The effect of religion
-
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?
-
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:
They don't however tend believe that non Jews are to be subjugated, converted or killed, so its much easier to deal.
:~ The old testament is basically a testament to "The only good non-jews are either slaves or dead". On the other hand, people with jewish background tend to come from a more civilized society where a secular government have made it hard or impossible to practice the "law". That can generally not be said about muslims.
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
-
fat_boy wrote:
It wasnt me who coined the word 'heretic'. Its the chirch that wants people docile and compliant.
"theological or religious opinion or doctrine maintained in opposition, or held to be contrary, to the Roman Catholic or Orthodox doctrine of the Christian Church, or, by extension, to that of any church, creed, or religious system, considered as orthodox. By extension, heresy is an opinion or doctrine in philosophy, politics, science, art, etc., at variance with those generally accepted as authoritative." I really don't see your point. The term simply means, "you don't agree with us". Heretic is much easier to say.
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:
Heretic is much easier to say.
You forgot "Burn in hell," before Heretic.
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
-
Choice...
----
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
Yes.. Marijuana or Hashish? Damn choices!
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
-
Cho? Oh wait...He was an atheist.
Red Stateler wrote:
Cho? Oh wait...He was an atheist.
Uh, no he wasn't. He was Christian - he even imagined himself as a Christ-figure.
"The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim." -Gustave Le Bon
-
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
Patrick Sears wrote:
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).
And therein lies the problem. Atheism requires personal promotion, usually at the expense of others, over all things. There will come a time when you cease to exist and all your accomplishments and depravities become absolutely meaningless as, even if they persist in others, there's no way you can conceive of them or their worth. Consequently, what does it matter whether you're a hedonist or dedicate your life to charity? As you say, some might forego instant gratification for long-term comfort, but ultimately either are maximizing your personal gain. It's effects on others shouldn't be of concern so long as they don't directly interfere with you and your goals. The modern world makes that all too easy.
Patrick Sears wrote:
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).
The problem with this list is that, when applied to atheism, it actually reduces humanity to the lowest possible level of moral development...pre-conventional morality[^] whereby consequences need only be a concern if you're caught. Perhaps this is why liberals are so concerned with "privacy"? After all, why would adultery be a problem so long as the woman's husband didn't catch you? That would apparently be the only deterrent of immoral acts.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Cho? Oh wait...He was an atheist.
Uh, no he wasn't. He was Christian - he even imagined himself as a Christ-figure.
"The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim." -Gustave Le Bon
73Zeppelin wrote:
Uh, no he wasn't. He was Christian - he even imagined himself as a Christ-figure.
Uh...Yes he was. He was a nihilist (watch his tapes) who admired the Columbine kids (noted atheists). His Jesus reference was decidedly non-Christian as he referred to Him in a non-deity way.
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
Heretic is much easier to say.
You forgot "Burn in hell," before Heretic.
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
You forgot "Burn in hell," before Heretic
that is a wish, not a fact. besides, he heretics probably don't believe in hell anyway.
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.