|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 24, 2009 6:42 am
Vasilius Konstantinos I would have to say yes and no, if this was possible. I desire a President and a Congress who aty least upholds to the belief in a moral absolute, which by this I mean those who understand that there is more than themselves to serve in office and that they are here due to a higher good. If they do not accept a moral absolute they honestly believe their way is the only way and the right way, no exceptions. We are witnessing this now, as our current administration has actually made statements that they are the only ones who know whats good for us. And no, there should be no laws except moral laws which hold religious tenets, like no murder and basic concepts of the treatment of others. Anything above tenets is a bit extreme, such as clerical laws and such. wwll..may be u haev a piont
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 24, 2009 9:16 am
alteregoivy Riiko..Izawa I'm torn. Theocracies haven't worked out. (Kings and queens, crusades) And Atheist governments haven't worked out so well either. (Germany and the Nazis) I think it's easier to have your judgment on what is right and wrong be clouded when you don't have a religion to model moral behavior. Then again, people have done some pretty awful things because they thought it was pleasing to God. I think I'd be fine either way as long as the government had a strong moral founding. The Nazis were not an Atheist government. They were Christian. You could, however, point to Pol Pot, I suppose. Let me point something out though... The Crusades were specifically in the name of Christianity; atrocities committed were "justified" by what they believed about God and the Bible. Same thing with Muslim nations and their problems. On the other hand, Stalin and Pol Pot did nothing of what they did "in the name" of Atheism. They didn't say, "there's no god, and that's why I can do this to you," they were just evil people. I think even if they hadn't been Atheists, they would have behaved the same. It's a subtle but important difference, I think. Hmm, I really thought Hitler was an atheist. I think the fact that they believed there was not God helped them justify their actions. If you don't think that their will be any punishment for your actions, than you can justify doing anything as long as you don't get caught or no one can stop you. If they believed in God, however, they probably would have valued human life more. I'm not saying all atheist are Hitler. I'm not saying all Christians go on crusades. I'm saying both types of extreme governments don't work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 24, 2009 11:35 am
Riiko..Izawa Hmm, I really thought Hitler was an atheist. Actually, Hitler himself was probably neither Christian nor Atheist, but something else entirely. However, he did use Christianity often in his speeches to the Nazis, and many Nazis where highly religious. They felt that God had commanded them the task of persecuting the Jews. Riiko..Izawa I think the fact that they believed there was not God helped them justify their actions. If you don't think that their will be any punishment for your actions, than you can justify doing anything as long as you don't get caught or no one can stop you. If they believed in God, however, they probably would have valued human life more. Did the Spanish Inquisition value human life more? And, like I said, the Nazis (at least evidence can be found to lead one to believe this) believed that God told them to do what they did to the Jews. Jihadists are very highly religious. How much do they value human life? Their own people's, sure, but certainly not outsiders. None of these people had any fear of punishment whatsoever because they believed they were doing God's will. I really don't think believing in God would have made Stalin or Pol Pot any nicer; they just would have found another way to justify what they wanted to do. Riiko..Izawa I'm not saying all atheist are Hitler. I'm not saying all Christians go on crusades. I'm saying both types of extreme governments don't work. Now that I will agree with. 3nodding "Pure" philosophies of government very rarely if ever work in the real world. Given a small enough population of one mind... they can, but for any large group of people, they never will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 24, 2009 11:45 am
alteregoivy Riiko..Izawa Hmm, I really thought Hitler was an atheist. Actually, Hitler himself was probably neither Christian nor Atheist, but something else entirely. However, he did use Christianity often in his speeches to the Nazis, and many Nazis where highly religious. They felt that God had commanded them the task of persecuting the Jews. Riiko..Izawa I think the fact that they believed there was not God helped them justify their actions. If you don't think that their will be any punishment for your actions, than you can justify doing anything as long as you don't get caught or no one can stop you. If they believed in God, however, they probably would have valued human life more. Did the Spanish Inquisition value human life more? And, like I said, the Nazis (at least evidence can be found to lead one to believe this) believed that God told them to do what they did to the Jews. Jihadists are very highly religious. How much do they value human life? Their own people's, sure, but certainly not outsiders. None of these people had any fear of punishment whatsoever because they believed they were doing God's will. I really don't think believing in God would have made Stalin or Pol Pot any nicer; they just would have found another way to justify what they wanted to do. Riiko..Izawa I'm not saying all atheist are Hitler. I'm not saying all Christians go on crusades. I'm saying both types of extreme governments don't work. Now that I will agree with. 3nodding "Pure" philosophies of government very rarely if ever work in the real world. Given a small enough population of one mind... they can, but for any large group of people, they never will. Interesting. Thank you. It looks like we definitely agree on one thing. As far as governments go, there are always going people who disagree. There is no "one size fits all" government because we all think differently and value things to a different degree. It unrealistic to expect everyone to be happy with the choices the government makes. I believe you said it much better than I can 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:50 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:03 am
Riiko..Izawa I think the fact that they believed there was not God helped them justify their actions. If you don't think that their will be any punishment for your actions, than you can justify doing anything as long as you don't get caught or no one can stop you. That sounds more like the behavior of a sociopath -- not an atheist. Very big difference between the two. Atheists, in my experience are very decent people. Because they don't believe in an afterlife, they have a greater sense of respect for the life we have now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:36 am
Eh, yes and no for me. More of a yes than no in a way.
Um, well, I believe that they should have some sort of absolute standard that they are judging their decisions by. I mean if they don't, what are they judging them by then?
But also, these moral beliefs shouldn't necessarily be the foremost thing they make thier decisions by. There are alot of other factors that could and probably should come before personal moral beliefs on pretty much any topic.
So yeah, there's a fine line that has to be walked here if you ask me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 2:35 pm
xxEternallyBluexx almisami My definition of an atheist good deed is bringing the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest amount of people while causing the least amount of suffering to the least amount of beings. Hence, it's basically: (People x Happy) / (People x Unhappy) = The action's Goodness factor. And, in all honesty, I think that that's a pretty good philosophy to ponder before taking any action. Actually I like that, but athiesm in no way supports it. Why shouldn't I live for myself if there is no Higher Power? However if we're made to live for this Higher Power, then it starts to make sense (to me at least. I doubt I'm being very clear. I'll work on that. sweatdrop ) I actually think this is some sort of social contract atheists have. If something has a happiness factor that is too low, they don't bother doing it. Hence, Goodness Factor / Effort = If it's worth doing or not. Atheists assume everyone should be an atheist functioning like unfailingly logical hivemind, hence they assume that the world would be perfect if all atheists follow the equation and follow along themselves because they think the other atheists will draw the same inevitable hivemind conclusion, just like they think they all magically discovered the inevitable truth that denying god(s) is the way to go. TL;DR: Atheists think as if everyone was an atheist. So if they, an atheist, follow the equation then all atheists will follow. This cycle of goodness will then make them profit of more happiness then their standalone selfish ideas. This is why many atheists are also leftists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:18 pm
I wouldn't mind it depending on how they were using their religious beliefs
For example the founding fathers used their beliefs in creating the USA so if say Obama used his religious beliefs and it was something that would benefit all mankind, say raising the bar on the fight against drug trafficking as long as it is in the better view of America I most likely will agree with it
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:27 pm
almisami I actually think this is some sort of social contract atheists have. If something has a happiness factor that is too low, they don't bother doing it. Hence, Goodness Factor / Effort = If it's worth doing or not. Atheists assume everyone should be an atheist functioning like unfailingly logical hivemind, hence they assume that the world would be perfect if all atheists follow the equation and follow along themselves because they think the other atheists will draw the same inevitable hivemind conclusion, just like they think they all magically discovered the inevitable truth that denying god(s) is the way to go. TL;DR: Atheists think as if everyone was an atheist. So if they, an atheist, follow the equation then all atheists will follow. This cycle of goodness will then make them profit of more happiness then their standalone selfish ideas. This is why many atheists are also leftists. I don't know about "unfailingly logical hivemind..." You make us sound like The Borg. stare Also, "magically discovered?" Ironic word choice, no? I think if you looked closely, you'd find Atheists to be a pretty diverse group, socially, politically, etc. But I think probably most of them see the wisdom in the Golden Rule.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:29 pm
please no! i know that it'll happen anyway, and people who believe the same way will vote for those people time and time again, but that aint a reason to make laws: to make your conscience clean (because you unfortunatly have to deal with the people who don't share that conviction, and your reason should be better than 'it's what god wants me to do' or 'it's a commandment' or 'it's because it's what I believe'. you just annoy people that way)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:49 pm
hell no. stare first of all, religions are a useless institution. you can be spiritual without religion.
second, if everyone in a nation ha sto follow laws that are based on a religious viewpoint, that ostrasizes any religion that feels differently about things then the religion which was allowe dto make th laws. religious belief should not be laws because not everyone agrees with what a particular religion thinks is right or wrong.
third, i don't realy like law systems anywya.... or religions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:45 pm
GODS NO!!!!
I like the way I was brought up and it goes agenst the First amendment anyway if they tried that. And congress is supposed to up hold the amendmens,(even if their doin a crappy job lately) stressed
The point is that everyone looks at everything differently and theres people from all over the world that want to live here because their free and can still have their religion, if the government was all one religion, this nation wouldn't be free and wouldn't be upholding to the rights of the people that come/do to live here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 11:40 pm
tobiwants2cookies I wouldn't mind it depending on how they were using their religious beliefs For example the founding fathers used their beliefs in creating the USA so if say Obama used his religious beliefs and it was something that would benefit all mankind, say raising the bar on the fight against drug trafficking as long as it is in the better view of America I most likely will agree with it You do know that you can have non-religious beliefs don't you. And that the founding fathers deliberatly tried to stear away from religious beliefs as justification for lawmaking, what with the whole "seperation of church and state" thing. I know a person's religion or lack thereof will always affect their views and values but that doesn't mean they can use those particular beliefs as the basis of or justification for lawmaking and/or systems of government. That way leads to theocracy and those generally don't deal too nicely with religions other than the ruling one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:38 pm
I often think of the 10 laws/ten commandments, the world would be soooo different if those laws had been handed down and obeyed century after century. Are there any religions that actually follow those laws anymore?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
