|
Post by wdmundt on May 28, 2008 9:01:13 GMT -4
In the "Ethical reasons for having faked it," Jason posted this:
I didn't want to swamp that interesting thread with a completely different argument, so I thought I'd see if anyone would want to join it here.
I guess what I'd want first is for a better explanation of this idea from Jason. I personally find it preposterous. Atheists don't have dreams? Atheists don't want to protect the country? Atheists don't believe in personal sacrifice? Is that really what you are getting at?
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on May 28, 2008 10:27:57 GMT -4
In the "Ethical reasons for having faked it," Jason posted this: I didn't want to swamp that interesting thread with a completely different argument, so I thought I'd see if anyone would want to join it here. I guess what I'd want first is for a better explanation of this idea from Jason. I personally find it preposterous. Atheists don't have dreams? Atheists don't want to protect the country? Atheists don't believe in personal sacrifice? Is that really what you are getting at? I don't see where he says anything about atheists; he says something about society being irreligious. In any event, I don't agree with that part of the statement. Every society I've ever come across seems to have a collective shared belief system. They just aren't necessarily traditional religions.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on May 28, 2008 10:32:26 GMT -4
I thought I'd see if anyone would want to join it here. Only long enough to say I saw Jason's comment, considered the source, and decided to ignore it... It's either that or start a flame war and I think that's what jason really wants otherwise why would he say "stuff" like that.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on May 28, 2008 10:37:53 GMT -4
I don't doubt that Jason believes his statement to be true. It is a commonly held (mis)conception that being "spiritual" makes one better and not being "spiritual" makes a person worse. Atheists are among the least-trusted groups, mostly because people equate atheism with satanism or other such nonsense.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 28, 2008 11:01:36 GMT -4
Yes. I was arguing that all you atheists are evil, evil people that have no desires apart from tormenting us religious folk. Of course that's what I must have meant, right?
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on May 28, 2008 15:31:03 GMT -4
Yes. I was arguing that all you atheists are evil, evil people that have no desires apart from tormenting us religious folk. Of course that's what I must have meant, right? I didn't know that you knew me that well. ;D As to the thread, I don't think 'religion' has anything to do with having dreams, seeking challenges, being adventurous...but who knows. There would have to be a lot of analytical data and history to process in order to answer it perhaps. I think every generation would see the new one as being inferior to their own - "Kids today...", "In my day...", "When I was young...", "Years ago we...", "In this day and age...", "There's no respect..." blah blah blah Were the kids in Rebel Without A Cause that different from kids today?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 28, 2008 18:08:37 GMT -4
Well, what I was actually trying to get at was something similar to what Count Zero said on the original thread when he quoted Kennedy - that we seem to live in a comfortable, detached, cynical society that is not optimistic and that seems risk adverse to the point of believing that putting a few willing volunteers at risk for a tremendous opportunity like walking on the moon would be unethical. My thoughts tended to irreligiousity as a possible contributing factor for some of those negative trends primarily because religion tends to place value in sacrifice for a cause greater than oneself, and secondarily because our society seems less religious than it was in the era the Apollo missions were being accomplished in.
I wasn't really saying anything about Athiests at all. Irreligious and atheist are not absolute synonymns in my book. Certainly I wasn't saying anything about anyone not having dreams and not being willing to defend the country.
I was wondering if the adversity to risk and self-sacrifice as exemplified by the original argument might be related to less belief in a traditional religious system that values self sacrifice and includes an afterlife. Our society certainly appears to me to have become more risk-adverse at the same time we have become less religious, and I wonder if there's some correlation there. "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." Christianity in particular extolls the virtues of a selfless life of sacrifice. As Christianity is less and less valued in our society I can't help but see that this sort of selflessness is also less respected, and it doesn't seem to me to be a coincidence.
Don't be so quick to see my thoughts as an attack. I am in no way deriding atheism - I am instead wondering at the consequences of a loss of religiousity, which is not quite the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on May 28, 2008 18:15:47 GMT -4
religion tends to place value in sacrifice for a cause greater than oneself Which is also how 19 hijackers justified flying airplanes into buildings.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 28, 2008 18:28:32 GMT -4
religion tends to place value in sacrifice for a cause greater than oneself Which is also how 19 hijackers justified flying airplanes into buildings. Which shows that a belief in self-sacrifice for a greater cause can be either moral or immoral depending on the cause and actions involved.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on May 28, 2008 18:35:47 GMT -4
Risk adverse? In what way. Aren't wars risky? There are many of them happening right now. Men still work in dangerous occupations. Volunteers are still, well, volunteering in dangerous places all over the world. I would agree that more people are comfortable than ever before, especially here in the West. And more detached too, because it seems all the bad stuff happens 'over there'. In our society, if you can find even a low paying job, you can live a life of leisure compared with most of the world. So maybe things have indeed become, too easy?
I don't see any evidence for this. Were the astronauts and jet pilots doing their thing because of their belief in God?
Not absolute synonymons. I can relax.
I don't see it.
Even though I don't believe in God, I don't understand how that would make me more selfish, or uncaring. Anyone who has a family understands the value of relationships. Anyone who loves understands the need for caring. Anyone who has had close friends who have been sick or died knows what grief and pain is. Almost anyone at least.
Don't be so quick to see my thoughts as an attack. I am in no way deriding atheism - I am instead wondering at the consequences of a loss of religiousity, which is not quite the same thing. You can have ethics and morality without religion, Jason. I still think that you doubt that is truly possible.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on May 28, 2008 18:47:05 GMT -4
I'm not sure that net religiosity has decreased: the overtly religious may be fewer in number, but the nature of their religion has become more extreme and fundamentalist.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 28, 2008 18:58:15 GMT -4
Risk adverse? In what way. Aren't wars risky? There are many of them happening right now. Men still work in dangerous occupations. Volunteers are still, well, volunteering in dangerous places all over the world. I would agree that more people are comfortable than ever before, especially here in the West. And more detached too, because it seems all the bad stuff happens 'over there'. In our society, if you can find even a low paying job, you can live a life of leisure compared with most of the world. So maybe things have indeed become, too easy? You've got what I'm getting at - that the West is more risk-adverse than it used to be. Other parts of the world are more willing to engage in more dangerous behavior in pursuit of opportunity than your typical American or European. You don't see evidence that religion places value in sacrifice, or that our society is less religious than it was in the '60s, or you just don't agree that irreligiousity is a possible contributing factor? No, my thoughts are more about the belief of the society supporting the astronauts than the beliefs of the astronauts themselves. Again, don't see that society is more risk-adverse, don't see it is less religious, or don't see any correlation between being less-religious and more risk-adverse? My point is more that a strong religious commitment tends to make a person or society less selfish and uncaring, not that religion is an essential component to becoming less selfish or uncaring. It's like having the best tool for a job. Not having the best tools doesn't mean you can't do the job - I can use my pocketknife to unscrew things in a pinch if I don't have a screwdriver handy, but having a good tool designed for the job definitely makes the job easier. So if a society as a whole lacks a tool that would make a job easier, you have to wonder if that's why the society no longer does that particular job very much. I have never said that this is the case. In fact I concluded on another thread that you can believe in an objective system of morality without also believing in God.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on May 28, 2008 20:44:58 GMT -4
Okay, okay. I think I get what you're saying. If society doesn't have those values 'embedded' in it, or if those values have decreased - sacrifice, daring etc. - then the chances of individuals taking on some of the adventurous undertakings are lessened. Right?
Perhaps you could show an example of this, where our society decided not to undertake some risky goal as a result of the state of its religious values?
I know this is right out of left field, but... When I was growing up, I always played outside. Always. The only thing I did inside was eat, sleep and watch a little TV. In the winter I would skate. play hocke, tobaggon, have snowball fights, make snow forts. In warmer weather I would play ball, street hockey, football, tennis, soccer... On Saturdays I'd drop in home for a bite to eat at lunchtime and head out again till I had to be home. So, me and my friends were always doing something physical, expending energy, getting sweaty and dirty, getting cuts and scrapes. Most kids don't do this anymore - they are inside, using a joystick, looking at a screen, drinking pop and eating potato chips. Although they can blow up buildings and build empires they don't physically feel any pain, except for being tired or having a sore thumb and droopy eyelids. So, in my day, the experience was more real in the sense that you experienced sensations of touch, tiredness, physical pain, laughs and tears and achievement in victory. Do you think because kids are in such a different environment today, that this will affect the way the think about achieving things later in life? Would they be more liking to be an aviation software designer rather than a fighter pilot?
EDIT: And when I was a kid, we didn't have a car. So we walked a lot, or drove our bikes. Rarely did I take a bus. Nowadays I drive my kids everwhere. I had enough tonight - after driving people to work and school this morning, driving during the day for my job, picking up my daughter at school, picking up my wife at work, making supper, driving my son to and from a sales call (he's selling CUTCO knives) - then when I got home at eight o'clock, my daughter asks me to drive her to her boyfriends house to watch a movie. I said NO, which is rare for my to say. Of course she went to 'mom', who agreed to drive her...
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on May 28, 2008 21:46:03 GMT -4
Risk adverse? In what way. Aren't wars risky? There are many of them happening right now. Men still work in dangerous occupations. Volunteers are still, well, volunteering in dangerous places all over the world. I would agree that more people are comfortable than ever before, especially here in the West. And more detached too, because it seems all the bad stuff happens 'over there'. In our society, if you can find even a low paying job, you can live a life of leisure compared with most of the world. So maybe things have indeed become, too easy? You've got what I'm getting at - that the West is more risk-adverse than it used to be. Other parts of the world are more willing to engage in more dangerous behavior in pursuit of opportunity than your typical American or European. Stop it guys. Stop it. Stop it. I recently had a bad experience reading something that must have used the non-term "risk adverse" about a thousand times. It's "risk averse." Not "risk adverse." Risk averse. Averse, averse, averse. No adverse. Averse. Sorry, it was a really bad experience.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on May 28, 2008 22:53:02 GMT -4
Well, Jason said it , not me. I've never used the term, I didn't take English in university. Matter of fact, I didn't even finish high school. When I was 16, it was either keep beating up the drunk stepdad or leave home and get a job. Luckily, I loved reading so my education continues to this day. Jason is bad. ;D EDIT: Okay, it seems like I did use the term - but only because I was following and quoting sort of what Jason said.
|
|