Sunday School

Sunday School 30th May 2021

This topic contains 29 replies, has 8 voices, and was last updated by  Reg the Fronkey Farmer 5 months, 3 weeks ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 30 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #37846

    @theencogitationer – I have used similar arguments in the past. I was threatened with arrest in my polling booth from asking why Bibles were displayed on the desks where voters collected their ballot paper from. This was just a local election but I know it would be repeated on the day of the Marriage Referendum. I was asked by security if I was a Muslim if I “hated seeing the holy Bible”, to which I replied “F**K off you little Nazi”.

    I then emailed police headquarters, the relevant government departments and wrote letters to newspapers voicing my concern about having homophobic literature on display in polling booths for the upcoming Marriage Equality referendum. I pointed out that it is illegal in Ireland to try to intimidate or influence voters while they are in polling booth. I said I believed that having Bibles or any other literature that approved of the slaughter of humans based on their sexuality might influence those that were not fully decided on how they should vote.  Having such books on display is also a form of discrimination against people of other faiths, or none and that religious books have no place at the heart of the democratic process. I then threatened to take the Irish government to the European Court of Justice and the cite them at the UN Human Rights Commission if this “tradition” continued.

    Over the next few months, the “powers that be” became less aggressive towards me (and I towards them) and they began to understand the points I was making.

    When I went to cast my vote, no Bibles were on display. Then I heard on the radio and online that people all over the country were logging complaints in their polling booths about the display of homophobic literature they were seeing. Apparently not all local officials were happy to break the “tradition”. Then people started ringing their local politicians to complain and calling their local police stations to report election tampering. The government must have then intervened as by 11:30 that day report of Bibles being on display stopped everywhere.

    Some leftist atheist who did not trust his Catholic leaning government must have had a backup plan and had a small army of ethically minded citizens on standby!

    #37847

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Reg,

    Congratulations on getting books of Grim Fairy Tales out of polling places.  The Holy Bible has been used to justify positions on probably every issue by every faction on and off the Nolan Chart, along with LGBTQ+ issues, so getting them and other “holy” texts out of polling places is a  very good thing.

    It was amazing to read that ireland had Bibles in polling places when The Roman Catholic Church never was keen on the Laity reading Bibles in other places and times.  The blatant attempt  to sway voters in the booth was amazing too.   Even where I live in The Bible Belt of the U.S.A, no literature of any kind, not even stickers, buttons, or T-shirts promoting a viewpoint or candidate, is allowed within 50 feet of polling booths.

    Anyway, I’m glad you did your part to make elections as fair as they can be, and although individual rights shouldn’t be subject to a vote, I am glad that LGBTQ+ and all individuals in Ireland can now express their love and affection with no persecution or government discrimination.

    • This reply was modified 5 months, 3 weeks ago by  TheEncogitationer. Reason: Grammar
    #37851

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    If objective ethical values exist, we’ll have to give up tribalism to realize them.

    That is at least what moral practice is like when viewed “from the inside.”  By that I mean your moral phenomenology as an engaged participant.  This perspective presents the appearance of at least a core of basic objective and universally valid or correct moral standards we are trying to understand and to live by

    This looks like a really interesting and well written and thought out article, that I think kind of shows up some of the present states of confusion all over the place in moral philosophy.

    In talking to followers of William Lane Craig on Facebook, who actually can be a very intelligent and thoughtful crew, it seems that their definition of “objective” morality is “mind-independent” rather than “universal”.  That would reduce it to a popularity contest, which is a fair point to make.  So the Christian (at least WLC’s people) idea is analogous to physical objective reality and truth.  In other words, their notion of objectivity equals moral realism, the idea that morality is baked into the fabric of the universe: in their minds, as God’s will.

    There is a core of universal values; and more: there is a limited number (7 at last count) of moral foundations.  But according to the Christian idea of objectivity, that’s not objective.

    So, if this article is anything to go by, I think the moral philosophers need to sharpen up their idea of “objective”.

    #37852

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    And if you’re right, then the proper explanation of your belief will appeal to your exercise of moral competence to grasp a moral truth.

    The author, William J Fitzpatrick, is confusing physical or practical reasons – knowledge about the world – with moral reasons for deciding that a course of action is the morally correct one.  That’s “what is missing” from this account.  If we want to justify a course of action morally, then usually we use a combination of practical and moral arguments, to get to the one we like best.  Half the time, someone wouldn’t know why they believe women shouldn’t be educated, in moral terms.  People just “know” these things.

    #37855

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Simon in reacting to your WLC notions perhaps his followers can be intelligent in other ways. A popularity contest has as much or more merit than morality by fiat and authority. At least there is a chance that the crowd will be better informed than the culture that informs Abrahamic morality.

    It is so utterly childish and disingenuous to conceive of anti gay morality as being baked into the fabric of the universe. Even if one accepts such a preposterous and anthropocentric narcissism it does not follow that the rules are objective. Were it actually of value to a creator of mankind in an unimaginable universe don’t you think it would behoove the creator to get off its dead ass to make an appearance and give us humans a little guidance. It might also be instructive to know why something that is ACTUALLY INHERENT in nature is abhorrent to the creator. I have other thoughts but i will keep em cuz this topic makes me sick.

    #37865

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    It might also be instructive to know why something that is ACTUALLY INHERENT in nature is abhorrent to the creator.

    You’re right about that.  It’s a good objection.

    On the other hand, rape and murder are also inherent in nature.

    #37866

    Autumn
    Participant

    It might also be instructive to know why something that is ACTUALLY INHERENT in nature is abhorrent to the creator.

    You’re right about that. It’s a good objection. On the other hand, rape and murder are also inherent in nature.

    I think that stacks weird theologically. Even worse, it brings us within a hair’s breadth of another free will discussion.

    #37867

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    I think that stacks weird theologically. Even worse, it brings us within a hair’s breadth of another free will discussion.

    I think the Christian explanation might be: God gives us the free will to accept either our own “sinful” nature, rejecting God, or to accept God’s nature and go to heaven after we die.  So, it’s our choice whether we go to heaven or hell, effectively.

    #37868

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Simon i am gonna refrain from commenting for now. This shit is on a level with kids discussing attributes of Superman. Unless you are gonna embarrass an apologist publicly it is a waste of time-at least for me.

    #37869

    Davis
    Moderator

    A choice would be…clearly telling your child they can accept your help and love or take the more difficult path in life (but still offer whatever support you can along the way).

    However hiding your existence from the agents you created, leaving a set of ancient conflicting rules and then either giving your children eternal bliss or horror based on their choices (which they are making blind with zero guarantee you even exist and competing voices saying it works differently or you don’t exist at all) … is a vicious cruel immoral “choice” to give to the things you created and apparently “love”.

    I don’t remember the precise details of this scenario but I remember reading a good analogy to the so called theological free will gambit: You throw a bunch of 10 year old children into a classroom and you provide 100 text books. Some are bigger or more attractive than others but non look authoritative. All the books mention doors at some point. Only one book is the correct “guide” for what to do but there is nothing in the room that spells out which one it is or helps you determine that. But in only one of those books you have the answer to “which of the many doors” you should exit through”. You give the kids a few months to thoroughly read the books (with lots of distractions and limited resources and no clear leadership) and then after a few months of discussion they have to leave through one of many doors. They have no idea what to expect (or that there is even anything good or bad behind any of the doors). However just one of those books spells everything else out correctly. If you follow that book by the letter…and go through the correct door you go to Disneyland for a few years. If you go through any other door you get to live in a North Korean concentration camp for a few years. And that is a fair system of “choice”.

    God’s invisibility, silence, ancient scripture and “free will” is exponentially more absurd and cruel than the scenario above. And a billion people believe this and worse, highly intelligent educated theologians think the whole scenario is reasonable and moral and that this God is amazeballs.

    WTF?

    • This reply was modified 5 months, 3 weeks ago by  Davis.
    #37871

    Autumn
    Participant

    I think that stacks weird theologically. Even worse, it brings us within a hair’s breadth of another free will discussion.

    I think the Christian explanation might be: God gives us the free will to accept either our own “sinful” nature, rejecting God, or to accept God’s nature and go to heaven after we die. So, it’s our choice whether we go to heaven or hell, effectively.

    The urge to murder…

    #37872

    Autumn
    Participant

    You give the kids a few months to thoroughly read the books (with lots of distractions and limited resources and no clear leadership) and then after a few months of discussion they have to leave through one of many doors.

    The answer to the riddle is to hoard as many of the books as possible at the start, then cobble together your own version and make the rest of the kids give up everything they own to hear it. You establish in and out groups by labelling some of them as immoral and some of them as virtuous, reserving the right to switch who’s who based on ‘reasons’ as needed. You pair this with lies about who goes where based on virtue or immorality.

    At the end of the few months, you get the virtuous to bully the immoral to go through first, and if it doesn’t provide you a path to Disney, you just hope for dear life all the shit you’ve accumulated helps you bribe someone on this side of the door or the other.

    #37873

    Davis
    Moderator

    At the end of the few months, you get the virtuous to bully the immoral to go through first, and if it doesn’t provide you a path to Disney, you just hope for dear life all the shit you’ve accumulated helps you bribe someone on this side of the door or the other.

    And that is exactly the result that God would want if he were real (which he isn’t).

    #37874

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    You’re right, it’s so difficult that it’s not fair.  There are so many people proclaiming so many different versions of why you’re going to hell for harmless things, that you give up listening (and become an atheist, and work our your own version of right and wrong).

    #37875

    All religion is a foolish answer to a foolish question. – Thomas Shelby, from the Peaky fucking Blinders.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 30 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.