Philosophy Discussion Forums

Really Dark Matter? Can you not engage even the tiniest amount? Would it really be so bad?
Fires spread, or can spread. I have a wife and child, do they deserve to suffer needlessly just because I have a religious belief? Then there is poor me, would you really be so heartless as to allow me to willfully damage myself without even some small effort to prevent that?
Not to mention that I have the religious view that all people with religious views should be forced to oppose those views (including my religious view, infinitely).

Eduk wrote: ↑January 26th, 2018, 7:56 pm Really Dark Matter? Can you not engage even the tiniest amount? Would it really be so bad?
Fires spread, or can spread. I have a wife and child, do they deserve to suffer needlessly just because I have a religious belief? Then there is poor me, would you really be so heartless as to allow me to willfully damage myself without even some small effort to prevent that?

Separation of church and state, remember? It's your choice, your (poor) judgment. And if the fire starts on your property and spreads to other properties, it's on you.

Not to mention that I have the religious view that all people with religious views should be forced to oppose those views (including my religious view, infinitely).

This seems to be a rather popular religion nowadays.

Look, I may be using a 2x4 across the side of the head, but I'm not intentionally being mean-spirited. Beliefs have consequences. It is what one believes rather than what one "knows" that determines conduct and dominates personal performances. Again, take for example the recent Women's March and March for Life. The former was hate-filled and vulgar; the latter was relatively ordered and much more disciplined. Why? What is the underlying reason for this huge difference in behavior?

Cool, I guess the Berniebots and pacifists get to decrease their Federal taxes by 16% since they don't believe in military spending. Of course Dark Matter can withhold one hundredth of one percent of the 28% of their taxes that fund abortions, or 28 thousandths of one percent.

Spectrum wrote:

we have no choice but to tolerate religions [even the worst ones] at present but we must start to critique religions [especially evil laden theistic religions] at present and strive to find effective non-religious replacements which theists can accept voluntarily.

I agree, although I'd not phrase it as "accept voluntarily". Too passive in its implication. I'd rather say former theists become more independent of pre-established creeds.

LuckyR wrote: ↑January 27th, 2018, 2:37 am Cool, I guess the Berniebots and pacifists get to decrease their Federal taxes by 16% since they don't believe in military spending. Of course Dark Matter can withhold one hundredth of one percent of the 28% of their taxes that fund abortions, or 28 thousandths of one percent.

Thank you. That illustrates my point. A society has the right, indeed the obligation, to establish standards that are applicable to everyone. As Spock would say, “ The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.” Egalitarianism is the biggest fraud ever perpetuated on man by man.

Dark Matter wrote with referrence to my claim that religions are social institutions:

I don't see how they can be separated. Ideally, the ultimate concern of religion is the harmonization of truth, goodness, and beauty; the sociableness of like-minded individuals is the fallout.

Maybe, although some religions have been shown to be self-serving institutions as happens sometimes even with charitable foundations. For instance the RC Church has been complicit in covering up institutional child abuse. However, I do agree that many if not not most members of congregations are innocent of mal-use of power and attend their church for fellowship with others who follow truth, goodness, and beauty.

The problem of consorting with followers of a pre-set creed is that the individual is overruled by the collective.

Not the collective, but the individual, is where reason is to be found. The collective, in this particular case the congregation, is more easily swayed by common need to conform and reason is too much overlooked.

Belindi wrote: ↑January 27th, 2018, 4:47 am Spectrum wrote:

we have no choice but to tolerate religions [even the worst ones] at present but we must start to critique religions [especially evil laden theistic religions] at present and strive to find effective non-religious replacements which theists can accept voluntarily.

I agree, although I'd not phrase it as "accept voluntarily". Too passive in its implication. I'd rather say former theists become more independent of pre-established creeds.

I didn’t see Spectrum’s comment, probably because I’m tired of the same old tirade. While it may sound good, it’s irrational even buy his own standards. Spectrum insists that religion comes as natural to human beings as breathing, sex, or eating. It follows that his ultimate goal is to dehumanize humans.

Belindi wrote: ↑January 27th, 2018, 5:00 am
The problem of consorting with followers of a pre-set creed is that the individual is overruled by the collective.

Not the collective, but the individual, is where reason is to be found. The collective, in this particular case the congregation, is more easily swayed by common need to conform and reason is too much overlooked.

I agree, but I would add that the individual is also where religion Is to found. It is better to have a religion without a church then a church without a religion.

Dark Matter wrote: ↑January 27th, 2018, 5:14 am It is better to have a religion without a church then a church without a religion.

I couldn't disagree more. If both were to disappear, I would miss the churches much more than the religion, our landscape would be poorer without the churches. I mean in the UK, of course, I can't speak for the US.

Dark Matter wrote: ↑January 27th, 2018, 5:14 am

Belindi wrote: ↑January 27th, 2018, 5:00 am
The problem of consorting with followers of a pre-set creed is that the individual is overruled by the collective.

Not the collective, but the individual, is where reason is to be found. The collective, in this particular case the congregation, is more easily swayed by common need to conform and reason is too much overlooked.

I agree, but I would add that the individual is also where religion Is to found. It is better to have a religion without a church then a church without a religion.

As Albert Tatlock's post (above ) illustrates 'church' can mean a pleasant antique building which is an ornament to many a village, town and city.
'Church' also means a body of people who follow one creed. Please compare 'university' which is similar in its two meanings.
According to the definition of a church as a body of people who all follow the same creed you cannot have a religion without a 'church' .

Albert Tatlock's illustration of what 'church' means shows how you can have a church building without a religion; many nice old church buildings in the UK are desanctified and used as shops, stores, or residences, usually with strict building control regulations.

Religious behaviour applies to individuals, certainly. However insofar as it applies to individuals it applies to collectives of individuals. The individuals in the case of credal religions are behaving very much as components of a collective, in this case their church. Peers together with the authority of the priest do tend to submerge individuality.

What are the alternatives to Egalitarianism dark matter?
For example one person one vote (with some exceptions) is an egalitarian policy.
Now in an ideal world only my vote would count and we could welcome an era of peace and prosperity and fairness. But in an imperfect world only your vote would count and we would welcome back the dark ages.
I mean perhaps my point isn't plain enough. I agree not everyone is equal. But how do we sort out those who we would benefit from allowing to vote and those who do harm by allowing to vote.
In essence if either your vote was the only that counted or my vote was the only that counted how would we prove who should get to count? And would you be content if I got the nod?

Dark Matter wrote: ↑January 26th, 2018, 11:35 am

Greta wrote: ↑January 25th, 2018, 12:26 am
You are overreacting, Dark (may I call you Dark after all this time? lol). Separation of church and state was simply one of their policies and I can't see a problem with that. Of course there should be separation of church and state, and attempts by religions to increase their influence should logically be resisted for the sake of fairness to the general public, many of whom are not religious.

Separation of church and state is fine — up to a point. Freedom of religion is one thing; freedom from religion is quite another. Is forcing people to do things that they are religiously opposed to? Like forcing them as taxpayers to pay for abortions or celebrate gay “marriages”?

Is that like forcing taxpayers to fund religion's lobbying and social activities? Or like forcing single people to fund family payments? Or forcing the rich to help the poor?

The legality of gay MARRIAGES was overdue and I am surprised that you would have such a retrograde attitude towards them - and towards abortions. Surely you, a smart and educated man, understand that early stage foetuses are not human but potential humans (as is each sperm and egg), and not even nearly as sensate and sentient as the animals we routinely kill to eat.

Dark Matter wrote:If I was interested in sanity, I wouldn't be here. :twisted:

:lol: point taken ... but nonetheless, I am a fan of veneers of civility, not because it's ideal, but it is preferable to the alternative - losing that veneer. As I say, people ideally wouldn't need that thin protective layer of civility but it's been key to the functionality of societies thus far. Lose the veneer and you lose cooperation and functionality.

Did you see any difference between the recent Women’s March (representative of the secular mindset) and the March for Life (representative of the religious mindset)?[/quote]

A massive difference. The latter group places the lives of what are effectively invertebrate organisms ahead of those of adult women. The Right to Life Movement is rooted in old patriarchies, where the value of women was often less than that of a farm animal. This flow on from old patriarchal society is entirely about the need for men to control women, even to the point of controlling their bodies and associated reproduction.

There is little care about the lives of foetuses in so called Right to Life movements; they are really about controlling women. This is evidenced by such lobbyists routinely supporting inhumane social policies and religious wars - hardly supportive of "life".

Greta:

I already addressed the first part in my response to Lucky. As for the second part, I think this says it all:

Dark Matter wrote:Time will tell! In the meantime, the much-vaunted secular societies of Europe are being overwhelmed by a much more primitive culture energized by religion. But, hey, if you can't see the gathering storm the best I can do is wish you luck.

It's sometimes best to take the things you read in the news about distant lands with a pinch of salt. My favourite was Steven Emerson of Fox News and his "Birmingham is a Muslims-only city" comments. On the plus side (for Brummies) it's probably put Trump off going there.

Dark Matter wrote:It is better to have a religion without a church then a church without a religion.

Albert Tatlock wrote:I couldn't disagree more. If both were to disappear, I would miss the churches much more than the religion, our landscape would be poorer without the churches. I mean in the UK, of course, I can't speak for the US.

I agree with your disagreement. I love old village churches while not being a Christian in the same sense that I admire stonehenge while not being a druid.