Crow
Crow Person
Perhaps religion should be added to politics as a taboo subject?
How’s your moral compass
- Thread starter Tashyboy
- Start date
Foxholer
Blackballed
Masonic Lodge rules?
chrisd
Major Champion
But religion can be discussed sens .......... yeah ban it!
Last edited:
Foxholer
Blackballed
Well, it only took until post 12, which got a response, which....
bobmac
Major Champion
Imurg
The Grinder Of Pars (Semi Crocked)
Beezerk
Money List Winner
Well that’s the problem isn’t it ?
Robster59
Tour Rookie
True, but God then disappeared in a puff of logic.
Now, it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that something so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
"The argument goes something like this: 'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing.' 'But, says Man, the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.' 'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and vanishes in a puff of logic. 'Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
Voyager EMH
Slipper Wearing Plucker of Pheasants
All religions are works of fiction - the authors' imagination.
Discussing religions is no different from discussing books, films etc.
There are some nice bits in religions and some bad bits.
What's the big deal?
Why get het up about it?
Behave.
Think about your moral compass.
Discussing religions is no different from discussing books, films etc.
There are some nice bits in religions and some bad bits.
What's the big deal?
Why get het up about it?
Behave.
Think about your moral compass.
Swango1980
Well-known member
I don't think morals have fallen into the gutter (generally). I am sure Royals, Politicians, Sportspeople and just celebrities in general have always acted in less than perfect ways throughout time. Just like the rest of us. We are all human. We make mistakes, we make poor judgments, some of us are more selfish than others, etc. Individuals may act in a completely unacceptable way. However, that does not mean everyone associated with that group act in the same way. If anything, you could argue that morals have improved, not declined. The world seemed a more racist, homophobic, sexist, etc place decades ago compared to now (i.e. it was openly acceptable within society, so I am not being critical of people back then, it is just that certain views were not challenged at the time, or as readily).
However, if the public think that standards are slipping within these people we read about, I think they need to take a harder look at how we are getting this information. THE MEDIA. As far as I'm concerned, treat the media with extreme caution. They are not interested in providing us good quality news. Nice positive stories do not heighten emotions of the public, and are only really good as a filler in amongst all the doom and gloom. Journalists want to find the absolute worst in people, even if that means very loose interpretation of a photo, or editing a detailed answer into a misleading headline. Because they know the public will react to these headlines, and judge someone based on a headline or a photo. And, with so many media channels compared to years ago, there is more competition within media to bring the most sensational stories, and providing their own spin to these stories. Furthermore, the internet and social media has allowed million and millions of people to voice their opinions, and react to Memes, many of which do not have a thread of truth.
However, if the public think that standards are slipping within these people we read about, I think they need to take a harder look at how we are getting this information. THE MEDIA. As far as I'm concerned, treat the media with extreme caution. They are not interested in providing us good quality news. Nice positive stories do not heighten emotions of the public, and are only really good as a filler in amongst all the doom and gloom. Journalists want to find the absolute worst in people, even if that means very loose interpretation of a photo, or editing a detailed answer into a misleading headline. Because they know the public will react to these headlines, and judge someone based on a headline or a photo. And, with so many media channels compared to years ago, there is more competition within media to bring the most sensational stories, and providing their own spin to these stories. Furthermore, the internet and social media has allowed million and millions of people to voice their opinions, and react to Memes, many of which do not have a thread of truth.
Last edited by a moderator:
Swinglowandslow
Well-known member
An excellent post
.
As to standards falling, what I find now is a callousness that wasn't there 50 or so years ago.
YMMV, but that has been my experience.
Last edited by a moderator:
stefanovic
Medal Winner
I always end up believing what Richard Dawkins has to say.
Richard Dawkins Quotes About Morality | A-Z Quotes (azquotes.com)
Foxholer
Blackballed
Adams was a true genius! Brain the size of a planet!
Maybe it is protected by law and banning it might not be wise. Article 18 of the UN Charter. Article 9 of the ECHR. The U.K. has signed up to 2 international treaties on it, and has its own domestic law.
Any conversation can be sympathetically managed.
There was a great discussion on here a year or so back about religion that was very civil. Great exchange of views, and acknowledgement of the different beliefs. Yes there was the odd call of sky fairies etc but even the more voluble posters were ‘jerked’ back for being too derogatory.
It can be done, it just needs us all to be adults.
Last edited:
Swango1980
Well-known member
I do enjoy listening to Richard Dawkins. Sam Harris is another good one.
RichA
Well-known member
Without even trying, Voyager manages to summarise the less obnoxious bits of Dawkins without sounding like a pompous twit.
Backache
Assistant Pro
Without wishing to discuss religion I'm not sure that Science is 'wrong' or 'right' It is continually updating theories of how things work and why they work, any part of which can be falsified as knowledge evolves. Scientists can be wrong or right but any part of scientific knowledge is really only provisional, all be it some things are an awful lot more established and certain than others.
I’m not looking to discredit science, only show that science can be wrong too.
Foxholer
Blackballed
H'mm! Perhaps this will change your mind about where that view came from! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth
SwingsitlikeHogan
Major Champion
I have no issues whatsoever with anyone being dismissive or otherwise being anti-religion and making strong statements to that effect. But I am afraid that too often, and what disappoints, is that much that is stated is misrepresentation and in many instances uninformed generalisations that simply do not apply in the present day across the many various traditions and denominations.
Further too many statements are made that seem to display an apparent lack of understanding of how many use their beliefs and faith as a grounding for their life - providing an underpinning of their moral compass…which is what this discussion is all about.
And I am afraid that I do get rather irked when I am told what I must believe, by others who don‘t believe a word of what they are telling me that I must believe.
Further too many statements are made that seem to display an apparent lack of understanding of how many use their beliefs and faith as a grounding for their life - providing an underpinning of their moral compass…which is what this discussion is all about.
And I am afraid that I do get rather irked when I am told what I must believe, by others who don‘t believe a word of what they are telling me that I must believe.
Last edited:
