A thread not for the easily offended

[KALSTER]

lancelot, thanks a lot for your your reply. I really appreciate it. I believe as adults we should be able to discuss this stuff without starting to foam at the mouth, even if our positions are diametrically opposed. In light of this your mild demeanour is very welcome. This way we can actually learn about each other, instead of simply trying to outwit each other.

I will reply to this once I have a bit of free time later today!

[wizardofid]

As to religion and government, my belief is that the two cannot mix, governments have no right to interfere with what I believe; therefore I am a proponent of a secular state

So you are saying that with religion out of a government, we as the people will have a much better life, with no major religion as a moral guideline or watch dog, as new laws are passed with no moral implications or religion attached to could essentially void the human rights act that protects you.

I am more afraid of a godless state, than one that has one.

Whether you like it not, religion and politics benefits you every day be it bad or good.

[rustypup]

major religion as a moral guideline or watch dog

this is a discussion we've already had in this thread... the assertion that morality cannot exist outside of religion was proven to be flawed on multiple levels...

if it takes a priest/holy book/turtle to instruct us on what the difference is between social and anti-social behaviour, we've lost the plot and taken up smoking bin-liners...

[wizardofid]

major religion as a moral guideline or watch dog

this is a discussion we've already had in this thread... the assertion that morality cannot exist outside of religion was proven to be flawed on multiple levels...

if it takes a priest/holy book/turtle to instruct us on what the difference is between social and anti-social behaviour, we've lost the plot and taken up smoking bin-liners...

I have a smile, I believe in the holy turtle

[KALSTER]

Turtles all the way down, hey?

[ryanrich]

lol, that Turtle line cracked me up as well...

[wizardofid]

Turtles all the way down, hey?

rusty is right, however I don't want to start that debate all over again....
holy trinity/holy turtle same difference

I just reason that without "religion" where would morality originate from.
but then again....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality_without_religion

[KALSTER]

Turtles all the way down, hey?

rusty is right, however I don't want to start that debate all over again....
holy trinity/holy turtle same difference

I just reason that without "religion" where would morality originate from.
but then again....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality_without_religion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

[JollyJamma]

major religion as a moral guideline or watch dog

this is a discussion we've already had in this thread... the assertion that morality cannot exist outside of religion was proven to be flawed on multiple levels...

if it takes a priest/holy book/turtle to instruct us on what the difference is between social and anti-social behaviour, we've lost the plot and taken up smoking bin-liners...

+1.

My own mother turned to me one day and said that I was not a moral person because I was not Christian. I was shocked but knew she was talking junk so I told her she had been brainwashed and left the room.

[doo_much]

Morals and religion. Chicken and egg discussion anyone?

Your morals are not neccessarily the morals of your forefathers or those of your descendants. Fact. They change with the times and the people. Remember slavery?

Embryonic stem cell harvesting in a few years and who knows - in 100 years it might even be acceptable to eat babies?

Spoiler (show)

Compliments of today's Looking for Group.

[wizardofid]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

....Who the hell is Stephen Hawking? (of course I know who he is, never heard of the phrase sadly, I wish I did, and having to admit it I haven't is even worse, infinite regress yip that however rings rings a bell.)But essentially yes turtles all the way down.

[JollyJamma]

[lancelot]

As to religion and government, my belief is that the two cannot mix, governments have no right to interfere with what I believe; therefore I am a proponent of a secular state

So you are saying that with religion out of a government, we as the people will have a much better life, with no major religion as a moral guideline or watch dog, as new laws are passed with no moral implications or religion attached to could essentially void the human rights act that protects you.

I am more afraid of a godless state, than one that has one.

Whether you like it not, religion and politics benefits you every day be it bad or good.

Our present government does not have any "religion" in its system, they even removed prayer from the opening of parliamentary sessions. It has not done anything to morals or the lack thereof. As rusty says, people should be able to tell what is moral and what is not, sadly the majority cannot.

[JollyJamma]

sadly the majority cannot.

*sigh* There we go again.

You are slowly starting to annoy me. What a pointless remark, say what you mean or don't say at all.

[wizardofid]

Our present government does not have any "religion" in its system, they even removed prayer from the opening of parliamentary sessions. It has not done anything to morals or the lack thereof. As rusty says, people should be able to tell what is moral and what is not, sadly the majority cannot.

So are you part of the majority

[lancelot]

Your point being?

[lancelot]

Wiz, I am not talking about SA per se, but the world!
I have a few morals, I do not screw my sister for example, nor do I sell young girls into sexual slavery, I do battle both these temptations but shear will power keeps me away.

[D3PART3D]

Kalster, please help me understand atheist morality. Rusty says that it is empathy and nothing else. Do you agree? I cannot understand that. Why should anyone care about anyone else? Is there any intrinsic value to empathy in your eyes? I know that humanism took a lot from Epicurus, so if I look at it from his perspective things become a little clearer: people can achieve more of their natural desires by working together. But what about those who can't contribute? Why would you want to care for them? I'm not saying you wouldn't, I just want to know understand why. Is it just instinct?

I know we've had this conversation before, but some of us were less than civil back then and I learned nothing.

[lancelot]

With all due respect doo, I do not think you will learn much this round as well. (";)

[KALSTER]

I am happy to oblige D3. I will get back to you (and Lancelot) a bit later today when I have a bit of time (it is difficult for me to put things down in a logical progression ). For the mean time, think about this: It is not so much atheist morality, it is human morality. Morality has the same origins for us all.

I see a few long posts coming up.

[rustypup]

Why would you want to care for them? I'm not saying you wouldn't, I just want to know understand why.

are you still pretending that men are just naturally atavistic sink-holes of murderous depravity until such time as some learned philosopher/deity takes them by the hand and tells them how to live?

i really thought we'd bedded that down.. but ok...

[wizardofid]

Wiz, I am not talking about SA per se, but the world!
I have a few morals, I do not screw my sister for example, nor do I sell young girls into sexual slavery, I do battle both these temptations but shear will power keeps me away.

Yeah I understand it, it is rather difficult expressing what I mean.Trying to get behind the origins of morals without having the whole religion thing attached.

In simple terms without any self awareness of religion or any believe of some thing bigger and what it asks and commands, how different will morals be, how applicable will it be today, in fact how different would society have been without religion.Morals have been around since the caveman perhaps they couldn't explain it, but they knew getting it on with some one else's mate was going to get him in trouble.

Frankly how will that translate into today's society, not meaning we would be a bunch of barbaric people killing each other at the mere mention of stealing a carrot from my piece of land.What would the basic moral system be like.? Would it be similar to what we have now.
Essentially asking what would be better religion based morals, or morals not based on religion.

Which is why I mentioned we might better off with religion or semi based morals than no religion based morals.

Sigh! I hope you understand what I am getting at.

*edit
That would of course depend if religion is sham, then it is pointless asking the question.

[Anakha56]

Just for rusty however I think I am reposting...

http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/02 ... lashdot%29

Bombay High Court Rules Astrology To Be a Science
Posted by CmdrTaco on Thursday February 03, @12:58PM
from the magic-is-fun dept.
neosaurus writes
"In India, the Bombay High Court recently ruled astrology to be 'a time tested science more than 4000 years old.' Not only does this stretch the definition of science, it also reaffirms people's faith in pseudosciences at a broader level."
At least we can know for certain the people trying to get creationism taught as science in our schools have equally wacky friends around the globe.

[Anakha56]

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/201 ... mpaign=rss

Nonembryonic stem cells can't forget their past
By John Timmer | Last updated about 23 hours ago

Embryonic stem cells can potentially revolutionize the way we treat disease, providing a source of tissue to replace or repair a huge variety of disorders. In the US, however, funding of stem cell research has been limited by policy decisions and, once those decisions were reversed, a court ruling. In the intervening years, researchers developed what appeared to be a promising alternative, a technique that could push any adult cell into a state that appeared to be indistinguishable from an embryonic one. Unfortunately, researchers have now looked a bit more closely at these induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), and found that they are distinct from embryonic ones, in part because they retain the imprint of their former, mature state.

[jee]

VATICAN CITY (Reuters Life!) – Pope Benedict has a soft spot in his heart for organ donations but his body parts can't be donated to save lives after he dies, the Vatican says.

A doctor in Germany had been using the fact that the pope possessed an organ donors' card from a medical association to advocate the practice. The Vatican asked him to stop but he did not.

To settle the matter, the pope's secretary, Monsignor Georg Gaenswein, sent a letter to the doctor and the missive was reported in the German program of Vatican Radio.

"It's true that the pope owns an organ donor card ... but contrary to public opinion, the card issued back in the 1970s became de facto invalid with Cardinal Ratzinger's election to the papacy," Vatican Radio quoted from the letter.

source