--- you're simply acting without reference to morality.
In your case because you've subsumed morality to self-interest. If treating others nicely promotes your idea of the good life, then, perfectly amorally, you'll behave relatively decently. But others may have different ideas of the good life. What will you say to them?
You find it necessary to "say" something to those who have different ideas, and find this to be 'moral behavior'. I do not. I mind my own business.
That they ought not to like what they like? But then you need some standard by which to judge their delights bad and unworthy, and then you would need to explain where this standard comes from and what makes it normative and this, I maintain, cannot be done coherently with a naturalistic worldview.
And there we have a partial answer to "Why is America still so prone to wars of religion?".
What you 'maintain' is religious strife. -- Why not mind your own business instead?
Most of your post is merely a belligerent display of your incomprehension.
I'm simply responding to your own belligerent manner.
You find it necessary to "say" something to those who have different ideas, and find this to be 'moral behavior'. I do not. I mind my own business.
Oh, if someone chooses to act on certain different ideas I would do a lot more than merely "'say' something". I hope you would also.
And there we have a partial answer to "Why is America still so prone to wars of religion?". -- Your belligerency.
As others have pointed out, there is no answer because it's a baseless question. America (unlike Europe) has never been prone to wars of religion and isn't now.
We've been fighting various internecine 'wars' on religious/moral questions since ratification.
What you 'maintain' is religious strife. -- Why not mind your own business instead?
Fascinating. All I've done is speak my mind as protected by the First Amendment -- this is "strife" in your mind and I should stop.
Babble on if you must, but strifeful it is; - to little effect.
But if advocating my views is strife, what about you advocating your views? I haven't made "mind your own business" equivalent to "shut up", but you have, and also declare that you mind your own business, but you still keep talking. Something has become disconnected here. Or perhaps this only applies to views you don't agree with. Now, you said the above two things as an objection to this: That they ought not to like what they like? But then you need some standard by which to judge their delights bad and unworthy, and then you would need to explain where this standard comes from and what makes it normative and this, I maintain, cannot be done coherently with a naturalistic worldview.
Whatever. - You're just repeating yourself.
You seem to have lost track of the conversation. You defined morality by the Golden Rule, and defended this by reference to self-interest and argued that the Golden Rule is the means to a good life. My objection is that some have a radically different conception of the good life and their interests which does not imply the Golden Rule and may not be compatible with it.
So why do those who delight in harming the weak -- and they do exist -- have a delight which is bad and unworthy? The Golden Rule does not serve their interests as conceived by themselves. Why should they follow it anyway? Do you have a reason? Or will you "mind your own business"?
Now you're asking me why evil exists? -- Good grief man.. Talk to your pastor or get some other professional advice. Obviously I can't help you..
-- You started this by asking me a fairly simple question. My answer was unacceptable to you for some strange reason. -- Let's leave it at that.
And what makes you unable to understand anything deeper than an op-ed piece? You should apply yourself to following a line of argument.
Oh, if someone chooses to act on certain different ideas I would do a lot more than merely "'say' something". I hope you would also.
And there we have a partial answer to "Why is America still so prone to wars of religion?". -- Your belligerency.
Let's try a hypothetical. You come across a man dragging a screaming woman away a knifepoint. Reasoning that if you were in her place, you would want to be rescued, you shoot the man. See? Violence. The man was simply acting on a different idea of the good life -- namely, that it includes raping and murdering. I get to say that his actions are evil and wrong, but if you're being consistent (and you probably wouldn't be -- you'd probably say what is true rather than what is consistent with your false worldview) you'll simply say you happen to dislike his actions. But which is more belligerent, to use violence to stop what is evil and wrong, or to use violence based on your personal dislikes?
We've been fighting various internecine 'wars' on religious/moral questions since ratification.
"Wars" and wars are different things.
Babble on if you must, but strifeful it is; - to little effect.
You have yet to explain why I'm engaging in strife and you aren't, unless you're of the view than everything you don't agree with is strife.
So why do those who delight in harming the weak -- and they do exist -- have a delight which is bad and unworthy?
Now you're asking me why evil exists? -- Good grief man.. Talk to your pastor or get some other professional advice. Obviously I can't help you..
The part I have quoted in bold is, as best I can tell, what you are replying to. But if you look at the rest of the paragraph -- that context thing again -- you will find I was asking if you can provide a basis for that judgment, not assuming the judgment and asking why such things exist (then again, you may not: obliviousness seems to be your style). Again: if there is evil, if it is evil to delight in harming the weak, what is it that makes such things evil? By what standard? You can't just cite the Golden Rule, because you have only defended the Golden Rule itself in terms of self-interest (and I can't conceive of any other defense possible within your worldview) and people who delight in harming the weak judge their interests in a way that precludes the Golden Rule. So at that point what do you say? Or do you kill or imprison them when they act of their desires, not because it is right to do so, but simply because you want to?