Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Atheism Examined
Woodsy
Member (Idle past 3374 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


Message 241 of 300 (391031)
03-23-2007 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by anastasia
03-22-2007 10:16 PM


Re: The important things are... too important.
Isn't it fairly obvious that religious morals are the same as non-religious ones?
Right on! It has often struck me that a lot of religious taboos are merely common sense for people who desire to live among other people. I suppose that organized religion may have been originally set up to enforce social rules, and used existing superstitions for enforcement.
A problem is that there is no flexibility in religion-based taboos. For example, in fuel-poor societies, it makes sense to outlaw eating meats that need to be well-cooked, such as pork. If that becomes a religious taboo, one sees the ridiculous spectacle of people, in a new fuel-rich setting, depriving themselves of an entirely respectable food item that they could now easily cook properly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by anastasia, posted 03-22-2007 10:16 PM anastasia has not replied

Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 242 of 300 (391044)
03-23-2007 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by New Cat's Eye
03-22-2007 4:58 PM


Re: The important things are... too important.
Catholic Scientist writes:
I see benefits to religions and think they can promote human advancement... ..As long as it doesn't get too much in the way of advancement (muslim women's rights for example).
I actually think it's a good thing to keep around as well. I mentioned briefly in a reply to Tazmanian Devil that Religion can be very useful to people on the terms of "a source of comfort and companionship" ...and even strength. These, I would not discount. These are powerful supports that every person should be entitled too. And if some people can only find them in Religion, then I'm glad Religion is around to provide that for them.
My main concern is when Religion starts meddling in things it really shouldn't be meddling in. School curriculums and social morals come to mind here.
Basically, I think it's about time Relgion got the talking to it deserves: "Know your role". Get out of politics. Get out of education. Put your efforts into those places where they are supposed to be... helping people.
Do you think that a lack of need for a tradition is enough reason to destroy it? Or only if it is inhibiting human advancement?
I don't really want to destroy anything. I do understand how important, and useful a church can be. But it is obvious in our society today that many churches are reaching beyond this, and being taken advantage of by bad people to further certain corrupt, personal ideologies. And the church won't do anything to stop their own because they see it as "showing a weakness" or something.
If I had my way... churches and Religion would remain... as a place where people can go, share their beliefs, share their lives, get strength from each other... all the things a Religion should be providing. But Religion would not be allowed to set educational standards, nor would they be allowed to sway political power. These important notions of our growth would be left to those things we can actually show to be correct and right. No showing, no accepting.
Well.. not even that is true. A Religion certainly should be allowed to have a voice in education or political power. But only so much as they can show why it should be that way. Just because they are "The Church" or that "This Book" says so... No. Just No. That doesn't count, and only leads us into Stagnation. If they want to get involved with these important aspects of our lives, they need to follow the same standards everyone else does. Only promoting those notions which can be shown to be correct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-22-2007 4:58 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-23-2007 11:27 AM Stile has replied
 Message 258 by nator, posted 03-24-2007 7:50 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 243 of 300 (391054)
03-23-2007 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by ICANT
03-22-2007 9:31 PM


Re: The important things are... too important.
ICANT writes:
Makes no difference whether God can be proved or not.
Yes it does.
I cannot rest my most important ideals on a being, or power that has any chance of not being real. These things are too important to leave to any amount of chance.
If society kept the last 5 commandments of the Bible there would be no jails, no hunger, no poverty, no problems at all.
True. Well, not literally, but to your point... yes, I agree. However, if people were all good we would have the exact same result. And if we kept to those 5 commandments, we would enter into Stagnation, which is unacceptable. We need a flexible, growth-friendly system.
Why if society is so good do we have all these things?
I never said Society "was good". I said it's the best we have. It's the best, concrete, proven method available to us. And, it also has the ability to adapt into something even better.
Jesus gave 2 commandments and if we kept one of them the world would be a much better place to live.
Again, I agree.
Yet these commandments were around long before Jesus. They've been a part of Society since almost the very beginning. It's enforcing and getting people to understand these rules that is difficult. And Religion is doing a horrible job at it. Society is doing much better, and will continue to prove itself. Religion cannot be allowed to get in the way of promoting these rules. Rules it itself claims to follow. Yet, it does not. Religion should stick to doing what it's good at. Helping people. It should not allow it's representatives to broaden that and start taking advantage of people. A system that allows such things, is not good enough for me to trust and put my efforts towards for promoting the most important ideals of human advancement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by ICANT, posted 03-22-2007 9:31 PM ICANT has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 244 of 300 (391060)
03-23-2007 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by Stile
03-23-2007 9:32 AM


Re: The important things are... too important.
My main concern is when Religion starts meddling in things it really shouldn't be meddling in. School curriculums and social morals come to mind here.
The Catholic high school that I went to provided a much better education than the public school, but I suppose you're talking about teaching Creationism...
That isn't an issue with religion, in general, its an issue with a specific type of a specific religion.
Some people's social morals come from their religion. Would you still be as concerned if someone had a social moral that you disagreed with and never mentioned their religion versus some who did mention it? Why?
I hate to bring up abortion but...
If someone thought it should be illegal because of their religion I assume you'd be concerned.
What if they thought it should be illegal for a non-religious reason? Would you still be concerned? If not, why single out religion for concern?
Is it really the religion, itself, that is the concern?
Basically, I think it's about time Relgion got the talking to it deserves: "Know your role". Get out of politics. Get out of education. Put your efforts into those places where they are supposed to be... helping people.
What about the people who think their religion is helping people through politics and education?
I don't think religion is this "thing" that gets into stuff. Its a part of the people.
People are going to hold political beliefs with or without religion. I don't see a problem with molding your political beliefs around your religious ones.
Do you think that a lack of need for a tradition is enough reason to destroy it? Or only if it is inhibiting human advancement?
I don't really want to destroy anything.
heh, destroy is a harsh word. I was just asking if you think we should get rid of traditions that we don't need anymore. Or only if the are inhibiting us.
But it is obvious in our society today that many churches are reaching beyond this, and being taken advantage of by bad people to further certain corrupt, personal ideologies. And the church won't do anything to stop their own because they see it as "showing a weakness" or something.
That isn't a problem from religion, though. Its a problem from those churches.
But Religion would not be allowed to set educational standards,
Even if the standard is higher?
nor would they be allowed to sway political power
Ha! Good luck with that one. Hasn't religion been swaying political power since Day 1?
These important notions of our growth would be left to those things we can actually show to be correct and right. No showing, no accepting.
But now you're just leaving things to your criteria/belief system. Its not really any different than religion running the show.
Whether or not your belief system is of a religious nature, should not be what decides what things are left to.
A Religion certainly should be allowed to have a voice in education or political power. But only so much as they can show why it should be that way. Just because they are "The Church" or that "This Book" says so... No. Just No. That doesn't count,
Your's is starting to look more and more like a religion.
People (Society) are going to do what the want and if their reasons come from a religious nature, they shouldn't automatically be discarded just because they don't meat your evidense criteria. And even if it was your way, all people would have to do is just not mention religion, but still leave religion be behind it anyways.
If they want to get involved with these important aspects of our lives, they need to follow the same standards everyone else does. Only promoting those notions which can be shown to be correct.
Yeah because that's the way our political system is really run. You seem too idealistic for me. I think religion is going to be behind a lot of things whether it is forbidden to be or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Stile, posted 03-23-2007 9:32 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by Stile, posted 03-23-2007 12:09 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4676 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 245 of 300 (391061)
03-23-2007 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by anastasia
03-22-2007 10:16 PM


Re: The important things are... too important.
anastasia writes:
Isn't it fairly obvious that religious morals are the same as non-religious ones?
I must disagree.
The Christian moral code would prevent homosexual behaviors while society's code allows it. Even the majority of people in this society would not want laws preventing that behavior.
The religious morals place their version of God above all other things or gods while this society places no particular God in a preferential position (well, it's supposed to).
Pornography? Most religions...no way! Society...ok, with restrictions.
Perhaps I am being too detail oriented and missing the forest that you are presenting.
Edited by LinearAq, : I sure wish I could spell right the first time!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by anastasia, posted 03-22-2007 10:16 PM anastasia has not replied

Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 246 of 300 (391063)
03-23-2007 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by anastasia
03-22-2007 10:16 PM


Re: The important things are... too important.
anastasia writes:
What do you think are the actual differences in religious morals and society's morals? Isn't it fairly obvious that religious morals are the same as non-religious ones?
For the most part, on a surface-skimming view, yes. Yet, if we delve a bit deeper, and start looking into it. We see that Religion (or, at least, the religion you're talking about here) has already laid it's head to rest in Stagnation. It thinks it has the answer. It doesn't want to change, it doesn't want to adapt. This is wrong, and horribly gets in the way of advancing humans to be more caring, more loving, and better.
The only difference is in whether an individual believes that God 'helps out' or that it's all on us. The result is the same.
No, that is not the only difference, and the result is vastly different.
Religion believes it has "the answer". It no longer looks for better ways of doing things. It is unchanging, stagnant. This results in people wallowing in their own egos, no longer striving for anything that may increase our knowledge towards being a better, more caring, loving, working society.
Religion has no evidence, or any reasons for why they do things. They do things because "God wants us to". This is not a concrete reason, cannot be shown to another person. And it certainly is not good enough for me to rest the most important things in this world upon.
Society is constantly looking for things to correct. Right now we're in the process of correcting Gay/Lesbian rights. Right now we're still in the process of correcting racial rights. There is no end point, no final resting place. When these things are finally corrected (maybe... 50-60 years from now) we will find other things that are still incorrect, and we will work on those. We will always be looking for one more thing that will increase our freedom, increase our love for fellow human beings. Sometimes this means creating laws, sometimes it means dismantling them. It doesn't matter, progress in the right direction is being made.
Society doesn't make a move unless things have evidence. People must be able to show others what the problems are, and how to correct them. This is incredibly important. It ensures that our most important ideals are grounded. That they are not being abused by corrupt people. Religion has morals against this as well, but just look at what Religion is doing to stop the people that are doing this within it's ranks... nothing.
We can also look at how much Religion has tried to stop the progress of correcting racial rights. Or how it is even now trying everything it can to stop the progress of Gay/Lesbian rights. These people are humans and deserve every last bit that you or I are capable of having. What possible right does any one person have to say to another: "I'm allowed to do this, but you are not". Show me how that is possibly a correct, or righteous or in any way "good" position to hold.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by anastasia, posted 03-22-2007 10:16 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by anastasia, posted 03-23-2007 4:07 PM Stile has replied

Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 247 of 300 (391065)
03-23-2007 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by New Cat's Eye
03-23-2007 11:27 AM


Re: The important things are... too important.
Catholic Scientist writes:
Would you still be as concerned if someone had a social moral that you disagreed with and never mentioned their religion versus some who did mention it? Why?
Yes, I would be concerned if someone had a social moral that I disagreed with, regardless of them mentioning their religion. I don't think morals and religion are connected. Well, they are connected as much as "religious people haves morals" and "non-religious people have morals" are connected. People have morals. People can also have religion... to get the two mixed up and intertwinned... is asking for the sort of religious corruption we have today.
What if they thought it (abortions) should be illegal for a non-religious reason? Would you still be concerned?
Yes, I would be concerned. And, in fact, I'm not really up on the abortion issue, and really don't have a stance either way. Yet, I would expect either side to sway me by showing me why and not just because "This guy who we see every week said so...".
Is it really the religion, itself, that is the concern?
No, not at all. We're only talking about it because this is a Religiously-connected website. Yet, it is very common for people who do not actually have reasons for what they do to use Religion as a reason... and be accepted for it.
What about the people who think their religion is helping people through politics and education?
They need to show this, then.
I don't think religion is this "thing" that gets into stuff. Its a part of the people.
Agreed. My beef isn't with Religion. It is with people who do not use actual reasons to put forward their own agendas. It's just the way things are that Religion makes this extremely easy for people, and is abused as such very often, and the actual Religious leaders aren't doing anything to prevent, stop or even hinder it. Fix that, and I have no problem with Religion
I was just asking if you think we should get rid of traditions that we don't need anymore. Or only if the are inhibiting us.
Only the ones that are inhibiting us. Of course... "inhibiting" covers a lot of things. I think I've detailed what I'm talking about already. Neither do I have anything against Tradition. What I have a problem with, is corrupt people abusing others. Tradition, and especially Religious Tradition makes this extremely easy. Hence, my surface-seeming problems with Religion.
That isn't a problem from religion, though. Its a problem from those churches.
Exactly. But what is Religion doing to stop it? If anything... it's promoting it because it (in an indirect way) promotes the Religion. This is horribly wrong, and indeed is a very large problem with Religion and how it is ran.
Catholic Scientist writes:
Stile writes:
But Religion would not be allowed to set educational standards
Even if the standard is higher?
I already conceeded how Religion can set these standards... by showing that they are better. I too had a Catholic education, and found it very well put-together.
Ha! Good luck with that one. Hasn't religion been swaying political power since Day 1?
No one ever said that doing the right thing was also going to be easy.
But now you're just leaving things to your criteria/belief system. Its not really any different than religion running the show.
No I'm not, and it's extremely different. I too must show that this is correct, and right, and good. And with Society's proven track record of correction and moving in a benevolent direction... so far I have.
Your's is starting to look more and more like a religion.
Not simply a Religion. Bigger... an entire way of life. No more relying on the possibility of one person being currupt and taking over. Things must be shown and proven to our fellow members of Society before they can take affect. The good thing for me is that a working system similar to this is already in place. All we need to do is use it correctly.
Yeah because that's the way our political system is really run. You seem too idealistic for me. I think religion is going to be behind a lot of things whether it is forbidden to be or not.
I am idealistic. Perhaps extremely so. But isn't everyone? Aren't you.. by disagreeing with me just simply living with your own ideals?
But what is better?
Me... living with extreme ideals that promote love and good fellow-human relationships... even if these ideals are never met in my lifetime.
You... living in the current system, not trying to make any of it better, and simply wallowing in the fear that "I'm not able to change anything, so what's the point anyway?"
I'm going to live like me. I would rather strive for excellence and fail (perhaps even miserably so), then sit on my thumbs and accept currupt philosophies from currupt personal agendas.
...
And I'm doing this by typing to one person on an internet forum
Yes, I know this is unrealistic, and extremely idealistic. But, instead of saying how I'm unable to actually implement it... are you able to find an actual problem with it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-23-2007 11:27 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-23-2007 4:09 PM Stile has replied
 Message 254 by ICANT, posted 03-23-2007 10:47 PM Stile has replied

anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 248 of 300 (391118)
03-23-2007 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by Stile
03-23-2007 11:40 AM


Re: The important things are... too important.
Stile writes:
For the most part, on a surface-skimming view, yes. Yet, if we delve a bit deeper, and start looking into it. We see that Religion (or, at least, the religion you're talking about here) has already laid it's head to rest in Stagnation. It thinks it has the answer. It doesn't want to change, it doesn't want to adapt. This is wrong, and horribly gets in the way of advancing humans to be more caring, more loving, and better.
Well, I disagree. It is possible for religions to stagnate, it is possible for individuals to stagnate. It is also possible that mere change does not equal bettering a society. Societies have often changed for the worse. Just calling a thing 'society' does not make it immune to poor behaviour. Just calling a thing 'religion' does not make it unaccountable for poor behaviour. It is an on-going process for everyone who cares a lick about themselves and others.
Stile writes:
We can also look at how much Religion has tried to stop the progress of correcting racial rights. Or how it is even now trying everything it can to stop the progress of Gay/Lesbian rights. These people are humans and deserve every last bit that you or I are capable of having. What possible right does any one person have to say to another: "I'm allowed to do this, but you are not". Show me how that is possibly a correct, or righteous or in any way "good" position to hold.
Religions can not make laws governing society. But they can and do speak out against injustices and racism. If you are talking only about the issue of gay marriage, that is by far not the big picture, it's not an issue solely for people of faith, and it revolves more around determining what marriage 'is' than about who can do it. If you want to be so detailed it would work both ways. There are many examples of religious people who spoke against things that society was 'ok' with.
The one thing that I find disconcerting is the adamacy with which people claim that morality is relative. Even with this, it is extremely common for us to judge another person's or group's morality. If we are not judging them with our own 'better' morality, then what are we judging them with? It seems clear to me that all of us believe that one morality is more moral. With all of this conflict, how do we know who is ultimately right? What ALL of us see is that human rights and love of one another are good. It is a constant battle and a constant task to make this world a better place form the individual level up to the state level. One can not succeed without the other. Religious people, as individuals and as members of society, are not immune to the challenge of self-improvement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Stile, posted 03-23-2007 11:40 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Stile, posted 03-23-2007 7:20 PM anastasia has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 249 of 300 (391119)
03-23-2007 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by Stile
03-23-2007 12:09 PM


Re: The important things are... too important.
My beef isn't with Religion. It is with people who do not use actual reasons to put forward their own agendas.
You seem to equate religion with not actual reasons
That's fine, though, it is faith based rather than evidence based and I can accept that lacking evidence is lacking actual reason, for practical purposes, but I don't think it is necessarily true.
What I have a problem with, is corrupt people abusing others. Tradition, and especially Religious Tradition makes this extremely easy. Hence, my surface-seeming problems with Religion.
Do you have the same surface-seeming problems with government? Its corrupt people abusing others, no?
Do you really think that government decisions are based on actual reasons? All the time? More than half the time?
No one ever said that doing the right thing was also going to be easy.
Heh, did they say it was even possible?
No more relying on the possibility of one person being currupt and taking over. Things must be shown and proven to our fellow members of Society before they can take affect. The good thing for me is that a working system similar to this is already in place. All we need to do is use it correctly.
Its just too bad that politics doesn't work this way.
I am idealistic. Perhaps extremely so. But isn't everyone?
I try not to be. One of the important things about setting goals is that you set acheivable goals.
But what is better?
Me... living with extreme ideals that promote love and good fellow-human relationships... even if these ideals are never met in my lifetime.
You... living in the current system, not trying to make any of it better, and simply wallowing in the fear that "I'm not able to change anything, so what's the point anyway?"
Well, in that case it would be you, but you described me inaccurately. Being realistic doesn't mean doing nothing, it means attempting things that are actually possible and accepting the inevitable. When your idealism leads you to attempting the impossible and rejecting the inevitable you're gonna have a lot of upsets. Of course, I realise that some things are only thought to be impossible and if they are never attempted then a lot will be missed, you can be too realistic too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Stile, posted 03-23-2007 12:09 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by anastasia, posted 03-23-2007 6:43 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 252 by Stile, posted 03-23-2007 7:42 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 250 of 300 (391174)
03-23-2007 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by New Cat's Eye
03-23-2007 4:09 PM


Re: The important things are... too important.
Catholic Scientist writes:
Being realistic doesn't mean doing nothing, it means attempting things that are actually possible and accepting the inevitable. When your idealism leads you to attempting the impossible and rejecting the inevitable you're gonna have a lot of upsets. Of course, I realise that some things are only thought to be impossible and if they are never attempted then a lot will be missed, you can be too realistic too.
I think what you are trying to say us that being idealistic doesn't accomplish anything with some practicality? Dreamers versus Doers?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-23-2007 4:09 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 251 of 300 (391191)
03-23-2007 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by anastasia
03-23-2007 4:07 PM


Re: The important things are... too important.
anastasia writes:
Well, I disagree. It is possible for religions to stagnate, it is possible for individuals to stagnate. It is also possible that mere change does not equal bettering a society. Societies have often changed for the worse. Just calling a thing 'society' does not make it immune to poor behaviour. Just calling a thing 'religion' does not make it unaccountable for poor behaviour. It is an on-going process for everyone who cares a lick about themselves and others.
Yes, yes, all very true. Saying "this" or saying "that" doesn't make it so. And yes, one bad apple doesn't mean you throw out the whole bushel or whatever saying works here. But let's look at what's happening.
If you are talking only about the issue of gay marriage, that is by far not the big picture, it's not an issue solely for people of faith, and it revolves more around determining what marriage 'is' than about who can do it. If you want to be so detailed it would work both ways. There are many examples of religious people who spoke against things that society was 'ok' with.
Of course it isn't the big picture. But it is a very clear picture of the problems existing in Religion. And of course these problems exist elsewhere. Yet, Religion is an extremely large part of our culture, and should be held accountable to stand by it's own lessons.
"I'm allowed to do this, but you are not"
Sounds extremely contradictory to "Do unto others..."
The fact remains that some Religions, right now, are very loudly saying "I am allowed to marry the person I love, but you are not."
Stop your playing with words and generalizing and face the issue. This is clearly, and obviously wrong. It is not complicated. All you have to do is treat people equally.
With all of this conflict, how do we know who is ultimately right? What ALL of us see is that human rights and love of one another are good. It is a constant battle and a constant task to make this world a better place form the individual level up to the state level. One can not succeed without the other. Religious people, as individuals and as members of society, are not immune to the challenge of self-improvement.
Exactly my point. Your advice? Do nothing? Quibble over how hard it is to figure out and sit this one out? No. We can discover what is right, by showing how it is right. We can also discover what is wrong by showing how it is wrong.
Not allowing gay people to marry is wrong. We allow straight people to marry. If we do not allow gay people to marry, we are saying "gay people are not equal to straight people".
quote:
Gay people are equal to straight people. All people are people. All people have equal rights.
Stop clouding things and show me what is wrong with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by anastasia, posted 03-23-2007 4:07 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by anastasia, posted 03-23-2007 9:42 PM Stile has replied

Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 252 of 300 (391198)
03-23-2007 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by New Cat's Eye
03-23-2007 4:09 PM


Is there anything specific you'd care to address?
Catholic Scientist writes:
Do you have the same surface-seeming problems with government?
Yes. For the exact same reasons.
One of the important things about setting goals is that you set acheivable goals.
Agreed. Our conversation took a philisophical/idealistic turn, so I extended our conversation that way. Then you snap back to reality and just blame me for not being realistic. Fine. If all you want to do is blame problems on people instead of offering some sort of solution, that's up to you. I'm not afraid of offering a solution just because it's tough or idealistic. I'm also not setting that as any sort of realistic goal (not in my life time, or 10 times that, anyway...). I actually stated that already... something about hopefully soloving current racial problems in 50-60 years from now? That was a hint... I even think that's a very lucrative goal.
Well, in that case it would be you, but you described me inaccurately.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I slipped into talking about straw-man hypothetical you again without explicity stating so. I don't actually think all you do is sit and post on message boards
Being realistic doesn't mean doing nothing, it means attempting things that are actually possible and accepting the inevitable. When your idealism leads you to attempting the impossible and rejecting the inevitable you're gonna have a lot of upsets. Of course, I realise that some things are only thought to be impossible and if they are never attempted then a lot will be missed, you can be too realistic too.
I agree completey with you here, as well. You still have yet to say why anything I've said is "attempting the impossible" or that I'm "rejecting the inevitable". Other then, well... you did say it would be hard. Good job.
Realistically, I think Society is progressing, and I think it is progressing in a manner similar to what I've been talking about here anyway. I think it will progress to what I've been explaining about. I think eventually, there will be laws against racial discrimination world-wide. And these laws will seem obvious and superficial to those alive then as we see slavery laws obvious and superficial now. I think Gay/Lesbian rights will progress in the same fashion. Although I do believe it will happen extremely slowly and be outrageously delayed by bad people.
I think, eventually, Religion will be backed off. Forcibly, if needed, by Governments who see the benefits of other Government bodies like Sweeden and other European nations far ahead of us Westerners. I do not think Religion will ever be terminated, and I think it would be a dire shame if it ever were. There are some very serious, large benefits to having the organizations that Religion fills in our Society. Yet I do think it is currently... overstaying it's welcome... here in the West. And I see Society progressing quite nicely in putting it back in it's place.
So, really... I don't see how any of my goals are all that far-fetching. And, if you would actually care to show me how they are impossible, as you seem to be claiming, I would be happy to further our discussion.
I am fully open to being proven wrong about my goals, and would gladly shave them back to something more attainable. If, of course, you would be so kind as to back up your statement that I may be leaning towards an impossibility? Of course, if you were just talking generally... I'll again agree with your nice, puffy, glaringly obvious general statement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-23-2007 4:09 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 253 of 300 (391224)
03-23-2007 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by Stile
03-23-2007 7:20 PM


Re: The important things are... too important.
Stile writes:
Of course it isn't the big picture. But it is a very clear picture of the problems existing in Religion. And of course these problems exist elsewhere. Yet, Religion is an extremely large part of our culture, and should be held accountable to stand by it's own lessons.
Religion is accountable. Many churches are attempting to stand by one teaching in the face of the fact that it produces discriminatory effects that were not foreseen.
Not allowing gay people to marry is wrong. We allow straight people to marry. If we do not allow gay people to marry, we are saying "gay people are not equal to straight people".
Again, if this is your only example of how immoral it can be to 'hand our morality to God' (as you say) it is not a good one and doesn't prove anything except that people have different opinions about what marriage is. If that is clouding, well, I don't know how else to express it.
So anyway I don't want to talk gay marriage. I only intervened to say that the idea of God morality leaving too much to chance was off base to me, because especially from an atheist point of view where there is no God and hence no God-given morality, it seems apparent that all morals come from societies regardless of what we god people say.
Sounds extremely contradictory to "Do unto others..."
The fact remains that some Religions, right now, are very loudly saying "I am allowed to marry the person I love, but you are not."
Stop your playing with words and generalizing and face the issue. This is clearly, and obviously wrong. It is not complicated. All you have to do is treat people equally.
Oh, but the issue was very general, and now your beef with religion seems to centralize around this one issue that is extremely contemporary and not easily resolved. If you think you are going to make a case for all religious folks to be against gay marriage, and all atheists pro gay marriage, you will fail. Since this is the case it is not religion but society in general that has hang-ups.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Stile, posted 03-23-2007 7:20 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Stile, posted 03-28-2007 3:57 PM anastasia has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 254 of 300 (391231)
03-23-2007 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by Stile
03-23-2007 12:09 PM


Re: The important things are... too important.
Stile writes:
Exactly. But what is Religion doing to stop it? If anything
That is the problem Religion can stop nothing.
Did you know there are more than 900 different denominations of so-called Christianity in the United States. Plus all the other religions.
That's over 900 different sets of belief's and practices.
Christianity can't even agree on what is right and what is wrong.
So makes no difference what you believe you can probably find a Church that teaches along those lines.
Stile writes:
And if we kept to those 5 commandments, we would enter into Stagnation, which is unacceptable.
Why would, not killing humans, not committing adultery, not stealing, not telling lies on your neighbor and not coveting anything that belonged to your neighbor, cause us to enter into Stagnation?
Or do you mean we should do these things so we don't enter into stagnation?
ICANT writes:
Makes no difference whether God can be proved or not.
Stiles writes:
Yes it does.
Stiles the point I was trying to make was that if God did not exist, (which I believe that He does), if we did keep those particular values this world would be a great place to live.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Stile, posted 03-23-2007 12:09 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by RAZD, posted 03-24-2007 2:21 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 278 by Stile, posted 03-28-2007 4:05 PM ICANT has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 255 of 300 (391319)
03-24-2007 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by ICANT
03-23-2007 10:47 PM


Re: The important things are... too important.
That's over 900 different sets of belief's and practices.
I've not seen evidence that any two people believe exactly the same things.
Nor to (I believe) it is possible. Belief is, after all, not founded on evidence but rather the lack of it. That's a pretty open window.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by ICANT, posted 03-23-2007 10:47 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by ICANT, posted 03-24-2007 7:46 PM RAZD has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024