Notices
Results 1 to 81 of 81

Thread: Faith Schools

  1. #1 Faith Schools 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    England
    Posts
    60
    I live in England and there is currently a lot of controversy over faith schools.

    I would like to hear people’s opinions on them.

    Please lets have a nice clean debate with no flaming.


    'if one man beleaves in fairies its called madness
    if one million men beleave in faries its called religion'- Richard Dawkings
    (but i think he was quoting someone when he said it...but who cares)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Whats a faith school?


    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Maybe it's one of those Bible camps where they indoctrinate children to disbelieve evolution and hate the gays?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Stop it, don't say it that way. You are stereotyping. Don't make me ignore you like countless others here, please give me some faith in you people. The way you said it was dogmatic against religious believers. Here is the correct analogy that you should have used if you wanted to keep any respect for yourself from other people:

    Maybe its one of those religious places where they give children information without another side of the story, in which could lead to the disbelief of evolution and show ill-attitudes towards homosexuals by not teaching understanding when explaining the bible.

    Do you see how that is less dogmatic and more understanding? It is more considerate and efficient. The very exitence atheists fight to preserve, yet destroy the floor beneath from them. Only the strongest will survive. And strength is not physical and it is not the ability to attack. Be diplomatic, be understanding, push frustrations to one side. THAT is the art of being a scientist, the ART of being rational. THE Meaning behind logic.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    No Bible camps litterally exist lol.

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

    There was a documentary about them. I'm sure there are some that are fair and less fundamentalist, but I think that is what he is talking about.

    Edit: I'll add that I don't think they're a big deal because they are mostly preaching to the choir, the people who attend these types of things are usually already pretty much grounded in their faith.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Yes, I've seen these faith schools, or brainwashing schools, and recognize their abuse. Like they discussed on "The Big Questions", BBC (you can find it here).

    I'd say that children are too young to be indoctrinated by such faith schools. The children should have the opportunity to learn about religions and have the opportunity to choose for themselves when they grow up. "Getting them while they're young" is the same as child abuse.

    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    No Bible camps litterally exist lol.

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

    There was a documentary about them. I'm sure there are some that are fair and less fundamentalist, but I think that is what he is talking about.

    Edit: I'll add that I don't think they're a big deal because they are mostly preaching to the quire, the people who attend these types of things are usually already pretty much grounded in their faith.
    That is perhaps a bit too crazy example of a faith school, besides, it lies in the USA. :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    I'm just ashamed that I spelled choir wrong lol.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    I'm just ashamed that I spelled choir wrong lol.
    Haha
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    England
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition
    Whats a faith school?
    a faith school is a school, usauly a primary or pre-school, where they only accept children from a certain faith, be it christian, muslim or whatever.
    basicaly what the whole argument is, is that these schools segragate children into separate groups at a young age, and they are tought only about their (or rather their parents) religious beleafs. and more, are tought it as fact.

    allso a large number of these schools are not goverment funded, and therefore dont need to follow goverment guidelines, so they can (and many do) choose to leave out teaching evelution or even science alltogether.

    oh and by the way i was sent to a christian faith school as a primary school, and beleave me it was horrible. i was the only 'non-christian' there and i was forced to pray to god during assembly and sing hyms, at first i didnt understand it so it didnt bother me, but as i grew older it began to upset me that i had no choice about it,and i was allways singled out as 'the diferent one'. luckily i moved to secondary school (or high school as i think some people call it) and now i can do what i want.
    'if one man beleaves in fairies its called madness
    if one million men beleave in faries its called religion'- Richard Dawkings
    (but i think he was quoting someone when he said it...but who cares)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    When I was little my parents sent me to French private school, the teachers used to punish me for speaking English in the school yard, it messed me up so much that I refused to speak English even at home .

    My parents eventually realized what was going on and switched me to a bilingual school.

    Idk, here in Montreal we have many ethnic private schools, Hebrew schools are quite common because it is important to religious Jews that their children learn Hebrew, so it is easier for the parents that they go to a school which teaches the language. Catholic schools have been around for ages as a source of affordable private education, they also remain quite popular, although Catholic schools do not refuse entrance to people of other faiths and most of them are fairly accomodating these days.

    I went to a Catholic school for Grade 12-13 (we have an abnormal education system lol), the dean was a nun and the seminary was allowed to recruit people on school grounds. Most school procedures involved the invocation of Godl, however I never felt that my science education had been compromised nor was I ever obligated to participate in any religious ceremonies.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    this was posted up here ages ago

    "Please Sign Up, if you feel as we do:

    We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Abolish all faith schools and prohibit the teaching of creationism and other religious mythology in all UK schools.

    http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/faithschools/

    as the road charges debate showed, at least it may raise this into the public consciousness.

    Faith schools remove the rights of children to choose their own religious, philosophical and ethical beliefs. They also sanction ethnic segregation and create tension and divisiveness within society. Schools should be places where children are given a free education, not centres for indoctrination. Creationism and other religious myths should not be taught as fact regardless of the funding status of a school. Abolishing faith schools will provide children with more freedom of choice and help to promote a fully multi-cultural, peaceful society"




    with thanks to geezer
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    The freedom of choice of children is limited though, it is up to the parents to decide how their child should be educated. If they want to educate their child in private institutions that teach creationism as fact it is their choice. The government doesn't have the right to take away the option of parents to homeschool or privately educate their children.

    If the tables were turned and publicly funded schools were teaching creationism, wouldn't you appreciate the right to send your child to a school that taught evolution?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Right here! Hello!
    Posts
    72
    I believe the state has a certain responsibility to children aswell, such as not allowing physical or mental abuse. Personally, I consider "indoctrinating" children with religion before they can make an informed decision to be a form of abuse.
    ...Wait, what?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Yeah pal, so does every other atheist. What ya gonna do about it? Nothing, there is jack all you or anyone else can do about it. And who knows if its a bad thing, if it teaches children morals and rights (which most atheists don't seem to have, by some standards at least), then let it happen.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Right here! Hello!
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition
    Yeah pal, so does every other atheist. What ya gonna do about it? Nothing, there is jack all you or anyone else can do about it. And who knows if its a bad thing, if it teaches children morals and rights (which most atheists don't seem to have, by some standards at least), then let it happen.
    Atheists don't have morals...or rights?
    ...Wait, what?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Whats in bold?
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Right here! Hello!
    Posts
    72
    From "And who knows if its a bad thing, if it teaches children morals and rights (which most atheists don't seem to have..." I got the feeling that this was your personal opinion and the following "by some standards at least" to be some sort of defense to fall back on. I might have misunderstood you, of course. I might even be the only one who finds the two to be contradictory?
    ...Wait, what?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    By rights I meant that they are taught the rights of other people, and morals to love and live by. Rights being that they will understand the rights of other people, which some atheists don't understand. Chidlren have the right to go to faith schools, and their parents have the right to decide from themselves to chose what is best for their children, without someone telling them what they should do or not do for their children. I'm sure you wouldn't like a religious person criticing your method of raising a child.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    However difficult it can be, children shouldn't be manipulated to any particular faith or world view. You don't see political schools that teach children that this way of politic is right or anything like that. How weird would it be to have a communist school?

    Schools are made for knowledge, not bias. They are there to teach about things, not to advocate a particular belief or practice, that's just wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Then the children should be given the option if they want to join in the religious stuff and let them decide for themeselves. Children can choose for themeselves even at a very young age.

    EDIT: And I am totally with you that they should not force children to follow that path, they should choose for themselves, be given the information, and inform them the choice is theirs. Even Jesus said:

    "Suffer the little chidlren and come unto me". Which means I think, that they suffer so much through one thing and another, that they are first in line to go to Jesus, so that means He cares about them more than us, and quite frankly, one child to me means more than all the adults in the world.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Right here! Hello!
    Posts
    72
    Unfortunately, children don't have the right to choose anything for themselves. It is ultimately up to their parents to decide what kind of school they will send their children to.

    Just like there should be restrictions to what a hypothetical atheist school should have in their curriculum (exaggerated examples being only decimal time, grav-mass instead of christmas, make-fun-of-Christians-hour...) I believe having faith schools follow the same guidelines as state schools to be a not entirely fascist idea.

    There'll always be these elusive "some" in every group, who don't understand everyone's equal value, outlaw religion, burn people like witches... Let's not go there.
    ...Wait, what?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Can an atheist school at all exist, lol, that would be just as weird as a communist school (not implying any correlation of course, lol...).

    When learning about the world, children should go to a nonbias school, not to a school that teaches children that for example science is wrong, gays are bad and such. Children should have the opportunity to learn to live with other children which have different backgrounds, different views and so forth. They should have the opportunity to think for themselves and not think bad of others for thinking differently. Separating children by belief and view will only further separate the world in the future, and who knows, perhaps another world war will emerge. Understanding is the key to peace, don't take that away from our future generations.

    Off school time, parents can indoctrinate their children as they wish by sending them to church or something. The school is the only way people can get togheter and understand eachother, faith schools puts a barrier on that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Can an atheist school at all exist, lol, that would be just as weird as a communist school (not implying any correlation of course, lol...).
    It does show that it is easy to segregate and discriminate religion isn't it?
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Yes, I'm not looking away from that, but philosophy schools would be rather extreme. Of course, considering human nature, an atheist school is perfectly possible, and bad if it teaches antireligious nonsense. It's hard to imagine it to breed ignorance and violence, but you never know. Everything is conditional.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    England
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition
    Yeah pal, so does every other atheist. What ya gonna do about it? Nothing, there is jack all you or anyone else can do about it. And who knows if its a bad thing, if it teaches children morals and rights (which most atheists don't seem to have, by some standards at least), then let it happen.
    im not sure if you meant it like this but if you are saying atheists have no morals you are wrong, for one point you are bundling all atheists into one group, we all have diferent veiws and we do not follow a set of rules
    and 2, we get our morals from modern laws and sosiety, rather than an ancient text that is long out-dated.

    i myself have never commited a crime, gambled or any other 'sin'
    (other that questioning god) and i am an athiest.

    so if religios people have all the morals why do they (by 'they' i mean orginised religeon here, not individuals) mentaly abuse their children by threatening them with eternal hell if they do not worship the same god as them?

    a little off topic now, but im on a rant, If god is so good then why would he condem someone to eternal damnation for simply not beleaving in him, is he that selfobssesed. he is basicaly a dictator who will execute anyone who does not follow his every word.
    'if one man beleaves in fairies its called madness
    if one million men beleave in faries its called religion'- Richard Dawkings
    (but i think he was quoting someone when he said it...but who cares)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Professor serpicojr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    JRZ
    Posts
    1,069
    Quote Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition
    Children can choose for themeselves even at a very young age.
    The ability to choose and the ability to make good choices are two different things. Children are severely lacking in the latter department. Heck, let me quote the Bible:

    "A child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame." (Proverbs 29:15)

    I found this while doing a little research on your interpretation of the "Suffer the little children..." line, as I thought your interpretation was off base. Indeed, suffer in this case means "let" or "allow," as in Jesus was chiding the disciples for objecting to children being in his midst. In fact, in the context of the story, the children weren't coming of their own accord but were being brought to Jesus by adults.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Yes and that child when they are mature have the choice to makes themselves. I'm surethat atheists would try to brainwash them into atheism by their beliefs.

    so if religios people have all the morals why do they (by 'they' i mean orginised religeon here, not individuals) mentaly abuse their children by threatening them with eternal hell if they do not worship the same god as them?
    Abuse, mental abuse, for a child is not abuse at all. The person that teaches religion, aka the parent. Is the parent, and how many loving parents would want to hurt their children? They are just teaching the child a philosiphy, like some would teach a child that the Earth is flat, or that ghosts exist because of something. There is nothing abusive about teaching a child something is there? Its not causing the child pain or trauma is it? Even if the wrath of hell was drilled int a child (which a loving parent would not do), then I still doubt that child would be able to comphrend hell anyway. I know when I've explained to my younger sister about heaven and God, I've never mentioned hell or Satan, beacuse it might scare her, like monsters would or ghosts. Thats why I use different names for them, to be diplomatic. Like aliens from another world, or spirits. I always say to her I think they exist, but its up to you if you want to believe, and as she grows up, I'll keep saying that as she grows into teenagerhood until adulthood so she can make that choice herself. Just as I shall with my children. Thats what happened with me and I turned out perfect if I do say so myself 8).

    :P.

    Personally and I advise all people who discuss religion with me read this: Hell is the residing place of Satan and his angels. As Heaven is where God and Jesus and the angels reside. Hell as in eternal hell does not exist, the people, spirits who have not learned through the lessons of all the lives they've had (over time 1000's of years starting in the caves, before as animals, (which links this to Hinduism as well), then they get sent back in time to do it all over again, until they learn, and that includes Lucifer, and I say Lucifer because that is his good name. So by me there is no eteneral damnation, there is no suffering. I'd forgive anyone, as Jesus commands, as I love everyone (everyone to most extents that I can). I'm one of the best examples of religion, and if all religious people were like me, I'd say that there'd be no problems. But don't take me as an excenptional example, I'm only human. Jesus is the best example of how pure a man on this earth can be.

    Like most things with history and archeology, half of it is metaphor. By this:

    "A child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame." (Proverbs 29:15)
    Means that a child (if you read other parts of the Bible (which I read by coincidence)), is puer as they are innocent and not corrupted, that is why they, to quote Jesus "Are the greatest in the Kindgom of Heaven". Because they are pure in heart, pure in the way they are and instantly become the closest to Heaven. Thus a pure person can put their mother to shame, because they are a pure example. They are meek, pure and everything else holy. So children being brought to Jesus is a way of going to the purest adult on earth for protection.

    You intereperet the text, but remember as ou do like you would do in psychology or any science, you get interpretation bias. That always makes the validity of most things drop by 99% because there are so many interpretations, an infinite amount at least.

    Oh and Quertyman, next time you don't know how to spell something, type it in here:

    http://dictionary.reference.com/


    PS Because I've typed so much, and a lot of what I say may get quoted, treat your own responses with care becasue if its long I won't be bothered to read it, and that reason behind that is beacause 99% of people here are close minded, and I really don't want to keep reading close minded posts, I find it depressing really. Yet again the few have spoiled it for the rest. Sorry about that, but I'll do my best to stay interested. You don't care about religion anyway in the way I do so I don't see why I should waste my time, because no-one every listens to me or takes my point of view across. But my care for your well being compells me to stay, so I'm a bit Alpha Omega.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    England
    Posts
    60
    you spelled my name wrong while giving me a lesson in spelling
    does it realy matter if i spell it wrong if you can still understand me, its the internet for god sake!
    anyway, i am not closed minded, i was just insulted that you said i had no morals, if you claim that by not beleaving in god you lose all morals, imagine if you suddenly stoped beleaving, would you suddnly start sinning? do you realy need the threat of hell to stop you murdering?

    one more point, I argue against religion, not because i am closed minded, but because it is healthy to think about what you beleave in, i encourage people to do that, just as I would like them to do to me.

    I only get angry if people start being ignorant or insulting.
    'if one man beleaves in fairies its called madness
    if one million men beleave in faries its called religion'- Richard Dawkings
    (but i think he was quoting someone when he said it...but who cares)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,526
    Quote Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition

    so if religios people have all the morals why do they (by 'they' i mean orginised religeon here, not individuals) mentaly abuse their children by threatening them with eternal hell if they do not worship the same god as them?
    Abuse, mental abuse, for a child is not abuse at all.
    I'm not sure that claim can be justified.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    England
    Posts
    60
    back to the topic... what you were saying about an athiest school could easily happen, but they dont (as far as i know). I think that is because most atheists beleave in a non-biast upbringing (I say 'most' because atheist are not a single group and have lots of difent views)

    I am not asking for athiest schools, and I would in fact oppose them, I am asking or non-biast schools that teach 'about' things, not teaching contravertial issues as fact, that includes atheism/agnosticism.

    (allso i saw on tv this school in America where they teach 'pure christianity', they teach things we know for a fact arent true, for example the earth is flat, gays are sinners ect. I dont know if this is a unique place or if they are common in America, but surely we shouldnt teach children this)
    'if one man beleaves in fairies its called madness
    if one million men beleave in faries its called religion'- Richard Dawkings
    (but i think he was quoting someone when he said it...but who cares)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Professor serpicojr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    JRZ
    Posts
    1,069
    Quote Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition
    Like most things with history and archeology, half of it is metaphor. By this:

    "A child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame." (Proverbs 29:15)
    Means that a child (if you read other parts of the Bible (which I read by coincidence)), is puer as they are innocent and not corrupted, that is why they, to quote Jesus "Are the greatest in the Kindgom of Heaven". Because they are pure in heart, pure in the way they are and instantly become the closest to Heaven. Thus a pure person can put their mother to shame, because they are a pure example. They are meek, pure and everything else holy. So children being brought to Jesus is a way of going to the purest adult on earth for protection.

    You intereperet the text, but remember as ou do like you would do in psychology or any science, you get interpretation bias. That always makes the validity of most things drop by 99% because there are so many interpretations, an infinite amount at least.
    Dude, you're really off base. You're guilty of the crime you suggest I commit in your second paragraph above. Let me quote the full proverb to provide the context:

    "The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame."

    Literal translation: "Discipline leads to wisdom; an undisciplined child is shameful." A kid, left to its own devices, will do stupid things. Note, of course, that the verse is placing the burden of responsibility on the parent--the kid doesn't know any better!

    I'd like to get back to the "little children" verse in a bit...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Obviously said:

    Can an atheist school at all exist . . .?
    Every public school in America is atheist oriented as our government goes to great lengths to protect children from religion. The atheists minority has managed to turn the Constitutional concept of freedom of religion to the concept of freedom from religion.

    That is why many people of faith send their children to religious oriented schools. Some such schools are oriented to specific religions. You will find that Catholic and Seventh Day Adventist schools dominate this scent but, strangely, there are few Mormon oriented schools for children. You will also find Episcopal schools and Lutheran schools in many communities. Charismatic churches also have schools in larger cities. But the largest elementary K-8 Christian schools are non-denominational schools.

    I think what has concerned me in this discussion thread is that there is a general trend that when young people are exposed to religious teaching, it is considered indoctrination while if they receive anti-religious teaching, that is proper instruction.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    In what way does removing religion from academic instruction equal anti-religious instruction? One could similarly say that keeping science out of biblical study equals anti-science instruction, a preposterous contention, no?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    If that was all that took place. I would not want some teacher to base a lesson on the Bible any more than I would want them to base one on the Koran. I would not want students' days to start with corporater prayer based on witchery and thus do not think any corporate prayer should be permitted.

    However, in many schools, administration attempts to keep students from having extracurricular religious activities while allowing other kinds of extra curricular activities. In a recent incident at a Washington school, the administration attempted to stop students from gathering around the school's flag pole for prayer before school.

    I would agree that religion should not interfer with instruction, whether it be by some religious practice or some distracting religious attire or symbolism. However, public schools cannot even offer an elective class in comparative religions for fear that someone would complain that such a class promotes religion.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Well, that's alright then, I had thought you meant to suggest that a lack of bible study equates to anti-religion.

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    However, public schools cannot even offer an elective class in comparative religions for fear that someone would complain that such a class promotes religion.
    Not according to this website:

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/ps_pra9.htm

    The positive and negative effects of religion on society may be studied in history, literature, comparative religion, and other courses. Comparative religion classes are allowed, as long as one religion is not presented as being superior to any another, or as absolute truth. Bible study is allowed, as long as the texts from other religions are also studied. Schools can communicate the broad field of religion but not indoctrinate their students in a particular faith.
    Also:

    Many people honestly believe that prayer is not allowed in the public schools. This is wrong. Unfortunately, this mistaken notion sometimes extends to teachers, principals and school boards.

    Students have many opportunities to pray:

    ~They can attend one of the over 350,000 places of worship in the United States, which promote "every conceivable creed, sect and denomination." 6

    ~Prayer is allowed -- and in fact is a protected form of free speech -- throughout the public school system. Students can pray in school busses, at the flag-pole, in student religious clubs, in the hallways, cafeteria, etc.

    ~If the school has as few as one extra-curricular student-led and student-organized group, then students have a legal right to organize a Bible or other religious club to meet outside of classroom time.
    Perhaps the "teachers, principals and school boards" bit has affected the schools near you. It seems you are legally protected to have such activities. As, presumably, the local Wiccans, Pantheists, Atheists, Buddhists, and satanic worshippers are.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    There's no such thing as an atheist school. That doesn't make any sense at all. Even if it was, it wouldn't justify there being religious schools. Schools should be nonbias no matter what. Provide proof/refrences to your claims, daytonturner. In the meantime I'll stick by my previous post:

    Quote Originally Posted by Me
    When learning about the world, children should go to a nonbias school, not to a school that teaches children that for example science is wrong, gays are bad and such. Children should have the opportunity to learn to live with other children which have different backgrounds, different views and so forth. They should have the opportunity to think for themselves and not think bad of others for thinking differently. Separating children by belief and view will only further separate the world in the future, and who knows, perhaps another world war will emerge. Understanding is the key to peace, don't take that away from our future generations.

    Off school time, parents can indoctrinate their children as they wish by sending them to church or something. The school is the only way people can get togheter and understand eachother, faith schools puts a barrier on that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by serpicojr
    Literal translation: "Discipline leads to wisdom; an undisciplined child is shameful." A kid, left to its own devices, will do stupid things. Note, of course, that the verse is placing the burden of responsibility on the parent--the kid doesn't know any better!

    I'd like to get back to the "little children" verse in a bit...
    What did I say? I said Bible interpretation is half metaphor, pay attention.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by sunshinewarrio
    Quote Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition

    so if religios people have all the morals why do they (by 'they' i mean orginised religeon here, not individuals) mentaly abuse their children by threatening them with eternal hell if they do not worship the same god as them?
    Abuse, mental abuse, for a child is not abuse at all.
    I'm not sure that claim can be justified.
    I thought I'd deleted that when I was posting, hm seems it stayed. Well I didn't mean for it to stay.

    PS Quertyman, I did say you had no morals. If thats what I said, quote the exact line where I said it.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Obviously challenged:

    Provide proof/refrences to your claims, daytonturner. In the meantime I'll stick by my previous post:
    which was:

    When learning about the world, children should go to a nonbias school, not to a school that teaches children that for example science is wrong, gays are bad and such.

    Actually, free radical provided a link (http://www.religioustolerance.org/ps_pra9.htm) to an article that pretty much says the same things I was saying, to wit:

    Many people honestly believe that prayer is not allowed in the public schools. This is wrong. Unfortunately, this mistaken notion sometimes extends to teachers, principals and school boards.
    My point was that public schools make many (illegal and discriminatory) attempts to curtail and discourage permitted religious activities on campuses.

    The article also points out that:

    Prayer is allowed -- and in fact is a protected form of free speech -- throughout the public school system. Students can pray in school busses, at the flag-pole, in student religious clubs, in the hallways, cafeteria, etc.
    The article would not be pointing out these specific instances if it had not been that administrators had attempted to curtail such activities.

    I may have overstated that public schools "can't" provide classes in comparitive religions, when I should have said "won't" provide them because of the fear of backlash. I don't think I actually said anything so out of the ordinary or beyond the scope of common knowledge that I need to provide proof/references. Only a person with their head up their . . ., in the sand would not be aware of these things.

    Meanwhile, it would seem that obviously should provide some examples of a religious school's curriculum which teaches that "science is wrong and that homosexuals are bad and such."

    Science being science, the science curriculum at religious schools is going to be pretty much the same as the science curriculum at public schools. The main exception will be that students will also receive additional information concerning evolution which shows some of the perceived discrepancies. (OK, it is possible that some very traditional programs may still be teaching young earth, but I don't think this is the norm, anymore.) Meanwhile, chemistry is going to be the same, physics is going to be the same, math is going to be the same. If the balance of science hinges on evolution and creation, science is in deep, deep pooh pooh.

    I think you would find greater differences in the approaches to some of the humanities than in the hard sciences.

    I just don't know where you people get off saying that because we do not swallow evolution hook, line and sinker, we are against all of science. Gravity works for the just and the unjust.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    I actually don't care how it is at some schools now etc, that is not part of my point. I care about how schools should be. There might be schools that might do things like (to quote religioustolerance.org):

    * Forbidden a student from reading a Bible in the school bus.
    * Forbidden a student from praying before a meal in the cafeteria.
    * Refused to accept a student history essay on the life of an historical figure because the essay described Jesus.
    * Refused to allow a Bible study group to be organized by students, while permitting political, philosophical, science and other special interest groups.

    These restrictions are bad, because they forbid personal things. The 3. point might be argued, because was Jesus really a historical figure?

    Schools should be nonbias, not to interfere with personal matters like belief and teaching that this view is right, this one wrong.

    When it comes to teaching science, however, evolution should be taught according to what all the evidence to date suggest; that variation within species over time results to evolution. This is an observed/tested fact which is the best theory to explain the variation of species we see today. We shouldn't teach children OPINIONS on these matters, like how the creationist view evolution because that has nothing to do with science. Creationists believe truth to be a democracy when it comes to science, and that is simply NOT the case. Science bases its conclusions on evidence, not personal convictions.

    It might be argued that children should learn about the different opinions on these matters, but keep that out of the science class. Opinions can be taught in philosophy/history classes.

    I stand by my previous post to why I object to faith schools:

    Quote Originally Posted by Me
    Separating children by belief and view will only further separate the world in the future, and who knows, perhaps another world war will emerge. Understanding is the key to peace, don't take that away from our future generations.
    My apologizes for my last post against you. It seems we are very much in agreement when reading over what you said before I responded. I must've been tired when posting that response.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    In my public school they taught evolutionary theory in history class, and we had religion course from grade 7-9. Starting with Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, then ancient greek and native theologies, and finishing with asian theologies. I just don't understand the reactionist nature of Americans when it comes to religion. Although until I was in grade 3 we had religious segregation in Quebec which they finally did away with, we used to be seperated between a Catholic board and protestant school board. Even then no one was having a fit over religion in schools >.> as far as I know communion courses are still taught as an optional course in many of our provinces schools.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Professor serpicojr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    JRZ
    Posts
    1,069
    Quote Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition
    Quote Originally Posted by serpicojr
    Literal translation: "Discipline leads to wisdom; an undisciplined child is shameful." A kid, left to its own devices, will do stupid things. Note, of course, that the verse is placing the burden of responsibility on the parent--the kid doesn't know any better!

    I'd like to get back to the "little children" verse in a bit...
    What did I say? I said Bible interpretation is half metaphor, pay attention.
    We're having our own separate discussion unrelated to the origianl post. I'm starting a new thread for us, if you're interested in continuing...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    England
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition
    PS Quertyman, I did say you had no morals. If thats what I said, quote the exact line where I said it.
    Quote Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition
    it teaches children morals and rights (which most atheists don't seem to have, by some standards at least), then let it happen.
    as I said in my earlier response, you may not have meant it how I understood it, but to me it sounds like you are saying atheists have no morals, which is very insulting. If you did not mean this I take back what I said.

    I dont want to continue this argument much further because it is pointless and off topic
    'if one man beleaves in fairies its called madness
    if one million men beleave in faries its called religion'- Richard Dawkings
    (but i think he was quoting someone when he said it...but who cares)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    Isnt it Religious people that have a lack of morals? I mean, they have to use a book to know good from bad, it must be hard to figure out murder is a bad thing without being told in a book

    - hug, murder bad? :|
    - Yes
    - duh, why? :|
    - because the invisible man says so,
    look its written right here, he told me what to write
    - duh'ok :|
    - Oh, and wile we're at it he also told me that guy right here is the king by divine right, and you have to build him a castle and work the land to provide him food and wealth which I will benefit from too, but dont be upset, the invisible man in the sky says you will be first to go in the invisible place in the sky, so start toiling, we aint got all day
    - dhok :|
    - oh, and that other king is supported by a god of love and peace thats not the same as our god of love and peace, well its the same but a minor detail, anyway god wants you to go overthere sack the city rape the women and bring back slaves so our king can claim that land and plunder the survivors too, thats the will of that invisible man
    - whaa? baa didnt invisobul man say no murder? :|
    - ah, questionning is sinful, the lord works in mysterious ways, there's all a big plan we dont understand, well all know after we die, yeah thats the ticket, so get cracking
    - dh'ok :|
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    icewindigo sais:

    Isnt it Religious people that have a lack of morals? I mean, they have to use a book to know good from bad, it must be hard to figure out murder is a bad thing without being told in a book
    So what is it that you use to figure out right and wrong or good and bad, icewindigo?
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo
    Isnt it Religious people that have a lack of morals? I mean, they have to use a book to know good from bad, it must be hard to figure out murder is a bad thing without being told in a book
    The book? I don't need a book to tell me the rules, I feel them.

    The book is interesting to get stories and guidance sometimes, for when we are lossed.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    England
    Posts
    60
    Exactly, if more religius people were like you I wouldnt get angry so much

    because the one thing that annoys me is when people claim that I (or athiest in general) have no morals because we dont have god in our lives, morals come from sosiety and upbringing not from god(s) or the bible/koran/whatever, sure centuries ago these religions would keep the peasants at bay and content, but in a modern world we need to find morals elsewhere.

    oh and icewendingo is being a tad bit ignorant with what he said, even though i kinda agree with him on some points.
    'if one man beleaves in fairies its called madness
    if one million men beleave in faries its called religion'- Richard Dawkings
    (but i think he was quoting someone when he said it...but who cares)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    qwertyman said:

    because the one thing that annoys me is when people claim that I (or athiest in general) have no morals because we dont have god in our lives
    I think you misunderstand what is being said. No one has said that atheists do not have any morals. I think what we say is that they have no accountability to anyone other than themselves and whatever legal system they may live under. And, maybe to some social pressure.

    What we speak out against is moral relativism which qwertyman may or may not subscribe to.

    We claim that moral relativism is a moral code which is tantamount to no moral code because it does not require anyone to comply. A moral code should establish a standard of conduct to which all persons are subject and under which they are held accountable.

    Thus, even though a particular person may individually do all things that society and the law require of him, if he does not insist others are subject to those same rules, he really does not have a moral code. He merely has a set of standards which he himself follows but to which no one else is held. This is a personal code of conduct, not a moral code.

    What’s more, if within his personal code there is a standard which is not illegal under his local legal system, he risks no sanction for violating his own moral standard. He thus does not actually have a moral code, but a set of practices which he may or may not follow according to the convenience of his circumstances.

    The above person is accountable only to his own conscience which is ultimately no different from that of an a-moral sociopath. This is not to label atheists and agnostics as a-moral sociopaths, but merely to point out that the sociopath is, likewise, accountable only to his own conscience. It is the same standard of accountability.

    It is not the moral standards of the Bible which make them different from the moral standards of society in general. It is not like God sat down at his table with Jesus and the Holy Spirit and drew up a bunch of moral rules and said, “Let’s see if they can follow this.” God did not inscribe on the tablet of stone, “Thou shalt not murder,” and suddenly declare a previously legal practice illegal. God’s point was that He holds us accountable to that standard.

    There just aren’t that many moral standards in the Bible that are not common to most societies. Excluding certain practices which are religious in nature rather than social, I think most people would be sore pressed to come up with a very long list of Bible morals with which they disagree.

    Again, it is not so much the conducts prescribed and proscribed in the Bible that are being found objectionable; rather, it is the accountability issue.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    You don't have to be religious to believe in moral philosophies that are not based in moral relativism. Most atheist tend to follow a Utilitarian morality. I believe that self-awareness makes humans unique on Earth, and freedom of choice is a direct result of this self-awareness. If I accept the assumption that humans are worthy of moral consideration, then the product of what makes them unique (self-awareness) must be worthy of moral consideration. This product I believe is free will, thus any action that violates the free will of another human is morally wrong.

    If one believes that the individual is of supreme importance, than one must accept the importance of other individuals and realise that one should act in a way that does not directly limit the freedoms of other individuals. Thus, there is room for interpretation in this philosophy. Each individual can have different views of what is moral or not on a great deal of things, however there is a unifying principle that forbids a core few actions (murder, rape, exploitation, and maybe theft).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    You don't have to be religious to believe in moral philosophies that are not based in moral relativism. Most atheist tend to follow a Utilitarian morality. I believe that self-awareness makes humans unique on Earth, and freedom of choice is a direct result of this self-awareness. If I accept the assumption that humans are worthy of moral consideration, then the product of what makes them unique (self-awareness) must be worthy of moral consideration. This product I believe is free will, thus any action that violates the free will of another human is morally wrong.

    If one believes that the individual is of supreme importance, than one must accept the importance of other individuals and realise that one should act in a way that does not directly limit the freedoms of other individuals. Thus, there is room for interpretation in this philosophy. Each individual can have different views of what is moral or not on a great deal of things, however there is a unifying principle that forbids a core few actions (murder, rape, exploitation, and maybe theft).
    I do not mean this in a derogatory sense, but this post seems either somewhat schizophrenic or perhaps oxymoronish.

    Tired must first understand that the opposite of relativism is absolutism. Tired seems to be suggesting that such absolutes may be reached by philosophy vis a vis religion. The hitch here is that philosophy is more designed to reach indefinite maybes rather than ultimate absolutes.

    I do agree that an individual or a group of people could reach absolute moral standards without the input of religion, but the source of moral standards is a separate issue from what I was attempting to point out in my previous post.

    The actual conduct of a moral code is not the sole factor in determining is role in society.

    Another factor is the degree to which the conduct is affected by the moral code. To say it is immoral to murder is one thing; to inhibit people from murdering is yet another thing.

    Tired, having started from a position that absolutes are determinable via non-religious contemplation moves to a position that there is room for interpretation which seems to me to be diametrically opposed to his opening contention.

    In stating, "Each individual can have different views of what is moral or not on a great deal of things," Tired has thrown it open again to relativism.

    There is an aspect of this which is true if we can agree on those things which are subjective truths and values from those things which are objective truths and values.

    Somehow, I have been trying to suggest that God saying so is not what makes stuff right and wrong. It is because certain actions were right or wrong in themselves, that God said so. On the religious level, it is a matter of God expressing the moral standard to which He holds us accountable, not a matter of God establishing moral standards.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    You don't have to be religious to believe in moral philosophies that are not based in moral relativism. Most atheist tend to follow a Utilitarian morality. I believe that self-awareness makes humans unique on Earth, and freedom of choice is a direct result of this self-awareness. If I accept the assumption that humans are worthy of moral consideration, then the product of what makes them unique (self-awareness) must be worthy of moral consideration. This product I believe is free will, thus any action that violates the free will of another human is morally wrong.

    If one believes that the individual is of supreme importance, than one must accept the importance of other individuals and realise that one should act in a way that does not directly limit the freedoms of other individuals. Thus, there is room for interpretation in this philosophy. Each individual can have different views of what is moral or not on a great deal of things, however there is a unifying principle that forbids a core few actions (murder, rape, exploitation, and maybe theft).
    I do not mean this in a derogatory sense, but this post seems either somewhat schizophrenic or perhaps oxymoronish.
    What an utterly foolish and insulting thing to say of a well written post. Foolish because you would introduce your own personal version of your cults doctrines as a standard for universal morals (not that it's a surprise) and insulting that you would use such a statement to reduce the argument of a supernatural free state of being to that of mental deficiencies.

    Yet, it is YOU who contrives arguments to support the fantastic, and the mystical.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    You know (Q), I discussed his thinking and his logic. You attack the person which is why you are considered such a jerk. You hardly ever contribute to the substance of a discussion. Why the hell don't you just butt out?
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    You know (Q), I discussed his thinking and his logic. You attack the person which is why you are considered such a jerk. You hardly ever contribute to the substance of a discussion. Why the hell don't you just butt out?
    You said that his post was "schizophrenic" and I responded that your statement of such was foolish and insulting. You gave your reasons for your post and I gave mine.

    The fact that you're taking a piss is simply due to your realizing your post was foolish and insulting, and for me pointing it out.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    (Q), I was pointing out that the post had a problem with the logical requirment of non-contradiction. I was not calling the poster himself schizophrenic, but the post. Tired first said it was possible to come to absolute truths vie means other than religion (with which I agreedand expanded upon) but then said they were open for interpretation. Something cannot be both absolute and debatable at the same time. Such a claim violates the law of non-contradiction. This is also a trait of schizophrenia and why oxymorons are illogical. You, obviously, are not bothered by illogical statements so long as they are anti-religious.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    England
    Posts
    60
    (sorry for going off-topic)

    My personal veiw is that I do not need laws (religous or not) to tell me morals, just because something is against the law does not automaticaly make it immoral (eg if it was against the law to practice your religeon would you give it up?)
    Its just that my personal moral veiws do not conflict with british law.
    I do think laws are important however, I myself do not need fear of the law to keep me in check. but some people (sadly a large number of people in England) only behave because of it.
    'if one man beleaves in fairies its called madness
    if one million men beleave in faries its called religion'- Richard Dawkings
    (but i think he was quoting someone when he said it...but who cares)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    (Q), I was pointing out that the post had a problem with the logical requirment of non-contradiction. I was not calling the poster himself schizophrenic, but the post. Tired first said it was possible to come to absolute truths vie means other than religion (with which I agreedand expanded upon) but then said they were open for interpretation. Something cannot be both absolute and debatable at the same time. Such a claim violates the law of non-contradiction. This is also a trait of schizophrenia and why oxymorons are illogical. You, obviously, are not bothered by illogical statements so long as they are anti-religious.
    Actually I stated that it was possible for moral absolutism to exist without religion and then went on to expand on my own personal beliefs, which were not linked. Moreover, I was saying that at the personal level there is room for differing views, for example I believe it is up to the individual to decide if they believe lying, cheating, gambling, drugs, promiscuous sex, or some other such thing is moral or not. However, things which involve impeding the freedom of others are always morally wrong, such as murder and rape.

    If you want an absolute moral philosophy not based on religion just take deontology.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Tired said:
    Moreover, I was saying that at the personal level there is room for differing views, for example I believe it is up to the individual to decide if they believe lying, cheating, gambling, drugs, promiscuous sex, or some other such thing is moral or not. However, things which involve impeding the freedom of others are always morally wrong, such as murder and rape.
    I’m thinking that is an even worse position than what I understood you to be saying originally. I don’t think this is really your position if you think it out. For example, have you considered that if you go to the doctor, you depend on him to be honest and not lie to you about your health. Under your position, you cannot complain if he decides it is OK to lie to you and tell you that you are healthy when, in fact, you are ill. Nor could you complain if he lied and said you were gravely ill and needed to permit him to conduct and expensive procedure. After all, it is up to him to decide if lying to you and cheating you is moral or not.

    You could, of course, retreat to the more purely minimalist position that only conduct which does not harm others is a matter of personal choice and the doctor’s lying would be harmful to you. Actually, I can think of ways in which lying, cheating, gambling, drugs and promiscuous sex can be harmful. This is why such conduct is frowned upon by civilized people. Do people get away with doing these things without causing harm? Well, yes, but that does not justify them as moral conducts.

    To take it another direction what about, say a peeping Tom, who is not detected. The object of his peeping, not knowing of the observation, is not harmed in any way. The relativist must condone this conduct, as it has caused no harm. Would you agree? Or would you consider this conduct improper whether or not detected?

    The thing about a true moral code is that it applies to all. If you realize that it is wrong for you to lie to me, surely, you must consider that it is equally wrong for me to lie to you. If you accept that it is wrong for me to cheat you out of something, surely you cannot believe it is OK for you to cheat me. A true moral standard applies to all people at all times under all similar conditions.

    But, OK, there are things which are a matter of personal choice, such as whether you like chocolate or strawberry ice cream best. That is a subjective matter. There is no right or wrong choice. In fact, perhaps it would be immoral for me to attempt to force you to eat only chocolate if you preferred strawberry.

    If we attempt to add 2 + 2, the answer is not a matter of personal preference. It cannot add up four for you and five to me and both of us be correct. This is an absolute truth for which there is no debate available.

    Over many millennia humans have sorted through the various conducts and determined those which are beneficial and those which are detrimental to social order and peace. Relativism such as you suggest seeks to redefine the resulting standards. In a sense, however, what is right and wrong cannot be arbitrarily changed any more than the result of 2 + 2.

    If something is truly only a matter of personal preference, then it is not really a moral issue. If it is truly a moral issue it is not a matter of personal preference.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Professor serpicojr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    JRZ
    Posts
    1,069
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    To take it another direction what about, say a peeping Tom, who is not detected. The object of his peeping, not knowing of the observation, is not harmed in any way.
    Sorry to respond to only a sliver of what you wrote, but do you really believe that the violation of one's privacy entails no harm to the individual whether or not is it noticed?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Good heavens, no! But that is the position the minimalist must take if he truly subscibes to the idea of no harm = no immorality.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    I take that back. In a sense, the victim has not been harmed since he/she is unaware that a violation has occurred. Are we harmed when unbeknownst to us, someone exceeds the speed limit on the freeway? Does the fact that the violation is not observed and sanctioned by a traffic ticket, make it any less of a traffic violation? The minimalist position is that we can do whatever we want so long as we do not harm others.

    The undetected Peeping Tom inflicts no known harm nor does the undetected speeder. Thus, the minimalist cannot consider the Peeping Tom's conduct as immoral.

    serpicojr's response suggest that he is probably not a minimalist.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    I take that back. In a sense, the victim has not been harmed since he/she is unaware that a violation has occurred. Are we harmed when unbeknownst to us, someone exceeds the speed limit on the freeway? Does the fact that the violation is not observed and sanctioned by a traffic ticket, make it any less of a traffic violation? The minimalist position is that we can do whatever we want so long as we do not harm others.

    The undetected Peeping Tom inflicts no known harm nor does the undetected speeder. Thus, the minimalist cannot consider the Peeping Tom's conduct as immoral.

    serpicojr's response suggest that he is probably not a minimalist.
    The cheating I was referring to was actually with respect to relationships. Moreover, lying which would cause harm, or cheating a person of their money would fall under the category of exploitation and limiting a person's freedom. A white lie, or a lie for good would be up to the individual to decide if it was right or not.

    I could care less if a person peeps or not, that is the individuals choice, as a society we limit this because it is distasteful since we suffer from insecurity and a feeling of ownership of our bodies.

    Promiscuous sex may harm a person, however it does not harm a person against their free will. Since I said the only reason harming a person is wrong is because it is limiting that person's right to choose not to be harmed.

    And the speeding car example is pointless. Speeding is not morally wrong, it is morally wrong to endanger the lives of others. Thus, if no one was around a person could speed without endangering anyone but himself. However, because it would be impossible for a person to determine beyond a doubt that no one would be in the area to be killed, then a person is bound not to speed because they could kill a person. If you were the last person left on Earth it would certainly not be wrong to speed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    So what is it that you use to figure out right and wrong or good and bad, icewindigo?
    Basic empathy is a good place to start, and if someone needs to follow a rule you can dress it up by calling it the golden rule 'dont do on to others what you dont want done to you'.

    If in a kindergarden and a kid forcibly grabs and steals your toy and this makes you sad, theres a good chance that doing the same to another kid will make him sad.

    Next is a principle related to common good and living in a society, which could be explained as 'dont do (or evaluate carefully) actions that if performed by everyone would cause everyone to suffer/be hampered or would derail society'.
    If such is the case and there is no functional justification its probably wrong.
    If you throw the content of your garbage in the street, or dump toxic sludge in the river, you can imagine that if everyone did it it would be a huge mess.
    Running a red light is wrong in addition to being illegal, because if everyone did it you wouldnot be able to safely cross a green light and all hell will brake loose, you would be caught in a trafic jam because the intersection 30 cars ahead is blocked by a wiseguy that got pulverized by a truck.
    This principle does not apply that much if you are a lone cowboy on a farm or a camel rider living in the desert, but the more urbanized and populated the area you live in, the more important it is for things to run smoothly for everyone. People from rural/traditional/backwater societies sometimes have not developed this idea/concept/principle because there was no need for it for as long as their traditions existed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    I could care less if a person peeps or not, that is the individuals choice, as a society we limit this because it is distasteful since we suffer from insecurity and a feeling of ownership of our bodies.
    It is more than this though. Let's suppose the peeper likes drawings - mind you - of kiddy porn. We'd judge the peeper rotten, perhaps dangerous. The behaviour is morally bad. No victim necessary. Is the behaviour unethical/illegal? Probably not. Because there is no victim.

    Suppose I smell of urine, stir my tea with a pen, and I mutter. One might say there's something rotten (immoral) about me. Same as above. It's just not enough to dial the police about.

    This kind of moral expectation and evaluation we direct at individuals is and always has been critical to society's smooth functioning, ever since the first primates ostracized one poor loser for peeling a banana from the wrong end. It's neither deliberate nor rational, and runs broader than the common debate topics. Just how we learn all these rules (like don't stir tea with pens - WTF?) I don't know. You can spot nut jobs this way. And get into some culture clashes. But we have to accept it. Perhaps morals work best when they're arbitrary and must be learned?

    Religion took some common morals - plus a few bizarre ones - and codified them as though God had commanded it. Religions still instruct morality in this frame. Side effect: discourages insight.

    Atheists have trouble with morality, when we try to rationalize it. As though our logic might command it. In a way, that exercise is corrosive to morality. Who's up for cannibalism? It certainly makes the atheist appear foolish if not outlandish.

    Articulating our funny morals into working beliefs may pose a challenge.

    Can one believe something is "wrong" even while seeing the truth in it? Is the hard truth about something "wrong", valid in another context?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Professor serpicojr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    JRZ
    Posts
    1,069
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    In a sense, the victim has not been harmed since he/she is unaware that a violation has occurred.
    Whether or not the victim is harmed depends upon the society in which the peeping is taking place. I would say the only way you can claim the victim is not harmed in any way is if the society not only has no notion of privacy but, furthermore, individuals in said society basically expect that any and all things they do are known to everyone else<sup>1</sup>. Without this expectation, I may believe that I have done something in private while, in truth, someone was watching me. So long as I don't find out that I was being observed, I am acting on imperfect knowledge, and this is a very basic form of harm.

    ---------------------------------------

    <sup>1</sup>Funny, I just described the society in 1984.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    serpicojr said:

    Whether or not the victim is harmed depends upon the society in which the peeping is taking place. I would say the only way you can claim the victim is not harmed in any way is if the society not only has no notion of privacy but, furthermore, individuals in said society basically expect that any and all things they do are known to everyone else1. Without this expectation, I may believe that I have done something in private while, in truth, someone was watching me. So long as I don't find out that I was being observed, I am acting on imperfect knowledge, and this is a very basic form of harm.
    serpico seems to be missing the point here and in what appears to be an attempt toward absolutism while remaining relativistic.

    I purposely established the hypothetical to focus the attention on whether or not the "victim" has been harmed, which is the relativistic approach. The relativist does not look at the behavior itself, but rather at the results, thus adopting something of a no-harm-no-foul system of assessment.

    In a REAL moral code, one looks at the conduct rather than the affect. If Peeping Tommery is immoral when detected, it remains immoral when undetected.

    Icewindigo set up a system in which it was OK to pullute away from urbanized areas but not in them because it was offensive to neighbors. Obviously, Icewindigo does not understand the pollution deposited in rural areas eventually makes it way into streams and eventually ends up in urban areas, anyway (agricultural chemicals for example). Icewindigo, it seems, feels that he has the right to establish a moral standards which he would expect others to follow, but does not feel he should be subjected to moral standards as might be already established or any stricter standard that he himself has set.

    tired and sleepy sez:


    I could care less if a person peeps or not, that is the individuals choice, as a society we limit this because it is distasteful since we suffer from insecurity and a feeling of ownership of our bodies.
    Promiscuous sex may harm a person, however it does not harm a person against their free will. Since I said the only reason harming a person is wrong is because it is limiting that person's right to choose not to be harmed.

    Spoken in true relativitic manner. We do not always know the far reaching results of our actions. A local politician, long after the fact, was revealed to have had an affair with the next door neighbor girl who was 14 at the time and he was about 35 and occupying a rather high political position. She was a willing participant and the affair extended over a period of more than a year with her showing up at various places to participate in the tryst. As it turned out, this girl ultimately experienced severe mental depression because of the affair and has never led a normal life.

    I am sure this scenario has played out many times in many place wherein the willing lolita has not been adversely affected.

    tired would suggest that this activity is OK if no one gets hurt while in the case of the politician, it was wrong. So, if one was at the fork in the road where he had the opportunity to participate in this kind of conduct, how would he decide? It becomes a crap shoot in which your conduct can only subsequently be found to have been moral or immoral. Isn't there some value in knowing the conduct is improper no matter the outcome?

    One thing I have always found interesting is that relativists are among the first to deny the existence of God on the basis of evil in the world. They argue that if God is absolutely powerful and good, he would deal with evil. But since evil exists, God is too ineffective to deal with it or too sinister to care. I have seen this argument advanced in this forum too many times to count.

    However, this objection rests on the idea that evil actually exists. So unless there is some objective "thing" which can be labeled as "evil," there can be no complaint against God. And evil cannot exist if it is relative only to its subject.

    Relativism, as expressed here and on many other threads, is incompatible with a concept that there actually is evil since it denies that anything is intrinsically "wrong."

    Evil as a value judgement suggests the departure from an accepted standard of moral perfection. But if there is no accepted moral standard, there can be no departure and thus, nothing can be declared evil.

    No one could sit down in a vacuum devoid of human interaction and come up with a moral code that was anything other than self serving. Where would such a person come up with any idea of good and evil, right and wrong?

    Is that not what we do when we attempt to modify the existing moral code? Do we not set the codes to our own standard of conduct without regard to their overall impact on society in general?

    I do not know if tired would participate in a tryst such as the local politician had, but the fact that he/she would permit such a tryst suggests that tired has no room to complain about evil in the world. Nor does any other relativist.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner


    Spoken in true relativitic manner. We do not always know the far reaching results of our actions. A local politician, long after the fact, was revealed to have had an affair with the next door neighbor girl who was 14 at the time and he was about 35 and occupying a rather high political position. She was a willing participant and the affair extended over a period of more than a year with her showing up at various places to participate in the tryst. As it turned out, this girl ultimately experienced severe mental depression because of the affair and has never led a normal life.
    That would be completely the girls fault, she chose to participate in all those acts willingly, thus no wrong was done to her. Wrong is only done when a person's free will has been violated.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    That would be completely the girls fault, she chose to participate in all those acts willingly, thus no wrong was done to her.
    How can you say this? She was 14! There is a reason that there is such a thing as statutory rape.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    That would be completely the girls fault, she chose to participate in all those acts willingly, thus no wrong was done to her.
    How can you say this? She was 14! There is a reason that there is such a thing as statutory rape.
    She was 14 boohoo, she still made a choice. I suppose when a person turns 18 they automatically become responsible for all their choices, but before 18 they can't be held accountable for anything >.>

    Besides it is legal for a man to be married to an underaged girl and have sexual relations with her in the USA. It is only statutory rape if there is no marriage.

    Also, if she had killed a person everyone would have been up in arms saying she was old enough to know not to kill and be placing her in jail. It is a double standard and ridiculous.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    I suppose when a person turns 18 they automatically become responsible for all their choices, but before 18 they can't be held accountable for anything >.>
    That is more or less what the law says, but what kind of mind games and manipulation can a guy of 35 not play with a girl of 14, no matter how sexually developed she is? The cut-off is 18, because there has to be some cut-off age and around 18 is when most people can be expected to make adult decisions. It is obviously there because of the FACT that most younger people are more easily manipulated the higher the age gap gets.
    Also, if she had killed a person everyone would have been up in arms saying she was old enough to know not to kill and be placing her in jail. It is a double standard and ridiculous.
    Well, how do you know what my stance is on this? It is obvious what yours is though.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    This is like watching geese debate why it is immoral to lead the flock north in winter.

    You can pretend to do these things because God commands them. Or because you personally judge them right. Pretentious either way. The most unsophisticated, heathen dullard can lead a moral life. Make sense of that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    This is like watching geese debate why it is immoral to lead the flock north in winter.

    You can pretend to do these things because God commands them. Or because you personally judge them right. Pretentious either way. The most unsophisticated, heathen dullard can lead a moral life. Make sense of that.
    That statement is patently pigheaded. First of all your statement is based in the bias that people who are less intelligent are inferior. Moreover, for said "dullard" to live a moral life, people would first have to define what it is to be moral before such a statement could be said. Finally, the capability of one group or another to live morally was never being debated and has nothing to do with the arguments being made in this thread.

    Nonsense masquerading as profundity
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    tired said:

    That would be completely the girls fault, she chose to participate in all those acts willingly, thus no wrong was done to her. Wrong is only done when a person's free will has been violated.
    Well, no wonder the world is so effed up when there are people out there sick enough to think like this.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    feeltiredsleepy wrote:
    She was 14 boohoo, she still made a choice. I suppose when a person turns 18 they automatically become responsible for all their choices, but before 18 they can't be held accountable for anything >.>

    Besides it is legal for a man to be married to an underaged girl and have sexual relations with her in the USA. It is only statutory rape if there is no marriage.

    Also, if she had killed a person everyone would have been up in arms saying she was old enough to know not to kill and be placing her in jail. It is a double standard and ridiculous.
    If she was 8 years old would you still insist on your reasoning? The 8-year old can also make a choice.
    Although people do not automatically turn mature at the age of 18, they do gradually mature over the adolescent period. To simplify matter we have to set a date somewhere to signify transition status. Some country sets it at 20, some at 18.
    If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism
    -Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    your statement is based in the bias that people who are less intelligent are inferior
    Not at all. I'm saying it is silly to pretend rational control over gut instincts or arbitrary societal norms. Sillier yet to pretend morals might have a rational origin: "I shall pet the dog because I reason this the best action". Heh. The bible commands you, i_feel_tiredsleepy, to pet dogs. Obey! My ridicule is for those who put their heads before their hearts in all matters.

    Example: "lying which would cause harm, or cheating a person of their money would fall under the category of exploitation and limiting a person's freedom." You're telling us something is wrong because of how it fits an ethical/legal system. No. It's wrong because we're wired to feel it's wrong, AKA "it's wrong because it just is". E.g. lying, as any blushing 3-year-old knows well enough. You may go on to examine why we're wired a certain way, a far more fruitful endeavor than pretending there is any intelligent design to our morals.

    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    for said "dullard" to live a moral life, people would first have to define what it is to be moral before such a statement could be said.
    Somebody had better explain to those geese what south is, and why they ought to fly that way. Or are you proposing that at this stage in the thread I can't say "moral life" without defining "moral"? Come on you know what I mean.

    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    the capability of one group or another to live morally was never being debated and has nothing to do with the arguments being made in this thread.
    Sure. And I'm not accusing either side in this debate of immorality, despite their best attempts to reinvent morality on their own terms.

    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    Nonsense masquerading as profundity
    You didn't get it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    pong gnipped:

    Sillier yet to pretend morals might have a rational origin: "I shall pet the dog because I reason this the best action". Heh. The bible commands you, i_feel_tiredsleepy, to pet dogs. Obey!
    This is absolute drivel. Whether one pets a dog is not a moral issue in any moral system with which I am familiar. Nor is there any place in the Bible where dog petting is even discussed. If you wish to object to conduct proscribed by the Bible, the least you could do is select conduct which is actually proscribed.

    pong also gnopped:

    And I'm not accusing either side in this debate of immorality,
    Well, this is a wise decision since it is not clear that you have any idea what morality or immorality actually is. Get real. Geece going north and petting dogs are hardly issues of morality. Going south and petting in the back seat probably are issues of morality.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    This is absolute drivel... Geece going north and petting dogs are hardly issues of morality.
    Okay fine. Corrected:

    Sillier yet to pretend morals might have a rational origin: "I shall love and cherish my husband and only my husband because I reason this the best action".

    Or "because God commands me to".


    I don't want this debate sidetracked by the zesty issue of spousal infidelity, as it was by statutory rape. Why I used less explosive examples, which would have served well enough.


    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    If you wish to object to conduct proscribed by the Bible, the least you could do is select conduct which is actually proscribed.
    I've already said the Bible is a catalog of redundant assertions i.e. my (heathen) reaction to most Christian teaching is, "Well duh. What kind of idiot needs to be told that?"

    On the other hand, I've also said that atheists generally suppose morality springs not from God but some rational system, ideally of their own personal design e.g. relativism. My (incredulous) reaction to that is, "Right. Let's see it in practice."

    In my opinion both these groups attempt to claim, mystify, and abstract morality. They fight over it. That would look awfully silly if morality were firmly embedded in all parties anyway, 99% alike, and disobedient to each possessing it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    On the other hand, I've also said that atheists generally suppose morality springs not from God but some rational system, ideally of their own personal design e.g. relativism. My (incredulous) reaction to that is, "Right. Let's see it in practice."
    There's no conscious deed without benefit. Altruism occurs because we always have something to gain by being good. It can be respect within a group, reputation etc. You can see altruistic behaviour in nature as well, not only with humans. You can do your own research if you like.

    It's all about the survival of the genes :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    There's no conscious deed without benefit. Altruism occurs because we always have something to gain by being good.
    I agree, but think one might get carried away on that line. We're far from perfect and so often do not realize benefits. Nor does altruism hit the mark with any certainty. The reality is shabby.
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    You can see altruistic behaviour in nature as well
    Why the most unsophisticated, heathen dullard can lead a moral life.
    *pets dog*
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    It's all about the survival of the genes :wink:
    Right.. Let's see it in practice. :wink: You know what you have to do. Or what?

    That's a real challenge BTW. See how we can separate what's true, what's right, and what's actionable? In this thread, we seek what's right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    pong said:

    I've already said the Bible is a catalog of redundant assertions i.e. my (heathen) reaction to most Christian teaching is, "Well duh. What kind of idiot needs to be told that?"
    I believe I said something similar to this before you entered the conversation. I said the Bible did not "establish" a social moral code. That is, it was wrong to murder before the 10 Commandments were carved in stone.


    Rather, the Bible expresses a code of morality to which God is going to hold us accountable. There are moral issues of our day which are not discussed in the Bible while there are moral issues discussed in the Bible which are addressed no place else. (I am speaking here of standards related to social interaction rather than religious observations.)

    When people come up with "their own" morality, which most atheists here claim to have done, what is the source of that morality? Is the source of this morality derived from experience or from observation of the conduct of others or from some instinct?

    After determining a moral standard, the next step is accountablility under that moral standard. If there is no legal standard relating a morality issue what are the consequences of violating that morality issue? It does no good to have a moral standard if people are not going to follow it consistently.

    Let's look at one of the controversials such as abortion. Even though abortion is legal, it is not universally considered moral. So if the person who feels it is immoral goes ahead and obtains an abortion anyway, what are the consequences of such an act? Those who believe this act is a violation of God's laws would suggest that God will, in some way, be involved in consequences which are not meted out under a human legal system. It is possible that the threat of Godly sanctions may be an inhibition to some just as the legal system is an inhibition on other matters.

    Abortion, while controversial, is a rather graphic arena to express this idea of Godly sanction v. legal sanction.

    But what of other types of behaviors which are not illegal, but may be considered by some to be immoral. What about lying or misrepresenting in a way that is not legally punishable but does in some way benefit the liar at the expense of another? What is to keep people from doing such things? About the only inhibition in this instance is one's conscience, an inner sense of fairness and of doing the right thing.

    What if a business man says he will do a,b,c for you but c is not written into a contract and he does only a and b while omitting c? You have no legal recourse since a written contract is deemed to cover all the terms of a deal.

    Or, what if a person running for political office promises to accomplishk, l, and m but once in office actually works on r, s and t instead? We can, of course, vote that person out next time, but in the interim and maybe for years to come we are stuck with the consequence of his misrepresentation.

    There are those who think that people who believe they are responsible to a higher power are less likely to engauge in such practices.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    If she was 8 years old would you still insist on your reasoning? The 8-year old can also make a choice.
    Although people do not automatically turn mature at the age of 18, they do gradually mature over the adolescent period. To simplify matter we have to set a date somewhere to signify transition status. Some country sets it at 20, some at 18.
    An 8 year old would generally be considered incapable of making consenting sexual decissions since an 8 year old would generally be unable to be sexually attracted to an individual. Moreover, the concept of forbidding sexual relations between adults and adolescents is a relatively new concept, the legal status for the barrier between pedophilia and statutory rape is set at 14-16 in most places because those are ages where the vast majority of people will then be assumed to have become sexually capable. There is a reason why society makes a distinction between pedophilia and statutory rape, and that is because adolescents are capable of consenting sexual relations.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    the Bible did not "establish" a social moral code.
    Cool. You know, I assumed Christians mystify morality as one of God's constructs. But their free will problem should have tipped me off otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    When people come up with "their own" morality, which most atheists here claim to have done, what is the source of that morality? Is the source of this morality derived from experience or from observation of the conduct of others or from some instinct?
    All of the above?

    Suffer this analogy: diet. When people come up with their own diet, what's the source of their recipe? They must have had some working diet in place already. That's partly cultural, but the overwhelming bulk is shared by everyone. We overlook the essential universality of human diet for three reasons similar to our problem with morals, I'll list: One, most of diet is unconscious or taken for granted. For example we all require the same proportions of salt and water, within a narrow range, and regulate that unaware. When people think of "diet", they may overlook this and a thousand other boring aspects of nutrition. Two, we get hung up on the small differences. Those seem to fill the whole picture. I can't eat this soup it has cilantro leaves - in fact I hate Mexican food because I hate cilantro. Three, we are vain, we like to think we're in control of our diets. In fact, nobody has control over metabolic needs, and everybody works with what's available. We make a big noise over minor tweeks.

    Suppose in all cultures, there is an ocean of unaccounted morality we all share. And we don't call these morals, because they're not debatable or even consciously examined. There's no issue to think about. You could say someone is roughly "nice" or "creepy", everybody knows, it just isn't examined.

    I do mean morality is a sloppy and banal thing. It's organic - naturally it is! Not lofty and embodying ideals - pulpy and covered in growths rather.

    When people come up with "their own" morality, they're likely to overlook the banal. Gut morality. It isn't worthy. However it's a stubborn mass, that nags some movable, superficial issues like abortion. I think that people spend a lot of time really trying to patch over the nags, like adding pepper and loud garnish over a badly prepared dish. Our usual debate issues are that distracting garnish.

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    It does no good to have a moral standard if people are not going to follow it consistently.
    If the standard really just addresses those few areas where people disagree, i.e. precisely where we think they need correcting, then of course they'll resist. That's asking for a fight.

    If it fails to mesh with the lousy truth of how we are, there will be contradictions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •