U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-18-2008, 05:51 PM
 
27,903 posts, read 33,462,993 times
Reputation: 4016

Advertisements

Gag while you watch it....it's Hannity


YouTube - Two Speeches that Changed History
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-18-2008, 06:08 PM
 
Location: Boise, ID
1,356 posts, read 5,332,225 times
Reputation: 890
Quote:
Originally Posted by jps-teacher View Post
Below is the line of yours that, to me, conflicts with what what you have just written:

Not "is often" or even "is likely to be," but "are intertwined."

In turn, I cannot see how you can make the statement that lead that I quote first and then say this in rapid succession. There must be some division between the two that I am not reading/getting, and if some third party can clarify the difference for me, I would be grateful.
I will give this a shot, not for the sake of rebuttal but just to try and clarify what you are reading as contradiction.

There are two issues here:

1 - How intertwined are one's moral views and one's lack of religion?

2 - How intertwined are one's moral views and thoughts on religion?

I read #2, as stated by you, as dealing with a person's opinion of religion in general and not necessarily one's association with a religion or the decision to not be religious. I might be splitting hairs or you might not agree there is a distinction but that is what my comments were based on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jps-teacher View Post
Two problems with this section. The second, less important, is that you totally lose me in the transition from the sentence that starts Conversely to the sentence that starts Otherwise." They seem totally unrelated.
Once again, for the sake of clarity and not necessarily rebuttal. I was trying to cover the different permutations of:

1 - A religious person whose morals are shaped by that religion
2 - A person whose morals lead them to chose not to be religious.
3 - A person whose morals lead them to become religious

Quote:
Originally Posted by jps-teacher View Post
The more important difficulty I have with it is that it seems to thoroughly ignore what I have said about either my moral development or others' of my acquaintance.

My moral views are not different because of that decision. My views did not change as a result of my conclusion. [/If P > Q does not even slightly imply or indicate either If P > Q, therefore if Q > P or If P > Q, therefore R.

But... that's just me.

My friends of whom I speak did not make such a choice, no matter how the question gets couched, any more than I chose between Cuban and Venezuelan Cigars. The question is a non-starter.

And, again, for them atheism is not a religion. It is not ATHEISM, it is atheism.
To quote Rush (the rock group, not the radio host): "If you chose not to decide you still have made a choice."

I can be a terrible procrastinator so that line describes me a little too much sometimes!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2008, 09:57 PM
 
2,180 posts, read 3,190,878 times
Reputation: 838
Quote:
Originally Posted by Niners fan View Post
There are two issues here:

1 - How intertwined are one's moral views and one's lack of religion?

2 - How intertwined are one's moral views and thoughts on religion?

I read #2, as stated by you, as dealing with a person's opinion of religion in general and not necessarily one's association with a religion or the decision to not be religious. I might be splitting hairs or you might not agree there is a distinction but that is what my comments were based on.
Thank you. Your causal order still does not fit the circumstance, but I do now understand what hair you mean to be splitting, at least.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Niners fan View Post
I was trying to cover the different permutations of:

1 - A religious person whose morals are shaped by that religion
2 - A person whose morals lead them to chose not to be religious.
3 - A person whose morals lead them to become religious
And you did.

But you skipped 4 - A person who has morals, but has not chosen to be or not to be religious, but for whom the question is moot.

Rush may or may not choose to choose, but I think they miss the point, too. So, let me try again.

Which shirt should I wear?

Oddly enough, you don't actually care. You know nothing about them, the question has no personal significance to you, you can't opine (reasonably) on the color, fit, style... Before I asked, you had zero thoughts about my shirts.

Now that I have asked, you have two thoughts on it:
"1) Why is he asking about his shirts?!
2) I don't really think anything about his shirts!"

By my asking you about my shirts have I influenced your morals? Have I had an impact on your belief structure?

Perhaps, just perhaps, it does influence your morals or belief structure. If so, I apologize for misreading you. Please understand that it has no impact on mine.

Similarly, their lack of the remotest interest in religions does not impact their beliefs.

Rush has not made a choice about my shirts. Neither have you. And to not choose was not, in this instance, a choice - it was just a fact.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2008, 10:31 PM
 
Location: Boise, ID
1,356 posts, read 5,332,225 times
Reputation: 890
Quote:
Originally Posted by jps-teacher View Post
Rush may or may not choose to choose, but I think they miss the point, too. So, let me try again.

Which shirt should I wear?

Oddly enough, you don't actually care. You know nothing about them, the question has no personal significance to you, you can't opine (reasonably) on the color, fit, style... Before I asked, you had zero thoughts about my shirts.

Now that I have asked, you have two thoughts on it:
"1) Why is he asking about his shirts?!
2) I don't really think anything about his shirts!"

By my asking you about my shirts have I influenced your morals? Have I had an impact on your belief structure?

Perhaps, just perhaps, it does influence your morals or belief structure. If so, I apologize for misreading you. Please understand that it has no impact on mine.

Similarly, their lack of the remotest interest in religions does not impact their beliefs.

Rush has not made a choice about my shirts. Neither have you. And to not choose was not, in this instance, a choice - it was just a fact.
Rush and I are talking about personal decisions, not decisions made for others.

But now I understand the scenario you have in mind. I disagree based on reasons previously stated but I appreciate you sticking with this and clarifying your position. It really does give me an appreciation for your argument and some food for thought.

One thing I must ask though... did you end up wearing a shirt??
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2008, 02:09 AM
 
2,180 posts, read 3,190,878 times
Reputation: 838
Quote:
Originally Posted by Niners fan View Post
Rush and I are talking about personal decisions, not decisions made for others.

But now I understand the scenario you have in mind. I disagree based on reasons previously stated but I appreciate you sticking with this and clarifying your position. It really does give me an appreciation for your argument and some food for thought.

One thing I must ask though... did you end up wearing a shirt??
Is the cat alive or dead?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2008, 05:22 AM
 
19,183 posts, read 27,766,906 times
Reputation: 4000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Niners fan View Post
All I can say is that is one thing to know something or know about something but quite a different thing to understand it. And understanding something doesn't necessarily mean you have to agree with it.
Okay, so knowledge alone may not be enough. Is there a plausible way by which one could reliably come to such understanding as you describe?

Does this still have anything to do with the notion that an all-powerfulk god and a definition of morality cannot be co-located?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2008, 06:15 AM
 
19,183 posts, read 27,766,906 times
Reputation: 4000
Quote:
Originally Posted by jps-teacher View Post
Is the cat alive or dead?
That'l be enough out of you, Mr. Schrödinger. By the way, I peeked so I at least know the answer. Would that information alone be enough to tell you which shirt to wear? :-)

But before we are all redefined as psi-functions here, I would raise a point about this "choosing to be religious" matter, particularly with regard to when the choice appears to be made versus when it is actually made.

If one begins from a default proposition that god exists and waits around for non-religious people to demonstrate otherwise, then one is all but assured of being religious in some flavor at the end, as conclusive proof of the negative is not feasible.

If one begins from a default proposition that god does not exist and waits around for religious people to demonstrate otherwise, then one is all but assured of being non-religious in some flavor at the end, as conclusive proof of the supernatural is not feasible.

If this is the case, then all this thinking and reading and weighing of facts may be just window-dressing. No choice or decision is ever actually made, we all simply end up where we began. Do we then have a choice as to where to begin? Are there more than the two options suggested? What means do we use to select from among those options?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2008, 09:50 AM
 
Location: Boise, ID
1,356 posts, read 5,332,225 times
Reputation: 890
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista View Post
Okay, so knowledge alone may not be enough. Is there a plausible way by which one could reliably come to such understanding as you describe?
In general, yes. If you are asking about specifically coming to an understanding of religion then I would submit that I would say yes and you would say no simply because of our paradigms. I would add that neither one of us is demonstrably right or wrong to the other.

Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista View Post
Does this still have anything to do with the notion that an all-powerfulk god and a definition of morality cannot be co-located?
Only to the extent that this tangent sprung from the original suggestion that an all-powerful God could ask us to do something cruel (in your scenario burn little children) and we would have to obey. I don't think there is any question that non-religious people have morals. In fact, that has been at the heart of my arguments throughout this thread.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2008, 10:01 AM
 
Location: Boise, ID
1,356 posts, read 5,332,225 times
Reputation: 890
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista View Post
But before we are all redefined as psi-functions here, I would raise a point about this "choosing to be religious" matter, particularly with regard to when the choice appears to be made versus when it is actually made.

If one begins from a default proposition that god exists and waits around for non-religious people to demonstrate otherwise, then one is all but assured of being religious in some flavor at the end, as conclusive proof of the negative is not feasible.

If one begins from a default proposition that god does not exist and waits around for religious people to demonstrate otherwise, then one is all but assured of being non-religious in some flavor at the end, as conclusive proof of the supernatural is not feasible.

If this is the case, then all this thinking and reading and weighing of facts may be just window-dressing. No choice or decision is ever actually made, we all simply end up where we began. Do we then have a choice as to where to begin? Are there more than the two options suggested? What means do we use to select from among those options?
I think this is very insightful. Although we probably all know religious people who have ended up non-religious by choice and vice versa. I can certainly think of several in my list of friends, family, and acquaintances. So in some cases a choice is actually made independent of one's default proposition or upbringing.

Let me suggest that whether a decision is made or not the effects on one's morals is essentially the same. I have been thinking about this and jps-teacher pointed out an valid weakness in my previous post, that is, that in some cases a choice is not made because there is no interest or impetus to make a choice. However, if my contention is that religion or the lack thereof is inherently intertwined with morals then it doesn't matter why one is religious or not religious. The influence of one's morals and religion or lack thereof still remains because if one were to switch from their current position of religious or non-religious to the opposite position then there would almost certainly be some change to their moral views.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2008, 06:45 PM
 
2,180 posts, read 3,190,878 times
Reputation: 838
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista View Post
But before we are all redefined as psi-functions here, I would raise a point about this "choosing to be religious" matter, particularly with regard to when the choice appears to be made versus when it is actually made.

If one begins from a default proposition that god exists and waits around for non-religious people to demonstrate otherwise, then one is all but assured of being religious in some flavor at the end, as conclusive proof of the negative is not feasible.

If one begins from a default proposition that god does not exist and waits around for religious people to demonstrate otherwise, then one is all but assured of being non-religious in some flavor at the end, as conclusive proof of the supernatural is not feasible.

If this is the case, then all this thinking and reading and weighing of facts may be just window-dressing. No choice or decision is ever actually made, we all simply end up where we began. Do we then have a choice as to where to begin? Are there more than the two options suggested? What means do we use to select from among those options?
I believe that you are right that it is the case, but wrong that that is all there is. You describe two scenarios, but ignore at least two others with which I am quite familiar. One of them is more common than the other - and as I write, they may break down into 3 or 4, rather than 2.

I grew up believing in God. It was not in a reverential way, perhaps, but with a definite sense of deity - I prayed, swore oaths, etc. with a clear intention of seeking aid from or making promises to God the omnipotent. It was not in waiting for proof of his non-existence that I settled on my current understanding. No non-religious person swayed me. If anything, it was learning more about religion - mine and others - that swayed me.

Conversely, I have a good friend who was raised in a non-religious household. She did not wait to be convinced of anything. She sought knowledge and understanding and a way to make sense of what she felt internally all her life. She became, in her late teens, a Catholic.

There are more pathways than your two. There are probably more than just the two extras I have identified, but I am not going to explore it further just now. I'm tired!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top