My thoughts on morality

And where does empathy come from? Evolution? Then why do not animals have it? Because humanity requires it more than animals to fuel civilization? And if the previous questions are true, that means there must be an objectively correct morality, as that morality would be the surviving one during evolution. And if that is the case, you would have to agree that some moral mentalities, and thus the cultures and peoples adhering thereto, are inherently inferior. And if something is inferior in nature, it will over time die by natural causes - causes which we now have removed. Does this leave us with a responsibility to remove immoral cultures from the planet? You see where this road takes you?

Roos Skywalker
Mammals do have empathy, that is the entire point. I believe morality is subjective.
The only supportive argument objective morality has, is the existence of God.

Which would imply that evolution does not exist,
only 2 humans magically poofed on the world which populated the entire species, somehow without causing any genetic defects, sounds like BS to me but the best has yet to come.

All of this is based on a so-called holy book written 200 years AFTER the death of the main protagonist; Jezus Christ. Heck, if I were to write a story about a real person who passed away 200 years ago, I could make up anything I want. Doesn't sound like a very credible historical source to me. Not even mentioning the countless mistranslations that occurred over time.

During the last days of the Western Roman Empire, it was flooded with immigrants with all sorts of religions. All of them were polytheistic, except for the Jews. The lower class of the Empire were unhappy with their rulers, as they continued to fail to return prosperity to the Empire and paid ransom to the Huns. However, organizing a strike or a revolution was very hard, if not impossible because the differences among them were too great. They needed union in order to overthrow the ruling elite. Before I proceed, let me explain something.

In Roman times, the emperor was considered as a god-king, half god, half king, as such most of their power was based on religion, besides raw resources. When a god-king fails to bring rain and fertility, aka when resources run dry, they lose their credibility, causing instability in the system.

Christianity is a monotheistic religion, denying the existence of other gods and demi-gods, therefore posing a serious threat to the position of the ruling elite. Sounds almost too convenient if you ask me, utilizing religion, the one major weakness of the system, to bring it down. Civilizations have ''ditched'' gods all the time throughout history when they stopped being ''useful''.

The conversion from paganism to Christianity caused a great division within the Roman Empire, splitting them into the Western and the Eastern Empire. The Eastern Empire elite wholeheartedly embraced Christianity and continued to prosper until 1453, unlike the Western Empire whom elite did not want to lose their status as god-kings and vanished in 467, mainly due to too many cultural conflicts (from immigrants) within the empire.

This, and the credibility of the Bible make me doubt the existence of God as starred in Christianity.
That does not mean that I do not believe in a higher power, I simply do not believe in Intelligent Design, with all due respect but it sounds like the biggest bullshit I have ever heard of.

I believe in God, but he is not the God from the bible. There are no rules, no churches no choirs and rituals. Isn't God supposed to represent Goodness itself? Well, then why does he let so much suffering happen? In Intelligent Design and the God from the Bible this makes no sense. To me God, is not an omniscient, omnipresent being that created everything. God is balance, the flow of time and energy that somehow always restores things back to order, the way they are supposed to work and work best. In my daily life this means to help those in need, support who feels down and to temper huge egos. You know you have achieved balance when you feel happy and content with your life, you know you have helped someone find balance when they feel satisfied with their lives.

Balance is not an eternal pursuit to wealth and glee, no it is the quest to the silver-lining between the forces of destruction and creation of life. As such, I disregard the concepts of evil and good entirely for they are completely made up by men. Animals have no sense of morality but they do feel empathy because empathy is an emotion.
According to our own flawed logic, industrially butchering and processing beef is morally correct whereas, Chinese eating dogs is not. Both are forces of destruction, destruction or chaos does not make any distinction in what we refer to as morality. Why are the lives of dogs worth more than those of cows? because they look cute? No, because we emphasize with them. Because we make the conscious decision to condemn dog meat. Not because a bearded magical man in the sky tells us that dogs should not be eaten because they look cute.

Perhaps some Chinese think we are monsters for industrially butchering cows like this, in that case, who is morally correct? No one, because morality is subjective. No culture is superior over another, no religion is the true religion and nothing is the truth until you have proven it with empirical testing and/or logics.

Yes, as for now there is no empirical proof for the Big Bang you have me there but all the carbon dating, fossils, soil samples, moon stones, satellite images etc. are much more credible than a book written centuries after said events occurred.

So yes, I do believe that if I help others achieve their dreams, God will repay me in helping mine come true.
So yes, I do believe that if I help others achieve their dreams, Karma will repay me in helping mine come true.
So yes, I do believe that if I help others achieve their dreams, balance will repay me in helping mine come true.
Name it whatever you want, in the end it does not matter. It's just the flow of cause and effect that is so great and complex, I can only try to grasp it.

Now don't get me wrong here: because I discard morality does not make me killing psychopath, that idea is just laughable. Because I realize everything is just cause and effect, I may be even more aware of my choices than most of my peers. I have to carefully outweigh the pros and the cons of every decision I make, in order not to disturb the balance of my life and those around me. Murdering someone for the lulz just does not make any sense at all. It would wreck balance like a wrecking ball, I would make a family feel devastated for the rest of their lives and bad things would happen to me. It is just plain dumb to do such a thing.

My guideline is very simple:
1: Does it harm me?
2: Does it harm others?
If the answer is yes to any of these questions, I abort with whatever I was doing. There are exceptions in which you must make a decision for the greater good but that is another matter.

As for how to deal with other people, it is just as simple really.
1: Does it harm him/herself?
2: Does it harm others?
If the answer is yes to any of these questions, I will interfere. But if it is not, live and let live. As such, fandoms, fur-faggots and the like do not annoy me at all.

In short: I am agnostic for I believe that God exists but not as we portray him, heck, why am I even referring to him as male, he might just as well be female because it doesn't matter.