posted
It's neither here nor there, but I wouldn't say all wars, though I guess it depends on who you are talking about and which wars. Most of the Crusades were financed by wealthy barons and nobles, many of whom nearly bankrupted themselves in order to finance the expeditions that largely ended in zero material gains for them. Half the time they only returned home because of some native threat to their power base, like a usurper. Very few went to the Levant hoping for power and wealth, and even fewer still actually got it.
Early on the majority of them, and especially the foot soldiers, went out of real fear for their souls. That ebbed a lot over time, and eventually nearly stopped mattering entirely as I guess you could say the wars became a bit traditional, but even in the later crusades you could find Crusading leaders who spent vast sums of money for zero material gains.
Like I said that changes depending on who you look at, because for most of the opposing side, it was really more about land, power and wealth, and for the Byzantines, it was about some of that, but also their very survival.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It may well be that support for a piece of social policy emerges from religious reasons. But in a secular society, it is vital that when making the argument for your position in public, you do not deploy arguments that depend on or invoke religiously-revealed truths. The essential civic discipline in a pluralist democracy is to translate your religious convictions into moral arguments - arguments that can persuade and engage people of all faiths or none. Only a few secularist extremists are saying that people's politics should not be informed in any way by religious faith (an impossibility in any case); most of us anti-Christianists are saying rather that political arguments should not be made on explicitly religious grounds, and political parties should not be allying themselves explicitly with one religion or another.
posted
I wouldn't really trust an atheist, for the simple reason that his (or hers--whatever) moral compass is entirely internally-generated.
My college roommmate was an atheist, and loved to go on about "see, my values come from WITHIN me, instead of from some old book written hundreds of years ago, so they're, like, more REAL."
My counter to that--namely, "so your values are internal--what's to say you don't get some kind of chemical imbalance that makes you believe murder is okay? it's still internal, so is it still okay?"--was met with a lot of hemming and hawing on his part.
Whether or not Jesus or Mohammad or Buddha or whoever is actually real, the fact that a moral code is based on their teachings--which are documented in writing--lends a certain untractability (sp?) to the whole thing.
Posts: 82 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Battler03: Whether or not Jesus or Mohammad or Buddha or whoever is actually real, the fact that a moral code is based on their teachings […]
- - - emphasis added - - -
Well, technically, if they aren’t real, then we can’t talk about their teachings…
posted
Though one could discuss the teachings widely attributed to them. I'm not sure there's a point to dismissing a widely followed belief system as it applies to those who believe it because one disagrees with who founded it.
Also, there is historical evidence for all three figures. The question isn't if they are real, it's if they did what they claimed.
If we're only discussing their moral codes, wouldn't it make more sense in this type of discussion to evaluate them as a way to enforce community rights? After all, some folks who would risk jail time to steal what they wanted might hesitate if they thought there would be eternal punishment. While it certainly wouldn't meet last thread's definition of moral maturity, it would produce the desired behavior.
If we go back to times when most people didn't read or have much time away from the fields for deep self-reflection, which ideology makes more sense? Trusting them to carefully consider their own morals or knowing that they'd at least appear to obey a common one?
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I used to think as a religious person that it is silly to not vote for an atheist if they held my political positions. Not that there would be very many, if any, conservative atheists on social issues. Then I read the following:
quote:I'd think that what a candidate believes is an important indicator of what sort of judgement that candidate has.
quote:It basically says that, when science and scripture contradict each other, they will choose scripture.
And everyone has the right to have that belief. But I would be hard pressed to vote for someone who thinks that way.
quote:If someone believes the earth is young, then he either is grossly misinformed about science (and thus not someone I want to have heading my country), or is very bad at logical reasoning and argumentation (and thus not someone I want to have heading my country). The person must've come to his conclusion somehow, and all possible ways he might have come to that conclusion are, in my opinion, evidence that he should not be president.
So, I too would immediately disqualify any candidate from my ballot who says they believe in the Bible's literal truth or are a Creationist/Young Earther.
quote:It wouldn't. But we don't live in a vacuum, and I believe that past behavior is one of the best indicators of future behavior.
I don't have a problem with anyone believing any one specific thing, but in this particular case (as I said earlier and as Jhai has expanded on) the blind devotion to something that defies all logical explanation tells me some valuable things about the believer's decision-making process. And those things make me uneasy enough that I wouldn't vote for them.
quote:I realize that people have freedom of speech and are entitled to their opinions, but it never-the-less infuriates me that ANYONE would hold this belief. If on a given point (the value of pi? as an overused example) science and scripture contradict, and you choose to go with scripture, rather than with provable and supportable science... I simply cannot take you seriously, or at least understand you, and anyone falling in this category is summarily dismissed from my consideration of who to vote for.
quote:Although, when the future of the Human race is at stake I would think that religion must take a back seat.
Not only that, even without a global crisis there is still separation between church and state. Religion has absolutly zero place in government. It's sickening how the boarder between these two worlds has been pecked away and abused by both the clergy and the politicians.
Now I would NEVER, no matter what EVER, vote for an atheist. Not only that, but now I think I will fight hard to make sure none are elected. The views held here (and I believe these quotes are representative)about people of faith is just as dangerous to freedom and democracy as a theist trying to make specific religious beliefs pre-requisite for office. I don't care if you would "respect the rights of the religious" because it sure doesn't sound like it from these quotes. It is clear there is a war in the United States, and it is between atheists and theists. Considering what I am reading, bullets and bombs might have to come into play someday.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: Though one could discuss the teachings widely attributed to them. I'm not sure there's a point to dismissing a widely followed belief system as it applies to those who believe it because one disagrees with who founded it.
1) We can have discussions about hypothetical situations. 2) No dismissing was suggested. 3) No disagreement with those moral systems was suggested.
quote:Also, there is historical evidence for all three figures. The question isn't if they are real, it's if they did what they claimed.
I personally have no strong motives to think Jesus and other such individuals didn’t exist. What I question (and am skeptic about) is specifically their “source of authority”.
quote:If we're only discussing their moral codes, wouldn't it make more sense in this type of discussion to evaluate them as a way to enforce community rights? After all, some folks who would risk jail time to steal what they wanted might hesitate if they thought there would be eternal punishment. While it certainly wouldn't meet last thread's definition of moral maturity, it would produce the desired behavior.
If we go back to times when most people didn't read or have much time away from the fields for deep self-reflection, which ideology makes more sense? Trusting them to carefully consider their own morals or knowing that they'd at least appear to obey a common one?
Is Human race still so “immature” to need to me moral out of fear? I’d like to think that being moral out of rationality would be preferable.
quote:Now I would NEVER, no matter what EVER, vote for an atheist. Not only that, but now I think I will fight hard to make sure none are elected. The views held here (and I believe these quotes are representative)about people of faith is just as dangerous to freedom and democracy as a theist trying to make specific religious beliefs pre-requisite for office. I don't care if you would "respect the rights of the religious" because it sure doesn't sound like it from these quotes. It is clear there is a war in the United States, and it is between atheists and theists. Considering what I am reading, bullets and bombs might have to come into play someday.
Right. Because saying you disagree with a group, and wouldn't want them in office is equivalent to saying that you're at war with a group, and want to curtail their freedom & rights, potentially with bullets and bombs.
Question: do you apply these same views to every group you disagree with, or do atheists get special treatment?
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Considering what I am reading, bullets and bombs might have to come into play someday.
Oh, please. Don't pretend that this is a new thing for you; you've been wanting to shoot an atheist since your first day on this site. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
A, you personally are probably a pretty good person. Any given individual is probably able, with enough reasoning and experimentation, to hammer out a decent belief system. But most people won't. Is it really a bad thing to have a system of laws and religions in place to help people realize right from wrong?
For myself, I find religion to be a wonderful starting point for evaluating morality. Let's be honest, atheists and theists are usually in the same boat when it comes to moral ambiguity. We theists may believe in perfect morality and objective good, but that doesn't mean we recognize it when we see it. We all have to choose our actions with an imperfect understanding of the future results. We're all left trying to do the best we can.
Human nature being what it is, some of us will do better than others. Some folks won't even bother without a reason like jail time or hell fire. I'm in the camp that says let's do what works so those folks aren't impeding society. I'd rather they acted out of a genuine desire to do what's right, but I don't think you're ever going to get a 100% sucess rate on that one. I'll take what I can get.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
TomD., true. But, that is only because I feel they are trying to put me and other people of faith under house arrest. The voices I am hearing today only confirm my fears that much more.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Occasional, I don't see how any of those quotes you included amount to anything other than people saying "This is why I personally would not vote for someone." Can you explain how you're going from that to your statement below?
quote: It is clear there is a war in the United States, and it is between atheists and theists. Considering what I am reading, bullets and bombs might have to come into play someday.
That really sounds pretty extreme to me, and I really don't get how you're jumping from "I don't want to vote for someone" to "We're going to have to shoot each other."
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: A, you personally are probably a pretty good person. Any given individual is probably able, with enough reasoning and experimentation, to hammer out a decent belief system. But most people won't. Is it really a bad thing to have a system of laws and religions in place to help people realize right from wrong?
Thank you for the vote of confidence. I am generally an (over) optimistic person myself when it comes to potential in humans. And rest assured, I do think that having religion as an option for “justifying” moral behavior is a good thing. As you say, the result sometimes justifies the means … Unfortunately, I feel that with religion, we must pay quite a lot (see inter-faith conflicts) for those (partially) good results.
quote:For myself, I find religion to be a wonderful starting point for evaluating morality. Let's be honest, atheists and theists are usually in the same boat when it comes to moral ambiguity. We theists may believe in perfect morality and objective good, but that doesn't mean we recognize it when we see it. We all have to choose our actions with an imperfect understanding of the future results. We're all left trying to do the best we can.
I appreciate your frankness. And I agree on this point with you.
quote:Human nature being what it is, some of us will do better than others. Some folks won't even bother without a reason like jail time or hell fire. I'm in the camp that says let's do what works so those folks aren't impeding society. I'd rather they acted out of a genuine desire to do what's right, but I don't think you're ever going to get a 100% sucess rate on that one. I'll take what I can get.
I think “human nature” is made of curiosity and the ability to learn, that’s why I always vote for education. Explaining someone why they should behave in a certain manner, other than “I say so” or “you’ll burn in a lava pit”, might have surprising results. I always wanted to understand the reasons behind the rules, when I was little. Receiving an explanation made me feel like I was mature enough to be treated as an equal, not a dumb person that couldn’t understand anything. Respect gained by trust is better than respect gained by fear.
quote: Receiving an explanation made me feel like I was mature enough to be treated as an equal, not a dumb person that couldn’t understand anything.
You and me both. I have no interest in going to a church that isn't explaining stuff as well as helping me behave better.
quote: Respect gained by trust is better than respect gained by fear.
Always. But for the people who never ask questions and just do as they're told (the sheeple I heard them called yesterday in an education discussion), I'm not sure how well that applies. If a person spends all their time on the external by their own choice, is it still a bad thing to have an outside force or two trying to influence their behavior?
There are lots of things people ought to do but few will ever bother with. Deciding how their beliefs influence their morality is certainly up there on the list. I suppose atheists could perform the same function if they formed philosophy clubs and recruited folks to come down and be told how they should behave and why. I think they'd face the exact same issues as churches, though. Not everyone would really mean it, some leaders would skew the message getting it across, freaky cults would spring up and get it all wrong. I think institutions are fairly universal, regardless of their message.
(Though for this to make sense I should mention that my church teaches we should focus our efforts on our relationship with God and not all the external trappings that go with it. Who cares how many years you've gone to Sunday School if none of it ever sank in? You're not doing anyone any favors.)
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Trying to tie in this tangent with the original thread, I have a question:
If an atheist presented their moral system and their justification, and it didn’t enter in conflict (at least at the level of the conclusions) with yours (theist or otherwise), would you still disqualify him/her and not vote for them because of their atheism?
quote:Originally posted by Enigmatic: That really sounds pretty extreme to me, and I really don't get how you're jumping from "I don't want to vote for someone" to "We're going to have to shoot each other."
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: TomD., true. But, that is only because I feel they are trying to put me and other people of faith under house arrest. The voices I am hearing today only confirm my fears that much more.
Really? All they're confirming for me is that you're paranoid and bigoted.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Battler03: I wouldn't really trust an atheist, for the simple reason that his (or hers--whatever) moral compass is entirely internally-generated.
But this is just as true of the theist. Quite apart from the issue of whether any given god exists, the choice of following or not following its rules is made internally.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I don't care if you would 'respect the rights of the religious' because it sure doesn't sound like it from these quotes."
While the quotes quoted are far more extremely voiced than I'd use, the underlying theme is one I'd agree with, i.e. I don't want politicians making decisions based solely on scripture. That does not mean I'm against politicians holding or expressing religious beliefs, nor do I expect religious people to set aside those moral codes when making decisions.
I do expect their decisions to be secularly justifiable, and I do not want policies based on interpreted prophecy. And boasting that God stands behind our foreign policy strikes me as a remarkably easy way to align countries of other faiths against us.
I would - and have - voted for an openly religious politician, but never once because of their faith. And faith blindly applied is a dangerous thing in a politician.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
To clarify: it doesn't matter a bit to me if a politician votes for a bill to help the homeless out of Christian beliefs of charity, Buddhist beliefs of oneness, or because that politician just wants to do good. Whatever the source of the morality, it all works for me.
It does, however, scare the crap out of me that there may be politicians who decide policy based solely on their church's interpretation of scripture, despite the real needs of their constituents. I want a politician who will forge laws and initiatives based on the realities of the Middle East, and not because he or she thinks that certain steps must be taken to fulfill prophecy.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"...not because he or she thinks that certain steps must be taken to fulfill prophecy."
Yeah, I gotta say, I sure hope Bush isn't doing this. Talk about being Cheney's hand puppet. It's not "The Emperor and Vader" it's "The Emperor and Howdy Doody." Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
