reasonable cutoff

[whoneedscience]

It's my personal opinion that every concept we humans create exists as a spectrum: there is no such thing as a logical absolute. For instance, I think religion is a load of crap and that believing in a god can be immoral. I also feel like I have something of a responsibility to help theists see their ignorance in this area, but I also don't believe in imposing my own ignorance on other people. Ergo, in a religion-specific sense, what is the reasonable cutoff between helping people and oppressing them. Is it when my views can be used to promote violence, or would that itself be creating a moral absolute? I don't believe that in certain situations it isn't justified to beat the crap out of someone. This also extends to any number of other areas. In a broader sense, how do you weigh the health of a society against the health of an individual. I'm not looking for an absolute answer, of course, but what are your opinions and reasoning.

[snap crafter]

Your trying too hard, can't please everyone. Don't look for a 'good', use the bad, because good is subjective, but bad is usually recognizable on sight. You can't show anyone their ignorance because they would use their ignorance as a shield to your answer. I know I debate for 2 reasons: A. Because it gives a wonderful natural high, and B. to learn new areas that would, in any other aspect, be harder to learn on ones own. So, if you want any sort of moral absolute, I would go with learning to advance yourself.

[whoneedscience]

Your trying too hard, can't please everyone. Don't look for a 'good', use the bad, because good is subjective, but bad is usually recognizable on sight. You can't show anyone their ignorance because they would use their ignorance as a shield to your answer. I know I debate for 2 reasons: A. Because it gives a wonderful natural high, and B. to learn new areas that would, in any other aspect, be harder to learn on ones own. So, if you want any sort of moral absolute, I would go with learning to advance yourself.
But is not the worst evil the one that pretends to be good?

I'm not really looking for a moral absolute, just a method of finding a reasonable moral position without bigotry.

[Striver]

Look, you don't have a responsibility to anyone. Responsibility is a subjective concept. You may be responsible to not go around killing people, but that's really just the idea you form in your mind. The only thing that's truly preventing it is your desire not to complicate your life and be on the run from the police.

So nothing says you have to waste your time on telling religious people they're wrong, it's really just a reinterpretation of your own innate desire for control.

[whoneedscience]

Look, you don't have a responsibility to anyone. Responsibility is a subjective concept. You may be responsible to not go around killing people, but that's really just the idea you form in your mind. The only thing that's truly preventing it is your desire not to complicate your life and be on the run from the police.

So nothing says you have to waste your time on telling religious people they're wrong, it's really just a reinterpretation of your own innate desire for control.
And what about when theists continue to ignore logic and push their agenda on my government? Do I not have a responsibility to protect the justice that you claim is my only motivator? You claim that I shouldn't care, but then what is to prevent its corruption?

[snap crafter]

You can't prevent the christians from forcing their agenda, because they own the government, I believe the overwhelming majority of our government are close-minded christians. And a government as young as ours, or a government as old as britian, all government is corrupted, because good people don't want to rule their fellow man.

[openly68atheist]

Well I have at the Hannity.com forums made theist see the truth that there is no afterlife, but the main difference between us and them is that we can accept our own mortality and accept the fact that even WE are not forever.

They can't, they refuse to accept the truth. They want immortality and no logic or facts is going to get in their way.

[Striver]

Look, you don't have a responsibility to anyone. Responsibility is a subjective concept. You may be responsible to not go around killing people, but that's really just the idea you form in your mind. The only thing that's truly preventing it is your desire not to complicate your life and be on the run from the police.

So nothing says you have to waste your time on telling religious people they're wrong, it's really just a reinterpretation of your own innate desire for control.
And what about when theists continue to ignore logic and push their agenda on my government? Do I not have a responsibility to protect the justice that you claim is my only motivator? You claim that I shouldn't care, but then what is to prevent its corruption?
No, you don't have a "Responsibility" to protect the justice. You have a _desire_ to protect what you perceive as justice. For there to be a responsibilty, someone has to enforce its existence, whether you or someone else. Who says that you should do it rather than someone else?

If you decide then that you are going to be the agent of change, then you "take on" the responsibility, but this is just a mental construct. In your mind you act as if you have an obligation. But if you don't take that obligation on, then all that will happen are the natural consequences of inaction.