Suppose Mr. X has gotten me extremely pissed off. I've stewed over it for a week, and come up with a perfect plan to kill him. I couldn't possibly be caught, and it would be nicely framed to look like it was actually Ms. X, who I also despise.
I know it would be an 'evil' act, but it would make me feel better and I don't care.
All religion aside, why shouldn't I do it?
As I posted in response to the same previously;
The Universal Principle is at the root of humanist ethics. Simply put - what is right for one is right for all. Religions express this in different ways - do as you would be done by, for example. It is a profoundly rational approach to ethical considerations and answers this problem thus;
If it is right for you to kill the person, it is also right for them to kill you. Since most people would take the view that they don't wish to be killed then it follows that it would not be right to kill the person.
This principle of universality is not enough on its own - we need to consider situations where the individual is 'damaged' in some way - a masochist for example. In such cases there has to be an 'external' arbiter of ethics to avoid damage to others. Then we get into the universal ethic. It does, however, form the basis of a personal ethical system and, for most people, is enough to deal with most situations. ^Of course it is 'not right'. But why shouldn't I do it anyway? Why not do things that are 'not right'?
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| ^Of course it is 'not right'. But why shouldn't I do it anyway? Why not do things that are 'not right'? |
People do - all the time. Then we are into crime and punishment...that is a different debate. Why should you not do something that you believe is wrong? Because you believe it is wrong is the simple answer. Because you fear you might be punished is a secondary answer. Most people don't do what they believe to be wrong simply because they choose not to - that is the basis of morality. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| ^Of course it is 'not right'. But why shouldn't I do it anyway? Why not do things that are 'not right'? |
So you understand that it can be determined to be wrong without religion, you just don't understand why we should care? Does that mean that the role of religion in morality is really just as a big stick threatening us?
You know, this is just an aside, but i have always heard the religious folk condemning materialists for "demeaning" humanity, by making them "just animals" instead of something divine. But then they turn around and present this argument - that without the looming threat of a vengeful god sternly watching over everything we do and promising big-time punishment if we stray, that we are simply incapable of acting morally. Aside from being just plain illogical (evolutionarily speaking, we are built to behave morally more often than not), that sounds to me far more demeaning than calling humans just a certain breed of animal.The act of forgiving, if you truely forgive, can be much like catharsis. But all in all, this is the point where I see it like this : If they caused your anger, and you can get at them with no consequences, then just weigh out how much youore really angry at them. If much, then make them suffer, if not much, then just annoy them.
Why not?
I think that the 'war for a war' -type example given already is pretty explanatory. I don't see why it's not acceptable.
By doing something wrong, you're allowing everything bad in this world to perpetuate onto you and forward. You're spreading it like a plague, a disease. You hated Mr. X and made Mrs. X take the blame. Everyone who loved Mr. X will want Mrs. X dead. Those who believe Mrs. X is innocent will despise those who want her dead. And so fourth.
The reason why you shouldn't kill Mr. X is that you'd prove further that the human race really is a despicable breathing, living organism that needs to die by it's own self-inflicted circle of hatred. But since you're lusting for the end of the lives of just two people, what would care about any other life. Even despite knowing all of the above.
This leaves the conclusion that humans are self-serving, and do not care about the after effects of their greedy actions to take and take even more.
We will all die for this eventually, because it is not in our minds to stop. So maybe there is no reason to not do something wrong, because we are wrong, and are only doing what we are.
But then, knowing that, wouldn't you feel moved to break away from the limitations of being human and prove that all wrong? That's also human nature.
| RubySlasher wrote: |
| you'd prove further that the human race really is a despicable breathing, living organism that needs to die by it's own self-inflicted circle of hatred. |
Oh, I was taking that for granted. | c'tair wrote: |
The act of forgiving, if you truely forgive, can be much like catharsis. But all in all, this is the point where I see it like this : If they caused your anger, and you can get at them with no consequences, then just weigh out how much youore really angry at them. If much, then make them suffer, if not much, then just annoy them.
Why not? |
Why not? Is that the world you want to live in? A world where tit for tat, vigilante vengeance justice rules? If person A harms person B, B gets to decide if and how much A suffers - regardless of any extenuating circumstances, regardless of how sorry A is, regardless of how hard A tries to make amends, regardless of whether everyone else thinks B is going to far, etc. - only B gets to decide how much suffering to inflict on A until they're satisfied? Sounds like a nice place to you? | ocalhoun wrote: |
Suppose Mr. X has gotten me extremely pissed off. I've stewed over it for a week, and come up with a perfect plan to kill him. I couldn't possibly be caught, and it would be nicely framed to look like it was actually Ms. X, who I also despise.
I know it would be an 'evil' act, but it would make me feel better and I don't care.
All religion aside, why shouldn't I do it? |
It is sad if people need authority to act moral. Ideally it would make you feel good to act moral. You might have the initial urge to kill someone or whatever but you would acknowledge that as just a feeling/thought. You are not an animal. You have the ability to objectively make decisions based on your own and others best interest. That is what it is to be a human being.
My coworker came in the office and said that she had just gotten out of a traffic jam and felt like killing someone. People laughed it off. Of course she wasnt really going to kill someone, but she sure felt like it after that 3 hour traffic jam. She wasnt going to act on it because she is a human being capable of making moral decisions and with a conscience that guides her actions.Why would you do it .... socaity for 1 point ... if everybody tought the same like you, there wouldn't be big city's peacefull towns ..... nothing like we have today
But lets see this in your point of vieuw why wouldn't you do it
first : It will probably bite you in the ass, in your dreams, you'll prob think about it all the time.
When you think you forgot all about it, you'd see something and think about it again.
your whole life would be ruined just cause you wanted to kill 1 person .....
I would say lol if you really want to do something cause you hate him that much .... put on a mask and beat him.
Alto I don't recommend it
This topic screams humanist propaganda all over, but anyway, I prefer to think of it in terms of conscience. Hope you have one.
I guess I'm just a bit confused on this topic. The reasons to not do something harmful to another human being have all been recognized by you and then dismissed because you seek something else. Value of human life being a pretty standard moral. So that point aside and any reasons from religion aside as well? There really isn't any other reason, but when you're ignoring the ones that exist. Like say.... human conscience... What exactly are you looking for as far as an answer? o.O
| Arnie wrote: |
| This topic screams humanist propaganda all over, but anyway, I prefer to think of it in terms of conscience. Hope you have one. |
What about it is propaganda? The morality humanism offers has many basic similarities to the morality...say Christianity offers....except behind a different label.
| Quote: |
| Humanism is a broad category of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appeal to universal human qualities particularly rationality. It is a component of a variety of more specific philosophical systems and is incorporated into several religious schools of thought. Humanism entails a commitment to the search for truth and morality through human means in support of human interests. In focusing on the capacity for self-determination, humanism rejects the validity of transcendental justifications, such as a dependence on belief without reason, the supernatural, or texts of allegedly divine origin. Humanists endorse universal morality based on the commonality of the human condition, suggesting that solutions to human social and cultural problems cannot be parochial. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism
What about that is propaganda and how is it REALLY different than the basic moral values most major religions push so heavily (or used to push heavily)?why not do what is wrong, imo that comes down to you, why wouldnt you do it? becausein your head and your heart you know it is wrong.
because what right do yo have to take away the life of another. and could you live with your self knowign you had killed one person and runied anothers life?
But how can you prove that action x is 'wrong' and action y is 'right'?
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| But how can you prove that action x is 'wrong' and action y is 'right'? |
How can you prove it? | HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| But how can you prove that action x is 'wrong' and action y is 'right'? |
You cannot 'prove' it using ANY system of ethics.
You have a few choices.
a) You can start from a position of believing a particular teaching or scriptural source is either divine or 'true' and choose to follow that teaching/scripture. That is your position and the position of some religious people.
b) You can start with one or more axioms ('givens') and work out a system of ethics based on that. That is my position and personally I choose the Universal Ethic
c) You can rely on your 'inner voice' or conscience to tell you what is right and wrong. This is probably the most 'subjective' form of ethics and will inevitably lead to a wide variation between individuals.
d) You can abide by the laws of the society you live in and use that as your ethical system. This is a very narrow and 'selfish' form of ethics (hardly an ethical system at all).
Most people probably pick and mix between two or more of these. Non of them can be regarded as 'provable' in the absolute sense but I would argue that b) is the most logical and consistent. | Bikerman wrote: |
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: | | But how can you prove that action x is 'wrong' and action y is 'right'? |
You cannot 'prove' it using ANY system of ethics.
You have a few choices.
a) You can start from a position of believing a particular teaching or scriptural source is either divine or 'true' and choose to follow that teaching/scripture. That is your position and the position of some religious people.
b) You can start with one or more axioms ('givens') and work out a system of ethics based on that. That is my position and personally I choose the Universal Ethic
c) You can rely on your 'inner voice' or conscience to tell you what is right and wrong. This is probably the most 'subjective' form of ethics and will inevitably lead to a wide variation between individuals.
d) You can abide by the laws of the society you live in and use that as your ethical system. This is a very narrow and 'selfish' form of ethics (hardly an ethical system at all).
Most people probably pick and mix between two or more of these. Non of them can be regarded as 'provable' in the absolute sense but I would argue that b) is the most logical and consistent. |
Wow, that's easily the best post in the entire thread.
So, taking that list and the original question of the thread:
a) because God tells you not to
b) because your ethic tells you not to (or because it tells you to)
c) no reason, go ahead if your conscience doesn't stop you.
d) to avoid being guilty of a crime | ocalhoun wrote: |
Suppose Mr. X has gotten me extremely pissed off. I've stewed over it for a week, and come up with a perfect plan to kill him. I couldn't possibly be caught, and it would be nicely framed to look like it was actually Ms. X, who I also despise.
I know it would be an 'evil' act, but it would make me feel better and I don't care.
All religion aside, why shouldn't I do it? |
The question in its own reflects that the author cares. If the author of the question did not care, then he would not have asked the question? The question is whether to kill or not to kill? And again this question reflects that to kill is wrong and not to kill is right. This question originates from centuries of education by society and indoctrination of its ethical rule "thy shalt not kill"! It would take someone with a psychological defect or background of real abuse, or total lack of feeling to be able to get past that rule, and when they do, they will not ask this question, they will simply do it. They will kill and walk away from it quite satisfied by it or even enjoying it. They will also not worry about questions like this. By posing the question, it supposes a measure of consciousness, which if doing the deed, will trip the person up.Religion has not got to do anything about eviland good
in fact it is the Human nature which is involved here
quote "Blind obedience is another danger signal. Checking your intelligence and common sense at the door can lead to situations like the Jim Jones tragedy, where nine hundred believers followed their charismatic leader to Guiana where they committed mass suicide at his command. Dr. Kimball warns against uncritical acceptance of any popular belief -- especially if it advocates violence"
This is what is said in the book by
When Religion Becomes Evil By Charles Kimball 2003
A very nice book suggest you can read this if you get hold of it
| ocalhoun wrote: |
Suppose Mr. X has gotten me extremely pissed off. I've stewed over it for a week, and come up with a perfect plan to kill him. I couldn't possibly be caught, and it would be nicely framed to look like it was actually Ms. X, who I also despise.
I know it would be an 'evil' act, but it would make me feel better and I don't care.
All religion aside, why shouldn't I do it? |
Simple if there is a rules that you try to follow and find these very important. If you go by "don't do to others what you don't want to be done to yourself" and make an exeption when people (try) do something to you that you don't like.
Otherwise there is a law that dictates right from wrong. | Klaw 2 wrote: |
| ocalhoun wrote: | Suppose Mr. X has gotten me extremely pissed off. I've stewed over it for a week, and come up with a perfect plan to kill him. I couldn't possibly be caught, and it would be nicely framed to look like it was actually Ms. X, who I also despise.
I know it would be an 'evil' act, but it would make me feel better and I don't care.
All religion aside, why shouldn't I do it? |
Simple if there is a rules that you try to follow and find these very important. If you go by "don't do to others what you don't want to be done to yourself" and make an exeption when people (try) do something to you that you don't like.
Otherwise there is a law that dictates right from wrong. |
"Don't do to others what you don't want to be done to yourself" gets a problem if you're a masochist. =P | catscratches wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: | | ocalhoun wrote: | Suppose Mr. X has gotten me extremely pissed off. I've stewed over it for a week, and come up with a perfect plan to kill him. I couldn't possibly be caught, and it would be nicely framed to look like it was actually Ms. X, who I also despise.
I know it would be an 'evil' act, but it would make me feel better and I don't care.
All religion aside, why shouldn't I do it? |
Simple if there is a rules that you try to follow and find these very important. If you go by "don't do to others what you don't want to be done to yourself" and make an exeption when people (try) do something to you that you don't like.
Otherwise there is a law that dictates right from wrong. |
"Don't do to others what you don't want to be done to yourself" gets a problem if you're a masochist. =P |
Why?
If that person doesn't want to have done to him/herself. And you "obey" the rule there is no problem. | Klaw 2 wrote: |
| catscratches wrote: | | Klaw 2 wrote: | | ocalhoun wrote: | Suppose Mr. X has gotten me extremely pissed off. I've stewed over it for a week, and come up with a perfect plan to kill him. I couldn't possibly be caught, and it would be nicely framed to look like it was actually Ms. X, who I also despise.
I know it would be an 'evil' act, but it would make me feel better and I don't care.
All religion aside, why shouldn't I do it? |
Simple if there is a rules that you try to follow and find these very important. If you go by "don't do to others what you don't want to be done to yourself" and make an exeption when people (try) do something to you that you don't like.
Otherwise there is a law that dictates right from wrong. |
"Don't do to others what you don't want to be done to yourself" gets a problem if you're a masochist. =P |
Why?
If that person doesn't want to have done to him/herself. And you "obey" the rule there is no problem. |
Because a masochist is someone who derives pleasure from receiving pain. Meaning if they did to others what they would want done to themselves...well, a lot of people would be in pain and probably wouldn't want to be. | liljp617 wrote: |
| Because a masochist is someone who derives pleasure from receiving pain. Meaning if they did to others what they would want done to themselves...well, a lot of people would be in pain and probably wouldn't want to be. |
I know what they like, bondage&stuff.
But what I meant that if you go hurting other people. You might concider that they don't want it, and it's not important what you may like.
But besides if you are into that kind of stuff you might not want it all the time and maybe not from just some random person. On any random time on any random place.Well, as you can not hurt people who don't want it legally, it'll be no problem by doing as you said. Just follow both laws and the rule.
| liljp617 wrote: |
| Because a masochist is someone who derives pleasure from receiving pain. Meaning if they did to others what they would want done to themselves...well, a lot of people would be in pain and probably wouldn't want to be. |
This is why the Biblical form, "Do to others what you want/like done to you," that is given in the Sermon on the Mount, is wrong.
| catscratches wrote: |
| Well, as you can not hurt people who don't want it legally, it'll be no problem by doing as you said. Just follow both laws and the rule. |
You shouldn't appeal to the law to decide what is moral. You should make laws from morals, not morals from laws. | ocalhoun wrote: |
Suppose Mr. X has gotten me extremely pissed off. I've stewed over it for a week, and come up with a perfect plan to kill him. I couldn't possibly be caught, and it would be nicely framed to look like it was actually Ms. X, who I also despise.
I know it would be an 'evil' act, but it would make me feel better and I don't care.
All religion aside, why shouldn't I do it? |
You would be or wouldn't be able to do it depending on the person that you are. Take it like there are kids in school who always get into fight and then there are ones who never do. It all comes from the environment/conditioning that they come from. Kid from a house where violence is more commonplace would be prone to be violent but a kid from a relatively passive household would turn out to be passive.
Does religion play a part in it? Quite possible. If you were taught that you shouldn't harm others because God deemed it so and you were a God fearing person you'd refrain from harming Mr X, and possibly applaud yourself on forgiving an enemy.
But you might do the same if you didn't have a religion, yet you believed that harming others was just wrong. Religion doesn't have anything to do with this, it comes from being a thinking man. No self congratulatory messages at the end of this, as I see it.
So why shouldn't you do it? No idea! But why wouldn't you do it? Maybe cause thats who you are!"If there is no God, everything is permissible."
-- Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov
I think this was the intent of the original poster.
If you do not posit a God or some sort of supernatural basic for morality, then any 'morality' you have is simply arbitrarily made up stuff that can easily be set aside. At least that is I think the original poster is trying to get across.
| gcaughill wrote: |
"If there is no God, everything is permissible."
-- Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov
I think this was the intent of the original poster.
If you do not posit a God or some sort of supernatural basic for morality, then any 'morality' you have is simply arbitrarily made up stuff that can easily be set aside. At least that is I think the original poster is trying to get across. |
Yes probably true. The problem is that so is the notion of God. Moral codes based on the notion of a God are not 'supernatural' - they were written by men and are interpreted by men/women. There is nothing 'non arbitrary' about religious codes - examples of this abound. Consider the different codes within Christianity. Consider that muslims differ on even the most basic of moral decisions - killing.
You can use scriptural references to justify just about any sort of action. Religious interpretations of scriptures are just as arbitrary as any humanist morality - the difference is that humanism is based on rationality and has logical consistency... | Bikerman wrote: |
There is nothing 'non arbitrary' about religious codes - examples of this abound. Consider the different codes within Christianity. Consider that muslims differ on even the most basic of moral decisions - killing.
You can use scriptural references to justify just about any sort of action. Religious interpretations of scriptures are just as arbitrary as any humanist morality... |
And for those who doubt the supreme arbitrariness of religious moral justification, if this site does not make you think, at the very least it should make you smile. It presents Christian Biblical justifications for a wide variety of sexual practices. Some of the charming topics include "Threesomes Within a Christian Marriage" and "Fisting and God's Will". To demonstrate how serious this site takes its Biblical references, here is a comment from "A Proposal for a Christian Pornography" about the depiction of extramarital sex in a Christian pornographic production: "No extramarital sex, unless it is to illustrate the downfalls of adultery. The spouses in a Christian porn production must never have adulterous relations, unless they (and their partner in extramarital crime) suffer and are punished fittingly for their sins. (In deference to modern conventions, the punishment does not have to be one mandated by scripture, i.e., being stoned to death.)" | gcaughill wrote: |
"If there is no God, everything is permissible."
-- Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov
I think this was the intent of the original poster.
If you do not posit a God or some sort of supernatural basic for morality, then any 'morality' you have is simply arbitrarily made up stuff that can easily be set aside. At least that is I think the original poster is trying to get across. |
Okay so what you are saying atheist are immoral because they don't believe in god. Wel firstly you always got the law checking you and fear for going to prison is maybe holding you back. Otherwise you have this other things called: Guilt and Conscience.
Also on a further note if atheist are so immoral:
Christians make up 75 percent of the population of the US.
Atheists make up 10 percent of the population of the US.
Christians make up 75 percent of the population of the US prisons.
Atheists make up 0.2 percent of the population of the US prisons.
seems like a god MAKES you do bad things huh?
http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm
Edit:
Theists make up 90 percent of the population of the US.
Atheists make up 10 percent of the population of the US.
Theists make up 99.8 percent of the population of the US prisons.
Atheists make up 0.2 percent of the population of the US prisons.
Thanks indi!
O and while searching for the link I came across another website wich put atheists agnostics and DID NOT RESPOND together. Decide for yourself what that (christian)site tried to do.
Last edited by Klaw 2 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 2:43 pm; edited 2 times in total | Klaw 2 wrote: |
| gcaughill wrote: | "If there is no God, everything is permissible."
-- Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov
I think this was the intent of the original poster.
If you do not posit a God or some sort of supernatural basic for morality, then any 'morality' you have is simply arbitrarily made up stuff that can easily be set aside. At least that is I think the original poster is trying to get across. |
Okay so what you are saying atheist are immoral because they don't believe in god. Wel firstly you always got the law checking you and fear for going to prison is maybe holding you back. Otherwise you have this other things called: Guilt and Conscience.
Also on a further note if atheist are so immoral:
Christians make up 75 percent of the population of the US.
Atheists make up 10 percent of the population of the US.
Christians make up 75 percent of the population of the US prisons.
Atheists make up 0.2 percent of the population of the US prisons.
seems like a god MAKES you do bad things huh?
http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm |
(Just to add some notes to those statistics. ^_^ At the time the prison poll was done, i believe the US Christian population was >80%, and the Atheist/Agnostic population was ~12%. Those numbers are from memory, and they include all forms of Christianity (including Mormon, for example). If you use all Christians, the number of Christians in prison is ~81%.)
(But, you know, if you want to be really damning, it's more effective to point out that virtually all of those religions listed are theist in one form or another, with only a few fractions of a percentage point error. If you do it that way, you get the following factoid: >99% of prison inmates are theist, and <1% are atheist... whereas ~12% of non-prison inmates are atheist. That avoids the bias you get against "fringe" religions in US culture, like Islam which makes up <0.5% outside prison and >7% inside, or First Nations religions which makes up <0.05% outside and >3% inside. Those numbers skew the results to make Christianity look not so bad, considering, in that it gets roughly the same showing inside and outside of prisons.)It is about the social code of behavior that society through education and family might hopefully have established in your brain structure. If you do not feel any guilt, then society has failed.
| Coclus wrote: |
| It is about the social code of behavior that society through education and family might hopefully have established in your brain structure. If you do not feel any guilt, then society has failed. |
(Actually, the most recent work in a new field of science devoted to studying morality has shown that morals do not come from society as much as we think they do! In fact, if you were to try to impress moral codes on children that are contrary to their biologically wired moral sense, they will reject them. Their findings suggest that if you do not feel any guilt, then you have not been failed by society, you have been failed by biology... it is like being born blind, or lacking a limb. Food for thought! ^_^) | Klaw 2 wrote: |
Edit:
Theists make up 90 percent of the population of the US.
Atheists make up 10 percent of the population of the US.
Theists make up 99.8 percent of the population of the US prisons.
Atheists make up 0.2 percent of the population of the US prisons.
|
That could perhaps be a little skewed. Environments like prison would have a tendency to make one become religious. This is especially true if they let the prisoners who profess to a faith go to chapel services weekly. As I heard from one fellow trainee in basic training: "I'm an atheist, but I think I'm going to go to church anyway, even after I get out... Its nice." There, and probably in prison also, the church service is the highlight of the week, the one place where people are actually nice to you.
Since they surely don't give atheists a chapel service to go to (why should they need one, after all?) it would be tempting to claim a faith in order to get at least a couple hours a week of having a break from the normal hard prison life. So tempting, in fact, that 98% of the 10% atheist population might do so. I know that back in basic nobody claimed to be atheist. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
Edit:
Theists make up 90 percent of the population of the US.
Atheists make up 10 percent of the population of the US.
Theists make up 99.8 percent of the population of the US prisons.
Atheists make up 0.2 percent of the population of the US prisons.
|
That could perhaps be a little skewed. Environments like prison would have a tendency to make one become religious. This is especially true if they let the prisoners who profess to a faith go to chapel services weekly. As I heard from one fellow trainee in basic training: "I'm an atheist, but I think I'm going to go to church anyway, even after I get out... Its nice." There, and probably in prison also, the church service is the highlight of the week, the one place where people are actually nice to you.
Since they surely don't give atheists a chapel service to go to (why should they need one, after all?) it would be tempting to claim a faith in order to get at least a couple hours a week of having a break from the normal hard prison life. So tempting, in fact, that 98% of the 10% atheist population might do so. I know that back in basic nobody claimed to be atheist. |
No, i'm afraid not.
First of all, the statistics for religion are collected when the inmates are first incarcerated. They fill out the form when they are processed, not after they've been in "the joint" for a few months or years and realize the benefits of faking religion in prison. In order for what you claim to be true, atheists must be an incredibly intelligent and forward-thinking bunch... like superhumanly forward-looking. ^_^; Unless virtually every atheist in prison is an evil super-genius... no, not bloody likely. ^_^; (And if they're that forward-thinking and devious, then it makes more sense to put "atheist" on the entry form and then "convert" later, claiming they learnt their lesson and are ready for early parole.)
(What that means in reality is that the real number of theists in prison is probably higher! Various theist religions actively solicit new members in prison, whereas atheists do not - there are far more cases of people "finding religion" in prison than of "losing religion". Of course, the real number of such conversions is far, far lower than what theists claim, but still... the fact is if there is skewing, it's in the opposite direction from what you say.)
Second, to claim that upwards of 98% of atheists would choose to do this is... a little silly. ^_^; i don't think you realize how big a number 98% is when dealing with people's attitudes. They have an informal saying in polling - that in any given poll you will find at least a 5% level of support for even the stupidest things. i don't have numbers to support it, but i wouldn't be surprised if the level of opposition to child pornography isn't even 98%. And these are prisoners... so they're criminals, and criminals who've been caught (so they're not even the brightest bunch of criminals). i really can't see that sitting in your cell alone for a few hours on a Sunday reading magazines is so horrible to 98% of people that they would explicitly plan ahead to avoid it. Frankly, i'd rather pump weights in the yard or read in the prison library than sit in a stuffy pseudo-church for an hour or two. Is that such a freaky weird position to have that only 2% of atheists would agree? (What the hell do you think happens to the prisoners that don't go to services anyway? ^_^; They get thrown in a pit and/or beaten until services are over? ^_^; Get real.)
Reality check: even if it were true that prison life meant hard labour 24/7 - which it doesn't - then what do you think would happen if atheists were forced to keep working while theists got a day (or even just a few hours) off? Do you really think the atheists would shrug and say, "well that sucks"? Or do you think they would be writing congressmen and media personalities screaming about unfair treatment? Hm?
And if an atheist really wanted Sunday morning off, why don't they just say that while everyone else is in services they want to study for a degree? ^_^;
Sorry dude... doesn't fly.
Incidentally, i was in basic. And i said i was an atheist. And i was not the only one. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
Edit:
Theists make up 90 percent of the population of the US.
Atheists make up 10 percent of the population of the US.
Theists make up 99.8 percent of the population of the US prisons.
Atheists make up 0.2 percent of the population of the US prisons.
|
That could perhaps be a little skewed. Environments like prison would have a tendency to make one become religious. This is especially true if they let the prisoners who profess to a faith go to chapel services weekly. As I heard from one fellow trainee in basic training: "I'm an atheist, but I think I'm going to go to church anyway, even after I get out... Its nice." There, and probably in prison also, the church service is the highlight of the week, the one place where people are actually nice to you.
Since they surely don't give atheists a chapel service to go to (why should they need one, after all?) it would be tempting to claim a faith in order to get at least a couple hours a week of having a break from the normal hard prison life. So tempting, in fact, that 98% of the 10% atheist population might do so. I know that back in basic nobody claimed to be atheist. |
Got any research on that, you are making a bald clame here.
But no it's impossible these forms are taking prior when they go to prison.Have any of you read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis or The Language of God by Francis Collins? In fact, there is a great debate between Francis Collins and Richard Dawkins in Time magazine. You can find it here.
Anyway, there is a theory called Moral Law or The Law of Nature
| Quote: |
It seems, then, we are forced to believe in a real Right and Wrong. People may be sometimes mistaken about them, just as people sometimes get their sums wrong; but they are not a matter of mere taste and opinion any more than the multiplication table. Now if we are agreed about that, I go on to my next point, which is this. None of us are really keeping the Law of Nature. If there are any exceptions among you, I apologise to them. They had much better read some other book, for nothing I am going to say concerns them. And now, turning to the ordinary human beings who are left:
I hope you will not misunderstand what I am going to say. I am not preaching, and Heaven knows I do not pretend to be better than anyone else. I am only trying to call attention to a fact; the fact that this year, or this month, or, more likely, this very day, we have failed to practise ourselves the kind of behaviour we expect from other people. There may be all sorts of excuses for us. That time you were so unfair to the children was when you were very tired. That slightly shady business about the money--the one you have almost forgotten-came when you were very hard up. And what you promised to do for old So-and-so and have never done--well, you never would have promised if you had known how frightfully busy you were going to be. And as for your behaviour to your wife (or husband) or sister (or brother) if I knew how irritating they could be, I would not wonder at it--and who the dickens am I, anyway? I am just the same. That is to say, I do not succeed in keeping the Law of Nature very well, and the moment anyone tells me I am not keeping it, there starts up in my mind a string of excuses as long as your arm. The question at the moment is not whether they are good excuses. The point is that they are one more proof of how deeply, whether we like it or not, we believe in the Law of Nature. If we do not believe in decent behaviour, why should we be so anxious to make excuses for not having behaved decently? The truth is, we believe in decency so much--we feel the Rule or Law pressing on us so--that we cannot bear to face the fact that we are breaking it, and consequently we try to shift the responsibility. For you notice that it is only for our bad behaviour that we find all these explanations. It is only our bad temper that we put down to being tired or worried or hungry; we put our good temper down to ourselves.
These, then, are the two points I wanted to make. First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in. |
Essentially, the argument is the idea that we have this idea of right and wrong, which may sometimes be skewed, but it is there. Everyone has it. Where does it come from?
There are two reasons, this is intriguing. One is that all cultures and religions of the world endorse a universal, absolute and timeless Moral Law. It is overwhelmingly documented in the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics according to Collins. He argues that it is a unique property that separates humans and animals. The Moral Law includes altruism which is more than just reciprocity ("You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours"). His second argument is: "Selfless altruism presents a major challenge for the evolutionist" Having accepted the evolutionary origin of humans without supernatural intervention, for him the Moral Law is the only property that cannot be explained and will never be explained by Darwinian evolution and the human genome data.
There are opponents to this position like the following link: http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/korthof83.htm who tries to deconstruct what Francis Collins has written.
Either way, I find the argument fascinating.[/quote]
Last edited by ericf on Mon Jun 23, 2008 7:52 pm; edited 1 time in total | ericf wrote: |
| Have any of you read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis or The Language of God by Francis Collins? In fact, there is a great debate between Francis Collins and Charles Darwin in Time magazine. You can find it here. |
err...no. That debate is between Collins and Richard Dawkins - not Darwin. | Bikerman wrote: |
| ericf wrote: | | Have any of you read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis or The Language of God by Francis Collins? In fact, there is a great debate between Francis Collins and Charles Darwin in Time magazine. You can find it here. |
err...no. That debate is between Collins and Richard Dawkins - not Darwin. |
Right right... Thanks for the correction. | Bikerman wrote: |
| ericf wrote: | | Have any of you read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis or The Language of God by Francis Collins? In fact, there is a great debate between Francis Collins and Charles Darwin in Time magazine. You can find it here. |
err...no. That debate is between Collins and Richard Dawkins - not Darwin. |
Wouldn't that be a site to see! | liljp617 wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | ericf wrote: | | Have any of you read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis or The Language of God by Francis Collins? In fact, there is a great debate between Francis Collins and Charles Darwin in Time magazine. You can find it here. |
err...no. That debate is between Collins and Richard Dawkins - not Darwin. |
Wouldn't that be a site to see! |
Well, the transcript seems OK to me...no obvious edits or distortion. RD has, as most people know, stopped debating creationists in public forums (not that I wish to imply that Collins is a creationist - far from it, he is a vocal critic of creationism). I sympathise with Dawkins' reasons for this decision but it is a shame that people are deprived of his clear-thinking on this matter. That is one reason I recommend his books to people who wish to know more about his views. | Bikerman wrote: |
| liljp617 wrote: | | Bikerman wrote: | | ericf wrote: | | Have any of you read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis or The Language of God by Francis Collins? In fact, there is a great debate between Francis Collins and Charles Darwin in Time magazine. You can find it here. |
err...no. That debate is between Collins and Richard Dawkins - not Darwin. |
Wouldn't that be a site to see! |
Well, the transcript seems OK to me...no obvious edits or distortion. RD has, as most people know, stopped debating creationists in public forums (not that I wish to imply that Collins is a creationist - far from it, he is a vocal critic of creationism). I sympathise with Dawkins' reasons for this decision but it is a shame that people are deprived of his clear-thinking on this matter. That is one reason I recommend his books to people who wish to know more about his views. |
It's been a while since i read it, but i remember thinking it was a lousy debate. If i recall, Collins kept introducing irrelevancies and Dawkins kept calling him out on it, and never got to say much of consequence. i read it before i read any of Dawkins' works, and i remember that when i actually got into reading Dawkins, i was surprised that his views were nothing like i had expected (given what i thought knew about his views from bits and pieces of media coverage, including that debate). | Indi wrote: |
| It's been a while since i read it, but i remember thinking it was a lousy debate. If i recall, Collins kept introducing irrelevancies and Dawkins kept calling him out on it, and never got to say much of consequence. i read it before i read any of Dawkins' works, and i remember that when i actually got into reading Dawkins, i was surprised that his views were nothing like i had expected (given what i thought knew about his views from bits and pieces of media coverage, including that debate). |
Yes , I agree totally. I was expecting a rabid atheistic diatribe. What you get is a considered, forceful but patient approach. I attended a lecture by Dawins about a decade ago in London and found him to be a good presenter of ideas (something quite rare in academics, unfortunately). Many people have described RD, without irony, as a 'spiritual' person and I can see what they mean.
