@DélioPT:

There`s never a full consensus on all that`s moral related and that`s exactly why that consensus can`t become the source of morality or the desire to make it universal.

Consensus validaes morals, it's not the source of morals. Humans are the source of morals.

If we have a system that`s created on consensus, time, place and culture will make it insignificant because it would be one day one set of moral values and the next day, another.

And that's exactly what happens with any moral system. It changes over time, histroy proves that perfectly. However, it doesn't change as quickly as you imagine.

that`s why they to be outside of context - whichever it is - so we can recognize ourselves in it.

People recognise themselves in the moral system because the moral system is part of the culture that shapes their very lives.

Ethics are meant to be an expression of humanity. If we admit morals=context, what are we even deciding upon? Our view on humanity changes as well.

Views on humanity HAVE changed considerably over time. In the past people outside your country wouldn't have even been considered humans beings. And even the views on those who were considered human beings have changed.

At least, one thing we agree! :D But at the same time we are not all culture. That`s like saying i am what my parents, teachers, etc taught me. How could exist responsibility for our actions if there was no "I" in this world. We are also what we make of ourselves.

What I'm saying is that most people rarely manage to go beyond the culture they're indoctrinated in. To have views that transcend their culture.
I do agree that external influences help define an ethic system but only on the mindset of a "upgrade", on the search for a more enlightment on ourselves. Because that`s what an ethic system must to: find better ways to express what we are.
You say that morals change with society but even you can realize the core values behind those changes remain, even if some changes are for worse, doesn`t mean that those core values lost meaning as they still speak for us.

Yet even core values change over time. Not to mention that these "core values" are often ambiguous in nature.

Yes they were, but even then the essence of ethics existed as it always has. What changed from that time to this day, was the realization by reflection that those actions did not serve God`s desires.

What changed were the moral principles. God doesn't exist. God's desires are whatever humans say they are.

Don`t know about the last part but the first one is true. Christianity really has changed and i`m glad it has. There were many things that were part of it that had nothing to do with it and only managed to hamper it`s true meaning.

Whatever "true meaning" Christianity may have had, has been lost 'till now. It's meaning is whatever current Christians say it is.

I`m not what my culture allows me to be. I may be born and educated by it, but that`s a view on the world that we only accept if we want to. What i decided to follow - as a lot of people do - is something that exists to mold them. All the things i believe are beyond cultures and my own personal desires.

Even the act of thinking freely is only thanks to the fact that we live in a culture that allows this. People in the Middle Ages for example were not allowed or encouraged to think freely, and the overwhelming majority didn't.

Yes, we are all actors in play, but each and everyone of us decides it`s role and has a voice on how things should. Of course there are always people that just go with the flow, but that`s their decision.

It's debatable how much people's desires are influenced by culture. Would you have wanted soemthing, if culture didn't tell you it was important?

Don`t forget that cultures only existed after we searched for ourselves in others.

Culture was deve;loped as a system to create, organise and transmit knowledge.

The essence of religions is supposed to be of a divine revelation but you can`t just stop there. The meaning behind all those truths is still obscure to us all. Reason is always a tool to help us understand. We can`t honesty say we know it all, because if we said we would be making ourselves God. That`s why morals do change with time as a mean to understand the core values of our lives and God itself.

Religions are lies made up by humans to try to give meaning to the world, but also to be used for control and oppression. Religion holds no truth, only lies where people can give no answers.

"Consensus validates morals, it's not the source of morals. Humans are the source of morals."
Consensus doesn`t validate morals but an expression of those values. If humanity is the source it`s like saying consensus validates us.
Actually ethical systems only change on the outside, which means that the perception of said value can be improved or worsen. Values like dignity and respect always were part of us. Even if they were ignored that doesn`t mean the were meaningless, they just weren`t contemplated as being part of us - when they are part of us as we can`t talk about one value and ignore the rest. They are all connected.
Change/reasoning may bring enlightment and a better perception of what we are. And when that happens we can say it fits.
When we were able to see others as humans it`s not like we invented a new concept of ethics on humanity, we defined it in a better way; we complemented it. That`s what happened throughout history. The core doesn`t change: it gets recognized and and improved.
what societies did with this was a balance of what morals were more relevant in a given time or place.
"moral principles" are nothing but a way to help us elevate ourselves to live what who truly are. Wrkong with the core changes more principles but doesn`t necessarily change one with another. For example, we can talk about dignity now than we could a century ago, not because of consensus per se, but because we are realising with time what that concept truly means.
Understanding an ethical system is understanding ourselves.

"Whatever "true meaning" Christianity may have had, has been lost 'till now. It's meaning is whatever current Christians say it is."
The true meaning of Christianity isn`t what we say, it`s what God and Jesus taught us. Christ is the source of Christianity, not a single person.

"Even the act of thinking freely is only thanks to the fact that we live in a culture that allows this. People in the Middle Ages for example were not allowed or encouraged to think freely, and the overwhelming majority didn't."
Thinking freely is one thing, expressing it is another. The only thing that cultures can opress is expression. I don`t think anyone can stop anyone from thinking what they want, or stop, aswell, what we think is better for ourselves.

"It's debatable how much people's desires are influenced by culture. Would you have wanted soemthing, if culture didn't tell you it was important?"
As is said before, cultures to educate but they don`t makes us unless we tag along. Of course cultures/societies creates desires. Just look how everyone cares so much for being hot or sexy. Is that important in my life as a definition of what i am? No. And that`s all that matters: the ways we define ourselves.

"Culture was developed as a system to create, organise and transmit knowledge."
Cultures are the reflexion of societies. They are even more abstract than societies. And as such they are a posteriori to us and even to what we know of ourselves. Only after i exist, and with that, what we recognize of ourselves, do society and culture exist. They are out product, that´s why can`t a product defines. It does help recognize ourselves, but no more than that.
It`s like making a drawing and then say i am after it`s there. I was there even before i made it. I made with what i am.

"Religions are lies made up by humans to try to give meaning to the world, but also to be used for control and oppression. Religion holds no truth, only lies where people can give no answers."
That`s a very low and very reducionist point of view on what religions are.
Lies made up by humans? And don`t a lot about religions, but the ones i know, they are the product of an history where Gog reveal Itself to us. If you don`t believe in that, as i know you don`t, that`s another thing, but there`s no need to call it lies when you can`t even prove your point.
To be used for control and opression? You are too attached to the bad doings of religions to see beyond that. Christianity for example had the Dark ages. Was it a truthfull voice to Jesus`s life and teachings? No it wasn`t. And everyone can realize that man failed in showing Jesus and God in that.
Religion holds no truth? What truth are you talking about? A truth that you can verify? A truth you can live and feel?
"only lies where people can give no answers." Answers to what? There are certain things that we just can`t explain because it`s beyond us. Can we, believers, explain with 100% accuracy what God is? We are not God to that. Should we throw it away just because it`s not perfect on our end? Only if we are ready to throw ourselves with it as we aren`t perfect and we can`t explain ourselves perfectly.

They are two consenting adults, they should be able to do whatever they want. Hell, if I had a hot older sister and she wanted to 'teach' me a lesson, I'd probably at least consider the possibility. I'm stuck with an ugly little brother though and he keeps making me buy him bad games and drive him to his stupid friends house. Some people get all the luck.

Also, the poster above me should probably calm down, because his stupid arguments are really tugging at me the wrong way and I'm not in the mood to go six pages into this thread in an attempt to actually teach him something about human history. Geez, religous posters are always the worse, they seem to think that using the bible as a reference to back up their arguments is somehow relevant, but it's not. I don't come into a thread basing my arguments on the grand rules and philosophies of Deltora Quest. 

Stupid comments?
I don`t think i`m the one who should calm down as i don`t think i have insulted anyone. Actually i have been pretty calm with my comments, even when faced with animosity.

@DélioPT:

Actually ethical systems only change on the outside, which means that the perception of said value can be improved or worsen.

No. Just no.

Values like dignity and respect always were part of us.

History shows otherwise.

Even if they were ignored that doesn`t mean the were meaningless, they just weren`t contemplated as being part of us - when they are part of us as we can`t talk about one value and ignore the rest. They are all connected.

This makes no sense. Morals are invented by people, they're ideeas created by humans. They don't exist independently of humans.

Change/reasoning may bring enlightment and a better perception of what we are. And when that happens we can say it fits.

What does this have to do with morals?

When we were able to see others as humans it`s not like we invented a new concept of ethics on humanity, we defined it in a better way; we complemented it. That`s what happened throughout history. The core doesn`t change: it gets recognized and and improved.

Actually the core does change and has changed.Again, history shows that.

what societies did with this was a balance of what morals were more relevant in a given time or place.
"moral principles" are nothing but a way to help us elevate ourselves to live what who truly are. Wrkong with the core changes more principles but doesn`t necessarily change one with another. For example, we can talk about dignity now than we could a century ago, not because of consensus per se, but because we are realising with time what that concept truly means.
Understanding an ethical system is understanding ourselves.

What you're saying is simply wrong, and makes no sense. As I said, ethical systems are invented by humans, they don't exist independently. They're not understood, they're created. And they only have value if society at large accepts it, else you'd have a situation where everyone has their personal moral systems, which could lead to conflicts.

The true meaning of Christianity isn`t what we say, it`s what God and Jesus taught us. Christ is the source of Christianity, not a single person.

Isn't Christ a single person? And yes, the true meaning of Christianity is what Christians say it is. Christ never said anything (he never wrote anything), and God doesn't exist.

Thinking freely is one thing, expressing it is another. The only thing that cultures can opress is expression. I don`t think anyone can stop anyone from thinking what they want, or stop, aswell, what we think is better for ourselves.

Thinking is an accquired skill for most. If you don't have access to information you'll probably be ignorant and believe everything you're told without ever thinking that it may not be true. As I said, most people are sheep.

As is said before, cultures to educate but they don`t makes us unless we tag along. Of course cultures/societies creates desires. Just look how everyone cares so much for being hot or sexy. Is that important in my life as a definition of what i am? No. And that`s all that matters: the ways we define ourselves.

A culture represents a person's entire universe. Everything one knows about anything comes from culture. The way you walk, the way you eat, the way you sleep, these are all determined by culture. Even what people find "sexy" is determined by culture (in the past fat women were considered attractive, and in ancient times men were considered to be the fair sex). Even the way you think is determined by culture, unless you're a remarkable individual who can see through culture's mirage.

Cultures are the reflexion of societies. They are even more abstract than societies. And as such they are a posteriori to us and even to what we know of ourselves. Only after i exist, and with that, what we recognize of ourselves, do society and culture exist. They are out product, that´s why can`t a product defines. It does help recognize ourselves, but no more than that.
It`s like making a drawing and then say i am after it`s there. I was there even before i made it. I made with what i am.

Cultures are invented by societies, however culture predates you and me. Culture was a posteriori to the people who invented it, however culture is a priori to humans today. Everything we know about the world we know from culture. Almost everything we learn about the world around us, we learn from culture, including information about ourselves.

That`s a very low and very reducionist point of view on what religions are.
Lies made up by humans? And don`t a lot about religions, but the ones i know, they are the product of an history where Gog reveal Itself to us. If you don`t believe in that, as i know you don`t, that`s another thing, but there`s no need to call it lies when you can`t even prove your point.

Prove what? You're only talking about the myth aspect of religion, which sadly you view to be truth., There's no "revelation", because there's nothing to reveal itself. That's just a myth constructed to fool people.

To be used for control and opression? You are too attached to the bad doings of religions to see beyond that. Christianity for example had the Dark ages. Was it a truthfull voice to Jesus`s life and teachings? No it wasn`t. And everyone can realize that man failed in showing Jesus and God in that.

Jesus's teachign can be interpreted to say whatever, so that's not an issue.Plus, religion is used for control and oppression, even today.

Religion holds no truth? What truth are you talking about? A truth that you can verify? A truth you can live and feel?

There's only one kind of truth, the kind that's in accordance with reality. Everything else is just lies.  

"only lies where people can give no answers." Answers to what?

Answers to things humans cannot give any logical ones. Questions like "Where did we come from?", "Does our existence have a meaning?" etc. These questions have no answers yet, so people make up answers to them.

There are certain things that we just can`t explain because it`s beyond us. Can we, believers, explain with 100% accuracy what God is? We are not God to that. Should we throw it away just because it`s not perfect on our end? Only if we are ready to throw ourselves with it as we aren`t perfect and we can`t explain ourselves perfectly.

What is this "God" thing you're talking about? I've never seen such a thing in my life, nor have I found any reason to think such a thing exists.There are ltos of things we cannot expalin. This "God" thing isn't one of them, as it is a mere human invention, a concept made up by humans and naturalised through culture, hence why some people think such a thing exists (culture creates a universe that often has nothing to do with reality).

Values like dignity and respect always were part of us.
History shows otherwise
No, history shows that we embraced that part of us or that we didn`t (world wars, dark ages)

"... Morals are invented by people, they're ideeas created by humans. They don't exist independently of humans."
They are our reflexion. And created to what purpose if not so we can live by what we are? If we create something is because we want something to be fulfilled within us.


"Change/reasoning may bring enlightment and a better perception of what we are. And when that happens we can say it fits.
What does this have to do with morals?"
This means that through existence (within societies) we strive for a better understanding of ourselves and to some that means a better understanding of life and how that`s related to God.

"And they only have value if society at large accepts it, else you'd have a situation where everyone has their personal moral systems, which could lead to conflicts."
Relativism is a bad way of looking at things and, honestly, that`s what you are going for. In your words, if something is achieved by consensus they might aswell be good as the next bet thing or even, anything goes, as it`s through consensus.
Actually, if there wasn`t something universal within us, how could we even begin to understand others before and after societies?

"Isn't Christ a single person? And yes, the true meaning of Christianity is what Christians say it is. Christ never said anything (he never wrote anything), and God doesn't exist."
Christ never said anything? Are you sure? Because i am pretty sure the Bible has a good amount of things He said to the disciples.
And God doesn´t exist? I never tried to prove His existence. All i did was fundament a logical reasoning from a religious point of view. Why the need to express yourself once more?

"A culture represents a person's entire universe. Everything one knows about anything comes from culture. The way you walk, the way you eat, the way you sleep, these are all determined by culture. Even what people find "sexy" is determined by culture (in the past fat women were considered attractive, and in ancient times men were considered to be the fair sex). Even the way you think is determined by culture, unless you're a remarkable individual who can see through culture's mirage."
There`s a sense of determinism in your words.
But how can someone see beyond culture if "Everything one knows about anything comes from culture"?
So how can i be responsible for my actions if all we are is a product of culture? And the rest are lies? How can you prove something not`s even physical or testable? Not even philosophers like Kant did that.

"Cultures are invented by societies, however culture predates you and me. Culture was a posteriori to the people who invented it, however culture is a priori to humans today. Everything we know about the world we know from culture. Almost everything we learn about the world around us, we learn from culture, including information about ourselves."
That`s a contradiction.
So we exist prior to societies yet they are our definition? We became a product of our product and that`s reasonable to you?

 "Prove what? You're only talking about the myth aspect of religion, which sadly you view to be truth., There's no "revelation", because there's nothing to reveal itself. That's just a myth constructed to fool people."
When i spoke about revelation i was talking about the funadamentation of a given religion.
And why are you so eager to call people fools? Do you really believe that those who have faith or just fools? And fool people to what purpose? Those who use religion to fool gain nothing by doing it.
"Sadly"? Are you showing me empathy towards my religious condition? I`m i a fool aswell?

"Jesus's teachign can be interpreted to say whatever, so that's not an issue.Plus, religion is used for control and oppression, even today.
Interpreted to say whatever? Since when "love one another like I loved you (all)" isn`t pretty clear in it`s meaning?
Religion is used for control and opression and that`s true. Does that mean religion is that? I think that when people use it that way they are ruining it.

Religion holds no truth? What truth are you talking about? A truth that you can verify? A truth you can live and feel?

There's only one kind of truth, the kind that's in accordance with reality. Everything else is just lies.
You are talking about the truth that changes when cultures change? Or the one that changes when scientifical paradigms change? Cause i don`t really see a solid truth based on that only.
  
"Answers to things humans cannot give any logical ones. Questions like "Where did we come from?", "Does our existence have a meaning?" etc. These questions have no answers yet, so people make up answers to them."
So, when religions can`t explain everything related to God, yet trying to look at Him and trying to give the best explanation possible, you assume that those are lies? There are answers that no one can give an answer too, therefore lies? I fail to see a logical reasoning there.

"What is this "God" thing you're talking about? I've never seen such a thing in my life, nor have I found any reason to think such a thing exists.There are ltos of things we cannot expalin. This "God" thing isn't one of them, as it is a mere human invention, a concept made up by humans and naturalised through culture, hence why some people think such a thing exists (culture creates a universe that often has nothing to do with reality)."
I never seen Him aswell, but in religion "seeing is believing" has no place.
What sort of reasons do you think people find to believe?
In this world there are people who believe and there are people who don`t. I for one don`t think it`s a human invention, but that`s me.
And God is, to those like me, the creator of all. That`s the basis of religious "essence-existence" view on the world, by they way - as you can recognize in my view.

@DélioPT:

No, history shows that we embraced that part of us or that we didn`t (world wars, dark ages)

History shows that there were times when those werec onsidered  values, and times when they weren't.

Relativism is a bad way of looking at things and, honestly, that`s what you are going for. In your words, if something is achieved by consensus they might aswell be good as the next bet thing or even, anything goes, as it`s through consensus.

Anything goes, but not really. Not anyone can create moral rules, and moral rules change slowly over time. There's also a certain logic (faulty or not) when creating morals. So you can't just take anything and turn it into a moral rule.

Actually, if there wasn`t something universal within us, how could we even begin to understand others before and after societies?

I assume it's because we're all part of the same animal species. That may have something to do with it.

Christ never said anything? Are you sure? Because i am pretty sure the Bible has a good amount of things He said to the disciples.

Or so they claim.

And God doesn´t exist? I never tried to prove His existence. All i did was fundament a logical reasoning from a religious point of view. Why the need to express yourself once more?

If you start off of faulty premises (like those based on religion) then the result is something illogical.

There`s a sense of determinism in your words.
But how can someone see beyond culture if "Everything one knows about anything comes from culture"?

Because people can actually think you know, but most don't have the capacity for such analysis (or never strive to reach their full potential).

So how can i be responsible for my actions if all we are is a product of culture? And the rest are lies? How can you prove something not`s even physical or testable? Not even philosophers like Kant did that.

Of course you're responsable for what you do. Culture only determines what you think and what you believe, not what your actions will be.

That`s a contradiction.
So we exist prior to societies yet they are our definition? We became a product of our product and that`s reasonable to you?

It's not a contradiction at all. I don't think that you or I have existed prior to culture or society. The humans who invented culture are the only ones who can say that they predated culture. We are a product of a product, that's true.

When i spoke about revelation i was talking about the funadamentation of a given religion.
And why are you so eager to call people fools? Do you really believe that those who have faith or just fools? And fool people to what purpose? Those who use religion to fool gain nothing by doing it.
"Sadly"? Are you showing me empathy towards my religious condition? I`m i a fool aswell?

The problem with the type of faith that religious people have is that it's blind faith, the worst type of faith. I do beleive that religious people are first of all fooling themselves. As long as they don't hurt anyone with their charade I have no problem with it though (I won't pretend to not find it ridiculous though).

Interpreted to say whatever? Since when "love one another like I loved you (all)" isn`t pretty clear in it`s meaning?
Religion is used for control and opression and that`s true. Does that mean religion is that? I think that when people use it that way they are ruining it.

I think religion was precisely invented for that prupose. Christianity would've never become a big religion had it not had this potential (manipulation and oppression). And there is more in the New Testament then just that.

You are talking about the truth that changes when cultures change? Or the one that changes when scientifical paradigms change? Cause i don`t really see a solid truth based on that only.

Science actually influences culture, and the changes that take place within it. What I was talking about is thwt what is true can only be discovered through rational observation, and nothing else.

So, when religions can`t explain everything related to God, yet trying to look at Him and trying to give the best explanation possible, you assume that those are lies? There are answers that no one can give an answer too, therefore lies? I fail to see a logical reasoning there.

I've yet to see any reson why I should think that a being such as "God" exists in the first place, so trying to exaplin thigns related to this being is jumping ahead of oneself. Also, I said that religion offers made-up answers (lies) to existential questions that people have not been able to answer (yet).

I never seen Him aswell, but in religion "seeing is believing" has no place.

And people ask me why I'm not religious, LOL.

What sort of reasons do you think people find to believe?

Most peopel believe because that's how they were brought up and indoctrinated to do.

In this world there are people who believe and there are people who don`t. I for one don`t think it`s a human invention, but that`s me. And God is, to those like me, the creator of all. That`s the basis of religious "essence-existence" view on the world, by they way - as you can recognize in my view.

Well, all religions are human inventions. Good luck with your opium.

"No, history shows that we embraced that part of us or that we didn`t (world wars, dark ages)

History shows that there were times when those werec onsidered  values, and times when they weren't."
That`s kinda like what i said. So when a society starts decaying does that mean that values like respect for human life and liberty are meaningless just because people ignore them? Actually, when that happens  normally there`s somekind of movement/revolution to bring them up.

"There's also a certain logic (faulty or not) when creating morals. So you can't just take anything and turn it into a moral rule"
And in your words that logic is a consensus. That`s why i mentioned relativism.

"And God doesn´t exist? I never tried to prove His existence. All i did was fundament a logical reasoning from a religious point of view. Why the need to express yourself once more?

If you start off of faulty premises (like those based on religion) then the result is something illogical."
Logical arguments don`t need something real to be validated, they just need to be coherent from start to finish. So, in truth, you can`t say it`s a faulty premises and that the result is illogical.
And there isn`t a logical argument that can really prove that God exists or not.

"Of course you're responsable for what you do. Culture only determines what you think and what you believe, not what your actions will be."
Aren`t actions the direct result of reasoning and beliefs? So, if i am determined by something, it`s logical to assume that so are my actions as an effect of the first premise.

"It's not a contradiction at all. I don't think that you or I have existed prior to culture or society. The humans who invented culture are the only ones who can say that they predated culture. We are a product of a product, that's true."
You and I aren`t humanity, so we don`t serve as an example.
Even before there were societies there was a direct of the world around us. We created societies based on something and that something is what maintains them. Even if we are impacted by them we can always choose to follow or to change, but that basis isn`t our creation, is what lies within us  - which ended up creating them in the first place.

"Christianity would've never become a big religion had it not had this potential (manipulation and oppression). And there is more in the New Testament then just that."
Christianity is where it is because of it`s values. Yes there was manipulation and a lot of corruption, but seeing just that part is forgetting that it exists for more than 2000 years and it wasn`t all opression.
I knew there`s more about Christ, just giving an example.

"What I was talking about is thwt what is true can only be discovered through rational observation, and nothing else"
Rational observation isn`t all we are. Unless you are giving up a part of you. The other part of you also discovers something like love. But not all things in life need to or can be proved.

"I've yet to see any reson why I should think that a being such as "God" exists in the first place, so trying to exaplin thigns related to this being is jumping ahead of oneself. Also, I said that religion offers made-up answers (lies) to existential questions that people have not been able to answer (yet)."
It isn`t jumping ahead of ourselves. In a religious views there`s a lot to back up what is said about God: the coming of Jesus, profits, saints, miracles, etc.
Why are religious answers, lies? Religions try their best to understand God with what they have. In that sense, there are much of lies as any given explanation as no one can say that they know something with complete certainty.

"Most peopel believe because that's how they were brought up and indoctrinated to do."
There`s more to faith than that. You don`t love God because you were taught to. Or for that matter anyone else.

"Well, all religions are human inventions. Good luck with your opium."
I am sorry but that seems like a conspiracy theory.
Opium tends to cloud our judgment, those who actually have faith just view the world with different eyes.

@DélioPT:

That`s kinda like what i said. So when a society starts decaying does that mean that values like respect for human life and liberty are meaningless just because people ignore them? Actually, when that happens  normally there`s somekind of movement/revolution to bring them up.

It's not that people ignored them, it's that there were periods when those were simply not considerd morals at all.

And in your words that logic is a consensus. That`s why i mentioned relativism.

The consenus has the role of validating morals, not creating them.

Logical arguments don`t need something real to be validated, they just need to be coherent from start to finish. So, in truth, you can`t say it`s a faulty premises and that the result is illogical.

WRONG! An argument that starts off of a faulty premise is illogical, regardless of it's coherence, because it's very foundation is wrong. You (like many people today) are confusing logical arguments with sophisms (arguments that seem to be logical, but are not).

And there isn`t a logical argument that can really prove that God exists or not.

There's no logical reason to believe that such a being exists in the first place.

Aren`t actions the direct result of reasoning and beliefs? So, if i am determined by something, it`s logical to assume that so are my actions as an effect of the first premise.

What determines people to act is way more complex than that.

You and I aren`t humanity, so we don`t serve as an example.
Even before there were societies there was a direct of the world around us. We created societies based on something and that something is what maintains them. Even if we are impacted by them we can always choose to follow or to change, but that basis isn`t our creation, is what lies within us  - which ended up creating them in the first place.

Humanity is in the same boat as us today. Culture predates every single human being alive today, and it will predate every single human being that will come after. Untill culture and societies were developed there was nothing keeping people together. Society was born when humans started cooperating within organised groups, and started developing culture.

Christianity is where it is because of it`s values. Yes there was manipulation and a lot of corruption, but seeing just that part is forgetting that it exists for more than 2000 years and it wasn`t all opression.
I knew there`s more about Christ, just giving an example.

Christianity is where it is because it was forced on people and promoted by those in power, as it was a good method to manipulate and control the masses. Christianity offers nothing worthwhile.

Rational observation isn`t all we are. Unless you are giving up a part of you. The other part of you also discovers something like love. But not all things in life need to or can be proved.

Rational observation obviously isn't all we are, but the other aspects are part of our dark, primitive side.

It isn`t jumping ahead of ourselves. In a religious views there`s a lot to back up what is said about God: the coming of Jesus, profits, saints, miracles, etc.

And what makes you think any of those things happened? There's no historical record of any of it (The Bigle doesn't count).

Why are religious answers, lies? Religions try their best to understand God with what they have. In that sense, there are much of lies as any given explanation as no one can say that they know something with complete certainty.

Religion tries to undertsand somethign that does not exist. Religion tries to exaplin important human questions with lies.  There's no truth to it.

There`s more to faith than that. You don`t love God because you were taught to. Or for that matter anyone else.

Yes, you do. It's all indoctrination.

I am sorry but that seems like a conspiracy theory.

There's no consipracy at all (because those who beleive have no ideea ot's all a lie in the first place).

Opium tends to cloud our judgment, those who actually have faith just view the world with different eyes.

Junkies also view the world with different eyes.

"It's not that people ignored them, it's that there were periods when those were simply not considerd morals at all."
I think nazis kinda "decided to ignore" morals because it didn`t serve it`s purposes and not because they weren`t the best reflexion of humanity.

"WRONG! An argument that starts off of a faulty premise is illogical, regardless of it's coherence, because it's very foundation is wrong. You (like many people today) are confusing logical arguments with sophisms (arguments that seem to be logical, but are not)."
I used the concept of validation, not of truth.

"What determines people to act is way more complex than that."
Not really. The process may be complex, but those two faculties are out ways to interact.

"Humanity is in the same boat as us today. Culture predates every single human being alive today, and it will predate every single human being that will come after. Untill culture and societies were developed there was nothing keeping people together. Society was born when humans started cooperating within organised groups, and started developing culture."
You can`t accept that we predate societies and we create them for a reason and then act like it´s a total different thing the fact we are part of it now.
The same reason(s) that made societies are what still maintain them, what changes is the expression of those reasons that happen to be ourselves.
That`s being illogical as you change the connection of your premises to achive your conclusion that we are a product of cultures.
That structuralist way of thinking only obliterates free-thinking, responsability and liberty, yet we live in a world where that exists.

"Christianity is where it is because it was forced on people and promoted by those in power, as it was a good method to manipulate and control the masses. Christianity offers nothing worthwhile."
Christianity did have it`s bad period but you cannot look at history and say that it lasted from it`s beginning to this day. And even when it was bad you are not looking closely as there were many countries that were influenced by the core values of Christianity and that still remain to this day."
Christianity offers nothing worthwhile? Are you sure? A religion that guides you to love even those who hate you, a religion that reached out for conversations with jews and muslims for peace and love, offers nothing? Ok.

"Religion tries to undertsand somethign that does not exist. Religion tries to exaplin important human questions with lies.  There's no truth to it"
No, those are the answers you choose not to believe or follow.

"Rational observation obviously isn't all we are, but the other aspects are part of our dark, primitive side."
You call your emotional/spiritual side primitive and dark? How can something that can be used for good or evil be considered dark? You know this applies for reason aswell, because it can be used for good or evil.

"And what makes you think any of those things happened? There's no historical record of any of it (The Bigle doesn't count)."
Not only are they recorded, they are also investigated. Any book that documents an event must be regarded aswell - like it or not.

"There`s more to faith than that. You don`t love God because you were taught to. Or for that matter anyone else.

Yes, you do. It's all indoctrination."
Exactly, we all millions and millions of people live a lie. When we say that we love our families, friends, etc. it`s our way of living, when we love God is because we are indoctrinated to do so because we are just brainless things, better yet... robots! O_O

"There's no consipracy at all (because those who beleive have no ideea ot's all a lie in the first place)."
Thanks for bringing me to the light! :p

"Junkies also view the world with different eyes. "
You got us! It was a big secret but you got us! :D