a perspective I hold (that "reality" is not objective, but constructed - it's a post modern viewpoint).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)