Theocracy Watch

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]Right Side Up wrote:
Mr. Chen wrote:
Agnostic= One who is ignorant about the central question of human existence.
This is wrong
[/quote]

Well, technically it’s wrong. An agnostice concludes you can’t know. The word is from Greek meaning ‘not knowing’. I was adding in my opinion, which I then explained more fully in a follow-up post.

A more interesting post from you (or Lumpy) would be to comment on my follow-up post. Anyone can look in a dictionary or encyclopedia to learn what the word agnostic means.

122

Chen,
Somehow you missed my earlier post where I corrected your definition of agnostic.

“Agnostics generally believe that their is some sort of supreme intelligence of which we are a small part of, but in general they just don’t like to label it and package it.”

Perhaps not an encyclopedic definition, but I would say that it hits all the major points.

123

Let me get this straight, we are now going to argue both politics and religion? Yikes!

124

No one intrinsically KNOWS right from wrong.

[quote]Right Side Up wrote:
But who needs religion to do so?[/quote]

Great question, and not an easy one to answer, but I promise to try later when I have a bit more time :slight_smile:

125

[quote]Right Side Up wrote:
But who needs religion to do so?[/quote]

OK, as I said, I will [quote]try[/quote] to answer this; it is not an easy question. Think about your ideas of right and wrong. Where do they come from? Not being a “religious” person, they couldn’t possibly come from any “religious” source, could they? In a direct sense, they were probably instilled by your family at a young age (I do stand by my original comment, though, that one needs to LEARN right and wrong, and that the differences are not “hard-wired”). But, as an American, you were born into a specific culture, with a set of traditions and generalized values. As has been discussed at some length on this thread, America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, as was much of Western Society – we’re talking about some 1,000 years of history here. In fact, up until the 1960s (I think – it may have been the 1950s), the Bible was a part of the US public school curriculum. So you (we) were born into this culture that had these standards. I therefore suggest that many of your ideas of right and wrong are consistent with Biblical standards, even if you ascribe no truth to the Bible itself, as is the case with many people I know.

Again based on my initial thesis that we don’t automatically know right/wrong, I submit that we need SOMETHING to provide a basis for the standards. I will give as an example the public schools of today. Many of them (not all, I know) are rife with crime, violence, theft, cheating, disrespect of authority and are generally characterized by anarchy. Why? Because it is standard practice to teach that there IS NO right and wrong. I once read where a high school student couldn’t bring himself to characterize what Hitler did in WWII as “wrong.” He didn’t “agree with” it, but couldn’t bring himself to condemn it!

I think religions in general, and Christianity in particular, teach us to live for more than just ourselves. After all it is selfishness and greed that are behind virtually all crime (I am entitled to YOUR stuff), corporate scandals (Enron, etc.), and the general rudeness that increasingly permeates American society. I could go on…

I don’t think that people left to their own devices would have any sense at all of being able to look out for anyone but themselves. I doubt you will agree with this, but I did promise an answer.

126

Bandgeek,

I don’t think that will fly. I will admit that religion certainly takes a stab at defining right and wrong, but it is just a voice in the noise for most people today.

However, I think there are problems assuming there could not be right and wrong without modern religion. The history of the world goes back an awful long way. Laws or rules of conduct have been around for a long long time.

I would propose that you can deduct some things from first principles merely by considering them. For example, what were ancient Greek thinkers thinking about? Would you suggest their mythology and superstition defined their values, their decisions of right and wrong?

What is considered right and wrong changes greatly over time… and is defined by society. Religion can certainly shape these values, or participate in them, but in no way is required to develop them or learn them.

127

[quote]Roy Batty wrote:
Chen,
Somehow you missed my earlier post where I corrected your definition of agnostic.

Perhaps not an encyclopedic definition, but I would say that it hits all the major points.[/quote]

I didn’t miss it, just didn’t take the time to comment. Actually, if you want to go with a general def, you’ll just have to accept the literal meaning of the word. Many ags also lean strongly towards atheism.

There is no point in going on about the definition of angnostic. You can speak to my 2nd post, or we can discuss a specific ag, say Kant or Darrow.

128

Bandgeek,
I appreciate the sincerity and candor of your post, but at the same time I feel as though it is an insult to my intelligence. Maybe you have a point though. Maybe the populace IS just SO STUPID that left to their own devices they aren’t equipped to make the right choices. Personally I abide by a strict code of ethics in business and in my personal life, and I don’t need to have religion shoved down my throat to give me a conscience.

The problem I have with religion is that I believe it absolutely MUST be a personal choice. Think about it. What good is it to convert to a religion if you are not a sincere believer? I think that it is arrogant to presume that your truth is better than someone else’s closeley held spiritual beliefs. What it ultimately will do is taint the group who shares your beliefs, and reduce the quality of the impact of Christianity. What I hear you saying is that Christianity provides a moral compass to the populace. That is the power the church wielded over all the brutal kings of the dark ages to insure their survival. Fear of ultimate judgement and damnation kept some people from doing bad things, but it didn’t keep the church from becoming corrupt(unless you thought that the inquisition was a good thing). That is how protestantism emerged. But they are corrupt as well. You should really look around… Trust me on this, non-Christians don’t have the corner on lying, cheating and stealing.

You really need to read Vegita’s post earlier in this thread though if you are still somehow convinced that the country was founded on Judeo-Christian doctrine. The forefathers were strict secularists. It is okay that it is a part of this culture, but we aren’t a nation of just one religion. We have MANY religions and we must respect them equally. That doesn’t mean you have to change your form of worship. It just means that you should live and let live. To take it a step further, for our nation to truly become the greatest, we should not only “tolerate” others, but ACCEPT others. Embrace diversity. It is the very thing that makes our nation the hope of the world.

129

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
I didn’t miss it, just didn’t take the time to comment. Actually, if you want to go with a general def, you’ll just have to accept the literal meaning of the word. Many ags also lean strongly towards atheism.[/quote]

What difference does it make? I am not an atheist. If I was, that is the title I would choose. I don’t really consider myself an agnostic or a Christian though. Does that make me wrong? I am a highly spiritual person, and I have studied just about every major religion on earth, and find a universal message in all of them, including Christianity. Why do you have to pigeonhole everyone? Do you have to have a classification for everyone for things to be right in your world? Or, I guess the ultimate question is, would you rather be right or happy?

As someone on this forum recently quipped to me, obviously quoting Chris Rock, “what do you want? A fuckin’ cookie?” By invoking the names of a couple of somewhat obscure philosophers are you trying to intimidate me with your intellect? Who cares if you read them if their message was completely wasted on you?

130

bandgeek,
I was wondering when someone would ask that question …where does right and wrong come from if not from some outside objective source? If not, then who am I to decide what is right or wrong , or anybody for that matter?

131

Whoa Roy, what set you off? My first post wasn’t even addressed to you. You corrected my personal definition of agnosticism, and repeated yourself too. Forgive me for assuming you actually knew something about it. Saying Kant is obscure just shows you have read few or none of the great philosophers. If you even took Philosophy 101, you would have read him. I suggested Darrow because he wrote a booklet titled- Why I am an Agnostic. Who is he? The Scopes Monkey Trial, do you remember. Earlier you were going on about Reconstructionism, and even suggested that we “trust you”. Now it appears that would be foolish on our part.

Actually, Roy, when it comes to philosophy, I’m not much on definitions either. They’re just for classification.

Kant is a pain in the ass to read, but don’t go saying you’ve examined all religions if you know nothing about German Rationalism. If I have more training in this area than you, it doesn’t matter. Of course we can still discuss it. Go back to my 2nd post and work it over. I’ll be glad to respond to yours, if you’ll stay on the subject.

132

Roy Batty:

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I read your post and will reply later, probably at the end of the day. Let me say two things now. First, in no way is any of what I wrote intended to insult anyone’s intelligence. There is obviously an abundance of intelligence on this forum. Second, I think you would be surprised at how many of your points I AGREE with!

133

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
An agnostic says he cannot know if God exists. I define this as self-professed ignorance.

[/quote]

and

This is correct. An agnostic says you cannot know, which, is actually claiming to know something quite crucial – namely, that God’s existence is an unknowable matter.

I agree the agnostic’s view makes no sense. Whether or not something – anything, including God – exists is a matter of fact. That is, either God does or does not exist. Whether or not you KNOW if he exists is a different matter from whether or not you CAN KNOW if he exists.

134

[quote]Roy Batty wrote:
Chen,
Somehow you missed my earlier post where I corrected your definition of agnostic.

“Agnostics generally believe that their is some sort of supreme intelligence of which we are a small part of, but in general they just don’t like to label it and package it.”

Perhaps not an encyclopedic definition, but I would say that it hits all the major points.[/quote]

Maybe, but your definition qualifies one more as a theist than an agnostic.

Remember, agnostics don’t just say that they don’t know (that is, they’re not simply withholding judgment), they say you CAN’T know.

135

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
or we can discuss a specific ag, say Kant or Darrow.[/quote]

Not to hijack, but I don’t think Kant was an agnostic, was he? I do know he held that the arguments for were equally good/absurd as the arguments against, no? (it’s been a while!)

136

I have to disagree with vroom here. Religions were among the first forms of controlling others in groups. Grox was smart enough to take the stick that was struck by lighning pick it up and wave it around. He communicated to the others that there was an unseen powerful intelligence greater that any of his fellows that was on his side. As humands evolved, as our understanding of the physical world grew, so did our religions and the power and scope of thier gods. It is still all mind control, and it is not necisarrily a bad thing.

Back in the early begginings of religions, leaders would benefit on the backs of thier followers. Right and wrong came about because of the ideals of these leaders. Obviously if someones followers were killing eachother, they would provide less of a benefit to the leader, and in fact the clan as a whole. Thus killing became seen as bad, probably for the first time. (unless the leader was killing and doing the work of his god)

I’ll now go a bit deeper. Right and wrong do not exist. A society creates concepts right and wrong, they are however subject to change and often do. 60 years ago, Gay was wrong, now it is right. Society makes the rules of right and wrong, and Generally religions are a huge authority figure. Now I agree that here in america we have a growing number of non religous citizens. That doesn’t however mean that religion doesn’t influence their lives. How about your ability to go and kill someone? Wrong, it came from religion but it is a good idea. So there you have religion forced on you. Adultry, wrong, but guess what, that one is purely religous. Name another source of authority that decided adultry was bad and prove to me that it wasn’t a religous institution. Marriage is religous. It was probably invented to try and stop the spread of stds a couple thousand years ago. Who knows.

Ok I have lost my train of thought and am now just rambling, I will shut up now.

Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins

137

[quote]blakjak wrote:
bandgeek,
I was wondering when someone would ask that question …where does right and wrong come from if not from some outside objective source? If not, then who am I to decide what is right or wrong , or anybody for that matter?
[/quote]

It’s a question as old as the hills, my friend. What do you think about it?

138

blakjak wrote:
bandgeek,
I was wondering when someone would ask that question …where does right and wrong come from if not from some outside objective source? If not, then who am I to decide what is right or wrong , or anybody for that matter?

It’s a question as old as the hills, my friend. What do you think about it?

I did the best I could with this one, to summarise in a more orderly fashion. Pure right or wrong is non existant. In our human view of the world, our societies and in particular, the authority figures in those societies make the rules regarding right and wrong, good and bad. Be it government, religion, parents, the cool kids at school, whatever the source. The people on top have the power and make the rules. The good thing about a democracy is that the people on top are accountable to the people on the bottom. An interesting idea in and of itself.

Today I am willing to bet that 99% or so of the world thinks that killing an entire group of people based on them being different is a bad thing. If you were a german during WWII you would have thought this was in fact a good thing, After all hitler himself, did not personally go around and kill every jew or invade all those countries. He led people into thinking that it was RIGHT to do those things. So again Back to your question, what is right and wrong, can it be defined. Will any defenition stand the test of time?

Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins

139

[quote]rainjack wrote:

“Better yet - How is the Christian Right any worse than the Congressional Black Caucus, N.O.W., PETA, NAMBLA, or any of the other fringe freak groups that are crawling around in the Democratic Party?”

I find it HIGHLY offensive that you would include the National Black Caucus in the same breath as those nutcases from PETA and those sick freaks from NAMBLA. How DARE you compare a group who’s goals are to insure that the rights of African Americans are represented and not repressed, as they were from pretty much the founding of this country up until the mid to late 20th century, to a group who’s idea of a good time is fucking 8-year old little boys up the ass! Or to another group that avocates killing people to save lab rats from being used for testing of drugs to save human lives. I have seen alot of boarderline racist, antisemetic, mysoginistic and plain insensitve shit on here from time to time, but this analogy has crossed the line of decency!

140

THE LAW IS THE LAW

So if the US government determines that it is against the law for the words “under God” to be on our money, then, so be it. And if that same government decides that the “Ten Commandments” are not to be used in or on a government installation, then, so be it.

And since they already have prohibited any prayer in the schools, on which they deem their authority, then so be it.

I say, “so be it,” because I would like to be a law abiding US citizen.

I say, “so be it,” because I would like to think that smarter people than I are in positions to make good decisions.

I would like to think that those people have the American Publics’ best interests at heart.

BUT, YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE I’D LIKE?

Since we can’t pray to God, can’t Trust in God and cannot Post His Commandments in Government buildings, I don’t believe the Government and it’s employees should participate in the Easter and Christmas celebrations which honor the God that our government is eliminating from many facets of American life.

I’d like my mail delivered on Christmas, Good Friday, Thanksgiving Easter.

After all, it’s just another day.

I’d like the US Supreme Court to be in session on Christmas, Good Friday, Thanksgiving & Easter as well as Sundays. After all, it’s just another day.

I’d like the Senate and the House of Representatives to not have to worry about getting home for the “Christmas Break.” After all ~ it’s just another day.

I’m thinking that a lot of my taxpayer dollars could be saved, if all government offices & services would work on Christmas, Good Friday & Easter.

It shouldn’t cost any overtime since those would be just like any other day of the week to a government that is trying to be “politically correct”.

In fact… I think that our government should work on Sundays (initially set aside for worshipping God…) because, after all, our government says that it should be just another day…

What do you all think???

If this idea gets to enough people, maybe our elected officials will stop giving in to the minority opinions and begin, once again, to represent the ‘majority’ of ALL of the American people.

SO BE IT…