Atheists...

[Holiday20310401]

I just learned on CBC news that it was Confucius who said you were only human if you had a son, advocating for sons over daughters. And now look at where the religion has taken the demographics of China.

I say get rid of the whole religion. Get rid of all religions that cause tradition to blind morality by outdated faith.

Also, as a side note, I finally have something to say good about our prime minister. He's not attending the Beijing Olympic ceremonies.

And guess what. Bush is.

[Didymos Thomas]

I just learned on CBC news that it was Confucius who said you were only human if you had a son, advocating for sons over daughters. And now look at where the religion has taken the demographics of China.

I'll have to find that quote. Context is extremely important - we have to remember, Confucius was a very pragmatic thinker. In his time, you needed sons to work the fields. Simple as that.

I say get rid of the whole religion. Get rid of all religions that cause tradition to blind morality by outdated faith.

What about a religion that 1) influences people to appeal to tradition in an attempt to ignore morality and 2) influences people to elevate morality over tradition?

Attacking the faith tradition misses the point. It's the way we individuals use the faith tradition that really matters.

[Holiday20310401]

Yeah, I don't think Confucius was necessarily wrong or unjustified for saying that back in his time, because the virtue of a son back then I suppose would have seemed better.

I'm saying the get rid of the religion so as to get rid of the traditions that postpone such morals that result in loss of virtue.

And what about tradition for the sake of morality for a change.

[Didymos Thomas]

Yeah, I don't think Confucius was necessarily wrong or unjustified for saying that back in his time, because the virtue of a son back then I suppose would have seemed better.

Confucius was a deep thinker by all accounts. The Analects is not a long text, and that first read is well worth the time.

I'm saying the get rid of the religion so as to get rid of the traditions that postpone such morals that result in loss of virtue.

And what about tradition for the sake of morality for a change.

I'd be afraid of throwing the baby out with the bath water. We can change religions - adjust them to meet modern demands. And we should.

[Holiday20310401]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

adjust them to meet modern demands. And we should.

That will never happen unless China adjusts the media concern. People are becoming a little more self aware but as such nothing has changed in terms of how easily the public can be manipulated, I'd bet, ironically anyways.

We might make the minor adjustment through laws, etc, but that will always appear as an insult or biased say to a religion and its people.

People do not belong to religion. Religion belongs to people. (Does that sound good); so why should people get insulted by negation of tradition that has lost value?

And religion seems to evoke that stupidity. I'm sorry, but the best way to me would be to get rid of many of them. At least get rid of extremism, I hope we are on the same side with that one.

[Didymos Thomas]

That will never happen unless China adjusts the media concern. People are becoming a little more self aware but as such nothing has changed in terms of how easily the public can be manipulated, I'd bet, ironically anyways.

Many problems in China. I was speaking more universally - religion does, and should, change to meet modern demands.

We might make the minor adjustment through laws, etc, but that will always appear as an insult or biased say to a religion and its people.

Yeah, I don't think law is the medium to be used. Change has to occur on a personal level. Especially spiritual change.

People do not belong to religion. Religion belongs to people. (Does that sound good); so why should people get insulted by negation of tradition that has lost value?

Very well said, actually. Sometimes it's hard to tell what tradition has lost value. All depends upon context.

And religion seems to evoke that stupidity. I'm sorry, but the best way to me would be to get rid of many of them. At least get rid of extremism, I hope we are on the same side with that one.

Yes, religious extremism is a serious problem. But stamping out whole faith traditions is just as extreme as the religious extremists. No easy answers. The best place to start, however, is probably respond to hate with love.

[Holiday20310401]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Many problems in China. I was speaking more universally - religion does, and should, change to meet modern demands.

Yeah I know. Just wanted to relate to China. Kind of ticked off with how they got Olympics. They are an example of how culture can't perpetuate, let alone have a public based religion.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Yeah, I don't think law is the medium to be used. Change has to occur on a personal level. Especially spiritual change.

Then what to do with media and the education systems throughout most of the world that don't but should be top advocates of such "introspectral intellect". It makes spiritual change less likely. And realisation usually comes gradually as products to violent situations.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Very well said, actually. Sometimes it's hard to tell what tradition has lost value. All depends upon context.

Context being the environment, and state of society?

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Yes, religious extremism is a serious problem. But stamping out whole faith traditions is just as extreme as the religious extremists. No easy answers. The best place to start, however, is probably respond to hate with love.

I'm with Sigmund Freud on this one. We are naturally animals.

Very hard to evoke love from hate. Sometimes we need tolerance, and if something is becoming naturally recursive then lowering the tolerance level only seems appropriate.

Don't you think that culture can sustain without religion? If not then what rational dependency can humanity reach for itself? I think that it would work as a development, progress, if we went from irrational causes/faiths to rational faiths (but not totalitarianism).

[Zetetic11235]

Boagie,

I thought it likely that you are a humanist due to your moral stance. It is not of pure atheistic origins, it smack of humanism quite a bit.

I have to say that you have quite a bit of faith in the correctness of your moral stance. No moral stance is rational, it is instinctual, as are all human directives. You simply, want to eliminate the monkeys who are trying to take away the stick with which we harvest ants, the ones who ignore our greatest tool, rationality, and in doing so threaten our survival as a species. This is in the end what all morals boil down to, survival instinct. Even rationality is a tool which we use by instinct.

There is no rational argument for rationality, it would be circular, it is a trait which we use due to our survival instinct, and morals are simply a contract by which we hope to ensure our survival as best we can. Since we are thinking beings, we can put ourselfs in such a position so as to best ensure that we survive. We are thinking beings, but our thoughts are tools only used to bestial ends. In the end, all great acomplishments of man are to no greater ends than the simplest tool made but screeching monkeys.

I might conjecture that if we were to totally deny our anamalistic tendencies, we should wonder whether or not it is more beneficial to our planet or our universe if we simply self terminate. If we cannot consider such a question in ernest, we are where we should be, with the rest of the animals.

You see that those monkeys trying to stop us from grabbing up the twigs to gather our ants because they believe our food shall fall form the sky are risking the well being of all us other monkeys, and you insist that they must be stopped. But you mistep in attacking those who wonder just how right the interloping monkeys are, for those who wonder often see the poison at the ends of the twigs.

I do not consider this personal, I simply want a good conversation.

[andykelly]

SPACE.com -- New Pictures Reveal 100,000 Galaxies

[boagie]

Zetetic,


A very interesting insight you have there, yes, the crowded should follow me, as I know where the bananas are. I recall the late Joseph Campbell discussing why much war like behaviour is indicated both in man and the Chimp. It comes down to man like his Chimp cousin need something important to do, the male is the barron one, the female brings forth life and is for a very longtime concern with the nuturing of that life. The concept of home is something which forms around the female like iron vilelings around a magnet. The present terrorist recroupment is due in large part to young men having nothing to do, and apparently no hope for the future, a terrorist statement is the most these young men feel they can accomplish in this life---and lets not forget, the religious indoctrination which tells them they would be doing it for god--and seventeen lovely virgins, let me ask you this, are you alright with these ideas, would defend this ideas?

With the resistence to organized religion, it is not seen by me as something which will be ultimately successful, religion in one form or another will be around forever. It is the hope of this resistence movement to take away some of the power of organized religion, because by its nature it is not peace loving, and it is basically an insult as it stands to human intelligence. As I have stated it is not personal, though most would hold the antheist responsiable of respecting the ideas of religion, and I simply do not. These ideas are sacred to many here, they are not however sacred to me, and they have no special status which would behold me to treating them as sacred, if an impersonal attack on the ideas of religion is then taken personally by people here, then that is their problem, these are ideas, and ideas are fair game in a forum about ideas.


If the righteous did not bring these ideas into a political arena or a forum where it is the nature of that forum to examine ideas there would be no problem. Will I learn to respect these ideas, no there really is not the possiability. You are one of the associates here that I admire about your understandings around philosophy, the above sounds like an objective point of view, yet you side with the majority------come, come over to the darkside. Well, I do expect to be attacked in the line of stating my disapproval of these ideas, perhaps you will see it in yourself to at least to defend my right to do so. boagie


"When fascism comes to America it will come wrapped in a flag, and carrying a cross." StClair Lewis.