The effect of religion
-
He is not alone, not by a long shot.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
My rationale is that if existence (all forms) truly end for "you" when you die there is little or no reason to live a moral life.
What about other people, and your children?
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milkDavid Wulff wrote:
What about other people, and your children?
Why would I care about other people in this context? The concept of others would be meaningless and I would adopt the most hedonistic approach to life I could find. I might work to cause no pain but I certainly wouldn't work to be moral. That would give me the latitude to steal, maybe not everything somone has but certainly I could convince myself that it was okay to liberate the excess. Ditto diddling someone's wife. etc.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. dennisd45: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced dennisd45 (the NAMBLA supporter) wrote: I know exactly what it means. So shut up you mother killing baby raper.
-
David Wulff wrote:
What about other people, and your children?
Why would I care about other people in this context? The concept of others would be meaningless and I would adopt the most hedonistic approach to life I could find. I might work to cause no pain but I certainly wouldn't work to be moral. That would give me the latitude to steal, maybe not everything somone has but certainly I could convince myself that it was okay to liberate the excess. Ditto diddling someone's wife. etc.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. dennisd45: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced dennisd45 (the NAMBLA supporter) wrote: I know exactly what it means. So shut up you mother killing baby raper.
I can say with a fair amount of qualified experience that what you describe has absolutely nothing to do with the lack of religious accountability in atheism. Claiming that religion (and let's not beat around the bush -- you mean your flavour of religion) is required for respect, as well as morals, is absurd. The last 2,000 years is merely a second in man's history and yet both concepts existed firmly before that and in many ways we are not alone in such behaviour. Why don't Christians just counter that unfortunate fact by claming that God gives everyone morals regardless of their free will? Sure people would laugh at you, but at least it would be an understandable opinion to hold. I have never understood the whole 'walled' mentality that many religious people have. What does it achieve? In fact I so am truely, honestly, surprised that you could even begin to consider that it may be valid that, quite simply, I don't believe that you think that for a moment. You are trolling. :|
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milk -
Yes, so brave to kill innocent people. They are idiots for believing that is what their religion teaches them. One of the cornerstones of the major religions is be nice to your fellow mankind. But these IDIOTS have twisted the words to fit their own needs and lost the roots of their religion.
__________________ Bob is my homeboy.
leckey wrote:
One of the cornerstones of the major religions is be nice to your fellow mankind
Fellow Muslims. You read the Quran yet? It's quite clear about the fact that non Muslims are to be treated differently.
-
leckey wrote:
One of the cornerstones of the major religions is be nice to your fellow mankind
Fellow Muslims. You read the Quran yet? It's quite clear about the fact that non Muslims are to be treated differently.
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Fellow Muslims. You read the Quran yet? It's quite clear about the fact that non Muslims are to be treated differently.
Jews believe the same thing.
-
Tamimi - Code wrote:
don't say idiots , they have the brave to die for what they believe in
This is the first time I've seen somebody on CP openly support suicide bombing. X| The bravery to die for something one believes in is something to be admired; cold blooded murder of innocent civilians is not. At least that swine Adnan used to only crawl under his bridge and hide when people confronted him on his views on suicide bombing. And before you go into your 'that infidel hates Muslims :((' mode, let me tell you I'm not an Islamophobe. My views on suicide bombing are the same irrespective of whether the terrorist is a Muslim in Kashmir, a Hindu in Sri Lanka or a Christian in Israel/the Occupied Territories. Every time I come to the Soapbox 'just to read the posts' I see more and more justification in just staying away. :sigh:
Cheers, Vikram.
"But nowadays, it means nothing. Features are never frozen, development keeps happening, bugs never get fixed, and documentation is something you might find on wikipedia." - Marc Clifton on betas.
Join the CP group at NationStates. Password:
byalmightybobVikram A Punathambekar wrote:
a Christian in Israel/the Occupied Territories
:confused: Vik, there are no Christian bombings in Israel. In fact, there's hardly any Christians in Israel, period. Simply put, the war going on in Israel is between the state of Israel and Muslims that don't want Israel to exist. None of which are Christian -- you'll find Christians and Jews generally get along quite well. See IFCJ[^].
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Virginia Tech Shootings, Guns, and Politics The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
-
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Fellow Muslims. You read the Quran yet? It's quite clear about the fact that non Muslims are to be treated differently.
Jews believe the same thing.
Yep. They don't however tend believe that non Jews are to be subjugated, converted or killed, so its much easier to deal. Wouldn't the notion of the 'Elect' among some protestant sects also qualify?
-
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
a Christian in Israel/the Occupied Territories
:confused: Vik, there are no Christian bombings in Israel. In fact, there's hardly any Christians in Israel, period. Simply put, the war going on in Israel is between the state of Israel and Muslims that don't want Israel to exist. None of which are Christian -- you'll find Christians and Jews generally get along quite well. See IFCJ[^].
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Virginia Tech Shootings, Guns, and Politics The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
There were a few Marxist terrorists from Christian backgrounds in the PLO I think. I distinctly doubt they were motivated by their religious faith however.
-
Yep. They don't however tend believe that non Jews are to be subjugated, converted or killed, so its much easier to deal. Wouldn't the notion of the 'Elect' among some protestant sects also qualify?
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Wouldn't the notion of the 'Elect' among some protestant sects also qualify?
I dunno. Never heard of it.
-
Le Centriste wrote:
I am talking about the idiots who blow themselves up in the name of Allah
could i ask you what will makes you kill you self ?? don't say idiots , they have the brave to die for what they believe in. i don't understand why in your opinion they are idiots ?? please tell me
When you get mad...THINK twice that the only advice Tamimi - Code
Tamimi - Code wrote:
they have the brave to die for what they believe in.
Gosh, that's a sad statement. They are wicked enough to kill for what they believe in. They're cowardly enough to kill themselves in the process. Bravery is doing what is right in spite of fear - there's nothing "right" in killing God's children so that your megalomaniacal leader can make it on the evening news. "idiot" is being kind.
----
It appears that everybody is under the impression that I approve of the documentation. You probably also blame Ken Burns for supporting slavery.
--Raymond Chen on MSDN
-
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Wouldn't the notion of the 'Elect' among some protestant sects also qualify?
I dunno. Never heard of it.
-
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
a Christian in Israel/the Occupied Territories
:confused: Vik, there are no Christian bombings in Israel. In fact, there's hardly any Christians in Israel, period. Simply put, the war going on in Israel is between the state of Israel and Muslims that don't want Israel to exist. None of which are Christian -- you'll find Christians and Jews generally get along quite well. See IFCJ[^].
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Virginia Tech Shootings, Guns, and Politics The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
Judah Himango wrote:
Vik
Vikram. Please. :)
Judah Himango wrote:
Vik, there are no Christian bombings in Israel.
I recall reading somewhere about Hamas and other groups in the ME - a study showed that the number of radical Muslims amongst suicide bombers was not as high as most people think. A few were Christians, and some were Muslims, but not high on the 'militant Islam' scale. I'll be the first to admit I could easily be wrong though. :)
Judah Himango wrote:
the war going on in Israel is between the state of Israel and Muslims that don't want Israel to exist
To a large extent, I agree, but 30 seconds of googling turned up this[^] Doesn't exactly look like the best site for unbiased information, though.
Cheers, Vikram.
"But nowadays, it means nothing. Features are never frozen, development keeps happening, bugs never get fixed, and documentation is something you might find on wikipedia." - Marc Clifton on betas.
Join the CP group at NationStates. Password:
byalmightybob -
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
a Christian in Israel/the Occupied Territories
:confused: Vik, there are no Christian bombings in Israel. In fact, there's hardly any Christians in Israel, period. Simply put, the war going on in Israel is between the state of Israel and Muslims that don't want Israel to exist. None of which are Christian -- you'll find Christians and Jews generally get along quite well. See IFCJ[^].
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Virginia Tech Shootings, Guns, and Politics The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
Judah Himango wrote:
Vik, there are no Christian bombings in Israel.
OK, I found the link[^]. I got the wrong country, though.
In Lebanon in the 1980s, of those suicide attackers, only eight were Islamic fundamentalists. Twenty-seven were Communists and Socialists. Three were Christians.
Cheers, Vikram.
"But nowadays, it means nothing. Features are never frozen, development keeps happening, bugs never get fixed, and documentation is something you might find on wikipedia." - Marc Clifton on betas.
Join the CP group at NationStates. Password:
byalmightybob -
Patrick Sears wrote:
I'm atheist but consider myself a very moral person and spend a great deal of mental effort defining that morality, because I believe it to be important to be a responsible adult. And I'm not alone.
I strongly suspect, but certainly cannot prove, that you're more alone than you think. My rationale is that if existence (all forms) truly end for "you" when you die there is little or no reason to live a moral life.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. dennisd45: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced dennisd45 (the NAMBLA supporter) wrote: I know exactly what it means. So shut up you mother killing baby raper.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
My rationale is that if existence (all forms) truly end for "you" when you die there is little or no reason to live a moral life.
The unspoken assumption here seems to be that the purpose of living a moral life is finally realized at the END of life - that is, the afterlife. If one accepts, however, that what we do here on earth, to each other, matters (and certainly it does, else we wouldn't bother to define morality in the first place) then there is still a place for morality even for those who don't believe in divine reward or punishment. Morality tells us how to live with each other. I should think that to be very, very important during a lifetime.
------------ Cheers, Patrick
-
Hmmmm...That's actually the first I've heard of that. I would argue that it differs in that (according to the link) Calvinists don't claim to know who the elect are, so they aren't proclaiming they're chosen. Just that some people are.
-
Hmmmm...That's actually the first I've heard of that. I would argue that it differs in that (according to the link) Calvinists don't claim to know who the elect are, so they aren't proclaiming they're chosen. Just that some people are.
Red Stateler wrote:
Calvinists don't claim to know who the elect are
Wouldn't that be implicit given that Christian salvation is dependent on faith? Unless they considered that their faith potentially incorrect?
-
David Wulff wrote:
What about other people, and your children?
Why would I care about other people in this context? The concept of others would be meaningless and I would adopt the most hedonistic approach to life I could find. I might work to cause no pain but I certainly wouldn't work to be moral. That would give me the latitude to steal, maybe not everything somone has but certainly I could convince myself that it was okay to liberate the excess. Ditto diddling someone's wife. etc.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. dennisd45: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced dennisd45 (the NAMBLA supporter) wrote: I know exactly what it means. So shut up you mother killing baby raper.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
Why would I care about other people in this context? The concept of others would be meaningless and I would adopt the most hedonistic approach to life I could find. I might work to cause no pain but I certainly wouldn't work to be moral. That would give me the latitude to steal, maybe not everything somone has but certainly I could convince myself that it was okay to liberate the excess. Ditto diddling someone's wife. etc.
The concept of enlightened self interest comes to mind. Even if one were to accept your premise that atheism itself leads to hedonism, there is still enlightened self interest to contend with, and an even simply intelligent mind will have some sense of enlightened self interest (that is, looking out for their better long term interest rather than their short term whims). The simplest way to expound on that idea is: what works and what doesn't. There are social rules, divorced from religious doctrine, for a reason; in fact, most religious doctrine itself is DERIVED from these social rules that are FAR older than written religion. Humans have understood these ideas since before time was time. Namely: 1. Sleep with another man's wife, you're likely to get yourself a whole heap 'o trouble. 2. Killing people without merit is probably going to get YOU killed. 3. Refusing to share and refusing to help is probably going to leave you without any support group, and very, very few individuals are capable of surviving alone - or ever were. Not only that, humans have a very, very strong instinctive drive to group together. Few people are willing to jeopardize their social support group. 4. Stealing is probably going to get you either beaten or killed, or at the very least, locked up or banished (going back to point 3). And these are just off the top of my head. Point is, it's not in your interest to be hedonistic when you depend on others for your well being. That is, of course, easier to ignore these days, since everyone is forced pretty much to depend on themselves (ever wonder why nobody talks about their paycheck at work?). But it's still relevant, because we still value our social structures. We still need them. We are still emotionally healthiest with them. Morality is not arbitrary, although the 4 points above may more appropriately be called ethics. There is of course a great deal of room for interpretation, but the basic fact is that there are rules we obligate ourselves to follow i
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
Why would I care about other people in this context? The concept of others would be meaningless and I would adopt the most hedonistic approach to life I could find. I might work to cause no pain but I certainly wouldn't work to be moral. That would give me the latitude to steal, maybe not everything somone has but certainly I could convince myself that it was okay to liberate the excess. Ditto diddling someone's wife. etc.
The concept of enlightened self interest comes to mind. Even if one were to accept your premise that atheism itself leads to hedonism, there is still enlightened self interest to contend with, and an even simply intelligent mind will have some sense of enlightened self interest (that is, looking out for their better long term interest rather than their short term whims). The simplest way to expound on that idea is: what works and what doesn't. There are social rules, divorced from religious doctrine, for a reason; in fact, most religious doctrine itself is DERIVED from these social rules that are FAR older than written religion. Humans have understood these ideas since before time was time. Namely: 1. Sleep with another man's wife, you're likely to get yourself a whole heap 'o trouble. 2. Killing people without merit is probably going to get YOU killed. 3. Refusing to share and refusing to help is probably going to leave you without any support group, and very, very few individuals are capable of surviving alone - or ever were. Not only that, humans have a very, very strong instinctive drive to group together. Few people are willing to jeopardize their social support group. 4. Stealing is probably going to get you either beaten or killed, or at the very least, locked up or banished (going back to point 3). And these are just off the top of my head. Point is, it's not in your interest to be hedonistic when you depend on others for your well being. That is, of course, easier to ignore these days, since everyone is forced pretty much to depend on themselves (ever wonder why nobody talks about their paycheck at work?). But it's still relevant, because we still value our social structures. We still need them. We are still emotionally healthiest with them. Morality is not arbitrary, although the 4 points above may more appropriately be called ethics. There is of course a great deal of room for interpretation, but the basic fact is that there are rules we obligate ourselves to follow i
Very well put. Thankyou.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Calvinists don't claim to know who the elect are
Wouldn't that be implicit given that Christian salvation is dependent on faith? Unless they considered that their faith potentially incorrect?
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Wouldn't that be implicit given that Christian salvation is dependent on faith? Unless they considered that their faith potentially incorrect?
I honestly have no idea. I'm just going off of this, which seems to state that they don't necessarily believe that they are the elect:
In fact, contrary to what one might expect on the basis of this doctrine,
Calvinists believe they can freely and sincerely offer salvation to everyone on God's
behalf since they themselves do not know which people are counted among the elect and
since they see themselves as God's instruments in bringing about the salvation of
other members of the elect.I would assume, based on this limited description, that the "elect" could be anybody, but they view themselves as the ones to bring salvation (i.e. Christianity) to the "elect". So, like all religions (except Unitarianism), it seems they believe they are correct, but not "chosen" as Jews believe.
-
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. dennisd45: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced dennisd45 (the NAMBLA supporter) wrote: I know exactly what it means. So shut up you mother killing baby raper.
Yes, it's especially good to make kids think less critically and fear invisible men above the clouds.
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
-
Hmmmm...That's actually the first I've heard of that. I would argue that it differs in that (according to the link) Calvinists don't claim to know who the elect are, so they aren't proclaiming they're chosen. Just that some people are.
IIRC "We are the only group who gets in" is part of the Jehova's Witness theology.
-- CleaKO The sad part about this instance is that none of the users ever said anything [about the problem]. Pete O`Hanlon Doesn't that just tell you everything you need to know about users?