How i think about religion [Archive]

The Stranger

05-14-2005, 13:23

there is no such thing as religion. that doesn't mean i don't believe in god

i almost certainly know that nobody on this site is very poor/ or even poor at all. but what if you was very poor, your parents died of aids, you have to take care of your sisters and brothers, in the middle of war. you have hunger everyday. you're desperate, to who would you go when you are sad. To your parents? to your friends? or to a god? and don't say that the chances are small cuz they're big, that things like this happen.

still i say there is no such thing as religion. but if there is a thing that makes you happy, if there is a thing you can trust, if there is a thing that makes you survive, than that is a god.

doesn't matter if that thing is a Ferrari or your family or a man on a cloud. if that is what i need to be happy to live my life good or to even just go on with my life, than that's my GOD.

cuz believing is thrusting without knowing it's real. but if that's what it takes, than i believe.

so there is no thing as religion, that's why there are no atheists, that's why there are no christs or muslims. that's why nobody believes the same.

this is not to convince people, just to let them know how i think about it.

John86

05-14-2005, 14:13

Perhaps this is better suited for the backroom?

Voigtkampf

05-14-2005, 14:49

This is Backroom stuff.

Btw, spell-check is your friend.

IliaDN

05-14-2005, 16:52

As far as I understood your thought you mean that everyone needs something to belive in ... well I accept it , but you can't say that there is no religion just because lot's of people belive that there is religion. :bow:

Byzantine Prince

05-14-2005, 17:01

What the funken wagnos( ~D )?

There is religion. Religion is a set of rules and truths that people choose to beleave in that involve a higher being. There most certainly is a religion.

Now the existence of god is farely debatable because no one can prove either way.

IliaDN

05-14-2005, 17:06

As far as I understood the author he just meant that true faith is unique for every single individual and must not be affected by any rules , and also that person must have something to belive in.

The Stranger

05-14-2005, 17:54

finaly sumone who understands

The Stranger

05-14-2005, 17:56

This is Backroom stuff.

Btw, spell-check is your friend.

i use that, maybe there are grammatical errors, but the only word that's wrong is CUZ

Big King Sanctaphrax

05-14-2005, 18:38

What the hell? Backroom'd!

Quietus

05-14-2005, 18:40

finaly sumone who understands Umeu, That's the best thing you've ever written. ~D ~:)

:charge:

The Stranger

05-14-2005, 21:43

Umeu, That's the best thing you've ever written. ~D ~:)

:charge:

how you mean. this line or the topic

Quietus

05-15-2005, 03:41

how you mean. this line or the topic The topic of course! ~;) ~:cool:

bmolsson

05-15-2005, 04:45

The most modern religion is called money..... ~;)

Idomeneas

05-15-2005, 14:47

The most modern religion is called money..... ~;)

No in fact it is the oldest one ~;)

The Stranger

05-15-2005, 19:07

No in fact it is the oldest one ~;)

yup that's right. have been thinking to put that in too. cuz if you have money you can buy yourself out of most worries. that's why the most "so called" atheists are in rich lands, and cn't understand why there are people that believe in a god

Uesugi Kenshin

05-16-2005, 03:25

I understand why people believe in God(s), they are a nice way to give you hope, relieve worries and give your life direction, but I personally cannot accept the notion that there is a diety, especially after all the bad things religion has done.

bmolsson

05-16-2005, 08:46

No in fact it is the oldest one ~;)

Nope, the oldest religion is called pussy...... ~;)

Papewaio

05-16-2005, 08:55

yup that's right. have been thinking to put that in too. cuz if you have money you can buy yourself out of most worries. that's why the most "so called" atheists are in rich lands, and cn't understand why there are people that believe in a god

Or the lands might be rich because they base their ideas on verifiable facts rather then unverifiable ones.

Knowledge is power. Knowledge that is not allowed to be tested defeats the purpose.

Al Khalifah

05-16-2005, 09:25

It's probably a chicken and an egg problem. On the one hand, some people got very rich out of religion but at the same time religion does seem to be at its strongest in areas of poverty.

I understand why people believe in God(s), they are a nice way to give you hope, relieve worries and give your life direction, but I personally cannot accept the notion that there is a diety, especially after all the bad things religion has done.
Its the bad things that people do in the name of the religion, but people also do many good things in the name of religion. God gave mankind free will on the belief that mankind would make mistakes, but that it would learn that from these mistakes and grow to be stronger. You can't blame God for the deeds of evil men.
Parents let their children play contact sports because they're fun. There's a high chance that at some point their children will be hurt. When they do so, can they argue that their parents were being negligent?

The Stranger

05-16-2005, 20:35

Or the lands might be rich because they base their ideas on verifiable facts rather then unverifiable ones.

Knowledge is power. Knowledge that is not allowed to be tested defeats the purpose.

yeah or they're rich because they used religion to supress other people, and said it was good because their religion said so.

like this.

we should go get some slaves
why?
because it is our duty as a good christ to let these barbarians get in touch with our god.

this could be a reason why they're rich dont you think

Idomeneas

05-16-2005, 22:13

Nope, the oldest religion is called pussy...... ~;)

granted ~;)

Idomeneas

05-16-2005, 22:26

Why dont we seperate god and religion? Even if we dont believe in a higher spirit doesnt mean it does not exist and vice versa.
And just a thought. Who told us that god is our babysitter? some sun stroke desert beggars? most of the evil on earth doesnt need divine intervention (not the Slayer album) but HUMAN.
Did god ordered any war? any abuse? i dont recall that. Now if some jerks in robes did for their own reasons, its not God's matter IMO.

We dont need god to stop killing each other. We know what the problem is, we just close our eyes. My opinion about church is known. They exchanged the old gods for the new nothing else changed. 90% of christian rituals are based on ancient ones and most religions are based on older philosophies and beliefs. Religion is a way to contact god somekind of phone. If the phones are broken that doesnt mean the location we are calling does not exist.

Uesugi Kenshin

05-17-2005, 02:43

[QUOTE=Its the bad things that people do in the name of the religion, but people also do many good things in the name of religion. God gave mankind free will on the belief that mankind would make mistakes, but that it would learn that from these mistakes and grow to be stronger. You can't blame God for the deeds of evil men.
Parents let their children play contact sports because they're fun. There's a high chance that at some point their children will be hurt. When they do so, can they argue that their parents were being negligent?[/QUOTE]

Would religious people still do those good things without religion, if so religion is in a practical way more trouble than it is worth. In my opinion fanatical devotion to a religion, especially a religion with militant roots, is far too dangerous to make up for it with the gtood things done by some religious people.

By dangerous I mean harmful, oppressive and such not that religion threatens me or anyone in particular as a concept.

Papewaio

05-17-2005, 04:37

When people do evil why not lose faith in Man not God?

The Stranger

05-17-2005, 08:21

The Stranger

05-17-2005, 08:26

Would religious people still do those good things without religion, if so religion is in a practical way more trouble than it is worth. In my opinion fanatical devotion to a religion, especially a religion with militant roots, is far too dangerous to make up for it with the gtood things done by some religious people.

By dangerous I mean harmful, oppressive and such not that religion threatens me or anyone in particular as a concept.

but the religions is invented by people to still there hunger for might. the bible is written by people to make people think what they're doing is good, cuz it is written in the bible.

so in some way yes religions are dangerous, but are gods dangerous, i don't think so. people use gods as excuse to do things that aren't right. people use gods to explain things they can't understand. now we all know where lightning comes from, and why it rains and stuff. but when religion was invented they didn't. so the used rituals to make the gods happy. so are now the gods dangerous or the people who follow the people that want might, and use the religions as a excuse to do so.

Uesugi Kenshin

05-18-2005, 03:17

If religion is just what makes you feel overwhelmingly happy/at ease I have not found Jesus. (Jehova's witness reference for those without the door to door "Have You Found Jesus?"ites.)

Back when science was in its infancy and religion was the main source of answers I would probably have been an ardent deist of some religion, but today...

Well I have never had faith and the contradictions inherent in almost all religions are just another reason for my enthusiastic Atheism.

I never siad gods are dangerous, though if they existed they would be. But I think religion is definately dangerous and in some ways I hope that it will shrivel up and die, though I would never make any action towards this end because I respect other's beliefs. I think it would reflect much better on humanity if we did not require religion anymore to tell us to look out for our neighbors and be responsible and helpful members of society.

The Stranger

05-18-2005, 03:27

but how do you know they don't. i mean if your child is the one that makes you live your life, and makes you happy, she is your god. does she not exist. a god doesn't always has to be a religion. THE GOD is only one god outa millions. and everyone has a different one and a different view about things.

and because you don't believe in a religion, doesn't mean that there is no god for you. if atheist means not believing in religions you're a atheist and i'm too. cuz i don't believe the bible or the pope, but i do believe that there are gods. they can be close so close that it could be my brand new FERRARI outside the door (not that i have one)

and tell me why are gods dangerous if they existed (as you claim they don't)

Uesugi Kenshin

05-19-2005, 03:32

Think about it, an overwhelmingly powerful being. How is that not dangerous? No matter what that amount of power is dangerous, it may not be harmful if used correctly but vast amounts of power is always dangerous.

If I used your definition of gods I would not have one because no one thing makes me feel that way.

What you call a god is more like the greatest and most beautiful aspect of your life. I have no idea what word I would use to describe that, but I think that sort of thing can exist, though it be difficult to find and harder still to obtain. I also doubt it would be material possessions for most, but you never know.

The Stranger

05-19-2005, 16:25

i agree, (btw it was just a example). you actually comfirmed what i said, cuz it is not the gods that are dangerous but the people that use the gods to gain power. that's why religion is pretty bad (only good thing are the holidays) but the gods aren't.

Fragony

05-19-2005, 16:43

You would probably like pre-christian european mysticism, it basicly says that no religion can be bad because the upperbeing presents itselve in a way that the people can identify with, every saint or god is part of the same being, yet it choses a form to communicate with it's respective followers. So it is not religion that is bad, just the claim on an ultimate form/truth, because it is all part of the same thing.

The Stranger

05-19-2005, 19:58

true, definitly true.

Uesugi Kenshin

05-20-2005, 01:48

Religion is dangerous, if only for the power that it holds and the fanaticism with which people will follow it. Unlike almost any other concept, group, motive and so on, religion is followed with extreme undying fanaticism. This makes it more dangerous than other powerful institutions and due to its very nature it is likely to discriminate and ignore new ideas.

AntiochusIII

05-20-2005, 02:13

The Stranger

05-20-2005, 15:41

Uesugi Kenshin

05-21-2005, 04:52

True democracy is dangerous, partly because religion can control it like it is starting to try to in the US and partly because allowing anyone to have power is dangerous. This includes all types of government. But democracy with enough checks and balances, such as the fillibuster to protect the minority parties, is less dangerous. I think religion is the most dangerous abstract idea in today's society because of the fanaticism it inspires.

The Stranger

05-22-2005, 09:45

agreed, i also think religion is dangerous, but i also think gods aren't (god is just a term) i thought i was you that said that i was describing the happies/best thing on earth (or anywhere) but isn't that how all religions describe the one their religion is about. so i call it god, you may call it 666 if you want.

Idomeneas

05-23-2005, 00:33

i think there is a comfusion between religion and organized church. Religion are just ideas and generally speaking most of the time are good. Church is the company that exploits those ideas, creates agendas and baptise pure low human urges as divine wishes.

Thank you i rest my case.

Adrian II

05-23-2005, 00:52

Thank you I rest my case.Thanks, but I believe your case was dead to begin with.

Churches can enable people to better practice, ponder, communicate and strenghten their faith, as well as share and support some of the harsher spiritual and physical consequences of their beliefs. If you study episodes of religious violence in history closely, you will observe that there were always outside, non-Church forces at work as well as forces of, or inside, organised religion, and that there were always forces within organised religion opposed to the violence.

Idomeneas

05-23-2005, 01:09

Thanks, but I believe your case was dead to begin with.

Churches can enable people to better practice, ponder, communicate and strenghten their faith, as well as share and support some of the harsher spiritual and physical consequences of their beliefs. If you study episodes of religious violence in history closely, you will observe that there were always outside, non-Church forces at work as well as forces of, or inside, organised religion, and that there were always forces within organised religion opposed to the violence.

Churches bring ''divine'' values down to earth. There are always people who eventually hijack those higher purposes and use them for their own agendas. How many times ''holy'' wars started from church leaders that presented theiselves as representatives of god? How many violent acts against other churches? How many incidents of perverted or corrupted actions by the ''people of god''. How many billioners bishops or whatever in various religions?

Youre telling me that the crusades were organised by non-church forces? Or by a guy who wanted real power and found the way to succeed it?

Flocks are only good for sheeps.

Adrian II

05-23-2005, 01:12

Youre telling me that the crusades were organised by non-church forces? Or by a guy who wanted real power and found the way to succeed it?Yup. Cathare Crusade. French King, supported by Northern French nobility, wanted power and found a way.

Idomeneas

05-23-2005, 01:15

Yup. Cathare Crusade. French King, supported by Northern French nobility, wanted power and found a way.

Church was innocent of it? I ve been reading alittle about this subject lately and didnt got the impression that church had no part. How about the first crusade that gave Pope actual power besides cerimonial?

Idomeneas

05-23-2005, 01:17

Going for some sleep now unless there is somebody here willing to design the greek version of Ovation Guitars 16page brochure tommorow. God i hate Monday.....

Adrian II

05-23-2005, 01:31

Church was innocent of it? I ve been reading alittle about this subject lately and didnt got the impression that church had no part.That's right. Like I said, there are always forces in, as well as outside of organised religion working together to promote or provoke religious violence. In this case, the desire of the French King for a power grab in obnoxious, free-thinking Southern France clinched it. The Pope and the bishop of Toulon had been begging him to crusade against the Cathares for a long time, but without the greed of Paris there would have been no crusade against them.
How about the first crusade that gave Pope actual power besides cerimonial?He already had real power in 1077 when he forced Emperor Henry IV to his knees. And the First Crusade, as all the others, was led by Lords temporal and not spiritual. If you look closer at each case of religious excess, you will see there were outside forces at work as well. I believe it is fair to say that organised religion has often been a vehicle for crime, but on the other hand organised religion has also been a vehicle for resistance to crime. In WWII for instance, there were religious organisations and institutions involved on all sides of the equation.

Uesugi Kenshin

05-23-2005, 04:01

Churches may help people worship (I certainly wouldn't know) but they are far more dangerous as a whole than unorganised religion because often they can become places where the youth is inducted into a set of beliefs that are not necessarily religious. They also usually suppress new ideas, science and such.

The Stranger

05-23-2005, 14:40

Yup. Cathare Crusade. French King, supported by Northern French nobility, wanted power and found a way.

but also other wars than crusades are ordered by the Pope, the invasion of england by William the Conquerer had the popes permission.

The Stranger

05-23-2005, 14:46

ADRIANII

there indeed also other forces than religion, and maybe the crusades were also partly cuz of the greed of lords. but weren't they catholic and convinced that killing muslims was good. even if they didn't they used religion to gain support of the ignorant.

example would you think that those thousands of children (childcrusade) would go if there was said that they should be sold, or that they would be butchered or that it was against gods will. they wouldn't, but becuz god wanted it, they went (partly also becuz they had no future).

Fragony

05-23-2005, 16:01

I like mrs Stern, she said that religion makes good people better and bad people worse. Religion is just a tool for those that want to do bad, like osama and his buddies. I am sure Islam is a beautifull religion from what I have read of it, but it can be a weapon in the hands of someone else. It's a 'guns don't kill people thing'. Same with christianity and all the others, just justification for the ambitious.

The Stranger

05-24-2005, 16:42

hmmmm, hmmmm. you i'm miles from where i started, but i agree (again)

The Stranger

05-26-2005, 19:55

it's dying

Papewaio

05-27-2005, 00:29

Religion is a form of power.

So just like electricity you can either use it for cooking dinner for the poor or electrocuting the condemned.

Uesugi Kenshin

05-27-2005, 03:27

Nice analogy Pape, however, people could just be nice to each other despite religion...

No reason why somone can't be a good person without religion.

Papewaio

05-27-2005, 03:29

Just like you can cook with gas or gas someone.

Use what works for you.

The Stranger

05-27-2005, 16:29

Nice analogy Paper, however, people could just be nice to each other despite religion...

No reason why somone can't be a good person without religion.

no reason indeed, but most people are selfish from nature. religion is a form of power. but gods aren't gods a thing you can use to get power

Uesugi Kenshin

05-28-2005, 04:08

GoreBag

05-28-2005, 04:55

Pape sorry about the typo in your name, I meant Pape but I hit the r key as well.

Well that may be the logical reason behind gods, but if people wished to they could make an effort to do all the good things taught by religion, abandon the bad and just treat other people well because it is the right thing to do.

The best part of that is that without religion, there would be no real outlet for everyone to understand what "the right thing to do" really is. It might be able to work now, but only because religions have put their mark on moralism. Religion, is after, an expression of the beliefs of the society's people.

I disagree, however, as I'm sure people of other religions or cultures might. "All the good things taught by religion(sic)" aren't good to everyone, and neither are the bad things.

The Stranger

05-28-2005, 11:03

Pape sorry about the typo in your name, I meant Pape but I hit the r key as well.

Well that may be the logical reason behind gods, but if people wished to they could make an effort to do all the good things taught by religion, abandon the bad and just treat other people well because it is the right thing to do.

religion/gods are not only a thing to get power, it also is a life-style. sum people couldn't survive without their believe in god. without the desire to live good and go to heaven alot of people got nothing else to live for. if you take that away, we'll have mass suicide

Steppe Merc

05-28-2005, 19:53

I respect the founders of many religions (Jesus, Mohhamed, Buddha), as well as more recent religous people (Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi). That said, I don't believe in any sort of religion or God, but I respect many spiritual people, and their overall message. I think that religion has been used by too many power hungry people for it to be "good".

GoreBag

05-28-2005, 20:56

religion/gods are not only a thing to get power, it also is a life-style. sum people couldn't survive without their believe in god. without the desire to live good and go to heaven alot of people got nothing else to live for. if you take that away, we'll have mass suicide

People would kill themselves without a crutch? I'm sure they'd find better ways to deal with it.

Sidenote: King Arthur was a terrible movie. Your sig offends me. ~;p

Uesugi Kenshin

05-29-2005, 04:43

People are already learning to live without it, at least in the West religion is losing ground quickly. Although the religious are getting fewer they seem to be getting louder and more "pious".

Byzantine Prince

05-29-2005, 05:46

The best part of that is that without religion, there would be no real outlet for everyone to understand what "the right thing to do" really is. It might be able to work now, but only because religions have put their mark on moralism. Religion, is after, an expression of the beliefs of the society's people.

I disagree, however, as I'm sure people of other religions or cultures might. "All the good things taught by religion(sic)" aren't good to everyone, and neither are the bad things.
Moralism existed before Christianity and was unrelated to religion. I refer you the Platonic school of thought which in turn influenced Saint Augustine who made this so called moralism fit for Christianity.

Moralism itself is based on the emotional side of the brain unlike law-setting which is based on the logical side. I don't trust moralism and I never will. When I was a Christian I was a complete psychopath and thought killing people was OK, when I became an atheist I realized how wrong that would be because it is illigal. Isn't that ironic?

The Stranger

05-29-2005, 13:49

People are already learning to live without it, at least in the West religion is losing ground quickly. Although the religious are getting fewer they seem to be getting louder and more "pious".

i don't know. america is still pretty religous

The Stranger

05-29-2005, 13:50

Uesugi Kenshin

05-29-2005, 14:23

I never said America was not still pretty religious, but church attendance is down a lot and a lot of people are either turning away from devout religious practices or becoming what I like to call apathetically religious, they are people who call themselves Christian or whatever but do not prectice the religion except a bit on holidays.

The Stranger

05-29-2005, 15:22

hmmm. agreed. (do i say anything else)

GoreBag

05-29-2005, 19:34

Moralism existed before Christianity and was unrelated to religion. I refer you the Platonic school of thought which in turn influenced Saint Augustine who made this so called moralism fit for Christianity.

Moralism itself is based on the emotional side of the brain unlike law-setting which is based on the logical side. I don't trust moralism and I never will. When I was a Christian I was a complete psychopath and thought killing people was OK, when I became an atheist I realized how wrong that would be because it is illigal. Isn't that ironic?

lol And your Western thought process is revealed. I never said "Christianity" in that post. Religion has existed as long as moralism has. They're the same thing!

The logic in the second part of your post is a little bit wonky. "It's illegal, so it's wrong" isn't different from "god doesn't want me to do it, so it's wrong".

Steppe Merc

05-29-2005, 20:08

GoreBag

05-29-2005, 20:14

People can be moral without being religous, I assure you. Not saying that you said that they can't, but being religous does not make someone neccasarily moral, or being unreligious doesn't make someone immoral.

Indeed. But really, what purpose does religion serve if not to impose morals? A man who doesn't believe in Jehovah but still acts and thinks like a Nazarene is still a Nazarene.

Byzantine Prince

05-29-2005, 20:16

lol And your Western thought process is revealed. I never said "Christianity" in that post. Religion has existed as long as moralism has. They're the same thing!
I said Christianity because the Platonic influence. Plato lived in a time where Paganism was dominant, which means pretty much anything was moral. Ancient greeks had no morals at all until the philosophers came with their ideas of good and evil.
"The theologians Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and St. Augustine were early Christian exponents of a Platonic perspective. Platonic ideas have had a crucial role in the development of Christian theology and also in medieval Islamic thought"

The logic in the second part of your post is a little bit wonky. "It's illegal, so it's wrong" isn't different from "god doesn't want me to do it, so it's wrong".
You don't know what god wants because he doesn't exist and never has, but the law does exist on a piece of paper and if you don't obey you really pay the concequences in this world, not an imaginery next one.

The Stranger

05-29-2005, 20:25

wooooooooh he has a point. but what about warfare. what's the difference of going to war to slaughter muslims and going to war to get some oil. in the dark ages religion could get people in a frenzy, today it is the socalled wish for freedom and democracy. but who are you to say that your vision is good for everyone. maybe those people don't want to a christ or live in a democratic country. that does not mean that if the situation is so bad that you can't do else than interupt (sp), you shouldn't

GoreBag

05-29-2005, 20:32

I said Christianity because the Platonic influence. Plato lived in a time where Paganism was dominant, which means pretty much anything was moral. Ancient greeks had no morals at all until the philosophers came with their ideas of good and evil.
"The theologians Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and St. Augustine were early Christian exponents of a Platonic perspective. Platonic ideas have had a crucial role in the development of Christian theology and also in medieval Islamic thought"

You don't know what god wants because he doesn't exist and never has, but the law does exist on a piece of paper and if you don't obey you really pay the concequences in this world, not an imaginery next one.

How do you know they had no morals at all? There were still taboos and faux-pas within Pagan Greek society, perhaps more than other forms of Paganism because of the complex religious structure built up around their beliefs.

A written is a written law, regardless of "who" wrote it. The effect is the same: you obey the law or face certain penalties. Whether or not these penalties makes no difference. The idea behind the law is to discourage. By obeying a secular law, you are still accepting an imposed view of what is right and what is wrong.

Byzantine Prince

05-29-2005, 21:01

By obeying a secular law, you are still accepting an imposed view of what is right and what is wrong.
Then apparently you don't know what secular means.

Secular: not concerned with religion: not controlled by a religious body or concerned with religious or spiritual matters

There you have it. Ancient Greece having some taboos like anal sex between men(for exaple) doesn't make Plato's morality connected to any religious thought.

Anyways if you disagree so wholeheartidly with every thing I have to say then don't respond. The conversation is getting old and quite boring now.

The Stranger

05-29-2005, 21:22

ease BP chill out.

Steppe Merc

05-29-2005, 22:13

Ancient Greeks certaintly had morals before Plato, just as all people did from that time period Scythians to the Celts, regardless of their religon. People before and after also had morals.
Morals certiantly might not have been the same as today, but every society has a set of what's wrong or right, which may or may not be related to their religous beliefs.

By obeying a secular law, you are still accepting an imposed view of what is right and what is wrong.
Agreed. By not doing drugs for the sole purpose that it is illegal, or not screwing a prostitute because it is illegal, or not cheating on a test because it is not allowed in school, you are accepting society's views that they are "bad".

Indeed. But really, what purpose does religion serve if not to impose morals? A man who doesn't believe in Jehovah but still acts and thinks like a Nazarene is still a Nazarene.
It may have some religons purpose perhaps, but a relgion does not always impose morals, even on people regarded as pious. Crusaders and Jihadists were not always spring flowers. Some religous warriors were good, or at least tried to be, but being religous does not always make one into a wonderful moral person.

Big King Sanctaphrax

05-29-2005, 22:17

By not doing drugs for the sole purpose that it is illegal, or not screwing a prostitute because it is illegal, or not cheating on a test because it is not allowed in school, you are accepting society's views that they are "bad".

No you're not. You might just not want to get punished.

Steppe Merc

05-30-2005, 00:16

OK, good point. ~;)

Byzantine Prince

05-30-2005, 00:51

No you're not. You might just not want to get punished.
And you would get punished because drugs are bad for your health and they are addictive. I don't need morality to figure that out. You pro-moralists are stretching it.

Steppe Merc

05-30-2005, 01:00

And you would get punished because drugs are bad for your health and they are addictive. I don't need morality to figure that out. You pro-moralists are stretching it.
Pro moralists? ~:confused:
Sorry, not all illegal drugs are addictive, and a lot of legal things are just as bad for your health. It's because the government knows that the pharmecutical and tabacco and alchol companies that they get money from wouldn't be able to compete with other drugs.
I don't want to turn this into a drug agrument. It was a bad example, and I appologize. But don't say that the government care about the people, cause then it would outlaw cigaretes and alcohol as well, as well as never starting any wars.

And by outlawing drugs, they are attempting to enforce their morals on the people, who should not have to follow those morals if they choose not too. As Big King pointed out, even though someone doesn't do drugs, they might not agree that those drugs are neccasiarily immoral. However, that is the purpose of those particular laws: to impose the government's morality on the people.

Uesugi Kenshin

05-30-2005, 04:02

All drugs no matter how addictive they are seriously affect your mental health. Therefore taking recreational drugs (any drug not used when told to by a doctor) will mess up the chemical balance in your brain and can leave you very out of it and messed up. I for one highly value my mind the way it is, clear. So I will not take alcohol or any other drug because when somebody is not sober they tend to do stupid stuff. The laws and their penalties are a secondary incentive to not take drugs.

Morals have always been around, they have just been in different forms. They have been around with or without religion. Even immoral people have some morals and moral people can lack certain morals, even the religious ones. For example my Grandfather on my mother's side was out having an affair with my current step-grandmother while my Grandmother was in a hospital dying of lung cancer. He took a trip to Florida with my step-grandmother when he knew his wife was dying. He is a devout Roman Catholic. Chrisitan morals win again.

The Stranger

05-30-2005, 14:26

wow we're miles of topic

Steppe Merc

05-30-2005, 16:22

Well I apologize. My point was that certaint laws attempt to enforce morality just as much as religous beliefs do.

Byzantine Prince

05-30-2005, 18:13

Laws are not there to protect moral fabric of society. Laws are there to protect PEOPLE from harm. Look at gay rights, abortion, freedom of speach. All would be null and punishable by death if we lived ina theocracy. Look at Iran, perfect example of what a completely Christian state would be like.

Society is formed so that everyone can prosper and live peacefully in hapiness and laws are why that's even possible. Without laws, with just morals, we'll be back in the dark ages where people were hung for saying there's no god or that the Earth is round(I know, how christian of them).

Steppe Merc

05-30-2005, 18:20

Sorry, not all laws are there to protect people. Gambling anyone? How is that to protect anyone? Prosititution? People would be more protected if it was legal...
I won't add in drugs again, but many laws are only there to inforce the leader's morality onto the people. Not all of them are bad (outlawing animal sacrifice is good, even if it is based on certaint morals), but the fact is that some laws are indeed morality based.

Byzantine Prince

05-30-2005, 18:34

Again you misconcive this. Prostitution is illigal because for one thing it spreads deseases, for another human society has a certain structure, which means two people have to get married eventually and create a family. How does prostitution fit into this?

Gambling is not illigal everywhere, I heard Las Vegas is doing pretty well. Well one reason to keep it illigal where you live is that gambling is addictive and destroys communities, nothing to do wht good and evil as far as I can see. I can't even find anything in the Bible that makes gambling immoral anyways so where did that idea spring in your head?

(outlawing animal sacrifice is good, even if it is based on certaint morals)
Animal sacrifice being illigal is plain stupid. We kill billions if not trillions of animals for our own consuption every year. What's the difference, oh wait I know, one is based on the so called morality of "other" religions. :laugh:

Let me repost something to clarify things even more:

Laws are not there to protect moral fabric of society. Laws are there to protect PEOPLE from harm. Look at gay rights, abortion, freedom of speach. All would be null and punishable by death if we lived ina theocracy. Look at Iran, perfect example of what a completely Christian state would be like.

The Stranger

05-30-2005, 18:58

don't get mad BP. it looks like you fell oy your chair out of anger

Steppe Merc

05-30-2005, 19:55

Again I disagree strongly. Prostitution, if legal would be far safer, as they could check and work with the prostitutes to prevent diseases. Gambling is illegal only due to morality. It only adversley harms a few, and that is there fault. Besides, if someone is a gambling addict, they'll do it anyway.

Animal sacrifice being illigal is plain stupid. We kill billions if not trillions of animals for our own consuption every year. What's the difference, oh wait I know, one is based on the so called morality of "other" religions.
Perhaps. But anyone that sacrifices animals in this day and age is a monster, just as anyone that tortures animals for fun. Is my view of this based on my Christian upbriging? Probably. It doesn't mean that the law isn't neccasary, or that the law, like other is based on morality.

And I saw your post the first time, thank you.

Byzantine Prince

05-30-2005, 20:06

Prostitution, if legal would be far safer, as they could check and work with the prostitutes to prevent diseases.
Hypothetically. What about my family, societal structure argument?

Is my view of this based on my Christian upbriging? Probably. It doesn't mean that the law isn't neccasary, or that the law, like other is based on morality.
The reason the law is there is because of those insane PETA animal rights lobbyists not for any other reason. Again that goes back to human rights, except PETA people think animals are equal to man and therefore we have this stupid law.

Uesugi Kenshin

05-31-2005, 03:25

Prostitution is not illegal everywhere...

The reason it is illegal almost everywhere may originally be because of religious morals, but it also spreads disease and promotes the subjagation of (mostly) women.

The Stranger

05-31-2005, 08:26

just as using drugs............ HOLLAND

The Stranger

05-31-2005, 08:34

Perhaps. But anyone that sacrifices animals in this day and age is a monster, just as anyone that tortures animals for fun. Is my view of this based on my Christian upbriging? Probably. It doesn't mean that the law isn't neccasary, or that the law, like other is based on morality.

And I saw your post the first time, thank you.

what are meaning when you say sacrifise. OK when you torture a animal for fun you should really question yourself who's the beast. but (if you're not a vegetarian) you also eat meat. ok some things they do are wrong. but why are you a monster when you provide food for millions. if you were starving you wouldn't care where the meat came from. it just have to come.

there is no big diffrence between slaughtering a cow with millions at a time or just one. People say it's terrible what they do to these animals. but in the meen (sp?) they just sit in their villas and eat kaviar. while people on the other side of the globe (or just downtown) are starving. and what are those christians doing for those. yeah anual fundraising. but nobody has the guts to go there and see for theirself.

Steppe Merc

05-31-2005, 12:56

what are meaning when you say sacrifise. OK when you torture a animal for fun you should really question yourself who's the beast. but (if you're not a vegetarian) you also eat meat. ok some things they do are wrong. but why are you a monster when you provide food for millions. if you were starving you wouldn't care where the meat came from. it just have to come.
I was talking about torturing, or like gutting a cow for some sort of religous ceromony. Yes I do eat meat, doesn't mean we should act cruelly towards them before we eat them, or hurt them if we don't have to eat them.

Prostitution is not illegal everywhere...

The reason it is illegal almost everywhere may originally be because of religious morals, but it also spreads disease and promotes the subjagation of (mostly) women.
Wouldn't if it's legal, diseases become more controlable? Like only giving prostitution licences to disease free people?
But yeah, my point was it's illegal mainly do to morals.

The reason the law is there is because of those insane PETA animal rights lobbyists not for any other reason. Again that goes back to human rights, except PETA people think animals are equal to man and therefore we have this stupid law.
Many animals I know are far kinder and I love them far more than a number humans I know...
And it is not a bad thing to protect animals. It is a good thing, as we should protect them, not torture them.
And animal sacrifice (as in slaughtering a chicken for some sort of god) was outlawed in the US before PETA, I believe...