marriage and government

Here's another one: why can't you walk down the street buck naked? What's wrong with that?

I'm serious: if we're animals, what's wrong with nudity? You don't see clothes on any other animal do you?

What would be so bad if your kids saw Mr. and Mrs. Johnson (no pun intended of course) working on the yard in their birthday suits?

Isn't this just another silly religious tradition?
 
Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

Here's another one: why can't you walk down the street buck naked? What's wrong with that?

I'm serious: if we're animals, what's wrong with nudity? You don't see clothes on any other animal do you?

What would be so bad if your kids saw Mr. and Mrs. Johnson working on the yard in their birthday suits?

Isn't this just another silly religious tradition?
More...

They do that in a lot of cultures, just not the Western ones. One of the great things I love about Amsterdam is that showing posters of naked people in the streets is very accepted.

It is the "puritan" influence in American culture that has caused a very strict and conservative view of sexuality.

You can also thank some forms of organized religion for that -- such as the Catholic one.
 
>If one will not answer to God, then they must still
>answer to the state. Whether one does not kill because
>he is afraid of punishment from his or her god or whether
>he or she fears the repurcussions of his or her actions
>when viewed by the state, morality is then reduced to
>a byproduct from compliance through the submission
>to authority.

My goodness, how does someones thinking get so twisted...

So if I'm not afraid of "punishment" from "God", nor fear the repurcussions from the state, as an athiest I'm just going to go around killing? You must be kidding me.

How about just doing what's best for your fellow human beings? That doesn't require me to believe in god or respect the state -- and there is no conflict there with my athiestic beliefs.

Frankly, I have been treated much, much kinder and with more compassion in my life from my athiest friends (I wasn't always one) than from my christian/jewish friends.

And to me there's no mystery why.

JB
 
>What would be so bad if your kids saw Mr. and Mrs. Johnson
>(no pun intended of course) working on the yard in their
>birthday suits?

>Isn't this just another silly religious tradition?

Yes

JB
 
Quote from Turok:

So if I'm not afraid of "punishment" from "God", nor fear the repurcussions from the state, as an athiest I'm just going to go around killing? You must be kidding me.
More...

I did not say that.

People will do whatever they believe best serves them, their immediate family and their "pack." If there weren't any laws, what would stop you from stealing from a store when you knew you could get away with it? Because it "felt wrong?" Why does it "feel wrong?"

What is good and what is bad in a society or culture absent of both god and state?
 
>I did not say that.

Uh...we'll get back to that.

>People will do whatever they believe best serves
>them, their immediate family and their "pack."

That's what people with no morals do. (and don't confuse morals with religious ethics).

>If there weren't any laws, what would stop you
>from stealing from a store when you knew you
>could get away with it?

My morals.

>Because it "felt wrong?" Why does it "feel wrong?"

If feels wrong because stealing from my fellow man is not in his best interest (and him stealing from me is not in mine) and baring special circumstances that doesn't fit my morals.

>What is good and what is bad in a society or
>culture absent of both god and state?

and we return:
>I did not say that.

It sounds like from your last two lines that you ARE saying exactly that (in principle). You are saying there is no third moral compass.

I disagree, and in fact I maintain that the third (internal) compass is the strongest. Most have conditioned it to be subservient to the other two and that is where I feel religion especially has served humans poorly.

JB
 
Quote from Turok:

>If one will not answer to God, then they must still
>answer to the state. Whether one does not kill because
>he is afraid of punishment from his or her god or whether
>he or she fears the repurcussions of his or her actions
>when viewed by the state, morality is then reduced to
>a byproduct from compliance through the submission
>to authority.

My goodness, how does someones thinking get so twisted...

So if I'm not afraid of "punishment" from "God", nor fear the repurcussions from the state, as an athiest I'm just going to go around killing? You must be kidding me.

How about just doing what's best for your fellow human beings? That doesn't require me to believe in god or respect the state -- and there is no conflict there with my athiestic beliefs.

Frankly, I have been treated much, much kinder and with more compassion in my life from my athiest friends (I wasn't always one) than from my christian/jewish friends.

And to me there's no mystery why.

JB
More...

Look if you wonder why I'm a little upset: look at what GG called the person I have devoted my life to. He did it w/o any foundation or justification - he just flippantly called him an idiot. And you ask why I have a twisted perception of humanists?

Anyway, your argument above isn't where I was going. I am not saying that one cannot come to ethical and moral decision points w/o God. I am saying that, from what I've seen, humanists are not willing to come to any (or hardly any) ethical and moral decision points in regards to the family.

I've known a number of humanists and it is very difficult for them to come to any kind of moral decisions. Let me ask a question: your and GG's new America would allow communes, public nudity, polygamy between mutually consenting adults, right? As long as it feels good, right?

To be honest I don't see where you have any lines whatsoever between consenting adults! If I'm wrong, then some of the humanists on this board set me straight.

And, by the way, why do I care what you do "in your bedroom"?? Kids. Another coincidence: the research shows that kids do best with a stable home life.

Hmmm. That sounds a lot like those annoying traditional religious idiots, doesn't it?
 
Quote from Turok:

[BI disagree, and in fact I maintain that the third (internal) compass is the strongest. Most have conditioned it to be subservient to the other two and that is where I feel religion especially has served humans poorly.

JB [/B]
More...

Regardless of any "innate" feelings, what you "feel" and "think" best serve you or your fellow man has been passed down by your parents, their parents, etc. However, there is no "innate" morality in anyone. Nobody is born with a basic moral compass -- that is created through environment, upbringing and circumstance.

If there is no god or state, and you and I are in a dark alley and you've got a bunch of 100's sticking out of your pocket, why is it "bad" for me to kill you and take your money? Now, I am not saying I would do that by any means, but where does the "wrongness" from that action come from?
 
In the eyes of an atheist, I don't quite understand why they place any significance in life. Once you kill god, you kill purpose. There is no purpose without god -- there is no order once the chaos drowns the universe in entropy.

I've heard humanist arguments that there is still purpose and that leading the good life and contributing helps society. However, society itself eventually dies and then there is nothing left except a floating rock in space about to surf the oceans of plasma from a raging expanding sun about to go nova.

In the end, atheism leaves nothing but a gapping emptiness and void in everything since the very nature of atheism concedes to the fact that all things end in totality.

Atheism destroys all purpose and reduces everything to the most common element of pure statistical chance.

A lot of people seem to love this style of living.
 
Quote from aphexcoil:

In the eyes of an atheist, I don't quite understand why they place any significance in life.
More...

Here's some additional evidence for your statement: Ever noticed how the great majority of theists are pro-life and the great majority of non-theists are not? If life is in the womb, it's not significant.

Significant - that's a perfect word for it....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top