The 2014/15 Off Season Thread

[hindy111]

Do you reckon that making alcohol even more freely available will cut down on binge-drinking or somehow help to change the binge-drinking culture?

No.... Tv glorifies drinking.Kool kids drink while losers study and make something from there life right?
But this is exactly what the people who run tv want. A race of people who will work piss all there money up the wall and be destined to work again come Monday.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I just did - and I've decided you're wrong. 'Thou shalt not kill' just means 'Thou shalt not kill'. Killing has nothing to do with religion.

Killing has everything to do with religion. Religion is where laws first came from. Do you think killing has nothing to do with the law?

The Quran and the Torah both say killing is wrong EXCEPT where it is used to punish a crime. And what greater crime is there than being an infidel? The ancient Hebrews and Muslims both killed their enemies (i.e. rival civilisations) in war, as man has done since long before religion.

So there you go. Killing is wrong, except when it's right.

It might have something to do with a particular culture or a group of people perverting a religion to suit their own agendas

So if they interpret it in a way that you don't like they are 'perverting' that religion? How convenient. And how would you deal with these heretics, since your way is righteous and theirs is the way of iniquity?

It's only murder when criminals do it.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

No.... Tv glorifies drinking.Kool kids drink while losers study and make something from there life right?
But this is exactly what the people who run tv want. A race of people who will work piss all there money up the wall and be destined to work again come Monday.

If everyone spent their youth studying hard there would still be people pouring concrete or emptying the bins. They would just start later and miss out on those years of earning an income.

 

[phantom eel]

Killing has everything to do with religion. Religion is where laws first came from. Do you think killing has nothing to do with the law?

What rot. Stop presenting ill-informed nonsense as fact to attempt to support your opinions.

You even contradict your claim in your own post !

The ancient Hebrews and Muslims both killed their enemies (i.e. rival civilisations) in war, as man has done since long before religion.

:lol:

So here's some history 101 to get you started on your quest for research and facts...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history

Ancient Egyptian law, dating as far back as 3000 BC, had a civil code that was probably broken into twelve books. It was based on the concept of Ma'at, characterised by tradition, rhetorical speech, social equality and impartiality. By the 22nd century BC, Ur-Nammu, an ancient Sumerian ruler, formulated the first law code, consisting of casuistic statements ("if... then..."). Around 1760 BC, King Hammurabi further developed Babylonian law, by codifying and inscribing it in stone. Hammurabi placed several copies of his law code throughout the kingdom of Babylon as stelae, for the entire public to see; this became known as the Codex Hammurabi.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

You might want to have a look a closer look at the association between the ancient Egyptians, their all-powerful Pharoah bloke and their religious beliefs that conferred absolute power on the Pharoah.

 

[phantom eel]

It's still a long bow to say that all law came from religion - in this case wouldn't you say law was simply delivered by the all-powerful to be followed by the masses (less powerful)? Rather than laws delivered through (or linked to) the actual religious beliefs (religion) themselves?

And his argument has nothing to do with his point of refuting that killing has nothing to do with religion.

 

[hindy111]

If everyone spent their youth studying hard there would still be people pouring concrete or emptying the bins. They would just start later and miss out on those years of earning an income.

You can pour concrete and still make something from your life.That has nothing to do with drinking. Our culture says-its kool to drink.

 

[hindy111]

Most laws are morals-Right and wrong.Maybe that's where religion came from?

 

[phantom eel]

Good point Hindy 111. Surely morality predates religion?

 

[Poupou Escobar]

You might want to have a look a closer look at the association between the ancient Egyptians, their all-powerful Pharoah bloke and their religious beliefs that conferred absolute power on the Pharoah.

As usual he's building up his straw man. Give him time.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Surely morality predates religion?

You think they're two different things?

 

[phantom eel]

As usual he's building up his straw man. Give him time.

Pot, kettle... The point being made was that "killing has nothing to do with religion", you tried to argue that religion is where laws come from - and in the same post then even agreed that people had been killing enemies long before religion. Whoops.

You think they're two different things?

Yes, since religious morality is a subset of broader morality. People can have morality without having religion, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Pot, kettle... The point being made was that "killing has nothing to do with religion", you tried to argue that religion is where laws come from - and in the same post then even agreed that people had been killing enemies long before religion. Whoops.

What are you on about? Killing predates all laws against it but that doesn't contradict my point that law came from religion. Religion predates law as well. Then for a long time they were the same thing.

Yes, since religious morality is a subset of broader morality.

There is no 'broader morality'. Do you think all atheists have the same morals?

People can have morality without having religion, wouldn't you agree?

I suppose we could answer that if there ever was a person whose morality developed in a historical vacuum.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

FWIW, I think it's conceivable that religion and legal systems developed in parallel with each other (and with a lot of feedback between them)....as they were both solutions to a common problem....how to get people to shelve their self-interest for at least a short while and act for the common good.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

FWIW, I think it's conceivable that religion and legal systems developed in parallel with each other

I'm sure they did but the idea of a legal system independent of religion is extremely recent in the history of human society.

A legal system needs to be seen to be just, or more to the point, the coercive enforcement required to make it a legal system (as opposed to an irrelevant set of guidelines) needs to be seen to be just. The rules and those enforcing them require legitimacy. That is as true of ostensibly secular legal systems as it ever was of religious law. It's just that divine powers (such as pharaohs/kings/prophets) carry more weight than elected officials and taxpayer funded government employees.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

Well, by your logic, Poo, that means law came first and religion was co-opted to enforce it.

The only counter to that would be to say that before law was ever attempted to be enforced, someone decided to co-opt religion and thus law was only ever presented with religion, and had never previously been attempted without it. This would still mean law came first, just not publically.

I find that a long bow to draw.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Well, by your logic, Poo, that means law came first and religion was co-opted to enforce it.

My logic as stated here says nothing about which came first. I merely said I believe religion came first. As it developed to suit increasingly complex societies it was then co-opted to enforce the law that necessarily emerged with those societies.

As for why I believe religion came first, it's because it arose as a means of explaining the world, long before there was a need for any law beyond might-makes-right. If you believe rule by the strong is a legal code then you're right and I have contradicted myself. You win. Good work champ.

The only counter to that would be to say that before law was ever attempted to be enforced, someone decided to co-opt religion and thus law was only ever presented with religion, and had never previously been attempted without it. This would still mean law came first, just not publically.

No. See above.

I find that a long bow to draw.

So do I. See above.

 

[phantom eel]

What are you on about? Killing predates all laws against it but that doesn't contradict my point that law came from religion. Religion predates law as well. Then for a long time they were the same thing.

Your point was irrelevant to the point made in post that you had quoted, and that you were trying to refute. The point being made (in post 1598) was that "killing has nothing to do with religion".

Your posts seem to at once both disagree and agree with this point that in post 1602 you were setting out to disagree with... I call that the "sprinkler effect" - going around in circles spouting shit on either side of an issue, to eventually find someone that might agree with you about something? :crazy:

There is no 'broader morality'. Do you think all atheists have the same morals?

Morality as a concept is broader than religion - it must be by definition, as non-religious people still have individual morals. No, all atheists don't have the same morals - why should they? Morality is broad (broader than any single religion, or religions as a whole), and individual differences will occur. Are you one of those people who think that morality cannot exist outside of religion? In the interests of disclosure about what factors might be driving your statements, are you religious yourself?

I suppose we could answer that if there ever was a person whose morality developed in a historical vacuum.

But nevertheless, I'm happy to answer that people can have their own morality, without reference to a religion. Religion isn't part of everyone's personal/family history that contribute to or influence the development of their (personal) moralities. It seems to me that only people who are fervently/born again religious insist that religion is (or should be) more powerful for everyone else than it actually is.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Your point was irrelevant to the point made in post that you had quoted, and that you were trying to refute. The point being made (in post 1598) was that "killing has nothing to do with religion".

I already refuted that point when I quoted from the holy books of three of the world's most relevant religions.

Your posts seem to at once both disagree and agree with this point that in post 1602 you were setting out to disagree with...

Not at all. I said killing predates religion, not that the laws against it predate religion.

I call that the "sprinkler effect" - going around in circles spouting shit on either side of an issue, to eventually find someone that might agree with you about something? :crazy:

Wrong again. See above.

Morality as a concept is broader than religion - it must be by definition, as non-religious people still have individual morals.

Then it looks like we don't share the same definition of religion. I dare say your definition is narrow to the point of being a straw man. If you believe that religion is man made (as I do) then why would you believe that the old religions (traditional systems of irrational belief) have been replaced with anything other than new religions (modern systems of irrational belief)? Even Christianity and Islam don't look like they did a thousand years ago. Hell, the atheism of 1950 bears little resemblance to the atheism of 2014.

No, all atheists don't have the same morals - why should they? Morality is broad (broader than any single religion, or religions as a whole), and individual differences will occur.

So in what ways do atheists disagree? If they've been freed from religious morality (as I assume you believe you have been) then surely there is only one logical conclusion to any moral question.

Are you one of those people who think that morality cannot exist outside of religion?

I think it's clear that we have a different definition of religion. We are on the verge of arguing past each other.

In the interests of disclosure about what factors might be driving your statements, are you religious yourself?

See above.

But nevertheless, I'm happy to answer that people can have their own morality, without reference to a religion. Religion isn't part of everyone's personal/family history that contribute to or influence the development of their (personal) moralities.

Religion is part of everyone's history. Nobody is untouched by it. This is why Western atheists differ from Chinese atheists who differ from Russian atheists.

It seems to me that only people who are fervently/born again religious insist that religion is (or should be) more powerful for everyone else than it actually is.

There's that 'sprinkler effect' you were talking about.

 

[hindy111]

FFS use argue about the most stupid thing. Bring on the footy...
Ok what came first the chicken or the egg? Who cares.