Do ask do tell!

[30ashopper]

Moral roadblocks are bad, so overlooking them is good. Please lose the talking points.

So, if you decide to rape a woman because you're horny, or kill a man for his money, or steal a stick of gum from the local store because you can't afford to purchase it, in your view overlooking any moral road blocks regarding those acts is a "good thing." Interesting. (You're an athiest, correct? )

 

[Bob]

I believe religion is typically more helpful to the believer than to those who would use religion as a tool. (Though I admit there are many in the latter group.)

IMO religious beliefs are how many get the strength to get through and to explain things far greater than our puny selves.

well now, isn't that the hook to get you to join the group and act as one?

 

[LuciferSam]

The use of religion to do harm isn't the issue. That's a case of lost or misguided moral compass. The question I am raising is, can you have a positive moral code in a society without religious belief as the basis. If you remove religion what do you replace it with? Is it ingrained for instance? If so, what are the guiding principles?

What you are alluding to is moral relativism. It's a dangerous idea. If the religion says its OK to stone adulterers, than who is anyone to argue? Who are we in this country to take issue with other countries who engage in this practice?

So how do you judge if your religion espouses a "positive moral code"? You can't use your religion, that would be circular. You would have to use your reason and intellect to think outside your religion to properly judge it. So here you are judging a belief system used to make judgment. :roll: Conclusion: Lose the religion. It's an unnecessary middleman.

 

[Bob]

So, if you decide to rape a woman because you're horny, or kill a man for his money, or steal a stick of gum from the local store because you can't afford to purchase it, in your view overlooking any moral road blocks regarding those acts is a "good thing." Interesting. (You're an athiest, correct? )

at what point do you exclude others from knowing right from wrong and the idea of not harming others...when you pick your choice ofgroup worship?

 

[Geo]

The use of religion to do harm isn't the issue. That's a case of lost or misguided moral compass. The question I am raising is, can you have a positive moral code in a society without religious belief as the basis. If you remove religion what do you replace it with? Is it ingrained for instance? If so, what are the guiding principles?

Reminds me of when my son was born and my Polish Catholic family was confused when we told them there would be no baptism. My mom (who is the most open minded of the bunch) asked, "Well what will he be if not Catholic? I mean- he has to be something".

It was a beautiful sight to see the expression on her face as she genuinely pondered my response of, "Why?"

It was as if her already open mind expanded moreso and her thoughts answered her own question. She realized after all these years that my beautiful son, born PURE and WITHOUT sin didn't have to be anything with respect to organized religion.

My grandmother however didn't stop pressing the necessity of a baptism until I legally ordained myself a minister on the Internet and invited her to the house for a ceremony.



UPDATE: I am happy to report that my son is well on track to know right from wrong despite the absence of 33 flavors of religion. He is a fine young man.

 

[Geo]

So, if you decide to rape a woman because you're horny, or kill a man for his money, or steal a stick of gum from the local store because you can't afford to purchase it, in your view overlooking any moral road blocks regarding those acts is a "good thing." Interesting. (You're an athiest, correct? )

OOH- So what you're saying is rapists needed more religion? Um, what about all the ordained child rapists?

Checkmate

Morality and religion aren't mutually exclusive

 

[Bob]

Reminds me of when my son was born and my Polish Catholic family was confused when we told them there would be no baptism. My mom (who is the most open minded of the bunch) asked, "Well what will he be if not Catholic? I mean- he has to be something".

It was a beautiful sight to see the expression on her face as she genuinely pondered my response of, "Why?"

It was as if her already open mind expanded moreso and her thoughts answered her own question. She realized after all these years that my beautiful son, born PURE and WITHOUT sin didn't have to be anything with respect to organized religion.

My grandmother however didn't stop pressing the necessity of a baptism until I legally ordained myself a minister on the Internet and invited her to the house for a ceremony.

we must all have labels, so that we know our enemy....

 

[Geo]

I would just hate to miss out on the presents since Jesus is the reason for the season. I have neighbors who don't recognize Jesus and thus don't celebrate Christmas is that normal for atheists and agnostics? That was a tounge in cheek response but I reaaly don't know what atheists and agnostics do. I have Jewish friends so I need no explanation there.

The agnostics and atheists with whom I associate celebrate Christmas as a secular holiday based in cultural tradition. The tree and presents are there along with the themes of family, giving and good will toward man. They just don't get as drunk before midnight mass.

 

[LuciferSam]

So, if you decide to rape a woman because you're horny, or kill a man for his money, or steal a stick of gum from the local store because you can't afford to purchase it, in your view overlooking any moral road blocks regarding those acts is a "good thing." Interesting. (You're an athiest, correct? )

It looks like there is a misunderstanding of terms. The misunderstanding lies with you. A moral road block is something that blocks a person from acting morally. Therefore the moral roadblock must be overcome and obliterated in order to do the right thing. I can't imagine how anybody would consider acting morally a hindrance, but apparently in your way of thinking, that is the case. Morality is a traffic cop that gets in your way, but must be abided by for the good of society, in your way of thinking. All I can say is that your way of thinking is extremely immature. Acting morally should not be considered a roadblock for anybody beyond the age of 12. In another instance you use the term moral compass. A compass gets you to a destination. A roadblock prevents you from getting there. Which is it? Can't be both. Could you please make up your mind or are you just babbling a bunch of nonsense?

 

[AlphaCrab]

This is slightly off topic--how can I get a public record of the 31 Senators who opposed the repeal of DADT? I am sending them each a thoughtful (yes, I can be) letter of my personal dissappointment in them and their decision on this.

Sure, these letters will probably be seen only by an assistant or intern, but I feel the need. Thanks in advance, --Acrab.