Do you think that a person's basic nature can be changed?

Can a basically amoral person genuinely be changed by "proper" use of ethics and morals to a point where he feels actual compassion and empathy?

(I really want to get Jim_Jude's take on this)

I'm divided on the subject, but I tend towards the idea that such an education would require an inordinate amount of "compulsion". Nature VS Nurture is a curious dichotomy.

These things are current issues because religion is NOT just some label people pin themselves with (or at least it SHOULDN'T be). The tenents and principles are for life, for living, and since these things are part of life, they are in conflict with the majority of people in the world. Eating humans would be great too, ya know. Get rid of population problems, nice supply of food, new jobs, less medical care or education needed. Just because you have some moral notion made up from what some guy long ago wrote or from wherever your ignorant mind came up with it shouldn't be interfering with the societal benefits of cannibalism.

So anyone not fed up obviously is not a reasonable person. Thank you for that.

Who is sacrificing your education? Is any religious person out there stopping you from reading? You think public schools is a reliable place for education?? Man, honestly what country do you live in? As Mark Twain said, never let schooling get in the way of your education and if you can't learn that or teach it to your children then I would say YOU are more dangerous to education than any religion out there.

Also, why is it OK to restrict religion to tiny little rooms in our private homes, when it's NOT OK to do the same to athiestic philosophies? Aren't your ideals intruding in my government and life when you say I can't pray in school, or decide that the person I want running my country has strong religious beliefs?

Ignorant of what, exactly? Of science? Of the arguments against any kind of faith? I find these things central to my life, and I have studied and educated myself on them with great zeal. I would like to know where you consider me ignorant.

Slightly more on topic with the thread's original intent, ethics are not written down once and to be followed for all time. Ideas of morality are subject to change, and it so happens that your example of cannibalism has never won great acclaim as a moral high ground, unless you count "A Modest Proposal".

The issue with dogmatic devotions of any sort is that they explicitly exclude updates. Ideally for me, I'd like to see people stop making decisions due to what falls into the framework of their faith, and let reason and discourse guide their decisions. Of course moderates, and even "literalists" don't take entire scriptures to be literal truths, but this is cherry picking advice, morals, lessons, etc. This is further evidence that faith does not determine moral values inherently. However, having something to justify your initial impulses, or having some sort of framework taught to you (especially while young) will almost certainly create or strengthen convictions.

While I agree that public schools are far from the beacon of education they should be, there's no reason to simply give up completely. It is the duty of schools to attempt to educate the youth. You are adding oil to the fire by restricting the teaching of legitimate science, or introducing theology to a science classroom. I think world religious study should be a mandatory class, but I don't want religion injected into a subject where it really doesn't belong.

Honestly I'd like to see the end of all dogma, but that's not happening too soon. But much like I detest neo-Nazis and the KKK, I fully support their rights to speak freely and organize. I personally think prayer in school should be allowed by students individually, but neither encouraged nor discouraged by faculty so long as it doesn't interfere with learning. If Timmy wants to use his bathroom breaks to pray for a 100 on the test, go for it Timmy, but don't disrupt others in the process.

You are also entitled to elect someone of strong faith, though it is unconstitutional (in my mind at least) to make a faith based decision in government. Having one's religious sentiments as a ground for making laws/decisions impinges upon the idea of religious freedom.

Here's where I attempt to remove my foot from my mouth:
I did not mean to imply all reasonable people should be angry about religious issues (ID, prayer in schools, etc.) merely that it seems a reasonable response to be angry about such issues. I also chose my words poorly when discussing "ignorance".

I have watched a good number of debates (theist vs. atheist) and it seems to me that in most instances there are always the same exact questions and answers. In question and answer sessions from audiences, again the same questions from both sides, perhaps as an attempt to thwart the other side, or perhaps ignorance. I believe the experienced debaters already know the answers, but the audiences might actually want to learn. This is primarily founded on the episode of the show "30 Days" wherein an atheist family and a fundamentalist Christian family interact a whole bunch.

Most of this comes in when an atheist goes to bible study, and gets lots of questions that seem to be genuinely inquisitive, including (though not limited to) "Where does your morality come from?". So I think a lot of people of faith genuinely are ignorant of said answers. Those who know and understand these answers and choose their faith are not ignorant. I think they're wrong, but that's only my current take on the issue and it's open for debate.

I'm briefly returning to this thread to urge you to flee as quickly as possible.

Sometimes I type before I think. I agree; over and out.

I'm divided on the subject, but I tend towards the idea that such an education would require an inordinate amount of "compulsion". Nature VS Nurture is a curious dichotomy. Good, honest answer.

Now given that possibility, the reverse must be possible where a basically moral, ethical person could with the right motivations, propaganda (such as with Nazism) persuade them to become or at least perform unethical, immoral actions.

Jane Elliots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Elliott) classroom experiments have shown that it doesn't take much for people to bend to propaganda and hate speech especially in groups.

Other examples include The Milgram Experiment, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment)The Stanford Prision Experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment) and the Third Wave (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Wave)

While I don't necessarily see religion as inherently dangerous, I do see a horrific potental for directing murder with a divine mandate using selected scripture such as what I have previously posted.

How many Muslims or Christians blindly follow the interpretations of their possibly dubious church/mosque leaders?

Anyway, can I post another pie chart?

Pleeeeze?
lol

I said I like pie.

Good, honest answer.

Now given that possibility, the reverse must be possible where a basically moral, ethical person could with the right motivations, propaganda (such as with Nazism) persuade them to become of at least perform unethical, immoral action...

You know, I spent the time reading the thread again. I know, I know, it could be seen as a waste of time, but to be honest with you, I think the only point that we're really disagreeing on is what is more dangerous. You are focusing more on the religions/ideologies that could be used negatively, I'm focused more on the people that would use such religions/ideologies negatively. Take either one out of the equation, and it's a moot point.

I think we can agree that the whole issue is a friggin' mess, hey?

I said I like pie.

For some reason I read that back to myself in a forest Gump accent.

I just wanted to see if I could rattle your cage. Trouble is, I got agitated myself.

I blame religion.

I will unabashedly declare that my stance on most religious issues is less than objective. and with that I bid you all good night.

I just wanted to see if I could rattle your cage. Trouble is, I got agitated myself.

I blame religion.

I will unabashedly declare that my stance on most religious issues is less than objective. and with that I bid you all good night.

Hey, man, it's the Internet. Let's all not take it so seriously...

This is how wars get started.

Less philosophical than psychological or sociological, I think. The reason why I make the distinction is that I am much better equipped to debate principles and hard facts than fuzzy mind things and cultural trends.

http://imgred.com/http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/11/00/23210011.jpg

I love you too DAY.

You read between the lines better than a Rabbi with his hermeneutics yarmulke on.

EVERY TIME I GET OUT THEY PULL ME BACK IN.

I'm sorry to backtrack, but returning to tit-for-tat and altruism:

I agree this is seen in nature, and can arise naturally, but my question is where can examples be seen in nature of concepts like sacrifice, mercy, and self denial for future goals.

The only two I can think of are protection of young for sacrifice, and I study I heard done on birds where they had to help each other get food, but it was set up so that only one bird could eat and they started taking turns for self denial.

I would like to hear of more or other views.

Arjuna

Check out the Hippo. Page six #57. I wonder if there are more clips of moral animals?

EVERY TIME I GET OUT THEY PULL ME BACK IN.

just make sure to double wrap it :3some: