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?".
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.
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. 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.
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"?
--- 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.