Religulous

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Meh. I guess I got off on a tangent that was more idealistic than logical ...

I respect you a LOT more for having admitted that.

Speaking generally, this forum frequently disappoints me because instead of living up to what it could be (intelligent people engaging in thoughtful debates about the topics of the day, exchanging ideas and viewpoints in a constructive manner which benefits everyone), it too frequently descends into a petty partisan exchange of insults in which posters care more about "winning" than about learning, or at least broadening perspectives. It would be nice to see more of a group effort to rise above that.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Madwand1

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Real religion is a bridge to reality that can be built out of any old wood you like so long as the road signs point to crossing. Religions are constructed by people who know the answers to what you call unanswerable questions because they have crossed. Your argument is that the wood in Greek bridges is old but the Greeks that crossed did so at the time their bridge was the latest rage.

I think that some of the Socratic dialogs probably represent the shadow of ancient Greek spirituality better than the surviving mythology does, at least to our understanding. While the mythology can also be interesting spiritually, they are very hard for us to decipher -- they are shadows of shadows, in a spiritual and cultural language far removed from our own.

A recent Royal Ontario Museum article for example solved a mystery regarding the identity of a pair of figures in ancient Indian art and mythology, and the author did so using a specific reference to ancient Greek art and mythology, but didn't identify the deeper link between the two. With all the modern capability at our fingertips, we're still groping in the dark trying to understand the ancient cultures and their art.

The ancient Greek mythology should be understood to be not simply religious, but also expression of that in culture. In that, it is both a seeking for deeper meaning and truth, and expression, celebration, interpretation, and also great misinterpretation in turn.

To disbelieve is easy. To believe in something greater, and to incorporate those beliefs in the framework of our lives is much harder. It's not surprising in this view that some who attempt to do so appear to us as simply stupid or misguided, but to me, that same apparent stupidity is the expression of people trying to live up to a greater truth, and that is culture; something to be understood and celebrated as such.

Holy cow, where did you come from? How unusual it is to get a response that's full of thought and interest.

I read somewhere long ago from a purported teacher of wisdom that the Socratic dialogs were designed to show the limits of reason whereas we moderns mistake them as exemplary of that. Perhaps the implication is that they are similar to the zen koan, or a kind of thought stopper. I don't really know but there clearly were numbers of mystical traditions around in the ancient world. If it is of any moment to you, I was thinking of Greek myth in it's relationship to the notion of archetype, the idea that myth is a mirror of psychological process, say, for example the dogs at the door of hell symbolic of a psychoanalytical descent into ones feeling, the need for a hero attitude to get past the fear. Myth, in my opinion, are stories that facilitate and reflect the journey of man from ignorance to enlightenment. Such stories can be used by the wise to provide contemplative material or a road map to the less far along and perhaps as lures to egg one on. We hear in myth echos of a hidden world that calls to us in ways that preserve these stories for thousands of years. Anyway, thanks for your reply.

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Madwand1

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Real religion is a bridge to reality that can be built out of any old wood you like so long as the road signs point to crossing. Religions are constructed by people who know the answers to what you call unanswerable questions because they have crossed. Your argument is that the wood in Greek bridges is old but the Greeks that crossed did so at the time their bridge was the latest rage.

I think that some of the Socratic dialogs probably represent the shadow of ancient Greek spirituality better than the surviving mythology does, at least to our understanding. While the mythology can also be interesting spiritually, they are very hard for us to decipher -- they are shadows of shadows, in a spiritual and cultural language far removed from our own.

A recent Royal Ontario Museum article for example solved a mystery regarding the identity of a pair of figures in ancient Indian art and mythology, and the author did so using a specific reference to ancient Greek art and mythology, but didn't identify the deeper link between the two. With all the modern capability at our fingertips, we're still groping in the dark trying to understand the ancient cultures and their art.

The ancient Greek mythology should be understood to be not simply religious, but also expression of that in culture. In that, it is both a seeking for deeper meaning and truth, and expression, celebration, interpretation, and also great misinterpretation in turn.

To disbelieve is easy. To believe in something greater, and to incorporate those beliefs in the framework of our lives is much harder. It's not surprising in this view that some who attempt to do so appear to us as simply stupid or misguided, but to me, that same apparent stupidity is the expression of people trying to live up to a greater truth, and that is culture; something to be understood and celebrated as such.

Holy cow, where did you come from? How unusual it is to get a response that's full of thought and interest.

I read somewhere long ago from a purported teacher of wisdom that the Socratic dialogs were designed to show the limits of reason whereas we moderns mistake them as exemplary of that. Perhaps the implication is that they are similar to the zen koan, or a kind of thought stopper. I don't really know but there clearly were numbers of mystical traditions around in the ancient world. If it is of any moment to you, I was thinking of Greek myth in it's relationship to the notion of archetype, the idea that myth is a mirror of psychological process, say, for example the dogs at the door of hell symbolic of a psychoanalytical descent into ones feeling, the need for a hero attitude to get past the fear. Myth, in my opinion, are stories that facilitate and reflect the journey of man from ignorance to enlightenment. Such stories can be used by the wise to provide contemplative material or a road map to the less far along and perhaps as lures to egg one on. We hear in myth echos of a hidden world that calls to us in ways that preserve these stories for thousands of years. Anyway, thanks for your reply.

the problem occurs when people who are too ignorant to grasp the depth of such stories
latch on to and use them for morbid purposes such as justifying war etc..

when one person does this it isn't that big of a deal, but when an entire culture does, it gets quite ugly, creating a horrifying caricature of what otherwise might have been a useful myth for teaching a value or idea

the message is lost when it is read with an agenda..and this IS the case

psychopath preachers cram this crap down peoples throat with little regard for the original intent or nuance

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Tab
Murder? Oh, yes it should definitely be illegal... but hey that's just my opinion! :thumbsup:

You don't think it's something more than just an opinion that murder should be illegal? That's what I'm getting at - ex my threads with Mursilis.

In a democracy or a republic, the opinion of the people is the ultimate moral compass. If society as a whole decides that it will allow murder, then I can either pack my bags, buy some ammo, or try to change their minds. This is simply by definition - the will of the people dictates the law of the land. The law is the codification of the society's moral standards, as it were.

My opinion is that right and wrong do exist and are dictated by ethics. Therefore, I vote for those whom I feel will pass laws which criminalize acts which I deem unethical. The problem with (or the best part of) our society and form of government is that it allows the mob rule and moral relativism. In the end, morals are a matter of opinion because not everyone will agree on what is or is not ethical. There are certain things that may be demonstrably unethical using simple logic, but once one ventures into more complex issues, the premises required to discuss right and wrong become more complicated (e.g. my threads on who exactly has a right to life).

edit: In other words, I am completely opposed to moral relativism. You are the one arguing for it. Now that I demonstrated how it can be used to allow murder, suddenly you're against it and you want some form of absolutism back. Welcome to my side of the fence. :thumbsup:

I'm not sure if I am expressing myself properly here but I am not arguing in favor for moral relativism nor am I for it at all.

For whatever reason, it seems odd to call your worldview/beliefs/whatever "opinions" - hence my little hyperbole about murder. You could say that it's a fact murder should be illegal, but I'm not sure about that either. It doesn't seem right...

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Tab
That's obviously not a personal belief.

Sure it is.

per·son·al
?adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or coming as from a particular person; individual; private: a personal opinion.

be·lief
?noun 1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.

If Obama, or any other fan of national health care, wants medical care for the uninsured, he's perfectly free, right now, to start a charitable foundation to pay the bills for the uninsured. No laws have to be passed for this to happen.
Why does he have to force this personal belief on others by making it public policy?

It's not an opinion.

Here's what I wrote, and what you responded to:

"If it's Obama's personal belief that the US should offer universal health care, should he keep that to himself? "

How is that NOT an OPINION?

o·pin·ion
?noun 1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

I don't know what to say, it seems we're arguing semantics in which case in my opinion is nothing but a red herring. Let's say I do agree that it is an opinion, does that mean I should enforce my opinion that all cars that have "rims' on them look lame?

Let's try it like this: You said "But aren't we taught that we should keep our own personal beliefs out when we vote?", a statement which strikes me as absurd, for this simple reason: Aren't political opinions/philosophies basically personal beliefs (as these words are commonly defined, and I've already provided basic dictionary definitions)? You're obviously trying to make some sort of comment about the role of religion in politics, but you're being sloppy with your language.

As for your "rims" example, that's easy. As a libertarian, I'd say you have no right to force any opinion on anyone else on matters that do you no tangible harm. While lame rims may insult your sense of aesthetics, your solution is to look away, and you've been done no tangible harm.

It's my opinion that murder should be illegal.
It's my opinion that car with "rims" look lame.

While, these are both opinions are they both held in the same weight - as they're both just "opinions" This is what I am getting at, or trying to at least...

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Tab
I'm not sure if I am expressing myself properly here but I am not arguing in favor for moral relativism nor am I for it at all.

For whatever reason, it seems odd to call your worldview/beliefs/whatever "opinions" - hence my little hyperbole about murder. You could say that it's a fact murder should be illegal, but I'm not sure about that either. It doesn't seem right...

Murder doesn't seem right. But how things seem isn't really a basis for passing laws. We should be able to somehow determine whether murder is or is not wrong/unethical. With the hierarchy of rights (life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness), it is very easy to show why murder is unethical: it imposes on another's right to life, which supercedes your right to liberty/pursuit of happiness/whatever other twisted explanation you'd care to give for why you want to murder me. Similarly, I cannot lock anyone in my basement simply because it makes me happy to do so. This would violate his/her right to liberty and (perhaps, unless he/she was a big-time weirdo), pursuit of happiness.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Honestly, this would be a better country if the religious would just be content to keep it to themselves, their families and fellow worshippers. Instead, a great many of them insist on injecting their religion into the public square, into politics, into scientific debate along with wearing their faith on their sleeve (and on their car's bumper/license plate), and feeling the need to proselytize to the rest of us.

Somehow I think Maher would agree with me.

Honestly, this would be a better country if the atheists would just be content to keep it to themselves, their families and fellow atheists. Instead, a great many of them insist on injecting their atheism into the public square, into politics, into scientific debate along with wearing their atheism on their sleeve (and on their car's bumper/license plate), and feeling the need to proselytize to the rest of us.

I agree, atheism is akin to yet another religion. I'm not atheist, I'm agnostic. Nice try tho.

No, it's not.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Religulous (In HD) a Lions Gate documentary about religion. Bill Maher goes in search of answers (or lack there of) amongst the populous. Religion has hindered man for a a couple millennia and has driven the decisions of man in politics & daily life.

I am looking forward to seeing this. Bill Maher is one of my favorite comedians and has a level head. His political show 'Real Time with Bill Maher' is also excellent. Anyone else going to see this in theaters come October 3rd?

After the fall of Rome religion is about the only thing that kept mankind together. It also was also a major source of literacy back then.

Not to mention the term Judeo-Christian law which, if I?m not mistaken, is the origin of the rights of people.

I would argue the opposite.

Not only was the church in Europe oppressive and damaging (destroying or subverting knowledge, controlling governments, etc), but it led to a large number of the serious conflicts that plagued us...within Europe and with others (especially against muslims and vice versa).

The foundations of our law predate modern religion by a long shot, and in fact many parts of the bible itself are taken from secular civil law (such as hammurabi's code). We do NOT derive our law or morality from judeo-christian religion. That is a myth (much like the religions themselves).

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Tab
I'm not sure if I am expressing myself properly here but I am not arguing in favor for moral relativism nor am I for it at all.

For whatever reason, it seems odd to call your worldview/beliefs/whatever "opinions" - hence my little hyperbole about murder. You could say that it's a fact murder should be illegal, but I'm not sure about that either. It doesn't seem right...

Murder doesn't seem right. But how things seem isn't really a basis for passing laws. We should be able to somehow determine whether murder is or is not wrong/unethical. With the hierarchy of rights (life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness), it is very easy to show why murder is unethical: it imposes on another's right to life, which supercedes your right to liberty/pursuit of happiness/whatever other twisted explanation you'd care to give for why you want to murder me. Similarly, I cannot lock anyone in my basement simply because it makes me happy to do so. This would violate his/her right to liberty and (perhaps, unless he/she was a big-time weirdo), pursuit of happiness.

So, in a way you're more of trying to "scientifically" show that murder is wrong, but that wouldn't really be an opinion?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Tab
So, in a way you're more of trying to "scientifically" show that murder is wrong, but that wouldn't really be an opinion?

As with any logical discourse, the only real debate is over the governing premises. If we can agree that right and wrong exist and that the hierarchy of rights exists, then I can logically prove that murder is wrong. The only room for opinion is in adopting these premises. You've already agreed that moral relativism is bunk, so that one's in the clear. So, if you agree with the hierarchy of rights, then we can agree on most issues. It's still an opinion, but it's at least logically defensible if you can trace it back to its initial premises.

edit: Not to belabor the point, but I'll put it in a way that more people are familiar with. Let's say I argue that x=3 and logic tells us that x+y=4. Thus, to arrive at the conclusion that x=3, we must agree that y=1. If we can't agree on this single premise, then x can have infinitely many values and we can't really discuss anything. We will always start from different assumptions and, therefore, arrive at different conclusions.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Honestly, this would be a better country if the religious would just be content to keep it to themselves, their families and fellow worshippers. Instead, a great many of them insist on injecting their religion into the public square, into politics, into scientific debate along with wearing their faith on their sleeve (and on their car's bumper/license plate), and feeling the need to proselytize to the rest of us.

Somehow I think Maher would agree with me.

Honestly, this would be a better country if the atheists would just be content to keep it to themselves, their families and fellow atheists. Instead, a great many of them insist on injecting their atheism into the public square, into politics, into scientific debate along with wearing their atheism on their sleeve (and on their car's bumper/license plate), and feeling the need to proselytize to the rest of us.

:laugh: :thumbsup:

x2

You need to put another marriage = 1 man + 1 woman, abortion is murder, america bless god, pray for our troops, jesus fish, local christian radio station, etc sticker on your car... :roll:

I think you missed their point. The point was that it's not JUST religious people that flaunt their faith, and that we'd probably be better off if EVERYONE stopped flaunting their religion/anti-religion. See manowar821's sig, "Anti-god and anti-country" for a perfect example of the exact opposite of a religious person wearing their faith on their sleeve.