Re: New Pope elected! Francis I from Argentina.
Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 6:28 pm
Well when dealing with a complex subject like this where every paragraph turns into a back and forth it depends how lazy I am, generally I do try and split it down in quote mrks but sometimes... anyway that's kinda irrelevant.
- Why do you hold religion (a fascist organization) to a higher stnadard than representative governments?
Because religion claims to be the answer to all the moral questions, or at least a lot of the religions tend to hold themselves up as the answer to a lot of the questions if you object to the broader generalisation. If I claim to be an expert on, say, the Miami Dolphins, then my knowledge of the Miami Dolphins should be judged by a higher standard than someone that say they only occasionally watch football on TV.
- I do understand where you've critcized governments. It doesn't have the same vehemence and I certainly don't see any other posts on your critiques. How did the UK handle itself prior to World War II, for example? You were quick to point out the Catholic Church's failings in this thread, which had nothing to do with Nazi Germany. Again, the answer is that you hate religion. And that's fine. I'm fine that you hate religion. But you're masquerading your hatred of religion with this idea that it should be held to a much higher (not higher, much higher) standard than governments.
As above, also I engage with religious threads more than I do with political ones, because I tend to do my political arguing in other places, more often than not in the really real world. Here I am a minority part of a forum that is primarily American, and then after that spread throughout the world. If I want to chat UK politics I will either do that in person, or if I do do it online I will do it in UK based forums where everyone is more informed about the individual issues within the appropriate cultural context (not to say Americans don't know politics, but generally Americans don't know British politics beyond the surface issues, just like the Brits don't know American (or German, or Chinese, or whatever) politics below the surface issues, with the obvious exception of international politics geeks)
- What difference does it make if you need government and don't need religion? You don't need governments to kill Native Americans right? I mean, this is pretty straightforward stuff my man.
The difference comes from the fact that if there is something that is easily corruptible and harmful, but we need that thing, then that's worth spending serious time and energy on improving and trying to make the best version of itself possible. If there's something that's easily corruptible and harmful, but we don't need that thing, then unless that thing can be shown to bring great amounts of good that couldn't be brought by other means (see the answer to the last question too here), then it is more beneficial to society to just scrap it and use those other avenues to achieve the same result, whilst closing off the opportunities for corruption and harm that don't need to be there.
- I definitely do not understand your position as you've indicated twice that I've misinterpreted your position.
We'll get there, and for the record if I misrepresent your position at any point feel free to flag it up as despite having fairly strong opinions on things my intention on all threads is to have an honest debate unless my counterpart is obviously either trolling or not being honest themselves (neither of which I'm accusing you of)
- There is nothing given by religion that is not given by secular societies. So?
That point was to illustrate why religion is an optional extra, rather than a necessity. If society can get something from 2 sources, then a proper evaluation should be done to calculate which of those sources is most efficient, that is to say has the lowest cost to society per unit of benefit (whatever that is). I think religion has a low efficiency value, because of the amount of time, money and energy that must be devoted to it over and above good works, whereas doing good works for the sake of doing good works does not carry this fixed cost in time, energy and money, and much, much more of the resources expended actually go towards real benefits.
- Why do you hold religion (a fascist organization) to a higher stnadard than representative governments?
Because religion claims to be the answer to all the moral questions, or at least a lot of the religions tend to hold themselves up as the answer to a lot of the questions if you object to the broader generalisation. If I claim to be an expert on, say, the Miami Dolphins, then my knowledge of the Miami Dolphins should be judged by a higher standard than someone that say they only occasionally watch football on TV.
- I do understand where you've critcized governments. It doesn't have the same vehemence and I certainly don't see any other posts on your critiques. How did the UK handle itself prior to World War II, for example? You were quick to point out the Catholic Church's failings in this thread, which had nothing to do with Nazi Germany. Again, the answer is that you hate religion. And that's fine. I'm fine that you hate religion. But you're masquerading your hatred of religion with this idea that it should be held to a much higher (not higher, much higher) standard than governments.
As above, also I engage with religious threads more than I do with political ones, because I tend to do my political arguing in other places, more often than not in the really real world. Here I am a minority part of a forum that is primarily American, and then after that spread throughout the world. If I want to chat UK politics I will either do that in person, or if I do do it online I will do it in UK based forums where everyone is more informed about the individual issues within the appropriate cultural context (not to say Americans don't know politics, but generally Americans don't know British politics beyond the surface issues, just like the Brits don't know American (or German, or Chinese, or whatever) politics below the surface issues, with the obvious exception of international politics geeks)
- What difference does it make if you need government and don't need religion? You don't need governments to kill Native Americans right? I mean, this is pretty straightforward stuff my man.
The difference comes from the fact that if there is something that is easily corruptible and harmful, but we need that thing, then that's worth spending serious time and energy on improving and trying to make the best version of itself possible. If there's something that's easily corruptible and harmful, but we don't need that thing, then unless that thing can be shown to bring great amounts of good that couldn't be brought by other means (see the answer to the last question too here), then it is more beneficial to society to just scrap it and use those other avenues to achieve the same result, whilst closing off the opportunities for corruption and harm that don't need to be there.
- I definitely do not understand your position as you've indicated twice that I've misinterpreted your position.
We'll get there, and for the record if I misrepresent your position at any point feel free to flag it up as despite having fairly strong opinions on things my intention on all threads is to have an honest debate unless my counterpart is obviously either trolling or not being honest themselves (neither of which I'm accusing you of)
- There is nothing given by religion that is not given by secular societies. So?
That point was to illustrate why religion is an optional extra, rather than a necessity. If society can get something from 2 sources, then a proper evaluation should be done to calculate which of those sources is most efficient, that is to say has the lowest cost to society per unit of benefit (whatever that is). I think religion has a low efficiency value, because of the amount of time, money and energy that must be devoted to it over and above good works, whereas doing good works for the sake of doing good works does not carry this fixed cost in time, energy and money, and much, much more of the resources expended actually go towards real benefits.