I knew what you meant and still assert the same. They can't have comfort or happiness (because of the whole "i'm dying" thing). They know they're gonna end up dead from it soon enough anyway... the pain is unbearable, so it doesn't satisfy "comfort or happiness" in any way shape or form and it can't. They also know that it won't. Survival becomes death, as it is the only path to away from misery. At least that's what I was thinking when I typed it.
Without God, one pleads for the survival instinct -- and this is then the standard. Why would we have to *deserve* it, or earn it? Things are the way they are. How is one supposed to earn the right to live? It is a futile task. Whether things deserve to be the way they are, is eventually beyond us to say. That's *price*, not value. Wilde said, "Nowadays, people know the price of everything and the value of nothing." -- 'tis quite true. But it's true. Do we buy (or at least want to buy) the detergent that says "This is the best detergent" or do we buy the one that says "This is a good detergent, but there are many better ones"? We always go for the best, for the maximax, this is what we are taught. No wonder we think life is the most precious thing, no matter what. The message that is eventually sent by advocating euthanasia is that "If you are ill or old, you should not bother others with helping you, you should see yourself as a menace. Very old and ill people should not desire to live on, as desiring to live is recklessly selfish if one is old or ill." This idea isn't really nice, so it is propped up as "euthanasia, ending someone's pain and giving him a peaceful death". And what is most, many many old and ill people believe this in idea -- if they are old or ill, it is wrong to desire to live, so they want to die. Where does this urge to destroy come from?
Greetings. Some preliminaries: James: Congratulations. Ever seen the Chocolate Factory? Wonka took Charlie there once and put him through a test, the boy passed and in retort Wonka whispered " And so shines a good deed in a weary world...." If you notice, I had come back before you to edit out the profanities I could get to in the short time to do it in my posts. I had my eye on Gooffyfish, baiting him to come in here using Wes as I, quite brilliantly, used Fountainboy and Hathor in a History thread to prove my point. This time it was you- but you passed, however much I know you don't care either way. You fell through on a promise you made to me, edited both my posts as well as the piggie's, oops, Wesmorris. Remember always: "In all nations propounding the merits of freedom and truth, its leaders are to be held responsible to that credo. "- gendanken, written in that thread to show what a disservice this thing we call Goofyfish is to this community. And so I say, congratulations. A deed has shone in a weary, weary world. Tit for tat is what I mean by narcissistic. Ethics only exists reciprocally- nowhere in this system will you find a man who will act without expectation to fill the void of his deed. Do you not see this? My use of the word 'narcissistic' I feel is distracting people becuase they are tying it to my character. Alpha asks a question I've been pondering for a while and am not above admitting, bothers me: Capital Fuh Fuck. I too, on seeing the earlier responses, noticed that people were not getting my point clearly. Why? Things left unsaid, clarity is lacking, elaboration cuts off at the end. And its a shame to one who supposedly writes well. This means I'm starting a second thread continuing this one tomorrow. If you all don't all see it by tomorrow then you can all flush yourselves. Rosa: Love.
Considering the "without God" scenario is invalid by current evidences, the survival instinct is no standard. Such flimsy emotions based on fear cannot possibly be exalted as standards. This "survival instinct" that you tout simply points back to the vanity of vanities that humans hold, that their life somehow "matters" that they should continue living. Of course, there is not even evidence of this, since you go on to say that "things are the way they are". Things are just the way they are, is no explanation for the general human disease of vaingloriety. Since you say that it is beyond us to say, we can only correctly conclude from the available evidence (of which there is none to this point) that there is no "right" to live. After all, as you say, things are only just the way they are.
As I go on about later to Southstar, this is an incomplete idea. What we are facing is far more than the survival instinct. It may be based on such but is to the survival instinct as we are to our lowliest cell. I wonder. Is this thing dependent upon religion? Dependent upon the meek religion of Christianity in particular? Hmm. I wonder. Perhaps not in the best of situations. (Which we could say encompasses modern life.) When there is plenty for all then there is no reason to prove your worthiness of life. But, in more desperate times when many are dying for the sheer necessity of it, then one must prove themselves. Prove why they are worthy of life when so many die. And even today, many die throughout the world. Uncared for by us in the first world. It is our lives that are precious. Not theirs. To us, our lives our inherently valuable. And theirs are not. Ok, the truth is many of us do care about these dyers. But, most of couldn't bother to scrape up 15 cents to send to Africa to help out. Anyway, is this what's best for these people? Charity? Do they prove their inherent unworthiness by having to resort to charity? If a man cannot sustain his own life, should he have it? Yeah, you're right. But, that's the heart of my bitch. Price is becoming far too common. The price of life becomes too great. But, the value of life is infinite. Therefore we must do whatever we possibly can to ensure that life is maintained. Even when what is really being maintained is a doctor's fat pocketbook. And the insurance companies that benefit above all others. We're making judgements on things we don't understand. We're told what to think and we can only choose between what is offered. Did you know that there is a prevalence to choosing things on the right side of a selection? The testing companies use this to promote their particular product. Which is better A, B, or C? C being on the right is better just because it's on the right. There are a number of other tricks of this sort. Marketing is a science. Marketing rats are almost as bad as insurance scum. I have a hard time determining which is worse. Frankly. But, this is not what I'm talking about. There should be a strict protocol to follow. Assisted suicide should only be allowed in extreme cases. If the others wish to kill themselves, then they should do it the old-fashioned way. Assisted suicide is for those who can't even wipe their own asses. It's a hard thing, but a life of constant and increasing torture is a bit extreme, as well.
That's so sweet, Gendy. James should feel honored. So, when does he get the deed to the chocolate factory and ownership of the oompah loompahs? Ahh. That's what I thought you meant. Makes sense to me. And James? Playing into her hands that way? I should have caught the quote. I'm ashamed of myself. It is an old argument that nothing we do can be unselfish. That all we do is only because we want to. We need to. That the alternative to even supposedly 'selfless' acts is worse than whatever dangers one may put themselves in. Hmm. The definition of narcisism: nar·cis·sism (närs-szm) also nar·cism (-szm) n. Excessive love or admiration of oneself. See Synonyms at conceit. A psychological condition characterized by self-preoccupation, lack of empathy, and unconscious deficits in self-esteem. Erotic pleasure derived from contemplation or admiration of one's own body or self, especially as a fixation on or a regression to an infantile stage of development. The attribute of the human psyche charactized by admiration of oneself but within normal limits. So, by the definition, your use of it does seem a bit misleading. You use it in a way that expresses that nothing is done without some gain. Even if only psychological. Many would interject the selfless acts of those who act without thinking. The man who jumps into a burning building to rescue his dog. Things of that nature. Well, if you do something without knowing why, do you do it? Or that other inside of you? There are others in there, you know. We edge into the topic of self with this. As it always seems to. I must admit that perhaps this is misleading to an extent. It is not omnipotence that is had but 'apparent' omnipotence. Or possibly even 'potence'. A description of power. Of great men full of renown. It's a pity that so many get stuck on semantics and can't just look at this metaphorically. Flush me? No, FLUSH YOU!! Seriously, get to it. Maybe you could just add it this thread rather than start a whole new one. Unless you're going to go at it from another angle altogether?
Heh. If you say so. I suppose you've posted your proofs elsewhere then? I've stayed away from the religious forum for a time, why don't you post a link to your proofs. I could use a chuckle. Actually, the survival instinct just ensures that we don't all kill ourselves and end up as an extinct species. There are (have been) animals without a survival instinct, you know. They're all dead now. Without the will to survive, there is little chance of survival. It's easier to die than to live. But, this has nothing to do with the topic, I think. Survival instinct is just icing on the cake. It is a normal function that should not be fucked with. This thing that is prevalent in modern human society goes far beyond survival instinct. It plays on the survival instinct but is much more. It is survival by abstraction. Survival logic. We have placed our survival above the physical, above the mental, into the realm of the spiritual. It is a sin to kill. It is a sin to kill oneself. It is a sin to kill an unborn child (off-topic). It is this aspect of murder being a sin that has led us to this impasse. This sanctity of life. Things are as they are is an explanation for everything. It may not be a preferable explanation. It may just piss you off and go off looking for a better one, but that doesn't change the fact that things are the way they are not the way they are not. --------------------- Ok, I never triple post like this. But it was too long to make in one reply. So there it is. Screw you if you don't like it.
Any properly concieved apologetics document will tell you the same truths. Yes, and I'm saying that then does not make it the standard of whether or not life matters more than death. Surely, it could be that the will to survive is spiritual, then physical. Spontaneous generation by "physical" means has long been disproven. Just look at the flies in a jar experiment. Survival instinct is our conscience telling us not to give up. Conscience does not evolve from the amoral. Conscience is not a "normal" thing, aside from religious tenets that is. Without religion and consequently conscience, we are free to do whatever we want without fear. We can kill the person who stared at us for one second too long, knowing that wiping him out from the earth will actually leave no dent on "the way things are". That is no explanation. The only explanation is the "preferable" one, as you call it. Humans have as much right to live as rotting wood has to a presidential suite. Is that not just the way things are? There is NO standard which shows that we have more right to live than anything we kill. Next time you step on an ant, think of what "right" you have that it doesn't have and whether or not you deserve it. Perhaps then you will see my point that there really is no standard at all. ---------------------
... For each man kills what he loves? Only if "love" means 'feeling threatened by your own emotions you have for someone else'. Who says that?! What current evidneces? I'm not sure I understand. You are a theist, aren't you? The "survival instinct" is not just "flimsy emotions based on fear"! You must not forget that humans are a social species, and as such, natural instincts are socialized, institutionalized, made formal and abstract. If your car gets stolen, your survival instinct tells you to call the police, the insurance company etc. etc. -- the whole line of procedures and protocols that indeed don't look much alike fleeing from a rabid dog. But the motive is the same: survival. A living organism did NOT GIVE BIRTH TO ITSELF, it simply is alive, it was born of another living organism. It did not invent itself from scracth -- how can you blame a living organism to be alive, and say it has no right to live? Being vainglorious comes from humans having too easy lives, apparently. Our very capable reason has enabled us technologcal development that makes our lives quite easy. If *all* people had to work 18 hours a days, then they would not be vainglorious. With great technological development comes the great temptation of feeling like a god, so capable. The simple tribes have great respect for their work (for their life depends on that spear they have made) -- but Westerners have so many things made by work, that the respect for them gets minuscule, as it is diffused into a thousand things (take one away, and life is still imaginable, even moderatly good -- take away one thing from that tribal man, and it means death to him). For starters, that would not be economical. Just going and killing everyone you don't like would be exhausting. (However, if you wish to think in this direction, you can say that modern technology has made such means of destruction that mass killings don't cost a lot of energy. And that this makes it "feasible" to go and kill people just like that.) Secondly, I am not religious, (this probably means to you that I have no conscience), yet I don't go and do whatever I want without fear. How come? As I said to SouthStar, the survival instinct is socialized, institutionalized, made formal and abstract. No, not *no* reason: there is *no momentarily apparent* reason, but the reason is there all the time, only more silent in good times. So silent in fact, that we like to forget about it and do as if life is an utopia, or is supposed to be an utopia. Nobody *chose* to be born. This choice was made for each individual by other individuals. We cannot blame someone for being alive -- being alive is *originally* beyond our choice. The rest is a matter of social agreement. In some societies, this agreement is about honor, like in old Japan: if one did something dishonorable, one was obliged to take his/her own life. But modern Western society preaches moral relativism, subjectivity and such -- so there is no room for a standard like honor, so dipshits feel okay if they are alive, and the society has to keep them alive, as this very society said that morals are relative and that each individual is entitled to have his subjectivity. Solution? Have strict standards on honor, or shut up and let everyone live -- and face the consequences. Ah, witness Odysseus and the Syrenes: Odysseus had the ears of his men filled with wax, and he had himself tied to the mast while they were sailing through the Strait of the Syrenes. He heard the song that made men mad and die -- but he survived, on a trick. This kind of thinking is very very foreign to us now. But is says a lot about choice. See words for "justice" and "law" in other languages: das Recht (German, 'justice, law', literally 'the right'), die rechte Hand ('the right hand'); droit (French, 'right (hand, side etc.)', 'law'; pravo ('law', literally 'the right'). This is what modern life made possible: 200 years ago, one could easily die because of a broken leg -- infections. One couldn't be seriously ill for a long time -- as there were no medicine to postpone death in a manner as we have them today. This is odd. One doesn't die because one doesn't have a survival instinct! One dies because the other is stronger, or because one is injured, ill or starved. No matter how strong the survival instinct: if the forest or territory you are in catches fire, you are likely to die of suffocation. If a lion catches you and tears you apart, your survival instinct has little to offer: you simply are the physically weaker, that's why you die. BS. Have you tried?!
Ah. I thought you were saying the opposite to this earlier. You are correct of course. Even in the best of times there is a reason however sublimated. Only honor? Is that the criteria that we wish to use to choose? I'd think that there are other, more fitting, criteria. Such as productiveness. Ingenuity. Fortitude. Adaptability. Hell, a million reasons really. And, of course, none of us are in a position to actually enact these judgements on another or ourselves. We see through the mirror darkly. That's why I originally spoke only of assisted suicide in cases of devastating and fatal disease. It is easy to judge if someone should be allowed to die when their very existence is brutal pain from second to second and only guaranteed to get worse. Reminds me of Jim Jones who had his 'flock' commit suicide by drinking cyanide while he took the coward's way out with a bullet to the brain. As you likely know, cyanide is extremely painful. The muscle spasms are supposedly excruciating. What has always amazed me about this incident is that the final drinkers of the fatal kool-aid must have seen the convulsions and heard the cries of agony from those who were already dead and dying. That's will to die right there. Right hand of the blessed, left hand of the damned. Yes, the seeking of medical cures did usher in modern life in many ways. I'd argue that the industrial revolution had more to do with it, but one certainly goes with the other. But, that doesn't change the point. There are illnesses that will allow you to live for a goodly while, suffering the whole time. These people should be allowed their out door. If one has no instinct for survival then one does things which removes survival from him. If one is faced with danger the survival instinct says get the hell out of there. Without such an instinct, why bother? Well, obviously my survival instinct is working just fine. Thank you very much. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But, if I chose to die I could. Very easily. I would be dead in a matter of minutes. Living takes the rest of your life. Some times will be good, some times will be bad. Some times will be easy, some times will be hard. To die all we have to do is nothing. To live we must act. Doing nothing is easier than doing something. Remember, the only hard thing about dying is not surviving. And if you have no survival instinct, then that is easy indeed.
Rosa: Quite right. Congreve knew quite well why hell hath no fury as a woman scorned- she was in love. Easy on the sweets, fatso. I'm continuing here, seems you've all gone on tangentials and I have not been as clear as should be: http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=39295
I was only ridiculing the notion of survival without God. invert_nexus is on the right path, linking the "need" to live with God. I'm going from an agnostic perspective in this discussion to expose the logical inconsistency of atheists who believe that life has value. Therefore I just want you to know, that I don't actually believe this stuff. I'm only playing a role to make a point. Well, this is true. But all you have proven is that it really is based on fear. And fear, as we know, is a useless emotion in these circumstances. A dog that you don't think has as much right to live as you do, that you would place the value of your life above it, why then would you run from it? Because you think that your life is of such value that it is better to "survive"? That you would beg a masked gunman on your needs and forget pride just to live? And yet when you sink your teeth into steak you don't think twice? This is some survival instinct, as I said earlier, tracing back to arrogance. By your own argument, you are invalidating any killed "living organisms" that you eat. You will then be scoffing your own argument that we can't blame the living organism for having a right to live. Do you see where the inconsistency appears? If you then go back on your word and apply this exclusively to humans, then you have proven my argument that it is simply due to arrogance. I don't see the point of this paragraph. Are you therefore excusing the vaingloriety of (modern) man? Where there's a will, there's a way. Without the damning imposement of laws, which restricts freedom as it truly is, there is no restriction to killing anyone you please. See serial killers who, having found themselves under no law, can never be guilty of any murder. You cannot be guilty if you are not under a law. Having to been conceived on this planet, and immediately becoming crushed under the restrictions of the law is preposterous. Such foolishness only implies that every conscience is equal, when it is obviously not the case. People who don't have a problem with killing shouldn't be judged by the law since they are not under the rule of the law. This flimsy theory of survival instinct being institutionalized and socialized is an extension of this great folly that everyone has an "equal" conscience. Well that is a mistake made by many non-religious people, better known as atheists. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Everyone has a conscience. If you didn't have a conscience, you can never be held responsible and can never logically be under any law for there would be no value to upholding/breaking law.
Hey hey. Hold on there, bucko. That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm going on about more than need. It's the 'holiness' of life (for lack of a better word). It's what this thread is about. And, God is not necessarily the source. The God that you worship was originally the God of Abraham who did not push this great sanctity of life. The jews were murdering bastards when they entered the holy land raping, pillaging, killing every living thing they came across. It is what has been done to this God that is the problem. Christianity which blesses the meek for they shall inherit the earth. Turning the other cheek. Loving thy enemy. All that stuff. It's not about God but religion.
The Jews were no murdering bastards. They didn't do anything alien to the motto of their environment, "preemptive strike". The Jews in the Bible are also recorded as undergoing great suffering, from captivity in Egypt to bondage in the Roman empire as well as glorious victories and temple building and so on. Your generalization is unjustified. As I have been saying with rosa, without God, there is no "holiness" to life. We might as well kill anyone we please since there will be no punishment in the hereafter or fear of misfortune in retribution for our misdeeds. Kill one, kill a hundred, there will still be 6 billion people. But when you "factor" in God, the scenario changes and the individual becomes a special creation.
The christian god. Your god promotes meekness and mild-manners. Other gods promote other values. And, whatever you say, going into a land and killing everyone there is the definition of murdering bastard. Regardless of how they saw themselves. In fact, they'd probably laugh at you if you called them that for their actions. "Murder?" They'd say with an amused glint in their eyes, "Murder? How can you murder animals? These pigs were an abomination. They were not people. They had no right to life. We slaughtered them like the animals they are. It is the way." And, they'd be right according to their value system of the time. That's the point of this thread. According to our standards. According to your christian standards. What they did was heinous. Barbaric. Evil. Well, it would be if you could look at it objectively rather than heroically as a tale of your good book. If the story was told without names and location you'd (well, maybe not you in particular, but christians in general) be the first to call them murderous bastards. Do you deny it? As to 'holiness' to life. There are other gods with other versions of 'holiness'. Your god promotes weakness. Other gods promote strength. But, even those gods that promote strenth promote weakness (because belief in gods is weakness) and even your god who promotes weakness promotes strength (because it takes strength to be weak against all comers. Against all instincts.) But, you're lucky Gendanken has decided this thread has gone off course (and claimed fault for it by being vague in the original post), she'd tear you up for constantly talking god. God is not the point. God is a symptom. Religion is also a symptom. It's deeper issues she's after. I wonder if you'll ever go deeper than god? Deeper than your faith?
I never go deeper than the Truth. It is amusing that you talk about different standards since these actions are subject to the human conscience. That is our universal standard. I don't know why you tout culture as responsible for what this general factor regulates. Your conscience tells you that it is heinous, barabaric, evil. If you've read 'Lord of the Flies', you'll remember Jack hesitating to kill the pig. This is a good example of conscience at work. Conscience can be supressed in lawlessness but never destroyed. EDIT: I can't be blamed for bringing Christianity into the picture. I'm not the one who started the talk about Jews and religion in the first place.. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Bah. I've cooled a bit. Maybe I jumped on you a bit much for things you barely hinted at. I don't think you have it in you to play this role of devil's advocate. Sorry, but that's what I feel is the truth. I think you are far too much of a theist to even have a glimpse of understanding of an atheist/agnostic mentality. What do you mean by standard? The commonly held belief? We're dealing with instinct here, so the commonly held instinct? The average means of acting out this instinct? Of being controlled by it? See? You call this an atheistic viewpoint? HA! The will to survive is physical. Utterly and abjectly physical. You feel it in your gut. In your bowels, man! You don't get much more physical than the will to survive. I have no clue what you're getting at with this spontaneous generation stuff. No, it's our guts telling us to get the fuck out of Dodge. I have no belief in god, yet I at times hesitate at killing ants. Strangely, killing flies doesn't bother me. But, I do hesitate at some little deaths. Am I a victim of the prevalent mentality? Certainly. I cannot claim otherwise. But, it's not from god that these things come. It is from societal pressures. From abstraction. From placing myself in the ant's place. Vicariousness. The ant has no power to conceive of itself as me. Yet, I can think of me being it. Even though that conception is surely flawed. I am still capable of this. However, killing another human is another story. I wouldn't just kill for the sheer pleasure of it. Although, once begun, a life of murder would become more and more easy. More and more joyful. More and more empty. But, I think that the reason most people don't just go off and kill (or try to kill) any who piss them off is consequences. Death penalty in some places. Serious jail time in others. Threats of being raped in jail probably more effective than the jail time itself. These things keep people on the straight and narrow. It is when people stop caring about themselves that they become killers. It is when they stop fearing consequences that they turn to murder. Narcissism? Hmm. That last certainly leads one to believe that maybe it is so. Narcisissm keeps us from killing because a.) the consequences are too damaging to our selves, b.) ingrained ethical codes (guilt) would haunt us afterwards. Both of these things are effects done to the killer (or potential killer) not the killed. Reasons for not killing are personal. Narcisistic. Heh. I have. Poor little blighter. But, some days I rise up as a vengeful god and strike great fear and trembling into the little ants that scurry about below me. I walk amongst them as a vengeful god. Killing and maiming as I go. But, usually I let them live in peace. They don't bother me. I don't bother them. Maybe they'll even clean up that dead toad that the neighbor kids were playing baseball with. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
How very... atheistic of you. What do you mean human conscience as a universal standard? I've already related the story of the jews entering the holy land. The Romans were just as bad. The greeks held ambition up as the highest moral. Values change. There is no standard. There can be a standard for a time. For a given place. Social circumstances. But even these vary. The books of old tell stories reveling in things that would make the modern human cringe in grotesquerie and horror. The ancient ones would lick it up and beg for more. Jack was very, VERY Christian. Do you deny this? And even christians have been known to be brutal when they sufficiently demonize their enemy. When they are no longer slaughtering humans but monsters. Demons. Devils. Do you deny this? There is no universal standard. No universal morale constant. There is just the fleeting instances of now. And even now is actually then. Tomorrow comes and soon a new value system will erase the old. Fast or slow. It will come. If not then humanity will fade as any other species that could not adapt. Another failed experiment. Edit: Ahh. But I spoke of religion and a society. You took these things and interpolated God from them. Two different things. And you even attempted to claim an atheistic reasoning behind it. Ha! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! However, you are correct. And I probably shouldn't have done so knowing your propensities. I should have stuck with the Romans, Greeks, etc... That way you would have no excuse. Or no alibi anyway. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The truth is self-attesting. Can't make it anymore truthful than it already is really. http://www.christiancourier.com/penpoints/insensitive.htm Just an article that has a little to do with what we are talking about. You can skip past the Bible stuff if you want to, I'm not forcing you. I am all to skeptic of this idea of yours that the "ancient ones" "licked up" gruesome stories, while we shudder at such ideas (esp. from some of the ideas that the article brings). This is a great generalization first of all, secondly I don't know of any report that verifies this. Jack was but human. I don't deny this. Christians aren't any more "moral" than anyone else. As you have noticed, there are lazy Christians and there are active Christians. Christians don't "slaughter" demons, or evil spirits or whatever. If that was the job of a Christian, then they obviously wouldn't need God. The universal standard is conscience. Among tribes in remote places who have no law as we do, surely do you not consider that their consciences are a law unto themselves, their thoughts accusing or else excusing their actions? --- This article from the Encyclopaedia Britannica (as if you didn't know by now Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ) might be of some help: Historically, almost every culture has recognized the existence of such a faculty. Ancient Egyptians, for example, were urged not to transgress against the dictates of the heart, for one “must stand in fear of departing from its guidance.” In some belief systems, conscience is regarded as the voice of God and therefore a completely reliable guide of conduct: among the Hindus it is considered “the invisible God who dwells within us.” Among Western religious groups, the Society of Friends (or Quakers) places particular emphasis on the role of conscience in apprehending and responding through conduct to the “Inner Light” of God. Outside the context of religion (obviously implying that conscience is available to BOTH the religious and the non religious), philosophers, social scientists, and psychologists have sought to understand conscience in both its individual and universal aspects. The view that holds conscience to be an innate, intuitive faculty determining the perception of right and wrong is called intuitionism. The view that holds conscience to be a cumulative and subjective inference from past experience giving direction to future conduct is called empiricism. ------------- This text obviously shows that conscience is universal. Now I did NOT say that everyone was "subject" to their conscience, since I agreed that the conscience can be subdued (but not destroyed) through deeds of lawlessness. That however does not make the person any less accountable to the natural standard of right and wrong.
Ok, how about this. Conscience is universal. But one man's conscience is not another man's conscience. The values held by the two are rarely the same. Even in the same society in the same time. Now, you mentioned primitive tribesman and how their consciences surely rule the show. These tribes generally have a highly complex system of codes and rules. When one breaks a rule or taboo then certain consequences befall. Warfare, for instance. Bloody and brutal. Maybe to be appeased later by a sharing of women (good for all tribes. A sharing of blood amongst isolated communities.) But, the thing is that their codes of conduct are not our codes of conduct. They might not blink twice about slitting the throat of a non-tribesman coming into their lands. Or they may become greatly offended if you have the audicity to show them the bottom of your foot (this is an actual taboo in places, so I've heard). So, perhaps all humans have some form of conscience, it is generally a personal thing. Only in the modern age has it become this great thing that demands that all life is sacred. In the past it was limited to the few in your family, community, tribe. Now our tribe is the whole of humanity (except for brown-skinned peoples. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Kidding. But some don't). I haven't looked at your link yet. I'll check it out, but I'm afraid that it's not going to convince me that the ancients weren't brutal. Maybe they had a conscience. But their conscience involved them. They would fly into brutal heights of rage over the slightest harm to theirs, but they would have no qualms about taking the children of their enemies about their ankles and bashing their heads against the stones. This is a fact. If you only believe the bible as fact, then look up Psalm 137 it's right there in black and white. That's brutal reality. They loved that stuff. They ate it up.