Religious Liberty or Secularism?

[koshergrl]

Again, show us the evidence of a religion-free, intelligent and peaceful society.

North Korea?

China?

Perhaps communist Russia?

France during the revolution!

Yes...obviously society is much healthier without religion.

Anyway. You keep mentioning how healthy it is...and you referenced *returning* to society without religion...yet oddly, you can't name any. Please do.

 

[G.T.]

Again, show us the evidence of a religion-free, intelligent and peaceful society.

North Korea?

China?

Perhaps communist Russia?

France during the revolution!

Yes...obviously society is much healthier without religion.

Anyway. You keep mentioning how healthy it is...and you referenced *returning* to society without religion...yet oddly, you can't name any. Please do.

United States of America is not a Theocracy, for one.

And again, it matters not what ypou feel we were founded upon because the entire premise is that morals, whether they be writ in Religious Laws or in Actual Law, are arrived at by Men.

 

[Katzndogz]

Sky Dancer used to say parents should be prosecuted and their children removed, and raised by the state, if they took their children to church.

She also said Christians should not be allowed to teach (even if they didn't mention religion) or work in public office.

That's the mindset of progressive fascists.

That's the mindset of a few.

The mindset of most progressives is that parents often do a terrible job raising their kids. They brainwash them on any number of subjects, often without even realizing it.

Heading down that path is a dangerous and silly one. And most progressives would agree with me. In fact, I would bet Sky Dancer would even admit to being cheeky and not entirely serious.

The point of a statement like that is to point out the damage parents often do to their kids by indoctrinating them. And it is a legitimate concern. But not one that can be legislated away any more than legislating away super sized drinks is the answer to America's weight problem.

No, she was serious. You've obviously never met her. It isn't a rare point of view at all.

It is THE single most commonly held opinion throughout the left. Some will admit it and some will hide it.

 

[koshergrl]

Mostly they hide it. But you can get them to admit it if you just ask the right questions.

They know it's crazy and unreasonable, like most of their views, so they do their best to keep it on the low-low. But it's exactly where they think a perfect society ends up. Kids carefully bred and raised by the state.

 

[G.T.]

Substitute raised by "the state" with raised by "the Religion," and both to me are gross.

 

[koshergrl]

That's not what you said, though. You said it was good to move away from religion, and that morality originates with reason, not with religion.

But you can't prove it. You can't show how any society has successfully moved away from religion and into a more advanced, god-free morality, or how removal of religion results in more peaceful society. You can't give a single example of a moral society that exists independent of religion, or give us an example of the religion-free society you stated we should "return" to.

Fail.

 

[G.T.]

Morality does originate with reason.
Religion was a means to force people, by use of fear and reward, to become more moral.

That a society has or has not BEEN moral without Religion is irrelevant. That only speaks to whether or not people are inherently good, inherently bad, or inherently indifferent - it has nothing to do with the source OF morals, but only the source of BEHAVING morally. (through fear or reward, or just naturally).

 

[PoliticalChic]

Morality does originate with reason.
Religion was a means to force people, by use of fear and reward, to become more moral.

That a society has or has not BEEN moral without Religion is irrelevant. That only speaks to whether or not people are inherently good, inherently bad, or inherently indifferent - it has nothing to do with the source OF morals, but only the source of BEHAVING morally. (through fear or reward, or just naturally).

I do so hate to do this to you....

You're clearly not ready for more than one idea per day...but:

If there's no God - making ourselves the source of ethics for everybody, i.e., 'reason,' or declaring that nobody can be the source of ethics for anybody, and therefore morality is, again, purely subjective.

Abortion may be legal, and a woman’s right….but this doesn’t it is ethically right. The Greeks believed in a version of same in which they placed deformed babies on the hillside. The reason I use the Greek example of ugly children is not because we do it today, but because they had reason on their side.

Reason supports a lot of things, as for example, a very liberal position on abortion. If there is no God, "Love your neighbor as yourself" is just a good idea.

That's why it is written, incidentally, in Leviticus, "Love your neighbor as yourself, I am God." I, God, tell you to be decent to other people.
From Dennis Prager's radio show.

 

[G.T.]

Stop with the little petty side insults and try to have a discussion for once, for shit's sake it's so juvenile.

Some morals are clearly subjective. Definitely. But all are not, and it doesn't take God to conclude the ones that aren't. Instinct - survival.

You cant always be the strongest person in the room.
Do you want to die?

Reason.

Love your neighbor as thyself.

Do you want to be treated like shit?

Reason. God is irrelevant to whether or not it's a good idea.

 

[Newby]

How do you determine which are subjective and which are not? Isn't that determiniation in and of itself 'subjective'?

 

[G.T.]

How do you determine which are subjective and which are not? Isn't that determiniation in and of itself 'subjective'?

Because logic is not abstract. It's a solid foundation.

 

[Newby]

Who's "logic"? Yours?

 

[koshergrl]

How do you determine which are subjective and which are not? Isn't that determiniation in and of itself 'subjective'?

No. It's objective fact. Why? Because g.t. says so.

 

[t_polkow]

Morality does originate with reason.
Religion was a means to force people, by use of fear and reward, to become more moral.

That a society has or has not BEEN moral without Religion is irrelevant. That only speaks to whether or not people are inherently good, inherently bad, or inherently indifferent - it has nothing to do with the source OF morals, but only the source of BEHAVING morally. (through fear or reward, or just naturally).

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social
ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be
restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
..........Albert Einstein

 

[G.T.]

Who's "logic"? Yours?

Right, because "logic" varies person to person.

No, only each person's ability to use logic varies.

But logic itself does not vary.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Morality does originate with reason.
Religion was a means to force people, by use of fear and reward, to become more moral.

That a society has or has not BEEN moral without Religion is irrelevant. That only speaks to whether or not people are inherently good, inherently bad, or inherently indifferent - it has nothing to do with the source OF morals, but only the source of BEHAVING morally. (through fear or reward, or just naturally).

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social
ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be
restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
..........Albert Einstein

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Albert Einstein,


March 14, 1879...Happy Birthday, Albert!

 

[koshergrl]

Morality and ethical behavior are the same thing?

 

[t_polkow]

Morality does originate with reason.
Religion was a means to force people, by use of fear and reward, to become more moral.

That a society has or has not BEEN moral without Religion is irrelevant. That only speaks to whether or not people are inherently good, inherently bad, or inherently indifferent - it has nothing to do with the source OF morals, but only the source of BEHAVING morally. (through fear or reward, or just naturally).

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social
ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be
restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
..........Albert Einstein

Einstein expressed his skepticism regarding an anthropomorphic deity, often describing it as "naïve" and "childlike". He stated, "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems."
On 22 March 1954 Einstein received a letter from Joseph Dispentiere, an Italian immigrant who had worked as an experimental machinist in New Jersey. Dispentiere had declared himself an atheist and was disappointed by a news report which had cast Einstein as conventionally religious. Einstein replied on 24 March 1954:
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
In a letter to Beatrice Frohlich, 17 December 1952 Einstein stated, "The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve." Eric Gutkind sent a copy of his book "Choose Life: The Biblical Call To Revolt" to Einstein in 1954. Einstein sent Gutkind a letter in response and wrote, "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text."

 

[Newby]

Who's "logic"? Yours?

Right, because "logic" varies person to person.

No, only each person's ability to use logic varies.

But logic itself does not vary.

But who's logic does not vary? There is no one 'logical standpoint' that is 'correct', everyone has their own version which they believe to be the accurate one. Logic is as subjective as anything else in human nature.

 

[G.T.]

Morality and ethical behavior are the same thing?

Yes.