Thread: President's Speech

Originally Posted by Hirlau

The Bible can be considered a tool or better yet a "source"; Lets give the Bible it's due.

As long as you give the exact same due to the other religious books and legends which were the "source" of morals in the exact same way for my good friends who are muslim, buddhists, confucians, shintoists, etc...

Though if I were you I wouldn't be postulating that all morals are ultimately rooted in religion. The reverse is just as plausible.

Originally Posted by gugi

As long as you give the exact same due to the other religious books and legends which were the "source" of morals in the exact same way for my good friends who are muslim, buddhists, confucians, shintoists, etc...

Though if I were you I wouldn't be postulating that all morals are ultimately rooted in religion. The reverse is just as plausible.

First, I have friends of various religions, not many but a few. I don't solely back or support any one religion. Based upon what little knowledge that I have in religion of all types, I feel that all of them are based in the goodness of mankind. Sadly often, each is abused.

Second, I'll tread easy here, dealing with a Moderator. I looked up your word "postulating" to understand it. Sorry , I'm a simple man, of simple words Gugi. My post, directed at Bruno, was not to suggest that ALL morals stem from religion. It was to remind Bruno the importance that the Bible has likely played in his life, prior to being a Christian. Bruno, I'm sure, will correct me if he feels I need it.

Thank you though, Gugi, I will try hard not to postulate on anything; since I'm not an expert on anything.

@Hirlau: First it doesn't matter if I'm moderator or not, you can say to me the exact same thing you'd say to any other member, in fact more, as I don't care whether somebody disagrees with me - if they have good argument I like to hear it, if they don't I simply ignore it.

My point was that while what you were saying about Bruno coming from a nominally Christian culture, doesn't mean that the Christianity part has anything to do with the morality that Bruno has got from that culture. Christianity is only moral only if you pick the moral bits out of the Bible and discard the immoral ones. The same is true with any other culture/religion. Which means that the morality has absolutely nothing to do with religion. If you want to understand where it comes from you have to figure out where does the picking and choosing specific bits comes from. Obviously throughout history people have been picking different bits as being the moral ones, and the moral values of our current society have little to do with the moral values of the society based on the same book and religious culture but from say few hundred years back. So I'd say it's a fairly safe extrapolation that our grandchildren will have different morals than ours, as well. Many of them will be reading the same Bible and will simply pick different bits and discard others.

'General goodness of the mankind' is probably a reasonable substitute for 'morality', but doesn't provide much explanation. The evolution of what is moral, however, means there is something more than this.

To postulate something means to just assume/state it being true without any evidence whatsoever. Like the OP stating that there is something inherently virtuous in christianity.




Interestingly though nobody seems to be interested in the first paragraph of the OP, i.e. consolidation of government. To me it seems that it's just the natural process of our human development. The increased connectivity with others invariably leads to the need of regulation of those interactions. Like the creation of USA - do you think that without a central/federal government the states would be able to have the same level of close interaction as they currently do? EU is a prime example of how monetary integration without a corresponding fiscal union is a recipe for disaster. All those treaties countries sign among themselves are nothing more than the most basic (and rather ineffective) form of shared/common governance.

Originally Posted by gugi

Interestingly though nobody seems to be interested in the first paragraph of the OP, i.e. consolidation of government. To me it seems that it's just the natural process of our human development. The increased connectivity with others invariably leads to the need of regulation of those interactions. Like the creation of USA - do you think that without a central/federal government the states would be able to have the same level of close interaction as they currently do? EU is a prime example of how monetary integration without a corresponding fiscal union is a recipe for disaster. All those treaties countries sign among themselves are nothing more than the most basic (and rather ineffective) form of shared/common governance.

That's probably because we pick and choose what to respond to and discard the rest.

Originally Posted by gugi;978723 [COLOR="#B22222"

.............'General goodness of the mankind' is probably a reasonable substitute for 'morality', but doesn't provide much explanation. The evolution of what is moral, however, means there is something more than this.....................[/COLOR]
.

General goodness & morality are taught, we are not born with these. With that said, there must been a source for us to pick and choose from. The Bible & the Koran (The only two sources that I can think of, since I'm not educated in religious writtings) are leading "sources" of religion. We are given moral standards from each, to interpret as we choose; so my Friend, religion (of ALL kinds) and morality walk hand in hand.

Originally Posted by Hirlau

General goodness & morality are taught, we are not born with these. With that said, there must been a source for us to pick and choose from. The Bible & the Koran (The only two sources that I can think of, since I'm not educated in religious writtings) are leading "sources" of religion. We are given moral standards from each, to interpret as we choose; so my Friend, religion (of ALL kinds) and morality walk hand in hand.

I almost agree with you...except...there are many philosophies that are not religion...
Buddhism comes to mind as a big one...a lot would say that it is, in fact, a religion...but the Dali Lama doesn't seem to agree:

“I have come to the conclusion that whether or not a person is a religious believer does not matter much. Far more important is that they be a good human being.”. . . “That is why I sometimes say that religion is something we can perhaps do without.”

Originally Posted by Hirlau

so my Friend, religion (of ALL kinds) and morality walk hand in hand.

Only in the same way as it walks hand in hand with bowel movements. At the risk of using few more fancy words correlation is very different from causality.

As far as nature vs. nurture goes, I'm afraid you're taking on yet another chicken vs. egg issue - the evidence is that either can be the dominant one. So it's better to stay away from absolutizations.

And we can take the logic of the morality and religion one step further. Who is a better human being, one who is moral because a religion tells them to be, or one who does because they think it's the better way to be?

Originally Posted by gugi

Only in the same way as it walks hand in hand with bowel movements. At the risk of using few more fancy words correlation is very different from causality.

As far as nature vs. nurture goes, I'm afraid you're taking on yet another chicken vs. egg issue - the evidence is that either can be the dominant one. So it's better to stay away from absolutizations.

And we can take the logic of the morality and religion one step further. Who is a better human being, one who is moral because a religion tells them to be, or one who does because they think it's the better way to be?

I was not looking to upset you Gugi, it appears that I may have (your reference to bowel movements); I am sorry if I did, this is not my intent.
I am sad to say that the only thing that I have experienced that is absolute, is death.
Religion and it's relation to morality is obviously a conversation we cannot agree on.

I will leave this topic and maybe we will meet on the fields of honing in the future; that is an area that you can no doubt teach me something.

I'm not upset at all, not sure why you think I am. Bowel movements are good, I'd imagine the lack of them is one of the worst way to die.

I'm sorry to read that your disagreement with me is causing you to leave the thread. I'd much rather prefer to hear your arguments for disagreeing with me. I tried to keep my arguments pretty logical, but it's quite likely that I haven't expressed them all that well. I could write them down in math, but I'm afraid for most people that'll make it harder not easier....

Originally Posted by AFDavis11

If you are living with a woman that you are not married to, you are likely getting a lot more than the rest of us!

Originally Posted by ryanjewell

trying to remain gentlemanly in explaining this...
he means your love life is probably better than the married gentlemen on the board

Oh! I see...

Originally Posted by gugi

EU is a prime example of how monetary integration without a corresponding fiscal union is a recipe for disaster. All those treaties countries sign among themselves are nothing more than the most basic (and rather ineffective) form of shared/common governance.

More or less... only 17 of the 27 members of the EU share a common currency. Of course, the integration process through monetary union without fiscal union is proving itself a recipe for disaster. But only up to a point... The problem over here is the sheer lack of competence, political creativity and courage that have served the EEC, the EC and the EU so well over the years. The main goal of these institutions was to keep the peace of the continent. And since we haven't had a big war since 1945 I consider the EU a success. Even now.