So In the US Catholics Charities are forced to end foster care on "moral" grounds

[JemyM]

You threw it out as evidence that "atheist Sweden" is somehow pacifist strictly because it is atheist (to somehow prove that pacifism cannot be religiously induced) and then turn around and admit that your statement itself is crap. Doesn't say much for your argument when you discount your own supporting evidence, now does it.

If you're admitting your statement was crap, you knowingly threw out a red herring. Poor form for someone so quick to break out that tremendously impressive logical fallacy handbook. Kinda saws the legs right off your high horse, doncha think?

No. I mentioned that religion is not essential for a pacifist stance, it is possible for a nonreligious culture to be pacifist.

 

[dteowner]

dte, he was showing that pacifism is not exclusive to religion. He was not trying to show that pacifism cannot be induced religiously.

Given that the "evidence" is wholly inaccurate, I'm not sure he's showing much of anything other than a tendency to commit the same logical fallacies he'll gleefully hound others for. Exactly what he purported to prove is incidental.

 

[JemyM]

Given that the "evidence" is wholly inaccurate, I'm not sure he's showing much of anything other than a tendency to commit the same logical fallacies he'll gleefully hound others for. Exactly what he purported to prove is incidental.

I have to confess that I both fail to get your point, and how it's related to the original question.

 

[dteowner]

I said, name a good moral action that can only be credited to religion. There is a crux to that demand, because pretty much every good action is also reasonable which allow it to stand on it's own legs, and allow people regardless of religious affiliation to be convinced by it's benefits.

Did I mention that Sweden is one of the least religious nations in the world? It's also one who haven't been in war since 1814.

I have to confess that I both fail to get your point, and how it's related to the original question.

Evidently, you thought the comment about Sweden was relevant and supported your argument. Whatever you're arguing is completely irrelevant to the problem-- that your evidence is a tremendous misrepresentation of the situation. A misrepresentation that has been repeatedly brought to your attention, I might add. A misrepresentation that you appear to acknowledge a couple posts later, for that matter.

Ergo rex ipso bullshitium, either your argument is so flimsy that you have to knowingly throw out blatant misrepresentations to make it fly, or you're knowingly guilty of a logical fallacy. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt on the "either", which then leaves us with the "or", meaning you've got absolutely no justification for being so smug while screaming about the logical fallacies of others.

To quote a rather wise former co-worker of mine, "You can be the biggest prick in the building...as long as you're always right." Unfortunately for you in this case, there's hell-with-interest to pay if you screw up.

 

[redman5427]

* "All Catholics are mentally and emotional unstable"
* "All Catholic priests are pedophiles"

This is what you quoted, not me. I just didn't use 25 paragraphs to sum it up. So, you called me mentally unstable. That's what I saw. You don't even know me. I tried to state that you would be better off answering the opening post, but you chose to keep lashing out. Words wound and if I called you mentally unstable you would have been insulted too. What you are doing is no different then calling Afro-Americans stupid, Mexicans lazy or all Italians are mobsters. By your own standards, you know you simply have no data to back these two statements up.

In the mean time, whats important like helping these children is forgotton. It's easy to sit and debate endlessly cause that is all you're doing. The people I look up to are the ones that are volunteering to help in shelters,soup kitchens,clothing distribution and especially the foster care system. Surprisingly enough, most of these are by religious organizations. Compassion is important not nitpicking about what someone said two thousand years ago. Trying to literally interpret the Bible is a waste of time, that's why you have these fools on top of their rooftops every 30 years or so, waiting to be taken. If you have free time, go and volunteer. That's where you will meet God. In the people you work with and the people you help.

 

[JemyM]

This is what you quoted, not me. I just didn't use 25 paragraphs to sum it up. So, you called me mentally unstable.

If you are referring to sexual neurosis it's a state involving distress but not delusion nor hallucination which means it isn't outside socially acceptable norms.

That's what I saw. You don't even know me. I tried to state that you would be better off answering the opening post, but you chose to keep lashing out. Words wound and if I called you mentally unstable you would have been insulted too.

Not really. I know myself very well, especially my weaknesses. By accepting who I am and my weaknesses it's near impossible to make me insulted or offended.

Also, I have been commenting on Catholicism. It's not my fault you both identify yourself with that label and feel personally adressed when I do so.

What you are doing is no different then calling Afro-Americans stupid, Mexicans lazy or all Italians are mobsters. By your own standards, you know you simply have no data to back these two statements up.

We talked about this earlier in the thread and I mentioned this behavior and I told there are those out there who do what you just did.

Please do not portray yourself as a race or an ethnicity. Your ideology may change tomorrow, I am an exchristian myself. Neither you or I can never change our origins or our skin. In a democracy any ideabased structure should be prepare to answer to criticism to it's ideas and the issues they might cause.

In the mean time, whats important like helping these children is forgotton. It's easy to sit and debate endlessly cause that is all you're doing.
The people I look up to are the ones that are volunteering to help in shelters,soup kitchens,clothing distribution and especially the foster care system. Surprisingly enough, most of these are by religious organizations. Compassion is important not nitpicking about what someone said two thousand years ago. Trying to literally interpret the Bible is a waste of time, that's why you have these fools on top of their rooftops every 30 years or so, waiting to be taken. If you have free time, go and volunteer. That's where you will meet God. In the people you work with and the people you help.

Doing good, helping people, is it's own reward for me. The promotion of doing good just to get praisal from powerful forces belittle us altruists.

I am debating people in my spare time between study sessions. As a 29 year old I decided to dedicate my life to help people and the best way to do so would be to get an education in the subjects that would directly help me to understand humanity, then apply that knowledge to society around me in order to solve issues and improve the world. I have studied non stop for four years and I have at least three to go.

And I did all of that after I understood that theism was misleading.

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

Always amazes me that people will maintain their faith even when it actively hurts vulnerable innocents, and often will still take the moral high ground and defend their faith as a positive force.

Out of interest, did any of you religious types see the story about the English bed & breakfast owning Christian who got fined for refusing to let a gay couple stay in the same room?

Personally I'm happy that our government is pressing on with a socially progressive agenda regardless of any religious hissy fits.

Corwin what do you think of this one. I suppose it depends if they live there or not. What right does the government have in telling what people a business they can and cant serve? Consistencey is the key however. If they let poeple in with a record of assault then they should let these people in.

 

[peko]

Corwin what do you think of this one. I suppose it depends if they live there or not. What right does the government have in telling what people a business they can and cant serve?

Most western countries have laws that saw that you can't discriminate against people on the basis of sexuality, this is a blatant violation of such laws. Would you say that businesses have the right to not serve, say arabs just because the owners don't like them?

Consistencey is the key however. If they let poeple in with a record of assault then they should let these people in.

So you'd like to equate homosexuals with violent felons? Good going with consistency there champ.

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

Most western countries have laws that saw that you can't discriminate against people on the basis of sexuality, this is a blatant violation of such laws. Would you say that businesses have the right to not serve, say arabs just because the owners don't like them?

Maybe. It is their business?

EDIT: And arabs have a right not to serve christians or whatever.

So you'd like to equate homosexuals with violent felons? Good going with consistency there champ.

In the religious eye they both do evil. There is no lesser evil or greater evil.

 

[Captain Buzzkill]

The point wasn't that atheism makes a better nation... ...Many types of communities can offer the very same thing.

And what I've been saying since you brought it up is that you enjoy certain cultural, economic, and demographic advantages that make your situation wholly unique; that make atheism and secular humanism as a form of state "religion" seem like a really good idea. But you can't "plug" that kind of thinking into every culture, and expect it to turn out as well as it did in your country. It's like trying to spread democracy by "injecting" it into other cultures. It has nothing to do with people's cognitive capacity, or their ability to reason, and everything to do with respecting the way that their culture evolved. Japan also has a very low overall crime rate, with a much higher population than Sweden, much smaller space and resources, and a very high level of religiosity and spirituality. The reason for their low crime rate has nothing to do with religion, but because they share many similarities with Sweden as far as cultural diversity, immigration, and industrialization are concerned. Going back to your own country; you still have police, you still have some guns, I'm sure, and you still have crime. There's still violence, murder, hate, rape, racism, homophobia, and xenophobia. I would be willing to wager that if we introduced a surging immigrant population, diverse ethnic groups that are segregated - some into slums and ghettos, a ballooning elderly population (immigrants and the elderly being a particularly harsh drain on a slow moving socialist economic model), and a much wider gap between the rich and poor, your overall crime rates would skyrocket, and you could still be 85% atheist. Cultural and societal dysfunction has everything to do with humanity, and stripping religion out of the equation will change nothing: humans will always cling to tradition, even if it's non-religiously enforced, they will always be resistant to change, and they will always fear what they do not know. Case in point: Andrew Wakefield's 1998 autism/MMR tripleshot study - now retracted by the Lancet. His original conclusion was not to reject vaccination, but to split the shot into its original 3 components. Through irresponsible media filtration, dissemination, and interpretation hundreds of thousands of people have convinced themselves not to vaccinate their children, and look what's happening with measles cases in Europe. Where was God in that mess? You point to the Bible as a collection of contradictory stories and barbaric ideas, and I would say that you could say the same thing about the internet - borne of the noble idea that information should be freely disseminated and available to anyone who would like to access it. Sexual neuroses are just as heavily influenced by media that objectifies and hypersexualizes women, and oversimplifies sex and how it can affect us physically and emotionally.

Hector Avalos have given a good theory on why conflicts happen due to religion for reasons... ... even if they do not exist is so important for those who been taught it's important, that they are willing to kill and commit genocide for them.

Truth be told, I have no idea what you're driving at. Utilizing the Holy Land is an entirely inappropriate model in this case, because the religious component of the struggle has been manufactured and refined over the decades by the two competing cultures, as well as the uninformed opinion of the rest of the world. The conflict in the Holy Land has to do with the fact that millions of Palestinians were unjustly displaced, and then their perfectly understandable complaints were ignored. You seem to forget that Jews and Muslims coexisted peacefully for some time several hundred years ago.

So religion is beneficial to a place that is less fortunate than Sweden?

That is an ethnocentric line of thought. It is rooted in the idea that places not as developed as Sweden do not have the same differences of opinions as we do. Let me take middle-east as an example... ...It might take a generation or more to build it, but the first thing that needs to happen is that the people begin to work on goals that are as realistic as possible. What's going on in the muslim world today actually mirrors what happened throughout Europe in the 19th and 20th century.

It's not ethnocentrism; it's cultural sensitivity. Nothing I said in my post made any mention of anyone's cognitive capacity. It's the availability of a safe, quality education that I'm talking about. In some more moderate Islamic societies, the women's suffrage movement is alive and well, but in other places, it is not. In some cultures, Muslim women are little more than property (I know, I spent 21 months in such a culture), and when you're that low on Maslow's hierarchy, the scant protections offered by religious law, and there are some, are better than taking the exact same culture, at the exact same level of development, and simply erasing any notion of religion. Eventually, I hope, they will reach the level of more moderate cultures, but even in those, the women don't want to give up their religion. Many of them love their religion, they just hate the way it's been twisted to subjugate them. Your ethnocentrism is revealed in the idea that you think they want exactly what 20th century nordic women wanted.

I said, name a good moral action that can only be credited to religion.
There is a crux to that demand, because pretty much every good action is also reasonable which allow it to stand on it's own legs, and allow people regardless of religious affiliation to be convinced by it's benefits.

Pacifism is neither unique to religion, neither can it be said that religions tend to lead to pacifism.

You are confusing moderate pacifism with my definition of true pacifism, or the conviction to do no violence, even in the defense of your own, or another's life. It is morally superior in the same way that you claim atheism to be morally superior - if everybody adhered to the tenet to do no violence whatsoever, there should never be any violence. If everybody adhered to the tenets of objectivity, reason, and empirical science, then there should be no inequality, racism, homophobia, xenophobia, or rape, within societal norms (there are always going to be individuals with neurological or psychiatric problems). True pacifism flies in the face of every natural urge and rational thought, and it can only be reinforced by religious conviction that your life does not end with your death.


*********DIFFERENT POST

Seeing an action as essentially good is often necessary for good people to commit great evil... ...This is also why unconditional forgiveness is unethical. Conditional forgiveness is a much better standard to have.

I would like to know your definition of unconditional forgiveness, and why you think it's unethical. My interpretation is that it is unconditional, concerning the offense that was committed, not as it pertains to holding someone accountable for what they did. Someone who commits a crime, even a heinous one, can and should be rehabilitated to the best of our ability, because that is the right and reasonable thing to do, as draining resources on unnecessary incarceration is illogical. It also states that, no matter what someone has done in the past, as long as they are truly reformed, they are fully re-integrated into society, with all the rights of any other human being. It simply means that, no matter what you do, if you correct yourself - your thinking and behavior - you should never be treated differently than anyone else. It also means that you should never forfeit the opportunity to rehabilitation, as long as it's possible to do so. Obviously, people with personality disorders that cannot be effectively treated are special cases that require a great deal more conversation.

Did I mention that Sweden is one of the least religious nations in the world? It's also one who haven't been in war since 1814.

Neither has Portugal, and they identify as 85% Catholic. Your point is?

There are an equal amount of Bible passages that nullify those pacifist standards, passages that have been used and is still used today... ...In the southern USA, "people who stand by the sword will die by the sword" might be substituted with "do not think I have came with peace, but with a sword".

Your representation of the American South is sorely misinformed. The South is one of the most generous, hospitable, helpful, kind, polite, and laid-back areas in the country, and it is also highly religious. Yes, there are bigoted, uninformed, and uncivil people there, but no more than in the New York City metro area, and possibly much much less. Regarding the Bible, I believe the quote from Jesus was “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” There was no stipulation that your neighbors had to be white, or Catholic, or straight, or American. While I can understand the atheist perspective that you can get rid of the first and just live by the second, I fail to see how the two together have lesser moral quality.

There's quite a lot of research done on students and religiosity. It tend to go down, interpretions change and students become more liberal the higher up in their education they go. I am running out of time for reading on my next exam on saturday though so I do not have the time to find some research for you now.

Perhaps I have to wait until after Saturday, which is understandable - I also am a student, but am on break, so I have much much more time than I used to. That being said, nothing you have presented so far backs up your claim that someone with a religious identity and a background in scientific thought and method only pays lip-service to his religion. Perhaps people lose their religion because they see it as too rigid to be compatible with their scientific world, and perhaps some people retain their religious identity and find ways to reconcile it with the scientific method. That's not paying lip service. That's adaptation.

Within social psychology there's a theory that... ...So yeah, there are some scientific evidence that beeing a freethinker who uses the scientific method is actually a way to be happy more often than not.

IF free thinking was the only metric for measuring happiness, then yes, you'd be right. Happiness is measured in a multitude of ways, and is a purely subjective emotion. It is entirely possible that someone with an unshakable faith in an intelligent creator and life after death could be a great deal happier than you.

Finally my definition of Good/Evil should be seen as a theory of behavior... ...It might have been religous had I not thought about it at all and if I was just passing on someone elses thoughts without critically examining them first.

Fair enough. I simply cringe whenever anybody introduces binary and emotionally provocative terms, since they have the opportunity to be misinterpreted to the point that discourse is impossible before it even starts. It is a failing that I see in secular humanism - the disdain for religious tradition does the movement no good, and one could argue that it goes against reason, since the goal would be to open everyone's mind to the possibility of a world where God is not necessary for goodness. If people are insulted and defensive before the case can be made, how can the movement succeed? Maybe it's the inexorable march of science and reason, and the hypocrisy of the world's religions that continues to drive people into the realm of secular humanism, but with the multitude of religions, and the length they've been around, I honestly don't think that there's the slightest chance of abolishing faith and religion entirely. That's why, if there's no discourse now, there should be, otherwise both sides wind up looking rather like petulant children.

As it is, I can't see any way that we are going to resolve our impasse. I'm simply going to say good luck with your exam, it was nice chatting with you. I eagerly wait your reply, but as far as my participation goes, I think I have to lay this thread to rest.

 

[Pladio]

Damian, I'm very happy you're not in government....
Ideas like that mean that black people will not be allowed to go places, Sri Lankans will not be allowed to have jobs, Chinese people will not be able to go to university and so on.

This is clearly not a place I want to live in.
There is enough discrimination in this world. You don't need to add to it !

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

You mean x wont be able to do y from certain people. Obviously others will take what others discriminate against for their benefit.

I am simply saying if you arent welcome in one place why not go to a place you are welcome in? If an employer is uncomfortable with peopel of a certain ethnicity, race, sex or sexuality, shoudlnt it be their right not to employ those people? A good workign environment should be people who you are happy to deal work with.

 

[Pladio]

No, that's not the way it should be. The way it should be is for everyone to accept everyone as long as they're not hurting you.

And no, others will not take what others discriminate against if discrimination is seen as a good thing. People will learn to hate people which in turn will lead to more discrimination and violence and so on.

How would you justify not letting people with very good skills having to move out of a city to live somewhere else because people are not letting them do they are skilled in?

A good working environment should be with people you are happy working with, not because of their race, religion, beliefs and so on but because you are good working with them !

If an employer is uncomfortable hiring someone due to their looks or due to their religion or non-religion then that employer should be shutting down its business. The employer should decide if the person he is hiring is skillful enough and if the person would bring profit to his business.

You should read more about what happened in South-Africa during the Apartheid or how it was in the Us for black people before they fought for their rights. You should read up on how Jews were treated pre-1940's in Germany. You should read up on a lot of material that shows how discrimination is one of the worst things ever in this world.

I hope you do realize you're defending some of the worst actions right now while at the same time you're saying all bad acts are equally bad.
You're defending the fact that someone should be able to not let people into their restaurants, houses, toilets, shops.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQy0dtR7WDTcCpcBnuBMGr8lJMT434KslYVd7r__PQgEs9R_QxA
http://www.holocaustresearchproject...trikau not allowed to use this pavment cr.jpg
"Jews forbidden to use this pavement"

Really, you don't see anything wrong here ?

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

That is a lot of food for thought. A few quick thoughts however.

The first picture i dont have a problem with. The second one i do because it puts the jews in danger as they must be on the road at all times.

I woudlnt mind if a persons discriminated against me on account of my race or religion, i would simply find somewhere else for my business. If worse comes to worse i would leave the country.

But i can see your point. If people discriminated against say black people and found that people who do have had less harm come to them then they might see discrimination as good. So i will think about this a little more.

 

[Pladio]

Ok, I'm happy you're at least thinking about it.

Let me make you think some more. Let's go with the second picture then.
It says : Public premises reserved for white persons.

So if you're ok with that and the blacks should not be given jobs because they're black, how do you think those people will be able to leave the country. Being black does not allow them to do many things, so unless they go to a country which allows asylum seekers in the person is now doomed to a life of eternal failure in a country that does not allow him to find a job, go to public toilets, go to restaurants (which he wouldn't be able to afford anyway, since he won't be given a job), go to the cinema.

You think leaving a country is so easy ? Most people are not given visas to go to another country, especially if you come from a country that has many problems.

So if I'm in imaginary country Fantasia, where white people rule, I'm white and you're Sri Lankan (I'm assuming you're darker skinned, because all Sri Lankans I know are, but if not then let's say you're Christian and I'm from the Church of Fantasia). You are not allowed to get a passport and/or visa to travel abroad. The only jobs you are allowed to do is garbage cleaner and even then, your working hours are 14 hours a day and you get paid less than I do, which is being your supervisor. All I need to do is check up on you 15 minutes every hour. I get paid 5 times more, I can go to restaurants, public toilets and I'm allowed to travel.

That's what you're saying you're ok with.

If you ever wanted to leave, you would have to start your life over in a new country, which for all you know might be worse than Fantasia. Not only will it be a long and hard journey to get somewhere, but you'll be left with nothing. It would take several years before the country you go to accepts you as an asylum seeker and that is only if they accept it all and do not deport you back.

Yup, I'm very happy to live in Western European countries, where I do not have to go through this kind of discrimination and where there are many measures against such things.


Extra :
http://www.holocaustresearchproject...it on special benches away from non-Jews..jpg
"Bench for Jews only"

You're ok with the above then ? It poses no danger, right ?

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

Fair enough. BTW what is wrong with that bench?

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

Er, my previous post was a tad short. I was in a rush. I think in the case of the bed and breakfast they had no right to judge now i thought about it more as i doubt harm would come to anyone. But in the case of the catholic suspending services they honestly thoguth it would "harm" the children so they did what was right in the best interest of the children.

 

[Corwin]

Buzz, you wrote this: The conflict in the Holy Land has to do with the fact that millions of Palestinians were unjustly displaced, and then their perfectly understandable complaints were ignored.

Sorry, but despite what the popular media says, this is TOTALLY INCORRECT. I don't have the time to give you a detailed history lesson, but please do a little research and you'll see the fallacy of this statement. Try to talk to some Jews who have been/lived there and your eyes might get opened. I did, and mine were!!

 

[blatantninja]

They are both equally to blame. It's hard to blame a people for freaking out when boatloads of refugees of what had been a minority faith showed up after WWII. It's understandable that many of them didn't agree with suddenly finding themselves inside a Jewish state.

It's also hard to blame a people that have been so persecuted for wanting a small strip of land, that was largely barren, for their own and being willing to fight for this nation. It's also hard to blame them for their actions when they have been under constant attack of one manner or another since 1948.

However, none of those statements excuse the way the Israelis have treated Palestinians over their nation's existence, in particular the seizure of land and expansion of settlements in the occupied territories. It is also inexcusable that the terrorism that Palestinians have inflicted on Israel.

It's really said, as I view most of the problems as coming from the leadership and fringe elements on both sides. I've known Palestinians and Israelis and it seems, like most places, the average people could get along just fine.

 

[Pladio]

Fair enough. BTW what is wrong with that bench?

There were benches for Jews only. Jews could not sit on any other bench in that park but that one. Sitting on any of the ones could result in fines or later physical embarrassment or harm.