Strange thing about Iraq

[Mechagodzilla]

It is a Christian belief.

The new testament supersedes the old testament though. Think of the new testament as additional content and revisions for the Christian Church. The old testament was designed to give laws and guidance until the first coming of Jesus, then Jesus was to give additional rules/revisions on how to live (which he did).

PS - The Jewish population (in the US) approximately makes up 2% of the US population.

Ah, okay then. The way Mozart stated it made it sound as though they were jew-exclusive.

So does the new testament still have all those quoted old bits, or were they removed for the new one?
If they're the same in both, I think the point Stern was making still stands.

Also, these different versions of the bible kinda further my point that the bible can be interpreted in countless different ways. There are, if I recall, 6 different versions and translations?

And okay, the jews are a pretty small minority. But I've not heard any similar opposition from any religious group outside christianity (except a couple atheists).

 

[CptStern]

It is a Christian belief.

The new testament supersedes the old testament though. Think of the new testament as additional content and revisions for the Christian Church. The old testament was designed to give laws and guidance until the first coming of Jesus, then Jesus was to give additional rules/revisions on how to live (which he did).

PS - The Jewish population (in the US) approximately makes up 2% of the US population.

so if jesus teachings supercede the old testament then should'nt the old testament passage:

"If a man has intercourse with a man as with a woman, both commit an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood be on their own head" (Lev.20:13)."


be replaced with "love your neighbour as you would love yourself"

here's a quote:

"Jesus did deal with human sexuality in an open and unthreatened manner. He affirmed on one hand the goods of marriage, but also declared marriage is not for everyone (Matthew 19:3-12). Furthermore, the Bible does not record one word spoken by Jesus condemning homosexuality."

source

here's another quote ..by Mark Twain ...take it for what it's worth, I'm in no way condemning christianity:

"The Bible can be used to praise or condemn practically any human activity, thought, belief, or practice. As with the works of Shakespeare, if one looks carefully, one can find a quotation, incident, or story to support or undermine anything.
Alas, this practice has been used by many people to justify their own prejudices (by proving that "God thinks this way, too"), as a justification for grabbing and holding power ("It's not what I want, it's what God wants!"), or as the perfect excuse for not taking a fearless look at themselves and making necessary—although admittedly uncomfortable—personal changes in attitude and behavior.
It's not the Bible itself that condemns most consensual crimes, but the misuse of the Bible by petty, fearful, manipulative, or misguided individuals who deceptively quote from the Bible not as an illumination of truth, but as a justification of their own limited point of view. "

 

[blahblahblah]

Ah, okay then. The way Mozart stated it made it sound as though they were jew-exclusive.

So does the new testament still have all those quoted old bits, or were they removed for the new one?
If they're the same in both, I think the point Stern was making still stands.

Also, these different versions of the bible kinda further my point that the bible can be interpreted in countless different ways. There are, if I recall, 6 different versions and translations?

And okay, the jews are a pretty small minority. But I've not heard any similar opposition from any religious group outside christianity (except a couple atheists).

The bible consist of an old testament and the new testament. For most churches, they learn from the new testament primarily because the new testament has the most up to date way of being a Christian (if you can take it in that sense). The old testament is still very important as it can be used for many different things - Like historical evidence, background on certain issues, why we have certain beliefs, etc.

For a quick off the head example, Christians do not sacrifice animals. In the old testament, the sacrificing of animals was to shed blood which was to symoblize the act of cleansing oneself from sin. Sacrificing animals was only a temporary solutions which is why it had to be done constantly. Jesus was the permanent solution to cleanse oneself from sin, so Christians no longer have to sacrifice animals.

As for bible translations, for the most part the translations are pretty spot on. However, most difference stem from the human language, not the Greek and Hebrew languages. Modern English is woefully uncomplicated to ancient Greek and Hebrew languages. For example, ancient Greek had six different words for the english word for "love" and each of those words had a completely different meaning for love.

So if I was an ancient greek, I would use one word of love to say "I love you Mechagodzilla (in a brotherly love way)" and a different word to my future wife (in a sexual way) and so on and so forth. English only has the word "love" and we must use context to properly translate its meaning. Each new version is its attempt to provide a better understanding at its true meaning without loosing people in overly complex and byzantine sentances.

PS - Have you bothered to look for other opposition groups?

 

[CptStern]

blahblahblah: "the Bible does not record one word spoken by Jesus condemning homosexuality"

 

[Neutrino]

Dang it, writing anything on this particular subject is going to take me hours to discuss everything I want to fully. I will try though as it's a very important issue to me.

 

[blahblahblah]

so if jesus teachings supercede the old testament then should'nt the old testament passage:

"If a man has intercourse with a man as with a woman, both commit an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood be on their own head" (Lev.20:13)."


be replaced with "love your neighbour as you would love yourself"

here's a quote:

"Jesus did deal with human sexuality in an open and unthreatened manner. He affirmed on one hand the goods of marriage, but also declared marriage is not for everyone (Matthew 19:3-12). Furthermore, the Bible does not record one word spoken by Jesus condemning homosexuality."

source

here's another quote ..by Mark Twain ...take it for what it's worth, I'm in no way condemning christianity:

"The Bible can be used to praise or condemn practically any human activity, thought, belief, or practice. As with the works of Shakespeare, if one looks carefully, one can find a quotation, incident, or story to support or undermine anything.
Alas, this practice has been used by many people to justify their own prejudices (by proving that "God thinks this way, too"), as a justification for grabbing and holding power ("It's not what I want, it's what God wants!"), or as the perfect excuse for not taking a fearless look at themselves and making necessary—although admittedly uncomfortable—personal changes in attitude and behavior.
It's not the Bible itself that condemns most consensual crimes, but the misuse of the Bible by petty, fearful, manipulative, or misguided individuals who deceptively quote from the Bible not as an illumination of truth, but as a justification of their own limited point of view. "

You are correct in saying that Jesus did not say homosexuality is wrong. However, Jesus did say that sex outside of the bonds of marriage was bad. Jesus also said that marriage was to be between a man and a woman as well. So a homosexual relation is considered sin as is adultery or sex before marriage.

PS - Why do you think its wrong for somebody to murder another person? You have no set of established beliefs that you follow, where did you form the belief that murdering a person is bad? I'm curious.

What would you say if I am some random person and I say "I believe I should be allowed to murder people" ? How can you force your beliefs onto that person?

This example is a bit extreme, but I want to understand how you guys think. I want to turn the tables for a bit.

 

[blahblahblah]

Dang it, writing anything on this particular subject is going to take me hours to discuss everything I want to fully. I will try though as it's a very important issue to me.

However, I think some of you people need to do some outside research as well. Can one debate their point well if they don't understand the intricacy of a particular issue or belief?

I won't commit myself to any long or complicated posts today. I have to spend the rest of this afternoon trying to decipher (I'm not joking about the decipher part, they write to confuse you) scholarly journals and if they apply to my senior thesis.

 

[Phraxtion]

Bam! That's the point right there. Forcing gays not to marry is identical to forcing everyone to never work Sundays.

Discounting the anti-gay part of the bible is a belief.

If you try to make laws forcing people to stop having that belief, don't you see something wrong with that?

That's more-or less tantamount to outlawing Hanukah or forcibly giving the Amish a stereo system.

There are so many different interpretations of the bible. Do you honestly think you have the right to force others to follow yours?

How have I in any way tried to FORCE anyone into following anything? I have simply been stating my beliefs and opinions as many others here do.

I know there is no winning or loosing in a debate such as this. Im not trying to win, im just putting my feelings and my beliefs out there.

I think this will be my last post in this thread. My wife is worried im spending too much time in here.

 

[CptStern]

You are correct in saying that Jesus did not say homosexuality is wrong. However, Jesus did say that sex outside of the bonds of marriage was bad. Jesus also said that marriage was to be between a man and a woman as well. So a homosexual relation is considered sin as is adultery or sex before marriage.

I havent visited the new testament since my high school days, link please

PS - Why do you think its wrong for somebody to murder another person? You have no set of established beliefs that you follow, where did you form the belief that murdering a person is bad? I'm curious.

plato, aristotle, Socretes ...none of them were christian yet they believed that murder was wrong. As for myself it boils down to logic: I have a right to live therefore so does everyone else

What would you say if I am some random person and I say "I believe I should be allowed to murder people" ? How can you force your beliefs onto that person?

I believe in equal rights so it's logical that killing someone is infringing on their right to live ..there is no debate here ...a person who couldnt see that logic is beyond help. Live and let live, as long as it doesnt affected my life or anyone elses life in a negative way, I couldnt care less if they practiced self-emulation; as long as that was their choice and are not infringing on anybody's right to life

 

[CptStern]

However, I think some of you people need to do some outside research as well. Can one debate their point well if they don't understand the intricacy of a particular issue or belief? .

you have a point, blah, but to most non christians, christianity is just as radical and scary as the taliban (in terms of fundamentalism, not the terrorism part) ...some of your laws are just as restrictive and discriminatory

I remember a tv interview with a catholic bishop on same sex marriage ..he kept referring to them as "sodomites", he used words like "abomination" and "perversion" ...how is a non christian supposed to take this? I could link to thousands of christian websites that scream for the deaths of homosexuals ..I think that the crazies in christianity are far more vocal than the people who are respectful of other religions/people ...and that's what people remember the bad not the good

 

[blahblahblah]

I havent visited the new testament since my high school days, link please

Mark 10:6-9 (spoken by Jesus) - But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one fleash, so they are no longer two, but one felsh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man seperate.

Mark 7:20-23 (spoken by Jesus) - And He said, "What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of men proceed evil thoughts, adultreries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousenss, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these things comes from within and defile a man."

1 Cor 6:9-10 (Jesus was not speaking this) - Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God Do not be decieved. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kindgom of God.

That was a taster for you.

plato, aristotle, Socretes ...none of them were christian yet they believed that murder was wrong. As for myself it boils down to logic: I have a right to live therefore so does everyone else

I believe in equal rights so it's logical that killing someone is infringing on their right to live ..there is no debate here ...a person who couldnt see that logic is beyond help. Live and let live, as long as it doesnt affected my life or anyone elses life in a negative way, I couldnt care less if they practiced self-emulation; as long as that was their choice and are not infringing on anybody's right to life

Why is the right to live important then? Do you have any reason to support your arguement that you have the right to live (what makes it different that we can kill a cow but not a human?) What if the person who commits the murder has a reason to kill you? What do you say then?

Or are you conviently borrowing some Christian beliefs to suit your view of the world. :O

 

[CptStern]

Mark 10:6-9 (spoken by Jesus) - But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one fleash, so they are no longer two, but one felsh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man seperate.

yes but it doesnt say ...man should not join man

Why is the right to live important then? Do you have any reason to support your arguement that you have the right to live (what makes it different that we can kill a cow but not a human?)

I dont make that distinction; I dont believe we have the right to take any life ...I'm vegetarian

What if the person who commits the murder has a reason to kill you? What do you say then?

what reason could a person have to kill me? pride? revenge? there is no justification for taking another person's life

Or are you conviently borrowing some Christian beliefs to suit your view of the world. :O

no I tend to believe in logic, christian views are not logical (some not all)

 

[blahblahblah]

yes but it doesnt say ...man should not join man

That is pointless. If Jesus did support gay marriage, don't you think he would have said so. Absence does not mean truth. Its like the same thing with the Pentagon missle theory.

I dont make that distinction; I dont believe we have the right to take any life ...I'm vegetarian

What about everybody else in the world, then? I'm sure you are not as clean and innocent as you portray yourself to be.

what reason could a person have to kill me? pride? revenge? there is no justification for taking another person's life

So you want to force your beliefs onto another person?

no I tend to believe in logic, christian views are not logical (some not all)

Yup, not logical at all. If we followed the bible we wouldn't have to worry about murders, theft, violence, STD's, unwanted pregnancy's, etc. So unlogical.

I'm out, this debate is turning into an argument over semantics.

 

[Jackal hit]

thinking murder is wrong is not a christian belief. it is a human belief(don't bring war into this, all service men that i know don't think of war is murder). there are religions far older than christianity that say murder is wrong. i am personally anti-religious, BUT believe in god, as i have a personal relationship with him/her. and i think murder is wrong. does this make me christian? far from it. it makes me human. from a logical perspective, murder is wrong because it goes against basic instinct, which is survival of the species. you may ask, why then, do we go to war? because of beliefs.

btw sorry if my post doesn't make sense to anyone, or i am arguing something that's beside the point... i just woke up and missed my first class woooo

 

[CptStern]

That is pointless. If Jesus did support gay marriage, don't you think he would have said so. Absence does not mean truth. Its like the same thing with the Pentagon missle theory.

ah come on you're putting words into jesus' mouth ....gay marriage in the time of jesus? they stoned adulters, why would anyone openly admit they're gay if the penalty was most likely death?

What about everybody else in the world, then? I'm sure you are not as clean and innocent as you portray yourself to be.

I cant speak for the rest of the world, I cant impose my moral ethics on anybody else ...that's an infringement on personal rights ...like I said, I dont care what other people do as long as it doesnt affect my life in a negative way

So you want to force your beliefs onto another person?

please point to where I said that

Yup, not logical at all. If we followed the bible we wouldn't have to worry about murders, theft, violence, STD's, unwanted pregnancy's, etc. So unlogical.

gays would be put to death, women would have no rights, AIDS would kill us all ...do you seriously believe you could stop unwanted pregnacies? I defy you to attempt to force people to not have sex

I'm out, this debate is turning into an argument over semantics.

oh dont be so overly dramatic ...I have yet to insult you

 

[Jackal hit]

So you want to force your beliefs onto another person?

he's forcing his beliefs as much as you are, which means not at all, sorry to say. hehe SOMEONE needs to force their beliefs. maybe i will

Yup, not logical at all. If we followed the bible we wouldn't have to worry about murders, theft, violence, STD's, unwanted pregnancy's, etc. So unlogical.

ILLogical... heh

anyways, yes, followers of the bible are soooooo non-violent. ever taken a history class? i think you're smart enough to know what sorts of things i'm talking about without my having to type all that crap out. std's... are VERY ancient. they didn't pop up just recently or something. they've been around long before people in europe stopped being fanatical about the bible. syphilis, herpes, and other diseases like that were common problems in europe long ago. i think you're grasping at straws to say the bible is the end all of the world's problems. IF the bible was perfect, we'd not have ANY problems. the fact that the bible is not perfect is reflected in the fact that most of the world's population is NOT christian. if the bible were perfect, a missionary could simply give a sermon somewhere, and everyone listening would instantly say "yes, that IS perfect, i must become christian now." it doesn't work that way. we live in a real world, not a mythology.


edit: btw cpt stern... where do you work that you are chillin on the internet all this time?? hehe

 

[Jackal hit]

on topic: the strange thing about iraq is that it makes people think about gay marriage and archaic laws?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

How have I in any way tried to FORCE anyone into following anything? I have simply been stating my beliefs and opinions as many others here do.

I'm talking about the anti-gay marriage amendment. Wasn't that the basis of all these goings-ons?

If you were just stating your beliefs, and weren't supporting the amendment thing, I'm very sorry that I misinterpreted you.

what reason could a person have to kill me? pride? revenge? there is no justification for taking another person's life

So you want to force your beliefs onto another person?

And with the murder point, blahblahblah, technically the murderer is the one forcing his beliefs onto someone: the "you should die" belief.

Plus, I think we should all agree that a belief stops being defensible once it starts causing harm to the innocent.

Gays simply don't harm anyone by existing, so they shouldn't be compared to murderers and they shouldn't be made to stop.

If we followed the bible we wouldn't have to worry about murders, theft, violence, STD's, unwanted pregnancy's, etc.

All those things are also harmful to others. STDs hurt those who catch them, unwanted pregnancy is harmful to the people who don't want it, and the unwanted baby.

 

[CptStern]

Jackal I work as a web designer ...so I have a reason to be on the net ...well that and it's slow during the summer

 

[Jackal hit]

Jackal I work as a web designer ...so I have a reason to be on the net ...well that and it's slow during the summer

*takes your job*

cool stuff man :thumbs:

edit:

Plus, I think we should all agree that a belief stops being defensible once it starts causing harm to the innocent.

Gays simply don't harm anyone by existing, so they shouldn't be compared to murderers and they shouldn't be made to stop.

once again, i gotta say: well put. heh

 

[CptStern]

*takes your job*

cool stuff man :thumbs:

you can have it: If I have to edit one more photo of a pessary (you dont want to know what that is) I'm going to effing scream

 

[blahblahblah]

oh dont be so overly dramatic ...I have yet to insult you

But, but I really want to be an actor when I grow up...

jk

PS - My murder example was the meant to be extreme. Not to prove a point. If I wanted to prove a point, why is evolution allowed to be taught in schools? You can aruge that evolution (please don't start to discuss it) is a belief system that is forced onto young impressionable kids. You must be against evolution being taught into schools, right?

 

[blahblahblah]

you can have it: If I have to edit one more photo of a pessary (you dont want to know what that is) I'm going to effing scream

I looked it up on google and that is enough to make me scream

/me runs away screaming

 

[Jackal hit]

I looked it up on google and that is enough to make me scream

/me runs away screaming

i did the same... did you get *this page* ???

edit:

You can aruge that evolution (please don't start to discuss it) is a belief system that is forced onto young impressionable kids. You must be against evolution being taught into schools, right?

well you see, with evolution...

j/k

 

[blahblahblah]

i did the same... did you get *this page* ???

Yes

*Shudders*

mods are going to ban you for that link.

 

[CptStern]

But, but I really want to be an actor when I grow up...

but .....70% of people in the movie industry are either gay or jewish, sometimes gay jews!!

PS - My murder example was the meant to be extreme. Not to prove a point. If I wanted to prove a point, why is evolution allowed to be taught in schools? You can aruge that evolution (please don't start to discuss it) is a belief system that is forced onto young impressionable kids. You must be against evolution being taught into schools, right?

why is evolution taught in school? because there's proof it actually happens(ed) ...there is no observable proof of creationism

 

[Jackal hit]

Yes

*Shudders*

mods are going to ban you for that link.

who's the mod for this forum? I'LL GIVE YOU MONEY NOT TO BAN ME and... if it's you, badger... well then "badger" sets off the echelon system so... meh.

lol

 

[blahblahblah]

why is evolution taught in school? because there's proof it actually happens(ed) ...there is no observable proof of creationism

Isn't it a belief system none the less? The fact remains that some people don't want to believe in it. Should they be forced to learn it?

I've yet to see observable proof of evolution.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

If I wanted to prove a point, why is evolution allowed to be taught in schools? You can aruge that evolution is a belief system that is forced onto young impressionable kids. You must be against evolution being taught into schools, right?

That's a hot topic, but when I learned evolution, the teacher made it clear that evolution is still not fully understood and that many religions think differently.

He also made it clear that he was only teaching what the majority of scientists believe and that you should keep an open mind. But still, since evolution is widely accepted and not religiously exclusive, it was what we learned about.

If teachers act that same way, I don't see a problem. Science isn't about telling you what to believe. It's about teaching you how to go about proving your beliefs and developing new ones.

IMO, anyone who teaches otherwise is doing a bad job.

 

[blahblahblah]

That's a hot topic, but when I learned evolution, the teacher made it clear that evolution is still not fully understood and that many religions think differently.

He also made it clear that he was only teaching what the majority of scientists believe and that you should keep an open mind. But still, since evolution is widely accepted and not religiously exclusive, it was what we learned about.

If teachers act that same way, I don't see a problem. Science isn't about telling you what to believe. It's about teaching you how to go about proving your beliefs and developing new ones.

IMO, anyone who teaches otherwise is doing a bad job.

Then I must have went to some cruddy schools then.

PS - Did I atleast do a semi-decent job of defending/arguing my viewpoint. Or do I still look crazy to you people? :burp:

 

[Jackal hit]

Isn't it a belief system none the less? The fact remains that some people don't want to believe in it. Should they be forced to learn it?

I've yet to see observable proof of evolution.

birds' relative beak sizes change based on seed availability, from generation to generation. this is a case of evolution. another is how predators hunt the weakest(old, sick, etc) prey in the herd. keeps the herd healthy; or how animals only mate with the strongest fittest members of their species. these are all examples of short term evolution. shit, and i wasn't gonna discuss this. *sigh* time for shower then school... it's been fun.


edit: blahblahblah, you still look mad crazy to everyone. j/k i think you did a good job of sticking up for yourself ...that sounds bad... i should say "...good job of explaining yourself."

 

[blahblahblah]

birds' relative beak sizes change based on seed availability, from generation to generation. this is a case of evolution. another is how predators hunt the weakest(old, sick, etc) prey in the herd. keeps the herd healthy; or how animals only mate with the strongest fittest members of their species. these are all examples of short term evolution. shit, and i wasn't gonna discuss this. *sigh* time for shower then school... it's been fun.

Christianity doesn't debate short term evolution. We debate stuff like the big bang theory, that a fish will eventually become a bird over time, life spontaneously formed.

Maybe I should stop, I think I am becoming overdramatic again.

PS - Lets close the debate before I go crazy.

 

[Jackal hit]

Christianity doesn't debate short term evolution. We debate stuff like the big bang theory, that a fish will eventually become a bird over time, life spontaneously formed.

Maybe I should stop, I think I am becoming overdramatic again.

PS - Lets close the debate before I go crazy.

hell, even most of the good scientests debate big bang theory.
btw, i think evolution is creationary, and creation is evolutionary. okay okay i'm gone this time. damn forum addiction

 

[CptStern]

I looked it up on google and that is enough to make me scream

/me runs away screaming

I warned you not to look


put it this way ...sometimes it has to be stitched in place


remind me to describe exactly what a RUMI tool is used for ...makes a pessary look ...non-invasive :E

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Then I must have went to some cruddy schools then.

Not a canadian one, I guess.

PS - Did I atleast do a semi-decent job of defending/arguing my viewpoint. Or do I still look crazy to you people? :burp:

Well, I've gotta respect you for not just throwing out a bible quote as a response to every question and actually defending your views on a broader social tableau.

In truth, the only point I really disagree with you about is your assertion that Christianity and Homosexuality are mutually exclusive. Mostly because, like I said, there's no reason why people can't interpret the bible to include gays.

Jesus said marriage was between a man and a woman, but he didn't say that's all it was and all it ever would ever be, right?

There's a different interpretation right there.

 

[Neutrino]

I apologize I'm so late with this response. I started writing it quite a while ago, but I didn't have a chance to finish until now. I realize you're all way past this topic and on to other things so just skip over this if you want to. I wouldn't even post it, except for the fact that I spent a bit of time on it.

PS - Why do you think its wrong for somebody to murder another person? You have no set of established beliefs that you follow, where did you form the belief that murdering a person is bad? I'm curious.

What would you say if I am some random person and I say "I believe I should be allowed to murder people" ? How can you force your beliefs onto that person?

This example is a bit extreme, but I want to understand how you guys think. I want to turn the tables for a bit.

Even if this wasn't directed at me at all, I'd like to take a stab at this. Though I of course can't speak for anyone else in this thread or thier ethical ideas or beliefs.

Well first off, there are many ethical systems and theories that are not based on a religious belief system. We have Confusionism, Thomas Hobbe's ethics, Kant's ethics, social contract theory, Utilitarianism, just to name a few. Non religious based ethical systems vary just as much as their religious counterparts. They have many different arguments and often disagree with eachother, but there is the common trend of trying to find an ethical system that is self consistent and logically sound. But of course you can poke holes in every ethical theory ever created, including both religious based ones as well as non religious ones. So philosophers are still trying to create a better theory.

I don't mean to lecture, but I just wanted to point out that there are many ethical theories that started from a non-religious standpoint. It's not a new subject by any means. So that said I'll try to explain some of my own viewpoints.

To start off, if you have to label me I would say I'm agnostic. But for practical purposes I consider myself to be an atheist as I consider the likelyhood that God exists to be extremely low. I wish to point out that I do not follow the atheist line that there is absolutely no chance that God exists. To my way of thinking (and not trying to offend anyone here) claiming anything is 100% true without sufficient evidence is a bit arrogant really. I don't really consider it to be so much a personal arrogance as more of an organizational arrogance. It does not make logical sense to me, thus why I say I actually am agnostic even though I may share many views with an atheist.

That out of the way, I can get into my ethical thinking.

Since, as I said, I'm an atheist for many intents and purposes I have to start off witht he assumption that there is no God or other higher being making or creating the ethical rules. Thus to me I consider morality and ethics are a purely human invention that came about naturally from the need to interact in large groups. No species currently living on earth willingly acts against their own collective self interest. Not because they actually think about it at all, but only because of the fact that any species that did such a thing would have died out long ago. The reason a species is alive today is because it acts in its own self interest. If it didn't it wouldn't be here. Simple as that. (Some may disagree since this is a way of thinking based of an evolutionary standpoint.)

Here's another way to think about it. Consider a single individual of a species. This individual always behaves in accordance with its own survival. To give a rudimentary example if a deer comes upon a cliff it will decide to walk around it rather than jump off. I know that's obvious, but it demonstrates that individuals of any species have an intinct for survival. Same as with an entire species, if they didn't they wouldn't be here. It's a logical byproduct of evolution that behavioral traits harmful to survival are weeded out and traits beneficial to survival are reinforced. Basic natural selection at work. So why am I being so long winded and talking about all this? Well I do have a reason.

I think that the process of weeding out harmful behaviors and reinforcing behaviors beneficial to survival is also valid at the level of an entire species or atleast large populations of that species to a certain extent. I'm not saying this is really evolution perse, as I don't think it really fits the definition of the theory. However, it just makes sense that a group of individuals of a viable species that interact with each other will not kill themselves off. If negative behaviors like that were reinforced the group would have killed itself and wouldn't be around today. So groups that do exist and interact with each other have developed ways of interacting that do not lead to self extinction, just to ensure individual survival if nothing else.

Now I'm not necessarily talking about anything overly complicated here. I just mean that when five deer come together at a small patch of food they don't automatically try to kill eachother for it. That would be a destructive behavior both for the individual and the group. Or for another example, consider fights for male dominance among many animals. Usually these fights are not to the death. Instead they follow a sort of social code or ritual, if you will, that allows the stronger male to achieve victory without needlessly endangering the lives of either contenstant.

So what does that mean about humans and ethics? I'm saying that I think the same line of reasoning can be applied to human society. Just like any othe social creature we instinctively tend to come together in groups, which leads to a great amount of interaction between individuals. This means that the survival of an individual is now tied in many ways to the survival of the group and thus the interactions between the individuals in that group are dictated by how they affect both the survival of the individual and the group. This means that the group is not going to spontaneously fight to the death over a single piece of food. Instead a social code develops which allows the group to live together without threatening any individual's survival while at the same time promoting anything that helps in that survival. Examples being wolf packs, herds of deer, schools of fish, groups of gorillas, and of course human societies.

Now the larger the group becomes the more complex the social code becomes. Thus I think that the ideas of morality and ethics are merely a social code that naturally developed as a byproduct of the continued survival of a group or society.

So that finally brings us to how I can have an ethical theory without religion. I hope the above explanations provide some background for some of the conclusions I draw.

Well, I begin with the assumption that my own survival is important and by direct extension the survival of humanity and more specifically the survival of a particular human society is a important. This survival of the society and by association myself is dependent upon a social code which benefits all individuals as equally as possible. I think that's a pretty reasonable viewpoint. Below I've created a ordered list of my line of reasoning.

1) Reasonable assumption: An individual's survival is of paramount imortance to that individual. (Survival being not only the right to life, but the right of the individual to seek things beneficial and avoid things harmful.)

2) An individual lives in a group/society consisting of like individuals.

3) In a group/society an individual's survival can be affected by other peoples' actions, just as their survival can be affected by the individual's actions. Thus, in effect, we are all dependent on one another actions for our own individual survival.

4) From this mutual dependence it follows that the survival of an individual is directly related to the survival of other individuals, and by extension the survival of the group/society as a whole.

5) From point #1 the individual's survival is important to that individual. From point #4 the survival of that individual are affected by and directly related to the survival of the group/society. Therefore the survival of the group/society is important to the individual.

6) Coming full circle, the survival of the group/society is dependent upon the survival of the individuals that form that group/society. Taking it further, from point #3 it can be said that on average, the mutual dependence of the individuals on one another's actions is an equal dependence for all parties. Logically, this equality of dependence on each other's actions means that the survival of every individual must be considered by any single individual to be equally important.

7) To continue that idea, if everyone's survival is equally important then an action which affects the survival of an individual (Point #3) must be judged from an equal and universal standpoint. In other words if one individual is allowed to take a specific action than that same action must be an acceptable action for all other individuals. For it to be otherwise would violate the idea of point #6.

8) The group/society is the sum of the interactions between all the individuals of the group/society.

9) These interactions, in turn, are made up from the actions of individuals which can affect the survival of other individuals. Since these actions must logically conform to point #6 and point #7, it follows that all interaction in the society (or social code) must also conform to these ideas.

10) From point #5 the survival of the group/society is important to the individual. From point #7 the interactions between individuals are, in effect what make up the group/society. Thus these interactions or social code, which must conform to point #6 and #7 (point #8) are important to an individual.

11) Consequently, if an individual values his/her own survival (Remember the broad definition given for the term earlier) then that individual's actions should logically conform to the society's social code, which itself must conform to the idea that the survival (life and rights) of every individual are equal and that in general an acceptable action must be acceptable for every individual, just as an unacceptable actions must be unacceptable for every individual.

Obviously, a full workable ethical theory is a bit more complex, but I think this line of reasoning provides a pretty reasonable basis for ethical action. Also, I think it answers the question of how I can judge ethical action without starting from a religious base.

Now I'm sure it's not perfect; no ethical theory is. But I think in general it's a pretty reasonable chain of though and a pretty sound ethical basis none the less. After all my conclusion was quite similar to what's known as the golden rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Apologies again for such a long, long post. And now I'm sure I'm completely offtopic, but dangit I spent a bit of time on that.

However, I think some of you people need to do some outside research as well. Can one debate their point well if they don't understand the intricacy of a particular issue or belief?

Yes, I'm aware of that. Thus the reason I said it would take me hours to really make a post including everything I want to. I've done research before, but I need to dig back through a bit of stuff to makes the points I want.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Page 1- Iraq

Page 12- Gay marriage/ civil union

Page 19- Religious beliefs

Meh, thought it was worth posting.

 

[lePobz]

It's amazing that with so many debates with countless billions of opinions, there lies one universal undeniable truth, that has been undebated and believed wholeheartedly since the beginning of time.

Spoiler

Pie is good.

 

[Korgoth]

well what about gay pie? It should be allowed the same rights!!!!111one

 

[seinfeldrules]

!!!!111one

I never understood the point of this. Isnt one exclamation point sufficent? Also, what is the deal with 'one', I dont really see the humor in it.