The effect of religion
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Seems obvious to me. I'd suggest that there is a degree to which the same results would show if they chose another way in which to study parents who have a wide social network of people of all ages and are united in their approach to parenting, with those who do not.
Agreed. It seems to me the key factor is the social network, and less the particular content of belief. People who grow up in strong social networks learn to respect them.
------------ Cheers, Patrick
Patrick Sears wrote:
It seems to me the key factor is the social network, and less the particular content of belief. People who grow up in strong social networks learn to respect them.
It seems to me that you're both rationalizing.
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.
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
It seems to me the key factor is the social network, and less the particular content of belief. People who grow up in strong social networks learn to respect them.
It seems to me that you're both rationalizing.
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.
It seems to me that idea bothers you enough to refuse to consider it. Merely considering an idea doesn't constitute acceptance. And we were both thinking out loud, as well.
------------ Cheers, Patrick
-
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
Patrick Sears wrote:
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.
no, that is your assumption. My contention is there is a higher power that should be respected and it is that repect, in my case anyway, that has an effect on how I chose to live my life. If I have any respect for the balancw of humanity it is a function of my belief in a higher power, a deep respect and admiration for what that higher power has created. If there were no higher power that I respected I'd wallow in debauchery, I'd steal from you if I thought I could get away with it, I'd lie if it would serve a purpose, etc.
Patrick Sears wrote:
Morality tells us how to live with each other. I should think that to be very, very important during a lifetime.
why? simply to have a circle of friends? I'm a loner by nature, a circle of friends is meaningless to me. I'm also conservative and believe in self reliance, it melds nicely with my nature.
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.
-
It seems to me that idea bothers you enough to refuse to consider it. Merely considering an idea doesn't constitute acceptance. And we were both thinking out loud, as well.
------------ Cheers, Patrick
Patrick Sears wrote:
It seems to me that idea bothers you enough to refuse to consider it. Merely considering an idea doesn't constitute acceptance. And we were both thinking out loud, as well.
no I didn't refuse to consider it, see my post above (loner, etc.). But to the point of a social network, a church does in fact provide that. Actually it is much more, it provides a sense of community with interaction between folks who have the same general approach to life. I'm not aware of nor am I familiar with parents relying on that community for other than emotional support, but since I'm well past the age where I have children that I'm worried about raising I may be missing something.
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.
-
Oh, and here's another quote from him: "Jesus loved crucifying me. He loved inducing cancer in my head, terrorizing my heart and raping my soul all this time." Does that sound like a Christian to you? It sounds to me he looks at Jesus with utter disdain.
I hate to say it, but he can't be an atheist if he believes Jesus raped his soul. First off, he's believing in Jesus, just not in the Christian way, secondly, he believes he has a soul. Now, I wouldn't claim he's a Christian, but he is not atheist.
This statement was never false.
-
AndyKEnZ wrote:
No it's not it's a plant, you can't grip bits of metal with it. I've yet to meet anyone whose life has been adversely affected, can't same say the same for alcohol. How exactly do you think it "hurts" people? or are you thinking of people putting their fingers in a vice?
That's the ironic part. I've never seen anybody actually ruin their life through alcohol. Maybe because it takes quite a bit more to become a raging alcoholic than a pothead. Poison Ivy is a plant too, btw.
You haven't seen alcohol ruin people's lives, but you have with cannabis. heh. That must be why so many deaths are attributed to alcohol and none to cannabis.
This statement was never false.
-
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.
So then why do animals in nature protect their young? Are they focused on an afterlife?
This statement was never false.
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
It seems to me that idea bothers you enough to refuse to consider it. Merely considering an idea doesn't constitute acceptance. And we were both thinking out loud, as well.
no I didn't refuse to consider it, see my post above (loner, etc.). But to the point of a social network, a church does in fact provide that. Actually it is much more, it provides a sense of community with interaction between folks who have the same general approach to life. I'm not aware of nor am I familiar with parents relying on that community for other than emotional support, but since I'm well past the age where I have children that I'm worried about raising I may be missing something.
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:
But to the point of a social network, a church does in fact provide that. Actually it is much more, it provides a sense of community with interaction between folks who have the same general approach to life.
What you're describing is a tribe, a social entity hundreds of thousands of years older than a church, a social entity based not only on agreement on how to live but also on how to make a living - both ideological and functional. But since we consider tribes to be savage now, and have seen fit to do away with the most successful of our social constructs, we instead replace them with churches.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
I'm not aware of nor am I familiar with parents relying on that community for other than emotional support
Essentially the only kind that matters. Physical sustenance is easy, at least these days; emotional support isn't.
------------ Cheers, Patrick
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
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.
no, that is your assumption. My contention is there is a higher power that should be respected and it is that repect, in my case anyway, that has an effect on how I chose to live my life. If I have any respect for the balancw of humanity it is a function of my belief in a higher power, a deep respect and admiration for what that higher power has created. If there were no higher power that I respected I'd wallow in debauchery, I'd steal from you if I thought I could get away with it, I'd lie if it would serve a purpose, etc.
Patrick Sears wrote:
Morality tells us how to live with each other. I should think that to be very, very important during a lifetime.
why? simply to have a circle of friends? I'm a loner by nature, a circle of friends is meaningless to me. I'm also conservative and believe in self reliance, it melds nicely with my nature.
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 contention is there is a higher power that should be respected and it is that repect, in my case anyway, that has an effect on how I chose to live my life. If I have any respect for the balancw of humanity it is a function of my belief in a higher power, a deep respect and admiration for what that higher power has created. If there were no higher power that I respected I'd wallow in debauchery, I'd steal from you if I thought I could get away with it, I'd lie if it would serve a purpose, etc.
I can accept that that's where you get your motivation from.. in fact, a great many people do. I would be a fool to deny religion's stabilizing role in society. Is it in you to accept that others can find another reason to choose to be moral? Because if not, I feel sorry for you.. because it is that closed-mindedness that leads to incommensurable ideological gaps that never close.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
why? simply to have a circle of friends? I'm a loner by nature, a circle of friends is meaningless to me. I'm also conservative and believe in self reliance, it melds nicely with my nature.
Believe me when I say that you would not be able to live a single day of your life without the sum of support from others in our culture. You may not see the direct consequences of their support, but is there, everytime you Humans cannot live alone. Oh we can survive alone; but if everyone did so, the species would quickly end. There's a reason we band together.
------------ Cheers, Patrick
-
It is hard enough for Red to put coherent words into his own mouth, so don't come down too hard on him when he tries to put them into yours. At least he has the gist of it.
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:
It is hard enough for Red to put coherent words into his own mouth, so don't come down too hard on him when he tries to put them into yours.
Classic. :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
John Carson
-
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:
Yes, so brave to kill innocent people.
Killing innocent people is an issue of morality, not of bravery. It is irrelevant to the question of whether or not they are brave.
John Carson
-
I hate to say it, but he can't be an atheist if he believes Jesus raped his soul. First off, he's believing in Jesus, just not in the Christian way, secondly, he believes he has a soul. Now, I wouldn't claim he's a Christian, but he is not atheist.
This statement was never false.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
I hate to say it, but he can't be an atheist if he believes Jesus raped his soul. First off, he's believing in Jesus, just not in the Christian way, secondly, he believes he has a soul. Now, I wouldn't claim he's a Christian, but he is not atheist.
Exactly.
John Carson
-
OMG!!!!1111 Seriously. From an extremist fundamentalist Islamic perspective, could you explain the virtues of walking onto a bus filled with women and children and blowing yourself up? Also, explain how it's "brave" and not selfish to do that when you firmly believe that you will be "rewarded" with paradise? Why would killing swaths of innocent people for you own personal gain be considered positive?
please don't mix the facts................... what iam talking about is just like what the iraqi people do against the foreign enemies. killing women and children is a crime and have no honor in doing that, what happened in University of Virginia is a damn crime. iam not talking about these things.
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
While my views are largely on Tamimi's blather the same as yours, I find this ridiculous:
Shog9 wrote:
They are wicked enough to kill for what they believe in
Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, George Washington, and those who opposed Hitler by fighting him were wicked men? :wtf: I think it's honorable to kill for what you believe in, as long as the ones you kill are legitimate targets - a soldier of an occupying nation, a ruthless dictator, and the like. The problem with suicide bombers is that they consider people buying stuff in markets or travelling in buses legitimate targets.
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 -
You have to pick and choose the bits of the Bible you want to believe in. It's the only way to keep it consistent. :rolleyes:
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 milkConsistency? That is heresy!
-
Consistency? That is heresy!
-
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.
That is certainly its current meaning, however it does litterally mean 'chooser' or 'taker', from the Grteek Hereisis. And that was its meaning when coined by the church. Someone of freewill who chooses somehting differfent to what the church is pushing.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
-
Are you 'in line' with anything?
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
Are you 'in line' with anything?
Probably not. It depends how many people agree with me exactly and whether there are enough of us to form a movement. Then I might be in lline with something.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
-
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:
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
I would happily sacrifice my life for the liberty of my children, or to destroy a great evil - such as Islam for example.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
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:
byalmightybobWhere did I ever support sucide bombing?