A Deteriorating State :: Morality in the 21st Century

So, as one becomes more educated, one also becomes more liberal? Will you back up that that is usually the case?

Not all liberals, just liberals in general. Liberal, conservative, religious fundamentalist, atheist, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc. are all systems of morality/beliefs. Agnosticism is the method of logical evaluation of only those things known, with no assumptions, upon which science, truth, and knowledge are built.Jon

That wasn't your original argument. Nor was it the argument against which I was arguing in my previous post.In addition, you've shown nothing, other than that education causes people to be less likely to believe in a literal Genesis account and more likely to accept something they were probably unfamiliar with before they began their education anyway”evolution. Does this mean they are more likely to be left-wing authoritarians, or does it show that they are less likely to be right-wing authoritarians?A couple of other points:Are people who accept evolution and reject a literal Genesis liberals?
What's the benefit in being a liberal over a religious fundamentalist?
This is off-topic, so one of us”probably me”should start a new topic, since this is an interesting conversation worth continuing, at least I think. Jon

BINGO!!@Y'all”
When I said that liberals and religious fundamentalists are the same thing, I meant in terms of deteriorating morals”which is the topic of this thread . Just like an Islamic fundamentalist, a Hindi fundamentalist, a Christian fundamentalist etc. are all grouped as 'religious fundamentalists' and called 'crazy'; so too can we group liberals and religious fundamentalists as 'extremists/fanatics' in recognizing their equal levels of moral deterioration.So @ Schraf, can you tell me”in regards to the topic”how a liberal is less/more morally deteriorated than a religious fundamentalist? If you cannot show any difference, then, within the context of this thread, they are the same thing”as I originally said .Sorry, ICANT, that I posted all that stuff to Schraf in your message; I hope you will forgive me .Jon

The liberal and the fundamentalist both think that the other should see it 'their way.' It's this kind of arrogance for their position that causes wars, etc. Neither side is ready to accept how the other side thinks and just move on with their lives. And Agnostics cannot do anything about it, because as far as they're concerned, it's not their place to sway people away from the arrogant mindset-or any mindset, even if it will one day bring the world into destruction. Bolding added. Notice, Schraf, she said ACT, not TEACH. And, in the sense of acting-movies, the media, etc.-the consequences of sex, such as STDs, pregnancies, etc. are often joked about, or dealt with in semi-intriguing ways that would almost make one desire to be a part of all the action. In terms of ACTING, there is a view portrayed that any problem resulting from sex can be dealt with in a Hollywood fashion. That makes you as guilty of legislating morality as are the pro-chastity gang. Tell me, why is it 'wrong' not to tell the gang of ineffectiveness of the program, and 'right' to tell them? Why is your position so much better?Jon Edited by AdminPD, : Warning