dimreepr

I don't think it is a coincidence that the United States is also a world leader in capital punishment. More than policing standards or guns I think there is a psychological issue at play. In the United States many people feel that others both deserve to die and that killing those who deserve to die is a heroic act. Whether the number this year is 601 or eventually balloons to over a thousand doesnt really matter. Each instance will require debate to prove the that the dead person didn't deserve it and not the other way around. The total number of dead alone falls on deaf ears. How many of the people killed by police this year didn't have it coming is the only number that might capture the majorities attention. Even then we must keep in mind that the bar for having it coming is very low. Talking back, being guiltly of any crime ever, or failing to accurately follow directions is generally enough for someone to be seen as responsible for their own death at the hands of police.

No one deserves to die, outside of Hollywood.

What do you think?

I don’t believe god has anything to do with the bible but I do believe many of the lessons, in the new testament (plus many other texts), are worth learning.

Not to mention how you position a satellite to deliver the transmission on demand.

 

If I don't need religion for morality, I don't see why I need it emotionally.

But some do.

I think this boils down, for me at least, to a possibility of an afterlife, a continuation of my consciousness after my body stops supporting the emergence of life. Is there a chance, without jumping through the "Hoops of Sin", that after my brain stops supporting thought, that I'll become aware again, this consciousness in another vessel? Or no vessel, just pure thought?

In a case like that, do I need religion, or just a consciousness that can figure out life in a different body?

 

For me an afterlife was more intended for those that didn’t understand either.

If religion isn't productive, and science is, reconciling a love for both may be a bad thing.

But they can both be productive, one empirically and one emotionally.

Sometimes the hardest thing to do is forgive yourself, you should try it.

Indeed, I'd be furious if I we're a Greek that voted "oxi".

but your enjoyment hypothesis doesn't explain hell.

I never tried to but if you want, I will.

Your response seemed unrelated (and highly tenuous). I argued that astrology got astronomy going, for otherwise the planets were just tiny, irrelevant dots with no pressing importance.

"Irrelevant" being the operative word.

Not just a European problem.

 

How has it helped?

How does it help?

 

If it's not helpful, then the safest disposition is abstinence.

Yet again you need to read again, specifically, post #33.

It helps because some people take succour from their beliefs and are better for it; you show signs of hatred maybe you should really think about that and allow people the choice.

Can’t you see?

That it’s hatred that leads to suffering?

If your hatred can’t be relieved then it’s you that suffers; if your hatred is relieved then it’s others that suffer; that has NOTHING to do with a book.

Come on delbert, play the game, your flat denial at every turn and no supportive evidence, doesn’t further the argument; what it does do, is show you as ignorant of, not only, the economics but also a deep ignorance of your fellow man in terms of empathy and understanding.

Basically “put up or shut up”.

 

Of course they can coexist, but this response is wanting.

Really?

It portrays religion only as something to be regulated or even eliminated, not fostered.

No it doesn't, read again.

As for the argument that if guns weren't available criminals would just use knives, pipes, bats, etc I disagree. One of the main driving forces for people doing anything is often convieneince or ease. The easier something is to do the more likely people are to do it and vice versa. Easier hiking trails are more well traveled than hard one. It isnt complicated to understand. Robbing a taxi drive or store clerk with a pipe isn't easy as doing it with a gun therefore less people ould be willing to try it.

And less people would die.

Excellent attitude, hope to see more of your ideas, welcome to SFN.

There will always be people ( or money lenders ) who try to take advantage of other people, but it is the greed of the latter which enables this.

This sentence is a little ambiguous given the tone of the post.

Do you mean the greed of people who want to live a comfortable life (who wouldn’t) is the enablers (your choice given the context)?

Or

Do you mean the money lenders, who prey on the vulnerable and week willed (my choice)?

There’re many religious scientists, Mondie, including some of the giants of science; would you really put them in the same category as these nut jobs?

The point is groups like the KKK have a hate filled agenda and used the bible as means to legitimise the hate by cherry picking ambiguous passages, of which there are many (caused by time and translation), and twist the meaning to their needs.

IOW it’s people that diminish religion not the book.

The bible didn’t order Galileo’s torture, people did.

Science created the bomb; it was people who used it on other people.

Well yin seems opposed to yang. So...

Indeed, but that doesn't seem to help.

 

I'm reasonably wealthy, white, male and live in the affluent West. I hardly need anyone to fight for my rights- I pretty much have them.

So perhaps it would be better if I fought to the rights of those less well off than I am, and left them to fight for my rights.

Obviously, their disadvantaged state means that they can't put a lot of effort into supporting me, but it hardly matters- I'm already doing OK.

On the other hand, I'm relatively well placed to improve their lot.

At worst, I don't lose much, and they gain a lot.

 

Seems a better approach to me.

Indeed it is...

But my question isn’t so much ‘what can I gain’ from the fight but ‘what can WE gain’ from it.

"What rights should we fight for?"

Other people's

Most would consider “ours” supersedes “others”.

Astrology doesn't denote any distinct religious system, but it was very intertwined with ideas about fate and divine revelation.

Don’t confuse religion with what has been done in its name; essentially religion seems to be trying to convey a means to enjoy life and so would facilitate life (and thus help); rather than dictate a doctrine that hinders life.

I agree with much of what you are saying however society as a whole in the United States is not to a point where the measures you have stated would be tolerated. Perhaps someday but not now. We can't even ban military grade assault weapons.

I would like to see legislation passed requiring gun locks on all firearms not stored in a gun safe and a requirement for gun safes to be owned by anyone possessing more than 5 firearms with the caveat that at least half of all guns owned be stored with when not in use. No authority physically inspect anyone's home. A citizen simply signs a statement of acknowledgement of the requirement when purchasing a firearm. Then if a firearm ends up stolen, used in a crime, accidental shooting, or etc the authorities would have some legal footing to investigate if the gun owner was behaving responsibly. If it turns out they weren't than they should be held liable.

This answer seems to show the gulf in cultural thinking between America and the rest of the world. Why, for instance, settle on “5 firearms” rather than one and “when not in use” has a very limited definition.

To me ‘spirituality’ is only espoused by those that try very hard but fail to understand, the meaning of and the road to, contentment.

Well, of course I wouldn't be happy to starve - who would. But the fault would still be mine for not being astute enough to spot that the person was an idiot and or a liar.

 

I'm sorry, but that is, and must be, the facts. That's called taking responsibility for decisions we make.

 

I'm sorry, but we cannot divorce ourselves from the consequences of what we do. Although and in contrast, from what I seem to see and read in the media, divorcing ourselves from the consequences of what we do seems fashionable these days.

So the average citizen must be blamed for not being bright enough to spot a professional Politian’s lies?

Given your monochromic view of the world I have serious doubts of your abilities in that area.

Of course we are responsible for our actions but when those actions are by another, who may have deceived/coerced to gain your approval, they cease to be our actions.