jcd11235 0 #51 May 31, 2008 QuoteQuotePeople following a moral code because they believe it is the right thing to do are more likely to follow the code than people who follow the code because it is written in a book. Not so - whether the 'code' comes from society or religion, people will only follow it if they feel it is right to do so. Agreed, but that doesn't contradict my statement; it reinforces it.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #52 May 31, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuotePeople following a moral code because they believe it is the right thing to do are more likely to follow the code than people who follow the code because it is written in a book. Not so - whether the 'code' comes from society or religion, people will only follow it if they feel it is right to do so. Agreed, but that doesn't contradict my statement; it reinforces it. Agreed - I misread your statement. My apologies.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rynodigsmusic 0 #53 May 31, 2008 There is a great deception in our world today. Love yourself first, then others. The truth is that to truly recieve love it must be given. Love takes courage, and courage takes fear, therefore, love takes fear. Yet, most of us are afraid to love one another. Hypocrisy is the greatest enemy of God. People dont hate God, they hate hypocrisy. The spirit of God is endless love, it was given, therefore recieved (by those who believed it) and as it is recieved, it is given...so on and so on...."The Forceful advance of the Kingdom of Heaven" is in its simplest form, sharing. When we find a desire to share love in its purest form, then our communities will prosper. The problem. We think pleasure is the persuit, and are sorely convinced of that. The fear of losing pleasure keeps us from receiving the greatest of pleasures...a life full of love and righteousness. There are few teachers of righteousness because our society has made it uncool. It is a desire to be good, not against our will, but because of the pleasure it brings. We all struggle with this path, love is the greatest guide as its patience and perseverance never fail us. When someone desires righteousness but stumbles, it is different than when someone does not desire righteousness and does whatever he pleases. One is a slave, one is not. One finds pleasure through a desire that is not his own, the other finds pleasure through his own desire. The one who finds pleasure through his own desire finds the greatest pleasure. Its finding what we truly desire that challenges truth with us."We didn't start the fire" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #54 May 31, 2008 Quote As I read it, it sounds like you’re asking what is fundamentally a normative question – how society should be. What hasn’t been mentioned explicitly who has power and privilege under that normative system. (Although that is what I read as the underlying basis of [kelpdiver]’s comments.) So we have some groups that used to have much more dominance. That started changing after WWII in the US and western Europe. Some see/construct/assert that change as evidence of decline in ‘moral code,’ because their power/privilege declined. The normative structure changed. For the better, imo. From my perspective, acknowledging a late 20th Century/early 21st Century American background, the bigger issues at the core of some of the criticisms and problems that you’ve mentioned over the last month are anti-intellectualism and promotion of being a jerk. The two are connected. There’s always been smart satire, e.g., Shakespeare’s comedies. One can speculate on the origin of the pervasive promotion of being a 'jerk' as cool. The other is a lack of consequences for bad behavior (links to the above on one level). [Edit to add: & a lack of rewards for 'normativly' good behavior. Just getting by is the easiest path. Normatively 'good' behavior, such as being a whistleblower, more often has negative consequences.] In the late 1980s there was a quip I heard that stuck with me as an epitomization of some of the kind of things you've cited: “The difference between right and wrong is wrong is getting caught.” That comment arose w/r/t the Wall Street scandals of the 1980s, the Keating Five scandal, Iran-Contra, and the Savings & Loan bail-out. Imo, greed/selfishness is just as much physiologically ‘hard-wired’ into the human brain as empathy and altruism are. (And I can provide evidence to support those assertions.) Waste, fraud, & abuse weren't invented by the late 20th Century (nor by hippies or ‘liberals’ ). So what’s changed? Maybe we just hear about it more often? Better instrumentation and faster dissemination of information? How do you measure and value doing the ‘right thing’ (a normative) when what is rewarded at the end of the day is the bottom line or fulfillment of a metric? VR/Marg From your initial point; it's easily apparant what should be expected of a decent and honest society. The power and the privilege has been mentioned, with my personal preference towards a religious agenda which supports the common good. The reasons why are simple. What else can provide an agreed generic moral code? If religion obviously can't, what's a better alternative? I've continually made an apparant assertion, where I've also asked a question. I continually read of answers which argue against the assertion, yet unfortunately read of very little which addresses the more important question. You're theory of apparant 'coolness' goes hand in hand with my issue of an ever increasing immoral society. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #55 May 31, 2008 Quote Agreed - I misread your statement. My apologies. No worries. I'm usually surprised when we agree on something, also. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #56 May 31, 2008 Hopefully I'll see your name on his sig line along with Kallends. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #57 May 31, 2008 I'll say that one of the biggest problems is liberalism, as we know it today. I'm sure it started earlier than the '60's, but that's when the big push started. It was an attitude of defiance to any kind of authoritianism, regardless of how sound the rules were. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- QuoteWell, when you have a lot of bullshit rules, people have a hard time accepting any of them.The problem is that liberalism couldn't sort out the rules that were BS and those that would have long term consequences if they were broken. Breaking all rules was the only rule. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #58 May 31, 2008 Quote Hopefully I'll see your name on his sig line along with Kallends. Heheheheheheh Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #59 May 31, 2008 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #60 May 31, 2008 Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- An atheist can arguably do whatever he or she likes morally. Not through a fear of any consequences, but through a lack of standard social morality. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- QuoteYou can "argue" that all you'd like, but it's simply not true. Atheists still have to obey laws and fear the consequences of not doing so just like "everybody" else. So basically, we are still relying on fear, whether it be from the immediate punishment of man or the eternal punishment of a god, to get the job done? The upside to a god is that you believe that you are under an ever watchful eye. Going 80 in a 60 is no big deal if you don't think that the man is sitting around the corner. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #61 May 31, 2008 QuoteSo basically, we are still relying on fear, whether it be from the immediate punishment of man or the eternal punishment of a god, to get the job done? The upside to a god is that you believe that you are under an ever watchful eye. Going 80 in a 60 is no big deal if you don't think that the man is sitting around the corner. Not at all. Going 80 in a 60 zone could be the saturday sinners hoping for sunday forgiveness. What I'm saying is more akin to the skydiver that knows the difference between what is safe and what is legal. He knows it's not legal to punch a cloud, but under the right circumstances he also knows it's as safe as any other skydive. He knows that every thing that is legal isn't safe and everything that is safe isn't legal and he's actually smart enough to know the difference and takes personal responsibility for screwing it up if he's wrong. The devil didn't make him punch the cloud and no amount of forgiveness can actually make him "unpunch" it. If the "upside" to god watching over me is that he also allows me to do incredibly stupid and destructive things while he watches . . . well . . . seems kinda pointless to me.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,254 #62 May 31, 2008 QuoteYou're only providing points to be objectionable, on your quest to disregard religion. No, I'm pointing out things that you haven't considered, and you're disregarding them because you don't have an answer. Why, if religion is the answer, is the USA no better than the UK? QuoteI'm not interested in arguing over the misapplication of religion today. And why would that be? Possibly because it's a gaping hole in your proposal and you don't know how to plug it? QuoteMy point is how we address the issues of a general society being ever more immoral. My view points to a generic moral code. I feel the proper honest encouragement of religion can at least aid this problem. All your trying to do is gob off about religion being a load of pish again. Where? All you're doing is ignoring any argument counter to your viewpoint. Look through your posts on the first page: in the space of 5 or 6 posts you go from demanding evidence and examples, to ignoring any examples provided, refusing to provide any of your own, and declaring that the whole concept of providing evidence and examples is pointless. QuoteThe moral code is the key here. If for you religion isn't the answer then fine! What is? Atheism certainly isn't. You can 'morally' do whatever you like then. If it isn't religion, then what's the alternative. An all enforcing police state? That's you're major problem. Just because you can't conceive of how someone can follow a moral philosophy without needing the prospect of eternal punishment to motivate them doesn't mean that anyone else is so shortsighted. The alternatives are benevelent religion or a police state? Give me a break!Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,254 #63 May 31, 2008 Quote I said earlier atheists can of course be honest, upstanding members of society. But this isn't the norm. Hah! Show me! Quote If you're so blind you require evidence for me to support my points, Why is evidence a dirty word to you?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #64 May 31, 2008 QuoteThe only real "moral" code you need is summed up in "The Golden Rule" of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Beyond that, there's really no need if you think about itWhy should I obey a made up rule by a made up man, in a made up book? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,254 #65 May 31, 2008 QuoteWhy should I obey a made up rule by a made up man, in a made up book? Why do you need an authority figure to tell you that the rule is a good one? Do you lack the intelligence neccesary to evaluate it on merit?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #66 May 31, 2008 So basically, we are still relying on fear, whether it be from the immediate punishment of man or the eternal punishment of a god, to get the job done? The upside to a god is that you believe that you are under an ever watchful eye. Going 80 in a 60 is no big deal if you don't think that the man is sitting around the corner. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- QuoteNot at all. Going 80 in a 60 zone could be the saturday sinners hoping for sunday forgiveness. What I'm saying is more akin to the skydiver that knows the difference between what is safe and what is legal. He knows it's not legal to punch a cloud, but under the right circumstances he also knows it's as safe as any other skydive. He knows that every thing that is legal isn't safe and everything that is safe isn't legal and he's actually smart enough to know the difference and takes personal responsibility for screwing it up if he's wrong. The devil didn't make him punch the cloud and no amount of forgiveness can actually make him "unpunch" it. If the "upside" to god watching over me is that he also allows me to do incredibly stupid and destructive things while he watches . . . well . . . seems kinda pointless to me. As the skydiver climbs onto the plane, someone mentions that there's an FAA inspector on site. Do you think he's going to punch a cloud just for the fun of it, or is he going to do his best to find the biggest hole? He's only obeying the law out of fear. Would you rather have an employee who operates on the premise that a quality life leads to an eternal reward, and therefore, does his best all day long, regardless of who's watching, or someone who's default position is to break rules, and screw the man? As long as someone in authority is watching, then he's at his task, but the minute the boss is gone, he starts slacking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #67 May 31, 2008 In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why should I obey a made up rule by a made up man, in a made up book? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- QuoteWhy do you need an authority figure to tell you that the rule is a good one? Do you lack the intelligence neccesary to evaluate it on merit? Why would you suddenly embrace a rule who's origin is a book which you despise? How many other rules in that book might be helpful to the living of a quality life, but have been rejected by a secular society, because they hate the idea of an invisible authority figure? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,254 #68 May 31, 2008 QuoteWhy would you suddenly embrace a rule who's origin is a book which you despise? A) I don't despise the Bible. Despising a book would be a very strange thing to do. B) The Golden rule does not originate with the Bible. C) Suddenly embrace? I've always thought it sounded like a good idea. D) Because it's a good idea. QuoteHow many other rules in that book might be helpful to the living of a quality life, but have been rejected by a secular society, because they hate the idea of an invisible authority figure? How about none?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #69 May 31, 2008 You are being objectionable. Why relate the point to religion and the USA? Why not the Taliban in a more extreme case? I've already provided my answers to these points though. You take the base meaning of a point down to it's most basic root, whilst happily disregarding other important areas, to then help support your argument. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,254 #70 May 31, 2008 QuoteWhy relate the point to religion and the USA? Because the economic, social and political makeup of the USA is pretty similar to the UK. They also have the same dominant religion as we do but they follow it in much larger proportions with generally higher levels of devoutness - essentially what you would like to see here in the UK. QuoteWhy not the Taliban in a more extreme case? Because there are far fewer parallels and it wouldn't be a useful comparison. QuoteI've already provided my answers to these points though. Where? Where and what is your answer to the point about the US being more devout than us but not more moral?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thirdworld19 0 #71 May 31, 2008 QuoteThe moral code is the key here. If for you religion isn't the answer then fine! What is? Atheism certainly isn't. You can 'morally' do whatever you like then. If it isn't religion, then what's the alternative. An all enforcing police state? If you think atheists can 'morally' do whatever they like, you have an incorrect view of atheists. I don't need a god to tell me that it's not OK to rape someone. I base my morals on what is best for me, my family, my friends, my country, and my world. Someone else mentioned the golden rule - works for me. If you need a god/police state to tell you right from wrong, then you probably need more help than that. Maybe that's the problem you keep searching for. The fact the so many people can't think for themselves and rely on something greater to make their decisions for them - and then slough off the responsibility/consequences on that something greater. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thirdworld19 0 #72 May 31, 2008 QuoteAn atheist can arguably do whatever he or she likes morally. Not through a fear of any consequences, but through a lack of standard social morality. Yes, an atheist can do whatever they like morally - just as any other person on this planet. What stops any of them from doing something "immoral?" Just because there is a list of do's and don'ts doesn't mean that any one person will adhere to them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #73 May 31, 2008 QuoteWould you rather have an employee who operates on the premise that a quality life leads to an eternal reward, and therefore, does his best all day long, regardless of who's watching, or someone who's default position is to break rules, and screw the man? As long as someone in authority is watching, then he's at his task, but the minute the boss is gone, he starts slacking. What you've just said is that religion is good for business and this is one of the ideas that drives me -away- from religion; that religion is a tool used by those in power to control the masses. If that is all religion is, then it's bullshit.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #74 May 31, 2008 It isn't necessary to compare. I said earlier: '...if we consider moral behaviour 1000 years ago was apparantly a great deal worse, despite the vast, vast majority of the populace being religious'. The point therefore negates your comparison, because yours doesn't seem to take into account the misuse and misapplication of religion, which is essentially my further point. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #75 May 31, 2008 I think you're misunderstanding my context. Whilst you don't need God to tell you it's wrong to rape someone, what difference does it make to the rapist then? He still does it, despite knowing it's wrong too. What caused him to rape in the first place? What was his decision making process to decide to not only carry out an immoral act, but also to break the law? Would he still do it if he was religious? If he believed in God? Numerous Catholic priests abuse young boys - they're religious. They probably believe in God too. Could their belief in celebacy have contributed to their immoral actions? Is this an area of Catholic religion misapplied? I fully respect an atheists beliefs, but an atheist society? I wonder what that would be like.... 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
