Imagine, there's no heaven

0 Kudo

Forum Jump

Author	Comment
misterpessimistic	Re: Imagine there's no tech	#41	[url]	[-]
Indisputable BookTalk Master Posts: 4113 01/22/07 11:57:30 Indisputable BookTalk Master	I agree with George that religion being taught by qualified teachers, and this by no means implies priests, imams or rabbis or any other tradition specific representative, is a good thing. Religion is part of our history and NEEDS to be understood. But we need to expose everyone to all versions with an emphasis on none. I would love to take a comparative religion course. I think my basic mindset would not be changed in any way regarding my atheism, but I would like to learn some more about it all. Mr. P. Mr. P's place. I warned you!!! Mr. P's Bookshelf. I'm not saying it's usual for people to do those things but I(with the permission of God) have raised a dog from the dead and healed many people from all sorts of ailments. - Asana The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P. The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets" I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Niall001	Re: Imagine there's no tech	#42	[url]	[-]
Posts: 897 01/24/07 11:31:52 Smarty Pants	Irish: *Quote:* Who do you mean by "we"? The human race? Mankind. Society. Or do you just think that it is everybody for themselves? *Quote:* Or the brainwashing that continues to control many of the adult religious faithful. In fact, Dawkins' prologue introduced the idea that he wished to let people know that they could be atheist, that it is an acceptable belief system. Indoctrination is most successful in childhood (Dawkins notes it is particularly disgusting that religion preys on vulnerable, childish minds), but religion also encourages the same ignorance among its adults. I personally did not recognize that trait until after I left the church. I agree it is necessary for children to be "indoctrinated" into a rules system. But that indoctrination can come through instruction and socialization; it need not come through religious dogma. I'm afraid I don't really find that sense of promoting ignorance, but I suppose that's to be expected! *Quote:* I now recognize that you don't need religion to teach morals, you just teach them. For instance, I would no more tell a child not to lie because god is watching her, than I would tell her there is a boogey man under her bed to keep her from crawling out at night. Ah yes, but what we do not teach children is as important as what we teach them. You can teach a child that something is right or wrong, and if you only believe that these are historical conventions and modern constructions and not actual absolutes, then do you teach the child that these notions are malleable? Is leaving out certain pieces of information not the same as telling the kid tales of monsters? If we let them believe in Good and Bad as though they were real and not just constructions that exist only in our minds, then does that not have the same effect. Regardless, I don't think that you need to fool children into believing in a God just to get them to act morally. But I do think it helps to be economical with the truth, and even if you don't believe in a God, well it can be a useful lie, at least in some respects. Full of Porn* http://plainofpillars.blogspot.com
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
misterpessimistic	Re: Imagine there's no tech	#43	[url]	[-]
Indisputable BookTalk Master Posts: 4113 01/24/07 17:17:58 Indisputable BookTalk Master	Niall: *Quote:* Or do you just think that it is everybody for themselves? When it really comes down to it, it is. The 'self' becomes groups and not necessarily individuals. There is always faction. Sad, but true. But we should work as much as possible to stop this. You can start by dropping this 'god' crap! *Quote:* I'm afraid I don't really find that sense of promoting ignorance, but I suppose that's to be expected! Do you deny, then, that this happens? Just because YOU have not experienced this does not preclude it from being something that happens. Just as my experience of people does not speak to ALL those people, no? There is obviously some form of mind control at work with any system that states that there is some 'being' that is always watching you and is never wrong and that 'you will be judged'. *Quote:* then do you teach the child that these notions are malleable? Absolutely! These notions are malleable! Murder is wrong, but killing in self defense is not. Killing is wrong, but allowing someone die who is so very sick with no hope for a cure is not...especially if they WANT to die!! Stealing is wrong, but if you are starving and need to survive, then stealing some food may not be the worst that you can do. Beating someone up is wrong if you can avoid it and if the other person did nothing to deserve the beating, but beating the shit out of someone raping someone is not wrong at all!! Use of force in one situation is bad while in another it is good. Of course these things are malleable. If not, there would be no problem with morals at all! And also no need to invent an absolute source, which never holds the morals as absolute anyway! *Quote:* Regardless, I don't think that you need to fool children into believing in a God just to get them to act morally. But I do think it helps to be economical with the truth, and even if you don't believe in a God, well it can be a useful lie, at least in some respects. But you still do not show why you need a god. Honest discussion is just as good. Mr. P. I'm not saying it's usual for people to do those things but I(with the permission of God) have raised a dog from the dead and healed many people from all sorts of ailments. - Asana Boditharta (former booktalk troll) The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P. What is all this shit about Angels? Have you heard this? 3 out of 4 people believe in Angels. Are you F****** STUPID? Has everybody lost their mind? - George Carlin I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Niall001	Re: Imagine there's no tech	#44	[url]	[-]
Posts: 897 01/25/07 11:24:43 Smarty Pants	Mr. P. *Quote:* Do you deny, then, that this happens? Just because YOU have not experienced this does not preclude it from being something that happens. Just as my experience of people does not speak to ALL those people, no? Hmm. Think you misunderstand me. I wouldn't say that it doesn't or hasn't happened, only that it's not something that I never found. Now, what I took from Irish's words (correctly or incorrectly I'm not certain) was the notion that it was an intrinsic part of belief. I said: *Quote:* then do you teach the child that these notions are malleable? You said: *Quote:* Absolutely! These notions are malleable! Murder is wrong, but killing in self defense is not. Killing is wrong, but allowing someone die who is so very sick with no hope for a cure is not...especially if they WANT to die!! Stealing is wrong, but if you are starving and need to survive, then stealing some food may not be the worst that you can do. You've taken me up wrong. By malleable, I don't mean that certain acts are wrong under certain circumstances but not under others, I mean that while for instance rape is now considered right, that is partly an historical accident. What constitutes rape in one era and one culture does not constitute rape in another. The religious tend to believe in absolute right and wrong, that somethings are always wrong and that right and wrong are not just constructions. Generally, atheists tend to believe that right and wrong are cultural conventions that partly result from biological predispositions of differing strengths. The religious tend to believe that right and wrong would exist regardless of whether humanity did. But since atheists tend not to believe that right and wrong only exist within our minds, they do not. So, if you have an atheist child, do you educate them about the changeable nature of morality? Or do you use rules of thumb and act as though these notions were actualities and not just constructions? Full of Porn* http://plainofpillars.blogspot.com
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
misterpessimistic	Re: Imagine there's no tech	#45	[url]	[-]
Indisputable BookTalk Master Posts: 4113 01/27/07 14:51:51 Indisputable BookTalk Master	*Quote:* I wouldn't say that it doesn't or hasn't happened, only that it's not something that I never found. Ok then. But keep in mind, when people like rose and I state such a thing, we do intend to give a picture of a priest or other faithful person saying "Ignorance is grand, lets all be ignorant". While this does happen sometimes, I am not suggesting that the method is that transparent. The ignorance is promoted by not accepting things like science...or adding a caveat that science has no authority on god. I saw a sign today on the local church in town...it said "Any science that omits god is no science at all". That is promoting ignorance, IMO. *Quote:* I mean that while for instance rape is now considered right, that is partly an historical accident. Rape is now considered right? Ireland must be a f'd up place! (Just kidding). But please explain. *Quote:* What constitutes rape in one era and one culture does not constitute rape in another. I think this is tending towards semantics rather thann any substantial difference in rape. Rape: Forced sexual contact without consent. Now whether the LAW prosectured rape in the same way is a different story, and has nothing to do with the morality of the act itself. *Quote:* The religious tend to believe that right and wrong would exist regardless of whether humanity did. But since atheists tend not to believe that right and wrong only exist within our minds, they do not. I can agree with this...but I cannot see how or why the religious version is seriously considered at all. Without humans, who would we apply this system to? Is a gorilla 'raping' the female gorilla commiting a sin? Without humanity, what IS right and wrong and what would the God that the moral system derives from apply it to? HOW is it universal if there are no specially created beings to function within it? *Quote:* So, if you have an atheist child, do you educate them about the changeable nature of morality? Yes. I try to explain WHY it is right or wrong to do something. I just dont lay down the law, so to speak. I try to teach my children HOW to think and not what to think. Mr. P. I'm not saying it's usual for people to do those things but I(with the permission of God) have raised a dog from the dead and healed many people from all sorts of ailments. - Asana Boditharta (former booktalk troll) The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P. What is all this shit about Angels? Have you heard this? 3 out of 4 people believe in Angels. Are you F****** STUPID? Has everybody lost their mind? - George Carlin I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Niall001	--	#46	[url]	[-]
Posts: 897 01/28/07 14:15:19 Smarty Pants	Ah Crap. Man, my last post was a bit of a mess. Keep losing posts and trying to retype them quickly. Anyway, getting back on track: As for adding a caveat that science has no authority on God, well to be honest, I think you'll find that to be true. Dawkins is relatively unqiue(?) in arguing that the existence of God as a scientific hypothesis. The likes of Huxley and Gould seemed to realise as much. I don't see as to how science can speak on any matter (no matter how hypothetical) that is not a part of the physical world. Rape:What I meant to say was that rape (or at least certain forms of it were considered ok in the past. For instance, look at the invention of this new notion of "date rape". Once upon a time, it was the case that "No meant no." Now, it's "No means no, but sometimes yes does as well". A better example would be to look at the notion of lesser peoples. Because Africans , Indians and Arabs were considered lesser peoples, in the past, Europeans did not consider it wrong to enslave such people. And to kill one of these people was little worse than killing an animal. Raping a black woman wasn't really considered rape. Who was it that said it wasn't so much rape as just bad taste? Hell there were some pretty fucked up conventions regarding victory in war. It was taken for granted that the victors could steal, rape and murder for three days after they took a town in the past. And that was accepted as part and parcel of the deal. Now the losers never liked this, but they would have done the same thing had they won, and they would have considered it, if not morally right, then not immoral. Look at something like murder. Today, we tend to disapprove of murder in almost all circumstances. But, we eat meat. Now if the PETA mentality were ever to become popular in the future, then eating meat would be considered immoral. Isn't their catchphrase "Meat is Murder?" They would look back at us in the same way that we look back on the slavers and the rapists. Without a supernatural basis that transcends the natural world, morality becomes a convention or an opinion. And while I've got an opinion about what constitutes good music, I'd not push it on somebody else, especially my own children. Still, I'd be horrified if they liked the Backstreet Boys. *Quote:* I can agree with this...but I cannot see how or why the religious version is seriously considered at all. Without humans, who would we apply this system to? Is a gorilla 'raping' the female gorilla commiting a sin? Without humanity, what IS right and wrong and what would the God that the moral system derives from apply it to? HOW is it universal if there are no specially created beings to function within it? Ach, you're moving into a complicated area. Does a gorilla commit a sin when it rapes another gorilla, I have no idea. But I doubt it, since there is an absence of free will. Now we can both agree that there are many potential acts that have not been carried out, yet which if they were carried out we would consider immoral. Now in the absence of humanity, and even in the absence of creation, there would still be the potential for immorality so long as there was a God.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
irishrosem	Re: --	#47	[url]	[-]
Posts: 641 01/29/07 15:25:29 OMG I'm Awesome!	I know I've missed a bit of this conversation; I've been skiing. I think you and I have similar opinions on this one, Mr.P. Niall: Now, it's "No means no, but sometimes yes does as well". Niall, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. Perhaps my head is still a bit loopy from the high altitude, but is this supposed to be a statement to illustrate date rape? Also, those examples you gave-"lesser people," war spoils, murder-are all tied in with the transitory nature of religious morality, which rarely transcends social customs. Dawkins, I think pretty effectively, addresses this in Chapter 7. Religious morality is, by no means, set in stone (despite the ten commandments' reputed origins). It is left up to individual interpretation similar to secular morality. This is its inherent problem in my mind. There is no ultimate truth, and yet the sheeple look to those who claim to have the ultimate truth to pronounce their findings. (The pope's infallibility is an extreme example of this set-up.) So the faithful are told that homosexuality is bad, because god says so in such and such story. Those who blindly (ignorantly) follow do not decide for themselves. If there were no falsely defined "ultimate truth" then there would be opportunity for discussion on the subject matter. This is another example of the embrace of ignorance that I recognize in religion.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Saint Gasoline	Re: --	#48	[url]	[-]
Posts: 220 01/29/07 18:02:39 Ph.D.	*Quote:* Without a supernatural basis that transcends the natural world, morality becomes a convention or an opinion. And even WITH a supernatural basis, morality is still a convention and an opinion. No one has access to this "supernatural" realm, so there is no way to really even know what is moral, in such a case. For all practical purposes, then, religious morality is just a matter of taste as religious morality, given our epistemic limitations. However, I think you are wrong when you say that morality must either be supernatural or arbitrary. What is it about being supernatural that somehow makes it non-arbitrary? (It certainly seems plausible for an omnipotent being to make murder acceptable one day, and then prohibit it the next.) And what about all the objective ethical theories proposed by philosophers that make no appeal to supernaturalism? We're talking about the large majority of ethical theories, too. Very few philosophers endorse Divine Command morality. Visit my website at http://www.saintgasoline.com if you like fart jokes, poop jokes, or jokes about other hilarious substances.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
garicker	Re: --	#49	[url]	[-]
Posts: 262 01/30/07 12:29:45 Smarty Pants	Saint Gasoline: And even WITH a supernatural basis, morality is still a convention and an opinion. No one has access to this "supernatural" realm, so there is no way to really even know what is moral, in such a case. For all practical purposes, then, religious morality is just a matter of taste as religious morality, given our epistemic limitations. _________________________________________ The whole notion of our only choice being between a set of moral values that are authored by a deity and the whims and wishes of individuals is one of the great fictions put out in support of religions. As SG points out, even if the supernatural exists, there is no way to determine what moral values would apply. All we are left with, when all is said and done, is our own human efforts. However, those human efforts have been preconditioned by millions of years of evolution and fine tuned by the evolution of human societies and human cultures. Morality evolves as we evolve. It has never been an absolute declaration of right and wrong that was good for all people for all time. Neither has it ever been "just do what feels good at the moment." At least, not for most people most of the time. George "Godlessness is not about denying the existence of nonsensical beings. It is the starting point for living life without them." Godless in America by George A. Ricker
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
misterpessimistic	Re: --	#50	[url]	[-]
Indisputable BookTalk Master Posts: 4113 01/30/07 12:48:35 Indisputable BookTalk Master	Well said guys! I have been meaning to get back to Niall's posts with similar thoughts, but you have both answered for me. Thanks! Mr. P. I'm not saying it's usual for people to do those things but I(with the permission of God) have raised a dog from the dead and healed many people from all sorts of ailments. - Asana Boditharta (former booktalk troll) The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P. What is all this shit about Angels? Have you heard this? 3 out of 4 people believe in Angels. Are you F****** STUPID? Has everybody lost their mind? - George Carlin I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Niall001	--	#51	[url]	[-]
Posts: 897 01/30/07 17:33:19 Smarty Pants	Irish *Quote:* Niall, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. Perhaps my head is still a bit loopy from the high altitude, but is this supposed to be a statement to illustrate date rape? Mostly. But also taken other factors into consideration. For instance, look at age and other factors relating to the capacity to consent. Though the comment wasn't particularly important. *Quote:* Also, those examples you gave-"lesser people," war spoils, murder-are all tied in with the transitory nature of religious morality, which rarely transcends social customs. Dawkins, I think pretty effectively, addresses this in Chapter 7. Religious morality is, by no means, set in stone (despite the ten commandments' reputed origins). It is left up to individual interpretation similar to secular morality. Oh I'm certainly not arguing that the nature of religious morality is anything by transitory, I'm simply pointing out that the theist believes that X is right and Y is wrong always and forever, regardless of whether or not X has always been considered wrong. I was speaking within the context of a discussion about teaching children about morality. When the atheist teaches their child about morality, about what is right and what is wrong, I think it is fair to say that they are teaching their child about their opinions. So if they tell their child that it is wrong to steal sweets from the shop, they would be simply sharing what they acknowledge to be their own personal opinion. Where as if the theist teaches the child that it is wrong to steal sweets from the shop, they believe that this is not simply their opinion but an actuality. Now what is the difference? Practically none. But let us imagine then that the two children ask their respective parents why stealing the sweets is wrong, and the children play the why game. Eventually, the atheist parent would have to answer that their opinion of what constiutes morality was just an opinion that the child was free to disagree with. Now, rightly or wrongly, the religious parent who was subjected to the same game would end by explaining to the child that an omniscient God believed that stealing in situation x was wrong. *Quote:* There is no ultimate truth, and yet the sheeple look to those who claim to have the ultimate truth to pronounce their findings. (The pope's infallibility is an extreme example of this set-up.) So the faithful are told that homosexuality is bad, because god says so in such and such story. Those who blindly (ignorantly) follow do not decide for themselves. If there were no falsely defined "ultimate truth" then there would be opportunity for discussion on the subject matter. This is another example of the embrace of ignorance that I recognize in religion. Yes, but look at the alternative. If there is no ultimate truth, then every falsehood has an equal claim to truthfulness. If there is no single ultimate truth then everything is true. Call me old-fashioned, but sometimes I think that discussion and compromise aren't all that great, at least, not in all circumstances. Instead of the issue of homosexuality, take pedophilia. Do we really want to have a discussion about that? While we most atheists and theists agree that this is wrong, the theists believe that this is ultimately true, and are less likely to compromise on the issue, where as the atheists, who believe that their conceptions of morality are educated opinons in a world where there is no ultimate truth, are more likely to compromise on the issue. Or at least that is how it works in theory. In practice, I've found no evidence to support this. My point here is not that atheists are more likely to collaborate with all of the immoral deviants that society produces, it is that this is an implication of the argument that because theists believe they know some ultimate truth they are less likely to compromise on issues of morality. In practice, I tend to find that beliefs are nowhere near as important as personality.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Niall001	Re: --	#52	[url]	[-]
Posts: 897 01/30/07 17:41:39 Smarty Pants	SG *Quote:* And even WITH a supernatural basis, morality is still a convention and an opinion. No one has access to this "supernatural" realm, so there is no way to really even know what is moral, in such a case. For all practical purposes, then, religious morality is just a matter of taste as religious morality, given our epistemic limitations. You're assuming that nobody has access to this supernatural realm, why? *Quote:* However, I think you are wrong when you say that morality must either be supernatural or arbitrary. What is it about being supernatural that somehow makes it non-arbitrary? (It certainly seems plausible for an omnipotent being to make murder acceptable one day, and then prohibit it the next.) If you're omniscient, you don't tend to change your mind. *Quote:* And what about all the objective ethical theories proposed by philosophers that make no appeal to supernaturalism? Now maybe you've come across some of these theories that I haven't, but they tend to have the belief that existence is superior or more desirable than non-existence as one of their foundational assumptions. Dawkins pointed out that this is a pretty arbitrary. Full of Porn* http://plainofpillars.blogspot.com
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
irishrosem	Re: --	#53	[url]	[-]
Posts: 641 01/30/07 18:30:24 OMG I'm Awesome!	Niall: Though the comment wasn't particularly important. It's important for me (as the fem-nazi I often get accused of being) to note that date rape is not a situation where the woman says yes but then recants afterwards. Women can't regret having sex and then call "rape" after the fact. (I'm not saying this doesn't sometimes happen; I'm just saying it doesn't happen as often as people would like to believe, and it is not the definition of date rape.) Situations where the woman initiates, or agrees with, pre-sexual activity and then says no to sex itself or any continued sexual activity often get mistaken for "even yes means no these days" perceptions. This is not the case. If a woman says no at any point in the activity (even if she had said yes before) and any continued activity is forced, then this is rape and it is certainly not a case where "yes means no." Both participants in a sexual activity have the right to stop that activity at any point. I know this is off-topic, but it is a pet peeve of mine, and I just wanted to clarify. As for morality lessons for children. I agree that god-based morality would probably be the easiest way to teach children morality. However, I certainly don't think it is the best or most thorough way to teach morality. As Mr.P. said above, teach the child HOW to think, not WHAT to think. Ultimately, though, I think the discipline utilized in teaching morality is vastly more important than the reasoning itself. As I child, there was no moral basis for not being allowed to ride my bike in the street (but I didn't do it). Likewise, the reasoning behind not being allowed to say the phrase "I hate you" was based on not wanting to be told the same, not any religious background. As for the pedophilia comment, come on. If we do away with religious-based morality you think we slide into a society that values pedophilia, or at least questions laws regarding pedophilia? Have you ever met a pedophiliac? Do you think individuals have a natural tendency to even desire having sex with juveniles? Niall: In practice, I tend to find that beliefs are nowhere near as important as personality. And the personality that the conviction of religious morality preys on is the weak mind. The person unwilling to distinguish for themselves where their moral conviction lies. The person who unwittingly allows their moral convictions to be dictated by perverse, prejudicial beliefs. And religions prey on these minds, holding them up as some kind of goal to which the religious faithful should strive. I think it was John Paul, II (I definitely could be wrong here) that called Catholics cafeteria Catholics, because they decided to pick and choose what they believed. As if it were a bad thing to personally decide that abortion was not o.k., but birth control is. That pedophilia or bestiality are not o.k., but homosexuality is. That one should attend synagogue on the sabbath, but it's also o.k. to light a match or turn on the lights. That illegal drugs are not o.k. to take, but drinking some liquor now and then won't damn my soul. The moral conviction of religion is just as readily intertwined with social perceptions, as is secular morality. In one case the morality is dictated by fallible men (alright, and a few women these days), under the guise and label of being infallible. While the other case is a personal decision.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Saint Gasoline	Re: --	#54	[url]	[-]
Posts: 220 01/31/07 12:59:43 Ph.D.	*Quote:* You're assuming that nobody has access to this supernatural realm, why? Because it is by definition inaccessible. If we could experience the supernatural in the way we can experience dogs and chairs, then we would consider it another aspect of the natural world, and not define it as something beyond us. *Quote:* If you're omniscient, you don't tend to change your mind. And if you're omnipotent, you COULD change your mind, meaning that God could potentially make murder "good". This is a problem with divine command morality, because it just shows that what is good is redefined as "whatever God says", and it is not clear that this is really what we mean when we say that something is immoral. This is also why it makes sense to say, "It is immoral for that woman to drown her children after God told her to do so." Visit my website at http://www.saintgasoline.com if you like fart jokes, poop jokes, or jokes about other hilarious substances.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
irishrosem	Re: --	#55	[url]	[-]
Posts: 641 01/31/07 14:03:23 OMG I'm Awesome!	St. Gasoline: This is also why it makes sense to say, "It is immoral for that woman to drown her children after God told her to do so." But St. Gas, didn't you know, she wasn't really hearing god. She's just crazy. It's the old men in their special dresses who are actually listening to god. So, when these men say it's o.k. to hate gays (oops I mean hate the sin, love the sinner) and condemn them to hell, that's divine inspiration. But a woman saying she had to kill her child to keep him/her from becoming a sinner is just plain bonkers. What, you don't agree there's a difference? So is it the special dresses or the gender that makes one conversation crazy and the other divine?
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Niall001	--	#56	[url]	[-]
Posts: 897 01/31/07 16:28:40 Smarty Pants	Irish *Quote:* It's important for me (as the fem-nazi I often get accused of being) to note that date rape is not a situation where the woman says yes but then recants afterwards. Women can't regret having sex and then call "rape" after the fact. (I'm not saying this doesn't sometimes happen; I'm just saying it doesn't happen as often as people would like to believe, and it is not the definition of date rape.) Situations where the woman initiates, or agrees with, pre-sexual activity and then says no to sex itself or any continued sexual activity often get mistaken for "even yes means no these days" perceptions. This is not the case. If a woman says no at any point in the activity (even if she had said yes before) and any continued activity is forced, then this is rape and it is certainly not a case where "yes means no." Both participants in a sexual activity have the right to stop that activity at any point. I know this is off-topic, but it is a pet peeve of mine, and I just wanted to clarify. That isn't femi-nazi territory. Femi-nazis are the types of women who think that all sex is rape and other such bullshit. Either way, what you've described seems more like straight forward rape than date rape to me. Maybe it is just my personal experience, but I've found that people tend to use it to refer more to situations where somebody's capacity to consent is negated by the fact that they hate a lot to drink or were high and then regret their actions the next day. *Quote:* As for morality lessons for children. I agree that god-based morality would probably be the easiest way to teach children morality. However, I certainly don't think it is the best or most thorough way to teach morality. As Mr.P. said above, teach the child HOW to think, not WHAT to think. Ultimately, though, I think the discipline utilized in teaching morality is vastly more important than the reasoning itself. I'd certainly agree that teaching the child how to think is ultimately more important than teaching them what to think, but the immediate problem is always teaching them how to behave, a slightly different matter. Young children don't really have the capcaity for advanced ethics. I think that it is unaviodable that you teach them rules of thumb as though these were universally applicable and timeless. *Quote:* As for the pedophilia comment, come on. If we do away with religious-based morality you think we slide into a society that values pedophilia, or at least questions laws regarding pedophilia? Have you ever met a pedophiliac? Do you think individuals have a natural tendency to even desire having sex with juveniles? I said the following just to avoid this kind of situation: *Quote:* My point here is not that atheists are more likely to collaborate with all of the immoral deviants that society produces, it is that this is an implication of the argument that because theists believe they know some ultimate truth they are less likely to compromise on issues of morality. Yes I have met paedophiles, at least in the common sense of the word. And depending on what you mean by juvenile, I certainly don't think that it is particularly un-natural to want to have sex with anybody who has developed beyond puberty. My point is that you can't say that atheists are more likely to compromise on issues of morality in situation X (say homosexuality), but then say that they are just as likely as theists to combat those who they disagree with in situation y. *Quote:* And the personality that the conviction of religious morality preys on is the weak mind. Not really sure what you mean by that. But it's been a long day so that is probably my fault. Care to clarify? *Quote:* The person who unwittingly allows their moral convictions to be dictated by perverse, prejudicial beliefs. And religions prey on these minds, holding them up as some kind of goal to which the religious faithful should strive. A concrete example would be nice here. *Quote:* I think it was John Paul, II (I definitely could be wrong here) that called Catholics cafeteria Catholics, because they decided to pick and choose what they believed. As if it were a bad thing to personally decide that abortion was not o.k., but birth control is. That pedophilia or bestiality are not o.k., but homosexuality is. The translation I'm familiar with is "a la carte Catholics." I think you're taking that comment out of context though. While it is fine to think for yourself, to have your own opinions and beliefs, what JP2 was criticising if I remember correctly was the notion that it was ok to claim membership of the church, to use it for weddings, funerals and xmas, but not hold any of the key beliefs. If you don't really believe in God, then you've got no business having a priest celebrate your wedding as a sacrament in a church. You've got no business claiming membership of the church if you ignore the central teachings of the church regarding things like the death penalty and abortion. Now things are not that cut and dry, but I haven't the time to go writing an essay on something that isn't really the issue at hand. Point is that if people find themselves in a situation where they disagree with some of the fundamental beliefs of a religion, then really should ask themselves why that is. They should investigate the issue for themselves and examine the teachings around the issue and see whether or not they agree with the reasoning. They should try to see if there are any errors and where they are. Now if having done all of these things they find that the non-compliant belief they hold (and there aren't really all that many of those) to be the more reasonable belief, then they should find some other sect. *Quote:* The moral conviction of religion is just as readily intertwined with social perceptions, as is secular morality. In one case the morality is dictated by fallible men (alright, and a few women these days), under the guise and label of being infallible. While the other case is a personal decision. We're talking about this as though it is black and white. There aren't that many religious people who would not accept what you've just said. You brought up the example of papal infallibility. Do you know exactly how many statements Pope's have made that are actually considered infallible. You lose a couple of fingers and still count them on one hand. You've taught catechism. Tell me, who does the church claim goes to hell? The answer is nobody. The church doesn't teach that anybody goes to hell because it is conscious of the fact that its judgement on such manners is less than complete. The notion that religion encourages ignorance is not one I think holds much water. How many of our great philosophers have been theists? Have we found some sort of great increase in the quality of the philosophical output of our universities since the death of God?
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Niall001	Re: --	#57	[url]	[-]
Posts: 897 01/31/07 16:33:14 Smarty Pants	*Quote:* Because it is by definition inaccessible. If we could experience the supernatural in the way we can experience dogs and chairs, then we would consider it another aspect of the natural world, and not define it as something beyond us. It is not inaccessible by definition. It is unaccessible through the use of certain means. Something different entirely. *Quote:* And if you're omnipotent, you COULD change your mind, meaning that God could potentially make murder "good". This is a problem with divine command morality, because it just shows that what is good is redefined as "whatever God says", and it is not clear that this is really what we mean when we say that something is immoral. This is also why it makes sense to say, "It is immoral for that woman to drown her children after God told her to do so." Being omnipotent does not mean that you have the ability to do what is intrinsically impossible. Could God make a square circle? According to your reasoning he could. Full of Porn* http://plainofpillars.blogspot.com
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
irishrosem	Re: --	#58	[url]	[-]
Posts: 641 01/31/07 19:14:18 OMG I'm Awesome!	Niall: That isn't femi-nazi territory. I know, I was just joking. Maybe it is just my personal experience, but I've found that people tend to use it to refer more to situations where somebody's capacity to consent is negated by the fact that they hate a lot to drink or were high and then regret their actions the next day. This would be based on individual state law. But some states find, if a person is incapacitated by drugs or liquor, that person is unable to give consent, and therefore sex with him/her would not be considered consensual (therefore rape). The problem that arises from statutes like these is how to prove incapacitation in addition to the sex act. Date rape is also often attributed to the consent initially given and then withdrawn example I gave above. I just wanted to point out that no always means no, even if it is preceded by yes. For me, rape is rape and to call one date or acquaintance rape ameliorates the act into something not as terrible as stranger rape. My point here is not that atheists are more likely to collaborate with all of the immoral deviants that society produces, it is that this is an implication of the argument that because theists believe they know some ultimate truth they are less likely to compromise on issues of morality. My point is that you can't say that atheists are more likely to compromise on issues of morality in situation X (say homosexuality), but then say that they are just as likely as theists to combat those who they disagree with in situation y. I'm not exactly sure what you are getting at here, but I'm going to jump in and take a guess. Are you stating atheists are no more likely to determine their own moral grounds-free from dogma and doctrine-than theists? A concrete example would be nice here. No problem. Two examples of large numbers of vulnerable people sought and attained by religious zealots are: (1) children with unstable backgrounds and insecure futures, and (2) felons, largely drug and alcohol addicts. The rate of Christian and Muslim conversion in the prison systems is skyrocketing. The felon is lauded as the soul to be saved; the one who faltered once but now will follow the path of the church; the person whose life without god was a failure, but now is saved and a valuable member to society. The child is held up as the innocent, devoted, nave mind. Do you think the whole "be like a child" anthem in the church is about attaining sticky fingers, skinned knees and untied shoelaces? The translation I'm familiar with is "a la carte Catholics." I think you're taking that comment out of context though. While it is fine to think for yourself, to have your own opinions and beliefs, what JP2 was criticising if I remember correctly was the notion that it was ok to claim membership of the church, to use it for weddings, funerals and xmas, but not hold any of the key beliefs. Oh no no no. And this is how many Catholics I know still think. But be not mistaken, JP2 (I like that) had no intention of only calling out CAPE Catholics and the like. (You know those ones who just have to have their baby baptized even though they haven't been in a Church in fifteen years. Or the ones who make sure to get to church for Ash Wednesday-which isn't even a holy day of obligation-but can't get there for the feast of the assumption, or even on regular Sundays.) The criticism was not about those who did not "hold any of the key beliefs" but to those who did not hold all the beliefs, key or otherwise. Read his 1987 speech to U.S. Bishops and tell me he was only speaking to fair-weather Catholics. Here's a quote: *Quote:* It is sometimes reported that a large number of Catholics today do not adhere to the teaching of the Church on a number of questions, notably sexual and conjugal morality, divorce and remarriage. Some are reported as not accepting the Church's clear position on abortion. It has also been noted that there is a tendency on the part of some Catholics to be selective in their adherence to the Church's moral teachings. It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the Magisterium is totally compatible with being a "good Catholic" and poses no obstacle to the reception of the sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching office of the bishops of the United States and elsewhere. Or how about this statement about dissent from doctrine: *Quote:* Within the ecclesial community, theological discussion takes place within the framework of faith. Dissent from Church doctrine remains what it is, dissent; as such it may not be proposed or received on a [sic] equal footing with the Church's authentic teaching. I love how he states here, that he encourages "fruitful dialogue" among the laity: *Quote:* I wish to support you as you continue to engage in fruitful dialogue with theologians regarding the legitimate freedom of inquiry which is their right. You rightly give them sincere encouragement in their difficult task, and assure them how much the Church needs and deeply appreciates their dedicated and constructive work. But then goes on to declare that of course the laity's opinion is "subject to the authority of the pastors of the Church": *Quote:* They, on their part, will recognize that the title Catholic theologian expresses a vocation and a responsibility at the service of the community of faith, and subject to the authority of the pastors of the Church. In particular your dialogue will seek to show the unacceptability of dissent and confrontation as a policy and method in the area of Church teaching. And here's an example of the church explicitly preying on children's minds: *Quote:* Catholic children and young people need to be given an effective opportunity to learn the truths of the faith, in such a way that they become capable of formulating their Catholic identity in terms of doctrine and thought. We're talking about this as though it is black and white. There aren't that many religious people who would not accept what you've just said. I disagree. In the U.S., fundamentals, who increasingly are accepting strict, limiting doctrine, are becoming more numerous. Conservative Judaism is on the upswing. The Nation of Islam is huge now in Philly, and in the prisons, as I mentioned before. And Catholics are still being criticized by the Church for using birth control. Religious faithful are not, in many sects, encouraged to think for themselves-to make their own moral choices. You brought up the example of papal infallibility. Do you know exactly how many statements Pope's have made that are actually considered infallible. Yes I know how and when infallibility is invoked, see my mentioning of the assumption above. It's not the amount of times infallibility is invoked that concerns me; it's that the idea exists at all. What about the magesterium, the concept that only the Pope and those bishops in line with the Pope can rightly interpret scripture, the "word of god"? No issue there with people being dictated to, not given freedom to think for themselves? You've taught catechism. Tell me, who does the church claim goes to hell? The answer is nobody. Hmmmm, well the Catholic Church doesn't dictate who is going to hell. But hell is a very real, definite threat for everyone. In the Bible, who do we know actually makes it to heaven? Very few. Consider that limbo was only just recently reversed (heh, that's such a legal term) by the church. If those helpless babes, who never did a thing wrong, couldn't make it to heaven, how could our imperfect souls get there? And, in retrospect, after learning more thoroughly the doctrine of the Church, my catechetical instructions would be considered heretical, though this wasn't intentional. However, I think I gave those preteen juveniles a better moral grounding (and better religious history lessons) than the sisters gave me.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Saint Gasoline	Re: --	#59	[url]	[-]
Posts: 220 02/03/07 03:49:03 Ph.D.	*Quote:* Being omnipotent does not mean that you have the ability to do what is intrinsically impossible. Could God make a square circle? According to your reasoning he could. Actually, I think you are confusing what it means for something to be logically impossible. Now, omnipotence means that a particular action is logically impossible in a categorical sense, not in a hypothetical one. Let's consider the point, now. Is it logically impossible to change one's mind? Of course not. I do it all the time! It is not equivalent to making a square circle. Your expected response, of course, is to say that it is impossible FOR GOD to do this...but this argument fails for obvious reasons. You are defining omnipotence as the ability to do anything logically possible FOR GOD to do, not the ability to do anything that is logically possible. Here's where this type of definition of omnipotence goes awry: For instance, if I define God as a totally impotent being for whom it is impossible to do anything, then under your definition of omnipotence as the ability to do anything that it is logically possible for that being to do, then that impotent being is also omnipotent! In fact, you and I would be omnipotent, too! In short, it makes no sense to define omnipotence in terms of what God can and can't do, because then we are trivializing what it really means to be omnipotent. Visit my website at http://www.saintgasoline.com if you like fart jokes, poop jokes, or jokes about other hilarious substances.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Niall001	Re: --	#60	[url]	[-]
Posts: 897 02/07/07 12:24:21 Smarty Pants	Hi guys, just a quick reply to say I won't be replying for some time. Very busy. But hopefully, may have time in the future. Full of Porn* http://plainofpillars.blogspot.com
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

About BookTalk.org

BookTalk.org NEWS

Imagine, there's no heaven

Quick Reply