If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message ... "C J Campbell" wrote in message ... Even atheism is a religious belief, from a certain point of view. Wrong. You know, few religious types exercise as much faith in their beliefs as you do in yours. Come back and we'll talk when you learn the proper definitions of terms...such as "faith", "religion", "belief"... All I am saying is that wanting to deny people a political voice simply on the grounds of religious belief exhibits a level of intolerance bordering on fanaticism. You want to try to play semantics to define your way out of it, fine, but no matter how you define it, the effect is the same. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
"C J Campbell" wrote in message ... Come back and we'll talk when you learn the proper definitions of terms...such as "faith", "religion", "belief"... All I am saying is that wanting to deny people a political voice simply on the grounds of religious belief exhibits a level of intolerance bordering on fanaticism. And nothing I've said indicates I want to deny them a voice. What we cannot tolerate is trying to foist a non-objective view of morality into the politcal process, whether it's the religion of the Bible or of Marxism. You want to try to play semantics to define your way out of it, fine, but no matter how you define it, the effect is the same. Sigh...I've heard those logical fallacies for years and they get more and more tired (and nauseating) with each passing. Move away from the "old wives tales" and try again without just parroting the same old lines that religionist have been spouting for centuries. Until you realize the difference between a belief and a DISBELIEF, between one based on faith and one based on evidence, you can take those aspersions and stick them where the sun don't shine. Try digging outside the sources targeting the so called "choir". |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message ... "C J Campbell" wrote in message ... Come back and we'll talk when you learn the proper definitions of terms...such as "faith", "religion", "belief"... All I am saying is that wanting to deny people a political voice simply on the grounds of religious belief exhibits a level of intolerance bordering on fanaticism. And nothing I've said indicates I want to deny them a voice. What we cannot tolerate is trying to foist a non-objective view of morality into the politcal process, whether it's the religion of the Bible or of Marxism. You want to try to play semantics to define your way out of it, fine, but no matter how you define it, the effect is the same. Sigh...I've heard those logical fallacies for years and they get more and more tired (and nauseating) with each passing. Move away from the "old wives tales" and try again without just parroting the same old lines that religionist have been spouting for centuries. No more nauseating or trite than that there is an objective view of morality, or that a non-religious view of morality is somehow more objective than a religious one. Really, if you want to talk about old wives tales, try looking at the lines the non-religionists have been spouting for centuries. Until you realize the difference between a belief and a DISBELIEF, between one based on faith and one based on evidence I am not sure that you realize the difference yourself. Allow me to illustrate. Perhaps you believe it is wrong to kill in order to take things that do not belong to you. What evidence do you have that it is wrong to do that? Conversely, I would like to see an example of something that you would consider a faith based imposition of morality on the legal system. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
"C J Campbell" wrote in message
... [...] I am not sure that you realize the difference yourself. Allow me to illustrate. Perhaps you believe it is wrong to kill in order to take things that do not belong to you. What evidence do you have that it is wrong to do that? Conversely, I would like to see an example of something that you would consider a faith based imposition of morality on the legal system. You can't be serious. Our lawbooks are filled with faith-based imposition of morality. From blue laws restricting what kinds of businesses can operate when, to laws governing sexual conduct between two consenting adults, to the latest hot topic regarding gay marriage. Tom is all wet trying to claim atheism isn't a religon, of course. It's every bit a religion as any other belief that has no factual proof to support it. No one's proven there is a God, but neither has anyone proved there isn't one. An atheist is taking the belief of a lack of a God every bit on faith as a Christian takes the belief of existence of God on faith. People will disagree on what sorts of actions have victims and what sorts don't, of course, and I won't be surprised if you don't think my examples of faith-based imposition of morality aren't examples at all. Suffice to say I will never agree with you that they aren't, and I feel strongly that we shouldn't have laws like those that don't involve an actual victim and serve only to impose one person's arbitrary rules of conduct on another. Invariably those laws always turn out to have their basis in some Christian belief, rather than a demonstrable harm one person does to another. Pete |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Conversely, I would like to see an example of something that you would
consider a faith based imposition of morality on the legal system. How about not being able to able to buy beer on sunday morning? If that aint a religous based law I dont know what is... Blll |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
"C J Campbell" wrote in message
... You want to try to play semantics to define your way out of it, fine, but no matter how you define it, the effect is the same. Sigh...I've heard those logical fallacies for years and they get more and more tired (and nauseating) with each passing. Move away from the "old wives tales" and try again without just parroting the same old lines that religionist have been spouting for centuries. No more nauseating or trite than that there is an objective view of morality, or that a non-religious view of morality is somehow more objective than a religious one. Really, if you want to talk about old wives tales, try looking at the lines the non-religionists have been spouting for centuries. But I think there are parts of this discussion that are foundering on semantics. I'd assert that there are many people have deep reasons for acting morally, with roots that are almost ineffable but have nothing to do with the various belief systems that we commonly think of as religions. If the root is pure humanism, or the belief that what we call God is an immanent creation of the entire human experience - I suppose you could call those religions because they involve some non-rational basis (hence the semantic confusion). You could also construct a Darwinian derivation of morals, where the organism that is struggling to survive is the society, and an ethical code (one we would recognize as such) turns out to be a positive adaptation. I'd like to pursue (and I've been trying hard to stay off these non-flying threads): do you think we cannot have ethics or morals without appealing to the influence of a Christian God and the associated spiritual life? Or do you at least require some externally existent (in some sense) and influential spiritual force? How about the internally located forces of Buddhism? Do you deny the possiblity of secular humanism being a valid wellspring of morals, even if it happens to lead to a secular St Francis? If you say a humanist can't be ethical or moral, I'm starting to object. If you say a humanist can act ethically or morally, but what matters is that they aren't moral inside: well, I've heard that assertion and I don't buy it. Maybe it's a question of definition again. -- David Brooks |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Conversely, I would like to see an example of something that you would
consider a faith based imposition of morality on the legal system. Restrictions on abortion. Laws against sodomy. Laws against unmarried couples living together. Prohibition Drug laws The original calls for government welfare in the US (1890's) .... Hell, anything out of the mouth of Pat Robertson or Pat Buchannan... |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
"David Brooks" wrote in message ... "C J Campbell" wrote in message ... You want to try to play semantics to define your way out of it, fine, but no matter how you define it, the effect is the same. Sigh...I've heard those logical fallacies for years and they get more and more tired (and nauseating) with each passing. Move away from the "old wives tales" and try again without just parroting the same old lines that religionist have been spouting for centuries. No more nauseating or trite than that there is an objective view of morality, or that a non-religious view of morality is somehow more objective than a religious one. Really, if you want to talk about old wives tales, try looking at the lines the non-religionists have been spouting for centuries. Such as? For some reason their words don't get out that much...something about holy wars and purges... But I think there are parts of this discussion that are foundering on semantics. Quite so. CJ doesn't comprehend what FAITH is (the acceptance of something based on NO evidence, or even things counter to evidence) which is NOT the way to invoke policy. I'd assert that there are many people have deep reasons for acting morally, with roots that are almost ineffable but have nothing to do with the various belief systems that we commonly think of as religions. And that's fine as long as they keep it to themselves. Religions are beliefs primarily based on what we often call "superstitions" and revelations. If the root is pure humanism, or the belief that what we call God is an immanent creation of the entire human experience - I suppose you could call those religions because they involve some non-rational basis (hence the semantic confusion). Yeah...IF. You could also construct a Darwinian derivation of morals, where the organism that is struggling to survive is the society, and an ethical code (one we would recognize as such) turns out to be a positive adaptation. Yeah, you could, but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny either. I'd like to pursue (and I've been trying hard to stay off these non-flying threads): do you think we cannot have ethics or morals without appealing to the influence of a Christian God and the associated spiritual life? I'd say "most definitely"...for one thing, religion comes from human minds, whether they want to call it a "revelation" or "too much pizza before bed". Or do you at least require some externally existent (in some sense) and influential spiritual force? That'd be fine if we want to mimic the Middle East and turn humankind back 3000-500 years and have the high priest or Plato's "Philosophy Kings". How about the internally located forces of Buddhism? Do you deny the possiblity of secular humanism being a valid wellspring of morals, even if it happens to lead to a secular St Francis? If you say a humanist can't be ethical or moral, I'm starting to object. I'm with you. If you say a humanist can act ethically or morally, but what matters is that they aren't moral inside: well, I've heard that assertion and I don't buy it. Maybe it's a question of definition again. Not even definitions; CJ's trying to lump counter arguments into a slot (humanism...in the context of modern day secular humanism, which I find just about as dense as faith/revelations) that he feels comfortable with. but knows very little about in reality. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
"David Brooks" wrote in message ... I'd like to pursue (and I've been trying hard to stay off these non-flying threads): do you think we cannot have ethics or morals without appealing to the influence of a Christian God and the associated spiritual life? Quite the contrary. I certainly agree that a humanist or other ethicist can have ethics or morals without appealing to Deity, Christian or otherwise. My point is that these ethics and morals are not necessarily more rational than those derived from religion. After all, if one argues that a god or gods, for whatever reason, wants to 'improve' humanity and prevent humans from harming themselves and each other, then any 'commandments' emanating from such beings would tend to be beneficial. An agnostic ethicist might come up with similar 'commandments' for similar reasons. Hence, where a religionist might say that buying a beer on Sunday violates the commandments of God, an agnostic ethicist might decide that it is beneficial to society overall to have at least one day a week where people are not subjected to public drunkenness. Similar arguments can be made on both sides concerning abortion, or any other issue supposedly of concern only to the religious. You often find religious individuals, even those who supposedly belong to the same sect, on both sides of an issue like that. You find the same thing of humanists. In the end it comes down to faith -- a belief of what is right or wrong without any real evidence to support it. After all, it can be argued that the survival of the human race would be a bad thing, and you will find both religious people and humanists who will in fact strongly assert that very position. But what is the real difference between the two positions? An atheist must assume that we are nothing more than random sacks of chemicals. Our actions must necessarily be of almost infinitely small consequence to the universe. What does it matter what happens to any of us? Why should we care about ourselves, let alone others? The religionist answers that we care because we are commanded to. The ethicist answers that we care for evolutionary reasons. The real difference comes down to free will. The religionist believes in free will and personal responsibility. The atheist in the end must say that free will is, at best, an illusion -- just as the development of our individual species is guided by the dead hand of natural selection, so the development of our society is guided by the dead hand of the collective menes. Personal responsibility is a sham and merely a convenience for the operation of the menes. It seems contradictory to me to say that on the one hand religion stifles freedom and on the other to deny that freedom exists at all, yet not only do many humanists take this position, so do many religions. If the religious person should have any advantage at all over the secular humanist, it is that the religious person should be more pro-active in seizing control of our evolutionary destiny social development. The reason most religions have not done that is that they are more rooted in Medieval philosophy than in any real belief in God. They are in fact rooted in secularism rather than in faith. The religions of the world are in some respects more atheistic than even the atheists, often without the tempering influence of humanism. If these religions are sensitive to the humanists' accusations that they are more interested in accumulating wealth and power than they are in actually improving humanity, it is because those charges have considerable merit. Even their creeds describe God in terms little better than outright deism; often they are much worse. Their vision of God is so impossibly contradictory that they have practically defined a belief in God out of existence. I believe that many atheists are much closer to God than they realize, just as many religious individuals are much further away from God than they realize. Viktor Frankl pointed out that there are really only two kinds of people -- those that derive meaning in life from their relationships with others and those that derive meaning in life from only from the power and control they exercise over others. I think you will find both types of people in all religions as well in all varieties of secularists. I have to admit that I enjoy this discussion, even though it is off topic. I would not ordinarily have bothered, but any suggestion that religious views have no place in the political landscape strikes me as too dangerous to go unchallenged. It is that kind of thinking that leads to concentration camps and genocide. |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
"C J Campbell" wrote in message
... "David Brooks" wrote in message ... I'd like to pursue (and I've been trying hard to stay off these non-flying threads): do you think we cannot have ethics or morals without appealing to the influence of a Christian God and the associated spiritual life? Quite the contrary. I certainly agree that a humanist or other ethicist can have ethics or morals without appealing to Deity, Christian or otherwise. My point is that these ethics and morals are not necessarily more rational than those derived from religion. .... But what is the real difference between the two positions? An atheist must assume that we are nothing more than random sacks of chemicals. Our actions must necessarily be of almost infinitely small consequence to the universe. What does it matter what happens to any of us? Why should we care about ourselves, let alone others? The religionist answers that we care because we are commanded to. The ethicist answers that we care for evolutionary reasons. No, I think that's a mischaracterization, although I'll struggle to find the right pithy words. But while doing so I'll hand a freebee to your side of the argument, Chris. The many people today who are areligious but moral and ethical (there are many in Europe, for example) are practicing a form of secular humanism whether they like it or not. This makes secularism look good, because it is coming up with good results (hey, I know that's a value judgement, but let's assume we all agree on basic definitions of goodness; we seem to; even we liberals aren't all moral relativists). The challenge to that view is that we are living in a moment of history where, even if Christianity is dying in some societies, the results of the, forgive me, indoctrination brought about by its teachings are still strong influences in the society. To be concrete, my grandmother and all my elementary school teachers were Golden Rule Christians, so how can I behave otherwise; I got wired. How long can that meme survive without the influence of an externally applied Spirit? I don't know. There is scant opportunity to look for an answer by studying historically pagan societies that are otherwise parallel. Viktor Frankl pointed out that there are really only two kinds of people -- those that derive meaning in life from their relationships with others and those that derive meaning in life from only from the power and control they exercise over others. I think you will find both types of people in all religions as well in all varieties of secularists. Many Christians are perfectly clear that there is at least a third kind: those that derive meaning in life from their relationship with Jesus. Today it often seems to be a personal buddy relationship, so it might resolve to Frankl's first group. But there is a more traditional mystical relationship, often found in the monastery, that I think is genuinely different. I have to admit that I enjoy this discussion, even though it is off topic. I would not ordinarily have bothered, but any suggestion that religious views have no place in the political landscape strikes me as too dangerous to go unchallenged. It is that kind of thinking that leads to concentration camps and genocide. Sorry, I must side with Tom on this one, although with less vituperation, and with the caveat I referred to above: maybe contemporary secular views are religious views we can't shake. I hope you don't object to the trimming: I just wanted to respond in specific places. -- David Brooks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
IFR Passengers? | C Kingsbury | Instrument Flight Rules | 19 | November 4th 04 06:51 PM |
Passengers in flight at one time | Scott Summers | General Aviation | 0 | November 13th 03 02:23 PM |
Ownership and passengers | Roger Long | Owning | 30 | October 11th 03 02:00 PM |
Headphones For Passengers | Scott Lowrey | Piloting | 2 | August 20th 03 06:12 AM |
Canadians: Cost-sharing with passengers? | Drew Hamilton | Piloting | 2 | July 24th 03 08:23 PM |