MB, are you going to respond to my reply?

MB's kid: Dad is stealing bad.

MB: Well it can get you in trouble with society but you will have to make the decision to steal or not for yourself.

MB's kid: Ok i think i understand. Stealing is fine if i dont get caught and avoid the societal consequences.

MB's wallet: Hey im missing a ten spot...

Consider teaching your kids not to be pricks.

Fantastic.

?

I was being serious and offering an opinion about how I'd approach the issue.

I don't believe in supernatural beings, never have. I had some of the same issues growing up, though not as bad because I didn't go around telling everyone I didn't believe or confronting them on their beliefs. I also grew up in a large city, so there wasn't as much pressure (there were other problems, and in many ways I wish I had grown up in a small town, but I have to admit in this sense it was better to grow up in a large city).

I apologize for jumping to conclusions about where you are coming from. We'd move if we could, but the job is here.

I'd have jumped to similar conclusions to be fair.

You shouldn't have to move and your daughters response to this seems really good from where I'm sat. I just hope it becomes less of an issue for you all.

Sorry missed this.

I've said before when this subject comes up that one of the common assumptions needed to have the debate is exactly what constitutes a 'belief'. Also, since this comes up a lot too, exactly what 'truth' is when parents tell their children that their religious beliefs are true and all the others are wrong.

Let's suppose that you're right and I do pass on beliefs, then my issue mustn't be with beliefs, it's with certain types of beliefs and those include religious beliefs.

You make me lol sometimes. If I'd posted such a twisted and incomplete parody of someone's position you'd shred it. Guess we're never going to be drinking buddies huh

fine, let's drop this. It's only happening because I guarded my comment about kids making their own minds up and attempted to discount the objection before it arose. I would actually feel great about all children being able to make a decision one way or the other. Apart from anything else, I think religions prey on ambivalence and

When it involves abstract concepts like emotion, is it not metaphysical?


No you didn't say that, I did, nor was I attempting to make it look like you said it, I was simply saying it. I commonly find that being religious means that one's morality is assumed. It's quite irritating.

Is that your only response to the actual point I was making? That America has many upstanding, moral, good religious types that believe strongly that homosexuality is an 'abomination'. They would strongly disagree with your position that homophobia is immoral. So, it comes down to you thinking you're right, and them thinking they're right, so what do you teach your kids? What you think is right? What if you're wrong?

So I ask again, what about issues on which you could be very wrong? How can tell your kids that there are no gods when you don't actually know that?

Their values are derived from the words of a deity, who are you to question that? You'll go to hell and your children will go to hell. That's what they're telling their kids but I guess that's ok right?

They care not for your values, only their own. So yes, from their perspective they are moral.

I think it matters. How can you say that something is immoral when you don't even know where morals came from? Racism and xenophobia (tribalism) both had a survival benefit once, it's obvious why they exist.

Ok, so , you realise that you have an issue with certain beliefs. What is it about those beliefs that you take issue with?

I don't know why you would refer to it in a discussion with me when it is a position neither of us hold.

No my response has been consistent, I don't consider those peoples position moral. You can't go through life scared to give your kids good moral values for fear of them being wrong. What possible negative could an acceptance of differences in race and sexual orientation have?

How can you tell them anything. How possible is it to know anything? You take what evidence is there and present it in whatever way is appropriate to them. There are many ways to bring up kids it seems a matter of preference the position you take. I'm just don't accept telling your kids there is or isn't a god is inherently immoral.

Again if you had been paying attention you would realise that I do not consider that ok. I do not believe the teaching of immoral values is okay irrespective of whether one uses a metaphysical mechanism or not.

Creationists think the world is 8000 years old or so, from their perspective they are right. They aren't and people shouldn't be reluctant to teach their kids that the universe is 14billion years old because others disagree

If that's the case it doesn't make them moral. By no standard would we consider slavery a moral activity but it will have had a survival / economic benefit for certain communities once. The abolition of slavery was and is a morally good activity regardless.

How are you defining morally good?

It was relevant to the discussion.

See the bolded. That's exactly what I do and I have an issue with anyone who isn't doing that e.g. people say 'there definitely is a god' or who say 'there definitely aren't any gods'. Those people are simply urging their own beliefs on children who aren't capable of understanding what they're being taught and that's a breach of the trust children have in us to act in their best interests and that's where it becomes immoral, it's a form of child abuse.

Unlike many children on whom parents simply urge their own beliefs, my kids aren't whatever I am and they're aware that there are many belief systems in the world. I'm educating my kids, I'm not indoctrinating them.

This is the second time you've accused me of not paying attention. Both times you've misunderstood my intent, can you please stop doing it? I was pointing out that people backed by the bible feel that they're the ones being moral and you can only disagree, you can't claim to be 'right'.

We're just going in endless circles with this homophobia thing, let's find something else. How about abortion, 'assisted deaths', capital punishment, something like that. I'm looking for something you disagree with me about but that we both consider moral. I'm hoping to make the point that morals are subjective.

There's evidence to support a universe older than 8k years and I feel comfortable suggesting that they might be wrong, there isn't any evidence to prove or disprove the existence of gods, you're comparing apples and oranges.

If I'd said that, you'd probably have pointed out that you don't consider slavery a moral activity. I'm not going to do that since I understand why you've used it, like I did with the apparent link between religion and morality.

Slavery and Racism, again, apples and oranges. Slaving isn't an evolved behaviour.

That they're a breach of trust, mild child abuse and a form of indoctrination.

Given that it's a position neither of us hold or have stated through this discussion it wasn't.

This is the second time you've posed a question that my posts in this thread have answered clearly. You would have no reason to ask the question had you been paying attention.

Again I do claim to be right so your argument that I can't is wrong.

There's no point there are certain moral standards that I consider objective standards. If we accept that morals should in some way add to our collective well being, to borrow anothers very reasonable definition then we can measure how certain principles adhere to that concept. If they do they are moral. There are absolutely moral positions one could take and I see no problem in teaching those values.

At no point have I made the case that a person should or should not teach their kids there are gods. I am entirely ambivalent on the subject. I do believe that it is correct to teach good moral values despite you continually wanting to state these values are subjective and so should not be taught as fact. I reject that.

So you think that racism is an evolved behaviour but slavery is merely some economic mechanism of controlling labour. I'm not going to ask why you think racism and homophobia developed as some competitive advantage because I don't know that I'd be able to understand the answer.

All those could also be said about your own beliefs that you are indoctrinating them with.

What is it specifically about those beliefs that you dont like?

I don't suppose that there's a debate to be had with you if you don't accept that you could be wrong, especially on such a complex subject as morality. I have a position but I'm also aware that I'm arguing this at a very low level as I believe that you are too, and there are probably numerous philosophical lines of reason that I'm not considering because I'm not familiar with them. Let's say I'm certain with a degree of tentativeness but I could be wrong.

That means that I can't just say, as you have seem to have done, sorry I'm right and you're wrong.

ok, you believe some moral values are not subjective. Can you list some that you think are subjective? I'm curious about how you draw the distinction between them.

I think that this is the critical point in this discussion but until I understand why you think some morals are subjective whilst others aren't, and I'm no clearer on where you think morals originated which might help me understand why you view them the way you do, I can't really advance my argument. Nothing I've said has moved you, perhaps there's something in your own premises that I can use. So, gimme some ammo

Ok, can I suggest you do some reading than, even it's just to familiarise yourself with the arguments that support those topics, which frankly are somewhat of a digression. Assuming of course you weren't being sarcastic.

Think i got it right mostly.

I think you'd played very lightly on how much of a deterrent being a social outcast is and you didn't mention at all about how it would make the people they've stolen from feel, also a significant deterrent.

So, I think you got it wrong mostly.

I see that you keep not seeing my posts?

Which are...?

C'mon dude, read back. I started to answer that then realised I'd just be repeating myself.

This sounds like objective morality. Will you teach your kids its objectively morally wrong for them to slam someones head into the ground if they are in this circumstance or will you teach them slamming someones head into the ground has societal consciences and they will have to make that decision for themslefs?

I'm not talking to morality as a whole, I'm talking to specific principles where the moral position is really easy to ascertain. Where the position is less sure it becomes more subjective but it doesn't mean there aren't certain moral absolutes.

You can, you can tell a racist they are wrong, I do.

I'll admit I talk a lot in absolutes but that's a product of me feeling strongest about that which I'm surest. Where there is conflict between good moral values, the right to euthanasia versus the right to protect the weak from exploitation I will consider a range of solutions morally appropriate and wont consider myself informed enough or willing to claim one approach is best.

Because I can't envisage any instance where certain behaviours can be morally good. When people hit the age of majority is up for discussion.

My history degree took in a good part of the American Civil War and Reconstruction, I'd be reasonably confident that racism in the US can be traced to and is a result of slavery rather than some racial genetic predisposition to the tribe. If that's what you're suggesting because that's what I'm inferring then I think you're wrong. It may well be that peoples of a tribe or sub group have displayed a preference to mate with in their own groups just as numerous groups of animals have. If this is forming a part of your argument I don't doubt it I do doubt your application of it to modern concepts of racial politics.

I've learned to be mistrustful of casual folk evo-psych explanations for behaviours. IMO any rooting of 'racism' or 'homophobia' as we conceive of them in evolutionary psychology is unlikely to be a first-order effect, if that's the phrase I want. What I mean is that it's far more plausible they arise as instances of some more primitive evolved trait rather than having been directly selected for themselves.

I fail to see intuitively what survival advantage is conferred by hating on the gays, for example. If I encourage several of the dudes in my tribe to bang each other instead of the women, so much the better for my breeding prospects, no?