Pages: 1 … 3 4 5

 

Poll

Should "Under God" be taken out of the USA's pledge of allegiance?

Yes56%56% - 58
No43%43% - 44
Total: 102
2009-09-03 04:35:09
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6699|'Murka

Uzique wrote:

Bradt3hleader wrote:

Don't anybody fucking dare touch the "Under God".

FFS even if you don't believe in God the 10 (well 8 if you don't believe in God) are codes you should live by anyway if you want to be happy. The USA was founded by Christians, (otherwise it would be as fucked up as England) who didn't want the British rules and stuff because every man is equal.

Just leave it there it's not going to hurt anybody!
excuse me, are you implying that our country is fucked up (which is arguable in itself) because we have complete separation of church and state?
ORLY?

The British monarch, at present Queen Elizabeth II, has the constitutional title of Supreme Governor of the Church of England. The canon law of the Church of England states, "We acknowledge that the Queen’s most excellent Majesty, acting according to the laws of the realm, is the highest power under God in this kingdom, and has supreme authority over all persons in all causes, as well ecclesiastical as civil." In practice this power is often exercised through Parliament and the Prime Minister.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-09-03 06:27:20
Obversity
Member
+1|5643
- "No animals show compassion or mercy."

What a ridiculous statement. Many species show compassion, and ironically, in an oft more 'humane' fashion than we.

- "Animals are not afraid to die."

Of course they're not afraid. A puppy yelping in fear in a thunderstorm isn't an example of fright. It's merely survival instinct...



Morality can quite easily be logical. It merely seems illogical if one only looks at the first tier of causality - the immediate, personal after effects of their actions.

For example, if you steal bread, you do so to sate your hunger. This is basic survival instinct - you are correct. However, a rational being - for example a human being - will ponder for a moment, and consider the consequences, asking themselves questions such as,

"Would the previous owner of the bread be happy?"
"Would not he, now, be hungry, just like I am now?
"Will he be angry once he finds his bread missing," and
"Will he vengeful if he finds the culprit?"

If these questions don't occur to you in the case of stealing, and you require religion to guide you here, then you are severely deficient of intellect.

Reciprocity and the consideration of consequences are perfectly logical concepts, if pleasure and contentment - both for yourself and others - are the goals in mind.
2009-09-03 06:30:10
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6394|eXtreme to the maX
"Would the previous owner of the bread be happy?"
"Would not he, now, be hungry, just like I am now?
"Will he be angry once he finds his bread missing," and
"Will he vengeful if he finds the culprit?"
Pretty well all of that has to be educated into people, its not solely a product of intellect.
Fuck Israel
2009-09-03 07:58:00
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6939|USA

Obversity wrote:

- "No animals show compassion or mercy."

What a ridiculous statement. Many species show compassion, and ironically, in an oft more 'humane' fashion than we.

- "Animals are not afraid to die."

Of course they're not afraid. A puppy yelping in fear in a thunderstorm isn't an example of fright. It's merely survival instinct...



Morality can quite easily be logical. It merely seems illogical if one only looks at the first tier of causality - the immediate, personal after effects of their actions.

For example, if you steal bread, you do so to sate your hunger. This is basic survival instinct - you are correct. However, a rational being - for example a human being - will ponder for a moment, and consider the consequences, asking themselves questions such as,

"Would the previous owner of the bread be happy?"
"Would not he, now, be hungry, just like I am now?
"Will he be angry once he finds his bread missing," and
"Will he vengeful if he finds the culprit?"

If these questions don't occur to you in the case of stealing, and you require religion to guide you here, then you are severely deficient of intellect.

Reciprocity and the consideration of consequences are perfectly logical concepts, if pleasure and contentment - both for yourself and others - are the goals in mind.
Really? Provide examples of animals that consider the consequences before they act.
I believe it is all survival instinct that drives animal behavior. Just like us when left without any choices. Morality is out the window. Therefore it is a learned behavior, and it is the consequences that keep us on the straight and narrow. When the end result of not acting is worse than the consequences then we will fore go morality to survive. Back to our animalistic instincts.
2009-09-03 09:24:30
Obversity
Member
+1|5643
Compassion or Mercy were your asserted lacking characteristics. Not consideration of the consequences.

Don't make me cite animals for compassion; turn on a wildlife channel some time and educate yourself. It's fairly self evident.

"Just like us left without any choices."

What is this drivel? If we have no choice, how are we supposed to make a moral decision? Or an instinctual one? Clarify your thoughts please.


And I agree completely; it's the consequences that dictate action. That is a perfectly valid method of judging morality - a method which implemented and conventionalized, would result in far greater prosperity and much less suffering than what we currently see. 

You seem to have odd ideas on what the aim of Morality actually is, Lowing.
It is not, despite what some would say, the adherence to a particular prescriptive doctrine, as in the bible. Morality can never be perfectly prescribed, as it is entirely subject to situation. Guide lines can be handy, however they are not infallible.
2009-09-03 09:29:06
Obversity
Member
+1|5643
These questions are only educated into us at a younger age to facilitate moral growth; left to their own devices, the concepts would quickly be learned by any uneducated yet intelligent individual suddenly placed amidst society, potentially from observation alone, though most likely from experience as well.
2009-09-03 09:42:45
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6939|USA

Obversity wrote:

Compassion or Mercy were your asserted lacking characteristics. Not consideration of the consequences.

Don't make me cite animals for compassion; turn on a wildlife channel some time and educate yourself. It's fairly self evident.

"Just like us left without any choices."

What is this drivel? If we have no choice, how are we supposed to make a moral decision? Or an instinctual one? Clarify your thoughts please.


And I agree completely; it's the consequences that dictate action. That is a perfectly valid method of judging morality - a method which implemented and conventionalized, would result in far greater prosperity and much less suffering than what we currently see. 

You seem to have odd ideas on what the aim of Morality actually is, Lowing.
It is not, despite what some would say, the adherence to a particular prescriptive doctrine, as in the bible. Morality can never be perfectly prescribed, as it is entirely subject to situation. Guide lines can be handy, however they are not infallible.
Never said it was, I said religion gave the standard as to what morality is.

I think I was perfectly clear. You say one is moral, I say one ACTs moral until one is drawn to instinct. Morality is a facade. We do not cheat on wives, husbands and girlfriends and boyfriends because we don't want to, we don't do it because of consequences, because society tells us it is wrong. and society got that notion form religion. If it were not for that, we all would be running around like sex maniacs. In fact we all are. It is learned behavior ( morality) that keeps us from having sex in the streets like animals
2009-09-03 19:29:46
Obversity
Member
+1|5643
Society did not get that notion from religion. Do you have a spouse? Or a partner of any kind?

Anyhow. If you do, are you saying that you wouldn't mind them sleeping around? People can and were civilized without religion; indeed religious literalism often manifests additional uncivil behavior.

Even supposing that religion was the root, you must agree that it is outdated as prescriptive morality - times have changed, and many things with them. You cannot nit-pick holy books for the moralities you prefer. Either take the whole thing, or nothing. Otherwise you're relying on your own rationality. And that's impossible, right? Lawl.
2009-09-04 03:00:09
Ei Em
Member
+7|5777

lowing wrote:

We do not cheat on wives, husbands and girlfriends and boyfriends because we don't want to, we don't do it because of consequences, because society tells us it is wrong. and society got that notion form religion.
Our ancestors all over the world had very similar ways tens of thousands of years ago. Small tribes across Europe, Asia, Africa had "unwritten" rules. They didn't murder each other, they didn't steal, they didn't wank others "wife's" how ever they wanted. Of course there were exceptions but so is today. Hardly believable it was because of religion set morals for them. More like what Dung_Bomb said

Agent_Dung_bomb wrote:

I disagree.  People lived as tribes and communities before religion.  Basic moral codes of right and wrong were developed as a necessity for people to be able to survive living together.

lowing wrote:

I disagree, the ancients committed murder in the name of their religions through sacrifices to please the Gods. Religion has always dictated behaviour. In that case, they would be punished if they DID NOT sacrifice to the gods. Consequences
That was the case only in "highly" civilised cultures and nations. Usually people were captured from other tribes/nations for sacrifice. Might add also that they very, very rarely sacrificed their own people for Gods. There must've been really good reason to sacrifice own people to please Gods.

But I would go way, way, way back in time to find roots of religion and roots of moral.


lowing wrote:

Animals are not afraid to die, they simply have an instinct to survive.
Interesting. Have they told you this? Or how did you figure this out?

As far as I know people are yet to know what animals think and we are making assumptions from scratch of information.
2009-09-04 14:06:11
Zukabazuka
Member
+23|6973
Funny why do animals run away? Or when a horse decide to not jump over a log, does the instinct tells it its gonna kill him? Or when it just doesn't wanna go in to a place and refuse to move towards it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=un9QEEqKtSM
2009-09-04 14:19:31
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6939|USA

Obversity wrote:

Society did not get that notion from religion. Do you have a spouse? Or a partner of any kind?

Anyhow. If you do, are you saying that you wouldn't mind them sleeping around? People can and were civilized without religion; indeed religious literalism often manifests additional uncivil behavior.

Even supposing that religion was the root, you must agree that it is outdated as prescriptive morality - times have changed, and many things with them. You cannot nit-pick holy books for the moralities you prefer. Either take the whole thing, or nothing. Otherwise you're relying on your own rationality. And that's impossible, right? Lawl.
Well, if this is true name me a civilization that had no religion but did have morality
2009-09-04 14:22:43
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6909|London, England
It's true FEOS, there is no actual separation of Church and state over here, and there is an official religion (Christianity). Yet, it's good to point out that in reality, religion plays much less of an importance over here, despite its official status, than it does in the US, which prides itself as a free country with bullshit phrases about liberty and separation of church and state when in reality it's much different.

Weird how shit worked out like that...
2009-09-04 15:44:24
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6699|'Murka

Mekstizzle wrote:

It's true FEOS, there is no actual separation of Church and state over here, and there is an official religion (Christianity). Yet, it's good to point out that in reality, religion plays much less of an importance over here, despite its official status, than it does in the US, which prides itself as a free country with bullshit phrases about liberty and separation of church and state when in reality it's much different.

Weird how shit worked out like that...
Hmmm...all I did was point out what was in wikipedia. I didn't try to make a judgment about what it's like there since I don't and haven't lived there. Otherwise, it might have looked like I didn't have the slightest fucking clue what I was talking about.

Weird how that worked out.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-09-04 17:08:58
Roger Lesboules
Ah ben tabarnak!
+316|6865|Abitibi-Temiscamingue. Québec!
In god we trust...does not say wich god, you can believe in any god you want, its still god and you trust it...So make sense after all, No need to all praise the same one, a god is a god. and the USA is well known for believing in god so. No.
2009-09-04 23:39:37
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6693|North Carolina

lowing wrote:

Obversity wrote:

Society did not get that notion from religion. Do you have a spouse? Or a partner of any kind?

Anyhow. If you do, are you saying that you wouldn't mind them sleeping around? People can and were civilized without religion; indeed religious literalism often manifests additional uncivil behavior.

Even supposing that religion was the root, you must agree that it is outdated as prescriptive morality - times have changed, and many things with them. You cannot nit-pick holy books for the moralities you prefer. Either take the whole thing, or nothing. Otherwise you're relying on your own rationality. And that's impossible, right? Lawl.
Well, if this is true name me a civilization that had no religion but did have morality
Religion came out of both a need to control people and to explain things that people didn't understand yet.

Still, morality is part instinct, part learned behavior.
2009-09-05 06:35:41
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6963|Canberra, AUS
I didn't need the bible or anything else to tell me that nicking someone's things was a bad idea.

Last edited by Spark (2009-09-05 06:35:59)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman

 

Pages: 1 … 3 4 5

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard