| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/06/2007 07:25:59 PM · #1001 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
How am I supposed to interpret these quotes? |
How about at face value rather than attributing ALL evil acts to blind followers, which neither of us did. Plenty of individuals do plenty of bad things, but Hitler (or any other dictator) did not personally execute millions of people. For that, he needed lots of people to follow HIS beliefs, and most simply followed a charismatic leader and did what they were told. |
|
|
|
12/06/2007 07:33:53 PM · #1002 |
Hey, everybody's backing off now! It isn't ALL the bad acts in the world. Just the BIG ones. Just the ones that get press.
I'm afraid I disagree with your premise about the holocaust Shannon. I'm guessing there were quite a few critical thinkers involved. There will ALWAYS be more followers than leaders, but I doubt highly there were very few BLIND followers (which seem to be the type always getting harped on). I'm sure there were lots of critical thinking along these lines: "This seems wrong, but if I don't do it, I'll get killed. My family will then suffer. I'd better do it." I don't really count that as blindly following along.
Anyway, I'm still sticking with the idea that this argument is silly. Critical thinking has its place. Being a follower has its place too. Neither is the bastion of truth and neither is the pit of evil. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
|
|
|
|
12/06/2007 07:59:03 PM · #1003 |
The whole concept of eugenics is the brainchild of "critical thinkers" with roots dating back to Charles Darwin.
|
|
|
|
12/06/2007 08:19:20 PM · #1004 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm sure there were lots of critical thinking along these lines: "This seems wrong, but if I don't do it, I'll get killed. My family will then suffer. I'd better do it." I don't really count that as blindly following along. |
If you're talking about the Third Reich, sure, there was some of that. SOME of that. That was hardly the prevailing attitude amongst the perpetrators of heinous acts, the ideologues, the party hard-liners, or even the beaurocrats though.
There'll always be leaders and followers for good or ill, but I think it's funny that you say neither critical thinking nor being a follower is a bastion of truth. :-) I would think the former certainly is, the latter certainly is not. |
|
|
|
12/06/2007 09:19:30 PM · #1005 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm sure there were lots of critical thinking along these lines: "This seems wrong, but if I don't do it, I'll get killed. My family will then suffer. I'd better do it." I don't really count that as blindly following along. |
Lots, sure, but millions of people didn't follow for fear of being killed by one guy or even a few guys. Far more were eager participants cheering all along the way. They certainly didn't wake up one day and independently decide that an entire culture should be wiped out. No, these were people looking for hope and guidance in the hard times after WWI. Somebody comes along and declares that they're a "chosen" people, destined for great rewards, and uses that to justify normally immoral acts against others. It wasn't the first (or last) use of that particular tactic. People are all too ready to believe they're special. |
|
|
|
12/06/2007 09:20:57 PM · #1006 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
However, I don't think that what I wrote went so far as to imply that someone develop their sense of right and wrong in a vacuum, without regarding what has gone before. I don't even think that's possible in today's world. I did suggest that someone should decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong without simply accepting what some church tells them is right or wrong, independent of their own thought.
Blind acceptance of dogma leads to people believing that that they will be divinely rewarded for strapping on an explosive vest and blowing up a school or making their kids drink the purple Kool-Aid before they themselves drink.
Do you believe that the blame for the moral chaos and fraying of society today rests on the shoulders of those who think for themselves? |
This doesn't work, though. Society itself relies on people accepting certain codes and adhering to them. The alternative is anarchy, which usually ends up translating into "might makes right". We have what, 4,000 years of Western Civilization that has evolved, largely by trial and error, the codes under which we are able to coexist. And religions, in general, have played a big part in this.
It makes no point to attempt to undermine religions, in general, by posting worst-case examples of how "blind adherence to dogma" has resulted in terrible wrongs. Anything can be corrupted, and at one time or another everything has been.
I would submit to you that, by and large, most "believers" DO follow the process of self-examination you suggest as the best way to be a moral being. IMO, by far the majority of "believers" are reasonable people living morally reasonable lives.
R. |
Yes, society relies on people accepting those codes, but people should not do so without thought, but of their own free will. If they reject the moral status quo, the alternative does not necessarily equate to anarchy and chaos. Look at people who have changed the world, like Ghandi, MLK Jr. etc. they did not accept society's moral code they decided to oppose it. Would you say they were wrong for doing so?
|
|
|
|
12/06/2007 09:29:46 PM · #1007 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Yes, society relies on people accepting those codes, but people should not do so without thought, but of their own free will. If they reject the moral status quo, the alternative does not necessarily equate to anarchy and chaos. Look at people who have changed the world, like Ghandi, MLK Jr. etc. they did not accept society's moral code they decided to oppose it. Would you say they were wrong for doing so? |
No, but that's not really the point in this thread. What's happening here is that some people are demeaning those who follow a "religious" moral code because others have "followed" that code (supposedly) and perpetrated obscenities. Gandhi, on the other hand, took a religious code literally, and almost singlehandedly gave birth to the modern concept of civil disobedience.
What Gandhi was reacting against was an "administrative" code that he found to be unacceptable. He inspired a larger percentage of his nation to do the same. He was a leader, they were followers. As opposed to a situation where every individual does whatever's in his own perceived best interest.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/06/2007 09:31:40 PM · #1008 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Do you believe that the blame for the moral chaos and fraying of society today rests on the shoulders of those who think for themselves? |
To an equal amount as those who do not. |
If they're equal, then the net benefit to following the guidance of others would be zero. Individual thought may not lead to the right answers, but following the thoughts of others often leads to more dire results. Genocide, jihads and wars are not carried out by the people thinking for themselves, but by those who blindly follow what they've been told is the right thing to do. |
Maybe I was just giving a political response. And if there is no source for morality outside ourselves, then wouldn't EVERY decision if followed back far enough have come from someone thinking for themselves? So can't we ultimately lay all those bad things you just mentioned at the feet of individual thinkers? |
I never claimed there was no source for morality outside of ourselves, only that any way of thinking or dogma should not be blindly accepted without subjecting it to critical thought.
|
|
|
|
12/06/2007 09:40:29 PM · #1009 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Yes, society relies on people accepting those codes, but people should not do so without thought, but of their own free will. If they reject the moral status quo, the alternative does not necessarily equate to anarchy and chaos. Look at people who have changed the world, like Ghandi, MLK Jr. etc. they did not accept society's moral code they decided to oppose it. Would you say they were wrong for doing so? |
No, but that's not really the point in this thread. What's happening here is that some people are demeaning those who follow a "religious" moral code because others have "followed" that code (supposedly) and perpetrated obscenities. Gandhi, on the other hand, took a religious code literally, and almost singlehandedly gave birth to the modern concept of civil disobedience.
What Gandhi was reacting against was an "administrative" code that he found to be unacceptable. He inspired a larger percentage of his nation to do the same. He was a leader, they were followers. As opposed to a situation where every individual does whatever's in his own perceived best interest.
R. |
Ghandi was inspired by the writings of Thoreau. "Resistance to Civil Government", as it was originally titled in Thoreau's time, was one of Ghandi's greatest influences.
Call it an administrative code if you like, in any event, it was a code that guided the behavior of people, they blindly went along, regardless of how they felt about it.
Are you actually saying that an individual left to their own thoughts would only act in their self interest?
Do you believe that the only source of altruism is religion?
|
|
|
|
12/06/2007 09:51:48 PM · #1010 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
What's happening here is that some people are demeaning those who follow a "religious" moral code because others have "followed" that code (supposedly) and perpetrated obscenities. |
I certainly haven't attempted to demean all those who follows a religious moral code, nor has anyone else that I can find. I only seek to point out that religion itself is not the only source of morality (maybe not even A source), and that those who shun religious dogma are not consequently immoral (as has been specifically claimed). |
|
|
|
12/06/2007 10:44:27 PM · #1011 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Ghandi was inspired by the writings of Thoreau. "Resistance to Civil Government", as it was originally titled in Thoreau's time, was one of Ghandi's greatest influences.
Call it an administrative code if you like, in any event, it was a code that guided the behavior of people, they blindly went along, regardless of how they felt about it.
Are you actually saying that an individual left to their own thoughts would only act in their self interest?
Do you believe that the only source of altruism is religion? |
I'm well aware Gandhi was influenced by Thoreau. But Thoreau, in his own country, never generated much of a following for "civil disobedience" in his own time. Gandhi essentially gave birth to the concept as a valid form of widespread political resistance. And in turn influenced others, such as martin Luther King Jr.
For the latter two statements, I am saying nothing of the kind. Don't twist my words.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/06/2007 11:55:45 PM · #1012 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
No, but that's not really the point in this thread. What's happening here is that some people are demeaning those who follow a "religious" moral code because others have "followed" that code (supposedly) and perpetrated obscenities. |
I'd be curious to see you point out who was demeaning whom in this thread. It seems to me the non-believers have been rather more patient than the believers in many cases. Either way, I can't find any example of a non-believer demeaning anyone. |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 12:07:24 AM · #1013 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Ghandi was inspired by the writings of Thoreau. "Resistance to Civil Government", as it was originally titled in Thoreau's time, was one of Ghandi's greatest influences.
Call it an administrative code if you like, in any event, it was a code that guided the behavior of people, they blindly went along, regardless of how they felt about it.
Are you actually saying that an individual left to their own thoughts would only act in their self interest?
Do you believe that the only source of altruism is religion? |
I'm well aware Gandhi was influenced by Thoreau. But Thoreau, in his own country, never generated much of a following for "civil disobedience" in his own time. Gandhi essentially gave birth to the concept as a valid form of widespread political resistance. And in turn influenced others, such as martin Luther King Jr.
For the latter two statements, I am saying nothing of the kind. Don't twist my words.
R. |
I'm not twisting your words, only seeking clarification to what you posted which seemed to imply that people who are not part of some movement as a follower, will act in their self interest i.e. without altruism.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
...He was a leader, they were followers. As opposed to a situation where every individual does whatever's in his own perceived best interest. |
|
|
|
|
12/07/2007 12:56:43 AM · #1014 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I'm not twisting your words, only seeking clarification to what you posted which seemed to imply that people who are not part of some movement as a follower, will act in their self interest i.e. without altruism. |
Everyone acts in their own self interest. It is only when you don't think before you act does selflessness truly emerge. All other times there is a trade involved, an expected gain from the act, which could be as little as just having a good feeling inside for doing a good deed, but a gain nontheless.
|
|
|
|
12/07/2007 02:38:09 AM · #1015 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I'm not twisting your words, only seeking clarification to what you posted which seemed to imply that people who are not part of some movement as a follower, will act in their self interest i.e. without altruism.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
...He was a leader, they were followers. As opposed to a situation where every individual does whatever's in his own perceived best interest. |
|
It still doesn't imply anything of the sort. To contrast an organized movement with individual acts of perceived self-interest in no way implies that individuals will always act without altruism.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/07/2007 07:17:05 AM · #1016 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by Flash:
I can only think of 2 reasons why a person would be an Atheist. A) they arrived at the decision logically (the religious proofs arguments) or B) they choose to not believe as their behaviour contradicts the teachings of scripture.
Since I do not believe that most people have the energy, drive, and research skills to reach this conclusion via logic, I then conclude that most non-believers choose to be so, as religious taechings conflict with their behaviour. |
Here̢۪s another reason, my girlfriend was raised by agnostic/atheist parents. She never believed in gods in the first place and finds some of the literal beliefs of religious people to be foreign and incomprehensible. She's also a really sweet person and very successful in her profession. |
My spouse, who is virtually incapable of lying and has never lied once to me in fourteen years, is in exactly the same position, never having known religious belief and simply taking the non-existence of God for granted. |
I will use this single post to reply to both Milo and Louis;
If a person raised atheist/agnostic was never exposed to God or Godly teachings, then I might accept your argument. However, it seems very improbable to me, that a person in this day and age (in either the US or Canada), who has reached adulthood, has not been exposed to God. Either by the television, friends, work, school, or even a Jehovah's wirness ringing your doorbell. Given that exposure has occurred, then one of 2 things then happened. Either they discarded it based upon a logical analysis or they discarded it based on a conflict with their behaviour. Either way, it was either A or B.
Regarding Gordon's post - I agree his example fell into group A.
|
|
|
|
12/07/2007 07:35:37 AM · #1017 |
Originally posted by Flash:
If a person raised atheist/agnostic was never exposed to God or Godly teachings, then I might accept your argument. However, it seems very improbable to me, that a person in this day and age (in either the US or Canada), who has reached adulthood, has not been exposed to God. Either by the television, friends, work, school, or even a Jehovah's wirness ringing your doorbell. Given that exposure has occurred, then one of 2 things then happened. Either they discarded it based upon a logical analysis or they discarded it based on a conflict with their behaviour. Either way, it was either A or B. |
I'm not sure I accept this. You talk about people "discarding" the idea of God, basically, which connotes a certain active involvement. I think in most cases it's passive; people not taking the necessary steps, people not making any attempt to be informed or make a choice. People just go on being what they are unless something happens to actively jog them out of their routine and into a new way of thinking or a new perspective.
In a non-religious context, this certainly is the norm.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/07/2007 07:42:27 AM · #1018 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Gordon:
or perhaps option d/ raised within a religious framework but rejected belief in various supernatural entities at the same time, along with tooth fairies, Santa Claus and other mythical beings ? |
WHAT?!? Santa Claus is real. It says so in several books I have that were written by people who were known to exist, and you can't prove otherwise! The only way you could have possibly reached that conclusion is by logic or by choosing not to believe because the necessity of being good all year conflicts with your heathen ways... and I don't think you had the energy, drive, and research skills as a kid to reach this conclusion via logic. |
This reads as though you are mocking me. I do not recall mocking you or your positions. I hope this is not an example of an Atheists morality in following the Golden Rule of "doing unto others...".
|
|
|
|
12/07/2007 07:48:00 AM · #1019 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Flash:
If a person raised atheist/agnostic was never exposed to God or Godly teachings, then I might accept your argument. However, it seems very improbable to me, that a person in this day and age (in either the US or Canada), who has reached adulthood, has not been exposed to God. Either by the television, friends, work, school, or even a Jehovah's wirness ringing your doorbell. Given that exposure has occurred, then one of 2 things then happened. Either they discarded it based upon a logical analysis or they discarded it based on a conflict with their behaviour. Either way, it was either A or B. |
I'm not sure I accept this. You talk about people "discarding" the idea of God, basically, which connotes a certain active involvement. I think in most cases it's passive; people not taking the necessary steps, people not making any attempt to be informed or make a choice. People just go on being what they are unless something happens to actively jog them out of their routine and into a new way of thinking or a new perspective.
In a non-religious context, this certainly is the norm.
R. |
I understand your point. My position (although admittedly from a Christian perspective) is that God exists whether you believe that or not. Therefore, to not believe, after exposure, requires choice. That choice can be arrived at via a logical refutation of the exposure or out of convienience.
|
|
|
|
12/07/2007 07:56:10 AM · #1020 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I understand your point. My position (although admittedly from a Christian perspective) is that God exists whether you believe that or not. Therefore, to not believe, after exposure, requires choice. That choice can be arrived at via a logical refutation of the exposure or out of convienience. |
And I understand your point, but I maintain that sheer apathy (for lack of a better word) is exceedingly common and fits neither of those categories.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/07/2007 08:03:44 AM · #1021 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Flash:
I understand your point. My position (although admittedly from a Christian perspective) is that God exists whether you believe that or not. Therefore, to not believe, after exposure, requires choice. That choice can be arrived at via a logical refutation of the exposure or out of convienience. |
And I understand your point, but I maintain that sheer apathy (for lack of a better word) is exceedingly common and fits neither of those categories.
R. |
If I understand your position accurately, you are saying that some (perhaps many or even most) "non-believers" arrived at that station due to a laziness or lack of active effort to find out for themselves. This might be due in part to no particular catalyst being the trigger to motivate them. If this is what you are saying, then I would agree. And basically referenced as much in an earlier post.
The reason I would categorize these passive choosers along with active choosers, is the same reason that the law does not excuse ignorance of the law as a defense for violating it. Therefore, as I believe that God has a law, and part of that law is to seek understanding of his will, failure to do so, regardless of whether it is active or passive is still a choice to not understand.
|
|
|
|
12/07/2007 08:29:12 AM · #1022 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I'm not twisting your words, only seeking clarification to what you posted which seemed to imply that people who are not part of some movement as a follower, will act in their self interest i.e. without altruism.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
...He was a leader, they were followers. As opposed to a situation where every individual does whatever's in his own perceived best interest. |
|
It still doesn't imply anything of the sort. To contrast an organized movement with individual acts of perceived self-interest in no way implies that individuals will always act without altruism.
R. |
If you want to argue the semantics of your post, go ahead, but you'll need to find someone else to do it with. I understand you didn't mean it the way it seemed. Thanks for clarifying your earlier post. |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 08:41:41 AM · #1023 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scalvert:
WHAT?!? Santa Claus is real. It says so in several books I have that were written by people who were known to exist, and you can't prove otherwise! The only way you could have possibly reached that conclusion is by logic or by choosing not to believe because the necessity of being good all year conflicts with your heathen ways... and I don't think you had the energy, drive, and research skills as a kid to reach this conclusion via logic. |
This reads as though you are mocking me. |
It's no different than what you said, and if it sounds silly, well...
Message edited by author 2007-12-07 08:59:33. |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 09:02:34 AM · #1024 |
Originally posted by Flash:
If I understand your position accurately, you are saying that some (perhaps many or even most) "non-believers" arrived at that station due to a laziness or lack of active effort to find out for themselves. This might be due in part to no particular catalyst being the trigger to motivate them. If this is what you are saying, then I would agree. And basically referenced as much in an earlier post.
|
I think that's also true of most believers. They arrive at their position of going to church each week through the teaching of their parents/ sunday school etc - not active effort to find out out or laziness to consider other options.
Laziness, apathy and lack of effort seem to be the norm - it isn't a religious thing or not. |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 09:06:18 AM · #1025 |
Saint Nicholas
Saint Nicholas 2
3rd link with other links at the bottom
Mock Santa Claus if you choose. Saint Nicholas was real. The traditions are from real events.
|
|
