You CAN post in this thread anonymously by logging out and posting in this thread as a "guest". This is one of the only threads with this type of set up. Due to the subject and very passionate emotions people have about it, we have set up the anonymous guest posting to encourage participation from people who might not otherwise feel comfortable.
Mr Morningstarr wrote: Besides this Governments are always acting immoral, morality is subjective claptrap. Governments can decide what is and what is not morally acceptable, as they have the power to enforce whatever morality they see fit. In a democracy the people vote on which morality they prefer.
There is no need for religion to interfere in any of it.
What does the government acting immoral have to do with anything?
Religion and morality are closely connected. While morality might not require religion, it's irrational to deny it alltogether.
Absolutely, my apologies for not responding initially. I personally think that even though times have changed I don’t believe that religion has any less influence. Our country’s primary focus right now is the “war on terror”. While we may not be fighting it from a religious angle (I’m sure some will take issue with that) the fanatical Islamic certainly are.
Now if you’re referring to the legality of abortions then I believe that it probably will become more restrictive if the debate is brought to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court may very well take the stand that the states should exercise more control over it. My hope is that since the Supreme Court appears to be more conservative now, and probably will be for quite some time, it will take a more constitutionalist approach to its rulings. I would hope so any way. Theoretically this should allow us more direct influence on the way we are governed since our state lawmakers would be deciding it. This won’t make religion have any less influence on our government but it will bring it to a more local level.
jasona wrote: I didn’t suggest nor imply that atheists are immoral. That’s not the point. The point is that if you place a large group of people in one body of government that share the same core beliefs, Christianity, then it is only natural to expect that the laws that are passed are going to be influenced be that religious belief.
If you want to remove religion from government then you will need to remove those in government that believe in religion.
You said: Religion always has and always will be in politics. There is no way to separate the two, nor should it be attempted and here’s one of the reasons why.
Laws are based in morality. We create laws to protect each other and to maintain civility. It is morally wrong to kill someone so we make laws against murder. It is morally wrong to be a thief so we make laws against stealing. The point is we govern ourselves based on our collective perception of right and wrong. That perception is formed from our beliefs. We gain our beliefs from our religion.
So if we gain our beliefs from religion, where do atheists gain theirs?
Morality doesn't require religion, so it is not required in Government.
Lpspider wrote: Mr Morningstarr wrote: Besides this Governments are always acting immoral, morality is subjective claptrap. Governments can decide what is and what is not morally acceptable, as they have the power to enforce whatever morality they see fit. In a democracy the people vote on which morality they prefer.
There is no need for religion to interfere in any of it.
What does the government acting immoral have to do with anything?
Religion and morality are closely connected. While morality might not require religion, it's irrational to deny it alltogether.
To deny what?
Governments acting immoral contradicts the earlier claim that religion is necessary in politics to create laws based on morality. Firstly morality doesn't require religion, and secondly Governments don't even follow religious morality. Religion is used in politics the same way religion has always been used, to influence the superstitious.
First off let me give you my definition of religion. Unless we agree on what religion is then we're not going to come to any sort of consensus.
I define religion as a group of core common beliefs in how you live your life and these core common beliefs are shared by a group of people. This also encompasses your belief in a higher power. I know, probably not written well but you hopefully get my point.
Since I’m not an atheist I couldn’t answer where they get their beliefs from. Are you an atheist? I ask because you’ve mentioned atheism several times now. If so I would be interested in hearing how you, or any atheist for that matter, knows the difference from right and wrong. How do you establish your core beliefs that guide you thru your daily life? Once you have those core beliefs aren’t they your own personal “religion”? Since atheists are a group sharing like thoughts wouldn’t that be their “religion”?
Since some form of religion is what guides most people in their day to day lives there is no way to realistically expect someone to leave that at the door and not draw on that when they are responsible for making laws.
That’s like asking me to fix a car but I can’t use any of my tools, or knowledge in doing so. It just doesn’t make sense.
I'll give you the dictionary definition of religion:
a) the belief in and worship of a god
b) the details in this belief how it is taught or discussed
c) a particular system of faith and worship
The key elements of religion over philosophy are the belief in a superbeing and faith in it. Atheists create a philosophical view on the world based on their own understanding, not blind faith in a non-existent superbeing with clearly irrational rules and requirements.
It is realistic to expect people to be able to form impartial views and rules that aren't clouded by hocus-pocus and myth.
Simple logic should dictate Government policy, what is good for the population, not what the population actually desires. As the two may not be the same. Elected officials are there to make decisions for those incapable.
A religion is a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people, often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.
Atheists create a philosophical view on the world based on their own understanding, not blind faith in a non-existent superbeing with clearly irrational rules and requirements.
---The 10 Commandments are irrational rules and requirements? I completely disagree. They are simply good rules to live by.
It is realistic to expect people to be able to form impartial views and rules that aren't clouded by hocus-pocus and myth.
---What you may call hocus pocus and myth I may call core values and faith.
Simple logic should dictate Government policy, what is good for the population, not what the population actually desires. As the two may not be the same. Elected officials are there to make decisions for those incapable.
---Elected officials are there for those that are incapable as well as to represent those that are capable. To say that only the elected officials are capable of making governmental decisions is ridiculous.
I consider myself to be one of the most logical thinking people around and logically speaking there is no way someone is going to set their belief system at the door and not draw off of it when it comes to making laws that will dictate how their society is to be governed. That’s just not going to happen.
When people are selecting those to represent them in government they are selecting those that share the same common beliefs. Why would you do otherwise? Not electing someone that shares your beliefs is not logical. Certain polls indicate that 90% of people believe in God. Whether you agree with the numbers or not really isnt important because the point is a vast majority of people do believe in God, faith, religion, whatever you want to call it. It only stands to reason then that those people are going to vote for the candidates that share their beliefs. You’re not going to vote for someone that doesn’t share your beliefs or at least some of them.
Like I've said before, if you want to remove religion from government then you will need to remove those in government that believe in religion. You cant expect those that believe in it to not have it effect their opinions and decisions. That would be totally illogical.
jasona wrote:
Atheists create a philosophical view on the world based on their own understanding, not blind faith in a non-existent superbeing with clearly irrational rules and requirements.
---The 10 Commandments are irrational rules and requirements? I completely disagree. They are simply good rules to live by. Religion involves more than just the ten commandments.
It is realistic to expect people to be able to form impartial views and rules that aren't clouded by hocus-pocus and myth.
---What you may call hocus pocus and myth I may call core values and faith. You can call it what you like, it doesn't change anything or prove anything.
Simple logic should dictate Government policy, what is good for the population, not what the population actually desires. As the two may not be the same. Elected officials are there to make decisions for those incapable.
---Elected officials are there for those that are incapable as well as to represent those that are capable. To say that only the elected officials are capable of making governmental decisions is ridiculous. I didn't say that, I said they are there to make decisions for the incapable and you have agreed.
I consider myself to be one of the most logical thinking people around and logically speaking there is no way someone is going to set their belief system at the door and not draw off of it when it comes to making laws that will dictate how their society is to be governed. That’s just not going to happen. Which is why religion should be kept out of politics.
When people are selecting those to represent them in government they are selecting those that share the same common beliefs. Why would you do otherwise? Not electing someone that shares your beliefs is not logical. Certain polls indicate that 90% of people believe in God. Whether you agree with the numbers or not really isnt important because the point is a vast majority of people do believe in God, faith, religion, whatever you want to call it. It only stands to reason then that those people are going to vote for the candidates that share their beliefs. You’re not going to vote for someone that doesn’t share your beliefs or at least some of them. Which is why religion should be kept out of politics. People are being voted in due to their common faith, not their good policies.
Like I've said before, if you want to remove religion from government then you will need to remove those in government that believe in religion. You cant expect those that believe in it to not have it effect their opinions and decisions. That would be totally illogical. Fine, if that's what it takes. If you believe people are totally unable to make impartial decisions they shouldn't be in politics. I wouldn't vote for someone who based his policies on superstition. Fortunately I don't believe many politicians in the west really do anyway. Their immoral actions show clearly how controlled they are by their religion. They only use their supposed faith to convince others of that faith that their ill thought out plans can be excused. When all else fails, say it's the will of God, it's worked for thousands of years.
Well I believe that both our points have been made and there is no changing either’s mind. You contend that religion should not be used by our leaders in making decisions that govern us and I contend that if those leaders are at all affected by their religion that there is no way for them to ignore it.
BTW,
I don’t mean to imply that politicians are holy men, far from it. I’d venture to say most are crooks. My argument is not defending the politicians. It’s that those that have religious beliefs are not going to be able to ignore them in their decision making.
Mr Morningstarr wrote: The key elements of religion over philosophy are the belief in a superbeing and faith in it. Atheists create a philosophical view on the world based on their own understanding, not blind faith in a non-existent superbeing with clearly irrational rules and requirements.
It is realistic to expect people to be able to form impartial views and rules that aren't clouded by hocus-pocus and myth.
Simple logic should dictate Government policy, what is good for the population, not what the population actually desires. As the two may not be the same. Elected officials are there to make decisions for those incapable.
Arguably this is one of the best posts I have ever read on ANY BOARD. And I agree with every word of it. Bravo!
TVDinner wrote: Mr Morningstarr wrote: The key elements of religion over philosophy are the belief in a superbeing and faith in it. Atheists create a philosophical view on the world based on their own understanding, not blind faith in a non-existent superbeing with clearly irrational rules and requirements.
It is realistic to expect people to be able to form impartial views and rules that aren't clouded by hocus-pocus and myth.
Simple logic should dictate Government policy, what is good for the population, not what the population actually desires. As the two may not be the same. Elected officials are there to make decisions for those incapable.
Arguably this is one of the best posts I have ever read on ANY BOARD. And I agree with every word of it. Bravo!
Very arguably, then.
Simple logic should dictate Government policy, what is good for the population, not what the population actually desires. As the two may not be the same. Elected officials are there to make decisions for those incapable.
That's foolish and makes little sense. Who's logic? Who's to determine who's logic is most logical? WHY shouldn't the people's desire be the decisions made? THAT would be the most logical.
Logic isn't some mysterious word. Logic is common sense. But the fact is not everyone can use common sense and logic in making decisions. Most people who believe hardcore in religion do not use their own reasoning. They believe what the church tells them and it's sad because it seems like they don't want to think anything else. They take what's written and run with it and never question it.
MH0825 wrote: Logic isn't some mysterious word. Logic is common sense. But the fact is not everyone can use common sense and logic in making decisions. Most people who believe hardcore in religion do not use their own reasoning. They believe what the church tells them and it's sad because it seems like they don't want to think anything else. They take what's written and run with it and never question it.
I was catholic until I was able to reason.
I agree with you totally. Too many people have been corrupted by the Church. As a Christian, I disagree whole heartingly with the Church. The Catholic Church does not actually follow the Bible for what it is. They deviate from the truth and ignore several important teachings. The Church has always been on its on agenda, not God's.
Theoretically speaking, whose logic would be superior, a man's logic, or God's logic? Faith is about unconditional belief, it is about coming to your own conclusions based on what you believe. The Bible tells me what is right, what is wrong, what is holy, what is not. It is what I believe. My logic is just different than yours, as my logic suggests that there is no way there is not a God, yours is the opposite.
I know you are an atheist, and you do not believe in God, however do not stereotype all of those who believe in God as naive and uninformed. I have read several Dawkins articles, I understand all the other perspectives very well. (I think TVDinner can vouch for me here, hehe)
class="sqq"“Faith... Must be enforced by reason...When faith becomes blind it dies.”
We must all be informed or our faith is nothing but a lack of perspective. Most people live with blind eyes, so they do not see the truth in that.
I know you are an atheist, and you do not believe in God, however do not stereotype all of those who believe in God as naive and uninformed. I have read several Dawkins articles, I understand all the other perspectives very well. (I think TVDinner can vouch for me here, hehe)
Don't get me wrong Cole, I fully support the idea of having your own beliefs. It's the people that are too damn stubborn to look at others beliefs and say "Hey, maybe they're right".
I'm a science guy. I have to be proved by science. If a scientist one day proves that god exists by science I will believe there is a god. Same type of thing when people thought the earth was flat. Everyone believed it until it was proved wrong.
MH0825 wrote: Logic isn't some mysterious word. Logic is common sense. But the fact is not everyone can use common sense and logic in making decisions. Most people who believe hardcore in religion do not use their own reasoning. They believe what the church tells them and it's sad because it seems like they don't want to think anything else. They take what's written and run with it and never question it.
I was catholic until I was able to reason.
And common sense would tell most people that a government run by the people would be most logical, unlike what you are saying. You said whatever is logical should be the decision followed not what's wanted by the people - but shouldn't the people want the most logical decision (the majority of the people?)
MH, the people you are speaking of are foolish. You should always question the decisions and beliefs before committing to them. Yoiu should never believe "what the church tells you" before examing the evidence and coming to your own conclusion.
MH0825 wrote: That's the thing though... MOST people are in fact foolish.
I don't know about most, but a lot are, yes.
Regardless, if that were the case, it wouldn't make sense to have foolish people to elect leaders that will make important decisions without the foolish people's approval. If the people are foolish they probably won't elect a worthy leader anyway, correct?
In effect what you're and morningstar are saying, to my understanding (if you agree) is that we should have a government that's a dictatorship, or close to it?
No... there should just be no religion controlling governmental decisions. Who cares what the christians, muslims and any other religions wants. As long as their right to practice the religion isn't harmed.
No laws should be based on beliefs of a religion. I can't buy liquor in my town on Sunday because it's a christian town. You can't buy beer until 1PM on Sundays because you should be in church until then. Ridiculous laws based on beliefs of a religion. That is why religion should not play a part.
Lpspider wrote:
That's foolish and makes little sense. Who's logic? Who's to determine who's logic is most logical? WHY shouldn't the people's desire be the decisions made? THAT would be the most logical.If the majority wanted to invade France, because they talk funny, would it be logical to do so? If the majority believe in something that has no tangible effect on reality, would it be logical to make life altering decisions on the strength of it?
In a democracy the voters decide who's logic to follow.
