|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A Deteriorating State :: Morality in the 21st Century | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Is religious fundamentalism bringing our moral system down faster than Agnostic beliefs can rebuild it?
Hundreds of years after Copernicus showed us that the Earth is not the centre of the solar system, and after Darwin showed us that humans aren't the biggest and the baddest; religious fundamentalism is alive and well. But unlike the stored and controlled strains of Small Pox, religious fundamentalism moves unchecked but for the few skeptical minds of an all-too-easily-convinced populace. Is it spreading too fast? Do these clans of outspoken literalists have the power to radically change our world, or has the general public seen through them like a light beam through glass? Earlier tonight, Don Shelby and the WCCO news team reported on a demonstration held at Pequot Lakes High School by the religious organization You Can Run but You Can't Hide. The group had been scheduled to give a talk about bullying, respect, and drugs; but their personal agenda soon became clear. After singing a song about resisting drugs, they began lecturing the students on virginity, marriage, showing graphic images of abortions, even telling the students that a woman's role was to obey her husband! According to the news report, many students and teachers began walking out during the performance. The principal, equally as shocked, gave an apology for originally inviting the group to the school. The group said it stood by its message and plans to continue preaching it. The students, the school officials, the news report, and I would imagine the general public all have shown a distaste for the message. Is this a sign of an improving morality for our nation and world, or is the mere existence of this group a sign of a worsening society? Does the state of our morality still risk such deterioration at the hands of the virus of religious fundamentalism? Where do we stand? Jon I will post a link to the news report as soon as the news website has made it available online. To check for it yourself, see WCCO-TV | CBS Minnesota - Breaking News, NEXT Weather, and Community Journalism, Minneapolis-St. Paul. You can also check the website of the Pequot Lakes area newspaper here. A May 9th news report sums up what was expected of the presentation that went terribly awry. Edited by Jon, : No reason given. Edited by Jon, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
What's the difference between a liberal and religious fundamentalist?
I group them together. Non-believers? You must mean Atheists. Well, they are equally as bad as the liberals. I group them in the same place. The only people who are true to what is known are the Agnostics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Based on the current level of proof for the existence of God (ie NONE) I am happy to conclude that he/she/it doesn't exist. See, this is where you are dishonest with yourself. An Agnostic 'doesn't conclude God does exist,' whereas an Atheist/you 'concludes God doesn't exist.' It's one thing not to come to conclusion X, scientifically there is really no reason we should come to conclusion X; nothing leads us toward it. But, to come to a conclusion of non-X? That's where you fall into this trap, as you noted:
I am well aware of the issues of proving the non-existence of a non-existent thing. There can never be evidence for a non-X”a non-existent God”, yet you conclude non-X to be true. From where do you draw your evidence? From where do you draw your faith for this belief other than from the same dirty well from which is drawn the water of religious fundamentalism and blind/stupid faith? Jon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
What's the difference between a liberal and religious fundamentalist? I group them together. That must cause you to make some very peculiar mistakes. Actually, it's thinking they are different that causes the mistakes Edited by Jon, : Double-decker code mistakes! :-
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
As promised, the link to the recently updated article:
Assembly at High School Creates Controversy Jon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Wow, you've really got a thing for oxymorons, don't you? What the hell is a "non-existant God" and precisely how does one go about concluding whatever it is you think someone has concluded about him? Why do you insist that atheism is some sort of active belief? Is it inconceivable to you that someone might not believe in a god for the same reason that you don't believe in a tooth fairy (there's an assumption in there, I trust it's a safe one)? Go back, reread my posts without assuming I hold any type of belief system, and tell me if you realize the error in your post. If you cannot, I will tell you. Jon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Guess you didn't read my posts the first time around, and decided not to the second time around.
I'm merely asking why you seem to assume that one who fails to believe in a god is therefore actively believing in some sort of non-god. Did I say that a person who 'doesn't conclude X' is the same as a person who 'concludes non-X'? Again, go back and read my post. You're missing it. I made the distinction here:
quote: And went into greater detail with it here:
quote: quote: Again, while it's perfectly logical to 'NEGATIVELY conclude GOD-POSITIVE,' it is a dishonest leap of faith to 'POSITIVELY conclude GOD-NEGATIVE.' Is that unclear? Jon In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species _ _ _ _ _ ____________ _ _ _ _ _ En el mundo hay multitud de idiomas, y cada uno tiene su propio significado. - I Corintios 14:10
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
People say that there is a monster in Loch Ness. ... Is it not the more credible stance to conclude that the beastie does not exist? While, at the same time, acknowledging my limitations in proving this non-existence? No. The most credible and honest stance is to 'not conclude he does exist.'
Based on the evidence, 'non-x' is the only rational and honest conclusion. Again, based on the evidence, it is only rational and honest to 'not come to X,' instead of 'come to non-X.' I think you folks still don't see/recognise the difference between X and non-X.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Liberal Vs Religeous fundamentalist or Liberal fundamentalist vs religeous fundamentalist The first one, in bold. Sorry for the confusion. Let me explain a little why I think this, though. I think that a liberal = non-religious fundamentalist. In my mind, it's 'non-religious fundamentalist' = 'religious fundamentalists.' Since I view any type of fundamentalism as a deterioration of moral values, I think they are both equally as evil. Jon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
OK. What about that huge diamond of yours? you know the one the size of a refrigerator? I don't think such a diamond exists”at least not in my possession. Jon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
We might say that the people in the '50s had deteriorated morals, because of their non-acceptance of the choices of others. From this, one could almost say that merely judging the morality of others is an act immoral. In that case, is this entire post a sign of our world's deteriorated morality?
Am I evil? Jon Edited by Jon, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Point missed, once again. 'Non-diamond' and 'diamond' are not the same thing!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
READ MY POSTS!
quote: I am in every way agnostic with the diamond. Read it again. Done? Now, read it one more time. Did I say 'I think the diamond doesn't exist' or 'I don't think the diamond exists'? Was my statement Atheistic or Agnostic? The best we can do in absence of evidence for the existence of X is to simply not conclude it exists. How can you say non-X is true? You have no, never had any, can never have any, evidence confirming non-X. It's the nature of the game”you can't prove a negative. Edited by Jon, : cleanup
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
I am curious how you think the example you cite has anything to do with morality? Well, the purpose of the group was to spread flawed morals. Now, there were a lot of pissed off students, and a deal of angry teachers as well. But, one could imagine, there were also a small sect in that crowd that either agreed fully with the group's message, or was swayed from a previous system of morality. This ties in with the main topic of the post, which is whether or not the religious fundamentalists are ripping society's morality apart through efforts such as this. Or whether there are enough people like the students who walked out that realize what they did was wrong. Either the mindset of the group is spreading, or it isn't. I'm not exactly sure where the world stands in regards to that, so I asked the question here And was primarily prompted to think of it because of that news report.
The issue in your example is not in the agenda of the speakers, but rather the absurd statement that the principal was surprised or shocked. For that to be true the principal was either woefully negligent in doing even a cursory diligence or dumber than a red brick. It is far more reasonable that the agenda was known beforehand but that the principal misjudged what the reaction of the students would be. That's a very interesting observation! I was wondering myself how someone could bring in a group like that without ever checking their website. Perhaps the principal knew all along! Jon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
What examples do you have of religious fundamentalism actually bringing "our" moral system down? The group in the article is probably hurting their own cause because of their methods. Did they succeed in changing anyone's moral behavior? Actually, I wasn't trying to make an argument. I was just asking a question, which this quote answers
What do you mean unchecked? Unchecked for what? What evidence shows you that fundamentalism is actually spreading? Everything always spreads. Jon
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024