If you could change the world?

[sniper1rfa]

I would give everyone assorted superpowers and we would all battle to the death.

QFT

[tropical_fishy]

The values that you are defining as "good" are a result of the Jewish and Chrisitian faiths. Without those faiths you would not have those values as they are now defined.

The ten commandments are the basis for so much of American law and moral culture that most don't even see that connection. They are so much a part of your life and what you define as good, without them and you loose the basis of "good moral behaviour".

You don't need to be Jewish or Chrisitian to have those as a moral compass, but that compass is made by those faiths.

Way to leave out Islam. It was cut from the same cloth.

[slade]

The values that you are defining as "good" are a result of the Jewish and Chrisitian faiths. Without those faiths you would not have those values as they are now defined.

The ten commandments are the basis for so much of American law and moral culture that most don't even see that connection. They are so much a part of your life and what you define as good, without them and you loose the basis of "good moral behaviour".

You don't need to be Jewish or Chrisitian to have those as a moral compass, but that compass is made by those faiths.

oh? any particular examples? id love to hear them.

most of what is conventionally defined as "good" can be shown to be advantageous through logic and reason. what cant be shown to be "good", people (like ricker) follow because it is the norm, and defying it isnt worth the trouble. so i don't quite understand what your argument is... that aside from forcing people to do what they should do anyway, religion puts a social/societal burden on people?

and, you are completely overlooking one possibility. suppose for a second athiests are right. someone, at some point, created the rules on which religion is based. why? perhaps because such rules (do not kill, do not steal) provided an adequate basis for the operation of society. in which case, people should be able to understand them without religion.

now, suppose theists are right. god created the rules on which religion is based. why? there must be some discernable reason which people should be able to derive.

and remember, there have been a lot of religious rules which have been discarded... about 500 of them, along with the 10 commandments. quite a few of them involved farm animals.

There is nothing wrong with doing the right thing. There is also nothing wrong with having faith. I think the issue is when we use faith as a reason to do something, rather than doing the right thing because it is the correct thing to do in the situation. If we allow faith to rule our lives (rather than enhance or guide), then we become, in the Hobbesian sense, "wicked" men. Our actions are not good for the sake of being good, but rather out of fear of the reprecussions of not doing "good." I've never put much stock in Kant, but he says something similar: if your intentions aren't pure, then your actions aren't truly good.

ehh, kant is a bunch of bull. what youre saying is right, its much better to do what is "good" with pure intentions rather than for fear of retribution, divine or otherwise. but it brings up an interesting point. is it better to have 80% of the people do what is right because its right, or have 90% of the people do what is right out of fear?

[bornl33t]

so all everyone is trying to achieve is the freedom to do whatever they want. Just through morals out, right? Soooo.... where do we draw the line and why there?

Premarital sex is ok? How about stealing? How would you feel about being assaulted? Does murder count as a "societal burden".

There are people that feel this is normal to society and feel they are imprisoned without a reason.

I think morals are the basis for civilization. Without morals we have anarchy.

[slade]

so all everyone is trying to achieve is the freedom to do whatever they want. Just through morals out, right? Soooo.... where do we draw the line and why there?

Premarital sex is ok? How about stealing? How would you feel about being assaulted? Does murder count as a "societal burden".

There are people that feel this is normal to society and feel they are imprisoned without a reason.

I think morals are the basis for civilization. Without morals we have anarchy.

what is your definition of morality, and why must it not exist where religion does not exist?

[tropical_fishy]

so all everyone is trying to achieve is the freedom to do whatever they want. Just through morals out, right? Soooo.... where do we draw the line and why there?

Premarital sex is ok? How about stealing? How would you feel about being assaulted? Does murder count as a "societal burden".

There are people that feel this is normal to society and feel they are imprisoned without a reason.

I think morals are the basis for civilization. Without morals we have anarchy.

Ok, so basically... Premarital sex=stealing=assault=murder. Whee! Fantastic. I fail to see how something that is consentual between two people is the same as a person harming another. But maybe that's just me and my sinning, evil, premarital-sex having, girl-liking self.

I think that things that don't harm other human beings are okay. I mean, if you go off and smoke pot, it doesn't hurt me, so why should I tell you you're not allowed? As long as you're not off raping women or men, why should I care if you're having premarital or gay sex? It doesn't affect me. If you're hurting people, by stealing from them, or assaulting them, or even murdering them, then it becomes my business.

I really don't see how this is a confusing concept: either an action hurts others, or it doesn't.

Do stuff that makes you happy, and minimize the harm you do to others. Isn't that the essence of religion?

[kosmo]

You don't need to be Jewish or Chrisitian to have those as a moral compass, but that compass is made by those faiths.

You obviously arent in any way enlightened about ancient cultures. Those "Judeo Christian" moral values existed for thousands of years before Abrahamic religions. Pull your head out of your arse.

[billybob_81067]

Ok, so basically... Premarital sex=stealing=assault=murder. Whee! Fantastic. I fail to see how something that is consentual between two people is the same as a person harming another. But maybe that's just me and my sinning, evil, premarital-sex having, girl-liking self.

I think that things that don't harm other human beings are okay. I mean, if you go off and smoke pot, it doesn't hurt me, so why should I tell you you're not allowed? As long as you're not off raping women or men, why should I care if you're having premarital or gay sex? It doesn't affect me. If you're hurting people, by stealing from them, or assaulting them, or even murdering them, then it becomes my business.

I really don't see how this is a confusing concept: either an action hurts others, or it doesn't.

Do stuff that makes you happy, and minimize the harm you do to others. Isn't that the essence of religion?

What if there's two consenting adults, one of which kills the other in an assisted suicide? Both consented to it, no one was hurt other than the person who wanted it, and apparently no one's going to hell cause it doesn't exist.

/Sorry, just couldn't resist the 2 consenting people thing.
//Don't actually care how this thread turns out.

[kosmo]

What if there's two consenting adults, one of which kills the other in an assisted suicide? Both consented to it, no one was hurt other than the person who wanted it, and apparently no one's going to hell cause it doesn't exist.

/Sorry, just couldn't resist the 2 consenting people thing.
//Don't actually care how this thread turns out.

Who is that old guy who keeps doing that? Kevorkian? Whoever he is, hes right. Except for the part about not grinding them up afterwards into soilent green.

[billybob_81067]

Who is that old guy who keeps doing that? Kevorkian? Whoever he is, hes right. Except for the part about not grinding them up afterwards into soilent green.

Mmmmmmm.... soilent green.

[edweird]

I feel the first logical leap in freeing someone from the thought virus that is westren organized religion is helping them understand that conscience and morals can and do exist outside of theistic dogma and gospel. Moreover it is essential to understand that gospel and dogma are also not the original source of morality, or even architect of the law of man. Both morality and the law of man are concepts conceived and evolved from eons of prehistorical sectarian bickering and reasonable reaction to misbehavior, not from tablets carried down a mountain twice. Even in supposedly lesser genus and species the social stratum that exists also facilitates the same basic premises of "I'll scratch your back..." based co-operation and "do unto others..." that the engineers of the Bible/Torah/Qur'an worked in so well.

Secondly, lets not compare apples to oranges... Procreation for fun or purpose is not even in the realm of murder or suicide; lets not pretend that it is. This kind of inability to see reality without the rose colored glasses fosters the very same bigoted hate that is only holding us back as a species.

This brings me to my other issue, often the highly indoctrinated see the laws of god(scripture/dogma) as higher callings than the laws of man. This inability to differentiate right from wrong while clouded with righteous delusions of gradeur are leading zealots to murder doctors and wear suicide belts. In a world awake from the delusion that religion imposes upon us, we can stop dreaming of throngs of virgins awaiting us in heaven as a reward for martyrdom. You can understand that this is your one and only life, you cannot ask the invisible for forgiveness instead of asking the people you harmed in the first place, and your only asked by everyone to leave this world in a better condition then you got it in.

I will leave you all with an exerpt from illusionist Penn Jillette, from a essay he did for the NPR series "This I believe"

This I believe: I believe there is no God."

Having taken that step, it informs every moment of my life. I'm not greedy. I have love, blue skies, rainbows and Hallmark cards, and that has to be enough. It has to be enough, but it's everything in the world and everything in the world is plenty for me. It seems just rude to beg the invisible for more. Just the love of my family that raised me and the family I'm raising now is enough that I don't need heaven. I won the huge genetic lottery and I get joy every day.

Believing there's no God means I can't really be forgiven except by kindness and faulty memories. That's good; it makes me want to be more thoughtful. I have to try to treat people right the first time around.

Believing there's no God stops me from being solipsistic. I can read ideas from all different people from all different cultures. Without God, we can agree on reality, and I can keep learning where I'm wrong. We can all keep adjusting, so we can really communicate. I don't travel in circles where people say, "I have faith, I believe this in my heart and nothing you can say or do can shake my faith." That's just a long-winded religious way to say, "shut up," or another two words that the FCC likes less. But all obscenity is less insulting than, "How I was brought up and my imaginary friend means more to me than anything you can ever say or do." So, believing there is no God lets me be proven wrong and that's always fun. It means I'm learning something.

Believing there is no God means the suffering I've seen in my family, and indeed all the suffering in the world, isn't caused by an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent force that isn't bothered to help or is just testing us, but rather something we all may be able to help others with in the future. No God means the possibility of less suffering in the future.

Believing there is no God gives me more room for belief in family, people, love, truth, beauty, sex, Jell-O and all the other things I can prove and that make this life the best life I will ever have.

[bornl33t]

Ok, so basically... Premarital sex=stealing=assault=murder. Whee! Fantastic. I fail to see how something that is consensual between two people is the same as a person harming another. But maybe that's just me and my sinning, evil, premarital-sex having, girl-liking self.

I think that things that don't harm other human beings are okay. I mean, if you go off and smoke pot, it doesn't hurt me, so why should I tell you you're not allowed? As long as you're not off raping women or men, why should I care if you're having premarital or gay sex? It doesn't affect me. If you're hurting people, by stealing from them, or assaulting them, or even murdering them, then it becomes my business.

I really don't see how this is a confusing concept: either an action hurts others, or it doesn't.

Do stuff that makes you happy, and minimize the harm you do to others. Isn't that the essence of religion?

You are reading into what I was saying. I'm a simple man. The deep thinking is best left to those who pursue higher deducation...or?

I was making the example of morals based on the 10 commandments. Those where only a few of them. And generally I agree with you as far as your theory on not harming anyone else. BUT

Sometimes the things you do in your own home effect others and that's what some people don't understand. Let me elaborate:

You want to smoke a little weed. That's fine as far as I'm concerned, as long as you do it in your home AND wait for the effects to wear off before driving to the gas station to get a pack of smokes. But you see weed like all drugs impair your judgment. So now we need a system to monitor people who have a problem with this. Because despite what people with tell you, it does affect your driving.

Or something a little more simple. What about people who smoke? We all know that smoking causes many medical issues. Who pays for all the health problems of some one who choices to smoke in their own home.

What about the kids in foster homes? They are the product of a choice.

We could let people deal with their problems themselves, but the atrocities would make you cringe.

I saw this on a T-shirt a while back " Work harder, millions on welfare depend on you "
That really says it all.

But you are right about one thing. Being a Citizen in America ( not and illegal immigrant ) guarantees you the right to the pursuit of happiness.


Slade - no where in my post do I talk about religion. I know some very moral, non-religious people.

kosmo- Of course those values have existed since the beginning of time. You think Christianity and Judaism started with Abraham then you need to pull your head....

Morals can be twisted. Religion is to morals what a ruler is to a line. How would you know if a line was straight if you didn't have something straight to compare it to? Which is exactly why people don't like religion. They want bend or get rid of morals.

[tropical_fishy]

You want to smoke a little weed. That's fine as far as I'm concerned, as long as you do it in your home AND wait for the effects to wear off before driving to the gas station to get a pack of smokes. But you see weed like all drugs impair your judgment. So now we need a system to monitor people who have a problem with this. Because despite what people with tell you, it does affect your driving.

That's why I said you're free to do as you wish as long as you don't harm others. Billybob, I know you're just being obnoxious, and I don't want to get into my views on assisted suicide, but the difference between premarital sex and assisted suicide is you ARE harming another human being. Can another human consent to death? Can a person be sane and coherent enough TO consent to death? Those are important questions that haven't been answered yet.

Or something a little more simple. What about people who smoke? We all know that smoking causes many medical issues. Who pays for all the health problems of some one who choices to smoke in their own home.

You know, I'll be honest. Second-hand smoke doesn't bother me all that much, with all the carcinogens in the air, water, and food that are around today. Sure, it's bad for you, but a family, as an enitity, has the power to either put a stop to it or dictate that all smoking must be done outside.

What about the kids in foster homes? They are the product of a choice.

What about them? I don't understand the question. Should we limit the reproductive rights of minorities just so they don't produce a child that MIGHT end up in foster care? Forced sterilization ftw!

We could let people deal with their problems themselves, but the atrocities would make you cringe.

I'm not saying we should "make people deal with their problems themselves." I'm talking about morality. I dunno where you pulled this comment out of.

I saw this on a T-shirt a while back " Work harder, millions on welfare depend on you "
That really says it all.

Uhhhh yeah, once again, I don't understand how welfare has anything to do with morals.

People do stupid, immoral things. But we do not have the right to take away their rights (or anyone else's) to choice JUST out of the off-chance they might do something stupid.

But you are right about one thing. Being a Citizen in America ( not and illegal immigrant ) guarantees you the right to the pursuit of happiness.

Yes it does. Even though pursuit of happiness really means "right to own property."

Morals can be twisted. Religion is to morals what a ruler is to a line. How would you know if a line was straight if you didn't have something straight to compare it to? Which is exactly why people don't like religion. They want bend or get rid of morals.

No. People dislike religion for a plethora of different reasons, perhaps one of which you've mentioned. I dislike certain aspects of religion, like the hateful mindset it (CAN) foster; or the strict adherence to certain apparently arbitrary rules. But hey, that's just me. I'm going to hang out over here with my "don't harm others, and make yourself happy" philosophy, and after we die, we'll see what happens.

[slade]

What if there's two consenting adults, one of which kills the other in an assisted suicide? Both consented to it, no one was hurt other than the person who wanted it, and apparently no one's going to hell cause it doesn't exist.

/Sorry, just couldn't resist the 2 consenting people thing.
//Don't actually care how this thread turns out.

gray area. it really depends on the situation; it could either be that 1) the person was in such pain/physical incapability that it was for the best, or 2) either a tragic event had occured making the person emotionally imbalanced, or the person had a chemical imbalance and was severely depressed, in which case the person should know enough to not assist the suicide.

Slade - no where in my post do I talk about religion. I know some very moral, non-religious people.

then youre arguing with yourself, because no one ever said we should get rid of morality.

Morals can be twisted. Religion is to morals what a ruler is to a line. How would you know if a line was straight if you didn't have something straight to compare it to? Which is exactly why people don't like religion. They want bend or get rid of morals.

oh? how stupid of me, i didnt realize i wanted to get rid of morality.

saying religion is "the ruler" to compare everything to is rather shortsighted. in case you werent paying attention to the thread, the morality religion enforces existed, and can still exist, without religion. logic is a much better basis of comparison, and religion is much more readily twisted.

[bornl33t]

ok, then i bow to ya'lls superior wisdom. Dam you are an indignant cynical bunch.