Kirth, how long did it take you before you were able to silence the chittering monkey?
He's never totally quiet, but I can feed him bananas now. I'm not trying to be flippant; that's the thing. I'm a Buddhist, but my practice hasn't bloomed into satori by a long shot.
Another hypothetical question, which seem dangerous in this environment...a slave in 17th century America, should he accept his position in life and not desire freedom? I cringe as I write this because it sounds like I am trying to poke you with a stick until you yield. I promise you, that is not my intent. I am honestly trying to iron out all the possibilities and wrap my head around truly abandoning desire.
Yield? At the risk of sounding Kung-Fu-esque, bamboo bends with the wind, rather than breaking. Your questions are fair. And this one is a pleasant surprise: I've never heard the Buddhist Slave one before. I like it! So here goes:
As near as I can tell, a hypothetical Buddhist slave would have had three choices, in descending order of desireability:
1. Stage nonviolent demonstrations, Gandhi-style, until he and the others were freed.
2. Escape outright and join the underground railroad to help others do so.
3. Barring any possibility of success for the first two (e.g., no other slaves, kept in chains 24/7), attain full non-ego as quickly as possible and escape from suffering himself in that manner. Picking cotton would be like pleasant meditation at that point. But he couldn't build weapons or hurt others under any amount of whipping.
These are Mahayana thoughts, in which helping others is equated with helping oneself. The responsibility is to lessen as much suffering as possible. In any case, he would pity, rather than hate, his "owners."
|
No one can prove God exsist as much as I'd like to, what I can prove is my FAITH in a higher being that for lack of a formal name I call God. That and the word "proof" is misused sometimes(thank you Kirth ;p)And I would not presume to tell you about your faith. Just don't expect me to take anything on your faith and we'll get along just fine. :)
Never would. Hell I've already said I might be crazy lol.
Not tryin to convert anybody... ain't my place. Just interested in hearing other viewpoints so as to futher my own understanding of the people that I share this dirtball called earth with. :)
It is very common for people to claim that, for example, creationism (sorry: ID) and evolution should be on par.Well, in different ways. In a science classroom or a discussion of how the natural world actually works, ID has absolutely no place at all.
I must very slightly disagree. It would be perfectly fair for a science classroom to have a discussion of how we know that ID is false, just like we know that phlogiston theory is false, or the flat earth theory is false, or geocentristic theory is false. In fact, that's a great way to show how science actually works.
One can imagine the calls from the parents and the shrieks of persecution now.
One can imagine the calls from the parents and the shrieks of persecution now.
Yes; and endless stream of "martyrs." And it's just not worth it. Be polite to others. Show them how you think, lay out the evidence, and let them make their own conclusions about the validity. If you teach them well enough, they'll dismiss ID as non-science on their own. If not, nothing you say or do will convince them anyway.
|
Stupid America. And this time we've been teaching that communism, racism, cowardice and genocide caused all that trouble in the last century.
I think America is clearly guilty of at least three of these...
Racism? Slavery, Jim Crow, treaties with Natives, Manifest Destiny and the Monroe Doctrine for those in Latin America...
Genocide? Native Americans would probably have something to say, maybe ask a Cherokee or a Seminole. How many Americans supported the ideas of Nazi Germany? I've heard that the only good Jap is a dead Jap...
Cowardice? We've got 2600 more nukes than all the other countries of the world combined. What is the point when a fraction of that could obliterate all life? Picking fights with smaller powers around the world such as Spain, Japan, Cuba, Mexico...
I'm not sure if I'd actually say that Communism is a problem, but the Bolshevism of Soviet Russia clearly was problematic. Sadly, its founding ethics and virtues died over the next seventy years before it devolved into little more than a dictatorship. True Communism has never been achieved.
I'm turning in my morality and beliefs in exchange for...nothing in its place...clearly we Christians are nothing but trouble, and America is the vehicle by which we stir the pudding. From today forward, I say we pick a race we can't afford and kill them all!
Never said you guys were the cause of the problem. What I am saying is that there is clearly a difference between right and wrong, and no matter how much spin you put on something it is still wrong. America has picked fights in the past for no other reason than it could.
I don't wish to derail this thread further.
RPG Superstar 2013
|
...religion simply changes its position as science reveals previous doctrine to be false, God can never be disproved. In essence, God is a moving target, forever retreating to the next area of human ignorance. So we have a matter of fact that neither side can ever prove. Therefore, my rational mind demands I go with the preponderance of the evidence. Those who choose to follow a different path are free to do so, but I'm under no obligation (in fact, it would be dishonest) to call their position anything other than irrational.
Fascinating. When science was an intellectual pursuit, you know, before there was billions of dollars invested in it, science and Christianity stood hand in hand. Since we can all agree that macro evolution is a biological fact, let's hear what Christians have to say about that: NOTHING! We agree.
Microevolution...well...another great example of doing what you accuse others of. Christians don't much budge on the 'we didn't come from monkeys' thing. But data is massaged all the time to fit the current theory, rather than being used to fuel a new theory.
And I really guess paradigm is more accurate than theory.
Hey, it happens in business. It happens in other relationships. Why are we pretending that the scientific community is freer from corruption than the rest of us? It doesn't take long for global warming discussions to dissolve into a matter of credibility. Why not theoretical microbiology?
I don't want to be thought of as uncivil, though I know I take these topics very personally. There was a guy a few posts ago who said basically 'this has been enlightening. I don't agree, but I have enjoyed the perspective.' I can handle that, but not the 'religion keeps changing its position as science reveals it to be bunk.' That's very presumptive. What does the 'preponderance of evidence' tell you? That we can know enough to plot a course to the moon and study stars, but we can't tell you where they came from. That wherever they came from, they had to had to have a beginning somewhere and we don't know that. That however life became what it is today, it got its start somewhere.
We might not all be able to agree on a religion or such, but comments like 'God is forever retreating into the next area of human ignorance' are indeed judgmental and arrogant.
Now, I am going to take my D-type personality and go to bed. Missed Harper's Island again. Rats.
|
|
I must very slightly disagree. It would be perfectly fair for a science classroom to have a discussion of how we know that ID is false, ...
At first, I was annoyed by this. I was thinking, "What test proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that there wasn't any intelligence behind the design of where we are?" But apparently the general community at large and I have differences of oppinion regarding what "intelligent design" is about. Apparently, what I am, is a theistic evolutionist. When did that happen.
I do believe that there is intelligence behind the design. At the same time, I too agree that what people at large are calling intelligence design should not be taught in the science classroom. God is not a theory to be tested.
I guess the only reason that I'm posting is that I wish that "ID" had a different definition.
Edit: I missed an all important "not". I must be tired...
Science is a methodology, not a set of knowledge. If you were transported to an alternate dimension where the laws of physics were different, you could use science to determine those laws.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Are you actually suggesting that poverty is a result of a specific religious affiliation (or lack thereof) and not just greed on the part of variously affiliated people?
Not even a little bit. You can't eliminate poverty because some poeple choose it. Complacency is comfortable. When you struggle you don't have to face the responibility of being grateful. We all have friends who'd rather whine thant take a risk and accept responsibility for themselves. Heck, after a few hard days, I chosen to be that guy til I can cool off.
No, what I am saying is that hard work used to be the expected norm, and a greedy elite determined to create a demographic so they could enjoy endless re-elections. Poverty expands when you cultivate it.
There's no intended correlation between the asserted 'Christian' 1950s and an older, more responsible work ethic. Working hard and not depending on handouts is a principle of Christlike living, but it's not unique to Christianity. I am just pointing to the expansion of poverty and a general sprint towards socialism that has not served America, and is not based on an older value system.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
I think America is clearly guilty of at least three of these...
My point is that we are not less guilty, as a nation, than other nations. No one can deny that racism and classism are a part of human history, and that with those roots America has moments in its history we'd rather hide under the rug. But America has done more good for the world than bad, and has shown more compassion to the world than any other nation. This is true of both its government and its private citizens. We deserve some credit.
Genocide? Native Americans would probably have something to say, maybe ask a Cherokee or a Seminole. How many Americans supported the ideas of Nazi Germany? I've heard that the only good Jap is a dead Jap...
There is a big difference between breaking treaties because of overpopulation or resource needs and gasing millions of people because of their race alone. Living in Tulsa, I am sensitive to the history of our country and the native American tribes. We can't replace those deeds and experiences, but we didn't declare an entire race anathema and try to murder them all.
Maybe our grandfathers said the only good Jap is a dead Jap, but clearly that's an issue of hating your enemy. As illustration, I have little concern for the extremist coward who gets gunned down because he attempted to kill American civilians after surrendering. But if I see a woman with a burka walking down the street, I feel nothing but compassion. Why aren't millions crying out about the plight of Islamic women the world over? DO you give us credit for enabling 20 million muslim women to vote for the first time ever?
Cowardice? We've got 2600 more nukes than all the other countries of the world combined. What is the point when a fraction of that could obliterate all life? Picking fights with smaller powers around the world such as Spain, Japan, Cuba, Mexico...
This point was articulated often during the 80s. You provide peace by being bigger than the bullies. When we were soft on terrorism, we were attacked. When we stayed out of WW2, we were attacked. When we were too afraid to fight Communism (that is to say, when the state department and the media villified people until defending freedom was no longer politically viable), genocide happened, people died, and millions more starved. To serve an elite group. Despite reports to the contrary every election cycle, Communism has always served to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.
Looking around the world today, someone is going to have to have the courage to put crazy people out of business. China, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, the Taliban. If we don't have nukes, and the fortitude to tell (most of) them they can't have them, how will their neighbors survive? If you don't want the US to be the world's most capable superpower, who do you think it should be?
I'm not sure if I'd actually say that Communism is a problem, but the Bolshevism of Soviet Russia clearly was problematic. Sadly, its founding ethics and virtues died over the next seventy years before it devolved into little more than a dictatorship. True Communism has never been achieved.
Power has been pursued using the proscriptions of Marxism, and it ends in mass murder, poverty, and negative aggression. The missing element in the theory of Communism is the inherent selfishness of the people that rise to the top. If that were not the case, where are the exceptions? I concede that 'true Communism' has never been acheived. Do you agree that it never will?
Never said you guys were the cause of the problem. What I am saying is that there is clearly a difference between right and wrong, and no matter how much spin you put on something it is still wrong. America has picked fights in the past for no other reason than it could.
I wonder what fights America picked that it should not have? Not that there might not be some, but I'd like to look into the suggestions and make a decision on them.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
My sex life was illegal in parts of this country until 2003. I'm sorry, but that is indeed a fact...But I'm sure you somehow still think it's posturing.I wonder how many people were sent to prison for concensual sodomy in 1959. The point isn't that some stupid laws weren't on the books, it's that you painted that decade as some oppressive regime where Christians were in control and everything else was subhuman and evil, and that simply is just posturing. Christians weren't any more in charge of this country then than they are now. Socially, the country might be more accepting of your lifestyle, but are we more moral? Hardly.
Yeah. In 1959, my sex life was evil and I could be sent to prison for going on a date and getting some. So were interracial marriages. Your wife had no legal right to say no if you wanted to take a tumble; forcing her was not rape. She was evil to say no. If you weren't white, you had precious few rights any white felt obligated to respect. It was evil to want otherwise. If you weren't a Christian, forget about being considered an equal human being. I mean, you're obviously evil.
You're right; sounds like a wonderland. Man I wish I could go back there and be subhuman. That would be awesome.
I didn't say that rape and racism were tenets of Christianity. When complaining about the intellectual honesty of others, it behooves the complainer to discover some of his own. I listed the lack of respect for the rights of non-Christians as one of a number of major reasons not to wish for a return to 1959 society, not the root cause of them all.You mentioned marital rape and racism, and summarized with the statement "If you weren't a Christian, forget about being considered an equal human being. I mean, you're obviously evil." You then reply, incorrectly using a Bible passage to imply some defense for the behavior. You linked Christanity to these things, and that is why I object so strongly. Speaking as a man with gay friends, and having never cared a bit about a person's color, except to enjoy a rich culture, and having never forced myself on my wife, I guess I'd say on a one for one basis, Christianity is not the cause of the ills you suggested.
Paul describes an ideal setting for the family as designed by God. Husbands love their lives and take the mantle of spiritual leadership. Wives, love husbands and fulfill Eve's original role as helper. The Bible doesn't say a woman can't be president or queen or any such thing, and certainly at no time implies a husband can force himself on his wife. I can tell you that I'd have concerns about any law that allows a crazy person to temp their spouse into bed and then frame them for rape. How a secular government maneuvers around that problem is beyond my kung fu. guess I'd like to look into it. But let's not blame Paul without reading his whole works.
I don't know how many of these Southern Christians marched to keep segregation in force. Was it Christians who filibustered the CRA in 1964? Byrd might have joined a Baptist church many years later and apologized, but he didn't swear to see America crumble before he fought alongside a Negro because of anything based on the Bible. Fairly inclusive group, Christians. Must be why we spend so much money and time feeding and clothing and educating folks.
Look..I'm a little sympathetic. I'm a Christian that believes homosexuality is wrong, but I love my free country, and I don't believe my gay friends are any farther from God than any other nonChristians. But in your post, you connected Christianity with this assumption that every act not cleaned up on the law books was still considered evil, and that is posturing. Jesus never carried a sign declaring 'God hates f*gs' - as that bizarre and nonChristian 'church' does to make a name for itself. I've never called a gay man evil, and here in a few hours I'll be surrounded by people who could tell you the same thing, and no small fraction of them were Christians back in 1959.
Subhuman is a man who cuts off another's head on the internet in order to maintain power. That's evil. That's a good use for the words you chose. The other stuff was just pretentious.
Just caught this thread....
Science is a methodology, not a set of knowledge. If you were transported to an alternate dimension where the laws of physics were different, you could use science to determine those laws.
There's been a fair amount of sense here, and this is one of the best summaries of the true role of science. ::claps:: The methodology is iteratively used to propose->test->prove/disprove a theory, typically one which is derived on the end results of previous iterations of the methodology. At each iteration a new stability is achieved, a new understanding of the universe.
It's a straightforward, and elegant, process which has produced shed loads of benefit.
Any more than that, though (and I might have missed a previous thread), and an advocate risks promoting it to the religion "Science". Once it's gone that far, it risks facing off against another religion.
One can have "faith" in both science and God. The two are not diametrically opposed.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mr Helt,
Samnell was responding to a post of DigitalElf's where he (DigitalElf) opined that everything went downhill from the 1950's when "we stopped teaching Christianity in school". Samnell did not create the link between 1950's morality and Christianity, DigitalElf did. As Samnell has pointed out, if you were white, male, Christian and straight, 1950's America was a great place. If your were not-white? Not so much. Not-straight? Not so much. Not male? Not so much. According to DigitalElf's original post, the 1950's were good because of Christianity. If that was so, which it isn't, then they would also be bad because of Christianity.
As for science, well, your argument about 'massaging the data' is b&%!$**s. Sorry to be uncivil, but as a geneticist, and therefore someone who's actually studied evolution up close, there is plenty of evidence and more evidence tends to confirm the basic idea. You can not believe it as you wish, but please don't accuse people on the other side of lying about it. You've been very vocal in defence of Christians against people saying they're not honest, I suggest you adopt the same attitude to the other side of the discussion. I also suggest you actually educate yourself on evolution from a source that doesn't agree with you. It can be enlightening. I suggest here as a start, if it lets you on. Especially the 24 myths and instant expert. You don't have to accept, but if you continue to disparage people like me as you have done, this thread is going to get decidedly uncivil. Bugleyman shouldn't disparage you, I fail to see why you should be allowed to get away with doing the same to me.
As to Kirth's excellent post on science and belief and the different world views they foster, one additional quote, especially to the claim of 'science is a moving target': "When the evidence proves me wrong, I change my opinion. What do you do?" Keynes
Further, religion being a moving target well, a few things religion has changed it's mind on: heliocentricity, age of the earth (in some cases), microevolution, slavery, women's rights, macroevolutoion (accepted by the Catholic church and many other churches now. You might not, but other Christians have no problem with it). Now on things like "God created everything", "Jesus was the son of god" and the like, no, you haven't moved much. But on issues where there is scientific evidence available (which there isn't on God, nor can there be, so anyone claiming to want scientific proof for God will be disappointed), the church has moved appreciably.
EDIT: Further, you , and several others, have told me and others to read the Bible to understand. I don't think asking you to do the same to evolution or science in general is too much to ask, do you?
EDIT 2: I know you're not the only one who's made the points about science. You just happened to be the latest one and the straw that broke the camel's back.
Mr Helt,
Samnell was responding to a post of DigitalElf's where he (DigitalElf) opined that everything went downhill from the 1950's when "we stopped teaching Christianity in school". Samnell did not create the link between 1950's morality and Christianity, DigitalElf did. As Samnell has pointed out, if you were white, male, Christian and straight, 1950's America was a great place. If your were not-white? Not so much. Not-straight? Not so much. Not male? Not so much. According to DigitalElf's original post, the 1950's were good because of Christianity.
Paul, I was in the process of writing a rather long post to Steven. Then my computer locked up and crashed. I rebooted and came back to find this post of yours articulating with admirable brevity (a skill I manifestly do not possess!) precisely my point.
So thank you for saying what I would have said eventually amid the morass of digressions that my obsessive nature insists upon, but better. :)
And also thank you for the work you do as a geneticist to expand human understanding of the universe. We are better for it.
|
|
Mr Helt,
Samnell was responding to a post of DigitalElf's where he (DigitalElf) opined that everything went downhill from the 1950's when "we stopped teaching Christianity in school". Samnell did not create the link between 1950's morality and Christianity, DigitalElf did. As Samnell has pointed out, if you were white, male, Christian and straight, 1950's America was a great place. If your were not-white? Not so much. Not-straight? Not so much. Not male? Not so much. According to DigitalElf's original post, the 1950's were good because of Christianity.Paul, I was in the process of writing a rather long post to Steven. Then my computer locked up and crashed. I rebooted and came back to find this post of yours articulating with admirable brevity (a skill I manifestly do not possess!) precisely my point.
So thank you for saying what I would have said eventually amid the morass of digressions that my obsessive nature insists upon, but better. :)
And also thank you for the work you do as a geneticist to expand human understanding of the universe. We are better for it.
To be honest, I'm now an ex-geneticist. The training and thought-process are still there, but the practice is now elsewhere.
EDIT: Actually, it's been a decade since I've done any hard science work. Wow.
To be honest, I'm now an ex-geneticist. The training and thought-process are still there, but the practice is now elsewhere.
Well thank you for the work you did while you were a geneticist, then. :)
|
Mr Helt,
Samnell was responding to a post of DigitalElf's where he (DigitalElf) opined that everything went downhill from the 1950's when "we stopped teaching Christianity in school". Samnell did not create the link between 1950's morality and Christianity, DigitalElf did.
My exact words were:
Up until the 1960's, The Bible was taught in schools...
Up until the 1960's, Our country had more of a sense of right and wrong, good and evil...
The Bible is a good compass for morality...
I also said (in another post) that this country has suffered because of that lack of a moral compass...
I firmly believe that this nation would be better served if it were a Christian Nation...
Obviously, many of you disagree...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mr Helt,
Samnell was responding to a post of DigitalElf's where he (DigitalElf) opined that everything went downhill from the 1950's when "we stopped teaching Christianity in school". Samnell did not create the link between 1950's morality and Christianity, DigitalElf did.My exact words were:
Up until the 1960's, The Bible was taught in schools...
Up until the 1960's, Our country had more of a sense of right and wrong, good and evil...
The Bible is a good compass for morality...
I also said (in another post) that this country has suffered because at every opportunity, Christ has been removed...
I firmly believe that this nation would be better served if it were a Christian Nation...
Obviously, many of you disagree...
Yes, many of us do. Given the 1950's was a place where the Jim Crow laws were in place, where homosexuality was illegal, and where women were expected to stay in the kitchen, I hope you can see why some of us disagree that it was a time when America had a better idea of 'right' and 'wrong'. The House Un-American Activities Committee was also a product of the '50's. I don't think that witch-hunt could be classified as 'good', either.
None of that is the fault of Christianity, but saying everything's gone downhill since then, just isn't true.
|
|
None of that is the fault of Christianity, but saying everything's gone downhill since then, just isn't true.
I never said I wish that it was 1959, I never said everything has gone downhill since...
And I NEVER siad things were 100% roses and candy in the 1950's...
We had our problems...
But like I said in another thread totally unrelated to this one (see here if you care), there are many social ills that can be linked to a lack of a strong moral code within this country...
And the fact that the Bible isn't allowed in a classroom now does nothing to help matters...
Teaching our children starts at home, but what they hear at home should be reinforced by what they hear at school...
And that's just not happening...
|
Which part of the bible, hmm? Leviticus? Jesus's teachings? There's some pretty disgusting things in those too, like Jesus saying in Mark 7:9-10 that people who dishonour their parents should be put to death. Or later in the Bible, 2 Peter, 2:7-8, which describes Lot as a 'Righteous Man', despite having kids with his kids.
Only one thing is really needed for a morality, which is the Ethic of reciprocity. That can be found in ancient Greek philosophy, by the way.
|
|
None of that is the fault of Christianity, but saying everything's gone downhill since then, just isn't true.I never said I wish that it was 1959, I never said everything has gone downhill since...
And I NEVER siad things were 100% roses and candy in the 1950's...
We had our problems...
But like I said in another thread totally unrelated to this one (see here if you care), there are many social ills that can be linked to a lack of a strong moral code within this country...
And the fact that the Bible isn't allowed in a classroom now does nothing to help matters...
Teaching our children starts at home, but what they hear at home should be reinforced by what they hear at school...
And that's just not happening...
That was the impression I and, apparently Samnell, got from your posts, though. So we wer arguing with the perceived point.
And I take a little umbrage at the implication that without Christianity, people are bound to be more immoral. Do you even realise how offensive that is to the 67% of the planet who don't believe in the Bible? I'm sure you didn't mean it like that, but that's how what your saying is coming across.
|
|
What makes Ancient Greece any less moral then a nation run under 'biblical' principles? Or any more moral, for that matter?
Anyway, the ethic of reciprocity can be found in Ancient Greece, most major world religions and cultures. That makes it pretty important and universal, I'd say, and a good basis for forming a morality.
|
|
And I take a little umbrage at the implication that without Christianity, people are bound to be more immoral.
I make no apology for my beliefs...
But, you may take some relief in the fact that they are just that, my beliefs...
Another belief I have, is that many people do like Christianity because there is an absolute right and wrong. That they might have to be held to some standard...
Are Christians perfect? No, of course not...
But practicing Christians strive to become more Christ-like...
And of course, we fail...
What I'm getting at, is that Christians have a moral standard to follow...
What if you believe that eating kittens is just plain wrong, and that nobody should ever do it? And then, your nation passes a law that it's okay to eat kittens?
Where's the moral standard? And who's standard is correct?
|
|
And I take a little umbrage at the implication that without Christianity, people are bound to be more immoral.I make no apology for my beliefs...
But, you may take some relief in the fact that they are just that, my beliefs...
Another belief I have, is that many people do like Christianity because there is an absolute right and wrong. That they might have to be held to some standard...
Are Christians perfect? No, of course not...
But practicing Christians strive to become more Christ-like...
And of course, we fail...
What I'm getting at, is that Christians have a moral standard to follow...
What if you believe that eating kittens is just plain wrong, and that nobody should ever do it? And then, your nation passes a law that it's okay to eat kittens?
Where's the moral standard? And who's standard is correct?
Then you'd be perfectly able to follow your own moral belief still. In contrast, if you impose on everybody else the moral belief that they shouldn't eat cheese because cheese is the food of the Pizza Lord, whose morality is correct? See the difference? One I am right and everyone else must be forced to agree with me, one I am right and I will live by it even if society disagrees. See the subtle distinction there?
|
|
That makes it pretty important and universal, I'd say, and a good basis for forming a morality.
You are aware of course, you are just stating your own opinion right?
Just because 5 out of 6 people say "coffee is the most important thing you can drink in the morning", does not make it truth...
And yes, that can totally be applied to what I have been saying...
Which is why, I keep stating that this is only MY opinion...
I know full well, YMMV...
|
|
Mr Helt,
Samnell was responding to a post of DigitalElf's where he (DigitalElf) opined that everything went downhill from the 1950's when "we stopped teaching Christianity in school". Samnell did not create the link between 1950's morality and Christianity, DigitalElf did.My exact words were:
Up until the 1960's, The Bible was taught in schools...
Up until the 1960's, Our country had more of a sense of right and wrong, good and evil...
The Bible is a good compass for morality...
I also said (in another post) that this country has suffered because of that lack of a moral compass...
I firmly believe that this nation would be better served if it were a Christian Nation...
Obviously, many of you disagree...
Although I agree with parts of what I think your trying to say I'm not nessesarily sure that we would be better off with a Christian nation. I think this country and any other for that matter are best served by an acceptance of many relegious veiws. Most religions that I have been exposed to hold the basic tenants of morality, that these princeples are good and just I don't think any of can disagree. Yes it would ben nice if everyone had to share my beleifs,nice for me, but probably oppresive to others. Not a trade I'm willing to make. But I do agree that the world not just this nation have lost part of their moral compass. In alot of ways we have come far in learning to respect previously abused groups (Homosexuals, African-Americans, etc.) it does seem that in general the world could do with more moral guidance, not nessesarily more religion.
|
|
You are aware of course, you are just stating your own opinion right?
Exactly. Morality is always just a matter of opinion. One man's moral act is another man's sin. There are no absolute rights or wrongs.
The reason the Ethic of Reciprocity is, in my opinion, a good basis for forming a morality is that it's popped up all across the world, in a variety of human cultures separated by time and distance.
|
|
You are aware of course, you are just stating your own opinion right?Exactly. Morality is always just a matter of opinion. One man's moral act is another man's sin. There are no absolute rights or wrongs.
The reason the Ethic of Reciprocity is, in my opinion, a good basis for forming a morality is that it's popped up all across the world, in a variety of human cultures separated by time and distance.
Although you could say, and did, that morality is a matter of opinion I think that most of us here can agree on what I call basic morals being good.
Basic morals:
murder is wrong.stealing is wrong.seeking to hurt others because their diffrent is wrong.
Love is good.The pursuit of peace is good.respect for your fellow man is good.
It's an incoplete list but I think you guys get my point, I hope anyway. :)
|
|
Basic morals:
murder is wrong.stealing is wrong.seeking to hurt others because their diffrent is wrong.
Love is good.The pursuit of peace is good.respect for your fellow man is good.
Hmmm...
IIRC, I think there's this book I read somewhere that teaches these basic tenants... ;-)
Yup I read that one too! ;) But thats not the only place to get them, even if it is my prefered source.
|
|
Well, unfortunately, that is the world we live in, unless you want to prove a higher beings existence from which we can derive our morality from, and who has directly imparted those morals unto us in a form we can comprehend. Which hasn't happened.
As such, all our morals are created by humans. 'Holy' texts contain no more moral truths then the latest Harry Potter book. There are no moral absolutes. Infact, I'd say that the latest Harry Potter book has more moral truth in it for us in the western world as it is a product of our time and culture.
That does not mean that murder, rape or other things are alright though. One can choose, as a logical and pragmatic necessity, to consider those things as wrong, by living under a simple moral code, such as the Ethic of reciprocity. One simply has to realise that it is not a moral truth, but rather a logical and pragmatic necessity which prevents society from breaking down.
Edited. Clarified my position a little.
|
|
Yes, most humans do hold to moral truths, but these are relative to their situation. I'm a moral relativist, rather then a moral nihilist (scary folks them)
I do however think that the closest thing to a moral absolute we have is the Ethic of reciprocity given it's constant recurrence in moral values throughout history, and the biological research into it.
|
|
I'm a moral relativist
So then, if it becomes socially acceptable to murder (and even becomes the law of the land that you must commit a murder once per week), then you will just go with the [new] social norm? That would be relative to your situation and the relative cultural circumstance...
Extreme example I know, but you make it sound like you're all over the map when it comes to what is right and what is wrong...
Because you said: "Morality is always just a matter of opinion. One man's moral act is another man's sin. There are no absolute rights or wrongs"...
That statement alone sounds like Moral Nihilism to me...
I would hate to live in your world...
Where one can freely murder, rape, pillage, or have sex with the neighbor’s cat if you're so inclined! The skies the limit...
I mean, that is a world of no absolute right or wrong..
The lack of any absolute moral standards does not imply that society or its citizens must allow anyone to do anything.
Society must enforce standards of human behavior and interaction through laws and custom in order to function. Morality is a purely human invention, which is expressed in custom and, most importantly, in law, as an attempt to keep order and maximize the well being of the society and its citizens. The lack of absolute moral standards that we are obbligated to follow simply implies that society needs to look someplace other than the local holy books for guidance on how to regulate itself. Places like "reason" and "experience," both of which allow us to gradually improve our ability to operate our societies to the benefit of their citizens by evolving our customs and laws, instead of slavishly following the ideas of a bunch of desert nomads who lived 4,000 years ago.
Outside of the human race there is only the law of the jungle, with the possible exception of some sort of instinctive behaviour traits on the part of higher social mammals, evolved to keep their social groups intact and in defense of one another.
Morality does not come from any divine being or other external higher source. There are no such things.
For better or worse we are the gods of this world, and its demons.
|
|
I'm a moral relativistSo then, if it becomes socially acceptable to murder (and even becomes the law of the land that you must commit a murder once per week), then you will just go with the [new] social norm? That would be relative to your situation and the relative cultural circumstance...
Extreme example I know, but you make it sound like you're all over the map when it comes to what is right and what is wrong...
Because you said: "Morality is always just a matter of opinion. One man's moral act is another man's sin. There are no absolute rights or wrongs"...
That statement alone sounds like Moral Nihilism to me...
Moral Nihilism is the view that there are no moral absolutes, in an objective sense. This I agree with. However, I further stated that I think there can be moral truths, in relation to the current society. So if I say that murder is wrong, all I am saying is that murder is wrong under the current societal norms (namely, our liberal democratic state).
As for your example, I'd emigrate.
Put my 2 cp in a few pages ago, on how an absolute (non-relative) morality can be derived from experience and observation -- a morality that closely matches the Golden Rule and the last 5 Commandments (and also the Tao Te Ching, the teachings of the Buddha, the Bagavad Gita, etc.). The Bible contains many useful morals, but it is not the sole source of them; they can be independently derived. Even elementary game theory demonstrates that an initial position of cooperation and reciprocity is the most advantageous possible strategy, if most players adopt it. Whether that means that moral law was ordained by God, or that it's just a natural consequence of living in a society, can be left to each person's own interpretation.
I firmly believe that this nation would be better served if it were a Christian Nation... Obviously, many of you disagree...
Luckily, many of the Founding Fathers, having seen what happened in pre-Enlightenment Europe when monarchs ruled by "divine right," also disagreed with you. Reading their letters on the subject might be enlightening.
As James Madison wrote to Edward Livingston, "Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together." Some others:
Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.
It was the Universal opinion of the Century preceding the last, that Civil Government could not stand without the prop of a Religious establishment, and that the Christian religion itself, would perish if not supported by a legal provision for its Clergy. The experience of Virginia conspicuously corroborates the disproof of both opinions. The Civil Government, tho' bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success; whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
A great deal
I appreciate the links and of course I'll use them to check it out.
Now, if I am in error because I didn't catch the first couple of posts in that discussion, well then I am sorry. But the original post I responded to still seems a clear indictment of Christianity. I've read it over and over. This was evil, that was evil, and if you weren't a Christian you were just evil.
I defend no one who engages in hate speech of any kind (though we should all be more careful what we brand as hate speech), and I make no claim that Christians nor America has always been on its best behavior. But I reject the implication that we are more moral now than we were before, and I believe strongly that our moral decline - our acceptance of lifestyles and addictions prohibited by God - have us in an awful place. Just a look at our 'give it to me now', debt-based economy (fueled in no small part by the same demagogues I mentioned earlier) should tell us we left behind God's economy and messed things up pretty badly.
I concede that things are more comfortable these days if you are gay or in a mixed marriage. I reject that Christianity was the problem, and I don't think we are in a better place morally now than we were, even if those times weren't perfect.
As regards data, I will not make the claim I'm an expert in evolution. It impossible through observation alone not to understand a little about macroevolution, given neat things like transgendered amphibians and poisonous tree frogs and such. I posted that earlier. But data in general gets massaged all the time. Polls, accounting, and some science. I cited global warming as an example, not macroevolution.
I'm game to learn anything. And not to know about ideas I disagree with. I am fascinated by physical and biological science, and there's a lot of great knowledge gained by the work done there. But my original point is simply that data gets altered to support a paradigm in many venues, and you can't say there's not a lot of pressure to perform when you're given a grant or asked to research something.
Embryonic stem cell research has yielded very little compared to adult stem cells and chord blood, but it's a huge controversy. Not one time in the media have I heard the point made that embryonic stem cells need research grants because the private sector is too occupied with research they feel holds more promise. When the media reports about stem cell research these days...the facts are massaged for the sake of the story. It erodes trust.
I'll check into your sites, and I'm grateful you provided them. I don't mean to be uncivil, and if I come off that way it's because I felt under attack (as a Christian).
I wouldn't want to go back to the 50s, either. Progressive metal hadn't been invented yet.
My, my, my. We're all abuzz with talk of morality. It isn't hard to glean from basic anthropology that one of the most important historical roles of religion was to codify and pass on a moral code. But as has been pointed out, it isn't the only way. Since religious dogma also carries behaviors that no longer (or never did) have surivival value, and in some cases are downright dangerous, I would argue that we're better off without the baggage. We're past the point of needing religion as a crutch. No, that doesn't mean we're perfect, just that we can get the morals without the hocus-pocus, and be better for it. And so I reject the premises that morality requires a higher power. Some of us don't need a cosmic stick hanging over our heads. We've figured out all by ourselves that we're all better served by treating others as we wish to be treated.
As for pining for the "good old days," that is largely a matter of ignorance. For some reason, a large chunk of people have accepted that we were founded as a "Christian nation," and that everything used to be better because of it. Of course, a casual study of history is enough to demonstrate how utterly ridiculous this idea is, but many people apparently can't be bothered.
Edit: I'm sure this comes across as harsh, but it was meant to. The idea that atheists must be amoral has been banished in ten thousand philosophy 101 classes, but refuses to die. It's an ugly, insulting, but most of all, tired refrain that I've heard countless times before.
|
|
Mr Helt,
Not going to get into a debate about climate change here. The New Scientist site I pointed at also has a section on climate change which has a similar instant expert section, if you're interested, along with lots of uncontroversial, or at least less controversial areas of science.
I also apologise as I apparently misread your post and got extremely agitated about something you didn't actually say, but I was feeling under attack as a scientist, or ex-scientist, anyway.
Also not going to get into a long debate on the rights and wrongs of gay marriage or the decline of western civilisation. I disagree with you on the moral side of the equation and I'm sure both of us understand the other position there, we just don't accept it.
I certainly don't think we're more moral now than previously -- as pointed out in various upstream posts, we're ahead now in some specific areas (e.g., equal rights), and egregiously losing ground in others (e.g., snowballing debt-based economics is a simply means of stealing from our children to pay ourselves). On the whole, I'd call it about even.
People have been bemoaning the "moral decay of society these days" since before Socrates was forced to drink the hemlock. Human nature is slow to change, though.