Despite the topic, I'm not going to take a stance against or for abortion in this post. I'll be more focusing on the elections.
Ok, it's over and done and nothing changed... Reason? More than 50% of registered voters must cast their ballots for the referendum to be valid and only around 40% of the registered voters voted.
What's your opinion about this 50% limit? To me, it's a bit stupid, because now the anti-abortion people can only stay at home, and nothing will change.
Portuguese people are lazy voters. In 2005 parliamentary elections the turnout was 64,26 %. In 2006 presidential elections turnout was 61.53%.
So let's assume 75% (took it from a hat) of people in Portugal would think the abortion law should be changed. Let's also assume, that regular voting turnout would be 65%, that's more then last presidential or parliamentary elections. If the 25%, who are against abortion, would just decide to abstain from voting, the turnout would drop to 48.75%. That would mean that, even if the elections ended up with 100% votes for pro abortion. All it would take from the 25% minority to negate the elections is not to vote. And if they voted agaisnt the law, it would pass, because the 50% limit is then broken. Even if 80% people were pro abortion, all the anti-abortion movement would have to do to win, is to stay at home. Assuming the same people would vote, who voted in the last presidential elections, and that 20% of those people are anti-abortion (and now abstaining).
So unless Portuguese people radically change their voting activity, I can never see this particular referendum passing, if the anti-abortion people just act reasonably and abstain from voting (voting is useless anyway)...
I think it's a bit silly and against the spirit of the whole voting system, that abstaining can have the biggest effect and actually "win" elections.
Just my random rant...
Portugal's abortion referendum...
Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee
What you mean to say is that religious people shouldn't have a voice 
Surely that's rhetoric though. You don't actually believe that only the religious (or more specifically Christians) oppose abortion? I'm not sure the Bible even says zygotes are human...
Surely that's rhetoric though. You don't actually believe that only the religious (or more specifically Christians) oppose abortion? I'm not sure the Bible even says zygotes are human...
Last edited by Trip on Sun Feb 11, 2007 2:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
noneedforaname
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 10:22 am
Redzo, that's quite an insult.
And just to take the other stance, let me reply that on the contrary, religion is rather something one should be thankful for in many respects. Beliveing that there is a God that holds us accountable for our actions is what holds believers back from living as selfishly as the rest of us.
With no God around, where does the responsibility to do what is good come from? It cannot be motivated; There can be no valid morals in an amoral universe that came to be by accident. Thus, if you think about it, if all of us really put our faith in atheism to practise, the world would be a complete hell. Not even you would appreciate that kind of world.
And just to take the other stance, let me reply that on the contrary, religion is rather something one should be thankful for in many respects. Beliveing that there is a God that holds us accountable for our actions is what holds believers back from living as selfishly as the rest of us.
With no God around, where does the responsibility to do what is good come from? It cannot be motivated; There can be no valid morals in an amoral universe that came to be by accident. Thus, if you think about it, if all of us really put our faith in atheism to practise, the world would be a complete hell. Not even you would appreciate that kind of world.
noneedforaname,
The religious also act morally simply because they believe it to be as they are supposed to, correct? Surely we don't act only out of fear...
We would also in the least act in the best interests of our loved ones of our own free will even if we lost our faith. So we wouldn't be entirely selfish. Also, in having such ties, we learn to love others as well.
So perhaps a system of ethics, though based on nothing, could and does rise up in many atheists who are able to simply not follow such logic and allow their system of ethics to rule them irrationally.
The religious also act morally simply because they believe it to be as they are supposed to, correct? Surely we don't act only out of fear...
We would also in the least act in the best interests of our loved ones of our own free will even if we lost our faith. So we wouldn't be entirely selfish. Also, in having such ties, we learn to love others as well.
So perhaps a system of ethics, though based on nothing, could and does rise up in many atheists who are able to simply not follow such logic and allow their system of ethics to rule them irrationally.
Erssa,
My point is that I think this is one more trick of politicians. They tell you that the only reason people oppose abortion is because their bible tells them to do so. The argument goes that such people should not lean on such a thing for a code of ethics but should form their own and are being manipulated.
However, this is not the case and abortion can be opposed outside of religion at least as well as it can be embraced.
Though the religious tend to oppose abortion, I think a significant percent of the less religious also oppose it.
(to newcomers, all = vast majority of course). How do those of weak faith and atheists who have no logical foundation for their system of ethics stand then?I do, I also believe most of the people who vote for more liberal abortion laws are religious as well . Especially in a country like Portugal, which is a very very religious country.
My point is that I think this is one more trick of politicians. They tell you that the only reason people oppose abortion is because their bible tells them to do so. The argument goes that such people should not lean on such a thing for a code of ethics but should form their own and are being manipulated.
However, this is not the case and abortion can be opposed outside of religion at least as well as it can be embraced.
Though the religious tend to oppose abortion, I think a significant percent of the less religious also oppose it.
Last edited by Trip on Sun Feb 11, 2007 3:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You mean like it holds some catholic priests back, when they are feeling tempted to molest altar boys? (Yeah, I know that was a sucker punch.)noneedforaname wrote:Redzo, that's quite an insult.
And just to take the other stance, let me reply that on the contrary, religion is rather something one should be thankful for in many respects. Beliveing that there is a God that holds us accountable for our actions is what holds believers back from living as selfishly as the rest of us.
It comes from the same place as faith. From human nature...With no God around, where does the responsibility to do what is good come from?
This is typical of religious people. They talk about faith and how all you need is to believe, how all you need is faith. Sure, there's plenty of faith for holy ghosts, omnipotent, all-seeing, invisible beings and fairy tales. But when all you need is faith in humanity, you have none?It cannot be motivated; There can be no valid morals in an amoral universe that came to be by accident. Thus, if you think about it, if all of us really put our faith in atheism to practise, the world would be a complete hell. Not even you would appreciate that kind of world.
I think that there is a fundamental problem with having a minimum quantity of people casting votes before the votes actually mean something, can you imagine the uproar if this was also used in elections.
Religion should be banned from politics, they have different agendas, and politics will suffer, especially in Portugal where the vast majority of people are Catholic.
I cant stand religions, they are an utter pile of shit, and as far as I am concerned should actually be banned.
I would even go as far as to say that merely by being religous a person is proving that they are incapable of thinking for themselves, religion is a crude and disgusting form of brainwashing where the goal is control. Religion is no different from dictatorship, and as we know dictatorship doesnt mix well with politics.
I think that abortions should be performed with consent and under the watchful eye of doctors not priests or politicians.
Andy
Religion should be banned from politics, they have different agendas, and politics will suffer, especially in Portugal where the vast majority of people are Catholic.
I cant stand religions, they are an utter pile of shit, and as far as I am concerned should actually be banned.
I would even go as far as to say that merely by being religous a person is proving that they are incapable of thinking for themselves, religion is a crude and disgusting form of brainwashing where the goal is control. Religion is no different from dictatorship, and as we know dictatorship doesnt mix well with politics.
I think that abortions should be performed with consent and under the watchful eye of doctors not priests or politicians.
Andy
Actually the religion in Portugal did not affected the result very much. Sure, the majority of Portugal's people is catholic, but I can tell you that the most of the 'YES' votes comes from the 18-35 years old people, even if they are catholic.Erssa wrote:I do, I also believe most of the people who vote for more liberal abortion laws are religious as well . Especially in a country like Portugal, which is a very very religious country.Trip wrote:You don't actually believe that only the religious oppose abortion?
I'm catholic and I voted 'YES'. Most of my friends voted 'YES'. I am religious but that doesn't mean I must agree with every Church's opinion. Actually I don't agree with a lot of them!
Couldn't agree more ! I cant think of anything else that has caused so much pain, slaughter and sorrow then religion !!!andyb wrote:I think that there is a fundamental problem with having a minimum quantity of people casting votes before the votes actually mean something, can you imagine the uproar if this was also used in elections.
Religion should be banned from politics, they have different agendas, and politics will suffer, especially in Portugal where the vast majority of people are Catholic.
I cant stand religions, they are an utter pile of shit, and as far as I am concerned should actually be banned.
I would even go as far as to say that merely by being religous a person is proving that they are incapable of thinking for themselves, religion is a crude and disgusting form of brainwashing where the goal is control. Religion is no different from dictatorship, and as we know dictatorship doesnt mix well with politics.
I think that abortions should be performed with consent and under the watchful eye of doctors not priests or politicians.
Andy
Think of all crusades from christians, all "holy wars" from muslims and so on. Damn 2 of them are responsible for milions and milions of deaths. In the name of religion, and "good God" !!
Where is he then ? When priests are raping young boys, or when small children are dying in cancer ?
Watching from above and having fun ??
This is exactly what I said.Epsilon wrote:Actually the religion in Portugal did not affected the result very much. Sure, the majority of Portugal's people is catholic, but I can tell you that the most of the 'YES' votes comes from the 18-35 years old people, even if they are catholic.Erssa wrote:I do, I also believe most of the people who vote for more liberal abortion laws are religious as well . Especially in a country like Portugal, which is a very very religious country.
I'm catholic and I voted 'YES'. Most of my friends voted 'YES'. I am religious but that doesn't mean I must agree with every Church's opinion. Actually I don't agree with a lot of them!
If there's something to be learned from history, it has shown us how effective bans on religion are.andyb wrote:Religion should be banned from politics, they have different agendas, and politics will suffer, especially in Portugal where the vast majority of people are Catholic.
When people talk about religion, everybody usually agrees, that religions are ok, as long as people keep it to themselves. But I think abortion debates show just how hard it is for a religious person to keep his conviction to himself. They just can't mind their own business, and worry about their own souls, they have to care for your soul as well, even if you don't want them to. You tell them to piss off, and they'll tell you, that they'll be praying for your (lost) soul...I cant stand religions, they are an utter pile of shit, and as far as I am concerned should actually be banned...
Actually I agree with you and your entire post in so many levels.
As I do with you Redzo, but I'd cool it down a bit. It's not like you can promote any cause by making religious people defensive. Not that any of us expect to turn any religious people here to an agnostic or atheist. But in general, it's a better approach to just make them think, by asking simple questions like why god won't heal amputees...
I could cool my post down a little, but as I have freedom of speech, I will choose to leave it just as it is.
Ignoring the religion question, the Portugese government have done the right thing and let the votes count anyway, and more importantly allowed women to have abortions in their own country in clean conditions by real doctors.
Andy
PS: God wont heal amputees because there is no such thing as "God", there is however the FSM - RAmen.
http://www.venganza.org/
Ignoring the religion question, the Portugese government have done the right thing and let the votes count anyway, and more importantly allowed women to have abortions in their own country in clean conditions by real doctors.
Andy
PS: God wont heal amputees because there is no such thing as "God", there is however the FSM - RAmen.
http://www.venganza.org/
If the only thing that makes you live a decent life is fear of eternal damnation from some higher-up being... well...noneedforaname wrote:Beliveing that there is a God that holds us accountable for our actions is what holds believers back from living as selfishly as the rest of us.
I don't believe in a higher being, but so far I've managed to contain my violent urges.
Common sense. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If you're nice to people, they tend to respond in kind, God or no God. This is because humans are social animals and being nice to each other makes most of us feel good.With no God around, where does the responsibility to do what is good come from?
More propaganda... Think for yourself rather than repeating such absurd catch phrases.Couldn't agree more ! I cant think of anything else that has caused so much pain, slaughter and sorrow then religion !!!
Mao - atheist. Stalin - atheist. Hitler and his Nazis - atheist though believing they needed to create their own religion. The three greatest monsters of the 20th century all atheist. Mao is a particularly good example; he believed he lived only for his own pleasure.
The flip response is because he/she/it doesn't exist, but I believe the Christian response is something to do with free will; for example God doesn't stop wars and murders because they are the result of the exercise of free will. So it's not God's role to stop all the bad things that happen in the world, although of course if you are a believer then they are less likely to happen to you (although if they do happen God can just say you didn't pray hard enough).asking simple questions like why god won't heal amputees...
Also the Khmer Rouge. Clearly we can't attribute all mass murder to religious causes; people just seem to like killing each other, religious or not. Maybe it's like a population control mechanism, like lemmings throwing themselves off cliffs (I know, I know, they don't really do that, but if they did it would be similar).Trip wrote:More propaganda... Think for yourself rather than repeating such absurd catch phrases.Couldn't agree more ! I cant think of anything else that has caused so much pain, slaughter and sorrow then religion !!!
Mao - atheist. Stalin - atheist. Hitler and his Nazis - atheist though believing they needed to create their own religion. The three greatest monsters of the 20th century all atheist. Mao is a particularly good example; he believed he lived only for his own pleasure.
haha yea it probably does help to control population as well as in theory to weed out the weak individuals as well as weak (even if possessing 'strong' individuals in a sense) nations and to grant limited resources to the better fit. However, modern warfare is too powerful; it seems to negate the positives. We need to scale war back to the common bar fight and soccer competition (mock warfare). Or I dunno, maybe it's just how humans are. Maybe the technology is the problem.
Anyway, the Catholic Church is one force that opposes preemptive wars. I'm not Catholic, but I have to respect its positions. Just pointing out a positive.
Anyway, the Catholic Church is one force that opposes preemptive wars. I'm not Catholic, but I have to respect its positions. Just pointing out a positive.
Nonsense. Read Richard Dawkins "The God delusion", atleast the part about morality. If there's no life after this one it becomes even more important to make it perfect and for this to be achieved you can't be stepping on other people's toes all the time - or worse.noneedforaname wrote:Redzo, that's quite an insult.
And just to take the other stance, let me reply that on the contrary, religion is rather something one should be thankful for in many respects. Beliveing that there is a God that holds us accountable for our actions is what holds believers back from living as selfishly as the rest of us.
With no God around, where does the responsibility to do what is good come from? It cannot be motivated; There can be no valid morals in an amoral universe that came to be by accident. Thus, if you think about it, if all of us really put our faith in atheism to practise, the world would be a complete hell. Not even you would appreciate that kind of world.
Religion does not equal to good morality. Neither does atheism but sound scepticism and demand for proof is far more connected to the real world than dogmatism.
Hitler was an Athiest, he was also a Vegetarian, neither is a reason or excuse for his disgusting behavour. Would Hitler have been better or worse if he was religous.??? Would Hitler have been a nicer guy if he eat Meat.???
None of these questions are answerable.
Religions are a pointless waste for any people who live in the 21st Century in a first world nation. I would suggest that everyone reads Isaac Asimov's Foundation series of Books, these books point out the most basic of needs of religous people and how people get manipulated by religion.
Control. Religions control people with rules, threats, promises, Priests, Churches and dismiss anything to the contrary as "evil and bad".
Some examples would be Heaven and Hell, heaven is a promise and hell is a threat, Priests control people in the name of religion and put a human face to those threats and promises. Churches used to be the best most waterproof buildings in the land, where would people go to when their house burned down for assistance, people would be grateful, but they would also have to pay what would have been essentially a tax.
Now we have governments, laws, police, welfare, this is everything that religions used to provide, now they provide mental comfort to those people who dont like shrinks, dont have any friends or family and most of all have been brainwashed as a child.
Religions should be banned because of their brainwashing activities, its far worse than most people think. Children are easily taught creatures, esspecially with fantastic stories of walking on water, the threat of hell if you are naughty, the promise of Heaven if you are good, while at the same time dragging them into the belief that they should do this to their children, friends and family.
How different is this from advertising, there are advertising watchdogs, but who watches religions (apart from the police).
Religions over the years have had to change because their lies are not as believable as they used to be.
People were locked up by the church for telling people that the world was round, people were abused in varios ways for being female, homosexual, the wrong colour, a different religion, not believing that God exists.
As Asimovs books point out in no uncertain terms, the people who need religion, are stupid people, people without governments, people who dont understand science, and people who need to have someone tell them what to do, when to do it and tell them whats right and whats wrong.
Also as Asimovs books point out, the more people know, the clever they are, the better their governments rules and laws the less they need religion.
Religion is loosing its grip in most first world countries, but has no problem keeping a grip in third world countries where there is no science, no knowlege, no books, no government, no rules or laws. Where the general knowlege and intelegence is higher, there are less religous people.
Tell me again why religions still exist in first world countries.......... the brainwashed masses, are still brainwashing their kids (child abuse), and religous people still have enough power to stop any kind of law prohibiting children having religion forced into their heads.
All religous people should have a good read about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and if you can prove that the FSM does NOT exist I will give you £100,000,000 and if you CAN prove thast your god exists I will double it, also I would like to know if you believe in faries and father christmas as well.
Andy
None of these questions are answerable.
Religions are a pointless waste for any people who live in the 21st Century in a first world nation. I would suggest that everyone reads Isaac Asimov's Foundation series of Books, these books point out the most basic of needs of religous people and how people get manipulated by religion.
Control. Religions control people with rules, threats, promises, Priests, Churches and dismiss anything to the contrary as "evil and bad".
Some examples would be Heaven and Hell, heaven is a promise and hell is a threat, Priests control people in the name of religion and put a human face to those threats and promises. Churches used to be the best most waterproof buildings in the land, where would people go to when their house burned down for assistance, people would be grateful, but they would also have to pay what would have been essentially a tax.
Now we have governments, laws, police, welfare, this is everything that religions used to provide, now they provide mental comfort to those people who dont like shrinks, dont have any friends or family and most of all have been brainwashed as a child.
Religions should be banned because of their brainwashing activities, its far worse than most people think. Children are easily taught creatures, esspecially with fantastic stories of walking on water, the threat of hell if you are naughty, the promise of Heaven if you are good, while at the same time dragging them into the belief that they should do this to their children, friends and family.
How different is this from advertising, there are advertising watchdogs, but who watches religions (apart from the police).
Religions over the years have had to change because their lies are not as believable as they used to be.
People were locked up by the church for telling people that the world was round, people were abused in varios ways for being female, homosexual, the wrong colour, a different religion, not believing that God exists.
As Asimovs books point out in no uncertain terms, the people who need religion, are stupid people, people without governments, people who dont understand science, and people who need to have someone tell them what to do, when to do it and tell them whats right and whats wrong.
Also as Asimovs books point out, the more people know, the clever they are, the better their governments rules and laws the less they need religion.
Religion is loosing its grip in most first world countries, but has no problem keeping a grip in third world countries where there is no science, no knowlege, no books, no government, no rules or laws. Where the general knowlege and intelegence is higher, there are less religous people.
Tell me again why religions still exist in first world countries.......... the brainwashed masses, are still brainwashing their kids (child abuse), and religous people still have enough power to stop any kind of law prohibiting children having religion forced into their heads.
All religous people should have a good read about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and if you can prove that the FSM does NOT exist I will give you £100,000,000 and if you CAN prove thast your god exists I will double it, also I would like to know if you believe in faries and father christmas as well.
Andy
Last edited by andyb on Sun Feb 11, 2007 5:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Religion should be something private. And it's not clear whether Hitler was an atheist or a believer. But he in himself sort of created a religion on himself, just like many 'communist' nations did. I believe it's called 'personal cult'.
The point is people all too often place too much faith in some ideology, some person or some idea and we should be very careful about that. All men and women with power should be misstrusted. Those who wanted communism certainly didn't get what they wanted. Real socialism is power to the people and not to some elite ruling class. Here in Sweden the liberals and socialists brought freedom while the conservatives in every step opposed it. Because they were the wealthy and the powerful.
The christian Europe started two world world wars in the 20th century and before that there have been plenty of wars, slavery, imperialism and bloodshed in the name of religion and freedom.
History is not over, and there will be plenty of blood spilled in the name of every idiology, we simply can't sum it up just yet.
Was Hitler an atheist? (I personally don't believe it matters, what matters is what he did and why did the masses follow him?
Most anti-semites I've ever talked to are hardcore christians. I ask why, they say it's because jews killed Jesus)
"Let us pray in this hour that nothing can divide us, and that God will help us against the Devil! Almighty Lord, bless our fight!?" -- Adolph Hitler to the SA in 1930."
"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."- Adolf Hitler, to Gen. Gerhard Engel, 1941
"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith."
Adolf Hitler
"I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Almighty Creator. By fighting the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work."— Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
____
"All Bibles are man-made." Thomas Edison (just like every ideology. If you know something about mankind then you oughta know it is not to be trusted)
"One of the greatest gifts science has brought to the world is continuing elimination of the supernatural."— James D. Watson, Nobel laureate, co-discoverer of the molecular structure of DNA (couldn't agree more)
"People think that epilepsy is divine simply because they don't have any idea what causes epilepsy. But I believe that someday we will understand what causes epilepsy, and at that moment, we will cease to believe that it's divine. And so it is with everything in the universe" - Hippocrates
"The point is not that all religious people are bad; it is not that all bad things are done in the name of religion; and it is not that scientists are never bad, or wrong, or self-deceived. The point is this: intellectual honesty is better (more enlightened, more useful, less dangerous, more in touch with reality, etc. ) than dogmatism" Sam Harris
"People who want to share their religious views with you almost never want you to share yours with them" - Dave Barry (never had an atheist knocking on my door. Please, keep thy religion or lack of religion to thy self! You really don't want to save my soul, you want my MONEY)
"Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed" - Martin Luther
"If the bible had said that Jonah swallowed the whale, I would believe it" - William Jennings Bryan (this guy was a democrat, just posting this to point out that even "the left" can be religious and delusional)
"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet." - Napoleon Bonaparte
"What religion a man shall have is a historical accident, quite as much as what language he shall speak" George Santayana (I came to this conclusion when I was about twelve years old. So, is religion really indoctrination or an intelligent choice?)
"The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion." — Thomas Paine
"Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies." - Thomas Jefferson (this is here for the Americans who think that the founding fathers wanted a Christian nation. No they wanted to stop prosecution not to justify it)
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in
one fewer god than you do. When you understand why
you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand
why I dismiss yours." - Stephen Roberts (to put things in some perspective, the christian world is rather godless if compared with India. Many religious laugh at other peoples faiths, us atheists/agnostics go one step further)
"Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectful." George Orwell (distrust every leader, for politicians are truly the best salesmen in the world)
The point is people all too often place too much faith in some ideology, some person or some idea and we should be very careful about that. All men and women with power should be misstrusted. Those who wanted communism certainly didn't get what they wanted. Real socialism is power to the people and not to some elite ruling class. Here in Sweden the liberals and socialists brought freedom while the conservatives in every step opposed it. Because they were the wealthy and the powerful.
The christian Europe started two world world wars in the 20th century and before that there have been plenty of wars, slavery, imperialism and bloodshed in the name of religion and freedom.
History is not over, and there will be plenty of blood spilled in the name of every idiology, we simply can't sum it up just yet.
Was Hitler an atheist? (I personally don't believe it matters, what matters is what he did and why did the masses follow him?
Most anti-semites I've ever talked to are hardcore christians. I ask why, they say it's because jews killed Jesus)
"Let us pray in this hour that nothing can divide us, and that God will help us against the Devil! Almighty Lord, bless our fight!?" -- Adolph Hitler to the SA in 1930."
"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."- Adolf Hitler, to Gen. Gerhard Engel, 1941
"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith."
Adolf Hitler
"I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Almighty Creator. By fighting the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work."— Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
____
"All Bibles are man-made." Thomas Edison (just like every ideology. If you know something about mankind then you oughta know it is not to be trusted)
"One of the greatest gifts science has brought to the world is continuing elimination of the supernatural."— James D. Watson, Nobel laureate, co-discoverer of the molecular structure of DNA (couldn't agree more)
"People think that epilepsy is divine simply because they don't have any idea what causes epilepsy. But I believe that someday we will understand what causes epilepsy, and at that moment, we will cease to believe that it's divine. And so it is with everything in the universe" - Hippocrates
"The point is not that all religious people are bad; it is not that all bad things are done in the name of religion; and it is not that scientists are never bad, or wrong, or self-deceived. The point is this: intellectual honesty is better (more enlightened, more useful, less dangerous, more in touch with reality, etc. ) than dogmatism" Sam Harris
"People who want to share their religious views with you almost never want you to share yours with them" - Dave Barry (never had an atheist knocking on my door. Please, keep thy religion or lack of religion to thy self! You really don't want to save my soul, you want my MONEY)
"Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed" - Martin Luther
"If the bible had said that Jonah swallowed the whale, I would believe it" - William Jennings Bryan (this guy was a democrat, just posting this to point out that even "the left" can be religious and delusional)
"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet." - Napoleon Bonaparte
"What religion a man shall have is a historical accident, quite as much as what language he shall speak" George Santayana (I came to this conclusion when I was about twelve years old. So, is religion really indoctrination or an intelligent choice?)
"The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion." — Thomas Paine
"Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies." - Thomas Jefferson (this is here for the Americans who think that the founding fathers wanted a Christian nation. No they wanted to stop prosecution not to justify it)
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in
one fewer god than you do. When you understand why
you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand
why I dismiss yours." - Stephen Roberts (to put things in some perspective, the christian world is rather godless if compared with India. Many religious laugh at other peoples faiths, us atheists/agnostics go one step further)
"Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectful." George Orwell (distrust every leader, for politicians are truly the best salesmen in the world)
It's not a matter, or so the argument goes, of how much education is received but rather what is taught at the school.andyb wrote:Religion is loosing its grip in most first world countries, but has no problem keeping a grip in third world countries where there is no science, no knowlege, no books, no government, no rules or laws. Where the general knowlege and intelegence is higher, there are less religous people.
If faith is continually undermined by professors, then of course it will weaken. Just the same, if you send a young (early 20s) atheist into a monastery, he'll tend to become Christian.
An example of how this occurs is that despite the possibility of creationism, it is ignored in biology books. If religion gets a mention, it's as a 'need' or an evolutionary tool that we are now somehow beyond. This is done to mold students not to enlighten them. Evolution is believed as firmly as a faith by some though defended as somehow logical. However, it is not clear that we evolved from pond scum in the least. That smaller changes occur is obvious, but larger changes are not.
All it is is attacking one belief system and indoctrinating children into another albeit one that is lacking a deeper religious foundation.
Religion and tradition might be ways of controlling people in a sense, but in another sense they provide guidelines that ideally work in the best interest of the society. That's not to say that all religion is false... Anyway, typically the rules put down have good reason behind them though of course there are bad traditions.
It takes time for people to realise right and wrong and many are unable (incl. lack of time or availability of education) or unwilling to understand such things fully. So... guidance is needed in the form of religion and tradition. Also, I think even for those who are capable of understanding, religion and tradition probably add more... emotion to the rules so that it is easier to act in what is right at the expense of immediate pleasures (e.g. sex) for greater pleasures (e.g. one's family). The importance of tradition and habit are analogous to how an alcoholic might establish a one drink a day rule on himself to control his drinking or stop altogether. Though again that's not to say that the religions were contrived to manipulate but simply that whoever established them tends to have reasons behind what he writes.
Anyway, if you look at modern secular societies, deception and manipulation occur to a great deal still. However rather than being done by coreligionists who also believe such things, it's done consciously. Also, lacking any ethical foundation, ideals continue to transform from one to another.
And if there is no God, what does it matter if people find comfort in believing there is? Any moral code you have outside of a religion is based on your pursuit of pleasure, so if it doesn't affect you why care? I guess the answer is they get in the way of some desire, though another possibility and the one I lean towards is it's more often a conflict of religions in that secular society has a religion in a sense.
EDIT: regarding last paragraph, I guess religion affects the abortion issue that's being decided... so it would affect an atheist
Last edited by Trip on Sun Feb 11, 2007 8:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Creationism belongs in classes of religion, society and/or philosophy. It has nothing to do with science. Just because there are some holes in the theory of evolution does not mean the answer is in the bible.
Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 574768.ece
"It is said that men may not be the dreams of the Gods, but rather that the Gods are the dreams of men." - Carl Sagan
Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 574768.ece
"It is said that men may not be the dreams of the Gods, but rather that the Gods are the dreams of men." - Carl Sagan
How is it not?Trip wrote:mentioning creationism is not the same as
That seems reasonable to you. To others, it may seem reasonable that falling number of pirates is responsible for global warming. Why should that not be taught? Both are based primarily on belief.It's reasonable to say that complex organisms are too complex to have evolved on their own.
-
Devonavar
- SPCR Reviewer
- Posts: 1850
- Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 11:23 am
- Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
This thread should be Godwin'ed... but I'm interested so I'm going to contribute to this mess 
First, my two cents on the election issue:
Moving on...
First, a few one liners...
Why do all of the anti-religious folks assume that either
a) Religion = Christianity, or
b) Religion = The political orgainization that is the Christian Church?
Why is it assumed that science does not involve / is not compatible with faith? Do centuries of religious scientist not mean anything?
Why is it assumed that Darwin is incompatible with religion / faith / God? For the record, he studied to be an Anglican clergyman, and, despite losing faith in the Church later in life, remained agnostic to death. It's Darwin Day today, let us all honour God as he did.
Why is it assumed that we can somehow think ourselves to a better world?
Why should it matter whether God is a human creation? Does His/Her/Its being so make Him/Her/It any less worthy of acknowledgment, or, conversely, does not acknowledging God as a human creation make Him/Her/It more real, not less so?
Moving on...
I am shocked and appalled that so many of you seem to think that religion (more specifically, religious values) should be utterly divorced from politics. I am shocked that you think science can tell you what to vote for.
Let's take a good look at what science, or, more broadly, rationality is good for. Science is in the business of making predictions, of discovering how the world is and deducing how the world will be based on how things were. Science and rationality will tell you how to get from A to B, where we were before we got to A, and where we are likely to be after we get to B. It is very, very good at studying and solving problems, at explaining why things are the way they are, and how to go about changing them. Sounds good, right? What else could we ask for?
Let's apply this to politics. Let's say you want to get to B from A, who should you vote for? Obviously, the candidate who is most scientifically qualified to understand how to get from A to B. And, after a little scientific study, it should be possible to determine which candidate this is... presumably the most scientific candidate.
So if it's so simple to get from A to B, why are elections so hotly contested? Why doesn't everyone just vote for the best candidate?
There's a lot of reasons, most of which I will ignore, but there's one reason that's specifically relevant to this thread. And that reason is that, quite often, half of the population doesn't want to go to B, they want to go to C instead, so they are all voting for the candidate who is most qualified to go from A to C.
So, no problem, let's just find a scientist who can tell us whether it's better to go to B or C, and then vote accordingly. Wait, did I say no problem? Well, actually, there is a problem. Science can tell us how to get to B; it can tell us how to get to C; it can even tell us with ruthless precision whether we're more likely to get to B than C. But, it cannot solve the problem at hand, because, no matter how much we study the world around us, science cannot tell us whether it is good or bad. Science is value-neutral and cannot make value judgements. But, the question at hand requires a value judgement. We want to know whether B or C is a better choice.
Science can (and does) certainly try to get around this. Typically, science will turn its considerable prowess to discovering as much as possible about both B and C. And, often this will be enough, since it turns out that one or the other leads to problems down the road. If C causes cancer and B doesn't, science chooses B, doesn't it? No, it doesn't. Science puts information on the table: C causes cancer, B doesn't. But then another value judgement has to be made: Is it better to get cancer or not to get cancer? And then, we make a decision based on the best information that science can give us: We decide to go to B because we agree that it's better not to have cancer.
But how did we decide that we didn't want to have cancer? We didn't use science — science doesn't care whether or not we get cancer. Science will just unemotionally tell us what will happen as the cancer progresses, or (hopefully) tell us how to get rid of it. Somehow, we made a value judgement. Presumably, we used thought along these lines: Cancer leads to death, and death = bad. In other words, we looked to our existing values (death = bad) to solve the problem. But, where did these values come from in the first place?
This is a problem that science could solve, but I'm going to jump the gun and point out that values come largely from religion. And, before you atheists start screaming "I'm not religious and I have values", let me point out that your values are largely Christian with the ideals of equality and freedom tacked on the side. Let's face it, the members of this debate are mostly American / European, and our heritage is Christian, like it or not. Besides, I'm not really interested in where our values came from. I'll accept that you have values, and I don't particularly care how you got them. What I'm interested in is how to make a decision when two of my values conflict. Or, more combatively, how to make a decision when my values conflict with your values. Science can't make this decision. Religions, on the other hand, can, because they provide a (mostly) consistent system of values that do not conflict with each other.
(Yes, the problem gets pushed back a bit when two religions have values that clash, and that's a much more difficult problem. However, it's mostly irrelevant within a single society because you can assume that a society is dominated by a single religion. Also, a religion that can accommodate a wide range of opposing values, such as our own society, or many Eastern religions will suffer less from this problem.)
So, getting back to the example at hand, religion can help us choose between B and C, while science cannot. Making a value decision wisely requires a system of values, which religion can provide. When you say that religion has no place in politics, I understand that as meaning that a system of values has no place in politics. And that makes me shocked and appalled, though perhaps not very surprised.
Over the past couple hundred years or so, our society has systematically tried disengage systems of value from government by delegating value decisions to "the people" via democracy. While it is admirable to have a system of government where the citizens are not at the mercy of the value system belonging to the person(s) in power, that advantage is eroded when none of the citizens have value systems, or when their value systems are widely divergent. Yet, this is the situation that we have today.
Our society is full of well meaning people like Redzo who are so afraid to have values (or, perhaps, to admit that they have values that are not "determined by science") that our elections are won by the "least offensive" candidates who express the most value-neutral positions. We have a system of government that, currently at least, puts the people with the weakest values in power. Is this not a perfect recepie for corruption? We have no idea where the majority of our elected officials really stand on important issues because the system does not allow values to be expressed. Is it any wonder that the young population in most western nations (the most idealistic, value-motivated demographic) do not bother to vote? With no values expressed, how do we choose who to vote for? Is it any wonder that there are religious resurgences in many countries (Bible-thumpers, I'm looking at you). At least these religions are expressing something. We know where they stand, unlike our politicians, who, we can only assume are simply out for personal gain. Yes, past religious organizations have been corrupt, but even they had to stay within their stated ideals enough to maintain the illusion of honesty. Our current leaders don't even have to do that.
/rant
To sum up: Politics requires a decent system of values. The most likely (only?) source for that system is religion. I don't suggest reinstating the Church, but it might be worth paying attention to the values they espouse.
First, my two cents on the election issue:
I'll take your math at face value, since I'm too lazy to work it through. However, I take issue with your conclusion that just because this is possible, a minimum voter turnout is a bad idea. You say all it would take to corrupt the system is for 25% of the total population to not vote. All it would take???!??!?!?!? How likely do you think this is? You're asking a large bloc of voters to make a conscious, decisive effort to corrupt the system. Of all the types of corruption that democracy is subject to, I think this may be the least likely I've ever heard of. This 25% is passionately motivated, taught from birth that the way to make a differnence is to vote, and highly unorganized. They are not going to collectively not vote just because they could rationally win by doing so. And, on the absurd off-chance that they did manage to coordinate their voting to exploit this, you would know long before the vote occurred because it's not possible to convince 25% of a population to vote as a bloc without everyone else discovering what's going on. And if some group does start a "no vote" campaign, you're going to have far more debate on this issue that you ever wanted.So let's assume 75% (took it from a hat) of people in Portugal would think the abortion law should be changed. Let's also assume, that regular voting turnout would be 65%, that's more then last presidential or parliamentary elections. If the 25%, who are against abortion, would just decide to abstain from voting, the turnout would drop to 48.75%. That would mean that, even if the elections ended up with 100% votes for pro abortion. All it would take from the 25% minority to negate the elections is not to vote.
Moving on...
First, a few one liners...
Why do all of the anti-religious folks assume that either
a) Religion = Christianity, or
b) Religion = The political orgainization that is the Christian Church?
Why is it assumed that science does not involve / is not compatible with faith? Do centuries of religious scientist not mean anything?
Why is it assumed that Darwin is incompatible with religion / faith / God? For the record, he studied to be an Anglican clergyman, and, despite losing faith in the Church later in life, remained agnostic to death. It's Darwin Day today, let us all honour God as he did.
Why is it assumed that we can somehow think ourselves to a better world?
Why should it matter whether God is a human creation? Does His/Her/Its being so make Him/Her/It any less worthy of acknowledgment, or, conversely, does not acknowledging God as a human creation make Him/Her/It more real, not less so?
Moving on...
I am shocked and appalled that so many of you seem to think that religion (more specifically, religious values) should be utterly divorced from politics. I am shocked that you think science can tell you what to vote for.
Let's take a good look at what science, or, more broadly, rationality is good for. Science is in the business of making predictions, of discovering how the world is and deducing how the world will be based on how things were. Science and rationality will tell you how to get from A to B, where we were before we got to A, and where we are likely to be after we get to B. It is very, very good at studying and solving problems, at explaining why things are the way they are, and how to go about changing them. Sounds good, right? What else could we ask for?
Let's apply this to politics. Let's say you want to get to B from A, who should you vote for? Obviously, the candidate who is most scientifically qualified to understand how to get from A to B. And, after a little scientific study, it should be possible to determine which candidate this is... presumably the most scientific candidate.
So if it's so simple to get from A to B, why are elections so hotly contested? Why doesn't everyone just vote for the best candidate?
There's a lot of reasons, most of which I will ignore, but there's one reason that's specifically relevant to this thread. And that reason is that, quite often, half of the population doesn't want to go to B, they want to go to C instead, so they are all voting for the candidate who is most qualified to go from A to C.
So, no problem, let's just find a scientist who can tell us whether it's better to go to B or C, and then vote accordingly. Wait, did I say no problem? Well, actually, there is a problem. Science can tell us how to get to B; it can tell us how to get to C; it can even tell us with ruthless precision whether we're more likely to get to B than C. But, it cannot solve the problem at hand, because, no matter how much we study the world around us, science cannot tell us whether it is good or bad. Science is value-neutral and cannot make value judgements. But, the question at hand requires a value judgement. We want to know whether B or C is a better choice.
Science can (and does) certainly try to get around this. Typically, science will turn its considerable prowess to discovering as much as possible about both B and C. And, often this will be enough, since it turns out that one or the other leads to problems down the road. If C causes cancer and B doesn't, science chooses B, doesn't it? No, it doesn't. Science puts information on the table: C causes cancer, B doesn't. But then another value judgement has to be made: Is it better to get cancer or not to get cancer? And then, we make a decision based on the best information that science can give us: We decide to go to B because we agree that it's better not to have cancer.
But how did we decide that we didn't want to have cancer? We didn't use science — science doesn't care whether or not we get cancer. Science will just unemotionally tell us what will happen as the cancer progresses, or (hopefully) tell us how to get rid of it. Somehow, we made a value judgement. Presumably, we used thought along these lines: Cancer leads to death, and death = bad. In other words, we looked to our existing values (death = bad) to solve the problem. But, where did these values come from in the first place?
This is a problem that science could solve, but I'm going to jump the gun and point out that values come largely from religion. And, before you atheists start screaming "I'm not religious and I have values", let me point out that your values are largely Christian with the ideals of equality and freedom tacked on the side. Let's face it, the members of this debate are mostly American / European, and our heritage is Christian, like it or not. Besides, I'm not really interested in where our values came from. I'll accept that you have values, and I don't particularly care how you got them. What I'm interested in is how to make a decision when two of my values conflict. Or, more combatively, how to make a decision when my values conflict with your values. Science can't make this decision. Religions, on the other hand, can, because they provide a (mostly) consistent system of values that do not conflict with each other.
(Yes, the problem gets pushed back a bit when two religions have values that clash, and that's a much more difficult problem. However, it's mostly irrelevant within a single society because you can assume that a society is dominated by a single religion. Also, a religion that can accommodate a wide range of opposing values, such as our own society, or many Eastern religions will suffer less from this problem.)
So, getting back to the example at hand, religion can help us choose between B and C, while science cannot. Making a value decision wisely requires a system of values, which religion can provide. When you say that religion has no place in politics, I understand that as meaning that a system of values has no place in politics. And that makes me shocked and appalled, though perhaps not very surprised.
Over the past couple hundred years or so, our society has systematically tried disengage systems of value from government by delegating value decisions to "the people" via democracy. While it is admirable to have a system of government where the citizens are not at the mercy of the value system belonging to the person(s) in power, that advantage is eroded when none of the citizens have value systems, or when their value systems are widely divergent. Yet, this is the situation that we have today.
Our society is full of well meaning people like Redzo who are so afraid to have values (or, perhaps, to admit that they have values that are not "determined by science") that our elections are won by the "least offensive" candidates who express the most value-neutral positions. We have a system of government that, currently at least, puts the people with the weakest values in power. Is this not a perfect recepie for corruption? We have no idea where the majority of our elected officials really stand on important issues because the system does not allow values to be expressed. Is it any wonder that the young population in most western nations (the most idealistic, value-motivated demographic) do not bother to vote? With no values expressed, how do we choose who to vote for? Is it any wonder that there are religious resurgences in many countries (Bible-thumpers, I'm looking at you). At least these religions are expressing something. We know where they stand, unlike our politicians, who, we can only assume are simply out for personal gain. Yes, past religious organizations have been corrupt, but even they had to stay within their stated ideals enough to maintain the illusion of honesty. Our current leaders don't even have to do that.
/rant
To sum up: Politics requires a decent system of values. The most likely (only?) source for that system is religion. I don't suggest reinstating the Church, but it might be worth paying attention to the values they espouse.