Re: War On Religion

Post #13,958 by addison 10/18/01 10:33:47 AM Reply	Re: War On Religion If there were no religions, there'd be few moral problems...which is the problem, there would be damn few morals. Uh, no. Even the secular humanists got most of their morals from religions. No. In order to discuss this, you'll have to step out of a religious mind-set, I think. Most religions do have some morals inherent in their belief system - but that's because its the way to pass things from generation to generation before there's the ways we presume there are today. So you see cultural morals wind their way into religions, and in many cases, get perverted/missed in translation. Most of the "Morals" you're discussing are suggestions for decisions that factor in long-range views, rather than short range views. There are several problems with defining morality via religion. First, religions presume (by definition) that they've got a/some divine insight. Thus, things are sanctioned. Secondly, most religions have very conflicting/contradicting documentation, even before you get to hairsplitting. (contrast murder with self-defense, or killing in war). Add to that what you do with someone who translates/interprets things differently, MUCH LESS another religion entirely - how do you choose morality between them? When the choice is mutually exclusive, and one is heresy to the other? If there were no religion to hide behind, these same religious fanatics would simply find some other convenient -isms to hide behind. Yes. But lack of religion doesn't mean lack of morals. Many of the hard-core believers who know me, and find that I have no religion are shocked, and I've often been told that I'm one of the most moral people they know. I'm "moral" because its a better way to be, its far more benefital in the long term. I don't need to be told that a divine being wants me to be that way, to do it. I've got about 3 pounds of grey matter between my ears. Its my intent to use it. Parrotting what someone tells me that someone else said that someone interpreted that (at some point) a divine being laid down doesn't require brains. (Interpreting it in the real world does, I suppose.) If someone tells me something, I want to think about how much sense does it make, today, for me, versus everything else. I've got no problem eating meat on Friday. Or eating pork. Or shellfish. Because the moral imperitives that have set those aside in religion don't, in my opinion, apply to me, in the context of my life. Addison
Post #13,959 by Arkadiy 10/18/01 10:49:30 AM Reply	You must be an exception... The longest term _most_ humans are capable of imagining is 80-90 years nowadays - the span of human life. As to acting on that "long" term interests - forget it. "If I can get away with it now - I will certainly try." I wonder where that exception of yours comes from...
Post #13,962 by addison 10/18/01 11:02:48 AM Reply	Not really. The longest term _most_ humans are capable of imagining is 80-90 years nowadays - the span of human life. Check into Japanese history for some counters to that. They have a culture that is much more longer oriented than we are. Actually, the biggest problem is - children. Those with children must provide for them, so the time frame shifts to more immediate concerns. We are very short-sighted. But look at the hatred between clans in the middle east, in Bosnia.. hatreds that go back to before anybody in them now was alive. Hell, in Serbia/Bosnia, etc. almost everybody alive was forced to get along with, so there weren't any ability to really hate anybody, other than orally, for 50 years - so all of the soldiers and such fighting in the war never knew why they were doing it. People do think short term. If you're hungry, and have no food, you're not inclined to think about the long term. Its easier if you have food, and can remove some of the worries, then you can worry more long-term. That doesn't mean nobody can - just many don't. But there is a difference between can and can't. I'm not sure what exception you're referring to. Addison
Post #13,964 by Arkadiy 10/18/01 11:12:38 AM 10/18/01 11:13:26 AM Reply	Re: Not really. Could you tell me more about Japanese culture before I go off on the search of my own? Are we talking sages and rulers or plain people? As to the children... I've seem some people who don't care about them.Many others only comsider themselves reponcible for children up to a point. In any case, even with children, "if I can get away with it and send them to a better college so that they can get away with even more crap - perfect!" The other example you give... If I understand you correctly, you think that one does not need a long term view into the future benefits/problem is a basis for morale. What does it have to do with a long memory of past hatred? Homo Sapiens is always ready to hate, with or without past for an excuse. How does that bear on the origins of morality? Oops, forgot to mention this again. I wonder where your long-term views come from. Edited by Arkadiy Oct. 18, 2001, 11:13:26 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #13,966 by addison 10/18/01 11:22:31 AM Reply	Not an expert. I'd suspect Inthane probably has a lot more to say about that than I do, for instance. But traditionally, the Japanese culture is very forward-looking. People start projects that they won't be able to finish. People maintain things the way they always have been, and the next generation is assumed to take up the task when they're finished. Are we talking sages and rulers or plain people? As I understand it, the culture, the people. As to the children... I've seem some people who don't care about them. I think that's a more modern issue. Yes, some people do, but in general, when you have kids, you provide for them. For instance, I have no kids. I could go do just about anything, without real regard for anybody else... Quit my job and move to alaska and sell deep freezes. But if I have a kid, then that's not as feasible... because I've got to feed/clothe/provide for the kid.. Its a more immediate concern.. and as you might note - kids have VERY Short Term Outlooks. :) you think that one does not need a long term view into the future benefits/problem is a basis for morale. I think you have that backward. One does need a long term view for morals. That's what I was saying. If you look at things in the Long Term, then you say "I need to turn the other cheek". "Killing people to get their stuff is bad". For some examples. Homo Sapiens is always ready to hate, with or without past for an excuse. How does that bear on the origins of morality? That's not true. Hate is passed down. Children know nothing of hate. What's that song.. "Watermelon Wine?".. "Bless the children, for they're too young to hate"? Something like that. Hate has to be explained. And then the converse is also evident - "If we go over and knock them over the head, they'll come over here and knock US over the head, and then we gotta go back over there and....." "What happens if we just say we're sorry, and we won't do it anymore? Then we all can get along, and go get food, rather than worrying about each other?" Hate does require an excuse. Try and find someone who hates who does so without an ostensible reason. They always have one, don't they? No matter how silly. That's what I was saying - morals are _fairly_ consistant across the world, no matter the religion. Religions are more derived from morals, than the other way around. Addison
Post #13,968 by Arkadiy 10/18/01 11:47:52 AM Reply	Re: Not an expert. >>>>>>> But traditionally, the Japanese culture is very forward-looking. People start projects that they won't be able to finish. People maintain things the way they always have been, and the next generation is assumed to take up the task when they're finished. <<<<<<< Don't you think the 2 sentences above are somewhat contradictory? Not all the way, just a little. I think you are mixing up good memory/tradition with forward-looking. Peole start things because it's what their fathers did, and just as they carry on the fathers' deeds, they hope that their sons will carry on their deeds. That is all good and well, but it applies to highway robbery as nicely as to temple buildings. I wonder if there are dynasties of highway robbers in Japan. >>>>>>>>>>> For instance, I have no kids. I could go do just about anything, without real regard for anybody else... Quit my job and move to alaska and sell deep freezes. But if I have a kid, then that's not as feasible... because I've got to feed/clothe/provide for the kid.. Its a more immediate concern.. and as you might note - kids have VERY Short Term Outlooks. :) <<<<<<<<<<< You are mixing practicality and morals. It's not practical for you to "move to Alaska and sell deep freezes". But there is nothing inherently amoral in it, even if you have kids. But you can also become a politician and sell "access" left and right. That will be far better as far as "providing" goes. It will also be immoral (I hope). Children usually (under our normal pampered Western circumstances) don't see anything worth hating till they are rather old (3 years? 4 years? 5 may be?). I think, as soon as there is something worth hating (in their opinion), kids know how to do it instinctively. >>>>>>>>>>>> you think that one does not need a long term view into the future benefits/problem is a basis for morale. I think you have that backward. One does need a long term view for morals. <<<<<<<<<<< I indeed do have that bacwards. I have no idea how this "not" crept in there :) >>>>>>>>>> Hate does require an excuse. Try and find someone who hates who does so without an ostensible reason. They always have one, don't they? No matter how silly. <<<<<<<<<< Indeed. No matter how silly. And the excuse does not have to be historical. That's all I am saying. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's what I was saying - morals are _fairly_ consistant across the world, no matter the religion. Religions are more derived from morals, than the other way around. <<<<<<<<<<<<<< Well, I am not saying that morals are derived from religions. I am saying something that is more risky: morals and religions both come from one source (guess what source I mean? 3 tries, first 2 don't count :) I am also saying that long memory is irrelevant to morals, and long-term perspective into future is unsufficient to explain them. The long-term incourages amoral actions just as it encourages moral ones. "If I keep opressing people just as hard as I am doing now, I'll go on doing it indefinitely, and I'll leave my kids a good business". "If I steal enough, no one will get at me, ever".
Post #13,971 by addison 10/18/01 12:43:21 PM Reply	Re: Not an expert. Don't you think the 2 sentences above are somewhat contradictory? Not all the way, just a little. Not without a contextual shift (that I'm unaware of). Peole start things because it's what their fathers did, and just as they carry on the fathers' deeds, they hope that their sons will carry on their deeds. That is all good and well, but it applies to highway robbery as nicely as to temple buildings. I wonder if there are dynasties of highway robbers in Japan. That's still planning for the future. The plan extends past a human lifespan. Why that's so, I would think, differs. Something that I know is a problem is spending - the Japanese save so much of their income that they don't spend as much as the government would like them to. They save, because of the long-range outlook. If I don't use it, my children will. Not saying its good or bad, merely that its an example of a culture that has/did value planning more than one lifetime. (And how it did that is another topic). You are mixing practicality and morals. It's not practical for you to "move to Alaska and sell deep freezes". But there is nothing inherently amoral in it, even if you have kids. Well, I wasn't trying to mix the two. I was comparing the ability to plan long-term, and that having children immediately forces more short-term focus. The morality of such wasn't my issue, just the example of short-term thnking versus long-term thinking, and how they relate to morals and how morals are shaped. Sometimes, for a counter, children result in longer focuses. I'm sure some readers here have college funds, or trust funds they expect their children to inherit. Sometimes people's morals are shaped by how their children will be affected. Well, I am not saying that morals are derived from religions. I am saying something that is more risky: morals and religions both come from one source (guess what source I mean? 3 tries, first 2 don't count :) Not sure what you mean. If you mean that its from a diety, then the evidence for that is rather against you - note the vast differences in morals around the world. I am also saying that long memory is irrelevant to morals, and long-term perspective into future is unsufficient to explain them. You'll have to elaborate on this. Morals are how people can coexist in a society. Without morals, you have anarchy. If you have anarchy, its not long before some semblance of morals starts to reexert itself - for self preservation. The long-term incourages amoral actions just as it encourages moral ones. "If I keep opressing people just as hard as I am doing now, I'll go on doing it indefinitely, and I'll leave my kids a good business". "If I steal enough, no one will get at me, ever". In your first example, it requires power in the first place. And you might note - power, the powerful, leaders, rulers, are among the most AMORAL of people. Because they can make decisions without (they think) ramifications. The concept of morality needs to get a footnote for that discussion, its another sort of problem. For the short discussion, you must be in control for oppression. And actually, if you look at how religion has been used to oppress people, keep them from rising up, you'll see that often the moral lessons are designed/changed/reinforced for people to submit and not change the system. Most monarchys are build on a concept of divine blood. That they are the anointed of (whatever) god. This is true for all the monarchies I can think of. England, France, Japan, China, and I think? the Aztec. Widely differing morals, in some ways, but very similar in others. And even in areas where there weren't hereditary (divinely inspired) monarchs, many of the same moral codes you find to be the same. Don't kill. Don't Steal. Why? Because those are concepts that allow people to have a society. If you have random killings, and everything you own is likely to be stolen, you don't have a society. (And notice the breakdown as some areas in the world become like that). Its those similiarities that keep coming up, that we can definately find in old civilizations, that the evidence points to in "prehistoric" humans, that they lived together, and had similar "morals" for co-existance. Addison
Post #13,984 by Arkadiy 10/18/01 1:33:23 PM Reply	Re: Not an expert. >>>>>>>> Don't you think the 2 sentences above are somewhat contradictory? Not all the way, just a little. Not without a contextual shift (that I'm unaware of). <<<<<<<<<< I meant, it's hard to be both forward-looking and and traditional at the same time. Not impossible, but hard. And harder for entire cultures than for specific persons. You keep trying to convince me that some people do indeed think farther ahead than others. I am not disputing that (although you'll have hard time convincing me that _most_ people think more than a few years in advance). I am just saying that such thinking may encurage all sorts of behaviors. It all depends on how bad or good (moral/amoral, for this discussion) the thinker is. Yes, I think we have been created (I think by a diety, you may think by evolution - a long discussion) with some sort of build-in moral compass. Now, you say: > "note the vast differences in morals around the world" and a bit later: > "Its those similiarities that keep coming up, > that we can definately find in old civilizations, > that the evidence points to in "prehistoric" humans, > that they lived together, and had similar "morals" > for co-existance." I agree with your second take. I just don't see how it follows that morals are just logical consequences from long-range predictions. Apparently, something like "don't kill, except in self-defence" and "don't steal from your neighbor" existed before the structure of society (that allows long-range preidctions) was formed. Apparently, you say that those sentiments were precondition for society. (btw, note that I don't say "don't kill", "don't steal". Those absolutes took time to form as people slowly included more and more "others" into the small circle of "neighbors") >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am also saying that long memory is irrelevant to morals, and long-term perspective into future is unsufficient to explain them. You'll have to elaborate on this. Morals are how people can coexist in a society. Without morals, you have anarchy. If you have anarchy, its not long before some semblance of morals starts to reexert itself - for self preservation. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Well, technically, we have anarchy w/o governement. Not without morals. And therein lies our difference. You seem to think that people's morals are formed by logical reasoning on consequences of their acts. That's law and order, that's what governement enforces. I think that really moral people do the right thing even if all consequences, long- or short-term are against it. And I can't explain their reasoning. (btw, governements often provide bad consequences for good deeds). >>>>>>>>>>>> For the short discussion, you must be in control for oppression. And actually, if you look at how religion has been used to oppress people, keep them from rising up, you'll see that often the moral lessons are designed/changed/reinforced for people to submit and not change the system. Most monarchys are build on a concept of divine blood. That they are the anointed of (whatever) god. This is true for all the monarchies I can think of. England, France, Japan, China, and I think? the Aztec. Widely differing morals, in some ways, but very similar in others. <<<<<<<<<<<< Again, technically speaking, monarchy is more an obligation to protect and defend God's world than "divine blood". If a monarch does not fulfill his duties, he will be stripped of his privileges by divine hand (see the end of Saul, and Chines history comes to mind too.) This notion is present very strongly in Christianity, and I suspect Confucianism as well. (mind you I am no expert at all). But, less technically speaking, I am not saying that religion produced morals. The fact that religion has been used for oppression (and, to be fair, for revolutions agains tirants as well) has no bearing on my argument. I am just saying that morals cannot be explained by logic alone (although they can be inforced or perverted that way). There is more to being moral than just long-range prognosis.
Post #13,992 by addison 10/18/01 2:02:30 PM Reply	Re: Not an expert. I meant, it's hard to be both forward-looking and and traditional at the same time. Not impossible, but hard. And harder for entire cultures than for specific persons. Aha. I see what you mean, now, hadn't thought of it like that. I don't, right this second, see a problem with a "tradition" of looking forward, but I see what you were objecting to. Well, technically, we have anarchy w/o governement. Not without morals. What? :) No, without common guidelines we have anarchy. We aren't required to have a government to have a society, or a shared moral code. Just in order to have a society we must agree on at least the rough outline of said moral code. Government is a way of mandating a moral code, but its not a requirement (on a small set of subjects. And therein lies our difference. You seem to think that people's morals are formed by logical reasoning on consequences of their acts. Not people as individuals. People in the context of cultures, and generations of them. I think you're presuming I mean individuals. And things change, shift. Oh.. Let me see how this will do for an example. Take women. (please!). Some parts of the world (China and India spring to mind as recent examples) do not afford the "protection" to women that our society does. (the obvious exceptions to it are immoral, by our societies standard). In parts of those cultures, it is "too expensive" to have women, so they are abandoned or killed at birth - or treated almost as livestock - in some cases valued less than livestock. Completely 180 from how women are "supposed" to be treated in our culture, right? (aren't you Russian? I've heard that there's a big cultural issue there, too, but I don't know all the details, saw a TV report one time, and one Russian was talking about the vast difference, and said somethng to the effect that "A [Russian] man can love a woman, but he can't be nice to her"). But anyway. Thus we've got a difference in how cultures treat the same sex. What happens if say, a dread disease spreads over those areas that are overpopulated now? and.. Suddenly, there are more men than women? Wouldn't that almost immediately change the status, how women are treated? Wouldn't you say that the morality in that case has been influenced by the need for children? (And without women...). Whereas in overpopulated areas, women (especially adding in other cultural/moral codes, such as dowrys, etc) are less likely to be nurtured/desired? Again, technically speaking, monarchy is more an obligation to protect and defend God's world than "divine blood". That's not what has been said to sustain said monarchies. They all were 'ordained by God' to take the throne, and pass it down. I am just saying that morals cannot be explained by logic alone (although they can be inforced or perverted that way). There is more to being moral than just long-range prognosis. Ah. Well, no, they're not just logic, you're right. History, and logic, and culture, and other things factor in as well. What I was trying to say is that morals will come out, an many of them will be based in logic/long term forecasts, and those are the ones that tend to be "consistant" across the world. Addison
Post #13,998 by Arkadiy 10/18/01 2:31:45 PM Reply	More clear now. Ok, I think positions are better explained than before. You are talking about "morals" of entire people? Ouch. I think this is a misuse of term. For peoples you have statistically prevalent behavior patterns. For persons you have moral decisions. Peoples don't make decisions. May be governements do (rather, leaders do), but not people. With regard to women - having 4 wives might or might not be practical and/or beneficial to society. But adultery is amoral regardless. See the difference? And it does not matter is the law is lax or stric or equal. People (persons) know that it's wrong to sleep with another's husband/wife. With regard to anarchy: here is the definition - an\ufffdar\ufffdchy 1. Absence of any form of political authority. 2. Political disorder and confusion. 3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose. I meant sence 1. Which one did you have in mind? >>>>>>>>> That's not what has been said to sustain said monarchies. They all were 'ordained by God' to take the throne, and pass it down. <<<<<<<<< That's what monarchs say. It may even be what bishops (ayatollas) say. But it's not necessarily what religion (church) says. But that's a different discussion. >>>>>>>> Well, no, they're not just logic, you're right. History, and logic, and culture, and other things factor in as well. <<<<<<<< And I keep thinking that those "other things" matter more in certain _personal_ decisions than all of the above combined.
Post #14,001 by addison 10/18/01 3:08:38 PM Reply	Re: More clear now. You are talking about "morals" of entire people? Yes, that was the context in which it was presented. We're discussing morals across people. The problem is its really something that's not defineable. Morals for 1 person aren't, either, but its a different problem. The best we can do is make approximations of understanding of individual's morals. So I'm talking of the "morals" of a culture, a society. By definition you have to have some shared morals to have either/both of those. 4 people can meet in America, and talk, and all of whom have some morals opposed to the others. But some morals will be the same. The idea of morality is one of those philisophical ones. Sometimes its by force you create/enforce morality. "I don't mind stealing from the Huge Store, but if I do, I'll get put in jail". (More often seen as "They won't mind, they're so big, this won't affect them"). But trying to drill down to the root as far as is possible, you get to "why are you doing what you're doing?" Why don't you want to be worried that anybody else on the street doesn't ascribe to your moral code that killing is wrong? After all, its possible that anybody you pass on the street doesn't. But its not very likely. But adultery is amoral regardless. See the difference? And it does not matter is the law is lax or stric or equal. People (persons) know that it's wrong to sleep with another's husband/wife. This is another case where "moral" is too strong of a word, there's too many sub categories to file that under. Some people are Ok with that. Some cultures, its quite normal. Others, its not. Even inside say a smaller subset, its still one of those "it depends" issues. With regard to anarchy: here is the definition - 3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose. I meant sence 1. Which one did you have in mind? 3. But it's not necessarily what religion (church) says. But that's a different discussion. It was [what they said] just a few hundred years ago. Until very very recently, in time scales. Addison
Post #14,005 by Arkadiy 10/18/01 3:29:46 PM Reply	End of discussion? OK, I think we can complete this discussion now. You were talking about morals of peoples (which I find a horrible misuse of the term, but that's irrelevant). I was talking about the sence of right and wrong "given" to an individual. How those 2 things interact is a whole another topic.
Post #14,008 by addison 10/18/01 3:34:58 PM Reply	In a sense. Because its a much bigger discussion than this. :) Addison
Post #14,052 by Arkadiy 10/18/01 6:52:29 PM Reply	And I _do_ avoid Religion forum for a reason :)
Post #14,007 by Ashton 10/18/01 3:31:43 PM Reply	Japanese 'saving' in context. My understanding is that this habit derives from their precarious existence on a very earthquake-prone island. This fact of nature (we may presume) has not altered much over eons. Ring of Fire and all... Just after their last big quake (Kobe? was it), I recall a Japanese official referring to this 'savings ethic / more' in that context and adding ~ If.. when we experience [~ The Big One] we shall need a trillion dollars +/-, have to cash in our worldwide investments, etc. Believe this corroborates well, your assertion that - the Japanese are (at least special) re their willingness to plan far ahead, and literally 'put money where mouth is'. Here we can see a Fact behind a Supposition: we will need the money we put away.. And yes - plays hell with emulating Murican habits of limitless buying for recreation, the means by which we have allowed Corporations to supplant and now increasingly.. perform the functions of government. Naturally corps use all means of propaganda possible for inducing us all to maintain their power. It is also true that Muricans' former mores waste not want not; save for a rainy day have regularly declined with the growth of mega-Corps: I don't try to memorize the #s, there are so many - but some huge % of Muricans have NO savings at all, live paycheck-paycheck constantly. Many also have a net-worth of 0 or LESS, as consequence of maxed-out credit cards, impulse buying akin to gambling fever. Perhaps many Japanese sense this power-motive.. re "buying stuff for fun" (?) as so apparently - few Muricans do. Perhaps not: survival of natural forces alone -- may explain their reticence to indulge in a massive consumer orgy, especially as "a substitute for real life" ? [/snide assertion of impoverished being] Ashton
Post #14,073 by Simon_Jester 10/18/01 10:21:26 PM Reply	Japanese Highway men (sorta - it's more long term than that) That is all good and well, but it applies to highway robbery as nicely as to temple buildings. I wonder if there are dynasties of highway robbers in Japan. Yakuza
Post #13,983 by Brandioch 10/18/01 1:31:19 PM Reply	Hate No matter how silly the reason. It's been my experience that the people who hate usually have something missing in their lives. Sometimes it is something concrete ("those bastards killed my father"), sometimes it is just a failing in their psyche ("damn Jews run everything so I can't get a decent break"). First off, teach the kids that they're missing something important (envy, jealousy, whatever). Then teach them that they'd have it if it weren't for THOSE OTHERS stopping them.
Post #13,985 by Arkadiy 10/18/01 1:35:11 PM Reply	Re: Hate >>>>>> First off, teach the kids that they're missing something important (envy, jealousy, whatever). Then teach them that they'd have it if it weren't for THOSE OTHERS stopping them. <<<<<<<<< I think the first step is enough most of the time. You need to perform the second only if you want to channel the hate a certain way. If you don't care who gets detested, the object will be picked randomly.
Post #14,014 by Ashton 10/18/01 3:59:46 PM Reply	Song: "You Have to be Carefully Taught" (to Hate) from South Pacific, as I've mentioned before. You HAD to present this song too - if you wanted a license to present this (wildly popular) play. We could minutely disassemble the emotional ingredients of 'pure hatred' I suppose - were we a lot wiser than we are. Obviously every psych, sociology (!) and anthropology course could spend weeks on it. I'll settle for (merely from experience) the song being close enough for government work - to Truth. Kids can "hate mommy" for 13 seconds when she takes away ___ and similar countless examples. As the Jesuits observe, and from hundreds of years experience of intentional inculcation into malleable children: give me a child until age 5, and s/he's ours.. (BTW - aforementioned folk obviously deem it 'moral' to brainwash children, because They of course are teaching Truth, and so.. it isn't really child abuse.) But to carry into a permanent juvenile state (never achieving adulthood or self-knowledge, implicitly) a visceral hatred for Any [thing]: such occurs IMhO only via careful and reinforced inculcation by parents / or one's childhood milieu or both. And ridding oneself of such aberration is akin to deprogramming oneself from: the various sorts of other habits earlier induced by this ~brainwashing technique (religious, political, existential). A.
Post #13,978 by boxley 10/18/01 1:06:49 PM Reply	The chinese will contract a debt for several generations tshirt front "born to die before I get old" thshirt back "fscked another one didnja?"
Post #13,977 by gtall 10/18/01 1:01:49 PM Reply	Re: War On Religion I don't agree with most of what you wrote. I'm happy for you to be so moral and to claim it isn't the result of religion. But given the ubiquitous morals generated by religion, I very much doubt you were raised in a moral vacuum and somehow acquired your morals in isolation from the ambient religious background. If you think religion is parrotting what someone else tell you, you have a very narrow, myopic view of what a religion actually is. My point, rather, was that those who do parrot would be parrotting regardless of whether they were religious or not. Gerard Allwein
Post #13,988 by addison 10/18/01 1:46:25 PM Reply	Re: War On Religion I very much doubt you were raised in a moral vacuum and somehow acquired your morals in isolation from the ambient religious background. If you want to call me an idiot, then do it. Don't do it with an attempt at congratulating me. That is what you just said. ~"You're too stupid to realize..." I was raised around a lot of religion. I grew up in the Bible Belt. I do not believe that you would consider their morals to be "correct" in many ways. Sure, I saw that. And I learned to evaluate for myself. Moral vacuum? Nope. That's my parents for you, first, and my determination that I was going to be a person of my word, early on. Actually, the single biggest influence on my personality was science fiction. I'm happy for you to be so moral and to claim it isn't the result of religion. That's another insult. My morality - indeed, morality of everybody is divorced from their religion. Not intending to tell you you're wrong, in an insulting way, but morality is not the same as religion. In my opinion, beliving that they are linked is a massive failure in logic, and results in many of the atrocities that occur. Religion has been used to justify and condemn every atrocity that has occured that I can think of in the last couple of centuries, at least. Justify and condemn every political viewpoint and position. My "ambient religious background" was along the lines of that black Americans weren't as smart or as dedicated as us white folk, and that they were marked by God for their sins. The fact I reject that as utter bullshit ought to be enough to disprove your assertion that I don't know what I think. When you get into the various immoral (in my opinion, but I suppose incest and impregnating 12 year olds (seperate cases) and beating children, with the more minor issues of theft and various petty things, are subjective) actions that the various religious people, who claimed a moral directive from God that I've seen, that weren't that unusual in the area where I grew up, I'm damn sure that while I learned a helluva lot, I didn't get my morals via osmosis. My morals are ones I have considered, as much as possible. Is it completely uninfluenced by religion? Of course not. But it also as influenced by respect for other people, and issues that have nothing to do with religion. Believing that religion is the only basis for morality is not something I've only heard from you, but its certainly a unsustainable idea (Take the ancient Greeks and Romans, and their god's certainly didn't mandate a moral code, yet their codes are similar to what you see now, and certainly influenced and were integrated into your religion). The heathens, pagans, druids, et al that Christianity overran were not without morals, and those morals were not derived soley from a religion. My point, rather, was that those who do parrot would be parrotting regardless of whether they were religious or not. And I agreed with you. If you think religion is parrotting what someone else tell you, you have a very narrow, myopic view of what a religion actually is. I didn't say that that was a religion. I said morality via a religion was that. I'll stand by that. "Don't do this cause God says so". If you would like to disagree, please, without parroting, explain the morality set by any major religion. (yes, its a trick question). The morality. Shouldn't be any wiggle room or questions involved. But please don't insult me by patronizing me and presuming that I'm really religious, I just don't know it. That does irritate me quickly. Addison
Post #14,000 by Arkadiy 10/18/01 3:01:33 PM Reply	That's what I hoped to get from you... An explanation of how you came to be moral... >>>>>>>>>> My "ambient religious background" was along the lines of that black Americans weren't as smart or as dedicated as us white folk, and that they were marked by God for their sins. The fact I reject that as utter bullshit ought to be enough to disprove your assertion that I don't know what I think. <<<<<<<<<< What I am about to say may sound politically incorrect. I hope to God it does not make me sound like a racist. I don't see anything remotely morals-related in the above statement. It's a lot of awfully wrong sociology. Now, when someone implies it's ok to rob them and hurt them because they are "marked" - that's a next step, much closer. But even then the problem is not lack of "morals" per se. Morals are about dealing with _people_. If you are dumb enough to not include blacks in that cathegory - it's a different problem. It needs to be fixed by convincing the racist that blacks are indeed just like whites, people. Or, if that can't be done, lock up the bastard. But don't say he lacks moral values. He simply does not apply them to as wide a circle as you. Now, the circle to which morals are applied does vary with history (I am conceding a point here, in case you did not notice). But not the rules themselves. A simplest way to make a devil out of somebody is to teach him/her that others aren't people. I am not particularly happy with what I just said, but that's where logic takes me. I could try to introduce some sort of "meta-morals" which causes people whouse circle of moral application is larger to be considered better people by themselves and (amazing as it sounds) others. But I don't think I am good enough to prove it. >>>>>>>>>>> When you get into the various immoral (in my opinion, but I suppose incest and impregnating 12 year olds (seperate cases) and beating children, with the more minor issues of theft and various petty things, are subjective) actions that the various religious people, who claimed a moral directive from God that I've seen, that weren't that unusual in the area where I grew up, I'm damn sure that while I learned a helluva lot, I didn't get my morals via osmosis. <<<<<<<<<<< Did people around you say that it's a higly good thing to do all of the above? I can see how beating children may be called "moral" (another long discussion needed). But theft? incest? sex with kids? If the answer is "yes" to any of the above, pray tell, did you consider people who were approving of those acts to be good people at the time? You can learn from bad examples, too.
Post #14,011 by gtall 10/18/01 3:50:45 PM Reply	Re: War On Religion Well, consider yourself offended then. I don't believe you know what religion and morals actually are or where they come from. Growing in a racist society isn't what we'd consider gowing up in a moral society, now is it? Take yer basic 10 commandants and the two additional Christian ones, hard to argue with most of them, and you probably follow most yourself. But, they aren't religious morals for you, nope, you came to them all by yourself. If you are trying to argue that some racists took Judeo-Christian beliefs, perverted them, and passed them off as morals...uh...read my original note, that's what I said. Gerard Allwein
Post #14,022 by addison 10/18/01 4:20:41 PM 10/18/01 4:55:46 PM Reply	Never fear, I am. Offended that is. I did entertain the possibility that it was accidental, but apparently not. Luckily for you I believe in explaining myself, instead of just parrotting. I don't believe you know what religion and morals actually are or where they come from. It's America. (At least here it is). You're free to be as ignorant as you want to be. I've certainly expounded enough in this thread that I believe there's plenty of evidence that your statement is a snide insult as you refuse to address the possibility that it's the converse that's the truth. Growing in a racist society isn't what we'd consider gowing up in a moral society, now is it? I'll remind you that you patronized me and told me what I grew up in, and around, and absorbed. The proper response would be "I'm sorry, I was wrong". Or something to that effect. You were completely and utterly wrong then, and your attempt at defense is detrimental to you, and reinforced my theory who's actually done the thinking here. That "racist" society was the one you told me that I must have absorbed my morality from. And that was largely propagated via churches, and "moral lessons". Remember, it was your postulation that my morals came from that upbringing in that environment. Now, either stick to the subject (ie, refuting what I've said), or apologise. That's the "moral" thing to do here, and its less embarassing in the long run than continuing to try and defend an ignorant position. Take yer basic 10 commandants and the two additional Christian ones, hard to argue with most of them, and you probably follow most yourself. But, they aren't religious morals for you, nope, you came to them all by yourself. Additional two? Gee, I've not been to church in a while, when did they get added??? (Miss just one sermon.. ONE!!!) Further, you can take it and cram it. You owe me an apology, not more insults. Those "commandments" were largely in effect in the Aztec Empire. Who never heard of Jehovah. But then, that would require thought, not mere parroting of responses. Funny how you got bent out of shape about that, earlier. Perhaps too close to the mark. I. I Am The Lord Thy God; Thou Shalt have no other gods Before Me. Hrm. Doesn't seem to apply to me. II. Thou Shalt Not Take The Name Of The Lord, Thy God, In Vain. Nope. III. Remember The Sabbath Day, to Keep it Holy. Nope. IV. Thou shalt honor thy Father And Thy Mother, that it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth. Have to ask about that, but this is something that I've come to on my own, yes, because of what I've learned growing up, not because someone told me I should. V. Thou Shalt Not Kill. Well, I'm in trouble, then. No kidding. (In other words, I've "Broken" that one) Aside from that I "agree" with it because its a Career Limiting Move. I have nothing against killing people who need it. Peter and I have had some interesting discussions on this topic on II. Its highly subjective. VI. Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery. Depends what you call "Adultery". I don't have a problem with sex outside marriage, or divorce. I have a problem with someone in a relationship, (which isn't addressed here) - because again, of my experiences and what I've learned - and formulated on my own. VII. Thou Shalt Not Steal. Same reason I "follow" this as the others. But I'll note that almost all criminals claim Christianity when they're imprisoned as their religion. Nor does this stop various "charities" and "Christians" from collecting money for their own pockets. VIII. Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbor. My agreement with this has nothing to do with the bible. IX Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Neighbor's House. Ditto. X. Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Neighbor's Wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his cattle, nor anything that is thy neighbor's.. Seems interesting this topic keeps coming up. Must be that the religious have to be told time and time again. And I don't have a problem coveting things. I just don't take them. I've certainly drooled over several women who were other men's wives. I've looked admiringly at the cattle next to mine. Helped round them up and put them back on an occasion. So. Lets tabulate. 10 Commandments that you patronizely insist I believe in. 4 straight off are out. 8, 9, 10 I agree with, but hardly for the reasons that are listed, and in fact, they're rather dated and not appropriate - severe interpretation is required. Adultery - hugely contextual, and not really relevant in today's society, and far more complex today than the Commandment allows. That leaves us with Honoring Parents, which I've come to on my own (ask them about my teenage years, and maybe even still today), and killing, which I oppose premeditated murder, but its hardly as clear as the commandments make it. 2 for 10. 20%. And that's giving the BEST interpretation to them, and taking my "Agreement" and mangling it severely to fit. You've got better odds in Vegas. Who's thought this out and who hasn't? I left a challenge on the table last time, when I thought you might actually be thinking - I'll reexamine it, to see if I'm wrong, or you are just parrotting. gtall:If you think religion is parrotting what someone else tell you, you have a very narrow, myopic view of what a religion actually is. addison:*I didn't say that that was a religion. I said morality* via a religion was that. I'll stand by that. "Don't do this cause God says so".** If you would like to disagree, please, without parroting, explain the morality set by any major religion. (yes, its a trick question). The morality. Shouldn't be any wiggle room or questions involved. Even though its a trick question it is answerable, in some ways. I certainly can make a devil's advocate (no pun intended) run at it. But in reply to that - you parrotted at me that you were right, it had to be religion in my background. Despite the foregiven proof otherwise. Addison (edit to correct its to it's) Edited by addison Oct. 18, 2001, 04:55:46 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #14,042 by screamer 10/18/01 5:36:19 PM Reply	I think I caught your show a few months ago... From: [link\|http://www.yale.edu/record/weeklies/2001may7.html\|http://www.yale.edu...001may7.html] So you would call yourself an empiricist? You have to see evidence to believe something? Oh, of course. I understand belief and I understand its place. And I understand the need to control people by having these invisible authority figures. If you can get a person at seven years of age to believe that there?s an invisible man watching you, you can pretty much add almost anything you want after that point. So, I think it serves a great purpose. It?s a political act. I have a thing I?m doing in my show now about the Ten Commandments. I refer to it as a political document. I try to show how you don?t need ten. Ten is a marketing number. It?s a convenient number. If you said you there were eleven commandments, people would have told you to go get fucked. But ten commandments, like the top ten, the ten best dressed, the ten most wanted- it?s an important official sounding number so that people respect it. But I take them apart- I kind of analyze them and I show you how you can combine them. There?s duplication. Stealing and lying are both dishonesty. So all you need to say is ?Thou shalt not be dishonest.? Adultery and coveting the neighbor?s wife- relatively the same thing- fidelity, infidelity- and they are also dishonesty. Infidelity and dishonesty are really in the same family. So you know. So I think this all a game being perpetrated. And it?s very, very effective. Or from here:[link\|http://www.yaleherald.com/archive/xxxi/2001.02.16/ae/p14carlin.html\|http://www.yalehera...4carlin.html] Carlin explained that the Ten Commandments can really be reduced to two if you throw away the bullshit ones and condense the similar ones. "I don't think you should outlaw thinking about another guy's wife, or else what are you going to think about when you're jerking off?" he said. What Carlin left us with of the original 10 was simple: "Thou shalt always be honest and true to the source of thy nookie," and "Thou shalt try not to kill anyone...unless they deserve it. Really, Moses could have kept these in his pocket, and the Alabama courthouse could put them up with one other: `Thou shalt keep thy mother-fucking religion to thy mother-fucking self.'" ************************************************** Not saying that I necessarily agree, but found a few similarities with his schtick and yours... Just a few thoughts, Screamer The Other Man Who Knows Fucking Everything "God is dead" Nietzsche "Nietzsche is dead" God "Nietzsche has an S in it" Celina Jones "Proove to me that I X is"
Post #14,050 by Ashton 10/18/01 6:35:23 PM Reply	Thanks for link! Will pass it on to the other GC fans.. Thought this an unusually revealing gag-free presentation by George; clearly he has figured out a number of his own whys and.. mastered the homo-sap stimulus/response game rules, damn near cold. I found particularly refreshing that, in trashing our god-making hackwork - he gives no hints re what he does with biig Questions er, for himself.. (!) This may reflect humility? that he hasn't asked m(any) of those? or possibly that he even gets why you Can't! er pass on much more than hints (??) [no opinion here] Anyway - comforting to know that, despite the inanity of dumbed-down Corp-media pabulum / raunchy humor, and the generalized cultural impoverishment of Murica today: the spirit of Lenny Bruce and the great humorists of yore, have been er 'sampled live', and some of their essence distilled. Long may he unwave those flags! A.
Post #14,143 by gtall 10/19/01 8:24:13 AM Reply	Re: Never fear, I am. I apologize for offending you. I didn't mean to that, I was too glib by saying "consider yourself offended". I was responding to what I thought was a particularly short tripwire by you on the Offense-O-Meter. I'll remind you that you* patronized me and told me what I grew up in, and around, and absorbed. The proper response would be "I'm sorry, I was wrong". Or something to that effect.* You yourself mentioned what "morals" were around in the society you grew up in, I reinterpreted that to mean you thought you grew up in a racist society. I should have said that was how I interpreted you, not merely rephrase what I thought I read. And I was too fast on the draw using the 10 commandments. I could have used Buddhism for all it mattered. My point was that most of what you consider "good" morals were around long before you and most were originally codified in religions. Where you get them from is your business, but I think proper attribution is something not to danced around. Religions, I think, are moral webs. I don't think of them as somehow necessiting belief in a supreme being. Operationally, they are just that, moral webs, a system of interconnected strictures governing social and personal behavior. I don't think of morality via a religion is parroting. Some people do parrot morality that way, but I do not think it is intrinsic to a religion which has history of circumspection. Most theologians are cognizant of the difference between religion as belief in a supreme being and religion (operationally) as a set of social strictures, I was assuming we were talking about the latter and should have said so. Gerard Allwein
Post #14,364 by ben_tilly 10/20/01 11:35:21 PM Reply	I think there is an unwarranted assumption there What is your evidence that morality was originally codified in religions? We have morality handed down to the present from the earliest religious texts we have available. However early philosophical texts from people as far separated as Aristotle and Confucius present ethics as a subject that is independent of religion. I don't think there is a clear case in the historical record for saying that ethical systems come from religion, or that they don't. It is, of course, clear that religion has been used as a way to codify ethical systems and propagate them through the ages. This doesn't mean, though, that they come from religion. After all local political power has historically come from force of arms, but likewise political realities have tended to become intertwined with religion. But the basis of many of the basic foundations that you can point to behind Addison's sense of morality (and mine) may go back a lot farther. (Insert standard lecture on sociobiology and the potential evolutionary roots of our basic ethical imperatives.) Cheers, Ben
Post #14,418 by gtall 10/21/01 8:54:14 AM Reply	Re: I think there is an unwarranted assumption there I didn't mean ethical systems derive from religion, but rather that principles inherent in ethical systems are found in religion. My contention was that religion is very old and philosophies do owe a debt to those religions. You would argue (I think) that either the flow went in the opposite direction or that both developed simultaneously. But wherever we find human habitation, we find religious artifacts. In that sense, I find it difficult to believe that secular notions of morals or ethics were born in a religious vacuum. Gerard Allwein
Post #14,427 by boxley 10/21/01 10:21:27 AM Reply	ya also find beer containers ]:-> tshirt front "born to die before I get old" thshirt back "fscked another one didnja?"
Post #14,437 by ben_tilly 10/21/01 11:38:13 AM Reply	I think you missed the point I am not arguing that I really know which came first, ethical principles or religion. I am saying that your blanket statement that ethical principles were originally codified in religion is a claim which I don't think you have real support for. (FWIW I suspect that the answer to which came first may depend in the end on how broadly you define each of religion and ethics. Certainly if you define ethics broadly enough, you can find good evidence of ethical motivations in, for instance, chimpanzees.) First of all it is true that the earliest philosophical writings we have are predated by religion. I agree with that, and were it otherwise I would be saying something rather different. Secondly it is both true that in every human society we find both some sort of shared ethical system and religion. Given that, your comment about the distribution of religious artifacts is not evidence one way or another on which came first. It is an argument that religion is a universal tendancy. It doesn't indicate whether that universal tendancy predated the one to shared ethical systems. Cheers, Ben PS You may be asking why I care. It is simple. I am just tired of religious people telling atheists like myself that our morals come from religion, one way or another. They certainly don't directly, and I am not convinced they do ultimately either.
Post #14,030 by Ashton 10/18/01 4:56:17 PM Reply	C'mon Gerard Your syntax was offensive - and Addison ain't no sophomoric idiot as would miss the unsubtlety of the phrasing. And your non-apology underscores that the offense was meant. J'Accuse too, as your 'way of putting it' is one I too have encountered over a relatively long lifetime: it is the supercilious one of ~ I Know Truth and - you, poor bastard: are gonna rot in that fearful-man imagined slow-broiler which My Loving God\ufffd reserves for you heathens. Hee Hee - whilst I get to Watch from that seat right next to Her throne.. No, you likely wouldn't use Those words. But I have heard ~ Those Words spoken by so-called Christians over the years / ages? In fact you too can hear variations on them, spoken nightly - in SF Bay Area now: Channel 42 Tee Vee. Usually in the wee hours - some of these folk can dispense their folksy wisdom for hours non-stop -- telling the listener Exactly What God Meant / what kinda guy He is and, and how pissed-off he is with YOU [from execrable Sin-full birth and >>>> onwards] on and on and - (In fact recently I scribbled down what I was hearing! - as one of these minions of Light was giving advice to a caller-in. I mentioned that in a post, though no reason to suppose you caught that one; too lazy to look it up - have we a search engine yet?) 'Religion' in my vocabulary - always and everywhere connotes: an organization of Men (and damn Few women except as ancillaries, often trying really hard to Sound like the men, especially when discussing Divine Justice and the Delicious Punishments Awaiting). These Are Homo-saps Period. No metaphysical entity picked a language and writ in stone - that which is claimed by virtually all aforementioned religious organizations; nowadays: Corporations (the Vatican being merely the largest, richest). Now if what you were trying to get at was the concept of spirituality ? That's another concept never accessible to pure logic - just as the Ontological Proof of God: Isn't, either, if that is what you were implying in Your idea of religion (?) Well - we sure as hell aren't going to derive That umm from the axioms - G\ufffddel or no G\ufffddel - either! Sheesh - you really imagine that You Can Prove God IS ?? (even in Sanskrit, intended for that sort of discourse and free of most pedestrian language pollution) Sorry Gerard, but Logician, Heal Thyself.. I'd expected better from you - based on previous exchanges. Now you are expressing mere smug Certainty where.. no actual Certainty is accessibly by ANY form of human-invented 'logic'. And if you don't even realize Yet! that: you cannot pass-on! [whatever has been discerned internally via difficult, sustained labor?] - to others, and especially Not 'Truth' - then your logic exercises failed utterly to inform you of where logic ceases to apply. except via example, in a life lived, that is. Sanctimony is sanctimony; so is hubris hubris. Anyone selling Certainty in this world of mere appearances? Qualifies for both. IMhO. Ashton who 'believes' than man has a much better BS-detector built-in than, ever: a Truth-detector. But we so love to appear Right(eous).
Post #14,032 by pwhysall 10/18/01 4:59:41 PM Reply	One hell of a Freudian slip... Take yer basic 10 commandants That'd be the RIAA employees, come round to relieve you of your PC on the grounds that you might be considering using it to infringe their copyrights? :-) Peter Shill For Hire [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal]
Post #14,021 by marlowe 10/18/01 4:12:14 PM Reply	SIngle biggest influence was science fiction? So you're a scientologist? [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
Post #14,023 by addison 10/18/01 4:22:23 PM Reply	Don't make me come over there. I said _Science Fiction_. Not Elron^H^H^H^H^Hcrap. Addison
Post #14,039 by Ashton 10/18/01 5:27:43 PM Reply	Find it also a rich vein If not quite the Mother Lode.. for exercising that part of mentation seeking new angles; that when it is simply, good fiction - the Sci- part is not to be confused with BEMs (!) er bug-eyed -- for the non-partakers. At best we get a view of, Homo-sap at work, lying to self - proudly! (to "make the illusion palatable" ? most often) As mentioned, I'm recently perusing a pithy anthology of 'dystopias' - ideas and categories of same. (Alas more and more I find: we've made our own impending dystopia! aided and abetted by hateful purveyors of individual brands of Righteousness.. natch.) {sheesh} forget Right; settle for - functional. Please. A. how do I get outta this chicken outfit, alive or dead? PS - Elron was about (in his own words) best way to make Big $ is to start your own religion. He got that right, obviously.

Welcome to IWETHEY!