?s about atheism but were afraid to ask

05/06/2011 07:31:45 PM · #926

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Never said you didn't Ray. Just said that for me that's part of my religion.

Well you've actually said more than just that or at least that's the impression. You repeatedly question the source of the non-believer's morality and every time you do about a dozen different people give you their own personal take and you usually just dismiss them because they don't fit your crystallized world view.

Whatever. I'm not questioning anybody's source of morality right now, I'm answering your question. Why did you ask it? I didn't know Ray's morality source was even in question and so it wasn't even on my mind. Sheesh.

Pentax D-FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW

05/06/2011 07:33:46 PM · #927

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Carrying out an experiment, or diagnosing a patient offers little room for religious input, but knowing when the experiment results ought to be utilized or how to deal with the patient's diagnosis offers much room for religious input.

What would be a good example?

Science has shown us how to prevent pregnancy through surgical sterilization. Who should we do this on and when? Science might inform on the how in this case and religion might inform on the when and why.

Clear? I'm trying to imagine how that's going to be twisted...

Message edited by author 2011-05-06 19:34:39.

K3Master

Pentax K-3

05/06/2011 07:39:27 PM · #928

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Carrying out an experiment, or diagnosing a patient offers little room for religious input, but knowing when the experiment results ought to be utilized or how to deal with the patient's diagnosis offers much room for religious input.

What would be a good example?

Science has shown us how to prevent pregnancy through surgical sterilization. Who should we do this on and when? Science might inform on the how in this case and religion might inform on the when and why.

Clear? I'm trying to imagine how that's going to be twisted...

No, religion doesn't inform on it. Humanity informs on it. Religion is just window dressing.

05/06/2011 07:43:56 PM · #929

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Who should we do this on? Those who want that surgery? Didn't you have a vasectomy recently? Was the doctor's religious input taken into account before you made the decision? Should I (as a member of the same society) share in that decision?

and when? See above.

05/06/2011 07:47:00 PM · #930

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Carrying out an experiment, or diagnosing a patient offers little room for religious input, but knowing when the experiment results ought to be utilized or how to deal with the patient's diagnosis offers much room for religious input.

What would be a good example?

Science has shown us how to prevent pregnancy through surgical sterilization. Who should we do this on and when? Science might inform on the how in this case and religion might inform on the when and why.

Who should we do this on? Those who want that surgery? Didn't you have a vasectomy recently? Was the doctor's religious input taken into account before you made the decision? Should I (as a member of the same society) share in that decision?

and when? See above.

Science can't exactly inform you on that, right? See the 1930s and forced sterilization. It's philosophy (or religion) that will inform us on those questions and that would be an example of how I combine my religion with my work. You are setting up a total straw man and I'm not saying anything like what you are implying. Ridiculous. If we lived in a regime with forced sterilization, my religious convictions might encourage me to object and refuse. The science experiment of how to sterilize someone isn't isn't going to tell me whether or not to do it.

Message edited by author 2011-05-06 19:55:16.

05/06/2011 07:50:23 PM · #931

To ward off the next inevitable question...

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

How can I not be who I am in anything? Your questions is poorly phrased and I would object on many fronts. Carrying out an experiment, or diagnosing a patient offers little room for religious input, but knowing when the experiment results ought to be utilized or how to deal with the patient's diagnosis offers much room for religious input. Love. Joy. Peace. Patience. Kindness. Goodness. Gentleness. Self-control. All can be helpful as a scientist and in my case all those are part of my "religious filter" (a phrase I'm not very fond of).

Message edited by author 2011-05-06 19:50:42.

05/06/2011 08:22:47 PM · #932

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

If I were an elected official, I could not try to put on my "secular" hat while at work and then, only when I get home, put on the real me hat.

I am responding to that quote. An elected official's job is to represent all people, not just him or herself. You said you couldn't do that so I asked if that was an issue in other areas as well. There's a difference between setting aside one's beliefs and abandoning them all together. One can do the former while still being the person he is. We wouldn't have the society we have today if that wasn't possible.

Message edited by author 2011-05-06 20:23:40.

05/07/2011 12:22:31 AM · #933

I'd say the job of an elected official is to be true to oneself during the election process and, if elected, to continue to be true to oneself (since that's what got you elected). I guess we just see things a little differently. No worries. I'm pretty sure none of us in rant would make good elected officials... :)

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

05/07/2011 06:08:29 AM · #934

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Somehow "Being true to oneself" really does not fit into my perception of the majority of elected officials. "Toeing the line" and voting strictly according to the party ideology is more in keeping with the reality of elected officials in both the USA and Canada, at least from my perspective.

If indeed these individuals were true to personal beliefs, there are several propositions that most certainly would not be the focus of such intense debates.

Ray

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

05/07/2011 12:57:49 PM · #935

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'd say the job of an elected official is to be true to oneself ...

We have a representative government -- I'd say the pol's "job" is to represent the collective opinion of their constituents rather than to impose their own.

05/07/2011 01:23:04 PM · #936

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'd say the job of an elected official is to be true to oneself ...

We have a representative government -- I'd say the pol's "job" is to represent the collective opinion of their constituents rather than to impose their own.

We're saying the same thing Paul. I just think one would ideally follow his/her own ideals and the people would choose among those who represented their views. Same thing, but without the hypocrisy. If I had the choice I'd certainly choose that over someone who went against their ideals in order to be "representative".

Originally posted by Ray:

Somehow "Being true to oneself" really does not fit into my perception of the majority of elected officials.

Ray...are you happy with our current batch of elected officials, either US or Canadian? Ya, me neither...

Message edited by author 2011-05-07 13:25:30.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

05/07/2011 01:48:24 PM · #937

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

If I had the choice I'd certainly choose that over someone who went against their ideals in order to be "representative".

Problem is how many of them today hold firm to their "ideals" (ideology) rather than representing their consituents, or at least those without campaign contributions.

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

05/07/2011 03:43:07 PM · #938

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If I had the choice I'd certainly choose that over someone who went against their ideals in order to be "representative".

Problem is how many of them today hold firm to their "ideals" (ideology) rather than representing their consituents, or at least those without campaign contributions.

Oh atta go GeneralIE... throwing a wrench into the equation. :O)

Ray

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

05/07/2011 05:15:17 PM · #939

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Well, how did they get elected then? Probably by hiding their ideology...and neither of us were condoning that.

Nullix

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

06/10/2011 10:57:33 AM · #940

Why are schools afraid of the bible?

California Bible Brick Lawsuit Echoes Earlier Scripture Censorship Cases

Originally posted by Lawyers representing the mothers:

Christians shouldn't be discriminated against and excluded from expressing their faith on public high school campuses when that door of communication is open to virtually everyone else. The government cannot single out Christians because their religious viewpoint does not coincide with campus orthodoxy. Christians have the same First Amendment- protected rights as everyone else does on public school campuses, and their messages are no less worthy of exposure than other individuals.

shutterpuppy

Sony Alpha a7

Canon FD 70-210mm �4.0 MF

06/10/2011 03:10:52 PM · #941

Schools aren't afraid of the Bible, but they should be afraid of litigious Christians who don't understand the difference between the First Amendment's protection of their right to the free exercise of their religion and the First Amendment's restriction on the explicit or implicit endorsement of religion by government institutions.

The article you link to doesn't say what Bible verses the women wanted on their bricks, but if they were verses that proselytized Christian belief, then the school's action was entirely proper as the bricks being part of school grounds would imply that the school endorsed the message displayed. If they were more innocuous, then it is more of a judgment call.

Nullix

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

06/10/2011 03:49:06 PM · #942

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

The article you link to doesn't say what Bible verses the women wanted on their bricks, but if they were verses that proselytized Christian belief, then the school's action was entirely proper as the bricks being part of school grounds would imply that the school endorsed the message displayed. If they were more innocuous, then it is more of a judgment call.

The site I found the article on was pretty bias, so I tried to find something more secular and I found it on news.yahoo.com.

Picture of the Bricks

Originally posted by Psalm 68:34:

Tell everyone about God's power

Originally posted by 2 Corinthians 5:17:

The old life is gone; a new life has begun!

Originally posted by Luke 16:13:

No one can serve two masters

Originally posted by Ephesians 4:32:

Be kind and compassionate to one another

Originally posted by Romans 8:31:

If God is for us, who can be against us?

I would have to ask what messages were being displayed and does the school endorse those?

06/10/2011 03:54:06 PM · #943

Makes me wonder: would the bricks have been planted without a problem if the *citations* had not been there? I mean, if I want to tell people to love one another, surely that's not objectionable? So the issue is not the message, but the source? Sounds pretty discriminatory to me...

R.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

06/10/2011 03:59:45 PM · #944

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

"Be kind and compassionate to one another" is not exclusively a directive from a single omnipotent supernatural entity, it is a reasonable expression of common sense humanitarianism, and is likely to be found in the teachings of just about every religion (and in non-religions groups as well).

"Tell everyone about God's power" -- how much more specific to one religion can you get.

To me, some of those sayings would be reasonable to include, others obviously not ...

06/10/2011 04:01:32 PM · #945

Originally posted by GeneralE:

"Tell everyone about God's power" -- how much more specific to one religion can you get.

Presumably you mean "less specific"? This could be from ANY religion, obviously...

R.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

06/10/2011 04:52:40 PM · #946

I believe (pun intended) that "God," singular and capitalized, denotes the Christian God specifically ... to suggest that "tell everyone about God's power" could as easily refer to Allah or Buddha or Odin or Zeus is either silly or blasphemous.

06/10/2011 05:04:23 PM · #947

Originally posted by GeneralE:

I donno....

Originally posted by wiki:

The capitalized form God was first used in Ulfilas's Gothic translation of the New Testament, to represent the Greek Theos. In the English language, the capitalization continues to represent a distinction between monotheistic "God" and "gods" in polytheism.[6][7] In spite of significant differences between religions such as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, the Bahá'í Faith, and Judaism, the term "God" remains an English translation common to all. The name may signify any related or similar monotheistic deities, such as the early monotheism of Akhenaten and Zoroastrianism.

When used in English within a community with a common monotheistic background, "God" always refers to the deity they share. Those with a background in different Abrahamic religions will usually agree on the deity they share, while still differing on details of belief and doctrine�they will disagree about attributes of [the] God, rather than thinking in terms of "my God" and "your (different) God".

Message edited by author 2011-06-10 17:04:50.

06/10/2011 05:05:16 PM · #948

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
"Tell everyone about God's power" -- how much more specific to one religion can you get.

Presumably you mean "less specific"? This could be from ANY religion, obviously...

R.

Are the bricks the same ones Nullix posted earlier? Each of those references a specific biblical passage below the message. For example in the brick you're referring to it also has "PSALM 68:34" right below the message.

Message edited by author 2011-06-10 17:06:59.

06/10/2011 05:07:25 PM · #949

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
"Tell everyone about God's power" -- how much more specific to one religion can you get.

Presumably you mean "less specific"? This could be from ANY religion, obviously...

R.

Are the bricks the same ones Nullix posted earlier? Each of those references a specific passage below the message. For example in the brick you're referring to it also has "PSALM 68:34" right below the message.

Note my original post:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

So that's exactly what I was referencing, when I asked "Is the objection to the message or to the source?"

It just seems petty to me...

R.