George Galloway's show on 15th (which faceless linked to) went over the absurd arrests occurring these days by the Police which are NOT societal morals.til661 wrote:Chris Tarrant?
"God Is Not Great"
-
Lostinthestates
- admin
- Posts: 646
- Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 4:44 pm
- Location: Bethlehem, USA
https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6654111.stmtil661 wrote:Well i'll have to take your word for it, i don't know anything about the case.
check it out if you want to ..
Society needs a "rule book" to define what is acceptable, and what isn't. That is why laws are passed. We can't leave it up to each individual to decide what "laws" they believe in.
Religion can be similarly regarded (in relation to morality).
Whether religion and laws should converge is another topic. But to be against all religion seems to me to be very extreme, especially bearing in mind the huge breadth of religions out there (some who worship multiple "gods"). I don't recall any society developing anywhere without some sort of religious belief.
Religion can be similarly regarded (in relation to morality).
Whether religion and laws should converge is another topic. But to be against all religion seems to me to be very extreme, especially bearing in mind the huge breadth of religions out there (some who worship multiple "gods"). I don't recall any society developing anywhere without some sort of religious belief.
OK, how about Yes or No answers to the following questions:
Can morality exist without religion?
Is it possible for religion to strengthen morality?
Is it possible that morality, without the constraints of religion, could be even more effective?
Is it true that religion can and does change natural morality? (ie, just being a good person as opposed to being good because a book tells to you)
Can morality exist without religion?
Is it possible for religion to strengthen morality?
Is it possible that morality, without the constraints of religion, could be even more effective?
Is it true that religion can and does change natural morality? (ie, just being a good person as opposed to being good because a book tells to you)
Society needs a "rule book" to define what is acceptable, and what isn't. That is why laws are passed. We can't leave it up to each individual to decide what "laws" they believe in.
I never suggested any such thing.
Yes it is indeed another topic, one that would probably be called something like "In support of Theocracy" There could be a million different religions and i would still disagree with them because the principle is the same, belief in a supernatural deity. Whether there is one god or a thousand makes no odds. I'm not sure how it extreme to reject the idea of the supernatural.Whether religion and laws should converge is another topic. But to be against all religion seems to me to be very extreme, especially bearing in mind the huge breadth of religions out there (some who worship multiple "gods")
I would argue that the concepts of religion developed as a way for primitive people's to understand the world and humanity, they lacked the knowledge that we have available nowadays, Thanks to the rise of rationality. It continues mainly as a social bonding tool, as a societal tradition and through childhood indoctrination.I don't recall any society developing anywhere without some sort of religious belief.
Last edited by til661 on Thu May 17, 2007 9:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.
1. Yesnekokate wrote:OK, how about Yes or No answers to the following questions:
Can morality exist without religion?
Is it possible for religion to strengthen morality?
Is it possible that morality, without the constraints of religion, could be even more effective?
Is it true that religion can and does change natural morality? (ie, just being a good person as opposed to being good because a book tells to you)
2. No
3. I'd have to think about that one
4. No
Last edited by til661 on Thu May 17, 2007 9:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
1. Yesnekokate wrote:OK, how about Yes or No answers to the following questions:
Can morality exist without religion?
Is it possible for religion to strengthen morality?
Is it possible that morality, without the constraints of religion, could be even more effective?
Is it true that religion can and does change natural morality? (ie, just being a good person as opposed to being good because a book tells to you)
2. Yes
3. Problem is how to define "effective". At some stage, for communications, accepted morality needs to be codified, and then it becomes a sort of religion itself. I will thus say No. Reminds me of the saying "legislate in haste, repent at leisure". It may not be clear why certain religious things are followed, but there may be something in them which makes them "effective" which we can't individually recall (but you could find out if you research it).
4. Yes.
What about societies which worship the Sun ? Unsure if they regard the sun as "supernatural", but it is a religion.til661 wrote:Whether there is one god or a thousand makes no odds. I'm not sure how it extreme to reject the idea of the supernatural.
What about societies which worship Aliens ? Just because we haven't found any (or been told about it), what makes you think that religion is wrong ?
[web]https://www.beliefnet.com/story/218/story_21800_1.html[/web]
Clearly I do not agree with the above, but at least it shows the opposite view. Note the sentence
"attacks every belief system that rejects science or seeks to control its followers, whether or not it is theistic. "
He therefore seems to be calling the majority of people, and societies throughout existence, even ones ruled SOLELY by the rule of law, as "groveling, abandoned serfs." After all, laws are about controlling people.
He would also thus condemn atheists, who group together in a party (which by implication has control over the people in the party).
Note on page 3 the reference to Fascism and communism being atheist, and he is against them.
If you join the army, you are in a chain of command where your "followers" (i.e. juniors) have to follow. Strange he is pro-war.
You can not run an army if juniors don't follow orders.
What Christopher Hitchens, taken to it's logical conclusion, will lead to chaos & anarchy, rule of the gun .. something like Iraq.
I can't help feeling that Hitchens agenda chimes with Bush's agenda of world domination by a super-power, unchecked capitalism, and might is right. That is much easier to happen when there is no third-party "reference" to morality (rich v. poor, don't covet they neighbour's etc.) or resistance from religious groups."
Page 3 states :
Clearly I do not agree with the above, but at least it shows the opposite view. Note the sentence
"attacks every belief system that rejects science or seeks to control its followers, whether or not it is theistic. "
He therefore seems to be calling the majority of people, and societies throughout existence, even ones ruled SOLELY by the rule of law, as "groveling, abandoned serfs." After all, laws are about controlling people.
He would also thus condemn atheists, who group together in a party (which by implication has control over the people in the party).
Note on page 3 the reference to Fascism and communism being atheist, and he is against them.
If you join the army, you are in a chain of command where your "followers" (i.e. juniors) have to follow. Strange he is pro-war.
You can not run an army if juniors don't follow orders.
What Christopher Hitchens, taken to it's logical conclusion, will lead to chaos & anarchy, rule of the gun .. something like Iraq.
I can't help feeling that Hitchens agenda chimes with Bush's agenda of world domination by a super-power, unchecked capitalism, and might is right. That is much easier to happen when there is no third-party "reference" to morality (rich v. poor, don't covet they neighbour's etc.) or resistance from religious groups."
Page 3 states :
I think it is only human to take things on faith if one desires."The religious impulse, if, shall we say, secularized a bit, is still dangerous: the impulse to worship, the impulse to take things on faith, the impulse to believe in miracles, the impulse to adore and to believe in incarnate good and evil. All these things have dire consequences."
Well implicit in the act of 'Worship' is an idea of the supernatural. Primitive people's did indeed worship the sun, lightning, thunder etc. An inherent part of this was that they believed the element had a conscious sense, that it would help your crops if you did everything it wanted. Of course now we know that the sun is a non-sentient ball of gas and worshipping it has the same worth as worshipping a house brick. It just does, it just is.Mandy wrote:What about societies which worship the Sun ? Unsure if they regard the sun as "supernatural", but it is a religion.
I'm not sure what societies do worship Aliens, but i'll assume there are such people. If there is a life-form on another planet they will have developed, like us, by natural selection. They wouldn't be supernatural, merely an equivalent to us from another environment, once again negating the idea of worship or belief.Mandy wrote:What about societies which worship Aliens ? Just because we haven't found any (or been told about it), what makes you think that religion is wrong ?
Scientology believes in aliens. The problem is that if aliens do exist on another planet, either they or us would be far advanced technologically from the other. This would lend the "backward" race to "obey" the other. Whether you call it worship, or belief, or just following orders, or just being pragmatic. How could you argue against a person's right to worship someone else if THEY BELIEVE the act of not doing so could lead to death.til661 wrote:I'm not sure what societies do worship Aliens, but i'll assume there are such people. If there is a life-form on another planet they will have developed, like us, by natural selection. They wouldn't be supernatural, merely an equivalent to us from another environment, once again negating the idea of worship or belief.
Criticisng them is OK .. but you should be accepting it is their right to worship who they like .. without undue criticism.