Anyone who has received their Census form

[Ackey]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12811197

[oafc0000]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12811197

 

I always find it interesting thinking about what a world would be like without religion or even faith. I seriously think that world would not be a better place.

 

Even in a developed nation like ours, a sceptic above, acknowledges the some what positive influence he feels going to a religious school has injected into his children life. We are living in times where single parents are normal (lack of father figures), respect is on its arse, and we face massive social issues. Is it linked to the decline in faith etc ?

 

In less developed nations, where law is something of a background noise, a belief in religion is still a huge moral compass to people. Without it what would it be like ?

 

I don't know the answers but I find it very interesting. I am glad my kid is being brought up in the church family. I think it will serve her well her whole life. Much for the reasons rummy pointed to above. If she retains faith in god, then that would be a bonus somewhat.

Edited March 22, 2011 by oafc0000

[opinions4u]

As a diehard agnostic, I find the choice limiting.

[PhilStarbucksSilkySkills]

I always find it interesting thinking about what a world would be like without religion or even faith. I seriously think that world would not be a better place.

I certainly think the world would be a better place without the tendency to follow things blindly without logic. Unfortunately that particular human characteristic is a long long way from extinction, with or without religion. Although I do think that without religion people would be without the most persuasive excuse for irrationality.

 

Even in a developed nation like ours, a sceptic above, acknowledges the some what positive influence he feels going to a religious school has injected into his children life. We are living in times where single parents are normal (lack of father figures), respect is on its arse, and we face massive social issues. Is it linked to the decline in faith etc ?

I obviously don't buy the argument that religious affiliation or instruction is necessary in order to teach good ethics in children. To say that it is I find a little insulting, to be honest. And as many have stated, you can only get good moral standards from the bible by cherry picking it.

 

In less developed nations, where law is something of a background noise, a belief in religion is still a huge moral compass to people. Without it what would it be like ?

You've heard of Uganda haven't you?

[leeslover]

I obviously don't buy the argument that religious affiliation or instruction is necessary in order to teach good ethics in children. To say that it is I find a little insulting, to be honest. And as many have stated, you can only get good moral standards from the bible by cherry picking it.

I think the stronger argument would be that religion has created the framework to maintain ethical/moral positions (good and bad, obviously). Fear of Hell/love of the Lord/needing the crops to grow/doing it because your ancestors told you to has been a pretty strong motivational factor over the millenia. I belive in rational thought and rational morality, yet I also believe that trying to implement these things from the top down is doomed to failure as it misunderstands the unplanned nature of social structures and human action. So personally I think I would be off my head to believe in some God, or garden-pixies or whatever without good reason (and faith is not a good reason) but I can see that there could be benefits from others believing it.

[oafc0000]

And as many have stated, you can only get good moral standards from the bible by cherry picking it.

 

What is a "good" or "bad" moral is so subjective... Its funny how you don't get that...

 

You've heard of Uganda haven't you?

 

Who is cherry picking now? How about the countless (and possibly overwhelming) examples of states who have little issues and have strong elements of faith. You know the quiet ones you haven't probably noticed when you open the Daily Mail

[PhilStarbucksSilkySkills]

What is a "good" or "bad" moral is so subjective... Its funny how you don't get that...

As opposed to subjective in the percieved opinion of your god? It's funny how you don't get THAT.

 

But morals are based on a person's values. Do you value human life, do you value human liberty? If you do value both those things then we should be able to agree on what is an immoral act in most situations. Ironically some of those situations occur your bible.

 

Who is cherry picking now? How about the countless (and possibly overwhelming) examples of states who have little issues and have strong elements of faith. You know the quiet ones you haven't probably noticed when you open the Daily Mail

So I give you a specific example of a state that is running on immoral principles, unquestionably under the direct influence of religious instruction, whilst you assert that there are "countless" examples of states that have no such issues and coincide (note that no causation is established) with being highly religious.

 

How is this a logical argument? Why would you believe that these societies would be a mess unless they were god fearing?

[PhilStarbucksSilkySkills]

but I can see that there could be benefits from others believing it.

If fear of a vengeful god, or wanting to please a god is necessary to keep some people in line then I hope that they do continue to believe in that god.

 

But I wouldn't trust these people as far as I could throw them.

[oafc0000]

As opposed to subjective in the percieved opinion of your god? It's funny how you don't get THAT.

 

I don't see where this takes us ?

 

But morals are based on a person's values. Do you value human life, do you value human liberty? If you do value both those things then we should be able to agree on what is an immoral act in most situations. Ironically some of those situations occur your bible.

 

"in most situations"... kind of blurs it all doesn't it...

 

Is it moral for a solider to kill for the perceived greater good ? If your valuing human life that is...

 

 

What you like to do is subject religion and faith to higher set of tests than you apply to your own messed up moral code and you haven't got the thought power to understand you are doing this.

Edited March 22, 2011 by oafc0000

[oafc0000]

So I give you a specific example of a state that is running on immoral principles, unquestionably under the direct influence of religious instruction, whilst you assert that there are "countless" examples of states that have no such issues and coincide (note that no causation is established) with being highly religious.

 

How is this a logical argument? Why would you believe that these societies would be a mess unless they were god fearing?

 

You are an incredibly simplistic person who thinks you find one example of something bad happening in the world, you debunk the idea that religion provides strength and moral righteousness in people. You are far to set in your ways to have reasonable debate with.

Edited March 22, 2011 by oafc0000

[PhilStarbucksSilkySkills]

"in most situations"... kind of blurs it all doesn't it...

 

Is it moral for a solider to kill for the perceived greater good ? If your valuing human life that is...

Never said it was easy.

 

 

What you like to do is subject religion and faith to higher set of tests than you apply to your own messed up moral code and you haven't got the thought power to understand your doing this.

Well since YOU obviously have the thought power, care to tell me what the bloody hell you are talking about? How am I not skeptical of my own moral code, and what is wrong with my moral code?

 

If you can show me where my moral compass is wrong I will address it and change my opinion. But insinuating that my moral code is messed up without backing it up is just pointless flaming.

[leeslover]

You are an incredibly simplistic person who thinks you find one example of something bad happening in the world, you debunk the idea that religion provides strength and moral righteousness in people. You are far to set in your ways to have reasonable debate with.

But strength to do what? Morally righteous according to who? One person having faith in something is absolutely no reason for anyone else accepting it as true, or even giving it the time of day.

[PhilStarbucksSilkySkills]

You are an incredibly simplistic person who thinks you find one example of something bad happening in the world, you debunk the idea that religion provides strength and moral righteousness in people.

 

I didn't debunk your notion of positive religious influence over societies. I asked you to back it up. And as yet you haven't.

 

You are far to set in your ways to have reasonable debate with.

Ever heard of projection?

[oafc0000]

But strength to do what? Morally righteous according to who? One person having faith in something is absolutely no reason for anyone else accepting it as true, or even giving it the time of day.

 

Good questions... I ask those questions of myself every day... and never said anyone should accept its right... Quite the opposite...

 

It was Phil who was deciding certain morals where "good" and "bad"... Hence my posts...

[PhilStarbucksSilkySkills]

It was Phil who was deciding certain morals where "good" and "bad"... Hence my posts...

The difference being that I can argue for my moral perspective without faith.

[oafc0000]

The difference being that I can argue for my moral perspective without faith.

 

How does that make your moral opinion any more "good" or "bad" than someone with faith ?

[PhilStarbucksSilkySkills]

How does that make your moral opinion any more "good" or "bad" than someone with faith ?

Because I can argue in favour of it. If you need "faith" to justify a moral position then you can't

[oafc0000]

Because I can argue in favour of it. If you need "faith" to justify a moral position then you can't

 

Of course you can still argue in favour of it... I also haven't met very many people who can't justify their moral stances further than, because my religion says so...

 

Abortion... The destruction of a life...

Being gay... The continuation of the species...

Contraception... The prevention of life...

 

Just a quick pick of some of the usual hotly argued moral opinions...

 

Deary me, you really do put yourself on pedestal...

 

The whole reason there are so many variations of Christianity alone is people have wildly different views on these things.

Edited March 22, 2011 by oafc0000

[jimsleftfoot]

I certainly think the world would be a better place without the tendency to follow things blindly without logic. Unfortunately that particular human characteristic is a long long way from extinction, with or without religion. Although I do think that without religion people would be without the most persuasive excuse for irrationality.

 

Logic is only as good as it can be explained. As much as I am skeptical about god, imagine trying to explain to a kid in Lybia that his or her parents have been blown apart and that they are no more. Then try and think about bringing God and Heaven into the explanation. Result: The primary reason why belief systems exist and will continue to exist in the future.

Edited March 22, 2011 by jimsleftfoot

[PhilStarbucksSilkySkills]

Of course you can still argue in favour of it... I also haven't met very many people who can't justify their moral stances further than, because my religion says so...

 

Abortion... The destruction of a life...

Being gay... The continuation of the species...

Contraception... The prevention of life...

 

Just a quick pick of some of the usual hotly argued moral opinions...

 

Deary me, you really do put yourself on pedestal...

 

The whole reason there are so many variations of Christianity alone is people have wildly different views on these things.

 

All backed up by faith.

 

If they are backed up by real things then we can have a discussion about them. But if you take faith out of the equation and you have no logical arguments, then there is no discussion to be had. Just a huge facepalm.

 

But how can you sit there with a straight face and say that the belief that "being gay is wrong" can be backed up by a rational argument? I would love to see you try and construct such an argument. Same goes for your contraception example.

 

But I have things to do and I'm getting tired of your flaming and attacks on my character. I'll let someone else have a go. I think you gave yourself enough rope to hang yourself with that last post.

Edited March 22, 2011 by PhilStarbucksSilkySkills

[oafc0000]

All backed up by faith.

 

If they are backed up by real things then we can have a discussion about them. But if you take faith out of the equation and you have no logical arguments, then there is no discussion to be had. Just a huge facepalm.

 

But how can you sit there with a straight face and say that the belief that "being gay is wrong" can be backed up by a rational argument? I would love to see you try and contruct such an argument. Same goes for your contraception example.

 

But I have things to do and I'm getting tired of your flaming and attacks on my character. I'll let someone else have a go. I think you gave yourself enough rope to hang yourself with that last post.

 

I think you are getting confused by me talking generally about some of the usual candidates for moral / religious discussion. I am pro contraception, pro choice on abortion, and gay people can do what the hell they like as far as I care.

 

BUT I can see what people are getting at with their objection to these things. But simplistic thinkers like yourself just respond with the usual simple thinking.

 

Contraception is a simple one. If everyone followed the Christian moral code then there is simply little need for contraception. What is the chance of spreading aids if two people only had sex within wedlock etc et etc? Extremely small...

 

What you do though is, you cherry pick that the Catholic faith says contraception is bad and blame it for the spread of aids. While TOTALLY ignoring that these so called "followers" are themselves ignoring VASTS chucks of the very religion they claim to follow which also offer them a high probability of contracting aids. Even if a girl is raped, or has a blood transfusion gone wrong. If she is only having sex with her husband and not multiple partners than the risk of spreading it is minimised.

 

I don't get me started on the people who rape and commit adultery while claiming to following a certain religion.

 

So ultimately while I come down on the side of contraception being a good thing, the stance of the Catholic church is also grounded in a great deal of sense.

 

Your cherry picking is mind boggling, but the cherry picking is what the anti-religious crowd do best!

 

Religion, generally speaking, offers a total solution to how to live your life. If you want to attack it, you have to look at the whole message, not just a part of it.

 

 

What I see from you Phil is someone who can't see someone's point of view, unless it conforms totally to yours.

Edited March 22, 2011 by oafc0000

[jimsleftfoot]

 

So ultimately while I come down on the side of contraception being a good thing, the stance of the Catholic church is also grounded in a great deal of sense.

 

I think it's a load of rubbish and has lead to many a death and suffering in Africa. A bit of self discipline I can agree with, but being anti condom is Fascist.

 

I think Mr Pope is lightening his stance on it though.

Edited March 22, 2011 by jimsleftfoot

[oafc0000]

I think it's a load of rubbish and has lead to many a death and suffering in Africa. A bit of self discipline I can agree with, but being anti condom is Fascist.

 

Well its all opinions isn't it.. I am not saying its the "right" stance, just that I can understand the thought process behind it...

[jimsleftfoot]

Well its all opinions isn't it.. I am not saying its the "right" stance, just that I can understand the thought process behind it...

 

To be honest I do agree with your point, yes there may be issues with any church but that doesn't make a religion bad as they still do a lot of good.

[leeslover]

Refering back to jim's point about logic (sorry, cant quote on my phone), i would agree that any rational argument is only as good as the person making it. The difference IMO is that it gives you a framework to get nearer the truth. If someone claims to hold a logical position but wont answer your argument saying, "it just is," then they have lost the argument. A faith based argument doesnt need this, from that point of view logic is subservient to belief. This is where the two sides can never agree.