Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/public/Sources/Load.php(225) : runtime-created function on line 3
[BLOG] Religion and Morality
I Read This
July 18, 2018, 23:41:34 EDT *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: New here? Read our voting instructions and rules
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]
  Print  
Author Topic: [BLOG] Religion and Morality  (Read 22455 times)
boring7
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 292


« Reply #75 on: November 26, 2008, 15:57:14 EST »

http://xkcd.com/154/

Pretty much my country. 

Of course then there's Dawkins.  Dawkins is so often decried as being mean or a jerk, but I just don't see it.  Yeah, he's said some douchey things and I have seen him get grumpy and short-tempered with people or things, but not much.  And that's the thing, when you're the most hated group if you show the REMARKABLE restraint that Dawkins shows, you're doing pretty darned good.  There are a handful of out-of-context quotes where Dawkins says not-nice things.  There are a MOUNTAIN of in-context sermons where more religious leaders than I can count call for rape, torture, and murder of atheists.  It is a majority view the world over that atheists should be treated as less than human, why is it that the atheists are somehow "not nice enough." 

Now I agree with the general sense that a soft-hand should be taken, if only because 3% of the population is small enough to be offed in one night of rage-fueled riotous violence and lynch-mobbery.  I believe in playing nice with people who are nice, but this, "oh you atheists are too rude, you would be given the privilege of being treated equally by us theists if you'd only behave much better than we do," idea is a pile o' horse-hockey. 

But I feel I should take a moment to address the original topic and Richard Dawkins at the same time.  In his article, "I'm an atheist, BUT... he rejects the assumption that people NEED religion, the fear of punishment and the sense of belonging, to walk the paths of life without descending into hedonistic madness or depressed torpor.  He says, "I am tempted to say 'I believe in people' . . ." 

Well I don't believe in people.  I think there's a great many folk who cannot and never could handle the terrifying freedom of doing right for rightness' sake.  I believe that far too much of the population only "behaves" because an overbearing cosmic "daddy" is threatening to spank them from on high if they do not.  I believe that while there are those who overcome and self-actualize without the psychological fear of punishment too many never, ever will. 

As Seagull said, this is a pessimistic opinion, but I am a pessimistic person. 

And...seasonal non-sequitor, "and Rudolph wept." 

« Last Edit: November 26, 2008, 16:48:03 EST by boring7 » Logged
PyRoFoXiE
Insane, and loving it!
Political Commentator
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 69


Dance! Dance!


WWW
« Reply #76 on: November 26, 2008, 18:09:51 EST »

Eh, some part of me wants to back to the polytheistic days when the gods were capricious, and had hammers.
Logged

"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face— forever."

-O'Brien,
Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell


"Shut up! Some of us prefer delusion to despair!"

-Nelson Muntz,
The Simpsons
Blue Boy from Red Country
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


« Reply #77 on: November 26, 2008, 18:17:59 EST »

Eh, some part of me wants to back to the polytheistic days when the gods were capricious, and had hammers.

lol, yes, when deities were there to be appeased and to be the subject of endless stories... not the crux of someone's system of morality.
Logged
Andrei
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 472


« Reply #78 on: November 27, 2008, 09:54:23 EST »

Quote from: Medivh:][quote="Andrei
Which initiative (atheist to ban Bible or religious to ban 'God Delusion') do you think would have the highest chance of success...
Long or short term? Long term, I give them about equal probability.[/quote]Short term. I agree with you about the long term.

Quote from: Eon
The fact that I wouldn't want to live in America does not automatically mean that I'm perfectly content living where I am. Fortunately, there are other places in the world besides the UK and the USA. You appear to be slipping into the fallacy of the false dichotomy.
Either that, or I was pointing out it is illogical to forcefully refuse to live in the US because of state/church relations while living in the UK, much of which has a state church.

Quote from: Current
The Church of England is financially independent of the government, they aren't supported by taxes.
Oh, sorry about that... I was mistaken about state/church relations in England.

P.S.
Quote from: Current
Curiously quite a lot of my side seem to be seeing things the same way (about leaving the UK).
FWIW, as someone who will (probably) officially expatriate at some point in the future, I find the reasons they give on that website extremely frivolous. I don't know what Eon's reasons would be, but I suspect I would feel the same about those too.
Logged

He looked severely at me for awhile, then, grabbing his moustaches, he said:
- Boss, with all due respect, you are naive and pedant.

"Alexis Zorba", by Nikos Kazantzakis (translation mine)
Current
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3141


« Reply #79 on: November 27, 2008, 10:17:19 EST »

Quote from: Current
Curiously quite a lot of my side seem to be seeing things the same way (about leaving the UK).
FWIW, as someone who will (probably) officially expatriate at some point in the future, I find the reasons they give on that website extremely frivolous. I don't know what Eon's reasons would be, but I suspect I would feel the same about those too.
I agree with you to some extent.  Citizens of the more developed countries often don't know how lucky they are.
Logged
Eon
The Cute and Fuzzy Author of Eon's Comic
Talking Head
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 628


I like vixens!


WWW
« Reply #80 on: November 28, 2008, 12:42:32 EST »

Quote from: Eon
The fact that I wouldn't want to live in America does not automatically mean that I'm perfectly content living where I am. Fortunately, there are other places in the world besides the UK and the USA. You appear to be slipping into the fallacy of the false dichotomy.
Either that, or I was pointing out it is illogical to forcefully refuse to live in the US because of state/church relations while living in the UK, much of which has a state church.

I hope you'll admit to being mistaken since I thoroughly refuted your argument.

The existence of a state church is not enough to make this (or any) country a theocracy in any sense. There are some nutters who'll call up on radio shows and say: "This is a Christian nation and the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, so we should not be allowing gay people to have legally recognised civil partnerships." But, unlike America, the politicians here generally don't listen to them. Even the Conservative Party doesn't try to stand on a platform of religious fundamentalism, and not one of the three main parties came out as officially opposed to the legalisation of civil partnerships for gay couples in England in 2005.

The state church is going the way of many other unenforced laws. Did you know that blasphemy is technically still illegal in England? But despite the best efforts of Christian groups over here, no one has been prosecuted for blasphemy since 1985. I think unenforced laws should be repealed, but the fact that they're on the books doesn't hurt me or any other non-believer as long as they're not enforced.

The UK is not a Christian country anymore. Not really.
Logged


Current
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3141


« Reply #81 on: November 28, 2008, 13:26:22 EST »

I'd agree with Eon about that. (I'd point out though Eon that Blasphemy laws has been abolished this year AFAIK).

Britain has these established Anglican churches.  Those churches though don't have much more power than other churches.  I think the population are largely indifferent to the idea of rule based on Christian values.  Politicians are just as indifferent if not more.  This isn't a particularly new attitude either.

Thomas Babington MacAuley was an MP, Paymaster General and later a Baron.  He wrote this in 1830:
Quote from: MacAuley
Mr. Southey entertains....  The duties of a ruler are patriarchal and paternal. He ought to consider the moral discipline of the people as his first object, to establish a religion, to train the whole community in that religion, and to consider all dissenters as his own enemies.

Quote from: Robert Southey
    " Nothing," says Sir Thomas, " is more certain, than that religion is the basis upon which civil government rests; that from religion power derives its authority, laws their efficacy, and both their zeal and sanction; and it is necessary that this religion be established as for the security of the state, and for the welfare of the people, who would otherwise be moved to and fro with every wind of doctrine. A state is secure in proportion as the people are attached to its institutions; it is, therefore, the first and plainest rule of sound policy, that the people be trained up in the way they should go. The state that neglects this prepares its own destruction; and they who train them in any other way are undermining it. Nothing in abstract science can be more certain than these positions are."

    "All of which," answers Montesinos, "are nevertheless denied by our professors of the arts Babblative and Scribblative: some in the audacity of evil designs, and others in the glorious assurance of impenetrable ignorance."
The greater part of the two volumes before us is merely an amplification of these paragraphs. What does Mr. Southey mean by saying that religion is demonstrably the basis of civil government? He cannot surely mean that men have no motives except those derived from religion for establishing and supporting civil government, that no temporal advantage is derived from civil government, that men would experience no temporal inconvenience from living in a state of anarchy? If he allows, as we think he must allow, that it is for the good of mankind in this world to have civil government, and that the great majority of mankind have always thought it for their good in this world to have civil government, we then have a basis for government quite distinct from religion. It is true that the Christian religion sanctions government, as it sanctions everything which promotes the happiness and virtue of our species. But we are at a loss to conceive in what sense religion can be said to be the basis of government, in which religion is not also the basis of the practices of eating, drinking, and lighting fires in cold weather. Nothing in history is more certain than that government has existed, has received some obedience, and has given some protection, in times in which it derived no support from religion, in times in which there was no religion that influenced the hearts and lives of men. It was not from dread of Tartarus, or from belief in the Elysian fields, that an Athenian wished to have some institutions which might keep Orestes from filching his cloak, or Midias from breaking his head. 'It is from religion,' says Mr. Southey, 'that power derives its authority, and laws their efficacy.' From what religion does our power over the Hindoos derive its authority, or the law in virtue of which we hang Brahmins its efficacy? For thousands of years civil government has existed in almost every corner of the world, in ages of priestcraft, in ages of fanaticism, in ages of Epicurean indifference, in ages of enlightened piety. However pure or impure the faith of the people might be, whether they adored a beneficent or a malignant power, whether they thought the soul mortal or immortal, they have, as soon, as they ceased to be absolute savages, found out their need of civil government, and instituted it accordingly. It is as universal as the practice of cookery. Yet it is as certain, says Mr. Southey, as anything in abstract science, that government is founded on religion. We should like to know what notion Mr. Southey has of the demonstrations of abstract science. A very vague one, we suspect.
This wasn't a particularly unusual view at that time.
Logged
Eon
The Cute and Fuzzy Author of Eon's Comic
Talking Head
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 628


I like vixens!


WWW
« Reply #82 on: November 28, 2008, 18:00:26 EST »

I'd agree with Eon about that. (I'd point out though Eon that Blasphemy laws has been abolished this year AFAIK).

Assuming that's true, that's good to hear.
Logged


purplecat
Mad Scientist
Campaign Management Staff
Pundit
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3499



« Reply #83 on: November 28, 2008, 18:28:36 EST »

I'd agree with Eon about that. (I'd point out though Eon that Blasphemy laws has been abolished this year AFAIK).

Assuming that's true, that's good to hear.

It's true- Here's the act that it came in.I'm not sure if the rest of that act is silly enough to counteract it, though.
Logged

Purplecat: Keeper of the political compass thread. Want to be on the graph? post your results here

Me: (No, seriously, this entire forum has the attention span of an..... oooh! shiny!)
Eon
The Cute and Fuzzy Author of Eon's Comic
Talking Head
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 628


I like vixens!


WWW
« Reply #84 on: November 28, 2008, 19:31:49 EST »

Excellent. Thank you for the update. :3

Now if we can just officiate the de facto separation of church and state we have in the UK, we'll be sorted.
Logged


Current
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3141


« Reply #85 on: December 01, 2008, 05:53:22 EST »

It doesn't seem clear though if the bill applies to the whole of the UK or only parts.
Logged
purplecat
Mad Scientist
Campaign Management Staff
Pundit
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3499



« Reply #86 on: December 01, 2008, 18:07:05 EST »

It doesn't seem clear though if the bill applies to the whole of the UK or only parts.

This is complex. Given the nature of devolved power in various parts of the UK, some bits of the bill apply to different places. Criminal justice bills tend to be a hodgepodge of different tweaks and changes to law, so you get these sort of things.
Logged

Purplecat: Keeper of the political compass thread. Want to be on the graph? post your results here

Me: (No, seriously, this entire forum has the attention span of an..... oooh! shiny!)
Kaerius
Political Commentator
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 30


« Reply #87 on: December 09, 2008, 04:48:00 EST »

http://www.viruscomix.com/page433.html

Reminded me of this thread.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!