Unruly Passengers

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

Even atheism is a religious belief, from a certain point
of view.

Wrong.

You know, few religious types exercise as much faith in their beliefs as
you
do in yours.

Come back and we'll talk when you learn the proper definitions of
terms...such as "faith", "religion", "belief"...

All I am saying is that wanting to deny people a political voice simply on
the grounds of religious belief exhibits a level of intolerance bordering on
fanaticism. You want to try to play semantics to define your way out of it,
fine, but no matter how you define it, the effect is the same.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...


Come back and we'll talk when you learn the proper definitions of
terms...such as "faith", "religion", "belief"...

All I am saying is that wanting to deny people a political voice simply on
the grounds of religious belief exhibits a level of intolerance bordering
on
fanaticism.

And nothing I've said indicates I want to deny them a voice. What we cannot
tolerate is trying to foist a non-objective view of morality into the
politcal process, whether it's the religion of the Bible or of Marxism.

You want to try to play semantics to define your way out of it,
fine, but no matter how you define it, the effect is the same.

Sigh...I've heard those logical fallacies for years and they get more and
more tired (and nauseating) with each passing. Move away from the "old wives
tales" and try again without just parroting the same old lines that
religionist have been spouting for centuries.

Until you realize the difference between a belief and a DISBELIEF, between
one based on faith and one based on evidence, you can take those aspersions
and stick them where the sun don't shine. Try digging outside the sources
targeting the so called "choir".

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...


Come back and we'll talk when you learn the proper definitions of
terms...such as "faith", "religion", "belief"...

All I am saying is that wanting to deny people a political voice simply
on
the grounds of religious belief exhibits a level of intolerance
bordering
on
fanaticism.

And nothing I've said indicates I want to deny them a voice. What we
cannot
tolerate is trying to foist a non-objective view of morality into the
politcal process, whether it's the religion of the Bible or of Marxism.

You want to try to play semantics to define your way out of it,
fine, but no matter how you define it, the effect is the same.

Sigh...I've heard those logical fallacies for years and they get more and
more tired (and nauseating) with each passing. Move away from the "old
wives
tales" and try again without just parroting the same old lines that
religionist have been spouting for centuries.

No more nauseating or trite than that there is an objective view of
morality, or that a non-religious view of morality is somehow more objective
than a religious one. Really, if you want to talk about old wives tales, try
looking at the lines the non-religionists have been spouting for centuries.


Until you realize the difference between a belief and a DISBELIEF, between
one based on faith and one based on evidence

I am not sure that you realize the difference yourself. Allow me to
illustrate. Perhaps you believe it is wrong to kill in order to take things
that do not belong to you. What evidence do you have that it is wrong to do
that? Conversely, I would like to see an example of something that you would
consider a faith based imposition of morality on the legal system.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
[...]
I am not sure that you realize the difference yourself. Allow me to
illustrate. Perhaps you believe it is wrong to kill in order to take
things
that do not belong to you. What evidence do you have that it is wrong to
do
that? Conversely, I would like to see an example of something that you
would
consider a faith based imposition of morality on the legal system.

You can't be serious. Our lawbooks are filled with faith-based imposition
of morality. From blue laws restricting what kinds of businesses can
operate when, to laws governing sexual conduct between two consenting
adults, to the latest hot topic regarding gay marriage.

Tom is all wet trying to claim atheism isn't a religon, of course. It's
every bit a religion as any other belief that has no factual proof to
support it. No one's proven there is a God, but neither has anyone proved
there isn't one. An atheist is taking the belief of a lack of a God every
bit on faith as a Christian takes the belief of existence of God on faith.

People will disagree on what sorts of actions have victims and what sorts
don't, of course, and I won't be surprised if you don't think my examples of
faith-based imposition of morality aren't examples at all. Suffice to say I
will never agree with you that they aren't, and I feel strongly that we
shouldn't have laws like those that don't involve an actual victim and serve
only to impose one person's arbitrary rules of conduct on another.
Invariably those laws always turn out to have their basis in some Christian
belief, rather than a demonstrable harm one person does to another.

Pete

Conversely, I would like to see an example of something that you would
consider a faith based imposition of morality on the legal system.

How about not being able to able to buy beer on sunday morning?

If that aint a religous based law I dont know what is...

Blll

Conversely, I would like to see an example of something that you would
consider a faith based imposition of morality on the legal system.

Restrictions on abortion.
Laws against sodomy.
Laws against unmarried couples living together.
Prohibition
Drug laws
The original calls for government welfare in the US (1890's)
....
Hell, anything out of the mouth of Pat Robertson or Pat Buchannan...

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

You want to try to play semantics to define your way out of it,
fine, but no matter how you define it, the effect is the same.

Sigh...I've heard those logical fallacies for years and they get more
and
more tired (and nauseating) with each passing. Move away from the "old
wives
tales" and try again without just parroting the same old lines that
religionist have been spouting for centuries.

No more nauseating or trite than that there is an objective view of
morality, or that a non-religious view of morality is somehow more
objective
than a religious one. Really, if you want to talk about old wives tales,
try
looking at the lines the non-religionists have been spouting for
centuries.

But I think there are parts of this discussion that are foundering on
semantics. I'd assert that there are many people have deep reasons for
acting morally, with roots that are almost ineffable but have nothing to do
with the various belief systems that we commonly think of as religions. If
the root is pure humanism, or the belief that what we call God is an
immanent creation of the entire human experience - I suppose you could call
those religions because they involve some non-rational basis (hence the
semantic confusion). You could also construct a Darwinian derivation of
morals, where the organism that is struggling to survive is the society, and
an ethical code (one we would recognize as such) turns out to be a positive
adaptation.

I'd like to pursue (and I've been trying hard to stay off these non-flying
threads): do you think we cannot have ethics or morals without appealing to
the influence of a Christian God and the associated spiritual life? Or do
you at least require some externally existent (in some sense) and
influential spiritual force? How about the internally located forces of
Buddhism? Do you deny the possiblity of secular humanism being a valid
wellspring of morals, even if it happens to lead to a secular St Francis?

If you say a humanist can't be ethical or moral, I'm starting to object. If
you say a humanist can act ethically or morally, but what matters is that
they aren't moral inside: well, I've heard that assertion and I don't buy
it. Maybe it's a question of definition again.

-- David Brooks

"David Brooks" wrote in message
...
"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

You want to try to play semantics to define your way out of it,
fine, but no matter how you define it, the effect is the same.

Sigh...I've heard those logical fallacies for years and they get more
and
more tired (and nauseating) with each passing. Move away from the "old
wives
tales" and try again without just parroting the same old lines that
religionist have been spouting for centuries.

No more nauseating or trite than that there is an objective view of
morality, or that a non-religious view of morality is somehow more
objective
than a religious one. Really, if you want to talk about old wives tales,
try
looking at the lines the non-religionists have been spouting for
centuries.

Such as? For some reason their words don't get out that much...something
about holy wars and purges...


But I think there are parts of this discussion that are foundering on
semantics.

Quite so. CJ doesn't comprehend what FAITH is (the acceptance of something
based on NO evidence, or even things counter to evidence) which is NOT the
way to invoke policy.

I'd assert that there are many people have deep reasons for
acting morally, with roots that are almost ineffable but have nothing to
do
with the various belief systems that we commonly think of as religions.

And that's fine as long as they keep it to themselves. Religions are beliefs
primarily based on what we often call "superstitions" and revelations.


If
the root is pure humanism, or the belief that what we call God is an
immanent creation of the entire human experience - I suppose you could
call
those religions because they involve some non-rational basis (hence the
semantic confusion).

Yeah...IF.

You could also construct a Darwinian derivation of
morals, where the organism that is struggling to survive is the society,
and
an ethical code (one we would recognize as such) turns out to be a
positive
adaptation.

Yeah, you could, but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny either.


I'd like to pursue (and I've been trying hard to stay off these non-flying
threads): do you think we cannot have ethics or morals without appealing
to
the influence of a Christian God and the associated spiritual life?

I'd say "most definitely"...for one thing, religion comes from human minds,
whether they want to call it a "revelation" or "too much pizza before bed".

Or do
you at least require some externally existent (in some sense) and
influential spiritual force?

That'd be fine if we want to mimic the Middle East and turn humankind back
3000-500 years and have the high priest or Plato's "Philosophy Kings".


How about the internally located forces of
Buddhism? Do you deny the possiblity of secular humanism being a valid
wellspring of morals, even if it happens to lead to a secular St Francis?

If you say a humanist can't be ethical or moral, I'm starting to object.

I'm with you.

If
you say a humanist can act ethically or morally, but what matters is that
they aren't moral inside: well, I've heard that assertion and I don't buy
it. Maybe it's a question of definition again.

Not even definitions; CJ's trying to lump counter arguments into a slot
(humanism...in the context of modern day secular humanism, which I find just
about as dense as faith/revelations) that he feels comfortable with. but
knows very little about in reality.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote:


Quite so. CJ doesn't comprehend what FAITH is (the acceptance of something
based on NO evidence, or even things counter to evidence) which is NOT the
way to invoke policy.

!!

Just as a point of order here, I'll point out that CJ's definitions of
FAITH (and mine, too) don't even approach the straw man Tom has set up
here.

Interestingly enough, (and anecdotally so) I can't remember if I did
it here or in another forum, but I once took pains once to post the
definitions of faith that Mormons use, and their approach to faith,
only to have my atheist interlocutor deny that the definition could
apply, because it was in a book of scripture, and wasn't properly in
the dictionary. To him, I wasn't "speaking English". In other words,
he didn't answer the questions raised by the different definition.

It looked to me like a stubborn dogmatic expression of (Tom's
definition of) faith, to me, at the time.

Rob

What does everyone do when the bloody passengers start talking religion?
;)
Peter