darth_ender

imperialscum said:

darth_ender said:

Briefly, seldom does sex advance the story.  And I don't care how arrogant it sounds, I don't believe in sex before marriage, and I wish movies didn't show it as not only acceptable but even preferable: apparently only losers wait.  This really is a common theme.

Even if sex is part of the story, or acceptable, how much do we have to see to know what is happening?  Alfred Hitchcock implied sex scenes without even showing anything more than passionate kissing.  Today we have to see a lot of skin for lengthy amounts of time.  It doesn't matter if it arouses.  It doesn't matter if actually shows the nipples or the butt cracks or whatever.  It's trashy and unnecessary.  We all know what sex is, but movies these days try to make it more and more risque in order to, as was said earlier, though with different intent, appeal to the lowest common denominator.  Why not show a little respect for the human body and for sexual intimacy?

Were you born dressed up? The way to show respect to the human body is to throw away the stupid "moral" standards that makes it a taboo.

Now I too don't care if I sound arrogant, but there is something fundamentally wrong with a belief that showing naked human body is unacceptable or even "trashy". In fact, such notion (propagated by many religions) is downright sick. Same goes for trying to present sex as something inappropriate for general discussion/presentation.

If a film wants to shows a human body or sexual intercourse, then that is no more inappropriate than showing a human eating food or taking a dump.

Gore, physical violence and psychological violence (things seen in almost every film) are actually inappropriate compared to naked body or sex, which are not inappropriate at all. Yet a lot of people seem to find those things much more acceptable in a film than for example sex. And I think I know know what is to be blamed for this sick hypocrisy.

And my comment about "marriage before sex"; marriage is a human-made nonsense, while sex is an essential and fundamental step in human evolution.

 Imperialscum, I don't know if you are aware, but you are actually a bigot.  As I said in the previous post, I see people naked, and I ensure that I treat them with the utmost dignity.

Sex can be discussed, but it need not be flaunted.  It is part of life, but it doesn't have to always take center stage for 80% of today's comedies.

If sex is so acceptable for general discussion, why don't we include children in the visuals?  Why do we lock the bedroom door so our kids can't get in?  Why don't you walk around the house naked with your significant other at all times?  Why do we keep most details between partners?  Why do most people remain faithful to partners, or at least find that an ideal, especially since in evolutionary terms, a strong bull impregnating multiple cows is the best way to ensure a stronger species and many children to pass on genes?  In fact, now that we're on that topic, if sex is so important for evolution, why is its primary evolutionary function (reproduction) downplayed and in fact portrayed as undesirable more often than not?  Why is it lust that is advocated, not love, not producing children whom one could love?  Why is the possibility of pregnancy skipped nine times out of ten, as if contraceptives were not of concern because, hey, we're talking about fun sex here?  Why are the less pleasant aspects not usually shown, such as messy bodily fluids, or the difficulty of bringing women to orgasm or sometimes simply arousing them, or the discomfort of a woman's first time, or premature ejaculation, or heck, unless we're talking actual pornography, even the most essential organs for sex actually shown?  Still, people find it necessary to censor certain things, it appears?  Why?

I will answer: because people still draw certain lines where they take offense or find revulsion.  But filmmakers want to push that line.  I remember reading that the director of Basic Instinct wanted to be the first to show an erect penis and still maintain an R rating.  He did not succeed, but not for lack of trying.

So what is the point of showing all this?  It's not to show the beauty of sex.  Anyone who has had love-filled (not lustful) sex already appreciates that beauty.  It's to arouse, to make it self-serving and about pleasure and indulgence.  We are a society that loves to indulge ourselves rather than give.  And it is that selfish indulgence that film makers and TV producers are appealing to.

Yes, I sound high and mighty.  Forgive me for having my own moral stance.

And Imperialscum, I also don't know if you realized, but you're a bit of an idiot.  You have cast religion as nonsense and sex (nominally baby-free) as essential to evolution.  Has it occurred to you that the reason that religion is so prevalent is because it too is an important evolutionary step?  But please, don't stop being an idiot or a bigot on my account.  Continue to be a jerk, by all means.

ATMachine said:

For my part, I think that true respect for the human body would involve not being disgusted by its mere appearance on screen.

But then, I clearly don't run the MPAA.

On the other hand, I agree with you to the extent that "less is more".... that is, restrictions on creativity often force filmmakers to be more clever and entertaining than they would otherwise have been.

Still.... I really hope you're not advocating that filmmakers submit themselves to moral censorship based on Christianity. You do realize that doing so means, in effect, going back to the bad old days of the Production Code and the Catholic Legion of Decency?

I've heard stories about how Hays Office censors objected to films about the Holocaust because they feared the nudity of emaciated concentration camp prisoners would somehow be titillating.

Faced with the specter of censorious bureaucratic fools, I'll take Game of Thrones any day.

 You don't know me too well, but I don't recall saying that I am disgusted with the human body.  I am a nurse who just got off shift.  I probably have seen more people naked than you, and I'm not just talking about movies or particular websites.  Real people with real privates that I at times have to examine closely.  I do not find the human body repulsive.

Am I advocating moral censorship?  Only self-censorship.  I don't believe in taking away people's rights, but I do believe that their right is still wrong (clever pun there, eh?).

Thus, with you better understanding my views, as well as the obvious intent of trying to treat sex and the human body disrespectfully, do you think that respectful art or the Holocaust would somehow be included as not appropriate?  For children it probably is not, but for mature adults, certain things remain in fact preferable.  Who'd want to see the Holocaust as anything less than horrifying.  And speaking of which, why were those Holocaust victims so often forced into nudity?  Because it was humiliating, disrespectful, degrading, another opportunity for Nazis to exert control over others?

Good for you for standing up to censorship and getting an erection while you're at it.

Post Praetorian said:

Railroad Tycoon...Nimmar...Axis & Allies...oh, and of course my game: General Warfare.

http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/31574/nimmar

 Tell me about General Warfare.  Are you saying you designed it yourself?  Do you have a complete description somewhere?

Since I know this thread was in part started due to my conversation earlier and because of a question posed to me, I should probably give some reply.  I have been moving, so I have been extremely busy, and even without Internet for a couple of days.

Briefly, seldom does sex advance the story.  And I don't care how arrogant it sounds, I don't believe in sex before marriage, and I wish movies didn't show it as not only acceptable but even preferable: apparently only losers wait.  This really is a common theme.

Even if sex is part of the story, or acceptable, how much do we have to see to know what is happening?  Alfred Hitchcock implied sex scenes without even showing anything more than passionate kissing.  Today we have to see a lot of skin for lengthy amounts of time.  It doesn't matter if it arouses.  It doesn't matter if actually shows the nipples or the butt cracks or whatever.  It's trashy and unnecessary.  We all know what sex is, but movies these days try to make it more and more risque in order to, as was said earlier, though with different intent, appeal to the lowest common denominator.  Why not show a little respect for the human body and for sexual intimacy?

TV's Frink said:

Ah, that rings a bell.

 Yes, blowfish was me, you humorless doink! ;)

I thought you were trying to keep this spoiler free. I hadn't even read that. I think I better avoid even this thread.

I still don't understand how this became the SNL thread :P

Yeah, I've heard that before ;)

Excited to see these!

http://www.lifesitenews.com/static/even-the-co-stars-think-50-shades-of-grey-is-awful-rubbish-and-maybe-even-a.html

mrbenja0618 said:

TV's Frink said:

mrbenja0618 said:

My phone keeps blowing up because of this topic. I came to see nothing has changed.

Going back to my hole again. Call me when substance breaks through.

 *makes mental note to do a pointless bump every week*

 Bump. =)

 We had a pretty good coversation going in Random Thoughts for a bit, then we came here and started acting silly.  I've got a nice post planned, but I've only gotten a little of it typed and saved as a draft.

moviefreakedmind said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Perhaps, but it is clearly fabricated and symbolic, regardless of whether or not it was meant to be taken literally. Which Biblical passages are you thinking about? I can only think of the one where Jesus prohibits divorce, in which his quotation still works just fine if the story isn't literal, and the one in one of the Pauline letters in which the author contrasts Jesus with Adam. That one also still works if the creation story isn't taken literally.

Jesus is traced directly back to Adam in the Luke genealogy. Jesus said that in the beginning God created them male and female, making it clear that man was created specifically by God and not a product of millions of years of evolution. Paul also refers to Adam and Eve and in 1 Timothy writes about the original sin and the order of creation of Adam and Eve. It's pretty clear that they are described as real people and the events of Genesis are regarded as facts rather than myth.

 Nevertheless, such does not rule out the possibility.  You know, as a Mormon, it is clear to me that while some of our doctrine actually meshes better with ancient Christianity than other religions (such as the deification of man), other items seem to be matters of an increase in understanding (such as gradations in heaven).

Aside from the possible completely symbolic nature of Genesis, is it possible that there is truth as well, such as a local Deluge and an homo sapien named Adam?

There is much science doesn't understand, yet theories are developed and modified.  A theological theory among the ancients does not mean it cannot be further developed over time.

imperialscum said:

TV's Frink said:

Don't apologize to the village asshole!

JEDIT: Pardon my language

Well you know I hate it when you don't use proper English. I pardon you this time but next time spell it with "s".

 Forgive me for humoring you, and I don't mean to be a bad neighbor, but I think we Americans consider in an honor to spell words words our own way.  It gives us our version of English its own flavor, its own color, and I don't think any amount of complaining is going to change our behavior.

You see, we Americans are of a different caliber than the Brits.  We like our version of English to be front and center in the world stage.  So forgive me my little political maneuver here on this board, but I think I stand with the rest of my American friends when I say, without apologizing, though I mean no offense, that we will continue to proudly maximize our own spelling in our dialog with the rest of the world.  It's best for all you Brits to just get with the program.

;)

imperialscum said:

darth_ender said:

darth_endersaid:

In other words, morals are not universal. There is no supreme law that says that murder is wrong, that human equality is right. Not unless there is a Supreme Being. Otherwise, those values are actually just accepted by the majority of society. Being moral in one society may be immoral in another.

I hope you use the term warfare in a bit of hyperbole. I do not wish to cause contention, though I debate passionately. I really had no side point. I just used a lot of words to convey my point, which I summarized in the above quote.

Well and I did not argue against that simply because I agreed with that part. But further in you post, you gave a huge credit to religion for modern western moral norms, which I argued against.

You stated that I needed to provide my points clearer.  Thus I underlined my points.

Ultimately, my point was one thing, which I am stating again, though it is underlined above:

Morals are not universal (unless there is a superior Lawmaker).  They are defined by society.

imperialscum said:

darth_ender said:

Nope, that's not what I am saying at all. I am saying that you hold moral values that you consider right. Do you know where those values came from? From society. And that society's values are descended from Judeo-Christian values. That's all I'm saying here.

And that is exactly what I was trying deny. You make it look like Judeo-Christianity is the foundation of the society itself (I apologise if that is only my impression). Yet it is just a small evolutionary piece. At some point it even completely opposed (indirectly though Church) many of the moral standards of modern western society. And it still continuous to oppose (indirectly though Church) some of moral standards of western society today. I mean you may try blame everything on the Church as an institution and say religion has nothing to with it. But I am a very practical person and cannot accept such excuse.

You are absolutely incorrect.  Do some research.  Two major components contributed tremendously to our culture: Judeo-Christian and Greco-Roman.  To say otherwise reveals nothing but ignorance.  I am speaking especially specifically about our morals.  Look at the virtues of Far Eastern civilization.  It is very different.  A big part of that is because of their religion.  Even atheist China still bears great influence from the values of Confucianism and Buddhism.  You may disagree, but I'm sorry, you are wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_culture

darth_ender said:

Oh my gosh. You mean Christianity did all that? I didn't know. Gee

I did not say Christianity did that. I quite clearly said Church did that in the name of Christianity. But anyway that was not really relevant to this discussion. I just wanted to point out that religion directly or indirectly was a major amoral factor in Europe for a several centuries. There was a struggle to actually move the society away from that direction.

 It still doesn't take away from the fact that I know more on that topic than you do, nor that such amoral actions represent the whole of the Catholic Church, Christianity, or religion in general.  And as I pointed out, atheism is capable of just as much immorality and evil.

Possessed said:

This doesn't really fall under the category of emotional support, but I don't know where else I should post it and it doesn't warrant the creation of a topic on it's own.  I would just like youz guyz opinion on if I'm doing the right thing here or not.

I had this childhood bestfriend, a very beautiful girl.  We grew up together and we were super close.  Inevitably (if you ask me anyway) at a certain age we became romantically involved.  That ended up not working out.  There wasn't any kind of bad event or hatred involved in the ending of it, it just kinda fizzled out.  We stopped talking and we don't see each other any more. This was about 6 years ago.

We still live in the same town and we see each other quite often at certain events.  For the entire 6 years we haven't been talking, she's made it very obvious that she is not happy with this arrangement, she wants to be friends.  I do not.  I do not dislike her at all, I just don't think it's a good idea for us to talk anymore.  It's not that I still feel anything for her, or that I think she does for me, it just doesn't sound appealing.

I can understand her wanting to stay friends.  After all, we grew up together.  It seems to mean a lot to her, there's definitely a sentimental attachment and bond we'll always have, but I'm perfectly content to let it rot away, and I think that's best, but sometimes I wonder if this is really fair to her.

She's married now, and she still wants us to be friends.  I don't tell her no, but I just avoid her and I'm sure it's obvious that I avoid her.  There is no chance of anything inappropriate happening, it'd just be childhood best friends reuniting, and I know that she would love it if I spent time with her and talked to her, I just... I dunno I really just don't want to.  It's not so much that I think it's wrong, but I still really don't want to.  But I'm not sure if this is fair to her.

 Bunny.

 I can understand your feelings.  I have a former friend who sort of is in a similar situation.  We are both married, but she had for a time continuously tried to pursue a friendship that had for all intents and purposes come to an end.  I personally feel that when marriage comes into the picture, old friendships with the opposite sex should not necessarily completely go away, but should be maintained at a greater distance.  I may have different reasons, but I agree that you are okay keeping things distant.

DrCrowTStarwars said:

Please continue to pray for my aunt and her family.  She has not gotten worse but she has not gotten any better and she has yet to wake up.  They have found the source of the infection and it is in her lungs.  So she now has that in addition to the breast cancer.

As I said her daughter and I grew up together and she spent a lot of time at my house when she was younger while her mother was working so this is hitting us all really hard.

Pray for my uncle too because his wife is now in the same hospital where his father and brother died so this is really hard on him, thank you all for your support.

 Haven't had much time, but I'll keep them in my thoughts and prayers.  Working in the medical field, I've come to have a greater appreciation for life and of just how easily and quickly it can end.  If your aunt passes, I am sorry, but also know, as you and I believe in a life after this, that God is watchful over all of us, and that if she passes, she will find herself in a happier state, pitying us struggling to make it through this mortal world.  Hang in there.  You are all in my thoughts and prayers.

imperialscum said:

darth_ender said:

@imperialscum, I haven't interacted with you for some time, so to read this makes me wonder if you always missed the point so completely, or if this is a lone instance.  I don't mean to be rude, but I think you were trying to reply to something between the lines, but didn't read the lines themselves.

Well the most important rule of forum warfare is to state your point in 2-3 sentences. If you write a big reply as you did, with many side-points, it is very likely that your main point will be either lost, not understood or even ignored.

That is just a friendly tip from a veteran. :)

 This was my point, which I stated in the following sentences, or even perhaps just in the underlined:

darth_endersaid:

In other words, morals are not universal.  There is no supreme law that says that murder is wrong, that human equality is right.  Not unless there is a Supreme Being.  Otherwise, those values are actually just accepted by the majority of society.  Being moral in one society may be immoral in another.

I hope you use the term warfare in a bit of hyperbole.  I do not wish to cause contention, though I debate passionately.  I really had no side point.  I just used a lot of words to convey my point, which I summarized in the above quote.

TV's Frink said:

You're welcome, ender. ;-)

 I guess I should say thanks.  I do enjoy the discussion, as long as I'm not being accused of being nasty.  So far so good ;)

@imperialscum, I haven't interacted with you for some time, so to read this makes me wonder if you always missed the point so completely, or if this is a lone instance.  I don't mean to be rude, but I think you were trying to reply to something between the lines, but didn't read the lines themselves.  You reply to me like I am defending religion from your onslaught.  I was not defending it at all.  I intend to do so, but not here, and not now, since it will take a little longer to compose what I intend to write.  If I were an atheist, my point in my previous comment would be identical.  So please read my following reply, reread the previous comment, and understand what I really mean.

imperialscum said:

darth_ender said:

I am afraid that this is all a bunch of ignorance.  I don't disagree that people who are without religion can still hold high moral standards.  But bear in mind where those standards came from.  Right now you are from the UK if I recall correctly.  Your nation has been tremendously influenced by Judeo-Christian values.  Let's say that the world was taken over by the Islamic State.  Over time, societal norms conform to those accepted by what we now see as an evil group.

First, you are saying that one religion will protect us from the other, which is kind of a paradox in this discussion. So if it is the religion that may harm us in the first place, why don't we just get rid of all religions if they are the problem?

Nope, that's not what I am saying at all.  I am saying that you hold moral values that you consider right.  Do you know where those values came from?  From society.  And that society's values are descended from Judeo-Christian values.  That's all I'm saying here.

darth_ender said:

In 100 years, a guy very much like you wishes to live a life with morals much like yours.  Do you know what would happen?  This man would be branded a heretic and executed for apostasy.  You know why, because he would be living a life if immorality according to a different society, though his standards may be exactly like yours today.  Lest you use this as an argument against religion due to the extremism of such Muslims, I do wish to point out that even atheistic societies like North Korea and the Soviet Union have adopted truly evil norms.

I hope that this was some kind of joke. You speak like Christianity gave us freedom and stuff. You better learn the history of Europe. The Church (in the name of Christianity) was exploiting people for centuries (it still does to a lesser degree). Funny how you mentioned "branding one a heretic" and executions in the name of religion. In medieval Europe, that was a very common practice of Church ... burning people alive, invention of unimaginably sick torture devices to extract the "confessions" out of "heretics", etc. The Church actively suppressed the freedom and sabotaged the secular progress in Europe for many centuries (Copernicus, Galileo, etc.).

Oh my gosh.  You mean Christianity did all that?  I didn't know.  Gee.

Well, if I really were so ignorant, you still would be off center, because my point here was not that atheist societies are amoral and religious societies moral.  I was trying to point out that a society's values can change and become very different.  You see yourself as a moral person, but that is because you live by the morals your society holds to.  If you lived by the same moral code in a society of strict Islamic interpretation, you would actually be immoral, according to society.

It was only when secular sphere (such as science), led by intellectuals, forced the Church to change and accept new norms that were demanded by the people. So I hope we are now clear on the fact that it is the secular sphere to be credited for the modern western society and NOT the religion.

It is fair to mention that in northern countries the Church wasn't forced but rather reformed itself. But still, the reformation was a result of influence and progress in the secular sphere.

Thanks for the history lesson, though I probably know more on the topic than you, including the piousness of those individuals who reformed such views. It still has nothing to do with what I am addressing here.

darth_ender said:

Lest you use this as an argument against religion due to the extremism of such Muslims

Some Muslim countries have their "middle age" as we had ours in Europe. A common denominator in both cases is/was a religion.

darth_ender said:

I do wish to point out that even atheistic societies like North Korea and the Soviet Union have adopted truly evil norms.

Of course there are some exceptions. But a vast majority of atheistic societies (EU countries) are doing very well in terms of moral norms.

Please do not continue on your train of thought.  I said no such thing in either of the above quotes taken from the same sentence.  I used the Islamic State as an example.  I was trying to point out that religious and atheistic states both are capable of extreme evil and was not singling out Islam.  That is all.

Btw this sounded like you consider USA a theocracy? It is kinda funny that it actually have some elements of theocracy, such as the use of bible in court. As an atheist, can you refuse to participate in that ritual?

 Yes you can refuse.  But I made no such statement or inference at all.  You read into everything I said, but it appears you understood nothing.  Please reply to my quotes and not what you think I must truly be getting at.

Frank your Majesty said:

darth_ender said:

Frank your Majesty said:

darth_ender said:

Frank your Majesty said:

darth_ender said:

Sexual frivolity, infidelity, teen pregnancy, abortions, and the like are certainly much more prevalent than before.  To what can we attribute this rise?  Largely the media portrayal and acceptance of such behavior.

 Or does the media portray this behavior because it is already accepted? I don't think the influence of books, movies and TV is that great, simply because most people wouldn't watch a movie or read a book if they are strongly opposed to its topic. The media mainly reflects the behaviour of the society, which is much more formed by social factors.

 You are right.  The media has no effect on public opinion.

 No need to be sarcastic. Of course there is some effect, that's why I said mainly, but if something is massively overhyped it's because these people just waited for it to happen. There are erotic fan fictions on the internet for years, 50 Shades Of Grey is just the first one to be published as a book and therefore more easily accessible to these frustrated 50 year old housewifes that are now running to the cinemas.

Anyways, I understand that you have no interset in continuing this discussion since you have been personally attacked. I just wanted to let you know that I didn't mean to belittle or mock you or your beliefs and I hope you don't think I wanted to do such a thing.

 I can get quite sarcastic, and I admit I've been a bit grumpier than usual lately, so I apologize for my tone, but not for the ultimate message.  Let's examine your first quote where you say, "...the behavior of the society...is much more formed by social factors."  Now let's consider a number of facts: the media is a social factor.  In fact, one could say it is the dominant social factor.  While we commonly refer to media as singular, it is actual plural for medium.  A medium is a means of communication.  And all social interaction is based on communication.

Now let's consider obvious facts connected with the media.  There's social media, a form of media where socializing influences people.  Then there are commercials, a format wherein companies influence people to purchase their products.  There are political campaigns, wherein politicians influence voters to see things their way and vote for them.  There is the news, where a persona watching Fox News and reading the Drudge Report will come away with a different view of the state of current affairs from a person watching MSNBC and reading the Huffington Post, and both will definitely see things differently from the Al-Jazeera viewer.  Women viewing ads of skinny females develop conditions like anorexia nervosa or bulimia nervosa.  

There is a user here named Nanner Split who helped devise the Slender Man character.  There are those who have used Slender Man as an inspiration for crimes they have committed.  People have cited death metal as motivations for suicidal attempts.  The clothes you wore today were probably at least somewhat fashionable.  Those fashion trends are not just naturally ebbing and flowing, but are in fact based on conscious decisions by clothing designers and the models who show them off.  Why don't you dress like you're in the 80's?  Because such is not fashionable anymore, because the media has influenced our sense of fashion.

While people are ultimately responsible for their own decisions, to say the media has no effect is wrong, utterly wrong.  It is through the media that society changes most.  And with the rise of the Internet, those changes have only increased in pace.  Marilyn Manson and Rob Zombie do actually influence people to make bad decisions, even if they didn't make those decisions for them.  Movies like 50 Shades of Grey do in fact make sex cheaper than I personally feel it should be treated.  It's not just because everyone's buddies started having premarital sex that it became commonplace.  It's because it was actually portrayed more often in media than in reality, until it became a reality.  Again, I don't wish to sound judgmental.  One hundred years ago, such behavior was utterly disgraceful.  Today it's expected.

There are articles upon articles about this.  I have a BA in psychology and have taken classes on this material.  I'm not making this up.

http://influence.bafree.net/negative-influences-of-media-on-the-society.php

Thank you for your lenghty reply, I'm glad you're still around here. Of course there's no need to apologize for your message and you didn't sound judgmental to me.

As you said, "the media" is all forms of communication, so ultimately, it's people communicating with each other and exchanging their opinions that changes society. Strictly speaking, there is no influence of the media itself, there's an influence of what people say through various media. I have to admit, that I didn't think of it this way when I made my first comment and you have opened my eyes to it. Nevertheless, these influences are small and only change one's mindset a bit. It's not one book, one movie or one song that's responsible for the whole "depravation" of society. Thus, changing society is a very slow process involving all existing media and I don't think you can fully seperate cause and effect of showing acceptance for something in the media and the society accepting it.

Especially movies, books and music only made for entertainment are aimed to appeal to many people, so they are likely to follow existing trends, 50 Shades Of Grey is no exception. No publisher would release such a poorly written book if he wasn't sure he could sell it. And he can sell it because a certain acceptance for sex in general and BDSM in particular was already prevalent.

(When I talked about social factors I was more talking about "people getting poorer leads to them commiting crimes which is followed by violence that's then shown by the media..." I should have made this clearer but I was short on time and couldn't think it through.)

 I think we're closer to agreeing now. In fact my point was not only that I despise the book's existence, but that I'm sad at how widely it has been embraced. To me, this is glorification of sex that bugs me so. This book is simply another contributor, as well as a pulse on our society's ambivalence to what I find sacred.

As a small bit of irony, most of my Harry Potter enjoyment has been coming from the audio books read by the same Mr. Frye. Just an interesting aside.

Thank you both :)

Post Praetorian said:

darth_ender said:

imperialscum said:

darth_ender said:

But to say religion is just nonsense is, in fact, nonsense.  Religion is built into humanity.  Even most who do not believe in deity in any form still engage in religious-like behaviors and rituals, whether they realize it or not.  It too is a part of humanity.

The only useful thing about religion are some (emphasis on some) of the moral standards it teaches. Pretty much everything else is a nonsense, such as time-wasting rituals and stupid stories like creationism and life after death.

And in the end you don't really need a religion to abide the high moral standards.

 I am afraid that this is all a bunch of ignorance.  I don't disagree that people who are without religion can still hold high moral standards.  But bear in mind where those standards came from.  Right now you are from the UK if I recall correctly.  Your nation has been tremendously influenced by Judeo-Christian values.  Let's say that the world was taken over by the Islamic State.  Over time, societal norms conform to those accepted by what we now see as an evil group.  In 100 years, a guy very much like you wishes to live a life with morals much like yours.  Do you know what would happen?  This man would be branded a heretic and executed for apostasy.  You know why, because he would be living a life if immorality according to a different society, though his standards may be exactly like yours today.  Lest you use this as an argument against religion due to the extremism of such Muslims, I do wish to point out that even atheistic societies like North Korea and the Soviet Union have adopted truly evil norms.

In other words, morals are not universal.  There is no supreme law that says that murder is wrong, that human equality is right.  Not unless there is a Supreme Being.  Otherwise, those values are actually just accepted by the majority of society.  Being moral in one society may be immoral in another.

Note that this is not proof of any Supreme Being, but rather that in a sense, if there is no God, no one can be truly called moral.

Is this necessarily the case? Given that some elements of morality seemingly differs from one society to another, is it not yet understood that such normative mores may yet be recognized by the society itself? If refraining from watching television might be considered a high standard in one household while watching the late night show as a group might be upheld as a time for bonding in another, is it true to claim that neither family may have any standards without an outside source capable of affirming the one and rejecting the other? Or is it not more likely the case that the moral exists solely within the familial sphere, where it might be applied, ruled upon, extolled, and promoted by those in authority therein, but that its absolute moral certitude must necessarily wane the further it might depart from any immediate parental reach?

Further, if no moral certitude might yet exist even upon this earth, how might this be construed as evidence that one all-powerful being whose interest must clearly be human-centered might yet be in any position of control? Would one not instead expect a degree of moral uniformity to extend from a singular creator of great power and virtuous intent?

Finally, is morality truly as complicated that it might require an all powerful singularity as its source of origin? For would not such self-evident truths as "if you take mine I'll take yours so don't take mine" be as clear to men of fair intellect as to an omnipotent being of infinite intelligence?

 If I understand you correctly, the latter two paragraphs are answered in my last sentence from my previous reply, which I have underlined above. All I am saying is that there is no definitive sense of morals without a Divine lawmaker. Otherwise it's all simply what we agree upon. In answer  to your first paragraph, I would agree, pointing out that a family is itself a society on a small scale. There  are even those who would say that the individual can create his own moral code, a law unto himself, as it were. Who is to say he's wrong, except a larger society in disagreement? 

imperialscum said:

darth_ender said:

But to say religion is just nonsense is, in fact, nonsense.  Religion is built into humanity.  Even most who do not believe in deity in any form still engage in religious-like behaviors and rituals, whether they realize it or not.  It too is a part of humanity.

The only useful thing about religion are some (emphasis on some) of the moral standards it teaches. Pretty much everything else is a nonsense, such as time-wasting rituals and stupid stories like creationism and life after death.

And in the end you don't really need a religion to abide the high moral standards.

 I am afraid that this is all a bunch of ignorance.  I don't disagree that people who are without religion can still hold high moral standards.  But bear in mind where those standards came from.  Right now you are from the UK if I recall correctly.  Your nation has been tremendously influenced by Judeo-Christian values.  Let's say that the world was taken over by the Islamic State.  Over time, societal norms conform to those accepted by what we now see as an evil group.  In 100 years, a guy very much like you wishes to live a life with morals much like yours.  Do you know what would happen?  This man would be branded a heretic and executed for apostasy.  You know why, because he would be living a life if immorality according to a different society, though his standards may be exactly like yours today.  Lest you use this as an argument against religion due to the extremism of such Muslims, I do wish to point out that even atheistic societies like North Korea and the Soviet Union have adopted truly evil norms.

In other words, morals are not universal.  There is no supreme law that says that murder is wrong, that human equality is right.  Not unless there is a Supreme Being.  Otherwise, those values are actually just accepted by the majority of society.  Being moral in one society may be immoral in another.

Note that this is not proof of any Supreme Being, but rather that in a sense, if there is no God, no one can be truly called moral.

I intend to actually address the value of religion in a different thread in the near future.

Frank your Majesty said:

darth_ender said:

Frank your Majesty said:

darth_ender said:

Sexual frivolity, infidelity, teen pregnancy, abortions, and the like are certainly much more prevalent than before.  To what can we attribute this rise?  Largely the media portrayal and acceptance of such behavior.

 Or does the media portray this behavior because it is already accepted? I don't think the influence of books, movies and TV is that great, simply because most people wouldn't watch a movie or read a book if they are strongly opposed to its topic. The media mainly reflects the behaviour of the society, which is much more formed by social factors.

 You are right.  The media has no effect on public opinion.

 No need to be sarcastic. Of course there is some effect, that's why I said mainly, but if something is massively overhyped it's because these people just waited for it to happen. There are erotic fan fictions on the internet for years, 50 Shades Of Grey is just the first one to be published as a book and therefore more easily accessible to these frustrated 50 year old housewifes that are now running to the cinemas.

Anyways, I understand that you have no interset in continuing this discussion since you have been personally attacked. I just wanted to let you know that I didn't mean to belittle or mock you or your beliefs and I hope you don't think I wanted to do such a thing.

 I can get quite sarcastic, and I admit I've been a bit grumpier than usual lately, so I apologize for my tone, but not for the ultimate message.  Let's examine your first quote where you say, "...the behavior of the society...is much more formed by social factors."  Now let's consider a number of facts: the media is a social factor.  In fact, one could say it is the dominant social factor.  While we commonly refer to media as singular, it is actual plural for medium.  A medium is a means of communication.  And all social interaction is based on communication.

Now let's consider obvious facts connected with the media.  There's social media, a form of media where socializing influences people.  Then there are commercials, a format wherein companies influence people to purchase their products.  There are political campaigns, wherein politicians influence voters to see things their way and vote for them.  There is the news, where a persona watching Fox News and reading the Drudge Report will come away with a different view of the state of current affairs from a person watching MSNBC and reading the Huffington Post, and both will definitely see things differently from the Al-Jazeera viewer.  Women viewing ads of skinny females develop conditions like anorexia nervosa or bulimia nervosa.  

There is a user here named Nanner Split who helped devise the Slender Man character.  There are those who have used Slender Man as an inspiration for crimes they have committed.  People have cited death metal as motivations for suicidal attempts.  The clothes you wore today were probably at least somewhat fashionable.  Those fashion trends are not just naturally ebbing and flowing, but are in fact based on conscious decisions by clothing designers and the models who show them off.  Why don't you dress like you're in the 80's?  Because such is not fashionable anymore, because the media has influenced our sense of fashion.

While people are ultimately responsible for their own decisions, to say the media has no effect is wrong, utterly wrong.  It is through the media that society changes most.  And with the rise of the Internet, those changes have only increased in pace.  Marilyn Manson and Rob Zombie do actually influence people to make bad decisions, even if they didn't make those decisions for them.  Movies like 50 Shades of Grey do in fact make sex cheaper than I personally feel it should be treated.  It's not just because everyone's buddies started having premarital sex that it became commonplace.  It's because it was actually portrayed more often in media than in reality, until it became a reality.  Again, I don't wish to sound judgmental.  One hundred years ago, such behavior was utterly disgraceful.  Today it's expected.

There are articles upon articles about this.  I have a BA in psychology and have taken classes on this material.  I'm not making this up.

http://influence.bafree.net/negative-influences-of-media-on-the-society.php