www.ditl.org

Well if you truly don't care about the origins of a position than why are we having this discussion? I thought your and Seafort's point was that you had a problem with people basing their policy decisions on their religion, and/or publicly talking about their religion.

As for not having anything for the modern era I think it is true that it's reducing. The clearly good things from religion have usually been implemented already. And while it's been highly relevant in recentish times, such as the civil rights movement, we've sort of moved past that to the realm where religion in politics is mostly about telling people what they can't do.

Still there is a lot of future ahead. For example I could see religious influences helping to increase family sizes and possibly result in more functional families (for example tax breaks for couples that are married with children). This could be relevant because of the population inversion we're looking at and the fact that certain groups are simply outbreeding others. For example I think many European countries are seeing their population base shifting to Islam faster and faster.

You think you have a problem with Christian fundamentalists.....

I haven't thought that statement through though. It's just a possible example.

I think we're missing each others' points here in a mad rush to shout our own. I don't believe that Rochey is claiming people are bad because they're religious; and I (at least) am not claiming that people are automatically good because they are. What's getting lost is the fact that if someone is religious (OR atheistic,) then that belief system will automatically and irrevocably have an effect on their belief system.

You can't say, "Believe as you want, Mr. Politician, but don't let it have an effect on any of your platform planks." That would be tantamount to telling an Orthodox Jew or Muslim, "Believe as you want, but don't let it have any effect on you acceptance of Jesus."

BTW - Rochey, I believe you are correct in your mention of Stalin's initial career. However, that doesn't mitigate the ideas behind his merciless slaughter of G-d-knows-how-many Orthodox Christians and Byzantine Catholics, under the guise of eliminating the threat of religion. Or of the enforce famine and resultant deaths of millions in Ukraine, because of the independent and pious nature of the people there.

Mikey wrote:I think we're missing each others' points here in a mad rush to shout our own. I don't believe that Rochey is claiming people are bad because they are religious.

I don't think he's saying that.

Mikey wrote: You can't say, "Believe as you want, Mr. Politician, but don't let it have an effect on any of your platform planks."

But I do think he's saying that. Is that correct Rochey/Seafort?

Or is it that they can have it affect their planks, they just can't say why publicly

In what way? Atheists, quite simply, believe in no higher power, merely following science and logic. I wouldn't really call something based on facts as 'ideaological'.

Oh, please... atheists believe in a higher power just as much as anyone else; in their case, the higher power may be "Science" or "reason," or "Nature," but it's pretty much the same thing. As for it being ideological, what is the idea that humans are a cosmic accident created by a random process but a ideology? It's certainly not a proven, scientific fact...

"There are no rationalists. We all believe fairy-tales, and live in them. Some, with a sumptuous literary turn, believe in the existence of the lady clothed with the sun. Some, with a more rustic, elvish instinct, like Mr. McCabe, believe merely in the impossible sun itself. Some hold the undemonstrable dogma of the existence of God; some the equally undemonstrable dogma of the existence of the man next door. "
-G.K. Chesterton

Yes, of course. As were pretty much all of the worst decisions of civilisation.

Yes...but as I said, that does not prove that decisions influenced by personal beliefs are evil in of themselves, anymore than one evil man proves that all humanity is evil.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that Hitler was a loonie. But how do you define who's beliefs are 'wrong'?

Quite simply, I believe in a firm, immutable standard of right and wrong, by which every belief, every action, can and must be judged by. If someone believed that it was perfectly alright to kill off the elderly as soon as they got too old to work, you would believe him wrong, would you not? But why? If morality is simply what is good for society, then why not that?
The only answer can be, simply because it was Wrong. Some belief are right, and others wrong; there is no getting around this. In the same way, some beliefs are true, and others false. The only way to decide if a given belief is false or true, right or wrong, is to examine it, first morally, and then rationally, until you can honestly decide whether you believe it true or false. But simply waving a belief off with a "How do you know that?" is just intellectually dishonest.

Millions. Hundreds of millions. That's why I consider religions to be dangerous.

Actually, the generally accepted death toll for the Spanish Inquisiton was actually no more 5,000, with about 150,00 people 'processed' by it during it's run. And the Holocaust was a secular and ideological event, not a religious one; Nazism was an secular ideology, not a religious one. So what's the comparison; 5,000 killed by religion as compared to millions by secularist State-worshipers?

Actualy, from what I remember, Stalin was an Orthodox preacher before the whole revolution.

Well, considering religion was outlawed during the communist reign, and religious groups hideously persecuted during his reign, it's a safe bet he didn't stay that way long...

If you believe that, I sugest that you open a history book.

"Religious and philosophical beliefs are, indeed, as dangerous as fire, and nothing can take from them that beauty of danger. But there is only one way of really guarding ourselves against the excessive danger of them, and that is to be steeped in philosophy and soaked in religion. "

-G.K. Chesterton

I think we're missing each others' points here in a mad rush to shout our own. I don't believe that Rochey is claiming people are bad because they're religious; and I (at least) am not claiming that people are automatically good because they are. What's getting lost is the fact that if someone is religious (OR atheistic,) then that belief system will automatically and irrevocably have an effect on their belief system.

Well, I've been saying that since the beginning of this debate, and Rochey has already made it pretty clear he thinks Atheists (being, rational, logical, Scientific, people) are automatically exempt from this...

Sunny wrote: I thought your and Seafort's point was that you had a problem with people basing their policy decisions on their religion, and/or publicly talking about their religion.

I have a problem with people basing policy decisions on religion, or using whatever religion they're a part of as political leverage.
I don't have a problem with people publicaly talking about their religion.

For example I could see religious influences helping to increase family sizes and possibly result in more functional families (for example tax breaks for couples that are married with children). This could be relevant because of the population inversion we're looking at and the fact that certain groups are simply outbreeding others.

I'd argue that it would be better not to raise large families. We're quickly running out of room and resources on our rather small planet.

And why does it matter if certain groups are outbreeding others?

For example I think many European countries are seeing their population base shifting to Islam faster and faster.

We are? I know there are more immigrating here than before, but I don't think we're being swamped by them.
Then again, most Islamic fundies probably wouldn't pick Ireland as their number 1 target. Everybody forgets us little guys.

Mikey wrote:I don't believe that Rochey is claiming people are bad because they're religious;

Exactly, thank you. I haven't a clue where people assumed I was saying that religious people=evil.

What's getting lost is the fact that if someone is religious (OR atheistic,) then that belief system will automatically and irrevocably have an effect on their belief system.

Of course it's going to have an effect. I admitted that from the very start. What I was saying was that it would be much better if that wasn't the case.

However, that doesn't mitigate the ideas behind his merciless slaughter of G-d-knows-how-many Orthodox Christians and Byzantine Catholics, under the guise of eliminating the threat of religion. Or of the enforce famine and resultant deaths of millions in Ukraine, because of the independent and pious nature of the people there.

Of course it doesn't, and I certainly didn't mean to suggest otherwise. I was just pointing out that Stalin had a religious background.

Sunny wrote:I don't think he's saying that.

Well, you're wrong. Nowhere did I ever say that religious people are bad.

But I do think he's saying that. Is that correct Rochey?

Correct; I believe it would be better off if people didn't let their religious beliefs sway important decisions that can affect millions.
I also agree that such a thing is completely impossible.

Peabody wrote:Oh, please... atheists believe in a higher power just as much as anyone else; in their case, the higher power may be "Science" or "reason," or "Nature," but it's pretty much the same thing.

Since when is basing your beliefs on scientific fact 'belief in a higher power'?

As for it being ideological, what is the idea that humans are a cosmic accident created by a random process but a ideology? It's certainly not a proven, scientific fact...

It's far more proven than the idea that humanity was created by an omnipotent being with far too much time on his hands.

"There are no rationalists. We all believe fairy-tales, and live in them. Some, with a sumptuous literary turn, believe in the existence of the lady clothed with the sun. Some, with a more rustic, elvish instinct, like Mr. McCabe, believe merely in the impossible sun itself. Some hold the undemonstrable dogma of the existence of God; some the equally undemonstrable dogma of the existence of the man next door. "
-G.K. Chesterton

Wow. So scientific fact is just a 'fairy-tale'?

Yes...but as I said, that does not prove that decisions influenced by personal beliefs are evil in of themselves, anymore than one evil man proves that all humanity is evil.

No, of course not. But basing important decisions on personal beliefs, rather than facts, is damaging.

Quite simply, I believe in a firm, immutable standard of right and wrong, by which every belief, every action, can and must be judged by.

May I ask what this standard is? When does an action cross the line between good and evil? Is there a grey area?

If someone believed that it was perfectly alright to kill off the elderly as soon as they got too old to work, you would believe him wrong, would you not? But why?

Yes, I would believe him to be in the wrong. Why? Because you are ending a person's life, which is inherintly wrong unless they did something to deserve it.

Some belief are right, and others wrong; there is no getting around this.

I know this. That wasn't my question. My question was how do you define who's right and who's wrong?

The only way to decide if a given belief is false or true, right or wrong, is to examine it, first morally, and then rationally, until you can honestly decide whether you believe it true or false.

Okay, agreed there. That is also how I would decide whether something is right or wrong.

Actually, the generally accepted death toll for the Spanish Inquisiton was actually no more 5,000, with about 150,00 people 'processed' by it during it's run.

I know, I was encompassing the two events together.

And the Holocaust was a secular and ideological event, not a religious one; Nazism was an secular ideology, not a religious one.

Nazism was most ceratinly not a secular ideology. Hitler was an ardent Christian, as were many leading Nazis. Himmler tried to resurect the old Germanic religions with the SS.

So what's the comparison; 5,000 killed by religion as compared to millions by secularist State-worshipers?

The Holocaust was certainly not caused by 'secularist State-worshipers'. While that event was not motivated by religion, neither was it motivated by atheism.

Well, considering religion was outlawed during the communist reign, and religious groups hideously persecuted during his reign, it's a safe bet he didn't stay that way long...

True. I was just pointing that out.

"Religious and philosophical beliefs are, indeed, as dangerous as fire, and nothing can take from them that beauty of danger. But there is only one way of really guarding ourselves against the excessive danger of them, and that is to be steeped in philosophy and soaked in religion. "

-G.K. Chesterton

What? How does that at all answer my point?

Rochey has already made it pretty clear he thinks Atheists (being, rational, logical, Scientific, people) are automatically exempt from this...

Cute. How about you actualy point out where I said this? I said right from the very start that personal beliefs, of any kind, will allways impact on dicisions. What I said was that it would be better if they didn't.

Captain Peabody wrote:Oh, please... atheists believe in a higher power just as much as anyone else; in their case, the higher power may be "Science" or "reason," or "Nature," but it's pretty much the same thing. As for it being ideological, what is the idea that humans are a cosmic accident created by a random process but a ideology? It's certainly not a proven, scientific fact...

So analysing evidence, and drawing conclusions from that evidence is an "ideology" is it? Bollocks. If you can provide one piece of evidence of the existence of a deity I'd be surprised. Not to mention the fact of your horrendous misrepresentation of the process of evolution - it is not an "accident", nor is it random. Individual mutations are random, but the process as a whole is driven by which of those mutations best grant the individual organism that possesses them and advantage over its competitors.

Quite simply, I believe in a firm, immutable standard of right and wrong, by which every belief, every action, can and must be judged by. If someone believed that it was perfectly alright to kill off the elderly as soon as they got too old to work, you would believe him wrong, would you not? But why? If morality is simply what is good for society, then why not that?

Morality is not "simply what is good for society" it is, fundamentally, doing the greatest good for the greatest number. Murdering an individual, and thereby doing a very great harm to them, cannot be ofset by the minor harm of everyone else having to pay to support that individual.

The only answer can be, simply because it was Wrong. Some belief are right, and others wrong; there is no getting around this. In the same way, some beliefs are true, and others false. The only way to decide if a given belief is false or true, right or wrong, is to examine it, first morally, and then rationally, until you can honestly decide whether you believe it true or false. But simply waving a belief off with a "How do you know that?" is just intellectually dishonest.

On the contrary, a morality that cannot be quantitively justified does not deserve to be refered to by that term. You cannot merely say "it's moral" - you must explain why it is moral.

Actually, the generally accepted death toll for the Spanish Inquisiton was actually no more 5,000, with about 150,00 people 'processed' by it during it's run. And the Holocaust was a secular and ideological event, not a religious one; Nazism was an secular ideology, not a religious one. So what's the comparison; 5,000 killed by religion as compared to millions by secularist State-worshipers?

On the contrary - the Holocaust, far from being the the "secular and ideologic event" you claim, was driven by Hitler's Christianity, as was much of Nazism.

Not to mention the fact of your horrendous misrepresentation of the process of evolution - it is not an "accident", nor is it random.

To be fair, Seafort, I assume he's talking about life existing on Earth at all (which was through a series of random events), though with that many planets in our galaxy alone it would be impossible for there not to be life evolved somewhere.
Then again, he might be talking about evolution. So, whatever.

Rochey wrote:The Holocaust was certainly not caused by 'secularist State-worshipers'. While that event was not motivated by religion, neither was it motivated by atheism.

Actually, I'd say there's a good bit of evidence to support an assertion that it was religiously motivated, or at the very least "evidence" from the Bible interpreted by Hitler to support his belief that the Nazis were following Jesus' actions in their anti-Semitism.

The point here - at least MY point here - is that moral decisions (as opposed to purely fact-based, "left-turn or right-turn" ones) are based on the decision-maker's belief system. Whether that belief system is derived from religion, familial upbringing, belief in either divinity or atheism, or whatever, is irrelevant in the final analysis.

As far as anyone asking me for evidence of the tenets of my faith, that would invalidate my choice of that faith. I'm just taking for granted the fact that it is nobody's intention here to invalidate my choice. The whole idea of faith in a theological concept is embodied in that word - "faith." I choose to believe in a religious concept BECAUSE it transcends the boundaries of either proof or demonstrability.

Seafort:
You have a point there. I'll dig out Mein Kampf (yes, I actualy own a copy of that worthless pile of crap) later on, and have a skim through it. I know that Hitler has a tonne of religious crap in there.

Hey whoa. You guys are starting to veer into arguing specific philosophy, historical events, and religion vs atheism itself. If you want to do that please make new threads before you drown out everything else.

The point of this discussion, at this point, is whether a politician can be explicitly religious. And the role that has in politics.

I'm not sure exactly what Peabody (in 50 words or less) would say his stance is.

I think Mikey and I believe that a persons positions should be viewed independently from their religion. But that religion is likely to make a difference in what their positions are.

I believe that Rochey and Seafort believe that a persons positions should be viewed in light of origin. And that a religious cause is worse than any other. Certainly if you explicitly give a religious reason for a view that's a bad thing. And personally I don't think that is fair, in any way tolerant, and is a view that you would consider wrong if someone did the reverse to you or somebody else.

In essence you are saying "My philosophy(on religion etc) is right and everyone else's is wrong. Therefore any position they have that is based primarily on their philosophy is wrong."

Yes, and Himmler's and Hess' (most notably) obsession with the occult and with Teutonic pagan traditions is well-documented. E.g.; Himmler's (and others) trips to Tibet, in the attempt to find similarities in the genome between Tibetan lamas and "Aryan" ideals under the belief that Tibetan royalty was the origination of the "Aryan" European.

In fact, their adoption of the term "Aryan" and the debased swastika are example in themselves. "Aryan" originally refers to the language group with origins from the Indus River civilizations, following a sweeping northwest path past the Caucasus through to Scandinavia. The swastika in its original form was a symbol of good luck in a number of Asian cultures, most notably western China.

sunnyside wrote:I'm not sure exactly what Peabody (in 50 words or less) would say his stance is.

Yadda, yadda, creationism, yadda, Chesterton, yadda, yadda, "Hitler was an athiest" stupidity. More or less.

I believe that Rochey and Seafort believe that a persons positions should be viewed in light of origon. And that a religious cause is worse than any other. Certainly if you explicitly give a religious reason for a view that's a bad thing. And personally I don't think that is fair, in any way tolerant, and is a view that you would consider wrong if someone did the reverse to or somebody else.

The problem with purely religious justifications for an opinion, particularly when the individual expressing the opinion is a politician and therefore in a position to directly influence far more lives than the average person, is that it relies solely on what's written on a piece of paper. It provides no evidence whatsoever for why said opinion is moral other than "God says so". To which my response is that either the individual advocating the opinion should justify it, or they can tell God to get his arse down here to justify it. To simply brush off the key question of "why" as "God says so" is unacceptable.