FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Should religion and politics be mixed?
Should religion and politics be mixed?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 )
Op. My view is, let those that want to talk about those two subjects do it, and stop pushing it onto everyone else.
Politicians talk as much shite as those that preach religion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No fucking way. Never "  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Put it this way, secular ethics is an oxymoron. You can't just come up with an consistent ethical framework by chance. " That is utter nonsense , completely untrue | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Put it this way, secular ethics is an oxymoron. You can't just come up with an consistent ethical framework by chance. That is utter nonsense , completely untrue" Great debating technique. It's entirely true and even the more sensible atheists like Sam Harris have this concern. Ultimately secular ethics is easily dismantled by just asking "why?" enough times. Why is that wrong? Eventually you'll find yourself in a circular logic if you do it honestly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No, in my opinion religion and politics should not be mixed and all education should be secular. "
all state-funded education, yes
keep religion in the churches and politics in the politics forum
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No. Not at all. But if they keep pushing Islam I will take the sword of Christendom. The problem is we got over Christianity...became agnostic....now peado mad mo is raising his satanic head across Britain. They do this thing called "Taqiya" and gullable modern people tend to not clock on to it. When the Koran says "take neither Jew not Christian as friends" most liberals won't take it seriously untill they go cycling in Uzbekistan and get their heads cut off by muzzers. Shoot me for having an opinion... Or behead me for stateing fact. Or ban/arrest me for being politicly incorrect... It's not me who is the fool." And what do you think of the war cry of the bible to commit genocide of any peoples who refuse to submit to its teachings? The bible is the most violent book ever written, yet we hand it out glibly to children. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No. Not at all. But if they keep pushing Islam I will take the sword of Christendom. The problem is we got over Christianity...became agnostic....now peado mad mo is raising his satanic head across Britain. They do this thing called "Taqiya" and gullable modern people tend to not clock on to it. When the Koran says "take neither Jew not Christian as friends" most liberals won't take it seriously untill they go cycling in Uzbekistan and get their heads cut off by muzzers. Shoot me for having an opinion... Or behead me for stateing fact. Or ban/arrest me for being politicly incorrect... It's not me who is the fool. And what do you think of the war cry of the bible to commit genocide of any peoples who refuse to submit to its teachings? The bible is the most violent book ever written, yet we hand it out glibly to children." . Nobody takes it seriously though, even the arch bishop is an agnostic. When we get agnostic Islamic leaders I reckon your probably right and it will no longer be the problem it is today | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Put it this way, secular ethics is an oxymoron. You can't just come up with an consistent ethical framework by chance. That is utter nonsense , completely untrue Great debating technique. It's entirely true and even the more sensible atheists like Sam Harris have this concern. Ultimately secular ethics is easily dismantled by just asking "why?" enough times. Why is that wrong? Eventually you'll find yourself in a circular logic if you do it honestly. " You can equally ask why she should obey the dictates of a supernatural entity. Choosing to do with that is just as much a choice as choosing to abide by any other system of ethics. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Put it this way, secular ethics is an oxymoron. You can't just come up with an consistent ethical framework by chance. That is utter nonsense , completely untrue Great debating technique. It's entirely true and even the more sensible atheists like Sam Harris have this concern. Ultimately secular ethics is easily dismantled by just asking "why?" enough times. Why is that wrong? Eventually you'll find yourself in a circular logic if you do it honestly. You can equally ask why she should obey the dictates of a supernatural entity. Choosing to do with that is just as much a choice as choosing to abide by any other system of ethics. " Of course there would be a couple of fundamental questions that totally negate the concept of morality originating from a deity, the first would be, follow which one There are hundreds of human invented god concepts with a vast number of DIFFERING moral codes and it is not possible to know which one to follow Second because I'm sure I will be told there is ONLY ONE and it is Yahweh , then there is indeed a book containing it's moral code , yet within this book the codes are contradictory and unclear In BOTH above cases it is the mind of the human that ultimately decides which and what it considers moral No circular logic however with the myriad of conflicting suggestions it's not surprising many humans make bad choices or their brain explodes (metaphorically) However I'm sure this will be a waste of text and time and thus UTTER NONSENSE, is more than appropriate Xxx | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you look at the teachings of Jesus it's not violent or evil. If you look at Mohamed it is evil. I've studied enough Christianity and read the bible. The new testament isn't evil. Indoctrinated liberals will claim new testament is evil but you can't pull such references like I can from the Koran. Spanish inquisition and the Catholic church is not representing Jesus or the new testament. But isis/alquida/boko harram....they directly follow the Koran and it's totally justified. Christians cannot kill but war is a different and necesary scenario." Oh I see, so everything Christians do that is evil is not really done by Christians, but anything muslims do that is evil, is truly Islamic. Not that your biased. The Bible has plenty of blood thirsty verses, mostly in the old testament admittedly, but Jesus's confirmed the validity of said book. See Matthew 5.18 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Put it this way, secular ethics is an oxymoron. You can't just come up with an consistent ethical framework by chance. That is utter nonsense , completely untrue Great debating technique. It's entirely true and even the more sensible atheists like Sam Harris have this concern. Ultimately secular ethics is easily dismantled by just asking "why?" enough times. Why is that wrong? Eventually you'll find yourself in a circular logic if you do it honestly. You can equally ask why she should obey the dictates of a supernatural entity. Choosing to do with that is just as much a choice as choosing to abide by any other system of ethics. Of course there would be a couple of fundamental questions that totally negate the concept of morality originating from a deity, the first would be, follow which one There are hundreds of human invented god concepts with a vast number of DIFFERING moral codes and it is not possible to know which one to follow Second because I'm sure I will be told there is ONLY ONE and it is Yahweh , then there is indeed a book containing it's moral code , yet within this book the codes are contradictory and unclear In BOTH above cases it is the mind of the human that ultimately decides which and what it considers moral No circular logic however with the myriad of conflicting suggestions it's not surprising many humans make bad choices or their brain explodes (metaphorically) However I'm sure this will be a waste of text and time and thus UTTER NONSENSE, is more than appropriate Xxx " Human morality obviously is not derived from religion .You might as well say that there was no love before religion . Religion uses morality for its own purposes . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Put it this way, secular ethics is an oxymoron. You can't just come up with an consistent ethical framework by chance. That is utter nonsense , completely untrue Great debating technique. It's entirely true and even the more sensible atheists like Sam Harris have this concern. Ultimately secular ethics is easily dismantled by just asking "why?" enough times. Why is that wrong? Eventually you'll find yourself in a circular logic if you do it honestly. You can equally ask why she should obey the dictates of a supernatural entity. Choosing to do with that is just as much a choice as choosing to abide by any other system of ethics. " Because the supernatural entity gives you the one vital ingredient that secular ethics can never have - permanence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Nobody takes it seriously though, even the arch bishop is an agnostic. Think you need to look around. Far too many people take it the Bibleseriously. " . Not in this country? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Put it this way, secular ethics is an oxymoron. You can't just come up with an consistent ethical framework by chance. That is utter nonsense , completely untrue Great debating technique. It's entirely true and even the more sensible atheists like Sam Harris have this concern. Ultimately secular ethics is easily dismantled by just asking "why?" enough times. Why is that wrong? Eventually you'll find yourself in a circular logic if you do it honestly. You can equally ask why she should obey the dictates of a supernatural entity. Choosing to do with that is just as much a choice as choosing to abide by any other system of ethics. Of course there would be a couple of fundamental questions that totally negate the concept of morality originating from a deity, the first would be, follow which one There are hundreds of human invented god concepts with a vast number of DIFFERING moral codes and it is not possible to know which one to follow " Irrelevant to the truth of any individal one " Second because I'm sure I will be told there is ONLY ONE and it is Yahweh , then there is indeed a book containing it's moral code , yet within this book the codes are contradictory and unclear " Not true, you just didn't understand them " In BOTH above cases it is the mind of the human that ultimately decides which and what it considers moral " Again, not true. This is why religion is always getting called backwards, because it doesn't update with popular opinion " No circular logic however with the myriad of conflicting suggestions it's not surprising many humans make bad choices or their brain explodes (metaphorically) However I'm sure this will be a waste of text and time and thus UTTER NONSENSE, is more than appropriate Xxx " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Nobody takes it seriously though, even the arch bishop is an agnostic. Think you need to look around. Far too many people take it the Bibleseriously. " Some have an agenda to portray Christianity as a wishy washy harmless belief and other religions as a crazy death cult .When in fact Christianity and islam have predominantly the same Abrahamic foundation . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Nobody takes it seriously though, even the arch bishop is an agnostic. Think you need to look around. Far too many people take it the Bibleseriously. Some have an agenda to portray Christianity as a wishy washy harmless belief and other religions as a crazy death cult .When in fact Christianity and islam have predominantly the same Abrahamic foundation ." So there's an equal proportion of Christian and Islamic terror attacks in the last decade are there? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Put it this way, secular ethics is an oxymoron. You can't just come up with an consistent ethical framework by chance. That is utter nonsense , completely untrue Great debating technique. It's entirely true and even the more sensible atheists like Sam Harris have this concern. Ultimately secular ethics is easily dismantled by just asking "why?" enough times. Why is that wrong? Eventually you'll find yourself in a circular logic if you do it honestly. You can equally ask why she should obey the dictates of a supernatural entity. Choosing to do with that is just as much a choice as choosing to abide by any other system of ethics. Because the supernatural entity gives you the one vital ingredient that secular ethics can never have - permanence. " Let's assume for the sake of argument the Catholics are right and that God exists and that he says I shouldn't use contraception. Why should I do what he says? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“ And kill them wherever you find them…(2:191 koran) Vs "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished" (Mathew 5:18 NIV) Jesus and his followers were "passive agressive" "i will let my god punish you when you die'..kind of people. It's a massive contrast in comparison to Mohamed and his followers. "I like your Jesus but I don't like your christians" " Plucking verses out of religious texts is not religion! Or if it is, it’s very bad religion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All religions should be banned." Agreed | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Nobody takes it seriously though, even the arch bishop is an agnostic. Think you need to look around. Far too many people take it the Bibleseriously. Some have an agenda to portray Christianity as a wishy washy harmless belief and other religions as a crazy death cult .When in fact Christianity and islam have predominantly the same Abrahamic foundation . So there's an equal proportion of Christian and Islamic terror attacks in the last decade are there? " Yeah let's only count the last ten years .I have to keep reminding myself we live a post truth age. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No. Not at all. But if they keep pushing Islam I will take the sword of Christendom. The problem is we got over Christianity...became agnostic....now peado mad mo is raising his satanic head across Britain. They do this thing called "Taqiya" and gullable modern people tend to not clock on to it. When the Koran says "take neither Jew not Christian as friends" most liberals won't take it seriously untill they go cycling in Uzbekistan and get their heads cut off by muzzers. Shoot me for having an opinion... Or behead me for stateing fact. Or ban/arrest me for being politicly incorrect... It's not me who is the fool." Do you think every single Muslim is practising taqiya? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Put it this way, secular ethics is an oxymoron. You can't just come up with an consistent ethical framework by chance. That is utter nonsense , completely untrue Great debating technique. It's entirely true and even the more sensible atheists like Sam Harris have this concern. Ultimately secular ethics is easily dismantled by just asking "why?" enough times. Why is that wrong? Eventually you'll find yourself in a circular logic if you do it honestly. You can equally ask why she should obey the dictates of a supernatural entity. Choosing to do with that is just as much a choice as choosing to abide by any other system of ethics. Because the supernatural entity gives you the one vital ingredient that secular ethics can never have - permanence. Let's assume for the sake of argument the Catholics are right and that God exists and that he says I shouldn't use contraception. Why should I do what he says? " Interesting example, Catholics don't claim that God said don't use condoms. The condoms thing is a belief derived from a series of logical statements from things God did say. Naturally, Jesus didn't say much about social media addiction either. I'm not sure what point you want to get at? Do I think there's room for error in all those logical steps - absolutely. What I really care about are the big issues -the life and death stuff. Frankly that's where secular ethics are an epic failure because there is simply no moral case you can make for abortion after a maximum of 9 weeks. I've listened to tens of hours of debate on this, so no offense but you haven't got any ideas I haven't heard on that point. I've listened, The attempts to create a moral justification aren't remotely convincing. It's just that the people who are for it, vote and the people it kills, don't. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Nobody takes it seriously though, even the arch bishop is an agnostic. Think you need to look around. Far too many people take it the Bibleseriously. Some have an agenda to portray Christianity as a wishy washy harmless belief and other religions as a crazy death cult .When in fact Christianity and islam have predominantly the same Abrahamic foundation . So there's an equal proportion of Christian and Islamic terror attacks in the last decade are there? Yeah let's only count the last ten years .I have to keep reminding myself we live a post truth age. "Sure, lets not make decisions on facts and data. How long would you like to go back? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Put it this way, secular ethics is an oxymoron. You can't just come up with an consistent ethical framework by chance. That is utter nonsense , completely untrue Great debating technique. It's entirely true and even the more sensible atheists like Sam Harris have this concern. Ultimately secular ethics is easily dismantled by just asking "why?" enough times. Why is that wrong? Eventually you'll find yourself in a circular logic if you do it honestly. You can equally ask why she should obey the dictates of a supernatural entity. Choosing to do with that is just as much a choice as choosing to abide by any other system of ethics. Because the supernatural entity gives you the one vital ingredient that secular ethics can never have - permanence. Let's assume for the sake of argument the Catholics are right and that God exists and that he says I shouldn't use contraception. Why should I do what he says? Interesting example, Catholics don't claim that God said don't use condoms. The condoms thing is a belief derived from a series of logical statements from things God did say. Naturally, Jesus didn't say much about social media addiction either. I'm not sure what point you want to get at? Do I think there's room for error in all those logical steps - absolutely. What I really care about are the big issues -the life and death stuff. Frankly that's where secular ethics are an epic failure because there is simply no moral case you can make for abortion after a maximum of 9 weeks. I've listened to tens of hours of debate on this, so no offense but you haven't got any ideas I haven't heard on that point. I've listened, The attempts to create a moral justification aren't remotely convincing. It's just that the people who are for it, vote and the people it kills, don't. " No, my point is even I accept God exists and has mandated a system of ethics, why should I do something because "God says you should"? Why this any more any more persuasive than a Marxist saying I should do what's in the interests of the proletariat or a a utilitarian saying I should do wha forwards the greatest happiness of the greatest number? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Nobody takes it seriously though, even the arch bishop is an agnostic. Think you need to look around. Far too many people take it the Bibleseriously. Some have an agenda to portray Christianity as a wishy washy harmless belief and other religions as a crazy death cult .When in fact Christianity and islam have predominantly the same Abrahamic foundation . So there's an equal proportion of Christian and Islamic terror attacks in the last decade are there? Yeah let's only count the last ten years .I have to keep reminding myself we live a post truth age.
Sure, lets not make decisions on facts and data. How long would you like to go back? "Apparently 10 years is all the data required for you to make up your mind otherwise you wouldn't of used such a short period .Im guessing you didn't want catholic and Protestant terrorism to muddy the waters or any other Christian form of terrorism to get in the way of the "Islam bad Christianity good " agenda. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No, in my opinion religion and politics should not be mixed and all education should be secular. " ^^^^^^^ This | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Nobody takes it seriously though, even the arch bishop is an agnostic. Think you need to look around. Far too many people take it the Bibleseriously. Some have an agenda to portray Christianity as a wishy washy harmless belief and other religions as a crazy death cult .When in fact Christianity and islam have predominantly the same Abrahamic foundation . So there's an equal proportion of Christian and Islamic terror attacks in the last decade are there? Yeah let's only count the last ten years .I have to keep reminding myself we live a post truth age.
Sure, lets not make decisions on facts and data. How long would you like to go back?
Apparently 10 years is all the data required for you to make up your mind otherwise you wouldn't of used such a short period .Im guessing you didn't want catholic and Protestant terrorism to muddy the waters or any other Christian form of terrorism to get in the way of the "Islam bad Christianity good " agenda. "I picked 10 years because i could get all the data from one source. I'm sure you appreciate that there aren't many institutions that are thousands of years old, with standardised data sets. Dodge the issue all you like but what you call "islamaphobia" is fuelled by the PC crowd refusing to acknowledge any difference between people of different cultures. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Put it this way, secular ethics is an oxymoron. You can't just come up with an consistent ethical framework by chance. That is utter nonsense , completely untrue Great debating technique. It's entirely true and even the more sensible atheists like Sam Harris have this concern. Ultimately secular ethics is easily dismantled by just asking "why?" enough times. Why is that wrong? Eventually you'll find yourself in a circular logic if you do it honestly. You can equally ask why she should obey the dictates of a supernatural entity. Choosing to do with that is just as much a choice as choosing to abide by any other system of ethics. Because the supernatural entity gives you the one vital ingredient that secular ethics can never have - permanence. Let's assume for the sake of argument the Catholics are right and that God exists and that he says I shouldn't use contraception. Why should I do what he says? Interesting example, Catholics don't claim that God said don't use condoms. The condoms thing is a belief derived from a series of logical statements from things God did say. Naturally, Jesus didn't say much about social media addiction either. I'm not sure what point you want to get at? Do I think there's room for error in all those logical steps - absolutely. What I really care about are the big issues -the life and death stuff. Frankly that's where secular ethics are an epic failure because there is simply no moral case you can make for abortion after a maximum of 9 weeks. I've listened to tens of hours of debate on this, so no offense but you haven't got any ideas I haven't heard on that point. I've listened, The attempts to create a moral justification aren't remotely convincing. It's just that the people who are for it, vote and the people it kills, don't. No, my point is even I accept God exists and has mandated a system of ethics, why should I do something because "God says you should"? Why this any more any more persuasive than a Marxist saying I should do what's in the interests of the proletariat or a a utilitarian saying I should do wha forwards the greatest happiness of the greatest number? " Excellent question that really gets the heart of the issue. In theory, you can develop a system of ethics based on the work of a human (e.g Marx). But Marx lacks the pernanmence aspect because Marx was not claiming to be supernatural. By pernanmence, I don't (just) mean eternal. I also mean infallible. For example, why can I not say that Marx had all the right ideas about a perfect society, use that to justify a dictatorship that kills 60m of its population? Even if "that wasn't proper Marxism" which the left always bleat, it's what always happens because you can always overrule the bits of Marx you don't like. So you ask a great question: why should I do something because "God says you should"? - because God, by definition, is always right. Ultimately ethics does boil down to a faith in something greater than yourself. Scary as that is to acknowledge. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Put it this way, secular ethics is an oxymoron. You can't just come up with an consistent ethical framework by chance. That is utter nonsense , completely untrue Great debating technique. It's entirely true and even the more sensible atheists like Sam Harris have this concern. Ultimately secular ethics is easily dismantled by just asking "why?" enough times. Why is that wrong? Eventually you'll find yourself in a circular logic if you do it honestly. You can equally ask why she should obey the dictates of a supernatural entity. Choosing to do with that is just as much a choice as choosing to abide by any other system of ethics. Because the supernatural entity gives you the one vital ingredient that secular ethics can never have - permanence. Let's assume for the sake of argument the Catholics are right and that God exists and that he says I shouldn't use contraception. Why should I do what he says? Interesting example, Catholics don't claim that God said don't use condoms. The condoms thing is a belief derived from a series of logical statements from things God did say. Naturally, Jesus didn't say much about social media addiction either. I'm not sure what point you want to get at? Do I think there's room for error in all those logical steps - absolutely. What I really care about are the big issues -the life and death stuff. Frankly that's where secular ethics are an epic failure because there is simply no moral case you can make for abortion after a maximum of 9 weeks. I've listened to tens of hours of debate on this, so no offense but you haven't got any ideas I haven't heard on that point. I've listened, The attempts to create a moral justification aren't remotely convincing. It's just that the people who are for it, vote and the people it kills, don't. No, my point is even I accept God exists and has mandated a system of ethics, why should I do something because "God says you should"? Why this any more any more persuasive than a Marxist saying I should do what's in the interests of the proletariat or a a utilitarian saying I should do wha forwards the greatest happiness of the greatest number? Excellent question that really gets the heart of the issue. In theory, you can develop a system of ethics based on the work of a human (e.g Marx). But Marx lacks the pernanmence aspect because Marx was not claiming to be supernatural. By pernanmence, I don't (just) mean eternal. I also mean infallible. For example, why can I not say that Marx had all the right ideas about a perfect society, use that to justify a dictatorship that kills 60m of its population? Even if "that wasn't proper Marxism" which the left always bleat, it's what always happens because you can always overrule the bits of Marx you don't like. So you ask a great question: why should I do something because "God says you should"? - because God, by definition, is always right. Ultimately ethics does boil down to a faith in something greater than yourself. Scary as that is to acknowledge. " Yes, but what about the progressive/evolutionary nature of religion. God is not unchanging in the Hebrew Scriptures. Understanding of orthodoxy is always mediated through men. Jesus regularly said ‘you have heard it said, but I say to you...’ God is not static. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Put it this way, secular ethics is an oxymoron. You can't just come up with an consistent ethical framework by chance. That is utter nonsense , completely untrue Great debating technique. It's entirely true and even the more sensible atheists like Sam Harris have this concern. Ultimately secular ethics is easily dismantled by just asking "why?" enough times. Why is that wrong? Eventually you'll find yourself in a circular logic if you do it honestly. You can equally ask why she should obey the dictates of a supernatural entity. Choosing to do with that is just as much a choice as choosing to abide by any other system of ethics. Because the supernatural entity gives you the one vital ingredient that secular ethics can never have - permanence. Let's assume for the sake of argument the Catholics are right and that God exists and that he says I shouldn't use contraception. Why should I do what he says? Interesting example, Catholics don't claim that God said don't use condoms. The condoms thing is a belief derived from a series of logical statements from things God did say. Naturally, Jesus didn't say much about social media addiction either. I'm not sure what point you want to get at? Do I think there's room for error in all those logical steps - absolutely. What I really care about are the big issues -the life and death stuff. Frankly that's where secular ethics are an epic failure because there is simply no moral case you can make for abortion after a maximum of 9 weeks. I've listened to tens of hours of debate on this, so no offense but you haven't got any ideas I haven't heard on that point. I've listened, The attempts to create a moral justification aren't remotely convincing. It's just that the people who are for it, vote and the people it kills, don't. No, my point is even I accept God exists and has mandated a system of ethics, why should I do something because "God says you should"? Why this any more any more persuasive than a Marxist saying I should do what's in the interests of the proletariat or a a utilitarian saying I should do wha forwards the greatest happiness of the greatest number? Excellent question that really gets the heart of the issue. In theory, you can develop a system of ethics based on the work of a human (e.g Marx). But Marx lacks the pernanmence aspect because Marx was not claiming to be supernatural. By pernanmence, I don't (just) mean eternal. I also mean infallible. For example, why can I not say that Marx had all the right ideas about a perfect society, use that to justify a dictatorship that kills 60m of its population? Even if "that wasn't proper Marxism" which the left always bleat, it's what always happens because you can always overrule the bits of Marx you don't like. So you ask a great question: why should I do something because "God says you should"? - because God, by definition, is always right. Ultimately ethics does boil down to a faith in something greater than yourself. Scary as that is to acknowledge. Yes, but what about the progressive/evolutionary nature of religion. God is not unchanging in the Hebrew Scriptures. Understanding of orthodoxy is always mediated through men. Jesus regularly said ‘you have heard it said, but I say to you...’ God is not static. " Good question, way too complicated to answer on this forum but basically a priest would tell you God is static, at least in the way you're using the term. I'm not a theologian so i can't give you every answer, but you frame the question in a way that would be a non-starter with a priest. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Put it this way, secular ethics is an oxymoron. You can't just come up with an consistent ethical framework by chance. That is utter nonsense , completely untrue Great debating technique. It's entirely true and even the more sensible atheists like Sam Harris have this concern. Ultimately secular ethics is easily dismantled by just asking "why?" enough times. Why is that wrong? Eventually you'll find yourself in a circular logic if you do it honestly. You can equally ask why she should obey the dictates of a supernatural entity. Choosing to do with that is just as much a choice as choosing to abide by any other system of ethics. Because the supernatural entity gives you the one vital ingredient that secular ethics can never have - permanence. Let's assume for the sake of argument the Catholics are right and that God exists and that he says I shouldn't use contraception. Why should I do what he says? Interesting example, Catholics don't claim that God said don't use condoms. The condoms thing is a belief derived from a series of logical statements from things God did say. Naturally, Jesus didn't say much about social media addiction either. I'm not sure what point you want to get at? Do I think there's room for error in all those logical steps - absolutely. What I really care about are the big issues -the life and death stuff. Frankly that's where secular ethics are an epic failure because there is simply no moral case you can make for abortion after a maximum of 9 weeks. I've listened to tens of hours of debate on this, so no offense but you haven't got any ideas I haven't heard on that point. I've listened, The attempts to create a moral justification aren't remotely convincing. It's just that the people who are for it, vote and the people it kills, don't. No, my point is even I accept God exists and has mandated a system of ethics, why should I do something because "God says you should"? Why this any more any more persuasive than a Marxist saying I should do what's in the interests of the proletariat or a a utilitarian saying I should do wha forwards the greatest happiness of the greatest number? Excellent question that really gets the heart of the issue. In theory, you can develop a system of ethics based on the work of a human (e.g Marx). But Marx lacks the pernanmence aspect because Marx was not claiming to be supernatural. By pernanmence, I don't (just) mean eternal. I also mean infallible. For example, why can I not say that Marx had all the right ideas about a perfect society, use that to justify a dictatorship that kills 60m of its population? Even if "that wasn't proper Marxism" which the left always bleat, it's what always happens because you can always overrule the bits of Marx you don't like. So you ask a great question: why should I do something because "God says you should"? - because God, by definition, is always right. Ultimately ethics does boil down to a faith in something greater than yourself. Scary as that is to acknowledge. " If it turned out the Christian God existed and said one should obey the Christian system of morals, I still wouldn't because I think they are nonsense. Saying that "God is always right" wouldn't cut it for me. If you create human beings who are able to reason independently, you will never get people agreeing to a system of morality purely because God says so and he is always right. Basically, there are no permanent systems of morality, never have been and never will be. Religious believers who assert their preferred system of morality as permanent are showing similar totalitarian tendencies to the Marxists. (and, of course, they are quite happy to change their "permanent" system of morality when everyone else starts to think it nonsense. - see slavery, homosexuality, non believers being condemned to hell etc etc) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On a poll it said 23% yes and 77% said no, lets have a debate about your stance on secularism. I dont think it should be mixed, but if it is used correctly it could work, without the extreme sides, whats your view?" We’re you having an interesting discussion with someone about it OP ?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Put it this way, secular ethics is an oxymoron. You can't just come up with an consistent ethical framework by chance. That is utter nonsense , completely untrue Great debating technique. It's entirely true and even the more sensible atheists like Sam Harris have this concern. Ultimately secular ethics is easily dismantled by just asking "why?" enough times. Why is that wrong? Eventually you'll find yourself in a circular logic if you do it honestly. You can equally ask why she should obey the dictates of a supernatural entity. Choosing to do with that is just as much a choice as choosing to abide by any other system of ethics. Because the supernatural entity gives you the one vital ingredient that secular ethics can never have - permanence. Let's assume for the sake of argument the Catholics are right and that God exists and that he says I shouldn't use contraception. Why should I do what he says? Interesting example, Catholics don't claim that God said don't use condoms. The condoms thing is a belief derived from a series of logical statements from things God did say. Naturally, Jesus didn't say much about social media addiction either. I'm not sure what point you want to get at? Do I think there's room for error in all those logical steps - absolutely. What I really care about are the big issues -the life and death stuff. Frankly that's where secular ethics are an epic failure because there is simply no moral case you can make for abortion after a maximum of 9 weeks. I've listened to tens of hours of debate on this, so no offense but you haven't got any ideas I haven't heard on that point. I've listened, The attempts to create a moral justification aren't remotely convincing. It's just that the people who are for it, vote and the people it kills, don't. No, my point is even I accept God exists and has mandated a system of ethics, why should I do something because "God says you should"? Why this any more any more persuasive than a Marxist saying I should do what's in the interests of the proletariat or a a utilitarian saying I should do wha forwards the greatest happiness of the greatest number? Excellent question that really gets the heart of the issue. In theory, you can develop a system of ethics based on the work of a human (e.g Marx). But Marx lacks the pernanmence aspect because Marx was not claiming to be supernatural. By pernanmence, I don't (just) mean eternal. I also mean infallible. For example, why can I not say that Marx had all the right ideas about a perfect society, use that to justify a dictatorship that kills 60m of its population? Even if "that wasn't proper Marxism" which the left always bleat, it's what always happens because you can always overrule the bits of Marx you don't like. So you ask a great question: why should I do something because "God says you should"? - because God, by definition, is always right. Ultimately ethics does boil down to a faith in something greater than yourself. Scary as that is to acknowledge. If it turned out the Christian God existed and said one should obey the Christian system of morals, I still wouldn't because I think they are nonsense. Saying that "God is always right" wouldn't cut it for me. If you create human beings who are able to reason independently, you will never get people agreeing to a system of morality purely because God says so and he is always right. Basically, there are no permanent systems of morality, never have been and never will be. Religious believers who assert their preferred system of morality as permanent are showing similar totalitarian tendencies to the Marxists. (and, of course, they are quite happy to change their "permanent" system of morality when everyone else starts to think it nonsense. - see slavery, homosexuality, non believers being condemned to hell etc etc) " Well I wasn't anticipating that you would change your mind on the issue. I'm certainly not dismissive of your points either. I'm not trying to argue that religion can never be corrupted. More that i feel secular ethics definately will be corrupted and already have been, everywhere. Abortion is the easiest example of that as nobody can make moral argument for it after ~9 weeks. However, when you look at the vitriol on this thread from intellectually challenged, you have to ask where that's coming from. The answer is obviously a frustration at the lack of change in religion, which ultimately counters your objection. In theory, religion and Marx are prone to corruption, in reality everyone hates religion because it doesn't move with the times and Marxists commit unprecedented scales of mass murder whereever they form a government. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Put it this way, secular ethics is an oxymoron. You can't just come up with an consistent ethical framework by chance. That is utter nonsense , completely untrue Great debating technique. It's entirely true and even the more sensible atheists like Sam Harris have this concern. Ultimately secular ethics is easily dismantled by just asking "why?" enough times. Why is that wrong? Eventually you'll find yourself in a circular logic if you do it honestly. You can equally ask why she should obey the dictates of a supernatural entity. Choosing to do with that is just as much a choice as choosing to abide by any other system of ethics. Because the supernatural entity gives you the one vital ingredient that secular ethics can never have - permanence. Let's assume for the sake of argument the Catholics are right and that God exists and that he says I shouldn't use contraception. Why should I do what he says? Interesting example, Catholics don't claim that God said don't use condoms. The condoms thing is a belief derived from a series of logical statements from things God did say. Naturally, Jesus didn't say much about social media addiction either. I'm not sure what point you want to get at? Do I think there's room for error in all those logical steps - absolutely. What I really care about are the big issues -the life and death stuff. Frankly that's where secular ethics are an epic failure because there is simply no moral case you can make for abortion after a maximum of 9 weeks. I've listened to tens of hours of debate on this, so no offense but you haven't got any ideas I haven't heard on that point. I've listened, The attempts to create a moral justification aren't remotely convincing. It's just that the people who are for it, vote and the people it kills, don't. No, my point is even I accept God exists and has mandated a system of ethics, why should I do something because "God says you should"? Why this any more any more persuasive than a Marxist saying I should do what's in the interests of the proletariat or a a utilitarian saying I should do wha forwards the greatest happiness of the greatest number? Excellent question that really gets the heart of the issue. In theory, you can develop a system of ethics based on the work of a human (e.g Marx). But Marx lacks the pernanmence aspect because Marx was not claiming to be supernatural. By pernanmence, I don't (just) mean eternal. I also mean infallible. For example, why can I not say that Marx had all the right ideas about a perfect society, use that to justify a dictatorship that kills 60m of its population? Even if "that wasn't proper Marxism" which the left always bleat, it's what always happens because you can always overrule the bits of Marx you don't like. So you ask a great question: why should I do something because "God says you should"? - because God, by definition, is always right. Ultimately ethics does boil down to a faith in something greater than yourself. Scary as that is to acknowledge. If it turned out the Christian God existed and said one should obey the Christian system of morals, I still wouldn't because I think they are nonsense. Saying that "God is always right" wouldn't cut it for me. If you create human beings who are able to reason independently, you will never get people agreeing to a system of morality purely because God says so and he is always right. Basically, there are no permanent systems of morality, never have been and never will be. Religious believers who assert their preferred system of morality as permanent are showing similar totalitarian tendencies to the Marxists. (and, of course, they are quite happy to change their "permanent" system of morality when everyone else starts to think it nonsense. - see slavery, homosexuality, non believers being condemned to hell etc etc) Well I wasn't anticipating that you would change your mind on the issue. I'm certainly not dismissive of your points either. I'm not trying to argue that religion can never be corrupted. More that i feel secular ethics definately will be corrupted and already have been, everywhere. Abortion is the easiest example of that as nobody can make moral argument for it after ~9 weeks. However, when you look at the vitriol on this thread from intellectually challenged, you have to ask where that's coming from. The answer is obviously a frustration at the lack of change in religion, which ultimately counters your objection. In theory, religion and Marx are prone to corruption, in reality everyone hates religion because it doesn't move with the times and Marxists commit unprecedented scales of mass murder whereever they form a government." Let me ask you this. If God manifested himself in an unmistakable way and said. "actually there is nothing wrong with a abortion after nine weeks" Would you accept that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Put it this way, secular ethics is an oxymoron. You can't just come up with an consistent ethical framework by chance. That is utter nonsense , completely untrue Great debating technique. It's entirely true and even the more sensible atheists like Sam Harris have this concern. Ultimately secular ethics is easily dismantled by just asking "why?" enough times. Why is that wrong? Eventually you'll find yourself in a circular logic if you do it honestly. You can equally ask why she should obey the dictates of a supernatural entity. Choosing to do with that is just as much a choice as choosing to abide by any other system of ethics. Because the supernatural entity gives you the one vital ingredient that secular ethics can never have - permanence. Let's assume for the sake of argument the Catholics are right and that God exists and that he says I shouldn't use contraception. Why should I do what he says? Interesting example, Catholics don't claim that God said don't use condoms. The condoms thing is a belief derived from a series of logical statements from things God did say. Naturally, Jesus didn't say much about social media addiction either. I'm not sure what point you want to get at? Do I think there's room for error in all those logical steps - absolutely. What I really care about are the big issues -the life and death stuff. Frankly that's where secular ethics are an epic failure because there is simply no moral case you can make for abortion after a maximum of 9 weeks. I've listened to tens of hours of debate on this, so no offense but you haven't got any ideas I haven't heard on that point. I've listened, The attempts to create a moral justification aren't remotely convincing. It's just that the people who are for it, vote and the people it kills, don't. No, my point is even I accept God exists and has mandated a system of ethics, why should I do something because "God says you should"? Why this any more any more persuasive than a Marxist saying I should do what's in the interests of the proletariat or a a utilitarian saying I should do wha forwards the greatest happiness of the greatest number? Excellent question that really gets the heart of the issue. In theory, you can develop a system of ethics based on the work of a human (e.g Marx). But Marx lacks the pernanmence aspect because Marx was not claiming to be supernatural. By pernanmence, I don't (just) mean eternal. I also mean infallible. For example, why can I not say that Marx had all the right ideas about a perfect society, use that to justify a dictatorship that kills 60m of its population? Even if "that wasn't proper Marxism" which the left always bleat, it's what always happens because you can always overrule the bits of Marx you don't like. So you ask a great question: why should I do something because "God says you should"? - because God, by definition, is always right. Ultimately ethics does boil down to a faith in something greater than yourself. Scary as that is to acknowledge. If it turned out the Christian God existed and said one should obey the Christian system of morals, I still wouldn't because I think they are nonsense. Saying that "God is always right" wouldn't cut it for me. If you create human beings who are able to reason independently, you will never get people agreeing to a system of morality purely because God says so and he is always right. Basically, there are no permanent systems of morality, never have been and never will be. Religious believers who assert their preferred system of morality as permanent are showing similar totalitarian tendencies to the Marxists. (and, of course, they are quite happy to change their "permanent" system of morality when everyone else starts to think it nonsense. - see slavery, homosexuality, non believers being condemned to hell etc etc) Well I wasn't anticipating that you would change your mind on the issue. I'm certainly not dismissive of your points either. I'm not trying to argue that religion can never be corrupted. More that i feel secular ethics definately will be corrupted and already have been, everywhere. Abortion is the easiest example of that as nobody can make moral argument for it after ~9 weeks. However, when you look at the vitriol on this thread from intellectually challenged, you have to ask where that's coming from. The answer is obviously a frustration at the lack of change in religion, which ultimately counters your objection. In theory, religion and Marx are prone to corruption, in reality everyone hates religion because it doesn't move with the times and Marxists commit unprecedented scales of mass murder whereever they form a government. Let me ask you this. If God manifested himself in an unmistakable way and said. "actually there is nothing wrong with a abortion after nine weeks" Would you accept that? " I can't answer an impossible hypothetical, for obvious reasons. Your question is fundamentally the same as the old "could God create a rock that was too heavy for God to lift". God cannot contradict God otherwise God would not be God. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Put it this way, secular ethics is an oxymoron. You can't just come up with an consistent ethical framework by chance. That is utter nonsense , completely untrue Great debating technique. It's entirely true and even the more sensible atheists like Sam Harris have this concern. Ultimately secular ethics is easily dismantled by just asking "why?" enough times. Why is that wrong? Eventually you'll find yourself in a circular logic if you do it honestly. You can equally ask why she should obey the dictates of a supernatural entity. Choosing to do with that is just as much a choice as choosing to abide by any other system of ethics. Because the supernatural entity gives you the one vital ingredient that secular ethics can never have - permanence. Let's assume for the sake of argument the Catholics are right and that God exists and that he says I shouldn't use contraception. Why should I do what he says? Interesting example, Catholics don't claim that God said don't use condoms. The condoms thing is a belief derived from a series of logical statements from things God did say. Naturally, Jesus didn't say much about social media addiction either. I'm not sure what point you want to get at? Do I think there's room for error in all those logical steps - absolutely. What I really care about are the big issues -the life and death stuff. Frankly that's where secular ethics are an epic failure because there is simply no moral case you can make for abortion after a maximum of 9 weeks. I've listened to tens of hours of debate on this, so no offense but you haven't got any ideas I haven't heard on that point. I've listened, The attempts to create a moral justification aren't remotely convincing. It's just that the people who are for it, vote and the people it kills, don't. No, my point is even I accept God exists and has mandated a system of ethics, why should I do something because "God says you should"? Why this any more any more persuasive than a Marxist saying I should do what's in the interests of the proletariat or a a utilitarian saying I should do wha forwards the greatest happiness of the greatest number? Excellent question that really gets the heart of the issue. In theory, you can develop a system of ethics based on the work of a human (e.g Marx). But Marx lacks the pernanmence aspect because Marx was not claiming to be supernatural. By pernanmence, I don't (just) mean eternal. I also mean infallible. For example, why can I not say that Marx had all the right ideas about a perfect society, use that to justify a dictatorship that kills 60m of its population? Even if "that wasn't proper Marxism" which the left always bleat, it's what always happens because you can always overrule the bits of Marx you don't like. So you ask a great question: why should I do something because "God says you should"? - because God, by definition, is always right. Ultimately ethics does boil down to a faith in something greater than yourself. Scary as that is to acknowledge. If it turned out the Christian God existed and said one should obey the Christian system of morals, I still wouldn't because I think they are nonsense. Saying that "God is always right" wouldn't cut it for me. If you create human beings who are able to reason independently, you will never get people agreeing to a system of morality purely because God says so and he is always right. Basically, there are no permanent systems of morality, never have been and never will be. Religious believers who assert their preferred system of morality as permanent are showing similar totalitarian tendencies to the Marxists. (and, of course, they are quite happy to change their "permanent" system of morality when everyone else starts to think it nonsense. - see slavery, homosexuality, non believers being condemned to hell etc etc) Well I wasn't anticipating that you would change your mind on the issue. I'm certainly not dismissive of your points either. I'm not trying to argue that religion can never be corrupted. More that i feel secular ethics definately will be corrupted and already have been, everywhere. Abortion is the easiest example of that as nobody can make moral argument for it after ~9 weeks. However, when you look at the vitriol on this thread from intellectually challenged, you have to ask where that's coming from. The answer is obviously a frustration at the lack of change in religion, which ultimately counters your objection. In theory, religion and Marx are prone to corruption, in reality everyone hates religion because it doesn't move with the times and Marxists commit unprecedented scales of mass murder whereever they form a government. Let me ask you this. If God manifested himself in an unmistakable way and said. "actually there is nothing wrong with a abortion after nine weeks" Would you accept that? I can't answer an impossible hypothetical, for obvious reasons. Your question is fundamentally the same as the old "could God create a rock that was too heavy for God to lift". God cannot contradict God otherwise God would not be God. " Why not? Your argument is that "God is always right". So on that argument, the answer my question must be "Yes" must it not? Otherwise, you are conceding that your system of morality derives from your own deductions, not from a divine mandate and that you have some strongly held moral views that nothing could ever change. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Put it this way, secular ethics is an oxymoron. You can't just come up with an consistent ethical framework by chance. That is utter nonsense , completely untrue Great debating technique. It's entirely true and even the more sensible atheists like Sam Harris have this concern. Ultimately secular ethics is easily dismantled by just asking "why?" enough times. Why is that wrong? Eventually you'll find yourself in a circular logic if you do it honestly. You can equally ask why she should obey the dictates of a supernatural entity. Choosing to do with that is just as much a choice as choosing to abide by any other system of ethics. Because the supernatural entity gives you the one vital ingredient that secular ethics can never have - permanence. Let's assume for the sake of argument the Catholics are right and that God exists and that he says I shouldn't use contraception. Why should I do what he says? Interesting example, Catholics don't claim that God said don't use condoms. The condoms thing is a belief derived from a series of logical statements from things God did say. Naturally, Jesus didn't say much about social media addiction either. I'm not sure what point you want to get at? Do I think there's room for error in all those logical steps - absolutely. What I really care about are the big issues -the life and death stuff. Frankly that's where secular ethics are an epic failure because there is simply no moral case you can make for abortion after a maximum of 9 weeks. I've listened to tens of hours of debate on this, so no offense but you haven't got any ideas I haven't heard on that point. I've listened, The attempts to create a moral justification aren't remotely convincing. It's just that the people who are for it, vote and the people it kills, don't. No, my point is even I accept God exists and has mandated a system of ethics, why should I do something because "God says you should"? Why this any more any more persuasive than a Marxist saying I should do what's in the interests of the proletariat or a a utilitarian saying I should do wha forwards the greatest happiness of the greatest number? Excellent question that really gets the heart of the issue. In theory, you can develop a system of ethics based on the work of a human (e.g Marx). But Marx lacks the pernanmence aspect because Marx was not claiming to be supernatural. By pernanmence, I don't (just) mean eternal. I also mean infallible. For example, why can I not say that Marx had all the right ideas about a perfect society, use that to justify a dictatorship that kills 60m of its population? Even if "that wasn't proper Marxism" which the left always bleat, it's what always happens because you can always overrule the bits of Marx you don't like. So you ask a great question: why should I do something because "God says you should"? - because God, by definition, is always right. Ultimately ethics does boil down to a faith in something greater than yourself. Scary as that is to acknowledge. Yes, but what about the progressive/evolutionary nature of religion. God is not unchanging in the Hebrew Scriptures. Understanding of orthodoxy is always mediated through men. Jesus regularly said ‘you have heard it said, but I say to you...’ God is not static. Good question, way too complicated to answer on this forum but basically a priest would tell you God is static, at least in the way you're using the term. I'm not a theologian so i can't give you every answer, but you frame the question in a way that would be a non-starter with a priest. " Well the priesthood is always conservative which is why the voices of the prophets are required!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Let me ask you this. If God manifested himself in an unmistakable way and said. "actually there is nothing wrong with a abortion after nine weeks" Would you accept that? I can't answer an impossible hypothetical, for obvious reasons. Your question is fundamentally the same as the old "could God create a rock that was too heavy for God to lift". God cannot contradict God otherwise God would not be God. Why not? Your argument is that "God is always right". So on that argument, the answer my question must be "Yes" must it not? Otherwise, you are conceding that your system of morality derives from your own deductions, not from a divine mandate and that you have some strongly held moral views that nothing could ever change. " Proposition 1 - God is always right Proposition 2 - God, unlike Marx, could never change stance on something Then you ask me a hypothetical about God changing stance on something and wonder why I can't answer. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Put it this way, secular ethics is an oxymoron. You can't just come up with an consistent ethical framework by chance. That is utter nonsense , completely untrue Great debating technique. It's entirely true and even the more sensible atheists like Sam Harris have this concern. Ultimately secular ethics is easily dismantled by just asking "why?" enough times. Why is that wrong? Eventually you'll find yourself in a circular logic if you do it honestly. You can equally ask why she should obey the dictates of a supernatural entity. Choosing to do with that is just as much a choice as choosing to abide by any other system of ethics. Because the supernatural entity gives you the one vital ingredient that secular ethics can never have - permanence. Let's assume for the sake of argument the Catholics are right and that God exists and that he says I shouldn't use contraception. Why should I do what he says? Interesting example, Catholics don't claim that God said don't use condoms. The condoms thing is a belief derived from a series of logical statements from things God did say. Naturally, Jesus didn't say much about social media addiction either. I'm not sure what point you want to get at? Do I think there's room for error in all those logical steps - absolutely. What I really care about are the big issues -the life and death stuff. Frankly that's where secular ethics are an epic failure because there is simply no moral case you can make for abortion after a maximum of 9 weeks. I've listened to tens of hours of debate on this, so no offense but you haven't got any ideas I haven't heard on that point. I've listened, The attempts to create a moral justification aren't remotely convincing. It's just that the people who are for it, vote and the people it kills, don't. No, my point is even I accept God exists and has mandated a system of ethics, why should I do something because "God says you should"? Why this any more any more persuasive than a Marxist saying I should do what's in the interests of the proletariat or a a utilitarian saying I should do wha forwards the greatest happiness of the greatest number? Excellent question that really gets the heart of the issue. In theory, you can develop a system of ethics based on the work of a human (e.g Marx). But Marx lacks the pernanmence aspect because Marx was not claiming to be supernatural. By pernanmence, I don't (just) mean eternal. I also mean infallible. For example, why can I not say that Marx had all the right ideas about a perfect society, use that to justify a dictatorship that kills 60m of its population? Even if "that wasn't proper Marxism" which the left always bleat, it's what always happens because you can always overrule the bits of Marx you don't like. So you ask a great question: why should I do something because "God says you should"? - because God, by definition, is always right. Ultimately ethics does boil down to a faith in something greater than yourself. Scary as that is to acknowledge. Yes, but what about the progressive/evolutionary nature of religion. God is not unchanging in the Hebrew Scriptures. Understanding of orthodoxy is always mediated through men. Jesus regularly said ‘you have heard it said, but I say to you...’ God is not static. Good question, way too complicated to answer on this forum but basically a priest would tell you God is static, at least in the way you're using the term. I'm not a theologian so i can't give you every answer, but you frame the question in a way that would be a non-starter with a priest. Well the priesthood is always conservative which is why the voices of the prophets are required!! " Maybe externally. There's a lot of gayness going on in the priesthood. Makes the Navy blush. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It really doesn't matter where you get your morality from as long as it's arguable and open to evolutionary change otherwise your stuck with theocratic doctrine set in 720ad and would still be applicable in the 21st century. If you do that, don't be surprised if you get stuck in 720ad mortality." So you don't believe in universal truths then? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Let me ask you this. If God manifested himself in an unmistakable way and said. "actually there is nothing wrong with a abortion after nine weeks" Would you accept that? I can't answer an impossible hypothetical, for obvious reasons. Your question is fundamentally the same as the old "could God create a rock that was too heavy for God to lift". God cannot contradict God otherwise God would not be God. Why not? Your argument is that "God is always right". So on that argument, the answer my question must be "Yes" must it not? Otherwise, you are conceding that your system of morality derives from your own deductions, not from a divine mandate and that you have some strongly held moral views that nothing could ever change. Proposition 1 - God is always right Proposition 2 - God, unlike Marx, could never change stance on something Then you ask me a hypothetical about God changing stance on something and wonder why I can't answer. " No, I am saying God always had that stance and people who thought otherwise were wrong. Have the courage of your argument. If you truly believe ethics is divinely mandated then what's wrong with saying. "I think abortion is wrong because God says so, but if it turned out I was wrong about God I would accept abortion was right". Isn't the truth here that you don't believe abortion is wrong because God says so, but for purely earth bound and secular reasons. Certainly, I have never seen you argue on here that abortion is wrong because God says so. You've always used arguments based on humanitarian ethics, the rights of the fetus, the pain caused to it and so on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It really doesn't matter where you get your morality from as long as it's arguable and open to evolutionary change otherwise your stuck with theocratic doctrine set in 720ad and would still be applicable in the 21st century. If you do that, don't be surprised if you get stuck in 720ad mortality. So you don't believe in universal truths then? " . Not really no, I'd rather cling to universal laws of physics they work better. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It really doesn't matter where you get your morality from as long as it's arguable and open to evolutionary change otherwise your stuck with theocratic doctrine set in 720ad and would still be applicable in the 21st century. If you do that, don't be surprised if you get stuck in 720ad mortality. So you don't believe in universal truths then? . Not really no, I'd rather cling to universal laws of physics they work better." What law of physics outlaws slavery? Or murder? Or decides how much budget to allocate to the NHS..... Physics is great, it’s what I got my degree in, but it won’t help with moral or political questions | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Let me ask you this. If God manifested himself in an unmistakable way and said. "actually there is nothing wrong with a abortion after nine weeks" Would you accept that? I can't answer an impossible hypothetical, for obvious reasons. Your question is fundamentally the same as the old "could God create a rock that was too heavy for God to lift". God cannot contradict God otherwise God would not be God. Why not? Your argument is that "God is always right". So on that argument, the answer my question must be "Yes" must it not? Otherwise, you are conceding that your system of morality derives from your own deductions, not from a divine mandate and that you have some strongly held moral views that nothing could ever change. Proposition 1 - God is always right Proposition 2 - God, unlike Marx, could never change stance on something Then you ask me a hypothetical about God changing stance on something and wonder why I can't answer. No, I am saying God always had that stance and people who thought otherwise were wrong. Have the courage of your argument. If you truly believe ethics is divinely mandated then what's wrong with saying. "I think abortion is wrong because God says so, but if it turned out I was wrong about God I would accept abortion was right". Isn't the truth here that you don't believe abortion is wrong because God says so, but for purely earth bound and secular reasons. Certainly, I have never seen you argue on here that abortion is wrong because God says so. You've always used arguments based on humanitarian ethics, the rights of the fetus, the pain caused to it and so on. " I use those arguements because "God says so" isn't going to convince anyone in 2018 and I'm not an idiot. You never hear Ben Shapiro reference God either. But abortion is a lower level debate, first you have to establish if and when it's ever acceptable to take an other human life. The whole abortion debate very simply rests on when human life starts. Answer that and you've got your stance on abortion, it really is that simple. As a cursory glance at history will show you, secularists never struggle to add conditions where is it acceptable to take a human life. Whereas most religions have a very narrow set of criteria for doing so. So the proper words you want to put in my mouth are "I think abortion is wrong after x point because it is taking a life. Taking a life can only be justified under circumstances 1, 2, 3 because God says so". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It really doesn't matter where you get your morality from as long as it's arguable and open to evolutionary change otherwise your stuck with theocratic doctrine set in 720ad and would still be applicable in the 21st century. If you do that, don't be surprised if you get stuck in 720ad mortality. So you don't believe in universal truths then? . Not really no, I'd rather cling to universal laws of physics they work better. What law of physics outlaws slavery? Or murder? Or decides how much budget to allocate to the NHS..... Physics is great, it’s what I got my degree in, but it won’t help with moral or political questions " Agreed and I don't see how anyone thinks they can have a set of ethics without some universal truths either. I'd like to hear that explained. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In England we have one law and multiple religions, you can not govern diversity using one religion as your basis... " Of course you can, there are many examples of that in history. The Ottoman Empire did a pretty good job of it for a long time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nope, religion used to BE politics and look how many massacres, genocides and repressed people resulted from it..." There is more to it than that. Populations used to be happy amongst each other and love side by side, until the powers that be intervened and ruined it causing a mass chaos around the globe. Let’s not shy away from the facts. But I’m afraid we are rendered to view only one side of the coin. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Don't mention the crusades.. Doh.. " The last crusades were over 700 years ago, so they have no relevance to events of the 21st century. People change, you know But if you really want to drag up irrelevant history, the Romans fucked up the British religious system and massacred the druids. Do you think we're eligible for compensation from the pope?
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Don't mention the crusades.. Doh.. The last crusades were over 700 years ago, so they have no relevance to events of the 21st century. People change, you know But if you really want to drag up irrelevant history, the Romans fucked up the British religious system and massacred the druids. Do you think we're eligible for compensation from the pope?
"I wouldn't go as far as to say they have no relevance. But the people who think crusades are the kicker against religion just have an extremely poor grasp of the feudal system. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No. Not at all. But if they keep pushing Islam I will take the sword of Christendom. The problem is we got over Christianity...became agnostic....now peado mad mo is raising his satanic head across Britain. They do this thing called "Taqiya" and gullable modern people tend to not clock on to it. When the Koran says "take neither Jew not Christian as friends" most liberals won't take it seriously untill they go cycling in Uzbekistan and get their heads cut off by muzzers. Shoot me for having an opinion... Or behead me for stateing fact. Or ban/arrest me for being politicly incorrect... It's not me who is the fool." Lol your too funny, so you think most British Muslims do “Taqiyya”? you do realise there historical context to everything you quoted don’t you. I’d say take off your tin foil hat most Muslims whether practising or not just go about their day to day lives like you and me, Do you know many if not your welcome to come to my city and I’ll gladly show you around xxx  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No. Not at all. But if they keep pushing Islam I will take the sword of Christendom. The problem is we got over Christianity...became agnostic....now peado mad mo is raising his satanic head across Britain. They do this thing called "Taqiya" and gullable modern people tend to not clock on to it. When the Koran says "take neither Jew not Christian as friends" most liberals won't take it seriously untill they go cycling in Uzbekistan and get their heads cut off by muzzers. Shoot me for having an opinion... Or behead me for stateing fact. Or ban/arrest me for being politicly incorrect... It's not me who is the fool. Lol your too funny, so you think most British Muslims do “Taqiyya”? you do realise there historical context to everything you quoted don’t you. I’d say take off your tin foil hat most Muslims whether practising or not just go about their day to day lives like you and me, Do you know many if not your welcome to come to my city and I’ll gladly show you around xxx "   | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Do you know many if not your welcome to come to my city and I’ll gladly show you around xxx "Grew up in Rochdale. Been to turkey/israel/nigeria/UAE The Muslims I've hung around with smoked and fucked women. The Nigerians prayed 5 times per day but the pakistanies didn't. Long story. But you won't find violence being preached in the new testament. I've got enough Koran quotes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It really doesn't matter where you get your morality from as long as it's arguable and open to evolutionary change otherwise your stuck with theocratic doctrine set in 720ad and would still be applicable in the 21st century. If you do that, don't be surprised if you get stuck in 720ad mortality. So you don't believe in universal truths then? . Not really no, I'd rather cling to universal laws of physics they work better. What law of physics outlaws slavery? Or murder? Or decides how much budget to allocate to the NHS..... Physics is great, it’s what I got my degree in, but it won’t help with moral or political questions Agreed and I don't see how anyone thinks they can have a set of ethics without some universal truths either. I'd like to hear that explained." Which came first, religion or morality? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"While trying to stay awake reading this thing one point came out a few times about catholics being against homosexuality. I thought part of Catholicism was fiddling with altar boys, so how can Catholicism be against either homosexuality or paedophilia. " Because the church has gone away from the bible.- | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It really doesn't matter where you get your morality from as long as it's arguable and open to evolutionary change otherwise your stuck with theocratic doctrine set in 720ad and would still be applicable in the 21st century. If you do that, don't be surprised if you get stuck in 720ad mortality. So you don't believe in universal truths then? . Not really no, I'd rather cling to universal laws of physics they work better. What law of physics outlaws slavery? Or murder? Or decides how much budget to allocate to the NHS..... Physics is great, it’s what I got my degree in, but it won’t help with moral or political questions Agreed and I don't see how anyone thinks they can have a set of ethics without some universal truths either. I'd like to hear that explained. Which came first, religion or morality?" That question is beneath your intelligence | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Put it this way, secular ethics is an oxymoron. You can't just come up with an consistent ethical framework by chance. " ????? Are you really suggesting that an atheist or an agnostic cannot have a moral code? I agree that you can't have an ethical framework by chance but I'd prefer to base a set of values on debate and rational thought, rather than religion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Put it this way, secular ethics is an oxymoron. You can't just come up with an consistent ethical framework by chance. ????? Are you really suggesting that an atheist or an agnostic cannot have a moral code? I agree that you can't have an ethical framework by chance but I'd prefer to base a set of values on debate and rational thought, rather than religion. " Yes that's exactly what I'm saying and if you read the whole thread then you'll see me expand the logic behind that statement. Rationality can't give you permanence, there will always be a conflict between your short term and long term interests that cannot be resolved with logic alone. I'm not saying an athiest can't dream up a moral code, I'm saying it'll never endure. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 Steps slowly away  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wow this thread turned into a monster Steps slowly away "Guess you're torn between two camps you like | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It really doesn't matter where you get your morality from as long as it's arguable and open to evolutionary change otherwise your stuck with theocratic doctrine set in 720ad and would still be applicable in the 21st century. If you do that, don't be surprised if you get stuck in 720ad mortality. So you don't believe in universal truths then? . Not really no, I'd rather cling to universal laws of physics they work better. What law of physics outlaws slavery? Or murder? Or decides how much budget to allocate to the NHS..... Physics is great, it’s what I got my degree in, but it won’t help with moral or political oquestions " . I think your slightly short sighted in that thought process. Traveling, literature, art, poetry, dance and music and most importantly the ability to communicate with the entire world via the internet advance society far more than any religious morality passed on via theocratic doctrine and all made through knowledge of physics, chemistry, biology etc etc the universal laws of physics expand mines far more than religious morality. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It really doesn't matter where you get your morality from as long as it's arguable and open to evolutionary change otherwise your stuck with theocratic doctrine set in 720ad and would still be applicable in the 21st century. If you do that, don't be surprised if you get stuck in 720ad mortality. So you don't believe in universal truths then? . Not really no, I'd rather cling to universal laws of physics they work better. What law of physics outlaws slavery? Or murder? Or decides how much budget to allocate to the NHS..... Physics is great, it’s what I got my degree in, but it won’t help with moral or political questions Agreed and I don't see how anyone thinks they can have a set of ethics without some universal truths either. I'd like to hear that explained. Which came first, religion or morality? That question is beneath your intelligence " Deflect and flater. What exactly does religion bring to the table if morality evolved before we had language . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It really doesn't matter where you get your morality from as long as it's arguable and open to evolutionary change otherwise your stuck with theocratic doctrine set in 720ad and would still be applicable in the 21st century. If you do that, don't be surprised if you get stuck in 720ad mortality. So you don't believe in universal truths then? . Not really no, I'd rather cling to universal laws of physics they work better. What law of physics outlaws slavery? Or murder? Or decides how much budget to allocate to the NHS..... Physics is great, it’s what I got my degree in, but it won’t help with moral or political questions Agreed and I don't see how anyone thinks they can have a set of ethics without some universal truths either. I'd like to hear that explained. Which came first, religion or morality? That question is beneath your intelligence Deflect and flater. What exactly does religion bring to the table if morality evolved before we had language . " It was a nice way of saying you're a smart(ish) guy asking dumb questions, as opposed to most of the thread which is dumb people making dumb statements. It was a compliment, albeit back handed. I'll humour your poor trail of logic briefly and say that religion was what enabled tribes to transcend simple blood line alliances and form societies that were bigger. No religion, no society. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It really doesn't matter where you get your morality from as long as it's arguable and open to evolutionary change otherwise your stuck with theocratic doctrine set in 720ad and would still be applicable in the 21st century. If you do that, don't be surprised if you get stuck in 720ad mortality. So you don't believe in universal truths then? . Not really no, I'd rather cling to universal laws of physics they work better. What law of physics outlaws slavery? Or murder? Or decides how much budget to allocate to the NHS..... Physics is great, it’s what I got my degree in, but it won’t help with moral or political questions Agreed and I don't see how anyone thinks they can have a set of ethics without some universal truths either. I'd like to hear that explained. Which came first, religion or morality? That question is beneath your intelligence Deflect and flater. What exactly does religion bring to the table if morality evolved before we had language . It was a nice way of saying you're a smart(ish) guy asking dumb questions, as opposed to most of the thread which is dumb people making dumb statements. It was a compliment, albeit back handed. I'll humour your poor trail of logic briefly and say that religion was what enabled tribes to transcend simple blood line alliances and form societies that were bigger. No religion, no society. " That's not so because our most basic morality is highly resistant to religious influence ,most people easily reject religious rules that violate their basic moral intuitions. We are still moral people without religion It's never been required to make a better society .Thats a fable told by the religious . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"While trying to stay awake reading this thing one point came out a few times about catholics being against homosexuality. I thought part of Catholicism was fiddling with altar boys, so how can Catholicism be against either homosexuality or paedophilia. " Because religion is manipulated to fit into the times of the day and mass. It doesn’t mean that the religion allows it neither does it mean the people that follow a particular religion force their belief. But some do. Based on there own prospective. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The world needs more capitalism not more religion. The devout counties will defy capitalism as long as possible as they know it quells the passion of extremism" Isn’t extremism manmade or we conditioned to believe that there is a strong correlation between belief and conviction? Has it come to a point that even if we see the real rendition in front of us, we still neglect facts based on social influences and pressure !? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It really doesn't matter where you get your morality from as long as it's arguable and open to evolutionary change otherwise your stuck with theocratic doctrine set in 720ad and would still be applicable in the 21st century. If you do that, don't be surprised if you get stuck in 720ad mortality. So you don't believe in universal truths then? . Not really no, I'd rather cling to universal laws of physics they work better. What law of physics outlaws slavery? Or murder? Or decides how much budget to allocate to the NHS..... Physics is great, it’s what I got my degree in, but it won’t help with moral or political questions Agreed and I don't see how anyone thinks they can have a set of ethics without some universal truths either. I'd like to hear that explained. Which came first, religion or morality? That question is beneath your intelligence Deflect and flater. What exactly does religion bring to the table if morality evolved before we had language . It was a nice way of saying you're a smart(ish) guy asking dumb questions, as opposed to most of the thread which is dumb people making dumb statements. It was a compliment, albeit back handed. I'll humour your poor trail of logic briefly and say that religion was what enabled tribes to transcend simple blood line alliances and form societies that were bigger. No religion, no society. That's not so because our most basic morality is highly resistant to religious influence ,most people easily reject religious rules that violate their basic moral intuitions. We are still moral people without religion It's never been required to make a better society .Thats a fable told by the religious . "I reject the premise of moral intuition. My institution is to kill you every time you annoy me. I want to smash you over the head with a rock and imgrenant your girlfriend forcing her to reproduce my genes and not yours. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It really doesn't matter where you get your morality from as long as it's arguable and open to evolutionary change otherwise your stuck with theocratic doctrine set in 720ad and would still be applicable in the 21st century. If you do that, don't be surprised if you get stuck in 720ad mortality. So you don't believe in universal truths then? . Not really no, I'd rather cling to universal laws of physics they work better. What law of physics outlaws slavery? Or murder? Or decides how much budget to allocate to the NHS..... Physics is great, it’s what I got my degree in, but it won’t help with moral or political questions Agreed and I don't see how anyone thinks they can have a set of ethics without some universal truths either. I'd like to hear that explained. Which came first, religion or morality? That question is beneath your intelligence Deflect and flater. What exactly does religion bring to the table if morality evolved before we had language . It was a nice way of saying you're a smart(ish) guy asking dumb questions, as opposed to most of the thread which is dumb people making dumb statements. It was a compliment, albeit back handed. I'll humour your poor trail of logic briefly and say that religion was what enabled tribes to transcend simple blood line alliances and form societies that were bigger. No religion, no society. That's not so because our most basic morality is highly resistant to religious influence ,most people easily reject religious rules that violate their basic moral intuitions. We are still moral people without religion It's never been required to make a better society .Thats a fable told by the religious .
I reject the premise of moral intuition. My institution is to kill you every time you annoy me. I want to smash you over the head with a rock and imgrenant your girlfriend forcing her to reproduce my genes and not yours. "I thought you you would be open to the truth that human morality is very very old ,as cultural anthropology has discovered. Morality is independent from religion, while religion is dependent on human morality. Therefore we can say with some certainty that religion is not required for a cooperative . ethical moral society . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Nobody takes it seriously though, even the arch bishop is an agnostic. Think you need to look around. Far too many people take it the Bibleseriously. . Not in this country?" Yes this country. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It really doesn't matter where you get your morality from as long as it's arguable and open to evolutionary change otherwise your stuck with theocratic doctrine set in 720ad and would still be applicable in the 21st century. If you do that, don't be surprised if you get stuck in 720ad mortality. So you don't believe in universal truths then? . Not really no, I'd rather cling to universal laws of physics they work better. What law of physics outlaws slavery? Or murder? Or decides how much budget to allocate to the NHS..... Physics is great, it’s what I got my degree in, but it won’t help with moral or political questions Agreed and I don't see how anyone thinks they can have a set of ethics without some universal truths either. I'd like to hear that explained. Which came first, religion or morality? That question is beneath your intelligence Deflect and flater. What exactly does religion bring to the table if morality evolved before we had language . It was a nice way of saying you're a smart(ish) guy asking dumb questions, as opposed to most of the thread which is dumb people making dumb statements. It was a compliment, albeit back handed. I'll humour your poor trail of logic briefly and say that religion was what enabled tribes to transcend simple blood line alliances and form societies that were bigger. No religion, no society. That's not so because our most basic morality is highly resistant to religious influence ,most people easily reject religious rules that violate their basic moral intuitions. We are still moral people without religion It's never been required to make a better society .Thats a fable told by the religious .
I reject the premise of moral intuition. My institution is to kill you every time you annoy me. I want to smash you over the head with a rock and imgrenant your girlfriend forcing her to reproduce my genes and not yours. I thought you you would be open to the truth that human morality is very very old ,as cultural anthropology has discovered.
Morality is independent from religion, while religion is dependent on human morality. Therefore we can say with some certainty that religion is not required for a cooperative . ethical moral society .
"Utter nonse. Morality, humans and religion evolved together. There was never a time when humans didn't have religion. When we find untouched tribes in the Amazon, they have their rituals and prayers, it's just less codified and not written down. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It really doesn't matter where you get your morality from as long as it's arguable and open to evolutionary change otherwise your stuck with theocratic doctrine set in 720ad and would still be applicable in the 21st century. If you do that, don't be surprised if you get stuck in 720ad mortality. So you don't believe in universal truths then? . Not really no, I'd rather cling to universal laws of physics they work better. What law of physics outlaws slavery? Or murder? Or decides how much budget to allocate to the NHS..... Physics is great, it’s what I got my degree in, but it won’t help with moral or political questions Agreed and I don't see how anyone thinks they can have a set of ethics without some universal truths either. I'd like to hear that explained. Which came first, religion or morality? That question is beneath your intelligence Deflect and flater. What exactly does religion bring to the table if morality evolved before we had language . It was a nice way of saying you're a smart(ish) guy asking dumb questions, as opposed to most of the thread which is dumb people making dumb statements. It was a compliment, albeit back handed. I'll humour your poor trail of logic briefly and say that religion was what enabled tribes to transcend simple blood line alliances and form societies that were bigger. No religion, no society. That's not so because our most basic morality is highly resistant to religious influence ,most people easily reject religious rules that violate their basic moral intuitions. We are still moral people without religion It's never been required to make a better society .Thats a fable told by the religious .
I reject the premise of moral intuition. My institution is to kill you every time you annoy me. I want to smash you over the head with a rock and imgrenant your girlfriend forcing her to reproduce my genes and not yours. I thought you you would be open to the truth that human morality is very very old ,as cultural anthropology has discovered.
Morality is independent from religion, while religion is dependent on human morality. Therefore we can say with some certainty that religion is not required for a cooperative . ethical moral society .
Utter nonse. Morality, humans and religion evolved together. There was never a time when humans didn't have religion. When we find untouched tribes in the Amazon, they have their rituals and prayers, it's just less codified and not written down. "They evolved t the same time and undoubtedly influenced each other but morality isn't dependent on religion it's dependent on a will to survive. You can only practice morality if you interact with others. You can play top dog and destroy all your potential rivals in which case morality isn't an issue for you or you can co-exist in which case a compromise of morals/acceptable behaviour is agreed. Fuck all to do with religion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It really doesn't matter where you get your morality from as long as it's arguable and open to evolutionary change otherwise your stuck with theocratic doctrine set in 720ad and would still be applicable in the 21st century. If you do that, don't be surprised if you get stuck in 720ad mortality. So you don't believe in universal truths then? . Not really no, I'd rather cling to universal laws of physics they work better. What law of physics outlaws slavery? Or murder? Or decides how much budget to allocate to the NHS..... Physics is great, it’s what I got my degree in, but it won’t help with moral or political questions Agreed and I don't see how anyone thinks they can have a set of ethics without some universal truths either. I'd like to hear that explained. Which came first, religion or morality? That question is beneath your intelligence Deflect and flater. What exactly does religion bring to the table if morality evolved before we had language . It was a nice way of saying you're a smart(ish) guy asking dumb questions, as opposed to most of the thread which is dumb people making dumb statements. It was a compliment, albeit back handed. I'll humour your poor trail of logic briefly and say that religion was what enabled tribes to transcend simple blood line alliances and form societies that were bigger. No religion, no society. That's not so because our most basic morality is highly resistant to religious influence ,most people easily reject religious rules that violate their basic moral intuitions. We are still moral people without religion It's never been required to make a better society .Thats a fable told by the religious .
I reject the premise of moral intuition. My institution is to kill you every time you annoy me. I want to smash you over the head with a rock and imgrenant your girlfriend forcing her to reproduce my genes and not yours. I thought you you would be open to the truth that human morality is very very old ,as cultural anthropology has discovered.
Morality is independent from religion, while religion is dependent on human morality. Therefore we can say with some certainty that religion is not required for a cooperative . ethical moral society .
Utter nonse. Morality, humans and religion evolved together. There was never a time when humans didn't have religion. When we find untouched tribes in the Amazon, they have their rituals and prayers, it's just less codified and not written down.
They evolved t the same time and undoubtedly influenced each other but morality isn't dependent on religion it's dependent on a will to survive. You can only practice morality if you interact with others. You can play top dog and destroy all your potential rivals in which case morality isn't an issue for you or you can co-exist in which case a compromise of morals/acceptable behaviour is agreed. Fuck all to do with religion."A moral system with no universal truths is not a moral system at all. You can't have universal truths without permanence and you can't get permanence from a human source. All this is expanded in the previous discussion with KLP above. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On a poll it said 23% yes and 77% said no, lets have a debate about your stance on secularism. I dont think it should be mixed, but if it is used correctly it could work, without the extreme sides, whats your view?" What came first? The chicken or the egg? Isn’t politics a derivative of religion?  xx | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It really doesn't matter where you get your morality from as long as it's arguable and open to evolutionary change otherwise your stuck with theocratic doctrine set in 720ad and would still be applicable in the 21st century. If you do that, don't be surprised if you get stuck in 720ad mortality. So you don't believe in universal truths then? . Not really no, I'd rather cling to universal laws of physics they work better. What law of physics outlaws slavery? Or murder? Or decides how much budget to allocate to the NHS..... Physics is great, it’s what I got my degree in, but it won’t help with moral or political questions Agreed and I don't see how anyone thinks they can have a set of ethics without some universal truths either. I'd like to hear that explained. Which came first, religion or morality? That question is beneath your intelligence Deflect and flater. What exactly does religion bring to the table if morality evolved before we had language . It was a nice way of saying you're a smart(ish) guy asking dumb questions, as opposed to most of the thread which is dumb people making dumb statements. It was a compliment, albeit back handed. I'll humour your poor trail of logic briefly and say that religion was what enabled tribes to transcend simple blood line alliances and form societies that were bigger. No religion, no society. That's not so because our most basic morality is highly resistant to religious influence ,most people easily reject religious rules that violate their basic moral intuitions. We are still moral people without religion It's never been required to make a better society .Thats a fable told by the religious .
I reject the premise of moral intuition. My institution is to kill you every time you annoy me. I want to smash you over the head with a rock and imgrenant your girlfriend forcing her to reproduce my genes and not yours. I thought you you would be open to the truth that human morality is very very old ,as cultural anthropology has discovered.
Morality is independent from religion, while religion is dependent on human morality. Therefore we can say with some certainty that religion is not required for a cooperative . ethical moral society .
Utter nonse. Morality, humans and religion evolved together. There was never a time when humans didn't have religion. When we find untouched tribes in the Amazon, they have their rituals and prayers, it's just less codified and not written down. "Unfortunately you need that to be true to support your position unfortunately it's not true .You see moral intuitions do not vary much across different religions .Which can only mean one thing .That they predate religion .Morality came about before language and the written word .You see religion needs language to tell a creation fable. Early humans had to discover a moral code half a million years ago or more for inter group survival .I am Sorry I had to piss on your fireworks but religion is not the source of morality . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On a poll it said 23% yes and 77% said no, lets have a debate about your stance on secularism. I dont think it should be mixed, but if it is used correctly it could work, without the extreme sides, whats your view? What came first? The chicken or the egg? Isn’t politics a derivative of religion? xx"Every significant action we do has implied moral judgements, you literally can't get through a normal day without making them. Religion is an extension of philosophy. Since a core component of any government is the distribution of justice, you have to have some philosophy that describes what justice is and then you're making moral judgements again. So politics can never be entirely seperate from the space that religion covers. Politics may ignore the established religions, but essentially they just replace them with their own philosophy that is essentially a religion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It really doesn't matter where you get your morality from as long as it's arguable and open to evolutionary change otherwise your stuck with theocratic doctrine set in 720ad and would still be applicable in the 21st century. If you do that, don't be surprised if you get stuck in 720ad mortality. So you don't believe in universal truths then? . Not really no, I'd rather cling to universal laws of physics they work better. What law of physics outlaws slavery? Or murder? Or decides how much budget to allocate to the NHS..... Physics is great, it’s what I got my degree in, but it won’t help with moral or political questions Agreed and I don't see how anyone thinks they can have a set of ethics without some universal truths either. I'd like to hear that explained. Which came first, religion or morality? That question is beneath your intelligence Deflect and flater. What exactly does religion bring to the table if morality evolved before we had language . It was a nice way of saying you're a smart(ish) guy asking dumb questions, as opposed to most of the thread which is dumb people making dumb statements. It was a compliment, albeit back handed. I'll humour your poor trail of logic briefly and say that religion was what enabled tribes to transcend simple blood line alliances and form societies that were bigger. No religion, no society. That's not so because our most basic morality is highly resistant to religious influence ,most people easily reject religious rules that violate their basic moral intuitions. We are still moral people without religion It's never been required to make a better society .Thats a fable told by the religious .
I reject the premise of moral intuition. My institution is to kill you every time you annoy me. I want to smash you over the head with a rock and imgrenant your girlfriend forcing her to reproduce my genes and not yours. I thought you you would be open to the truth that human morality is very very old ,as cultural anthropology has discovered.
Morality is independent from religion, while religion is dependent on human morality. Therefore we can say with some certainty that religion is not required for a cooperative . ethical moral society .
Utter nonse. Morality, humans and religion evolved together. There was never a time when humans didn't have religion. When we find untouched tribes in the Amazon, they have their rituals and prayers, it's just less codified and not written down.
Unfortunately you need that to be true to support your position unfortunately it's not true .You see moral intuitions do not vary much across different religions .Which can only mean one thing .That they predate religion
"This is the first step of your logic that is wrong " .Morality came about before language and the written word .You see religion needs language to tell a creation fable. " This is the second " Early humans had to discover a moral code half a million years ago or more for inter group survival .I am Sorry I had to piss on your fireworks but religion is not the source of morality . " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Utter nonse. Morality, humans and religion evolved together. There was never a time when humans didn't have religion. When we find untouched tribes in the Amazon, they have their rituals and prayers, it's just less codified and not written down. Unfortunately you need that to be true to support your position unfortunately it's not true .You see moral intuitions do not vary much across different religions .Which can only mean one thing .That they predate religion .Morality came about before language and the written word .You see religion needs language to tell a creation fable. Early humans had to discover a moral code half a million years ago or more for inter group survival .I am Sorry I had to piss on your fireworks but religion is not the source of morality . "You appear to be suffering under the common misconception that the faiths are religion; that before the faiths were around we weren't religious; that to be religious merely requires that you join a faith. Instead, religion is an impulse within us, in much the same way you insist morality is. This impulse existed before the faiths and will remain after them. The faiths were merely engineered to be "organised religion"; institutions promoting this impulse. As for morality, you have this laughable idea of intuitive morality which you claim some great ancestry for. I see no evidence for such a thing. Instead I'd say morality has only krept into human life via its codification. Whether in religious texts or political declarations, morality has been carved from an originally amoral tribalism by years of argument and war. Morality is clearly a far later invention than religion and, whilst religion is an innate impulse to most people, morality remains highly variable even in the most educated | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It really doesn't matter where you get your morality from as long as it's arguable and open to evolutionary change otherwise your stuck with theocratic doctrine set in 720ad and would still be applicable in the 21st century. If you do that, don't be surprised if you get stuck in 720ad mortality. So you don't believe in universal truths then? . Not really no, I'd rather cling to universal laws of physics they work better. What law of physics outlaws slavery? Or murder? Or decides how much budget to allocate to the NHS..... Physics is great, it’s what I got my degree in, but it won’t help with moral or political questions Agreed and I don't see how anyone thinks they can have a set of ethics without some universal truths either. I'd like to hear that explained. Which came first, religion or morality? That question is beneath your intelligence Deflect and flater. What exactly does religion bring to the table if morality evolved before we had language . It was a nice way of saying you're a smart(ish) guy asking dumb questions, as opposed to most of the thread which is dumb people making dumb statements. It was a compliment, albeit back handed. I'll humour your poor trail of logic briefly and say that religion was what enabled tribes to transcend simple blood line alliances and form societies that were bigger. No religion, no society. That's not so because our most basic morality is highly resistant to religious influence ,most people easily reject religious rules that violate their basic moral intuitions. We are still moral people without religion It's never been required to make a better society .Thats a fable told by the religious .
I reject the premise of moral intuition. My institution is to kill you every time you annoy me. I want to smash you over the head with a rock and imgrenant your girlfriend forcing her to reproduce my genes and not yours. I thought you you would be open to the truth that human morality is very very old ,as cultural anthropology has discovered.
Morality is independent from religion, while religion is dependent on human morality. Therefore we can say with some certainty that religion is not required for a cooperative . ethical moral society .
Utter nonse. Morality, humans and religion evolved together. There was never a time when humans didn't have religion. When we find untouched tribes in the Amazon, they have their rituals and prayers, it's just less codified and not written down.
They evolved t the same time and undoubtedly influenced each other but morality isn't dependent on religion it's dependent on a will to survive. You can only practice morality if you interact with others. You can play top dog and destroy all your potential rivals in which case morality isn't an issue for you or you can co-exist in which case a compromise of morals/acceptable behaviour is agreed. Fuck all to do with religion.
A moral system with no universal truths is not a moral system at all. You can't have universal truths without permanence and you can't get permanence from a human source. All this is expanded in the previous discussion with KLP above. "I don't need 'universal truths' to base my morals on. I know how I would like others to treat me, and I treat them with the same respect. I know what is right and what is wrong. Offend my morals, and those who share the same morals and you face the consequences. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" A moral system with no universal truths is not a moral system at all. You can't have universal truths without permanence and you can't get permanence from a human source. All this is expanded in the previous discussion with KLP above. I don't need 'universal truths' to base my morals on. I know how I would like others to treat me, and I treat them with the same respect. I know what is right and what is wrong. Offend my morals, and those who share the same morals and you face the consequences. " How do you know what is right and what is wrong? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" A moral system with no universal truths is not a moral system at all. You can't have universal truths without permanence and you can't get permanence from a human source. All this is expanded in the previous discussion with KLP above. I don't need 'universal truths' to base my morals on. I know how I would like others to treat me, and I treat them with the same respect. I know what is right and what is wrong. Offend my morals, and those who share the same morals and you face the consequences. How do you know what is right and what is wrong? " Because no -one has tried to kill me yet. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Maybe you should google Ethical Intuitionism if you think it's laughable .It's been around a long time and is a respected moral theory.Until you read up on it or like broken choose to reject it I am wasting your time . I realise this all to late whenever discussing with the religious. You can lead a horse water and all that .I think I will leave the religious to it . You boys have a nice day "It's been around a couple of hundred years, not what I call a long time in philosophy! It's anti-Hobbes crap. Basically all left wing ideology evaporates as soon as you acknowledge Hobbes was more right than Rousseau. You want to believe humans are naturally good despite the overwhelming empirical evidence against it. The thing is, you probably are a good guy, you can come to my house and fuck my sister. But you make the tragic and all to common mistake of thinking everyone else is fundamentally like you. Some of us are bad, really really bad. M'kay? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Maybe you should google Ethical Intuitionism if you think it's laughable .It's been around a long time and is a respected moral theory.Until you read up on it or like broken choose to reject it I am wasting your time. I realise this all to late whenever discussing with the religious. You can lead a horse water and all that .I think I will leave the religious to it . You boys have a nice day "I don't think humans are instinctively moral. I don't care what some theory says on it. The evidence abounds that they simply aren't. If we were to try to drill down to some core morality which we all agreed on it would probably be something like "if you're going to kill your brother make sure he's dead" or "if you're going to steal make sure you don't get caught". Outside of that most morality is extremely relative... and I include the faiths morality in that. The only anchor that morality has is in being inspired by others imo. When someone is good it inspires us to be good. Morality is infectious. So I guess we could add another "intuitive" moral "try to be good and moral to others and they'll probably try to be the same back". I haven't really got involved in this argument because I haven't really liked what either side were saying. No need to go off in a strop | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Maybe you should google Ethical Intuitionism if you think it's laughable .It's been around a long time and is a respected moral theory.Until you read up on it or like broken choose to reject it I am wasting your time. I realise this all to late whenever discussing with the religious. You can lead a horse water and all that .I think I will leave the religious to it . You boys have a nice day
I don't think humans are instinctively moral. I don't care what some theory says on it. The evidence abounds that they simply aren't. If we were to try to drill down to some core morality which we all agreed on it would probably be something like "if you're going to kill your brother make sure he's dead" or "if you're going to steal make sure you don't get caught". Outside of that most morality is extremely relative... and I include the faiths morality in that.
The only anchor that morality has is in being inspired by others imo. When someone is good it inspires us to be good. Morality is infectious. So I guess we could add another "intuitive" moral "try to be good and moral to others and they'll probably try to be the same back".
I haven't really got involved in this argument because I haven't really liked what either side were saying. No need to go off in a strop "So true. Watch enough history documentaries and you'll see that the most common mistake rulers make is not killing an enemy they know they should have. The enemy inevitably goes into exile and comes back with a large army. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Maybe you should google Ethical Intuitionism if you think it's laughable .It's been around a long time and is a respected moral theory.Until you read up on it or like broken choose to reject it I am wasting your time. I realise this all to late whenever discussing with the religious. You can lead a horse water and all that .I think I will leave the religious to it . You boys have a nice day
I don't think humans are instinctively moral. I don't care what some theory says on it. The evidence abounds that they simply aren't. If we were to try to drill down to some core morality which we all agreed on it would probably be something like "if you're going to kill your brother make sure he's dead" or "if you're going to steal make sure you don't get caught". Outside of that most morality is extremely relative... and I include the faiths morality in that.
The only anchor that morality has is in being inspired by others imo. When someone is good it inspires us to be good. Morality is infectious. So I guess we could add another "intuitive" moral "try to be good and moral to others and they'll probably try to be the same back".
I haven't really got involved in this argument because I haven't really liked what either side were saying. No need to go off in a strop "I'm not in a strop my friend .I just don't think I have anymore to offer the conversation .If you choose to reject a theory on the evolution of morality that's cool with me .I don't have the time or the inclination to persuade you or broken otherwise . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Maybe you should google Ethical Intuitionism if you think it's laughable .It's been around a long time and is a respected moral theory.Until you read up on it or like broken choose to reject it I am wasting your time. I realise this all to late whenever discussing with the religious. You can lead a horse water and all that .I think I will leave the religious to it . You boys have a nice day
I don't think humans are instinctively moral. I don't care what some theory says on it. The evidence abounds that they simply aren't. If we were to try to drill down to some core morality which we all agreed on it would probably be something like "if you're going to kill your brother make sure he's dead" or "if you're going to steal make sure you don't get caught". Outside of that most morality is extremely relative... and I include the faiths morality in that.
The only anchor that morality has is in being inspired by others imo. When someone is good it inspires us to be good. Morality is infectious. So I guess we could add another "intuitive" moral "try to be good and moral to others and they'll probably try to be the same back".
I haven't really got involved in this argument because I haven't really liked what either side were saying. No need to go off in a strop
I'm not in a strop my friend .I just don't think I have anymore to offer the conversation .If you choose to reject a theory on the evolution of morality that's cool with me .I don't have the time or the inclination to persuade you or broken otherwise . "If you start on different sides of hobbes-rousseau, assuming both sides have invested some thought in their starting positions, then neither will persuade each other. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm with Rousseau "As i said earlier, you're torn between two camps. You're more of a frothing-at-the-mouth anti-capitalist than bobbangs. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm with Rousseau
As i said earlier, you're torn between two camps. You're more of a frothing-at-the-mouth anti-capitalist than bobbangs. "Haha so true so true | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm with Rousseau
As i said earlier, you're torn between two camps. You're more of a frothing-at-the-mouth anti-capitalist than bobbangs.
Haha so true so true "Bobbangs: "burn it all down, fuck the rich, burn it all down, no banks, no money, burn it" Soulfulkinky: "yeah burn it all down, but careful not to damage the spiritual fabric" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On a poll it said 23% yes and 77% said no, lets have a debate about your stance on secularism. I dont think it should be mixed, but if it is used correctly it could work, without the extreme sides, whats your view? What came first? The chicken or the egg? Isn’t politics a derivative of religion? xx
Every significant action we do has implied moral judgements, you literally can't get through a normal day without making them. Religion is an extension of philosophy. Since a core component of any government is the distribution of justice, you have to have some philosophy that describes what justice is and then you're making moral judgements again. So politics can never be entirely seperate from the space that religion covers. Politics may ignore the established religions, but essentially they just replace them with their own philosophy that is essentially a religion. "Arh thank you. Now I understand my own understanding xx | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm with Rousseau
As i said earlier, you're torn between two camps. You're more of a frothing-at-the-mouth anti-capitalist than bobbangs.
Haha so true so true
Bobbangs: "burn it all down, fuck the rich, burn it all down, no banks, no money, burn it"
Soulfulkinky: "yeah burn it all down, but careful not to damage the spiritual fabric""I prefer Brokenbrilliance "let's bring back hanging, rule by monarchs, and the imposition of book based morality of the church on people" Bobbangs "nah! throw out all the controls and regulations. release the imprisoned bankers and serial killers. we'll all be well behaved boys and girls. promise" SoulfulKinky "utopia all the way baby  " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The only situation when the two should be mixed is if they're both in a bucket marked "complete shit". Religion should have no sway at all over the way people choose to live their lives, unless they decide to include it personally." What about the good morals contained within religion ie 10 commandments.Morality is important to be within the law in some way | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The only situation when the two should be mixed is if they're both in a bucket marked "complete shit". Religion should have no sway at all over the way people choose to live their lives, unless they decide to include it personally.What about the good morals contained within religion ie 10 commandments.Morality is important to be within the law in some way" Do you know the ten Please list them, and yes I do I doubt you will list them Bec2use I think we will find beyond 3 blatantly obvious ones that need no religion to highlight that the others are pointless xxx But go ahead prove me wrong an show ten good rules xxx | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The only situation when the two should be mixed is if they're both in a bucket marked "complete shit". Religion should have no sway at all over the way people choose to live their lives, unless they decide to include it personally.What about the good morals contained within religion ie 10 commandments.Morality is important to be within the law in some way Do you know the ten Please list them, and yes I do I doubt you will list them Bec2use I think we will find beyond 3 blatantly obvious ones that need no religion to highlight that the others are pointless xxx But go ahead prove me wrong an show ten good rules xxx" Could you list the 3 "blatantly obvious ones" please? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Religion has had its day in our country it survives elsewhere but only to cause conflict that's where politics comes into it and the public school boys bred to say ' hear hear ' " I get mixed feelings when I read remarks like this. If by "religion" you mean the current crop of "organised religions" then I guess their waning could be a good thing. But replaced by what? A completely soulless consumerist society? I hope not
But for me "religion" means something very different. It's something we feel. A deep sense of humility in the face of life's profound beauty which provokes a desire to give oneself to the giver of that beauty. In most organised religions that giver is a being collectively referred to as god. But there's no reason a religion couldn't exist without such a concept and more akin to the Native American view of nature as divine and needing to be humble and give oneself to serve nature.
I hope this sentiment doesn't leave our shores. I hope it simply shifts into taking a different form. Hopefully not a political militant form like Atheist Humanism. But something more genuinely spiritual and enriching. I'd like to see that. An evolution | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually id suggest it only lists two Do not kill other humans Does that need to be said? And do not steal Really, humanity needed an instruction to realise by themselves that nicking stuff from one another is not cricket ? Do not lie (false witness) But again simple reasoning would soon lead to humanity realising this is unhelpful for society Where is Do not r pe Do not be a paedophile Do not start wars Do not black mail Do not torture anything I'll leave adultery on the fence " Yet biblically it pretty much repeats 3 times Worship only me the one true God Not really morals Coveting , not really morality more philosophical So the magical ten has 2 main and maybe 3 sensible guidelines | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually id suggest it only lists two Do not kill other humans Does that need to be said? " Err yes? Isn't it pretty clear that actually does need to be said or have you never travelled out of Kensington? " And do not steal Really, humanity needed an instruction to realise by themselves that nicking stuff from one another is not cricket ? " Err yes? Even having stated these things clearly in the Bible, Christians still kill and steal, especially if they believe it's in the name of their god. Even with the certain threat of eternal damnation! What planet do you live on Sensual? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Religion has had its day in our country it survives elsewhere but only to cause conflict that's where politics comes into it and the public school boys bred to say ' hear hear ' I get mixed feelings when I read remarks like this. If by "religion" you mean the current crop of "organised religions" then I guess their waning could be a good thing. But replaced by what? A completely soulless consumerist society? I hope not
But for me "religion" means something very different. It's something we feel. A deep sense of humility in the face of life's profound beauty which provokes a desire to give oneself to the giver of that beauty. In most organised religions that giver is a being collectively referred to as god. But there's no reason a religion couldn't exist without such a concept and more akin to the Native American view of nature as divine and needing to be humble and give oneself to serve nature.
I hope this sentiment doesn't leave our shores. I hope it simply shifts into taking a different form. Hopefully not a political militant form like Atheist Humanism. But something more genuinely spiritual and enriching. I'd like to see that. An evolution "Are you telling me I'm soul less ? Now indeed I do not have a soul as they do not exist but let's treat the word as a metaphor for something Tell me what am I lacking ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Religion has had its day in our country it survives elsewhere but only to cause conflict that's where politics comes into it and the public school boys bred to say ' hear hear ' I get mixed feelings when I read remarks like this. If by "religion" you mean the current crop of "organised religions" then I guess their waning could be a good thing. But replaced by what? A completely soulless consumerist society? I hope not
But for me "religion" means something very different. It's something we feel. A deep sense of humility in the face of life's profound beauty which provokes a desire to give oneself to the giver of that beauty. In most organised religions that giver is a being collectively referred to as god. But there's no reason a religion couldn't exist without such a concept and more akin to the Native American view of nature as divine and needing to be humble and give oneself to serve nature.
I hope this sentiment doesn't leave our shores. I hope it simply shifts into taking a different form. Hopefully not a political militant form like Atheist Humanism. But something more genuinely spiritual and enriching. I'd like to see that. An evolution
Are you telling me I'm soul less ?
Now indeed I do not have a soul as they do not exist but let's treat the word as a metaphor for something
Tell me what am I lacking ?"Im quite happy to be told I don't have a soul. It's meaningless metaphysics. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Religion has had its day in our country it survives elsewhere but only to cause conflict that's where politics comes into it and the public school boys bred to say ' hear hear ' I get mixed feelings when I read remarks like this. If by "religion" you mean the current crop of "organised religions" then I guess their waning could be a good thing. But replaced by what? A completely soulless consumerist society? I hope not
But for me "religion" means something very different. It's something we feel. A deep sense of humility in the face of life's profound beauty which provokes a desire to give oneself to the giver of that beauty. In most organised religions that giver is a being collectively referred to as god. But there's no reason a religion couldn't exist without such a concept and more akin to the Native American view of nature as divine and needing to be humble and give oneself to serve nature.
I hope this sentiment doesn't leave our shores. I hope it simply shifts into taking a different form. Hopefully not a political militant form like Atheist Humanism. But something more genuinely spiritual and enriching. I'd like to see that. An evolution
Are you telling me I'm soul less ?
Now indeed I do not have a soul as they do not exist but let's treat the word as a metaphor for something
Tell me what am I lacking ?"What cause do you serve on a daily basis? Your own personal gain? Or the betterment of others? Who do you defend? Only yourself and your own perpetuation? Or are there others you would give your life for? What do you do in the way of giving thanks for being alive and the miraculous beauty of the universe? Nothing at all, you just take it all for granted and quite happily pollute it and moan about it? Or do you regularly set time aside to give thanks? How often do you think about the unfortunate souls who are suffering at this time? Don't really bother, after all it's probably their fault for being inadequate anyway? Or do you have some humility and take a moment every now and then to reflect on them? Your whole focus on what you may lack or gain from being religious is testimony to a deep misunderstanding about what religion is. You don't gain anything that's "lacking" from being religious. It's all about giving | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Religion has had its day in our country it survives elsewhere but only to cause conflict that's where politics comes into it and the public school boys bred to say ' hear hear ' I get mixed feelings when I read remarks like this. If by "religion" you mean the current crop of "organised religions" then I guess their waning could be a good thing. But replaced by what? A completely soulless consumerist society? I hope not
But for me "religion" means something very different. It's something we feel. A deep sense of humility in the face of life's profound beauty which provokes a desire to give oneself to the giver of that beauty. In most organised religions that giver is a being collectively referred to as god. But there's no reason a religion couldn't exist without such a concept and more akin to the Native American view of nature as divine and needing to be humble and give oneself to serve nature.
I hope this sentiment doesn't leave our shores. I hope it simply shifts into taking a different form. Hopefully not a political militant form like Atheist Humanism. But something more genuinely spiritual and enriching. I'd like to see that. An evolution
Are you telling me I'm soul less ?
Now indeed I do not have a soul as they do not exist but let's treat the word as a metaphor for something
Tell me what am I lacking ?
What cause do you serve on a daily basis? Your own personal gain? Or the betterment of others?
Who do you defend? Only yourself and your own perpetuation? Or are there others you would give your life for?
What do you do in the way of giving thanks for being alive and the miraculous beauty of the universe? Nothing at all, you just take it all for granted and quite happily pollute it and moan about it? Or do you regularly set time aside to give thanks?
How often do you think about the unfortunate souls who are suffering at this time? Don't really bother, after all it's probably their fault for being inadequate anyway? Or do you have some humility and take a moment every now and then to reflect on them?
Your whole focus on what you may lack or gain from being religious is testimony to a deep misunderstanding about what religion is. You don't gain anything that's "lacking" from being religious. It's all about giving "I'm curious as to why we should give thanks for the good things in the world and not be angry about the terrible things like cancer, floods, earthquakes, birth defects, the fact that many living things can't survive without causing pain and suffering to other living things etc etc. It seems to me there's a reasonable argument for saying that the bad things about the way the world is structured outweigh the good and we should be angry with any omnipotent creator rather than thank it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Religion has had its day in our country it survives elsewhere but only to cause conflict that's where politics comes into it and the public school boys bred to say ' hear hear ' I get mixed feelings when I read remarks like this. If by "religion" you mean the current crop of "organised religions" then I guess their waning could be a good thing. But replaced by what? A completely soulless consumerist society? I hope not
But for me "religion" means something very different. It's something we feel. A deep sense of humility in the face of life's profound beauty which provokes a desire to give oneself to the giver of that beauty. In most organised religions that giver is a being collectively referred to as god. But there's no reason a religion couldn't exist without such a concept and more akin to the Native American view of nature as divine and needing to be humble and give oneself to serve nature.
I hope this sentiment doesn't leave our shores. I hope it simply shifts into taking a different form. Hopefully not a political militant form like Atheist Humanism. But something more genuinely spiritual and enriching. I'd like to see that. An evolution "think about what religion is its basically following a leader that in the case of Christianity and some other off shoots of the same religion created our planet, a human created our planet, sorry for me that's not sound reasoning their are millions maybe even billions of planets, religion has had its day because we as a society of supposedly intelligent beings have reasoned it out, you don't need an idol to be a good person or follow a good path in life, I believe in the natural process of evolution, we will survive fine without believing in a ' God ' | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On a poll it said 23% yes and 77% said no, lets have a debate about your stance on secularism. I dont think it should be mixed, but if it is used correctly it could work, without the extreme sides, whats your view?" 68% of polls are deemed to be inaccurate | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually id suggest it only lists two Do not kill other humans Does that need to be said? Err yes? Isn't it pretty clear that actually does need to be said or have you never travelled out of Kensington? And do not steal Really, humanity needed an instruction to realise by themselves that nicking stuff from one another is not cricket ? Err yes? Even having stated these things clearly in the Bible, Christians still kill and steal, especially if they believe it's in the name of their god. Even with the certain threat of eternal damnation! What planet do you live on Sensual? "Knowing and acting upon the knowledge are different things as you clearly point out The debate is , are evolved humans able to compile a moral code , or is a creator required tsk Not why do humans do things they know are wrong | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm curious as to why we should give thanks for the good things in the world and not be angry about the terrible things like cancer, floods, earthquakes, birth defects, the fact that many living things can't survive without causing pain and suffering to other living things etc etc. It seems to me there's a reasonable argument for saying that the bad things about the way the world is structured outweigh the good and we should be angry with any omnipotent creator rather than thank it. " Humility and thankfulness in the face of life's awesome beauty doesn't require a god. It wells up naturally within us when we are being our better selves. If, instead, you're angry at fallen trees and micro organisms then you have serious anger issues. Once we make peace with the way the world is we are ready to thank our parent for it. It's a radical message that goes against the petty squabbles of daily life in a consumerist society. But it is an ancient and noble one from a time when man slept with the stars in his hair | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually id suggest it only lists two Do not kill other humans Does that need to be said? Err yes? Isn't it pretty clear that actually does need to be said or have you never travelled out of Kensington? And do not steal Really, humanity needed an instruction to realise by themselves that nicking stuff from one another is not cricket ? Err yes? Even having stated these things clearly in the Bible, Christians still kill and steal, especially if they believe it's in the name of their god. Even with the certain threat of eternal damnation! What planet do you live on Sensual?
Knowing and acting upon the knowledge are different things as you clearly point out
The debate is , are evolved humans able to compile a moral code , or is a creator required tsk
Not why do humans do things they know are wrong "Given that people who don't believe in God are not noticeably less moral than those who do, the answer is pretty obvious... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm curious as to why we should give thanks for the good things in the world and not be angry about the terrible things like cancer, floods, earthquakes, birth defects, the fact that many living things can't survive without causing pain and suffering to other living things etc etc. It seems to me there's a reasonable argument for saying that the bad things about the way the world is structured outweigh the good and we should be angry with any omnipotent creator rather than thank it. Humility and thankfulness in the face of life's awesome beauty doesn't require a god. It wells up naturally within us when we are being our better selves. If, instead, you're angry at fallen trees and micro organisms then you have serious anger issues. Once we make peace with the way the world is we are ready to thank our parent for it. It's a radical message that goes against the petty squabbles of daily life in a consumerist society. But it is an ancient and noble one from a time when man slept with the stars in his hair " So millions of people dying from cancer and natural disasters are "petty squabbles of daily life". Blimey. If you can cooked me a nice meal, I'd be thankful. If you kicked me in the balls, I'd be pissed off with you. Why can I not take the same attitude to the universe? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually id suggest it only lists two Do not kill other humans Does that need to be said? Err yes? Isn't it pretty clear that actually does need to be said or have you never travelled out of Kensington? And do not steal Really, humanity needed an instruction to realise by themselves that nicking stuff from one another is not cricket ? Err yes? Even having stated these things clearly in the Bible, Christians still kill and steal, especially if they believe it's in the name of their god. Even with the certain threat of eternal damnation! What planet do you live on Sensual?
Knowing and acting upon the knowledge are different things as you clearly point out
The debate is , are evolved humans able to compile a moral code , or is a creator required tsk
Not why do humans do things they know are wrong "I think it is eminently imaginable that a soulless society could arise, completely detached from any sense of goodness as we see it, which would devise a set of morals we would see as abhorrent. They would feel no shame at killing others. Nor with stealing their property. So no. I don't think humans left to their own devices would err towards a standard underlying morality. Indeed I believe they're quite easily led into doing the exact opposite. Do I need to mention the camps? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you can cooked me a nice meal, I'd be thankful. If you kicked me in the balls, I'd be pissed off with you. Why can I not take the same attitude to the universe? " Because you don't believe in a god. Your anger at rocks and trees and the waxing and waning tides is just silly. Thankfulness for the rocks and trees and the waxing and waning tides isn't | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you can cooked me a nice meal, I'd be thankful. If you kicked me in the balls, I'd be pissed off with you. Why can I not take the same attitude to the universe? Because you don't believe in a god. Your anger at rocks and trees and the waxing and waning tides is just silly. Thankfulness for the rocks and trees and the waxing and waning tides isn't " For the purposes of this discussing, I'm accepting you are right about God and his nature. Could I have an answer now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you can cooked me a nice meal, I'd be thankful. If you kicked me in the balls, I'd be pissed off with you. Why can I not take the same attitude to the universe? Because you don't believe in a god. Your anger at rocks and trees and the waxing and waning tides is just silly. Thankfulness for the rocks and trees and the waxing and waning tides isn't For the purposes of this discussing, I'm accepting you are right about God and his nature. Could I have an answer now. " So you're asking me why I should be thankful to a god who doesn't serve my every whim and wipe out anyone I don't like on a particular day or other organisms that I don't like sharing the planet with? Quite frankly I'm pretty thankful such a god doesn't listen to me in the slightest. I'm utterly inconsequential and fatally biased in the scheme of things | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you can cooked me a nice meal, I'd be thankful. If you kicked me in the balls, I'd be pissed off with you. Why can I not take the same attitude to the universe? Because you don't believe in a god. Your anger at rocks and trees and the waxing and waning tides is just silly. Thankfulness for the rocks and trees and the waxing and waning tides isn't For the purposes of this discussing, I'm accepting you are right about God and his nature. Could I have an answer now. So you're asking me why I should be thankful to a god who doesn't serve my every whim and wipe out anyone I don't like on a particular day or other organisms that I don't like sharing the planet with? Quite frankly I'm pretty thankful such a god doesn't listen to me in the slightest. I'm utterly inconsequential and fatally biased in the scheme of things " No, I am not asking about you. I am asking as to why you are thankful to a god who created a world where there is huge amounts of undeserved suffering. Surely if makes sense to praise God for the good things in the universe, it must make sense to criticise him for the bad things. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you can cooked me a nice meal, I'd be thankful. If you kicked me in the balls, I'd be pissed off with you. Why can I not take the same attitude to the universe? Because you don't believe in a god. Your anger at rocks and trees and the waxing and waning tides is just silly. Thankfulness for the rocks and trees and the waxing and waning tides isn't For the purposes of this discussing, I'm accepting you are right about God and his nature. Could I have an answer now. So you're asking me why I should be thankful to a god who doesn't serve my every whim and wipe out anyone I don't like on a particular day or other organisms that I don't like sharing the planet with? Quite frankly I'm pretty thankful such a god doesn't listen to me in the slightest. I'm utterly inconsequential and fatally biased in the scheme of things No, I am not asking about you. I am asking as to why you are thankful to a god who created a world where there is huge amounts of undeserved suffering. Surely if makes sense to praise God for the good things in the universe, it must make sense to criticise him for the bad things. " Whose criteria of good and bad are you asking me to base this on? Yours? Mine? Someone else picked from a hat? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you can cooked me a nice meal, I'd be thankful. If you kicked me in the balls, I'd be pissed off with you. Why can I not take the same attitude to the universe? Because you don't believe in a god. Your anger at rocks and trees and the waxing and waning tides is just silly. Thankfulness for the rocks and trees and the waxing and waning tides isn't For the purposes of this discussing, I'm accepting you are right about God and his nature. Could I have an answer now. So you're asking me why I should be thankful to a god who doesn't serve my every whim and wipe out anyone I don't like on a particular day or other organisms that I don't like sharing the planet with? Quite frankly I'm pretty thankful such a god doesn't listen to me in the slightest. I'm utterly inconsequential and fatally biased in the scheme of things No, I am not asking about you. I am asking as to why you are thankful to a god who created a world where there is huge amounts of undeserved suffering. Surely if makes sense to praise God for the good things in the universe, it must make sense to criticise him for the bad things. Whose criteria of good and bad are you asking me to base this on? Yours? Mine? Someone else picked from a hat? " Commonly held human criteria. I think, for example, a lovely sunset is good and a baby dying of cancer is bad. Hence I would praise God, if he existed for the former, and criticise him for the latter. Do you disagree a baby dying from cancer is a bad thing? If not, why is not immune from criticism for creating that situation when he is open to praise for creating the sunset? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you can cooked me a nice meal, I'd be thankful. If you kicked me in the balls, I'd be pissed off with you. Why can I not take the same attitude to the universe? Because you don't believe in a god. Your anger at rocks and trees and the waxing and waning tides is just silly. Thankfulness for the rocks and trees and the waxing and waning tides isn't For the purposes of this discussing, I'm accepting you are right about God and his nature. Could I have an answer now. So you're asking me why I should be thankful to a god who doesn't serve my every whim and wipe out anyone I don't like on a particular day or other organisms that I don't like sharing the planet with? Quite frankly I'm pretty thankful such a god doesn't listen to me in the slightest. I'm utterly inconsequential and fatally biased in the scheme of things No, I am not asking about you. I am asking as to why you are thankful to a god who created a world where there is huge amounts of undeserved suffering. Surely if makes sense to praise God for the good things in the universe, it must make sense to criticise him for the bad things. Whose criteria of good and bad are you asking me to base this on? Yours? Mine? Someone else picked from a hat? Commonly held human criteria. I think, for example, a lovely sunset is good and a baby dying of cancer is bad. Hence I would praise God, if he existed for the former, and criticise him for the latter. Do you disagree a baby dying from cancer is a bad thing? If not, why is not immune from criticism for creating that situation when he is open to praise for creating the sunset? " Any particular reason why you feel we should judge a universal deity based on a human-centric view of what's good and bad? Not a fan of beavers? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you can cooked me a nice meal, I'd be thankful. If you kicked me in the balls, I'd be pissed off with you. Why can I not take the same attitude to the universe? Because you don't believe in a god. Your anger at rocks and trees and the waxing and waning tides is just silly. Thankfulness for the rocks and trees and the waxing and waning tides isn't For the purposes of this discussing, I'm accepting you are right about God and his nature. Could I have an answer now. So you're asking me why I should be thankful to a god who doesn't serve my every whim and wipe out anyone I don't like on a particular day or other organisms that I don't like sharing the planet with? Quite frankly I'm pretty thankful such a god doesn't listen to me in the slightest. I'm utterly inconsequential and fatally biased in the scheme of things No, I am not asking about you. I am asking as to why you are thankful to a god who created a world where there is huge amounts of undeserved suffering. Surely if makes sense to praise God for the good things in the universe, it must make sense to criticise him for the bad things. Whose criteria of good and bad are you asking me to base this on? Yours? Mine? Someone else picked from a hat? Commonly held human criteria. I think, for example, a lovely sunset is good and a baby dying of cancer is bad. Hence I would praise God, if he existed for the former, and criticise him for the latter. Do you disagree a baby dying from cancer is a bad thing? If not, why is not immune from criticism for creating that situation when he is open to praise for creating the sunset? Any particular reason why you feel we should judge a universal deity based on a human-centric view of what's good and bad? Not a fan of beavers? " You're being inconsistent. You say we should praise and thank god based on a human centric view of what is good. . If you say we can't criticise him on the basis of what we as humans consider to be good, because it's human centric, then we can't praise or thank him either because that is equally human centric. The logic of your argument is to say that God exists above and beyond human conceptions of good and evil so that neither praise nor criticism is appropriate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you can cooked me a nice meal, I'd be thankful. If you kicked me in the balls, I'd be pissed off with you. Why can I not take the same attitude to the universe? Because you don't believe in a god. Your anger at rocks and trees and the waxing and waning tides is just silly. Thankfulness for the rocks and trees and the waxing and waning tides isn't For the purposes of this discussing, I'm accepting you are right about God and his nature. Could I have an answer now. " he only gives answers to people with faulty logic or women | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you can cooked me a nice meal, I'd be thankful. If you kicked me in the balls, I'd be pissed off with you. Why can I not take the same attitude to the universe? Because you don't believe in a god. Your anger at rocks and trees and the waxing and waning tides is just silly. Thankfulness for the rocks and trees and the waxing and waning tides isn't For the purposes of this discussing, I'm accepting you are right about God and his nature. Could I have an answer now. So you're asking me why I should be thankful to a god who doesn't serve my every whim and wipe out anyone I don't like on a particular day or other organisms that I don't like sharing the planet with? Quite frankly I'm pretty thankful such a god doesn't listen to me in the slightest. I'm utterly inconsequential and fatally biased in the scheme of things No, I am not asking about you. I am asking as to why you are thankful to a god who created a world where there is huge amounts of undeserved suffering. Surely if makes sense to praise God for the good things in the universe, it must make sense to criticise him for the bad things. Whose criteria of good and bad are you asking me to base this on? Yours? Mine? Someone else picked from a hat? Commonly held human criteria. I think, for example, a lovely sunset is good and a baby dying of cancer is bad. Hence I would praise God, if he existed for the former, and criticise him for the latter. Do you disagree a baby dying from cancer is a bad thing? If not, why is not immune from criticism for creating that situation when he is open to praise for creating the sunset? Any particular reason why you feel we should judge a universal deity based on a human-centric view of what's good and bad? Not a fan of beavers? You're being inconsistent. You say we should praise and thank god based on a human centric view of what is good. . If you say we can't criticise him on the basis of what we as humans consider to be good, because it's human centric, then we can't praise or thank him either because that is equally human centric. The logic of your argument is to say that God exists above and beyond human conceptions of good and evil so that neither praise nor criticism is appropriate. " I'm saying it is appropriate and right to thank our parent for our existence. I make no judgement on what is good or bad in it all. That's your beef. And quite frankly I find it a bit absurd and petty. Getting all het up over a fallen tree or a badger eating your carrots. Shaking your fist at the sky just because you didn't get your promotion. You're just a Christian in atheist clothing. You need to grow up and see everything that is exists in a framework that is awesomely beautiful and miraculous. Spoilt children who spit in the face of their parent only end up spitting in their own face by becoming twice as ugly as what they loathe I'm sorry you don't feel the universe is very impressive nor lives up to your high standards. It all must be very tediously dull and excruciating for you. Feel free to jump in the bath with the toaster | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you can cooked me a nice meal, I'd be thankful. If you kicked me in the balls, I'd be pissed off with you. Why can I not take the same attitude to the universe? Because you don't believe in a god. Your anger at rocks and trees and the waxing and waning tides is just silly. Thankfulness for the rocks and trees and the waxing and waning tides isn't For the purposes of this discussing, I'm accepting you are right about God and his nature. Could I have an answer now. So you're asking me why I should be thankful to a god who doesn't serve my every whim and wipe out anyone I don't like on a particular day or other organisms that I don't like sharing the planet with? Quite frankly I'm pretty thankful such a god doesn't listen to me in the slightest. I'm utterly inconsequential and fatally biased in the scheme of things No, I am not asking about you. I am asking as to why you are thankful to a god who created a world where there is huge amounts of undeserved suffering. Surely if makes sense to praise God for the good things in the universe, it must make sense to criticise him for the bad things. Whose criteria of good and bad are you asking me to base this on? Yours? Mine? Someone else picked from a hat? Commonly held human criteria. I think, for example, a lovely sunset is good and a baby dying of cancer is bad. Hence I would praise God, if he existed for the former, and criticise him for the latter. Do you disagree a baby dying from cancer is a bad thing? If not, why is not immune from criticism for creating that situation when he is open to praise for creating the sunset? Any particular reason why you feel we should judge a universal deity based on a human-centric view of what's good and bad? Not a fan of beavers? You're being inconsistent. You say we should praise and thank god based on a human centric view of what is good. . If you say we can't criticise him on the basis of what we as humans consider to be good, because it's human centric, then we can't praise or thank him either because that is equally human centric. The logic of your argument is to say that God exists above and beyond human conceptions of good and evil so that neither praise nor criticism is appropriate. I'm saying it is appropriate and right to thank our parent for our existence. I make no judgement on what is good or bad in it all. That's your beef. And quite frankly I find it a bit absurd and petty. Getting all het up over a fallen tree or a badger eating your carrots. Shaking your fist at the sky just because you didn't get your promotion. You're just a Christian in atheist clothing. You need to grow up and see everything that is exists in a framework that is awesomely beautiful and miraculous. Spoilt children who spit in the face of their parent only end up spitting in their own face by becoming twice as ugly as what they loathe I'm sorry you don't feel the universe is very impressive nor lives up to your high standards. It all must be very tediously dull and excruciating for you. Feel free to jump in the bath with the toaster "You say "it's appropriate and right to thank our parent for existence". That's obviously a human centric judgment about what is appropriate and right. I say "it's appropriate and right to criticise our parent when they cause us undeserved suffering". There's another human centric judgment. Please tell me why it's OK to apply the first statement to God and not the second. Avoiding ad hominens if possible. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you can cooked me a nice meal, I'd be thankful. If you kicked me in the balls, I'd be pissed off with you. Why can I not take the same attitude to the universe? Because you don't believe in a god. Your anger at rocks and trees and the waxing and waning tides is just silly. Thankfulness for the rocks and trees and the waxing and waning tides isn't For the purposes of this discussing, I'm accepting you are right about God and his nature. Could I have an answer now. So you're asking me why I should be thankful to a god who doesn't serve my every whim and wipe out anyone I don't like on a particular day or other organisms that I don't like sharing the planet with? Quite frankly I'm pretty thankful such a god doesn't listen to me in the slightest. I'm utterly inconsequential and fatally biased in the scheme of things No, I am not asking about you. I am asking as to why you are thankful to a god who created a world where there is huge amounts of undeserved suffering. Surely if makes sense to praise God for the good things in the universe, it must make sense to criticise him for the bad things. Whose criteria of good and bad are you asking me to base this on? Yours? Mine? Someone else picked from a hat? Commonly held human criteria. I think, for example, a lovely sunset is good and a baby dying of cancer is bad. Hence I would praise God, if he existed for the former, and criticise him for the latter. Do you disagree a baby dying from cancer is a bad thing? If not, why is not immune from criticism for creating that situation when he is open to praise for creating the sunset? Any particular reason why you feel we should judge a universal deity based on a human-centric view of what's good and bad? Not a fan of beavers? You're being inconsistent. You say we should praise and thank god based on a human centric view of what is good. . If you say we can't criticise him on the basis of what we as humans consider to be good, because it's human centric, then we can't praise or thank him either because that is equally human centric. The logic of your argument is to say that God exists above and beyond human conceptions of good and evil so that neither praise nor criticism is appropriate. I'm saying it is appropriate and right to thank our parent for our existence. I make no judgement on what is good or bad in it all. That's your beef. And quite frankly I find it a bit absurd and petty. Getting all het up over a fallen tree or a badger eating your carrots. Shaking your fist at the sky just because you didn't get your promotion. You're just a Christian in atheist clothing. You need to grow up and see everything that is exists in a framework that is awesomely beautiful and miraculous. Spoilt children who spit in the face of their parent only end up spitting in their own face by becoming twice as ugly as what they loathe I'm sorry you don't feel the universe is very impressive nor lives up to your high standards. It all must be very tediously dull and excruciating for you. Feel free to jump in the bath with the toaster
You say "it's appropriate and right to thank our parent for existence". That's obviously a human centric judgment about what is appropriate and right.
I say "it's appropriate and right to criticise our parent when they cause us undeserved suffering". There's another human centric judgment.
Please tell me why it's OK to apply the first statement to God and not the second. Avoiding ad hominens if possible. "For me suffering is secondary to existence. Given the choice, I'd far rather exist and suffer than not exist and not suffer. I've potentially got the rest of eternity to "enjoy" that. I'm thankful for my existence. I'm not so keen on the suffering. But if it's a package deal I'm still thankful for it. If someone gave you a million pounds with a turd on it would you complain about the turd or thank them for the money? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you can cooked me a nice meal, I'd be thankful. If you kicked me in the balls, I'd be pissed off with you. Why can I not take the same attitude to the universe? Because you don't believe in a god. Your anger at rocks and trees and the waxing and waning tides is just silly. Thankfulness for the rocks and trees and the waxing and waning tides isn't For the purposes of this discussing, I'm accepting you are right about God and his nature. Could I have an answer now. So you're asking me why I should be thankful to a god who doesn't serve my every whim and wipe out anyone I don't like on a particular day or other organisms that I don't like sharing the planet with? Quite frankly I'm pretty thankful such a god doesn't listen to me in the slightest. I'm utterly inconsequential and fatally biased in the scheme of things No, I am not asking about you. I am asking as to why you are thankful to a god who created a world where there is huge amounts of undeserved suffering. Surely if makes sense to praise God for the good things in the universe, it must make sense to criticise him for the bad things. Whose criteria of good and bad are you asking me to base this on? Yours? Mine? Someone else picked from a hat? Commonly held human criteria. I think, for example, a lovely sunset is good and a baby dying of cancer is bad. Hence I would praise God, if he existed for the former, and criticise him for the latter. Do you disagree a baby dying from cancer is a bad thing? If not, why is not immune from criticism for creating that situation when he is open to praise for creating the sunset? Any particular reason why you feel we should judge a universal deity based on a human-centric view of what's good and bad? Not a fan of beavers? You're being inconsistent. You say we should praise and thank god based on a human centric view of what is good. . If you say we can't criticise him on the basis of what we as humans consider to be good, because it's human centric, then we can't praise or thank him either because that is equally human centric. The logic of your argument is to say that God exists above and beyond human conceptions of good and evil so that neither praise nor criticism is appropriate. I'm saying it is appropriate and right to thank our parent for our existence. I make no judgement on what is good or bad in it all. That's your beef. And quite frankly I find it a bit absurd and petty. Getting all het up over a fallen tree or a badger eating your carrots. Shaking your fist at the sky just because you didn't get your promotion. You're just a Christian in atheist clothing. You need to grow up and see everything that is exists in a framework that is awesomely beautiful and miraculous. Spoilt children who spit in the face of their parent only end up spitting in their own face by becoming twice as ugly as what they loathe I'm sorry you don't feel the universe is very impressive nor lives up to your high standards. It all must be very tediously dull and excruciating for you. Feel free to jump in the bath with the toaster
You say "it's appropriate and right to thank our parent for existence". That's obviously a human centric judgment about what is appropriate and right.
I say "it's appropriate and right to criticise our parent when they cause us undeserved suffering". There's another human centric judgment.
Please tell me why it's OK to apply the first statement to God and not the second. Avoiding ad hominens if possible.
For me suffering is secondary to existence. Given the choice, I'd far rather exist and suffer than not exist and not suffer. I've potentially got the rest of eternity to "enjoy" that. I'm thankful for my existence. I'm not so keen on the suffering. But if it's a package deal I'm still thankful for it.
If someone gave you a million pounds with a turd on it would you complain about the turd or thank them for the money? "But that doesn't really answer the question. Even accepting your assumption that existence is primary, why does that stop you criticising God for the suffering? I might give immense thanks to my parents for bringing me into existence, but if my dad seriously assaulted me disabling me for life , can I not criticise him? Why does God get a free pass just because he brought you into existence? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If someone gave you a million pounds with a turd on it would you complain about the turd or thank them for the money? But that doesn't really answer the question. Even accepting your assumption that existence is primary, why does that stop you criticising God for the suffering? I might give immense thanks to my parents for bringing me into existence, but if my dad seriously assaulted me disabling me for life , can I not criticise him? Why does God get a free pass just because he brought you into existence? " It's not a very good analogy. If your father hacked off one of your arms so that he could use it to save your brother from certain death, having fallen through the ice... would you hold a grudge against him for that? You seem incapable of perceiving the interwoven fabric of things. Do you really not get that... or are you just bluffing? It seems awfully myopic and unscientific  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Religion has had its day in our country it survives elsewhere but only to cause conflict that's where politics comes into it and the public school boys bred to say ' hear hear ' I get mixed feelings when I read remarks like this. If by "religion" you mean the current crop of "organised religions" then I guess their waning could be a good thing. But replaced by what? A completely soulless consumerist society? I hope not
But for me "religion" means something very different. It's something we feel. A deep sense of humility in the face of life's profound beauty which provokes a desire to give oneself to the giver of that beauty. In most organised religions that giver is a being collectively referred to as god. But there's no reason a religion couldn't exist without such a concept and more akin to the Native American view of nature as divine and needing to be humble and give oneself to serve nature.
I hope this sentiment doesn't leave our shores. I hope it simply shifts into taking a different form. Hopefully not a political militant form like Atheist Humanism. But something more genuinely spiritual and enriching. I'd like to see that. An evolution
Are you telling me I'm soul less ?
Now indeed I do not have a soul as they do not exist but let's treat the word as a metaphor for something
Tell me what am I lacking ?
What cause do you serve on a daily basis? Your own personal gain? Or the betterment of others?
Who do you defend? Only yourself and your own perpetuation? Or are there others you would give your life for?
What do you do in the way of giving thanks for being alive and the miraculous beauty of the universe? Nothing at all, you just take it all for granted and quite happily pollute it and moan about it? Or do you regularly set time aside to give thanks?
How often do you think about the unfortunate souls who are suffering at this time? Don't really bother, after all it's probably their fault for being inadequate anyway? Or do you have some humility and take a moment every now and then to reflect on them?
Your whole focus on what you may lack or gain from being religious is testimony to a deep misunderstanding about what religion is. You don't gain anything that's "lacking" from being religious. It's all about giving "A lot of potential judgment there , And a misnomer what you have written has nothing to do with belief or the existence of a creator , it is however the basis for a very deep philosophic conversation regards altruism! It seems you were trying to suggest that soul gives a person empathy and the want to give , and you seem to suggest that if I am atheist and lack soul I also lack these attributes I'd suggest humans evolved empathy , some are open to it some are not and some have a genetic disposition where they are unable to empathise! As it happens I'm exceptionally empathic, and exceptionally atheist ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
