ATAR Notes: Forum
General Discussion => General Discussion Boards => News and Politics => Topic started by: QuantumJG on June 30, 2010, 10:58:03 am
-
Well after hearing that Gillard is an athiest the media has jumped on this and according to the popularity poll, it has gone against her. I personally find it offensive that people don't want someone to be Prime Minister just because they are an athiest.
More importantly are we a minority who is truely despised?
I thought this was a country where you could believe in whatever you wanted? They are fine with Scientology being situated here but an athiest for a Prime Minister is wrong?
-
my opinion of her just went up.
-
I love that she's an atheist and proud of it. It's a breath of fresh air after the Rudd and Abbott double whammy.
I think she put it better than anyone else I've ever read:
"For people of faith, I think the greatest compliment I could pay to them is to respect their genuinely held beliefs and not to engage in some pretence about mine."
I disagree with the third option in the poll - I think it's necessarily relevant to politics. I think religious belief (consciously or not) influences the decisions of any person, politician or not. For example, I believe Rudd's religious background was a direct cause of his refusal to legalise gay marriage.
-
^^
Yes, that. I'm not deeply religious but I don't particularly care about her and won't judge her based on her (lack of) beliefs and as she says, she extends me the same courtesy. Her being an atheist doesn't change my opinion of her, which wasn't particularly high to start with anyway, unless it becomes a part of her political campaign.
-
Yes, it does make me think less of her. Without religion, there are no fixed morals whatsoever.
I'd rather have a prime minister with fixed morals.
-
Yes, it does make me think less of her. Without religion, there are no fixed morals whatsoever.
I'd rather have a prime minister with morals.
Yes, strip clubs are so wholesome.
As is pedophilia.
You go religion! Yay for teaching the right lessons!
-
Yes, it does make me think less of her. Without religion, there are no fixed morals whatsoever.
I'd rather have a prime minister with morals.
Yes, strip clubs are so wholesome.
I was wondering who would be the first to bring up that total non-argument.
Never did I say that religious people stick to the morals they subscribe to, which is of course a shame.
But an irreligious person has no fixed morals to begin with, and I'd rather not have a prime minister who can be so described.
-
Yes, it does make me think less of her. Without religion, there are no fixed morals whatsoever.
I'd rather have a prime minister with morals.
This is the most bigoted response I have ever heard.
Athiests follow the law like everyone else so to say athiests are immoral is extremely prejudiced.
I'm sick of people doing things that are wrong and saying well it's part of my religion so I'm immune. Whether it's stoning someone and saying 'my religion tells me it must be done' or having sexual inequality because 'it's part of my religion'.
Scientists are scrutinized with any theory, yet if it was a theory with religion to back it up it becomes 100% accepted.
I'm really starting to question whether god created humans or whether humans created god. The biggest problem is that brute force is used to silence anyone who asks this question.
-
Yes, it does make me think less of her. Without religion, there are no fixed morals whatsoever.
I'd rather have a prime minister with morals.
I find this absolutely absurd.... I do not have a religion yet I have fixed morals. I am able to tell the difference between good and bad.
I actually find it quite offensive that you say that because she doesnt have a religion she has no fixed morals.
-
You can't assume that someone who is an atheist does not have morals, or that his/her morals are any more or less fixed than that of a religious follower. Morality - a sense of what is right and wrong - can exist outside of religion, as can commitment to these principles.
-
I do not have a religion yet I have fixed morals.
Why are they "fixed" if you don't have a divine mandate that defines them?
But to be honest, it is really irrelevant what her personal morality is as long as it doesn't bleed into her political decisions. If the labour party produces policy that is going to benefit the country then I have no issue with whether the individuals responsible are religious or not.
-
But an irreligious person has no fixed morals to begin with
Hey, okay, that's just your opinion. And mine goes something like...
If you need a storybook to help you differentiate between what's right or wrong, then you are either
- intellectually challenged; or
- inherently not a good person.
And if you follow a storybook which says it is right to, just as one example among hundreds, kill a woman for not being a virgin on her wedding night, then you are really either
- stupid; or
- a shit person who wants to justify their evil actions with "God's word".
Agree to disagree, eh. We've already done the god/religion debate to death, anyway.
-
Think about it:
200 years ago, racism was culturally and morally acceptable in some parts of the world. Today, that view has changed.
Who's to say that in 200 years from now, things that we currently deem unacceptable, will be accepted? You cannot possibly say, with any degree of certainty, that in 200 years pedophilia will not be accepted by scoiety.
Morals change over time, they always have and they always will, whereas religion (the true one at least) does not and will not change. Hence, I feel that a prime minister who does not subscribe to any religion, and whose morals are thus only those of contemporary society, is not a good thing.
I find this absolutely absurd.... I do not have a religion yet I have fixed morals. I am able to tell the difference between good and bad.
I actually find it quite offensive that you say that because she doesnt have a religion she has no fixed morals.
But morals change, as does the defenition of 'good' and 'bad' over time. Additionally, 'good' and 'bad' mean completely different things to different people. You claim to know what is good and what is bad, but I garauntee that there exists others wih a completely different concept of good and bad. Without a supreme moral authority dictating the meaning of 'good' and 'bad', they are purely arbitrarily defined.
-
I'd like to think that I'm good, not because of any religion or law, but because i genuinely want to be good and it is apart of who i am. I'd like to think most people are like this, and is something innate that we have evolved to develop as a social being, and not some law (both religious and "mortal") we blindly follow for fear of punishment. I'd vote for someone who is honest about their beliefs over someone who is blindly and without question following some religious law, rather than doing what they personally believe is right.
-
But an irreligious person has no fixed morals to begin with
Hey, okay, that's just your opinion. And mine goes something like...
If you need a storybook to help you differentiate between what's right or wrong, then you are either
- intellectually challenged; or
- inherently not a good person.
And if you follow a storybook which says it is right to, just as one example among hundreds, kill a woman for not being a virgin on her wedding night, then you are really either
- stupid; or
- a shit person who wants to justify their evil actions with "God's word".
Agree to disagree, eh. We've already done the god/religion debate to death, anyway.
The Bible is far from a storybook, but anyway.
And I would say, if you have no authority but your own 'intellectualism' dictating what is right and what is wrong, then the definitions of right and wrong will change over time.
Also, there is no law in the Bible that says a non-virgin is to be killed on her wedding night. I encourage you to study the first chapter of Tractate Ketubot if you really want to understand the commandment to which you are referring. Unless you have done, there is no way you can understand it, so you should refrain from using it a tool to bash the Bible.
-
It's not really a commandment. I am referring to Deuteronomy, 22:20-21.
Also, there is no law in the Bible that says a non-virgin is to be killed on her wedding night. I encourage you to study the first chapter of Tractate Ketubot if you really want to understand the commandment to which you are referring. Unless you have done, there is no way you can understand it, so you should refrain from using it a tool to bash the Bible.
Had a quick look. Read something about the paths the poor, poor husband can take if *shock horror* his wife isn't a virgin on her wedding night. And then a huge focus on virginity of the woman in general.
If you actually think the fact that a woman isn't a virgin when she gets married is a big enough deal that the husband needs to go to "court" for it and that there actually needs to be a whole chapter in some book devoted to it, then I really have nothing more to say to you, and I am really, really glad that I don't have your so-called "morals".
Yeah and sorry I can't study it in detail, lunch break isn't very long at work.
-
Morals change over time, they always have and they always will, whereas religion (the true one at least) does not and will not change. Hence, I feel that a prime minister who does not subscribe to any religion, and whose morals are thus only those of contemporary society, is not a good thing.
Doesn't this (a leader who is religious and thus does not have morals that change over time) lead to a prime minister who is out of touch with the people? The prime minister has to address the issues that are facing society, and without taking into account what contemporary society thinks is right or wrong, he/she faces the danger of being an irrelevant and undesirable leader. As you said, the definitions of right and wrong change over time (for certain issues - I presume that over time there has been little deviance in the societal perception of murder), and as such, the leader should be flexible enough to accommodate these changes so that any policies will benefit the people at that time.
-
But an irreligious person has no fixed morals to begin with
Hey, okay, that's just your opinion. And mine goes something like...
If you need a storybook to help you differentiate between what's right or wrong, then you are either
- intellectually challenged; or
- inherently not a good person.
And if you follow a storybook which says it is right to, just as one example among hundreds, kill a woman for not being a virgin on her wedding night, then you are really either
- stupid; or
- a shit person who wants to justify their evil actions with "God's word".
Agree to disagree, eh. We've already done the god/religion debate to death, anyway.
You obviously know my answer but... I agree.
-
Lol ninwa you 'had a quick look'?
No matter that last year in my school we spent the best part of a year learning that one chapter, at 1.5 hours a day, and I still wouldn't claim to understand it fully. But if you think you know it all from a quick look, then good for you.
Again I say, don't bash it till you understand it. I'm sure you'd be offended if I criticised your opinion on something without even having a basic understanding of it first.
-
Morals change over time, they always have and they always will, whereas religion (the true one at least) does not and will not change. Hence, I feel that a prime minister who does not subscribe to any religion, and whose morals are thus only those of contemporary society, is not a good thing.
Doesn't this (a leader who is religious and thus does not have morals that change over time) lead to a prime minister who is out of touch with the people? The prime minister has to address the issues that are facing society, and without taking into account what contemporary society thinks is right or wrong, he/she faces the danger of being an irrelevant and undesirable leader. As you said, the definitions of right and wrong change over time (for certain issues - I presume that over time there has been little deviance in the societal perception of murder), and as such, the leader should be flexible enough to accommodate these changes so that any policies will benefit the people at that time.
Well that's my point - who says thise changes are for the best?
-
Again I say, don't bash it till you understand it. I'm sure you'd be offended if I criticised your opinion on something without even having a basic understanding of it first.
Okay, so tell me where I was wrong. Does it not discuss a woman's virginity then?
In that case, I apologise. Though if so, why did you direct me to it in reply to my comment about... well, virginity?
-
No, it does discuss virginity, but not in the terms you have put it. And since you're criticising, it seems reasonable to me that you fully understand that which you are criticising beforehand.
I don't bring up matters I have no understanding of in order to bash someone else's beliefs, and I would appreciate it if everyone had the same courtesy.
-
No, it does discuss virginity
which is exactly what I had a problem with, if you would bother to read my post.
Also, are you saying that what is explicitly stated in the bible is wrong then? I know religious people who say everything the bible says is correct. And since you state "religions are moral" in general (and not <this specific religion which doesn't follow this part of the bible>), then will you explain such things as
If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.
and If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death
?
Anyway this is completely off-topic and has been discussed to death in the god thread. Not making any more posts about this.
-
The thing I don't get is that everything is evolving to be able to accomodate for now, whilst religion is utterly oppressive and highly prejudice (because it follows the principles we applied thousands of years ago). By religion's definition, morality is synonomous to oppressing women. I thought that we were striving for equality?
If there exists a deity who judges you upon death I would like to say that I followed morality through common sense rather than fear, because one of my favourite quotes is 'Those who give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety' (I'm sure the quote is not word for word).
Ok this is also the last time I digress from the actual topic.
-
No, it does discuss virginity
which is exactly what I had a problem with, if you would bother to read my post.
Also, are you saying that what is explicitly stated in the bible is wrong then? I know religious people who say everything the bible says is correct. And since you state "religions are moral" in general (and not <this specific religion which doesn't follow this part of the bible>), then will you explain such things as
If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.
and If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death
?
Anyway this is completely off-topic and has been discussed to death in the god thread. Not making any more posts about this.
-
I don't think that her having a religion or not will change the way she runs the country. I do believe this is a step forward for Australia though. A woman and an Atheist prime minister at the same time we're becoming more tolerant!
-
Many of the laws in the Hebrew bible are not practiced today, because there are no Jewish religious courts that have the power to enforce them. Bringing forth quotes out of context that demand death for all sorts of crimes that are tolerated today, is therefore irrelevant, as they are not practiced, just frowned upon (i.e. dishonoring parents, sex b4 marriage).
What is relevant however, are the moral lessons learned from the religious texts as the bible. Some may brush these off as archaic or irrelevant, but lets not forget that Western society was founded upon the moral codes of the Hebrew bible - (and historically, a large proportion of those at the helm of human rights, social welfare and establishing democracy were Jews).
What you should be looking at, is whether the person's interpretation of religion (or lack of religion) adversely affects their performance as PM or tolerance toward other cultures.
In this case, I think not.
-
my opinion of her just went up.
++++
-
Ahahahaha I love the arrogance of "LOLZ ATHEISTS HAVE NO MORALS"
It's the last straw religion is clinging to. You've been fed that, Yitzi, by your teachers at Yeshivah. I'm sure you're going to say "NO NO I CAME UP WITH IT ON YOUR OWN", but it's the propaganda of all the religious sects that atheists are evil people with no morals.
You can con yourself into believing it, but anyone with any modicum of critical thought realises that it's the last bastion of religion flailing their ridiculous arms in an attempt to wrangle the mass exodus of people away from their stranglehold of power over them. You're just one of the people brainwashed into believing this by the puppeteers pulling the strings.
It originated with the Catholic Church when they first started to shit their pants over the number of people actually turning away from Christianity and becoming atheists. It was a measure to get their parents to turn on their children, e.g. if you give up god you're a demon in your parents' eyes.
Nothing more than emotional blackmail and unfounded frenzy. You cannot make a logical argument for 'no god, no morals'. You can say 'no god, no JEWISH/CHRISTIAN/MUSLIM morals'. But anyone who ascribes to a moral code has morals.
And now you're going to say 'BUT OMGZ DEYR NOT FIXEDDDD' - but they are, they're fixed within the boundaries of society. And to be perfectly honest, given how many hundreds of practises religious people have given up because of changing morals in society, it's pretty clear to see where morals come from :)
I have not heard of a single stoning within the Jewish community in Melbourne, whereas I know there were plenty 2000 years ago in Israel. Society evolves, and religion moves with it. Deal with it, because do you know where religion is moving next in society? Out of it...
In conclusion, Gillard will be the best Prime Minister we've ever had. Why? Because her critical thinking skills were not eroded in her formative years by bible-bashers telling her ridiculous, fanciful stories and forcing her to believe them without any proof whatsoever. Seems to me like the best choice :)
-
Ahahahaha I love the arrogance of "LOLZ ATHEISTS HAVE NO MORALS"
You know, if you're going to open with this, you should probably try to avoid posting something that reeks of arrogance...
Irrespective of that I still agree that being a "good", contributing member of society is not dependent on religion.
-
Richard Dawkins on Morality.
-
eniwabe, I'm sure the stoning issue has come up before, where I told you that it is not because society or religion has changed that there are no longer any stonings, it is purely because there is no longer a court with the power to impose such a punishment. If and when such a court is established, the practice will continue as before.
-
Richard Dawkins on Morality.
case closed.
-
eniwabe, I'm sure the stoning issue has come up before, where I told you that it is not because society or religion has changed that there are no longer any stonings, it is purely because there is no longer a court with the power to impose such a punishment. If and when such a court is established, the practice will continue as before.
No it won't. Pretty sure the Australian gov't won't let you. Tell me how the Australian government would let you stone somebody to death.
P.S. Nice complete avoidance of the actual arguments I was making.
-
In Soviet Russia, God created humans.
-
Ahahahaha I love the arrogance of "LOLZ ATHEISTS HAVE NO MORALS"
It's the last straw religion is clinging to. You've been fed that, Yitzi, by your teachers at Yeshivah. I'm sure you're going to say "NO NO I CAME UP WITH IT ON YOUR OWN", but it's the propaganda of all the religious sects that atheists are evil people with no morals.
You can con yourself into believing it, but anyone with any modicum of critical thought realises that it's the last bastion of religion flailing their ridiculous arms in an attempt to wrangle the mass exodus of people away from their stranglehold of power over them. You're just one of the people brainwashed into believing this by the puppeteers pulling the strings.
Firstly, it is something I have thought of on my own.
Secondly, yes I have been taught it too. You seem to have the notion that every religious leader is a hypocrite who is simply desparate for followers so as to have power over them. This may well be the case with some, but it is not the case with many. Many religious leaders truly believe in what the religion they are proponents of, and are not just seeking power over the masses.
The idea that there are no morals without religion was taught to me based on a speech by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson. Now he was a person who I am 100% positive was a true believer in everything he said, and not only that, he was a man of phenomenal intelligence, way beyond that of me or you.
Also, to say morals are fixed because they are 'fixed within the boundaries of society' is quite frankly ridiculous. If society moves in an undesireable direction, then so will the morals within that society.
Here is a question for you: If a moral changes, such that what was once unaccpetable is now acceptable, does that mean it was always really acceptable, just that the society of the time didn't recognise it?
If the answer is no, then why not?
And if the answer is yes, then how do we know that what we consider unacceptable now will not in the future become acceptable, and hence always was?
eniwabe, I'm sure the stoning issue has come up before, where I told you that it is not because society or religion has changed that there are no longer any stonings, it is purely because there is no longer a court with the power to impose such a punishment. If and when such a court is established, the practice will continue as before.
No it won't. Pretty sure the Australian gov't won't let you. Tell me how the Australian government would let you stone somebody to death.
The Australian government will let, because when the time comes, they will realise the divinity of the Bible and everything in it. I'm pretty sure I addressed this issue in the burqa topic.
Finally, I resent your portrayal of my arguments in such a childish and ridiculous manner. I believe I have been arguing in a rational and coherent way, and while you may not agree with me, there is no need to make out what I've said to be the rantings of a lunatic.
-
If society moves in an undesirable direction, then so will the morals within that society.
I concur. But consider the reverse, if a society moves in a desirable direction, then so will the morals within that society. Having fixed morals, as you purport religion can impose on a human being, inhibits this positive move towards better conscience.
-
Shut up guys, God exists. Religion is real. The Bible is a real. Why else would it be in the non-fiction section of the library?
Sheesh, the bible has taught me many morals and rules to live by, such as killing my first-born child, stoning my kids. I live by the bible, hence I'm goign to leave sex until after marriage because I like resisting my natural biological process of wanting to reproduce. Furthermore, since when has science and logical thinking advanced society?
I saw we go back into the Dark Ages of scientific repression and stone to death anyone who claims to not live by God's word.
-
Again I say, don't bash it till you understand it. I'm sure you'd be offended if I criticised your opinion on something without even having a basic understanding of it first.
Perhaps you should apply this to your thoughts on atheism.
You've offended me by saying I have no morals simply because I'm an atheist.
-
Again I say, don't bash it till you understand it. I'm sure you'd be offended if I criticised your opinion on something without even having a basic understanding of it first.
Perhaps you should apply this to your thoughts on atheism.
You've offended me by saying I have no morals simply because I'm an atheist.
I never said that, I said you have no fixed morals.
-
Ahahahaha I love the arrogance of "LOLZ ATHEISTS HAVE NO MORALS"
It's the last straw religion is clinging to. You've been fed that, Yitzi, by your teachers at Yeshivah. I'm sure you're going to say "NO NO I CAME UP WITH IT ON YOUR OWN", but it's the propaganda of all the religious sects that atheists are evil people with no morals.
You can con yourself into believing it, but anyone with any modicum of critical thought realises that it's the last bastion of religion flailing their ridiculous arms in an attempt to wrangle the mass exodus of people away from their stranglehold of power over them. You're just one of the people brainwashed into believing this by the puppeteers pulling the strings.
Firstly, it is something I have thought of on my own.
Secondly, yes I have been taught it too. You seem to have the notion that every religious leader is a hypocrite who is simply desparate for followers so as to have power over them. This may well be the case with some, but it is not the case with many. Many religious leaders truly believe in what the religion they are proponents of, and are not just seeking power over the masses.
The idea that there are no morals without religion was taught to me based on a speech by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson. Now he was a person who I am 100% positive was a true believer in everything he said, and not only that, he was a man of phenomenal intelligence, way beyond that of me or you.
Also, to say morals are fixed because they are 'fixed within the boundaries of society' is quite frankly ridiculous. If society moves in an undesireable direction, then so will the morals within that society.
Here is a question for you: If a moral changes, such that what was once unaccpetable is now acceptable, does that mean it was always really acceptable, just that the society of the time didn't recognise it?
If the answer is no, then why not?
And if the answer is yes, then how do we know that what we consider unacceptable now will not in the future become acceptable, and hence always was?
eniwabe, I'm sure the stoning issue has come up before, where I told you that it is not because society or religion has changed that there are no longer any stonings, it is purely because there is no longer a court with the power to impose such a punishment. If and when such a court is established, the practice will continue as before.
No it won't. Pretty sure the Australian gov't won't let you. Tell me how the Australian government would let you stone somebody to death.
The Australian government will let, because when the time comes, they will realise the divinity of the Bible and everything in it. I'm pretty sure I addressed this issue in the burqa topic.
Finally, I resent your portrayal of my arguments in such a childish and ridiculous manner. I believe I have been arguing in a rational and coherent way, and while you may not agree with me, there is no need to make out what I've said to be the rantings of a lunatic.
As we have seen, the progression of society has been in the positive direction. Women have unprecedented freedoms and rights the likes of which they never saw under the rule of religion. So as brightsky said, you seem to think that society is moving in a "bad direction", I challenge this notion by saying that the maturity of society would not allow significant backtracking of progress. If you map the freedoms of oppressed groups over time, as the song goes thiiiiiiiiings can only get betteeeeeer etc.
Ending of slavery. Ending of child labour. Ending of child prostitution/sex slavery etc. These are all things that have only come with the progression of society. The former two were permissible under religion, and the other was turned a blind eye (and still is). My, how the times have changed.
I never said society could not move in a 'bad' direction, but as brightsky has said, religion fixating us in the one spot inhibits us from moving in a positive direction. You can claim that religion is the one stop shop for all morals, but we've clearly seen that this isn't the case, given how many times the vatican has apologised for its indiscretions on humanity.
It is this ultimate copout of deferring our own moral responsibility to a higher being that makes religion truly vulgar. We are capable of being responsible for our own morals within the greater fabric of society. The idea that we should give up this capability in deference to something utterly intangible, of which no proof exists, and who sounds like a child's fairytale is downright frightening. Enough with the abdication of morality based on religion. It's time to start taking some real responsibility for our own society.
-
Shut up guys, God exists. Religion is real. The Bible is a real. Why else would it be in the non-fiction section of the library?
Ahh well if the bible's found in the non-fiction section at the local library then case closed, god exists, absolutely no doubt about it.... Come on mate.
In reference to the OP, I think this improves my opinion of Gillard. I don't at all question her morals just because she isn't religious. In my opinion, not having fixed morals can be a good thing.
-
Shut up guys, God exists. Religion is real. The Bible is a real. Why else would it be in the non-fiction section of the library?
Ahh well if the bible's found in the non-fiction section at the local library then case closed, god exists, absolutely no doubt about it.... Come on mate.
In reference to the OP, I think this improves my opinion of Gillard. I don't at all question her morals just because she isn't religious. In my opinion, not having fixed morals can be a good thing.
Yes Revel! Exactly, why is "no fixed morals" such a 'bad' thing?
Surely the compassionate human with real critical reasoning and thinking should be open to the idea that their value set can be wrong. Intellectual challenge and debate, that's what it's all about, isn't it? If we weren't constantly challenging whehter what we believe is correct/fair/just, then it would still be illegal for homosexual people to be open about their sexuality. It is precisely this lack of fixed morals that allowed us to move to a fairer society.
Fixing our morals in one place is exactly the recipe required for the abuse and oppression of minorities. So, you know what, no fixed morals? Sign me up.
I used to be anti-gay-marriage and generally squeamish about the idea of homosexuality (up until about 5 years ago), and I am ever-so-glad that I was shown the error of my ways.
And I guess that's it for religion, isn't it? They need to be absolutely correct. God is absolutely correct. He's perfect in the words of the bible. There's no other one like him. So for religion to entertain the idea that some of the morals written down are incorrect is utterly horrifying. God isn't fallible. That's impossible! To entertain the idea that morals can be fluid and not fixed is to deny the absolute power of god. And that is why atheists are stamped with the "evil" tag, because they are a threat to the very foundations of religion.
And that's it, isn't it? I guess religious people are just frightened of change, even if it's a very positive change, because it ultimately flaws their beliefs irreparably.
-
OK, so maybe not having fixed morals can be a good thing. (I don't agree, but let's just stick with this premise).
It can also be a very, very bad thing. Eugenics and Nazism are just two of hundereds of examples I could bring for that.
btw, I never called anyone evil.
-
OK, so maybe not having fixed morals can be a good thing. (I don't agree, but let's just stick with this premise).
It can also be a very, very bad thing. Eugenics and Nazism are just two of hundereds of examples I could bring for that.
btw, I never called anyone evil.
Yeah, like religion has never perpetrated atrocities, ever... Come back with a real argument plz
-
OK, so maybe not having fixed morals can be a good thing. (I don't agree, but let's just stick with this premise).
It can also be a very, very bad thing. Eugenics and Nazism are just two of hundereds of examples I could bring for that.
btw, I never called anyone evil.
Heh, just a random sentiment, but eugenics may in fact be a good thing. Anyone read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley?
Also, I would just like to add that I am dubious that any person who believes in religion would 100% espouse the morals and "ways to live" dictated by their Bible. Hence, I don't think that religion could fully impose so-called "fixed morals" onto any believer.
-
In conclusion, Gillard will be the best Prime Minister we've ever had. Why? Because her critical thinking skills were not eroded in her formative years by bible-bashers telling her ridiculous, fanciful stories and forcing her to believe them without any proof whatsoever. Seems to me like the best choice :)
This is extremely offensive.
And, in case you didn't know, from Gillard:
“... I grew up in a Christian Church, a Christian background, a Baptist Church, I won prizes for catechism for being able to remember Bible verses. I am steeped in that tradition ... "
Ending of slavery. Ending of child labour. Ending of child prostitution/sex slavery etc. These are all things that have only come with the progression of society.
You are blatantly ignorant if you truly believe these horrid practices abolished. They still exist today.
Here are just two organisations which are bent on extinguishing slavery and child labour and the sex trade etc. Clearly, these problems persist today.
http://freetobekids.org/
http://www.notforsalecampaign.org/
And would you believe that many of these organisations championing human rights are religious.
(btw these organisations are great and, as always, are in need of support)
-
I'm starting to lose faith in humanity. :(
-
What I think enwiabe meant was that society is progressing in a positive direction. These things may not be utterly abolished at present, but we are certainly moving towards that target (as evidenced by the organisations you mentioned.)
-
OK, so maybe not having fixed morals can be a good thing. (I don't agree, but let's just stick with this premise).
It can also be a very, very bad thing. Eugenics and Nazism are just two of hundereds of examples I could bring for that.
btw, I never called anyone evil.
Heh, just a random sentiment, but eugenics may in fact be a good thing. Anyone read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley?
Also, I would just like to add that I am dubious that any person who believes in religion would 100% espouse the morals and "ways to live" dictated by their Bible. Hence, I don't think that religion could fully impose so-called "fixed morals" onto any believer.
I espouse the morals and 'ways to live' dictated by the Bible. Do you believe I exist?
-
Heh, just a random sentiment, but eugenics may in fact be a good thing. Anyone read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley?
Also, I would just like to add that I am dubious that any person who believes in religion would 100% espouse the morals and "ways to live" dictated by their Bible. Hence, I don't think that religion could fully impose so-called "fixed morals" onto any believer.
I doubt that forces external of the Bible haven't in the slightest influenced your mentality.
-
Well even if they had, which i don't believe to be the case, I know of many people for whom the 100% clause still applies
-
Well the title of the topic combines the two...
-
^^
In literally every thread ever about religion there will be a bunch of posters congratulating themselves about their views whilst trotting out variations of the same old arguments, even if they are completely irrelevant to the topic/posts they're responding to.
-
Lol I don't think it's a matter of who wins, just an exchange of different points of view on an issue.
-
Here is a question for you: If a moral changes, such that what was once unaccpetable is now acceptable, does that mean it was always really acceptable, just that the society of the time didn't recognise it?
If the answer is no, then why not?
And if the answer is yes, then how do we know that what we consider unacceptable now will not in the future become acceptable, and hence always was?
So you are essentially using this to back up your opinion that we (athiests, 'non-believers') are immoral? Your saying that we are making temporary changes to morality which should change because our opinion of morality is flawed? Let me ask you why you believe that 'religious morality' is the right 'morality'
eniwabe, I'm sure the stoning issue has come up before, where I told you that it is not because society or religion has changed that there are no longer any stonings, it is purely because there is no longer a court with the power to impose such a punishment. If and when such a court is established, the practice will continue as before.
No it won't. Pretty sure the Australian gov't won't let you. Tell me how the Australian government would let you stone somebody to death.
The Australian government will let, because when the time comes, they will realise the divinity of the Bible and everything in it. I'm pretty sure I addressed this issue in the burqa topic.
[/quote]
I'm sorry but the Australian government will NEVER allow stoning as capital punishment! We don't have any form of capital punishment anyway.
Whoever will try and bring this barbaric act onto Australian soil as part of our country's policies will never be allowed.
-
OK, so maybe not having fixed morals can be a good thing. (I don't agree, but let's just stick with this premise).
It can also be a very, very bad thing. Eugenics and Nazism are just two of hundereds of examples I could bring for that.
btw, I never called anyone evil.
Hitler was raised a catholic and used a lot of what he interpreted the bible to say for his cause
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#Religious_views
In his speeches and publications Hitler spoke of his interpretation of Christianity as a central motivation for his antisemitism, stating that "As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.
-
OK, so maybe not having fixed morals can be a good thing. (I don't agree, but let's just stick with this premise).
It can also be a very, very bad thing. Eugenics and Nazism are just two of hundereds of examples I could bring for that.
btw, I never called anyone evil.
Hitler was raised a catholic and used a lot of what he interpreted the bible to say for his cause
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#Religious_views
In his speeches and publications Hitler spoke of his interpretation of Christianity as a central motivation for his antisemitism, stating that "As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.
He also killed heaps of Jews. Which I'm not 100% sure, but i presume is morally incorrect. But then again my morals aren't fixed so i got no idea really.
-
my opinion of her just went up.
-
Again I say, don't bash it till you understand it. I'm sure you'd be offended if I criticised your opinion on something without even having a basic understanding of it first.
Perhaps you should apply this to your thoughts on atheism.
You've offended me by saying I have no morals simply because I'm an atheist.
I never said that, I said you have no fixed morals.
To be fair, I thought you did heavily imply it when you said:
Yes, it does make me think less of her. Without religion, there are no fixed morals whatsoever.
I'd rather have a prime minister with morals.
The implication being that Julia Gillard has no morals because she is not religious. Or construed more broadly, non-religious people do not have morals.
Would it be safe to assume you meant either:
a) She has no fixed morals (or more accurately, none of the fixed morals advanced by your religious beliefs) and, broadly, non-religious people lack the same fixed morals?
b) She has no morals in general due to reasons other than her religious affiliation?
-
I would like to point out a few things here.
A politician's religion does have bearing on their policies, but this should not be the sole factor that influences a voter's decision. Their policies are what really count, a Christian politician is very capable of making good decisions (John Howard, for example, made many good decisions), and so can an Atheist. Whilst it is disheartening to see that many have turned away from Julia Gillard because of her [non-]religious beliefs, it has been a much larger disappointment to me personally to see some residents here jumping on the bandwagon because she is Atheist.
And on the note of atheism, I personally know many atheists who do not understand what atheism really is, and many are educated that way from birth, much like religious up-bringing, without being given rational arguments why God may not exist. Blaming theism on education and up-bringing does not implicate atheism is 'right'.
On the note of absolute morality, I absolutely disagree with some of the statements made by religious residents here. Here's a few questions I would like you to answer:
If you had the choice, would you have the world completely following every word and moral commandments of your holy book? It is a well known fact that there are many contradictions in these books, let's for a moment assume these don't exist. What about the rule of you shall not work on sabbath? Should doctor's let patients die every Sunday?
If religion brings about advancements in society, how can it accommodate the changes given that it is fixed? Without involving a discussion on how religious morals should be applied to technology [another can of worms for another day], can you explain how "I am the LORD your God: you shall not have strange Gods before me. You shall have no other gods before me." is useful in any way to present day society, and more importantly, moral treatment of others? Do you implicate that because I am of another belief, I should therefore be killed?
There are places where absolute morality is important, such as some degree of equality, freedom and respect for other's autonomy and well-being. There are also places where relative morality is important, such as dealing with change, and evolving out of archaic and traditional values such as superstitious beliefs. Neither extremes are perfect, and we should aim to strike a balance between the two.
It is very wrong to claim that religion is the only source of absolute morality. For example, Aristotle defined some virtues that are still uses in modern law making. So to Yitzi_K in particular, if the lack of religion is so bad, let's take China for example where the bulk of the population [and the government] is not religious, what immoral things are they doing? And what new immoral things are they going to be condoning if they carried on being atheists?
Well, the answer to that is probably going to be some human rights issue [hey, your religion condones killing people whom you disagree with], freedom of speech issues [hey, your religion tend to kill people who believe in other religions, let alone speak out about it], and that's pretty much most of it. And the only way that more 'immoral' things are going to be 'allowed'/'mainstreamed'/'enforced' is if some immoral leader comes in and redefines the absolute moral commandments [e.g. cultural revolution in China, killing millions], this, even religious morality cannot prevent, not without some kind of a miracle.
-
Mao, you halfwit, a polititions religion has huge bearings on their policies.
Just look at tony abbott on the abortion debate, or Rudd on gay marrage.
Blank minded religious apologists like yourself are, in my opinion, intellectually below the fundementialist crowd.
Why? Because you should know better. Athiests - i.e. those who are not persauded by the claims of any religion, are correct. We are 100% right, our position is 100% falisiable, it is 100% consistent with scientific evidence, it is 100% supported by modern nueoroscience
The nauseatingly retarded world-view of 'people with faith' is, on the otherhand, 100% unfalsifiable white noise. The debate on religion is over, closed, fini, done. Lack of belief = win, 'Faith' = debunked, junk logic.
Gillards got my vote.
-
Mao - I'm not going to argue on the morality of the Bible. Obviously, as far as I'm concerned, the Bible is the word of G-d, and therefore everything in it is absoloute morality. Anyone who disagrees with the first part of my previous sentence will obviously disagree with the second, so it is a pointless argument.
As for your specific point about doctors working on Sabbath (which is actually Saturday according to Judaism). Firstly, I imagine you have no idea what 'work' is in this context. Secondly, the commandent to save a life supercedes (almost) every other commandment, so in a potential life-or-death situation, anyone may do anything to save that life even on the Sabbath. Also, there are no contradictions in the Bible, a point I'd be happy to discuss in another thread.
I don't want to get into a discussion about the morality of China, but here's an immoral thing commonly practiced there: The gendercide of female babies. My religion does not condone that under any circumstances.
Here is a point I want to make absoloutely clear: I have never said that atheists are bad people, or evil people, or will definitely do bad things. I'm sure all the atheists on this board are perfectly good people, with morals, who feel strongly about moral issues and only want to do good to other people.
The point I was trying to make is, without a clearly defined unchangeable set of morals, the possibility exists that people will end up doing bad things, especially when such people are in positions of power, a la Julia Gillard.
Now I'm sure people will say that religious people in power also can, and indeed do, do bad things, which is perfectly true, but it doesn't detract from my statement.
-
I'm sure all the atheists on this board are perfectly good people, with morals, who feel strongly about moral issues and only want to do good to other people.
In that case, please explain this statement:
Yes, it does make me think less of her. Without religion, there are no fixed morals whatsoever.
I'd rather have a prime minister with morals.
The point I was trying to make is, without a clearly defined unchangeable set of morals, the possibility exists that people will end up doing bad things, especially when such people are in positions of power, a la Julia Gillard.
Now I'm sure people will say that religious people in power also can, and indeed do, do bad things, which is perfectly true, but it doesn't detract from my statement.
In that case, what makes a religious leader any better than an atheist leader, if a religious one is just as likely to do "bad things"?
-
In the second quote you've got there it should say fixed morals, it was a mistake I shall now edit.
I'd say a religious leader would be better because at least they have fixed morals which they should be sticking to, and if they're serious about their religion they will. While this is no garauntee that they will stick to them, at least it's a possibility/probability.
Whereas atheist leaders don't have such fixed morals to begin with, so it would be far easier, and possibly more likely, for them to go against the morals they do have.
-
Voltaire's post is hilarious.
Anyway, the entire fixed/relative morals issue isn't a big deal for me when you consider that the four years that a PM has in office won't allow for a significant cultural shift. The "relative" morals and ideals of an atheist in 2010 are going to be very similar to those of the same person in 2014.
-
Voltaire's post is hilarious.
Anyway, the entire fixed/relative morals issue isn't a big deal for me when you consider that the four years that a PM has in office won't allow for a significant cultural shift. The "relative" morals and ideals of an atheist in 2010 are going to be very similar to those of the same person in 2014.
four years? It can be longer no?
-
Yeah of course, but there'd need to be another election. Howard was PM for 3 terms but he had to contest multiple elections.
-
Mao, you halfwit, a polititions religion has huge bearings on their policies.
Just look at tony abbott on the abortion debate, or Rudd on gay marrage.
Blank minded religious apologists like yourself are, in my opinion, intellectually below the fundementialist crowd.
Why? Because you should know better. Athiests - i.e. those who are not persauded by the claims of any religion, are correct. We are 100% right, our position is 100% falisiable, it is 100% consistent with scientific evidence, it is 100% supported by modern nueoroscience
The nauseatingly retarded world-view of 'people with faith' is, on the otherhand, 100% unfalsifiable white noise. The debate on religion is over, closed, fini, done. Lack of belief = win, 'Faith' = debunked, junk logic.
Gillards got my vote.
Interesting. You speak disparagingly of Rudd's stance on gay marriage, and then you say you support Gillard. You realise she has the same view of gay marriage as Rudd does, right?
Also, I would suggest that agnostics, rather than atheists, are "those who are not persauded by the claims of any religion".
-
Mao - I'm not going to argue on the morality of the Bible. Obviously, as far as I'm concerned, the Bible is the word of G-d, and therefore everything in it is absoloute morality. Anyone who disagrees with the first part of my previous sentence will obviously disagree with the second, so it is a pointless argument.
As for your specific point about doctors working on Sabbath (which is actually Saturday according to Judaism). Firstly, I imagine you have no idea what 'work' is in this context. Secondly, the commandent to save a life supercedes (almost) every other commandment, so in a potential life-or-death situation, anyone may do anything to save that life even on the Sabbath. Also, there are no contradictions in the Bible, a point I'd be happy to discuss in another thread.
I don't want to get into a discussion about the morality of China, but here's an immoral thing commonly practiced there: The gendercide of female babies. My religion does not condone that under any circumstances.
Here is a point I want to make absoloutely clear: I have never said that atheists are bad people, or evil people, or will definitely do bad things. I'm sure all the atheists on this board are perfectly good people, with morals, who feel strongly about moral issues and only want to do good to other people.
The point I was trying to make is, without a clearly defined unchangeable set of morals, the possibility exists that people will end up doing bad things, especially when such people are in positions of power, a la Julia Gillard.
Now I'm sure people will say that religious people in power also can, and indeed do, do bad things, which is perfectly true, but it doesn't detract from my statement.
"Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee."
"And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:"
Do you think it's immoral to wear clothes of a linen/wool mix, or to eat lobster and crab?
I can accept that the Bible's core morality makes sense, and I'm not going to contest the claim that the Bible is the word of God (which is probably unprovable either way). However, if you were to claim that everything in the Bible is absolute morality, then you're going to have to deal with some very angry seafood restaurants.
In any case, can I just take another step back from this whole issue and argue that it's possible to have "defined" morals, even without religion. Utilitarianism? Deontology? You can believe in an absolute set of ethical guidelines without having to believe in the Bible, or even the existence of [a] God...
Why? Because you should know better. Athiests - i.e. those who are not persauded by the claims of any religion, are correct. We are 100% right, our position is 100% falisiable, it is 100% consistent with scientific evidence, it is 100% supported by modern nueoroscience
Atheism is just as hard a position to defend as saying that there IS a God. Pray tell, why is God's nonexistence 100% supported by everything scientific?
-
In any case, can I just take another step back from this whole issue and argue that it's possible to have "defined" morals, even without religion. Utilitarianism? Deontology? You can believe in an absolute set of ethical guidelines without having to believe in the Bible, or even the existence of [a] God...
Totally agree.
-
"Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee."
"And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:"
Do you think it's immoral to wear clothes of a linen/wool mix, or to eat lobster and crab?
I can accept that the Bible's core morality makes sense, and I'm not going to contest the claim that the Bible is the word of God (which is probably unprovable either way). However, if you were to claim that everything in the Bible is absolute morality, then you're going to have to deal with some very angry seafood restaurants.
I wouldn't say these things are 'immoral' as such, just that they are prohibited, for reasons known to G-d alone. (That is, prohibited to Jews only. According to Judaism, if one is not a born or converted Jew, one may eat as much seafood as one likes, or wear clothes mixed with wool and linen.)
But I have never, ever eaten seafood other than fish which have both fins and scales, and I never, ever wear clothes which have a mixture of wool and linen. In fact, if I ever buy something which I suspect may contain the two (typically suits) I get them checked to make sure that they don't.
-
I wouldn't decide whether or not to vote for someone based on whether or not they are religious, but I am concerned about their ability to separate the church and the state. So, I suppose an atheist would be better in that sense because I don't have to worry about that aspect of their policies.
I don't think atheists are immoral. I think atheists, if anything, are more moral because the impetus of their ethical choices aren't based on whether or not they are going to hell, but rather on the need to do genuine good, based on contextual understandings rather than just a black-and-white, non-flexible view of things. Additionally, it is not true at all that religion has remained unchanged for centuries - there are many people who practice the same religion in a range of different ways and take parts of their religion more seriously than other parts. The books might not have changed, but the way they are applied certainly has. Additionally, even if it were all the same, someone who resists change does not make a particularly good leader.
In essence, I'm willing to let leaders' private lives be private, and I think beliefs are private. But when they are imposed on others, even in subtle ways, there is a big problem. Leaders need to be more flexible to reality and to our times than what the bible necessarily prescribes.
Also, look at this: http://www.mrwiggleslovesyou.com/comics/rehab477.jpg
-
An atheist who changes his/her morals is no worse than a religious person blatantly flaunting his/her own "fixed" ones.
-
A bit of west wing awesomeness for you guys on the upstanding morals of religion :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHaVUjjH3EI&feature=related
-
I would like to point out a few things here.
A politician's religion does have bearing on their policies, but this should not be the sole factor that influences a voter's decision. Their policies are what really count, a Christian politician is very capable of making good decisions (John Howard, for example, made many good decisions), and so can an Atheist. Whilst it is disheartening to see that many have turned away from Julia Gillard because of her [non-]religious beliefs, it has been a much larger disappointment to me personally to see some residents here jumping on the bandwagon because she is Atheist.
And on the note of atheism, I personally know many atheists who do not understand what atheism really is, and many are educated that way from birth, much like religious up-bringing, without being given rational arguments why God may not exist. Blaming theism on education and up-bringing does not implicate atheism is 'right'.
On the note of absolute morality, I absolutely disagree with some of the statements made by religious residents here. Here's a few questions I would like you to answer:
If you had the choice, would you have the world completely following every word and moral commandments of your holy book? It is a well known fact that there are many contradictions in these books, let's for a moment assume these don't exist. What about the rule of you shall not work on sabbath? Should doctor's let patients die every Sunday?
If religion brings about advancements in society, how can it accommodate the changes given that it is fixed? Without involving a discussion on how religious morals should be applied to technology [another can of worms for another day], can you explain how "I am the LORD your God: you shall not have strange Gods before me. You shall have no other gods before me." is useful in any way to present day society, and more importantly, moral treatment of others? Do you implicate that because I am of another belief, I should therefore be killed?
There are places where absolute morality is important, such as some degree of equality, freedom and respect for other's autonomy and well-being. There are also places where relative morality is important, such as dealing with change, and evolving out of archaic and traditional values such as superstitious beliefs. Neither extremes are perfect, and we should aim to strike a balance between the two.
It is very wrong to claim that religion is the only source of absolute morality. For example, Aristotle defined some virtues that are still uses in modern law making. So to Yitzi_K in particular, if the lack of religion is so bad, let's take China for example where the bulk of the population [and the government] is not religious, what immoral things are they doing? And what new immoral things are they going to be condoning if they carried on being atheists?
Well, the answer to that is probably going to be some human rights issue [hey, your religion condones killing people whom you disagree with], freedom of speech issues [hey, your religion tend to kill people who believe in other religions, let alone speak out about it], and that's pretty much most of it. And the only way that more 'immoral' things are going to be 'allowed'/'mainstreamed'/'enforced' is if some immoral leader comes in and redefines the absolute moral commandments [e.g. cultural revolution in China, killing millions], this, even religious morality cannot prevent, not without some kind of a miracle.
These two statements are great.
After hearing this I am now ready to say that a person's religious (or non-religious) beliefs does have a bearing on their policies.
The second statement that we should have a balance between the two moral extremes. We would all want the morals that are just common sense to us to stay, but then we need to allow for changes.
The best example is gay marriages. Fixed morals say that this can't happen, yet I really think that this moral should be abolished since we have a lot of heterosexual marriages that fail, whilst there are probably a lot of homosexual marriages that actually work, so it seems hypocritical to keep the fixed moral in play.
Mao, you halfwit, a polititions religion has huge bearings on their policies.
Just look at tony abbott on the abortion debate, or Rudd on gay marrage.
Blank minded religious apologists like yourself are, in my opinion, intellectually below the fundementialist crowd.
Why? Because you should know better. Athiests - i.e. those who are not persauded by the claims of any religion, are correct. We are 100% right, our position is 100% falisiable, it is 100% consistent with scientific evidence, it is 100% supported by modern nueoroscience
The nauseatingly retarded world-view of 'people with faith' is, on the otherhand, 100% unfalsifiable white noise. The debate on religion is over, closed, fini, done. Lack of belief = win, 'Faith' = debunked, junk logic.
Gillards got my vote.
Interesting. You speak disparagingly of Rudd's stance on gay marriage, and then you say you support Gillard. You realise she has the same view of gay marriage as Rudd does, right?
Also, I would suggest that agnostics, rather than atheists, are "those who are not persauded by the claims of any religion".
It seems that I found a counter example to Yitzi_K's theory 'that athiests have no fixed morals'.
-
I wouldn't decide whether or not to vote for someone based on whether or not they are religious, but I am concerned about their ability to separate the church and the state. So, I suppose an atheist would be better in that sense because I don't have to worry about that aspect of their policies.
I don't think atheists are immoral. I think atheists, if anything, are more moral because the impetus of their ethical choices aren't based on whether or not they are going to hell, but rather on the need to do genuine good, based on contextual understandings rather than just a black-and-white, non-flexible view of things. Additionally, it is not true at all that religion has remained unchanged for centuries - there are many people who practice the same religion in a range of different ways and take parts of their religion more seriously than other parts. The books might not have changed, but the way they are applied certainly has. Additionally, even if it were all the same, someone who resists change does not make a particularly good leader.
In essence, I'm willing to let leaders' private lives be private, and I think beliefs are private. But when they are imposed on others, even in subtle ways, there is a big problem. Leaders need to be more flexible to reality and to our times than what the bible necessarily prescribes.
Also, look at this: http://www.mrwiggleslovesyou.com/comics/rehab477.jpg
I lol'd at this.
-
It seems that I found a counter example to Yitzi_K's theory 'that athiests have no fixed morals'.
Meaning?
-
Religious morals aren't truly fixed, look at the bible. It said it was OK to stone your on disobedient children. If it was truly fixed good Christians would be getting their kids stoned (and not in the fun way).
I find it absurd that Yitzi_K declares a blanket statement that *all* atheists have no morals. The atheists i know have taken time and looked at the various religions and reached the conclusion atheism is for them. I find them often more tolerant and moral then some of the religious people i know.
It'd be just absurd to say all Christians or Jews are upright moral people, you cant just make statements like that.
There are contradictions in the bible but that's for another thread/flame war.
Anyway it doesn't matter what the leader personally believes, they don't make the decisions about what to implement or not its pretty much all party policy. (as far as im aware.. prove me wrong)
Ok, so you say you look down less on her because she isn't religious.
Satanists are religious and have fixed morals, would you vote for them.
They're very moral:
1. Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence
2. Satan represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams
3. Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit
4. Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it, instead of love wasted on ingrates
5. Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek
6. Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires
7. Satan represents man as just another animal (sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all fours), who, because of his “divine spiritual and intellectual development,” has become the most vicious animal of all.
8. Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification
9. Satan has been the best friend the Christian Church has ever had, as He has kept it in business all these years[16]
I'd totally vote for one of those guys.
(i haven't read all the thread so i might of missed out what happened in between)
-
I think you're ignoring an important player in all of this, kingpomba....
Like the super devil.
(http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/3811/rlrkeooa.jpg)
As you can see is this comparison the super devil has larger horns than the regular devil, rides a motorcycle and carries a jar of marmalade.
-
That heretic.. that marmalade ain't kosher!
-
It seems that I found a counter example to Yitzi_K's theory 'that athiests have no fixed morals'.
Meaning?
Well Julia Gillard is an athiest right? She still holds onto the fixed moral that marriage is only between a man and woman.
-
Ahh, good point. I didn't even think of that.
-
Religious morals aren't truly fixed, look at the bible. It said it was OK to stone your on disobedient children. If it was truly fixed good Christians would be getting their kids stoned (and not in the fun way).
Define 'disobedient'. In this context disobedient has an incredibly stringent definition, including many criteria, and I'd be astounded if you got it right.
I find it absurd that Yitzi_K declares a blanket statement that *all* atheists have no morals. The atheists i know have taken time and looked at the various religions and reached the conclusion atheism is for them. I find them often more tolerant and moral then some of the religious people i know.
It'd be just absurd to say all Christians or Jews are upright moral people, you cant just make statements like that.
There are contradictions in the bible but that's for another thread/flame war.
Anyway it doesn't matter what the leader personally believes, they don't make the decisions about what to implement or not its pretty much all party policy. (as far as im aware.. prove me wrong)
Ok, so you say you look down less on her because she isn't religious.
Satanists are religious and have fixed morals, would you vote for them.
I never said all atheists have no morals. In fact if you'd actually read the thread, you'll find I said the exact opposite.
I also never said all religious people are 'upright moral people'. Again, if you read the thread you'd have seen that.
Also you satanist argument is completely irrelevant and proves nothing. Just because I said I'd prefer not to have an atheist PM doesn't mean I would prefer a satanist one.
(i haven't read all the thread so i might of missed out what happened in between)
So don't comment at all.
-
It seems that I found a counter example to Yitzi_K's theory 'that athiests have no fixed morals'.
Meaning?
Well Julia Gillard is an athiest right? She still holds onto the fixed moral that marriage is only between a man and woman.
That is a moral, but on what basis is it 'fixed'?
I have no idea why Gillard believes that (although I'd be interested to hear her reason). Now I would assume that she has decided this based on her own intellectual understanding of the issues. Therefore it stands to reason that if someone would explain it to her in a different light, or presented new information, her intellectual understanding, and therefore her position on the whole issue, could change.
Now I'm sure you'd say that that would be a good thing, which is a discussion for a different topic. But what that means is, it's not a fixed moral.
Blanket statement: Any moral based on intellectual understanding is not fixed, as intellectual understanding can change.
-
Why are fixed morals so important?
-
That is a moral, but on what basis is it 'fixed'?
I thought it was stated in the bible that marriage is between a man and a woman. Hence, 'fixed' by religion.
Are you for or against gay marriage? And if you are for, are you suggesting that the bible also approves of it? Since you state that you live your life by what is contained within it.
EDIT: from Googling I see there is a conflict of opinion (as there seems to be around many things involving religious texts...), and that while it is not explicitly stated in the bible, the book is full of references to male/female marriage being the only way and therefore those who rely on the bible see it as confirmation of the fact that homosexual marriage is condemned.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-f018.html
http://www.gotquestions.org/gay-marriage.html
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_the_bible_say_marriage_is_for_a_man_and_a_woman
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_the_Bible_say_about_marriage
http://www.gotquestions.org/marriage-Bible.html
http://biblestudies.suite101.com/article.cfm/what_does_the_bible_say_about_marriage
http://www.ucg.org/bible-faq/same-sex-marriages.htm
However, a counter-argument: http://www.newsweek.com/2008/12/05/our-mutual-joy.html
-
I never said all atheists have no morals. In fact if you'd actually read the thread, you'll find I said the exact opposite.
Yes you did, you merely edited that post following the outrage it inspired.
I also never said all religious people are 'upright moral people'. Again, if you read the thread you'd have seen that.
No, but my interpretation of your arguments is that you are suggesting that the only valid morals are fixed morals, and the only fixed morals come from religion.
Therefore, the only true morals (as you appear to dismiss the validity of non-religious morals) come from religion.
Therefore, only those who are religious have true morals.
If this is wrong, then I fail to understand the point of your argument.
Also you satanist argument is completely irrelevant and proves nothing. Just because I said I'd prefer not to have an atheist PM doesn't mean I would prefer a satanist one.
I think it is very much relevant. You stated that you would prefer a religious PM. Satanism is a religion. Therefore, you would prefer a satanist (a religion) to an atheist (no religion).
-
I never said all atheists have no morals. In fact if you'd actually read the thread, you'll find I said the exact opposite.
Yes you did, you merely edited that post following the outrage it inspired.
I also never said all religious people are 'upright moral people'. Again, if you read the thread you'd have seen that.
No, but my interpretation of your arguments is that you are suggesting that the only valid morals are fixed morals, and the only fixed morals come from religion.
Therefore, the only true morals (as you appear to dismiss the validity of non-religious morals) come from religion.
Therefore, only those who are religious have true morals.
If this is wrong, then I fail to understand the point of your argument.
Also you satanist argument is completely irrelevant and proves nothing. Just because I said I'd prefer not to have an atheist PM doesn't mean I would prefer a satanist one.
I think it is very much relevant. You stated that you would prefer a religious PM. Satanism is a religion. Therefore, you would prefer a satanist (a religion) to an atheist (no religion).
That I'm pretty sure is the general consensus of us on where Yitzi_K stands.
-
Why are fixed morals so important?
Because any deviation from their fixed morals is a rejection of god, so they have to absolutely cling like hellfire to "fixed morals" or else it invalidates the great big man in the sky. Yet one more example of how religion massively inhibits the progress of society. Sigh.
-
A bit of west wing awesomeness for you guys on the upstanding morals of religion :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHaVUjjH3EI&feature=related
Nice clip, pretty much sums up my arguments against people who take the bible literally.
The 'fixed morals' of religious candidates is mostly irrelevant to the debate. It is not true that being stubborn about your moral code automatically justifies your moral code.
I think that as a source of morality for our modern society, religious texts are outdated. Lots of the morals put forth in holy books appear outright grotesque in our modern society, and so those who wish to base their morality on holy books must cherry pick from whatever reasonable passages are left.
The many different 'interpretations' candidates can have of holy texts combined with some of the outdated morals exhibited makes me wary of candidates who profess to be strongly religious.
-
I never said all atheists have no morals. In fact if you'd actually read the thread, you'll find I said the exact opposite.
Yes you did, you merely edited that post following the outrage it inspired.
No, that was a genuine mistake. The 'outrage' of VNers is hardly going to change my opnion on something. Not to mention that changing my views based on outrage would be more than a bit hypocritical, given the topic of this argument.
I also never said all religious people are 'upright moral people'. Again, if you read the thread you'd have seen that.
No, but my interpretation of your arguments is that you are suggesting that the only valid morals are fixed morals, and the only fixed morals come from religion.
Therefore, the only true morals (as you appear to dismiss the validity of non-religious morals) come from religion.
Therefore, only those who are religious have true morals.
If this is wrong, then I fail to understand the point of your argument.
My argument is actually very simple, and I seem to have been misunderstood. I do not claim that only religious morals are valid, any 'good' moral is valid.
All I'm saying is, without a religious reason for a person's morals, they are liable to change, and I would rather not have a PM who might change her mind on moral issues.
Why is that? Because the 'progression' of morality is moving in a direction I don't like, with things like abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage and more, now either legally acceptable or close to it.
And yes, I do think that only people with religious morals have true morals. This is because morals which are derived purely from intellectual understanding and/or conscience are open to change, and hence are not 'true' according to that meaning of the word.
I feel this argument is going in circles now, might be a good time to end it.
-
Julia seems to be perfectly resistant to the movement of morality, considering her stance on gay marriage despite having no religious beliefs.
Unfortunately, our leader is a perfect example that one can be capable of being a close-minded bigot without any religious backing whatsoever.
This is why I would never vote on religious belief, but rather on policy, and this is why she has lost my vote despite being an atheist, which as an agnostic I somewhat approve.
-
Julia seems to be perfectly resistant to the movement of morality, considering her stance on gay marriage despite having no religious beliefs.
Unfortunately, our leader is a perfect example that one can be capable of being a close-minded bigot without any religious backing whatsoever.
This is why I would never vote on religious belief, but rather on policy, and this is why she has lost my vote despite being an atheist, which as an agnostic I somewhat approve.
Wait - you're not voting Gillard on account of her being a close-minded bigot, when the other "real" option is Abbott?!?!?
Also, not to draw this off-topic or anything, but I'm curious as to why you're so set on the idea of gay marriage. I'm pro-gay rights (as anyone should be), but in regards to marriage I'm personally neutral (undecided) in that I'm not sure whether or not gay marriage is even "marriage" in a linguistic/philosophical sense. Would you be willing to accept there being an equivalent (in regards to the couple being granted the same status as a married one) without the title "marriage" in the process?
-
I never said all atheists have no morals. In fact if you'd actually read the thread, you'll find I said the exact opposite.
Yes you did, you merely edited that post following the outrage it inspired.
Thanks for that ninwa. I clearly remember you saying athiests have no morals, i was going to post exactly what ninwa wrote but then i got busy and just forgot.
Satanism is a religion, you said you'd prefer a religious PM over an athiest PM. Satanism is a religion, it just clearly isn't the kind of religion you like. So, i guess you wouldn't prefer people of all religions as PM. Now you are cherry picking the religions you like.
Define 'disobedient'. In this context disobedient has an incredibly stringent definition, including many criteria, and I'd be astounded if you got it right.
" 18If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear."
Not exactly the stringent definition of disobedience you were telling me of? At least, thats what it says in my bible.
And yes, I do think that only people with religious morals have true morals.
You think only religions can have true morals. Satanism is a religion, so satanists must have the true morals you speak of and yet, you would be reluctant to vote for one, on hipocracy. You're argument is falling apart.
-
I never said all atheists have no morals. In fact if you'd actually read the thread, you'll find I said the exact opposite.
Yes you did, you merely edited that post following the outrage it inspired.
No, that was a genuine mistake. The 'outrage' of VNers is hardly going to change my opnion on something. Not to mention that changing my views based on outrage would be more than a bit hypocritical, given the topic of this argument.
I also never said all religious people are 'upright moral people'. Again, if you read the thread you'd have seen that.
No, but my interpretation of your arguments is that you are suggesting that the only valid morals are fixed morals, and the only fixed morals come from religion.
Therefore, the only true morals (as you appear to dismiss the validity of non-religious morals) come from religion.
Therefore, only those who are religious have true morals.
If this is wrong, then I fail to understand the point of your argument.
My argument is actually very simple, and I seem to have been misunderstood. I do not claim that only religious morals are valid, any 'good' moral is valid.
All I'm saying is, without a religious reason for a person's morals, they are liable to change, and I would rather not have a PM who might change her mind on moral issues.
Why is that? Because the 'progression' of morality is moving in a direction I don't like, with things like abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage and more, now either legally acceptable or close to it.
And yes, I do think that only people with religious morals have true morals. This is because morals which are derived purely from intellectual understanding and/or conscience are open to change, and hence are not 'true' according to that meaning of the word.
I feel this argument is going in circles now, might be a good time to end it.
It is comforting to have a rule book, isn't it? To be able to look at a scenario, go to the relevant part of your instructional book and say "Ah! This is what I'm supposed to do!"
For those who do not take the word of "god" as gospel, and critically analyse what is put in front of them, it is easy to see that the bible is/was a wonderful means of controlling the masses. This is because it was a wonderful source of comfort and closure. Anthropologically speaking, religion was an almost perfect counter-balance to the anarchy of uncertainty plaguing humanity.
The questions which underscore our existence are "where do we come from? why are we here? what is our purpose?"
In our early days, we had absolutely no clue how to even start looking for this answer - we only now have some small ideas. So the obvious solution by those wise heads who could deal with the truth that there was no real answer, was to invent a fake answer for those who couldn't. And hence, religion was born.
To placate those who could not deal with the nihilistic/existential reality that we have no idea why we are here. Religion had to be steadfast, and faultless. If it was to provide unyielding certainty to the uncertain, there had to be fixed morals, and there had to be fixed rules which could not waver.
But over time, humanity has greatly evolved intellectually. And as we have evolved we began to say "well hang on, I don't agree with this... I want to get divorced!" and so Catholicism lost a breakaway sect to Anglicanism. And then some Jews said "well I don't agree that women shouldn't allowed to read from the torah at shule!" and so formed Reform Judaism.
And so we see that religious morals are not so fixed. They are fixed to the level of certainty required by its uncertain congregants. The warm glow of comfort afforded by "it's all okay, god will take care of you and tell you how to live and what is right" is so appealing.
But many now realise that uncertainty is not such a bad thing. Why is it so important to know where we come from? Why can't we just enjoy being here? (Existentialism and modern agnosticism is born). And now, we who value reason and logic are ready to take the fight up to the religious zealots.
If you want to comfort yourself with god, then fine, go for it. That's your choice. You can live by whatever lifestyle you choose. But when you start trying to influence others with "No :(:( I dont' want society progressing to abortion rights and euthanasia rights :(" when the rest of society clearly wants it, then we have a problem, and the gloves come off. Because you are attempting to force an archaic belief on others without any reason or evidence, and that is highly vulgar. "It's written in the bible" is NOT a logical argument. And nobody who takes seriously the values of equality and liberty will allow liberty to be curtailed on the basis of a piece of religious literature.
Under religion, terrible atrocities have been committed. It is absolutely clear that morals MUST be debated and formulated based on reason. You can make an extremely logical argument for the rights of man and of citizen, based on freedom to do what we want to up until we infringe on others.
That logical argument alone counts for every moral we see in civilised society today. We have done away with the passages in the bible condoning selling our daughters into slavery, and stoning people for not following the sabbath (for Yitzi, sure, jews need a special Sanhedrin, but Christians don't and can do it on the authority of their priest. Yet they don't. Why? Because they learnt that people don't like that and accordingly CHANGED their morals).
And yet we have the religious right hollering about infringement of their rights. Nobody's telling you to get euthanised. Nobody's telling you to get an abortion. It's YOUR choice, but why would you prevent those who do not follow what you follow from pursuing their own courses of action?
The answer is simple. When society deviates from your beliefs, it's a rejection of your religion. If enough people do it, it significantly weakens the foundations of your religion. You are so scared of the acts becoming commonplace and "infecting" your congregation and converting your followers to logic and reason, that any of these "threats" must be stamped out.
And so we get the Yitzi's of the world talking about "true" morals.
But let me tell you now, the only CORRECT moral is the one which infringes nobody. A correct moral is one in which nobody's freedoms are curtailed. We don't live in a perfect world, and so a completely correct set of morals does not exist. The reason why we debate and change our morals is to achieve as great a harmony as possible with as many people as possible. You can think of it as a graph. When Christianity was at the peak of its powers, a significant amount of people suffered absurd hardships. Need I remind everyone of how many thousands of people were tortured in the name of "heresy"? So as we evolved our systems of governments, we started (and continue) to put freedoms back in the hands of people. And this is happening on the back of intelligent discussion and debate.
The fluidity of morals is what absolutely allows us to improve the standard of living for as many people as possible. If we never allowed our morals to change, then we'd still have slaves.
All religion does is prevent society from moving forwards. Keep your beliefs to yourselves and stop flailing your arms in the way of progress. In public policy and debate, logic and reason must take precedence. Please stop hindering society, for the love of god.
-
Wait - you're not voting Gillard on account of her being a close-minded bigot, when the other "real" option is Abbott?!?!?
Also, not to draw this off-topic or anything, but I'm curious as to why you're so set on the idea of gay marriage. I'm pro-gay rights (as anyone should be), but in regards to marriage I'm personally neutral (undecided) in that I'm not sure whether or not gay marriage is even "marriage" in a linguistic/philosophical sense. Would you be willing to accept there being an equivalent (in regards to the couple being granted the same status as a married one) without the title "marriage" in the process?
Hold on a second, when did I ever say I was voting for Abbott? I'm seriously considering throwing away my vote, just because I can't see anybody worth voting for.
[offtopic]
I'm set on that idea because I have not seen a single valid argument against it. I'd be happy to hear yours, if they're not the usual bullshit and easily refutable ones based on "religious institution", "it's wrong/unnatural" or "they're threatening the institution of marriage/family" etc.
I also do not understand the aversion to granting the title of "marriage" to such a union. Yes, I would be for your suggestion, if all marriages which did not take place within a religious context were also merely granted civil union status, i.e. they were also not recognised as marriages.
EDIT: or if your argument is not based on religion (which I have a feeling it isn't, so sorry for assuming), then ignore that.
In that case it would depend on what those philosophical/linguistic bases are.
Otherwise, it is (negative) discrimination. [I mention 'negative' because positive discrimination does exist and I do support it.] I have no respect for those who discriminate against people on the basis of sexuality. They are bigots, clear and simple.
[/offtopic]
-
Define 'disobedient'. In this context disobedient has an incredibly stringent definition, including many criteria, and I'd be astounded if you got it right.
" 18If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear."
Not exactly the stringent definition of disobedience you were telling me of? At least, thats what it says in my bible.
So, you've found the Bible reference. Now that you know all there is to know about the subject (because clearly there can't possibly be any more than the Bible verses alone) answer me this question:
If a father tells his son to bring him a coffee, and the son brings a tea, does he fit the definition of a 'rebellious son' and should he therefore be put to death?
I'll just let you know now that according to the majority opinion in the Talmud, there has never been a child who fulfilled all the criteria needed to garner a conviction as a rebellious son, so be careful how you answer.
-
enwiabe, I'd love to sit down and learn some Torah with you properly one day.
Until then, we'll have to agree to disagree.
-
Well, at least you've proved /0's point.
The many different 'interpretations' candidates can have of holy texts combined with some of the outdated morals exhibited makes me wary of candidates who profess to be strongly religious.
I think that as a source of morality for our modern society, religious texts are outdated. Lots of the morals put forth in holy books appear outright grotesque in our modern society, and so those who wish to base their morality on holy books must cherry pick from whatever reasonable passages are left.
and in addition to "whatever reasonable passages are left", also add "range of other texts and scholarly articles" because apparently the word of god isn't actually clear enough. (Isn't the bible supposed to be the word of god? It seems he is pretty crappy at being understandable and unequivocal. So much for 'fixed'.)
-
Well, at least you've proved /0's point.
The many different 'interpretations' candidates can have of holy texts combined with some of the outdated morals exhibited makes me wary of candidates who profess to be strongly religious.
I think that as a source of morality for our modern society, religious texts are outdated. Lots of the morals put forth in holy books appear outright grotesque in our modern society, and so those who wish to base their morality on holy books must cherry pick from whatever reasonable passages are left.
and in addition to "whatever reasonable passages are left", also add "range of other texts and scholarly articles" because apparently the word of god isn't actually clear enough. (Isn't the bible supposed to be the word of god? It seems he is pretty crappy at being understandable and unequivocal. So much for 'fixed'.)
In Judaism we have two Torahs: The Written Torah, or the Bible, and the Oral Torah, which is the transmission by the sages of all the details of the laws in the Written Torah.
Essentially the Written Torah is just like a notebook, it doesn't have the in-depth details of every law. For example, the law regading kosher slaughter in the Written Torah reads thus: 'And you shall slaughter as I have commanded'. Nowhere in the Written Torah do we find the commandments referred to about slaughter. This is because those laws were given to Moses orally, who passed them done to his disciples, and so on.
So actually, Judaism doesn't cherry pick commandments, we believe in and hold by every single verse. But there are other additional texts which explain, detail and clarify the commandments the listed in the Bible.
-
But there are other additional texts which explain, detail and clarify the commandments the listed in the Bible.
and in addition to "whatever reasonable passages are left", also add "range of other texts and scholarly articles"
I can't hold a decent debate with someone who doesn't actually read what I'm writing.
I also notice that you speak of Judaism. But you referred to religions as a whole. Can you say the same applies to the bible/Quran?
-
But there are other additional texts which explain, detail and clarify the commandments the listed in the Bible.
and in addition to "whatever reasonable passages are left", also add "range of other texts and scholarly articles"
I can't hold a decent debate with someone who doesn't actually read what I'm writing.
I also notice that you speak of Judaism. But you referred to religions as a whole. Can you say the same applies to the bible/Quran?
I did read what you wrote, what makes you think I didn't? I was agreeing with you that there are other texts, I was just explaining why they are necessary in addition to the Bible.
I don't know enough about the Quran to posit an argument like this, I'm arguing solely from my own viewpoint.
-
Wait - you're not voting Gillard on account of her being a close-minded bigot, when the other "real" option is Abbott?!?!?
Also, not to draw this off-topic or anything, but I'm curious as to why you're so set on the idea of gay marriage. I'm pro-gay rights (as anyone should be), but in regards to marriage I'm personally neutral (undecided) in that I'm not sure whether or not gay marriage is even "marriage" in a linguistic/philosophical sense. Would you be willing to accept there being an equivalent (in regards to the couple being granted the same status as a married one) without the title "marriage" in the process?
Hold on a second, when did I ever say I was voting for Abbott? I'm seriously considering throwing away my vote, just because I can't see anybody worth voting for.
[offtopic]
I'm set on that idea because I have not seen a single valid argument against it. I'd be happy to hear yours, if they're not the usual bullshit and easily refutable ones based on "religious institution", "it's wrong/unnatural" or "they're threatening the institution of marriage/family" etc.
I also do not understand the aversion to granting the title of "marriage" to such a union. Yes, I would be for your suggestion, if all marriages which did not take place within a religious context were also merely granted civil union status, i.e. they were also not recognised as marriages.
EDIT: or if your argument is not based on religion (which I have a feeling it isn't, so sorry for assuming), then ignore that.
In that case it would depend on what those philosophical/linguistic bases are.
Otherwise, it is (negative) discrimination. [I mention 'negative' because positive discrimination does exist and I do support it.] I have no respect for those who discriminate against people on the basis of sexuality. They are bigots, clear and simple.
[/offtopic]
Even if Gillard is bigoted in your opinion, surely she's votable (in those terms) over Abbott on the same terms. Whilst I get you in saying that to you, neither are "good" candidates, surely you can justify voting Gillard as the lesser of two evils? @_@
And again, I agree with you in saying that sexual discrimination in general is ridiculous, and I agree that the three subgroups of arguments you raise are generally pretty weak (especially the unnatural one - naturalistic fallacy, anyone?). The idea I'm trying to raise though is by making legally recognised homosexual unions "marriages" as well, you're sort of making them something that they're technically not. It's a really minor point, but it's like saying we discriminate against men by saying they can't be "actresses". Basically, I'm just arguing this in definitional terms - disregarding what marriage means socially, I always thought (and I could be wrong) that the linguistic definition is a legally recognised union between a man and a woman. Couldn't you just make a new word for a legally recognised union between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, so that they have the same number of "options" as heterosexual people, hence giving them equal status? This is just my interpretation though, and I'm open to criticism obviously.
And just to clarify, I'm neutral towards the issue itself, because I'm not sure how strong this particular view actually is. Also, in purely utilitarian terms (lol), I think making gay unions "marriages" would probably lead to a greater level of overall satisfaction anyway. :p
But there are other additional texts which explain, detail and clarify the commandments the listed in the Bible.
and in addition to "whatever reasonable passages are left", also add "range of other texts and scholarly articles"
I can't hold a decent debate with someone who doesn't actually read what I'm writing.
I also notice that you speak of Judaism. But you referred to religions as a whole. Can you say the same applies to the bible/Quran?
I did read what you wrote, what makes you think I didn't? I was agreeing with you that there are other texts, I was just explaining why they are necessary in addition to the Bible.
I don't know enough about the Quran to posit an argument like this, I'm arguing solely from my own viewpoint.
You basically just missed her point in saying that religious morals are hardly "fixed" because everybody and their mother has a different interpretation of the Bible's words.
-
That doesn't matter, they're still fixed to that one person (and their mother). Someone who truly believes in the religious basis for their morals will not change them, regardless of the interpretation they have.
-
That doesn't matter, they're still fixed to that one person (and their mother). Someone who truly believes in the religious basis for their morals will not change them, regardless of the interpretation they have.
...so if someone decided to flat-out believe in any given moral code as an absolute and could NEVER challenge it, wouldn't that also be a fixed moral according to your definition?
-
I suppose so, but to me that would constitute a religious belief of sorts, for there is no reason to believe in an unchallengable moral code unless it is mandated by a higher authority.
-
I suppose so, but to me that would constitute a religious belief of sorts, for there is no reason to believe in an unchallengable moral code unless it is mandated by a higher authority.
This line of reasoning leads to two problems.
1. Surely you can have your faith in a higher authority shaken in the same way people can have their intellectual beliefs challenged. Conversions, anyone?
2. Why does something being mandated by a higher authority make it "moral"? Think about it for a second.
-
@EZ: interesting point re: linguistic definition. I have no idea of the history behind the word "marriage", but you raise an interesting point which will be my mini-project for lunch break @ work tomorrow :P (assuming I even get a lunch break, stupid Parliament passing all their damn legislation)
@Yitzi. You criticise anyone questioning your views for not having enough knowledge about Judaism (and fair enough, I daresay you are the authority for Judaism on this forum), yet you admit to having little knowledge of other religions.
Despite that, you still choose to stick to a blanket statement of "all religious morals are fixed".
Take the example of wearing a burqa - that is, the "moral" of modesty for women. A brief Google search will reveal that there is much dissension amongst religious scholars as to whether the Quran actually mandates the wearing of the burqa, or whether mere modest dress is required.
Based on the same "higher authority", there are myriad, very different interpretations. Some women wear a burqa, some the hijab, some other variations (I forget the names), some no head covering at all, some (like my proudly Muslim friend) even wear short, strapless dresses on formal occasions. Not only this, but many women have switched from one to the other based on changing life circumstances. I am wondering how on earth you can justify defining this moral as "fixed". (And I'm sure this isn't the only example, but it is the only one I have studied.)
Further, if as you say fixed morals are sufficiently so when they are fixed per the individual's perceptions, how can you be sure any random person sharing your religion also shares your interpretation of whatever text(s) govern it? I do not see any difference between that situation and one where the atheist has his/her own morals. Both are unpredictable.
Why not just come out and say "I would prefer a Jewish PM"? Unless you can exhibit a similar level of understanding of (at least) the main religions as you demand from us on Judaism, that is really the most blanket statement you could make, and even then it is a rather shaky one, considering you've proven /0's point that religions are unpredictable and certainly not uniformly "fixed".
-
Also, not to draw this off-topic or anything, but I'm curious as to why you're so set on the idea of gay marriage. I'm pro-gay rights (as anyone should be), but in regards to marriage I'm personally neutral (undecided) in that I'm not sure whether or not gay marriage is even "marriage" in a linguistic/philosophical sense. Would you be willing to accept there being an equivalent (in regards to the couple being granted the same status as a married one) without the title "marriage" in the process?
I'm not quite sure I understand the argument from linguistic definition. Surely a word's original definition should be superseded by its current social definition? I believe the word 'boy' historically meant both males and females but no one would adopt this definition today. I can't see why the linguistic definition should have any importance if society no longer follows or accepts this definition.
Creating a new term for gay marriage may be regarded as non-PC and possibly even discriminatory. It would be for the same reason as why previously gender specific words are becoming more gender neutral. To use your example, 'Actress' is now a redundant word, as 'Actor' can refer to both male and females. Society is slowly stamping out words that differentiate groups, particularly if those groups are a minority. If this new proposed term is essentially identical to marriage, why not save the trouble and just call it marriage?
-
@Yitzi. You criticise anyone questioning your views for not having enough knowledge about Judaism (and fair enough, I daresay you are the authority for Judaism on this forum), yet you admit to having little knowledge of other religions.
I only criticise those who make statments about Judaism without having any knowledge about it. I don't (or at least try not to) make statments about other religions.
Despite that, you still choose to stick to a blanket statement of "all religious morals are fixed".
No, what I said was, the morals of religious people are fixed. There's a big difference.
Again, that only applies to people whose religiousness is fixed too.
-
Yitzi would you prefer an atheism or Muslim PM?
-
Yitzi would you prefer an atheism or Muslim PM?
That's a toughie. Chances are a Muslim would share more of my values and morals, on the other hand there are parts of Islam I'm completely against.
In all honesty I'm not sure. With reference to the above discussion, it would depend on that particular Muslim's approach and interpretation of his/her religion.
-
Don't all religious Muslims share the same common beliefs. Are you supportative of non-religious tolerant Muslims?
-
Also, not to draw this off-topic or anything, but I'm curious as to why you're so set on the idea of gay marriage. I'm pro-gay rights (as anyone should be), but in regards to marriage I'm personally neutral (undecided) in that I'm not sure whether or not gay marriage is even "marriage" in a linguistic/philosophical sense. Would you be willing to accept there being an equivalent (in regards to the couple being granted the same status as a married one) without the title "marriage" in the process?
I'm not quite sure I understand the argument from linguistic definition. Surely a word's original definition should be superseded by its current social definition? I believe the word 'boy' historically meant both males and females but no one would adopt this definition today. I can't see why the linguistic definition should have any importance if society no longer follows or accepts this definition.
Creating a new term for gay marriage may be regarded as non-PC and possibly even discriminatory. It would be for the same reason as why previously gender specific words are becoming more gender neutral. To use your example, 'Actress' is now a redundant word, as 'Actor' can refer to both male and females. Society is slowly stamping out words that differentiate groups, particularly if those groups are a minority. If this new proposed term is essentially identical to marriage, why not save the trouble and just call it marriage?
Fair point. Language is constantly evolving, I guess.
And Yitzi, you've addressed neither of the problems I've brought up, just saying.
-
I suppose so, but to me that would constitute a religious belief of sorts, for there is no reason to believe in an unchallengable moral code unless it is mandated by a higher authority.
This line of reasoning leads to two problems.
1. Surely you can have your faith in a higher authority shaken in the same way people can have their intellectual beliefs challenged. Conversions, anyone?
2. Why does something being mandated by a higher authority make it "moral"? Think about it for a second.
1. True, but I've said all along that I'm talking about someone whose religiousness is fixed. Obviously if he religious beliefs of the person are not fixed, the morals won't be either.
2. The Free Online Dictionary defines a moral person as one who is 'Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous'. Given that the higher authority is the one who defines what is 'right and just behaviour' then what He mandates as the correct way to act is therefore moral behaviour.
-
2. The Free Online Dictionary defines a moral person as one who is 'Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous'. Given that the higher authority is the one who defines what is 'right and just behaviour' then what He mandates as the correct way to act is therefore moral behaviour.
I think this is the problem; I don't think there is any universal definition of what is right or wrong. What you have said is only one perspective (a perspective that I believe results in blind conformity - something similar to sacrificing your own rational mind to the beliefs of that "higher authority").
-
2. The Free Online Dictionary defines a moral person as one who is 'Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous'. Given that the higher authority is the one who defines what is 'right and just behaviour' then what He mandates as the correct way to act is therefore moral behaviour.
I think this is the problem; I don't think there is any universal definition of what is right or wrong. What you have said is only one perspective (a perspective that I believe results in blind conformity - something similar to sacrificing your own rational mind to the beliefs of that "higher authority").
Milgram experiment, anyone? Humans will commit whatever atrocities necessary under the guidance of a higher, unquestionable authority... "Crusade against the Muslims!" They said. And so they followed, and slaughtered thousands. Lemmings.
-
I don't (or at least try not to) make statments about other religions.
Yes, it does make me think less of her. Without religion, there are no fixed morals whatsoever.
I'd rather have a prime minister with fixed morals.
Perhaps you should edit it (again) to "Without Judaism".
First you state you would prefer a religious PM, then you state that you aren't actually sure whether you'd prefer a Muslim one over an atheist one. You also apparently would not prefer a Satanist, even though Satanism is also a religion. (You never actually responded to that argument.)
Therefore, once again:
Why not just come out and say "I would prefer a Jewish PM"?
No, what I said was, the morals of religious people are fixed. There's a big difference.
Again, that only applies to people whose religiousness is fixed too.
Did you read the burqa example? Plenty of women remain fixed on their religion of Islam, yet change their "morals" regarding modesty of dress. They still believe in the same allah, same quran etc. but they have just chosen to take a different interpretation of the text. How do you explain them?
-
A bit of west wing awesomeness for you guys on the upstanding morals of religion :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHaVUjjH3EI&feature=related
Nice clip, pretty much sums up my arguments against people who take the bible literally.
The 'fixed morals' of religious candidates is mostly irrelevant to the debate. It is not true that being stubborn about your moral code automatically justifies your moral code.
I think that as a source of morality for our modern society, religious texts are outdated. Lots of the morals put forth in holy books appear outright grotesque in our modern society, and so those who wish to base their morality on holy books must cherry pick from whatever reasonable passages are left.
The many different 'interpretations' candidates can have of holy texts combined with some of the outdated morals exhibited makes me wary of candidates who profess to be strongly religious.
First I want to say that I'm disappointed that I missed out on that show.
I share /0's view aswell. I personally find cherrypicking from the bible is good since there is good morals in it, but then again there is are some things that I can only define as down right 'WEIRD'.
-
I suppose so, but to me that would constitute a religious belief of sorts, for there is no reason to believe in an unchallengable moral code unless it is mandated by a higher authority.
This line of reasoning leads to two problems.
1. Surely you can have your faith in a higher authority shaken in the same way people can have their intellectual beliefs challenged. Conversions, anyone?
2. Why does something being mandated by a higher authority make it "moral"? Think about it for a second.
1. True, but I've said all along that I'm talking about someone whose religiousness is fixed. Obviously if he religious beliefs of the person are not fixed, the morals won't be either.
2. The Free Online Dictionary defines a moral person as one who is 'Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous'. Given that the higher authority is the one who defines what is 'right and just behaviour' then what He mandates as the correct way to act is therefore moral behaviour.
1. How can a person's religious beliefs be commonly fixed more than a person's philosophical beliefs? You've given no proper justification - faith is just as (if not moreso) corruptable than one's intellectual beliefs, in my opinion.
2. Using the dictionary definition, your argument makes no sense. Why does the higher authority define what is "right and just behaviour"? If the King of the World told you killing is good, does that make it automatically moral? Appeal to an authority doesn't make up for something lacking in any justification.
Also, another question - you say you use religious texts as a reference for religious morals. Why are the texts important? You say the Bible is the word of God - how do you know that? How can you prove that? Why would you even think that? Your arguments rest on some sort of faith which seems unjustifiable.
-
I suppose so, but to me that would constitute a religious belief of sorts, for there is no reason to believe in an unchallengable moral code unless it is mandated by a higher authority.
This line of reasoning leads to two problems.
1. Surely you can have your faith in a higher authority shaken in the same way people can have their intellectual beliefs challenged. Conversions, anyone?
2. Why does something being mandated by a higher authority make it "moral"? Think about it for a second.
1. True, but I've said all along that I'm talking about someone whose religiousness is fixed. Obviously if he religious beliefs of the person are not fixed, the morals won't be either.
2. The Free Online Dictionary defines a moral person as one who is 'Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous'. Given that the higher authority is the one who defines what is 'right and just behaviour' then what He mandates as the correct way to act is therefore moral behaviour.
1. How can a person's religious beliefs be commonly fixed more than a person's philosophical beliefs? You've given no proper justification - faith is just as (if not moreso) corruptable than one's intellectual beliefs, in my opinion.
2. Using the dictionary definition, your argument makes no sense. Why does the higher authority define what is "right and just behaviour"? If the King of the World told you killing is good, does that make it automatically moral? Appeal to an authority doesn't make up for something lacking in any justification.
Also, another question - you say you use religious texts as a reference for religious morals. Why are the texts important? You say the Bible is the word of God - how do you know that? How can you prove that? Why would you even think that? Your arguments rest on some sort of faith which seems unjustifiable.
Welcome to the world of athiesm/agnostism!
I as an athiest I question how a higher order being chose someone to be the person to spread the word that this is how things should be done.
The fact is that being religious requires you to accept this, whereas 'us' tend to not be sold on the idea.
-
On a completely unrelated note, atheism makes the same leap of faith theism makes, that being 'there is no God'. We don't have enough proof for whether there are any, we don't have enough proof for whether there aren't any. Just because you can't prove it doesn't mean it does not exist.
Now, as you were, gentlemen.
-
I don't think atheism makes the same leap of faith. The proposition, 'God exists' is vastly different to the proposition 'God does not exist', because the former can be proven while the latter cannot. Atheists do not need to disprove god's existence, the burden of proof is on the believer.
With agnosticism, the possible existence of an infinite number of other entities such as Zeus, the Flying Mi Goreng, or the Great Green Arkleseizure must be considered. It essentially says nothing about everything.
On the other hand, atheism is step zero. It is the state from which all existence proofs begin. If all existence proofs have failed to convince you then I think it is reasonable to say that you therefore lack belief.
-
On a completely unrelated note, atheism makes the same leap of faith theism makes, that being 'there is no God'. We don't have enough proof for whether there are any, we don't have enough proof for whether there aren't any. Just because you can't prove it doesn't mean it does not exist.
Now, as you were, gentlemen.
I discussed this point with a friend of mine who is very outspoken about atheism etc. I will post his opinion shortly, pending his approval.
In the meantime, here is an article which discusses the point. See what you think:
http://www.godless.biz/2010/07/02/what-is-atheism/
EDIT: here is his reply:
First off, atheism is defined as "lack of a belief that a God/deity exists". This is different to "a belief that a God/deity does not exist" (although it is similar, and is, confusingly, still atheism). The latter is a claim for non-existence, and therefore has a burden of proof associated with it, while the former is a rejection of arguments that attempt to satisfy the burden of proof of the claim that a God/deity does exist.
There are naming issues with differentiating the two beliefs, because both are forms of atheism, but the most common is weak/strong atheism, with weak atheism being the "lack of a belief that a God/deity exists" and strong atheism being "a belief that a God/deity does not exist". Thus, strong atheism has a burden of proof, and weak atheism doesn't.
Agnosticism and atheism are not incompatible, as agnosticism states that it is impossible to know if a God/deity exists, while atheism states that you do not believe that a God/deity exists - absolute knowledge is different to belief. Agnosticism also applies differently to the different definitions of God, which means that you can have separate positions on each definition of God that you come across, ie. from each of the major religions, which all define God differently. Adding gnostic/agnostic to your position about a certain God mostly comes down to how that God is defined and how much you personally know about that definition of God. You can't be gnostic with regards to a God you know nothing or little about.
As such, speaking about my own position, I'm a gnostic strong atheist when it comes to biblically-defined versions of the Christian God, due to the logical contradictions that rule them out from possibly existing, meaning that I can know that they do not exist, and I believe that they do not.
But when it comes to other deities that I've never really thought about, such as Allah or the various Hindu gods, I'm an agnostic weak atheist, because I can't form a certain (gnostic) position about their existence due to the fact that I don't know enough about them, and that I simply do not hold the belief that they exist, much like I don't hold the belief that aliens are in orbit around the Earth, invisible and undetectable due to their advanced cloaking technology.
So, to actually directly answer your first question, "atheism" only makes a leap of faith when you are a strong atheist without fulfilling the burden of proof that such a position demands, as weak atheism has no burden of proof, so it's impossible to make a leap of faith.
To answer the second question, disbelief is not the same as saying that it does not exist - disbelief is the weak atheistic position, while saying that it does not exist is the strong atheistic position (and it would also stray into gnostic territory if you're professing knowledge, rather than just your own belief).
So the point made is both incorrect and correct - atheism isn't just saying "there is no God" (most atheists would be weak atheists), but there is a faith-like element in the strong atheistic position IF IT'S UNJUSTIFIED. Note that it's impossible to make a blanket, justified position about all Gods, so a leap of faith is involved if someone says "There are definitely no Gods", but if someone says "This specific definition of God does not exist, and here's why" then it's perfectly reasonable.
In short, you can be a weak atheist with regard to all possible Gods without a leap of faith, and you'd probably find, if you investigated, that most people that define themselves as atheists would fall under the weak atheist label. Simplistically saying that all atheists make the same leap of faith that (probably?) most theists do is a bit irresponsible in my book.
-
I like this quote:
"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. ” —Richard Dawkins
-
I suppose so, but to me that would constitute a religious belief of sorts, for there is no reason to believe in an unchallengable moral code unless it is mandated by a higher authority.
This line of reasoning leads to two problems.
1. Surely you can have your faith in a higher authority shaken in the same way people can have their intellectual beliefs challenged. Conversions, anyone?
2. Why does something being mandated by a higher authority make it "moral"? Think about it for a second.
1. True, but I've said all along that I'm talking about someone whose religiousness is fixed. Obviously if he religious beliefs of the person are not fixed, the morals won't be either.
2. The Free Online Dictionary defines a moral person as one who is 'Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous'. Given that the higher authority is the one who defines what is 'right and just behaviour' then what He mandates as the correct way to act is therefore moral behaviour.
1. How can a person's religious beliefs be commonly fixed more than a person's philosophical beliefs? You've given no proper justification - faith is just as (if not moreso) corruptable than one's intellectual beliefs, in my opinion.
2. Using the dictionary definition, your argument makes no sense. Why does the higher authority define what is "right and just behaviour"? If the King of the World told you killing is good, does that make it automatically moral? Appeal to an authority doesn't make up for something lacking in any justification.
Also, another question - you say you use religious texts as a reference for religious morals. Why are the texts important? You say the Bible is the word of God - how do you know that? How can you prove that? Why would you even think that? Your arguments rest on some sort of faith which seems unjustifiable.
The 'king of the world' does not to get to dictate what is right/wrong. When I said 'higher authority' I wasn't talking about a true authority, ie G-d. Since He is the creator of the world, the creator of humanity, and the creator of morals, He gets to tell us what is right and what is not, and His definition of right and wrong is correct and unchallengable.
As for your point about the divinity of the Bible, that's a discussion for another topic.
-
I suppose so, but to me that would constitute a religious belief of sorts, for there is no reason to believe in an unchallengable moral code unless it is mandated by a higher authority.
This line of reasoning leads to two problems.
1. Surely you can have your faith in a higher authority shaken in the same way people can have their intellectual beliefs challenged. Conversions, anyone?
2. Why does something being mandated by a higher authority make it "moral"? Think about it for a second.
1. True, but I've said all along that I'm talking about someone whose religiousness is fixed. Obviously if he religious beliefs of the person are not fixed, the morals won't be either.
2. The Free Online Dictionary defines a moral person as one who is 'Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous'. Given that the higher authority is the one who defines what is 'right and just behaviour' then what He mandates as the correct way to act is therefore moral behaviour.
1. How can a person's religious beliefs be commonly fixed more than a person's philosophical beliefs? You've given no proper justification - faith is just as (if not moreso) corruptable than one's intellectual beliefs, in my opinion.
2. Using the dictionary definition, your argument makes no sense. Why does the higher authority define what is "right and just behaviour"? If the King of the World told you killing is good, does that make it automatically moral? Appeal to an authority doesn't make up for something lacking in any justification.
Also, another question - you say you use religious texts as a reference for religious morals. Why are the texts important? You say the Bible is the word of God - how do you know that? How can you prove that? Why would you even think that? Your arguments rest on some sort of faith which seems unjustifiable.
The 'king of the world' does not to get to dictate what is right/wrong. When I said 'higher authority' I wasn't talking about a true authority, ie G-d. Since He is the creator of the world, the creator of humanity, and the creator of morals, He gets to tell us what is right and what is not, and His definition of right and wrong is correct and unchallengable.
As for your point about the divinity of the Bible, that's a discussion for another topic.
But as you cannot prove this, then your argument falls down completely. You just assume that words writtten down in a book => god exists => god created the world etc.
Show us proof. Oh wait, it's "I BELIEVE!!! (read: I've been forced/brainwashed into believing by the expectations of my family + community)".
Doesn't cut the mustard anymore. Ridiculous, absurd, UNCONSCIONABLE human rights abuses have occurred under religion. "I believe" is no longer an argument. Let's see some proof. Oh shi-
-
But as you cannot prove this, then your argument falls down completely. You just assume that words writtten down in a book => god exists => god created the world etc.
Show us proof. Oh wait, it's "I BELIEVE!!! (read: I've been forced/brainwashed into believing by the expectations of my family + community)".
Doesn't cut the mustard anymore. Ridiculous, absurd, UNCONSCIONABLE human rights abuses have occurred under religion. "I believe" is no longer an argument. Let's see some proof. Oh shi-
Ridiculous, absurd, UNCONSCIONABLE human rights abuses have occurred under atheism too. Need I mention Stalin?
-
But as you cannot prove this, then your argument falls down completely. You just assume that words writtten down in a book => god exists => god created the world etc.
Show us proof. Oh wait, it's "I BELIEVE!!! (read: I've been forced/brainwashed into believing by the expectations of my family + community)".
Doesn't cut the mustard anymore. Ridiculous, absurd, UNCONSCIONABLE human rights abuses have occurred under religion. "I believe" is no longer an argument. Let's see some proof. Oh shi-
Ridiculous, absurd, UNCONSCIONABLE human rights abuses have occurred under atheism too. Need I mention Stalin?
Yes, but not in the name of atheism. The difference is that people have used (and in some cases still use) religion as an excuse to kill etc.
The problem with religion is that it is way too corruptible to be used as a basis for a government. Religion, on an individual level, I believe is a powerful thing, allowing one to live the best life that they can, where it encourages good-will and charity. Take any truly islamic state (for example, Iran). Not such a great place to live-- because Islam has been corrupted. Catholicism also had its fair share of human rights abuse because the core message of the religion has been corrupted (with the Crusades but one example of this).
I would rather a secular society than an overly-religious one, despite being religious myself.
-
Looking at the above quote, I would probably be classified as a weak athiest. I personally find some athiest proofs that god can't exist a bit weird. I would say I'm definately irreligious or atleast skeptical because I just don't like the fact that everything is concrete and you can't investigate things for yourself (I someday will be a scientist and my profession will be this), I also see religion being abused.
But I don't know if I could make the leap of faith to say 'GOD DOES NOT EXIST'. Simply because the origin of our universe can't be explained (I.e. When t=0 - even though we know what happened at t=10^-43s) yet (or ever?), more precisely they can't be explained with empirical proof.
One thing that forces me to question why people believe god created the Earth and us is that simply we occupy such a small portion of our universe and to say we are it makes me believe the quote by the girl's father in contact 'it would be such a waste of space' (I don't think that is word for word).
-
But as you cannot prove this, then your argument falls down completely. You just assume that words writtten down in a book => god exists => god created the world etc.
Show us proof. Oh wait, it's "I BELIEVE!!! (read: I've been forced/brainwashed into believing by the expectations of my family + community)".
Doesn't cut the mustard anymore. Ridiculous, absurd, UNCONSCIONABLE human rights abuses have occurred under religion. "I believe" is no longer an argument. Let's see some proof. Oh shi-
Ridiculous, absurd, UNCONSCIONABLE human rights abuses have occurred under atheism too. Need I mention Stalin?
Yes, but not in the name of atheism. The difference is that people have used (and in some cases still use) religion as an excuse to kill etc.
The problem with religion is that it is way too corruptible to be used as a basis for a government. Religion, on an individual level, I believe is a powerful thing, allowing one to live the best life that they can, where it encourages good-will and charity. Take any truly islamic state (for example, Iran). Not such a great place to live-- because Islam has been corrupted. Catholicism also had its fair share of human rights abuse because the core message of the religion has been corrupted (with the Crusades but one example of this).
I would rather a secular society than an overly-religious one, despite being religious myself.
Couldn't have put it better myself, Fady_22. Simple Answer: Religion and Politics don't mix.
-
I can't take anyone seriously if they're not agnostic (and follow some variation of deism).
0 respect to anyone else.
zero
-
I can't take anyone seriously if they're not agnostic (and follow some variation of deism).
0 respect to anyone else.
zero
You respect people who believe in not believing, which in itself is a belief.
-
I can't take anyone seriously if they're not agnostic (and follow some variation of deism).
0 respect to anyone else.
zero
You respect people who believe in not believing, which in itself is a belief.
Believe means accept as true.
In addition, a quick Google search for a definition of what agnostic means (you'll get a better definition than I could give you) will mean even you can be satirical next time without making a fool of yourself!
Good try though!
-
I can't take anyone seriously if they're not agnostic (and follow some variation of deism).
0 respect to anyone else.
zero
This just makes you seem like you're horrendously intolerant...
-
I can't take anyone seriously if they're not agnostic (and follow some variation of deism).
0 respect to anyone else.
zero
This just makes you seem like you're horrendously intolerant...
i am though
-
Well as long as you're okay with that *shrug*
-
it's the tolerance of otherwise decent men that lets evil thrive in the world
-
How trite.