Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

This is a fail argument. Companies aren't living, sentient beings ,and therefore have no intrinsic morality beyond that of their constituent members. If the leadership of a company is made up of evil people, but the employees are exemplary members of society, then is the company evil in your eyes? What if the board members are philanthropists, but the overall policies of the company wind up hurting people? Can we even judge the leadership in that case, let alone the company as a whole? Obviously, blanket moral judgments would be impossible here, especially since (more likely than not) realistic companies contain people that fall within the whole spectrum of philosophical alignments, both good and evil.

At 2/19/09 07:47 PM, aninjaman wrote:

2) Polygamy (alpha males of primate packs have many wives)

Whats wrong with polygamy? It not be something I would do myself but I don't see whats so evil about it.

The problem in polygamy arises when you think about the fact that it leaves a lot of males unable to find a mate, leaving them with no outlet for their needs. What do you think happens to social order when most of your men are horny, jealous, and have no family to keep them settled?

At 2/18/09 03:30 PM, Died-Z wrote: Well I'm a catholic but I don't believe in god nor in the church (it's done too much worse in the past).

Doesn't that pretty much make you not a Catholic at all? I mean I'm Catholic, and my understanding is that you have to at least be a Christian to be one of us.

Now another quandary - are we inherently lawful, or chaotic?

I don't really think that one can call all humans inherently good or evil. Upbringing and heredity determine moral dispositions later down the road, and people are varied enough to where any broad consensus on what even constitutes good or evil is nigh impossible.

Oh, and Milo from U.S.

At 2/16/09 09:44 PM, heroicspatula wrote: What are(or were) your feeling towards the following:
1. The Iraq War when it began

SS

2. The Iraq War currently

S

3. The proposed 900 billion dollar bailout plan

O

4. Gay and lesbian rights

N (not a hot-button issue for me, and vaguely phrased)

5. Allowing Marijuana to become a legal substance

O

6. The closing of Guantanamo Bay prison

N

7. Abortion Rights

SO (except when life is in danger)

8. Religious Study(as in study of how Religion influenced art, literature, world leaders, etc) in school

N (enforced SO, voluntary SS)

9. Universal health care programs

SO

10. Government taking a larger role in environmental protection

O

At 2/17/09 01:54 AM, Contipec wrote: Nationalism only brings disaster, poverty, and death. Stay away from nationalism, kids.

Proofs?

Wow, that's a weird coincidence - I was just reading the same wiki article earlier today...

Anyways, I'm not quite sure what to make of people who joined the Anti-Masonic Party. I'm sure that many of them were what we would call conspiracy theorists, but I also think that people are justified in distrusting the intentions of any group that holds secrets and contains a number of powerful individuals that determine policy. Now, whether or not that distrust should be strong enough or unifying enough for a party to rally effectively around it is another matter entirely.

At 2/16/09 10:57 PM, n00b0fcha0s wrote: All forms of circumcision are bad, because they were done for religious reasons.

Charity is often done for religious reasons, but most of us don't find charity bad.

At 2/16/09 01:19 PM, hansari wrote:

At 2/16/09 08:00 AM, poxpower wrote: tend to never judge anyone on anything and I believe everything that I'm told.

"Believe everything that i'm told..."

Well, putting aside the problems you'll have in life when you meet people who don't have good intentions in their hearts...

You're totally missing the sarcasm there.

At 2/16/09 07:52 AM, poxpower wrote: So it's a pretty good idea to chisel away at people's faith since it skews their morals even more and makes it EVEN HARDER to decide things.

I'm not sure where you're going with this...

At 2/16/09 02:13 AM, alucardxmeow wrote: I'm not sure if I'm christian or an Agnostic because I believe in god, but not the whole Jesus theory thing.

That makes you a theist, not a christian. Does your god care about what we do on Earth?

At 2/15/09 09:40 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 2/15/09 09:17 PM, dySWN wrote:

Then why are you here?

I'm trying to convince him that morals can't be discussed because they're opinions.

So then, if morals are opinions, opinions can't be discussed and much of modern politics comes back down to personal moral stands, then aren't you basically arguing that you can't discuss politics?

If she doesn't have a husband to help raise them or a job to support them, then why in God's name does the federal government deem it appropriate for Clowncar to keep the kids? Where is the Child Protective Service when we need it?

I think, therefore I am.

Next.

At 2/15/09 04:22 AM, vellcrif wrote: religion should not be in schools in eny form. every
there is no gain from it
keep private practices private!

Enjoy your greatly weakened history curriculum.

At 2/15/09 05:19 PM, poxpower wrote: 3. When two people with different morals meet, they are fucked because neither can reason with the other.

Morals cannot be discussed. The only way to change someone's morals is by force or by making them realize that what they're doing as a result of their moral code is extremely stupid and detrimental to themselves.

Then why are you here? After all, politics can frequently be boiled down to the clash of widely-held moral precepts as they relate to governance. Wouldn't it be a waste of your time to post and moderate here if you hold such low opinions of people whose moral convictions are strong?

I DO NOT HAVE MORALS.
I refuse the concept.

What does that mean? That means I don't use arguments like "he's evil", "it's bad", "we should do the right thing" because THOSE ARE BOGUS. They're opinions.

That doesn't mean that you don't have morals - that only means that you don't force your particular brand of morality into arguments. Just because you don't tell people that it's wrong to strangle babies doesn't mean that you wouldn't have qualms with doing so yourself.

I live in the world where I want my decisions to be influenced by DATA and FACTS, not people's opinions that they got from a book they think Jesus's friend wrote.

Congratulations - you have what might be called utilitarian morality, not a lack thereof.

That aside, I wonder what your stance would be on the study of ethics, as opposed to morality (which are encompassed in the term 'morality,' in certain definitions). The sciences have boards in place to establish which forms of study are ethical; one comes to wonder how this is different from the concept of Church-imposed moral orthodoxy if both have similar restraining effects upon their adherents.

At 2/13/09 05:57 PM, TheSilverGuitar wrote: (and obvious that they needed) communism.

Why? Communism failed miserably. I agree that we should have stayed out of South American political affairs, but I think that Russia and the other communist powers should have done the same.

This is a good thing for Venezuela. For the first time in a long time, the Venezuelan people have proven that they at least know when they're approaching the point of dictatorial no return.

Also, inb4 Contipec loses his mind.

At 2/13/09 05:13 PM, RussianGiant wrote: Well I've been noticing lately that America wants everyone to be like them. they enforce the american dollar in every country, they enforce their language in every country to be taught, they are trying their best to make english the first language in poorer countries first (then i think they would later move on), They are against all non-NATO superpowers with their own language (like Russia or China), and you only need some searching on the internet and you can find fascist stuff American websites say.

I can't think of a single example of any of this except for the last one (which is an individual issue, not a matter of national policy).

sure America is democratic but part of fascism is also trying to make everyone the same. Hitler's Germany did that, and America is doing that right now (only in a more clever way).

Please do more research on what fascism actually is before claiming that entire countries are fascists.

This post may be too late because Obama was voted in but maybe its not outdated yet.....
if it is then here are my facts that America used to be kinda like fascist.

Obama getting elected doesn't change our (already nowhere near fascist) basic governmental framework. Legally, we're still a democracy/republic. The idea that Obama's going to change our entire political complexion is an asinine assertion espoused only by the most hardcore liberals and certain media outlets, even disregarding the fact that (as I've already stated) we were never fascist to begin with.

tl;dr - do not no if trolled.

At 2/8/09 07:13 PM, Achilles2 wrote: Don't forget that part of the First Amendment that says "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

Atheists seem to forget that part, conveniently.

This. Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion.

At 2/8/09 07:24 PM, Victory wrote: Take a look at the kids of the Westboro Baptist Church, and how completely brainwashed they are, holding up signs saying that 'God hates fags' and 'God hates America'. I'm certain you disagree with that... And you would not intervene?

No, I wouldn't intervene - as much as I disagree with what they say, they have a right to say it. Such is life in a free society.

At 2/8/09 07:07 AM, Victory wrote:

Not seeing the problem here. Parents have a responsibility to help their children grow up to be productive members of an ordered society, and if religion is the lens through which they project the lessons that forward that goal, then ultimately that responsiblity is still served. Once the child becomes an adult and is exposed to all that the world has to offer, it can make it's own decisions and (hopefully) our educational system has given it the tools it needs to extrapolate its own beliefs from observation and contemplation.

If religion were the only means by which a person could embrace being an admirable member of society, then surely the non-religious would cause all the crimes, right?

/not what I said

Oh wait, a person can have morals and be irreligious. A parent can teach their children the values of society without making their child believe in things which they have no concept of (like God).

And they should do. I bet you wouldn't be okay with a parent teaching their child that Hitler was right and we need to form one race of Aryans and exterminate all others - but, according to your logic, that would be ok if the parent decided that that was best for society (Hitler considering it a perfect society, in fact). Where do you draw the line?

It's an issue of freedom of speech. As much as I personally disagree with the sentiment stated, it is not the place of any outside body to make them say otherwise as long as the child grows up at least somewhat functionally. If telling the child that they should follow Hitler causes them to grow up and become an otherwise normal, orderly member of society, then in the end was there really a difference from telling them something else and coming to the same result?

Again, the problem is in enforcement. Everyone has an opinion on something. If a teacher is expressing an opinion (but not forcing a belief on the students), then is it really worth it for the educational system to waste resources on censuring him or her? Who decides what ideas fall within the realm of academic taboo?

Well that teacher was forcing her views on the students. Religion has absolutely nothing to do with IT, and to bring it up without the student asking about it is forcing an opinion. Simple as.

There's a significant difference between stating an opinion, upholding it as solid and irrefutable fact, and actually forcing it on someone else.

If it is relevant (like if a student asked about it, or would specifically aid the lesson in hand), and presented in an open-minded fashion where both sides and other viewpoints are considered, then fair enough. What is not good is preaching in a lesson that your faith has nothing to do with.

That's true.

Also, technically, it is the job of parents and teachers to tell children how to think and act to some extent -

Which is exactly what I've been saying all along. How to think, not what to think.

None of that stops people from believing it, regardless.

No, but the leap is far greater than the one in politics.

I disagree. We can't trust campaign rhetoric most of the time - elections are a perfect example of informed leaps of faith.

Isn't that an oxymoron? Especially given our current discussion?

Why?

Hardcore atheists like PoxPower and Drakim typically make a big deal about atheism technically not being a belief.

Your point?
YAY LETS BACK UP OUR IDEAS WITH BIASED SOURCES YAY

The man is a scientist, and a chair of science at Britain's most prestigious university, Oxford. He may not like religion, but his methods and reasoning are completely scientific.

Okay.

That doesn't change the fact that, as a militant atheist whose rhetoric on the issue needlessly makes atheists look bad, his arguments will be inherently biased in relation to religion. Also, he's a scientist, not a philosopher - this is a clear-cut case of appeal to unqualified authority.

Not a problem, for the above reasons,

Is a problem, for my above reasons. Specifically the Nazi one.

Again, if the child grows up and becomes a fitting member of society, why should it matter what his parents told him to get there? There's no crime in expressing ideas - only in acting on them in a manner that harms others, and as far as religion is concerned that doesn't happen as much as a lot of people would seem to believe.

If anything, all this study proves is that we have an evolved psychological urge to see patterns in things, not whether or not those patterns are necessarily correct or incorrect.

Meh. Loaded words - evolved gullibility is simply his personal dysphemism for the ignorance of youth -

Well, obviously, but that doesn't detract from the validity of his ideas.

See above. Also, committing logical fallacies in arguing an idea does harm its validity, at least in the mind of an educated listener.

At 2/7/09 08:17 PM, Victory wrote: My point was that media influence can easily be quelled with good parenting, and thus it isn't much of an influence. It certainly is not that much of an influence on such a serious matter as God - though I understand what you mean about the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles case, which is just the kids wanting to be like them. But I can't see the media ever making the children think deeply about God - when it comes to it, parental influence is a bigger factor by miles.

In an age where parenting tends to take a backseat to personal ambitions, somehow I'm not seeing it.

Your point? Society indoctrinates us from all sides, but many of us find ways around.

Parental influence being the strongest pull over a child's views there is.

OK, but that still doesn't prevent childhood rebellion.

No one has yet demonstrated to me how such influence results in permanent and irrevocable religiosity - conversions, deconversions, and apostasy happen all the time.

I am not saying all cases result in permanent religiosity; I'm saying the vast majority of people that are religious are like that because they were indoctrinated as a child, with their mind being shaped in the way of religious thinking - that is, believing in something without evidence.

That much is probably true.

Also, it's funny when you say that it's 'wrong' - it sounds like you're arguing that people shouldn't spread their moral convictions by slapping your own moral convictions on the issue.

People aren't just spreading their moral convictions here, they are spreading their entire views on existence... Religion means more to you than simple moral convictions, right?

Not seeing the problem here. Parents have a responsibility to help their children grow up to be productive members of an ordered society, and if religion is the lens through which they project the lessons that forward that goal, then ultimately that responsiblity is still served. Once the child becomes an adult and is exposed to all that the world has to offer, it can make it's own decisions and (hopefully) our educational system has given it the tools it needs to extrapolate its own beliefs from observation and contemplation.

Because it violates the separation of church and state, which I've already expressed support for.

Alright.

And yet, teachers do it all the time. I can't even count how many times I was in class and the teacher started spouting off about an issue they believed strongly about (even, occasionally, with regards to religion) and never fostered dissent. Politics are frequently the object of educational bias.

Well that doesn't seem to happen at my school, or Politics class. Must be the educational differences between the UK and US.

In fact, an old black woman IT teacher was fired from my school for expressing overtly-Christian views in class, and I think for saying one boy in her class was 'going to hell'.

They shouldn't be saying these things, at any rate. Especially not for young children who have not formed an opinion on the issue - they are too easily lead by a teacher, a person whose job it is to educate them, and will accept what they are told without question. Though a teacher's influence is obviously not as strong as a parent's, it is neither's domain to tell their children what to think.

Again, the problem is in enforcement. Everyone has an op inion on something. If a teacher is expressing an opinion (but not forcing a belief on the students), then is it really worth it for the educational system to waste resources on censuring him or her? Who decides what ideas fall within the realm of academic taboo?

Also, technically, it is the job of parents and teachers to tell children how to think and act to some extent - Without guidance, how are children supposed to fit into society as adults? Leaving them to come to their own conclusions on some things is fine, but take it too far and it's called neglect.

Religion differs from everything else because of the outlandish claims it makes. You can't simply be swayed over to one side because of evidence as you can in other things like politics (for example not being a Communist because of evidence showing that it never works) - because there is no evidence in religion.

None of that stops people from believing it, regardless.

A person can be as charismatic as they want, but unless they can produce solid evidence for the existence of God, they will not sway an atheist that is solid in his beliefs.

an atheist that is solid in his beliefs.

Isn't that an oxymoron? Especially given our current discussion?

That wasn't at issue - the study suggested that human beings may have a certain hard-wired disposition to religiosity, having evolved from a need for community and to assuage our fear of the unknown until such time as it becomes known, which seems to indicate that religion would still exist in some form or another even if it weren't constantly perpetuated through indoctrination. I brought the study up in rebuttal to your argument that religion only still exists because of indoctrination, not to demonstrate any kind of correlation between religious teachings administered in childhood to religious belief later in life.

And at the end of your article, a response by one Professor Richard Dawkins.

Your point?
YAY LETS BACK UP OUR IDEAS WITH BIASED SOURCES YAY

"Evolution predisposes children to swallow whatever their parents and tribal elders tell them, he argues, as trusting obedience is valuable for survival."

Not a problem, for the above reasons, and probably unavoidable. If anything, all this study proves is that we have an evolved psychological urge to see patterns in things, not whether or not those patterns are necessarily correct or incorrect.

"He suggests that evolved gullibility converts a child's general predisposition to believe in god into a specific belief in the god (or gods) their parents worship."

Meh. Loaded words - evolved gullibility is simply his personal dysphemism for the ignorance of youth - can't save an argument from rhetorical scrutiny.

At 2/5/09 07:13 PM, Patton3 wrote:

At 2/5/09 07:10 PM, dySWN wrote: BwahaBWAHAHAHAHAHA! WHERE IS YOUR CHANGE NOW?

As hard as it is to believe, Bush did get some stuff straight. We don't need to change evrything, just a lot of it, like education, healthcare, environmental policies, the economy and so forth.

Missing the joke, etc.

At 2/6/09 11:31 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 2/6/09 11:29 PM, Korriken wrote:

Wanna stimulate the economy? lower the corporate tax so that factories can actually be competitive in America again.

I prefer a massive cut in spending.

Homeland Security? Gone.
Dept of Education? Gone.
Our military in 134 countries? Gone.

That would give you a surplus right there with our current deficit (unless Obama takes it to 2.1 trillion.... which he appears intent to do).

This. Also, we should try and trim down the size of federal bureaucracies - if a department can't demonstrate it's usefulness to a certain level, then it should be cut.

At 2/7/09 04:13 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 2/7/09 03:10 PM, Tancrisism wrote:
The Jesuits are one example. Their main goal was to expand education, but they were a heavily Catholic (and Pope-backed) organization.

So how does being religious help them in any way to do that?
It's like saying men with mustaches are instrumental to humanity because of all the great men with mustaches who made discoveries.

Well, one could argue that the sense of community engendered by their shared religious beliefs helped them to get over personal differences and work together towards a common goal.

Of course, it doesn't take religion to do that, just something that all the members of a given group have in common.

At 2/7/09 09:49 AM, Victory wrote:

:I still think that the Deist God is a fair enough thing to believe in, if given a LOT of thought. Sorry, I really should of made that clearer in my statement.

But I get the feeling that you are talking about the Abrahamic God anyway, which I do think is just a fairy tale that your mommy tells you, and, honestly - a laughable, humanised concept.

Sectarianism? From a person arguing about the stupidity of it all?

It's more likely than you think.

At 2/7/09 08:39 AM, Victory wrote:

At 2/6/09 07:39 PM, dySWN wrote: As opposed to accepting such ideas from the media

Well I doubt that ideas given from the media would stick.

Vietnam War, anyone? There wasn't as much public disagreement with the war as there is now until the media got in on it. Without media coverage to shore up their ratings, many politicians would be out of a job. Hell, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles was the catalyst that caused a large number of the students in my Tae Kwon Do classes to sign up in the first place. I would say that media influence sticks, though maybe not as well as other sources.

and 'authority' figures?

I assume this means a parent, relative or a teacher.

It could really mean anyone that the child perceives as such.

A parent or relative giving that child their religious views is religious indoctrination, or as good as (baptism, church-going, etc. usually follows, which you could call 'official' indoctrination.. however I'd say that teaching your children that Christian views are correct and that their is a God effectively is indoctrination).

Your point? Society indoctrinates us from all sides, but many of us find ways around.

Saying your child is a Christian, just like you are, is the exact same as saying that child is a Marxist, or an atheist, just as you are - except the latter options are looked down upon in society, while the first is praised. That child has NOT made their mind up on the issue, and it is wrong to say they have just because you have. End of story.

No one has yet demonstrated to me how such influence results in permanent and irrevocable religiosity - conversions, deconversions, and apostasy happen all the time.

Also, it's funny when you say that it's 'wrong' - it sounds like you're arguing that people shouldn't spread their moral convictions by slapping your own moral convictions on the issue.

And teachers that try to push their religious views on children are fired. Guess why that is?

Because it violates the separation of church and state, which I've already expressed support for.

Because one could argue that that's no different from the effects of letting kids watch T.V.

Response to 'media'.

Dittos.

or not forcing teachers to instruct from a rigorously neutral perspective on issues like politics.

Exactly my point. This DOES NOT HAPPEN, because teachers should not be telling their students that one view is fact, and the other views are wrong. Same with parents.

And yet, teachers do it all the time. I can't even count how many times I was in class and the teacher started spouting off about an issue they believed strongly about (even, occasionally, with regards to religion) and never fostered dissent. Politics are frequently the object of educational bias.

My entire point here is that, if adults simply presented every argument freely, with no bias, and taught their children to make their own minds up on issues, and to reach their own conclusions, and to put no pressure on them to attend church, then the religious would be the vast minority in this planet, and the entire concept of God would have the same status as unicorns do.

I disagree - conversions and deconversions are not uncommon, and it would seem to me that religions could be advertised as easily as any other organization. How else do you explain cults? All it takes is charisma to bring someone over to your point of view, whether that perspective be religious, political, philosophical, or otherwise.

This passing down of religious opinion as fact to children who have NOT made their mind up yet is what has kept religion in place for so long. To me, the entire concept of baptism cements the idea that Christianity is a system of control, that is designed to perpetuate itself forever. The same with every other religious ceremony designed to make children take a stance on something which they have no knowledge of.

As I believe it has been mentioned earlier in this thread, recent studies seem to indicate otherwise.

Alright, I don't know what post you are referring to in this thread, so link to the source please.

No. Go back and read for yourself.

And I want it to specifically refute my claim that it is the large, large majority of people who are indoctrinated as a child are those who are religious as an adult - including conversions from one religion to another.

That wasn't at issue - the study suggested that human beings may have a certain hard-wired disposition to religiosity, having evolved from a need for community and to assuage our fear of the unknown until such time as it becomes known, which seems to indicate that religion would still exist in some form or another even if it weren't constantly perpetuated through indoctrination. I brought the study up in rebuttal to your argument that religion only still exists because of indoctrination, not to demonstrate any kind of correlation between religious teachings administered in childhood to religious belief later in life.

TL;DR - It helps to not let your arguments wander.