The other thread (for those wanting to discuss homosexuality)

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

WAKWIB writes:

How did we get the the ability to think about these things and decide what is best?

 

I don't know. Do you advocate that we should NOT think about these things and decide what is best, and instead just follow some religion that purports to have morals dictated by a god?

[packsaddle]

Hello ScoutLass, I just noticed where you're from. My daughter used to regularly get peed on by tigers where you are. She had a blast. Me, I was astonished by the craziness of 'Hoopfest'. But it stands reason considering the school and everything....

[WAKWIB]

Merlyn. Does it really have to be either/or? Could someone still think about these things and work them out in society and still hold a religious/god view?

You made a good point in an earlier post that society arrived at good workable codes of conduct throughout history. That is, finding the best means to an end. In nearly every civilization in history, much of that code appears to come from some kind of religious perspective.

The founders of the United States of America led off their conversation of what our govenment/laws should look like with the premise "that all men were created equal, and that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights." This sounds like an appeal to some kind of deity to me.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

WAKWIB writes:

Merlyn. Does it really have to be either/or? Could someone still think about these things and work them out in society and still hold a religious/god view?

 

Sure; but you seem to be denying the possibility of the converse:

1)There is no god

2)Humans are simply high-order primates

With this in mind, it would follow that any moral compass would be useless, or doesn't exist at all.

 

Could someone still think about these things and work them out in society and still hold a non-religious/atheist view?

 

The founders of the United States of America led off their conversation of what our govenment/laws should look like with the premise "that all men were created equal, and that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights." This sounds like an appeal to some kind of deity to me.

 

"Creator" is (probably intentionally) ambiguous, and in any case they didn't quite follow through or they wouldn't have created the 3/5ths compromise.

[CalicoPenn]

"The founders of the United States of America led off their conversation of what our govenment/laws should look like with the premise "that all men were created equal, and that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights." This sounds like an appeal to some kind of deity to me."

 

Or it could be an appeal to some kind of alien life force that swooped in from another planet or dimension and seeded our planet.

[Scoutfish]

The biggest problem is that neither side is willing to stop, take a breather, and even try to understand where the other side is coming from.

 

Simply , having tolerance of others views,

 

Now look back...way back in civilization.

 

At one time, scientists had absolutely no doubt at all whatsoever -that the world was flat, the sun revolved around the world, and all thought process took place in the heart. If you didn't subscribe to those beliefs, you were just plain stupid.

 

But then again, whenthe first explorers of Amerivca went back to Europe and were seen exhaling that fine new tobbacco smoke from their mouths...they were considered possessed by the devil himself. Fire and brimstone as proof!

 

Drought? God did it! Flooded crops? God did it! Harsh winter? God did it!

 

The who , what and where may change, but there will always be issues until the two side can step back from their own ego's.

 

 

[GernBlansten]

When trying to get my head round such lofty topics as the origins of our species, I try to consider the source. Whether its a bunch of nomadic goat herders scratching on scrolls, or a sci-fi writer scribbling on a napkin in a diner, or a treasure seeker using seer stones to interpret golden plates, you gotta consider the source. Take from it what makes sense, discard the rest.

 

Considering all sources, I'm pretty sure we aren't that far advanced from the chimp. Looking at this political season, I'm not sure we've regressed.

[WAKWIB]

"Could someone still think about these things and work them out in society and still hold a non-religious/atheist view?"

 

Absolutely yes, Merlyn. A person could be created and endowed by their creator with the powers of observation, reason, logic etc. They can also be endowed by the same creator with the unalienable right to not believe in or acknowledge that creator.

 

[packsaddle]

"Looking at this political season, I'm not sure we've regressed."

Gern, did you mean to write, "...I'm not sure we haven't regressed."?

 

As far as chimps go, humans and chimps only share about 95% of their genome. But then, there is the astonishing matter of chromosome number.

[GernBlansten]

Good catch Pack. But your 95% number is subject to the millions we've spent on those "higher" education pinheads. Just considering the source!

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

WAKWIB writes:

"Could someone still think about these things and work them out in society and still hold a non-religious/atheist view?"

 

Absolutely yes, Merlyn. A person could be created and endowed by their creator with the powers of observation, reason, logic etc. They can also be endowed by the same creator with the unalienable right to not believe in or acknowledge that creator.

 

My creators were my parents.

 

Then what did you mean by:

1)There is no god

2)Humans are simply high-order primates

With this in mind, it would follow that any moral compass would be useless, or doesn't exist at all.

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Scoutfish writes:

At one time, scientists had absolutely no doubt at all whatsoever

 

Anyone with "absolutely no doubt at all whatsoever" is not doing science. All scientific conclusions are provisional.

 

that the world was flat,

 

Which scientists were these? Eratosthenes not only concluded that the Earth was round, he measured the circumference ca. 240 BCE.

[ScoutLass]

Packsaddle, I'm going to guess your daughter spent time at Cat Tales and there weren't incontinent tigers wandering the street!

[packsaddle]

Shoveling snow, cleaning pens, carving up elderly horses to feed the cats. You got it. Two of my most endearing photos are of her bottle-feeding the baby tigers and her holding a bloody horse head almost as big as she is. That's my baby!

[Mr. Boyce]

I think it's interesting that we are told to "set aside" or "discount" values when making political choices. Politics is deeply about values. Some of these values come from philosophical sources (e.g., Kantian egalitarianism) and some from religious sources (e.g., Koran).

 

The lurking argument in this view is this: the system will fall apart ("hey, a big catastrophe!") UNLESS we made a prior agreement to withhold actualizing some portion of our moral beliefs.

 

To my mind, it's okay if a person wants to believe he should vote on the basis of his selfish evolutionary concerns (i.e., views himself simply as another animal on the planet) or if he wants the Brotherhood of Mankind or if he wants the Prophet's Ideals realized.

 

I think it's illicit to say only certain values can be acted by voters upon when deciding to vote. Real votes should reflect real people and their real values, not constrained.