2011 Off topic thread(basketball,movies,etc whatever)

[Svino]

By the way, do we have any religious people here? I've never once seen any member stand up for religion (except occasionally myself and Scientist in an indirect way). Seems like, considering the religious make up of America, there'd be at least one Christian among us.

I don't think I've ever specifically stated my opinions on the matter, but I bet you could guess.

[sbjj]

I don't know much detail about what you're actually voting on, but I can tell that the only way this would be constitutional is if it's an amendment to the constitution, or is followed up by one.

The Constitution is not going to get amended in this way, there is clearly nowhere near the nationwide support for that. So why have this vote? Simple: like many similar measures in different states, it is there to get the conservative religious base mobilized to come out to the polls, so they can also vote for the Republicans running for office. That's pretty much the only reason it exists. I seriously doubt that most Republicans in national office actually even want Roe v. Wade repealed; it would deprive them of a wedge issue they desperately need to mobilize voters on their behalf and put their jobs at risk.

Roe v. Wade itself is unconstitutional. The constitution does not protect a womes right to have an abortion. So a state should be able to inact its own laws when it comes to abortion.

[SPX]

I think religion gets a bad wrap at times. And I believe as a whole, the world might be a worse place without it.

I agree with this, more or less.

People always want to point to the negative shit about religion--wars, the Inquisition, suicide bombers, intolerance, etc. And all of that is true and all of that is certainly checkmarks in the "minus" box on the religion evaluation form.

But at the same time, religion has inspired a lot of people to live better lives, is the foundation of a lot of charities around the world, and has had many other positive effects.

Does the good outweigh the bad? I have no idea. But I really don't like it when anti-religionists try to make it a black-and-white issue where religion is bad and act like if religion disappeared then we'd all hold hands and live in peace with each other.

[sbjj]

I agree with this, more or less.

People always want to point to the negative shit about religion--wars, the Inquisition, suicide bombers, intolerance, etc. And all of that is true and all of that is certainly checkmarks in the "minus" box on the religion evaluation form.

But at the same time, religion has inspired a lot of people to live better lives, is the foundation of a lot of charities around the world, and has had many other positive effects.

Does the good outweigh the bad? I have no idea. But I really don't like it when anti-religionists try to make it a black-and-white issue where religion is bad and act like if religion disappeared then we'd all hold hands and live in peace with each other.

I agree, and what people fail to realize is that all those negatives you speak of would still be around if religion was gone. Stalin killed a whole lot of folks(more than Hitler) and he was not religious. And I know a whole lot of liberal folks who are the most intolerant people out there.

[Svino]

Murder and rape aren't the same thing at all, nor do they have the same repercussions for those committing, viewing, or connected to any parties involved. People aren't downloading the videos of those captives to get pleasure from them or to perhaps one day behead a captive themselves. However that is the case for probably close to 99% of people who download child porn.

Perhaps, but I think here you are now moving to a third distinct argument. (Remember, my point from the beginning was that the commonly-stated rationale differs from the true rationale.) This argument seems to be that while looking at child porn might not directly be a harmful activity, it flags the person as being the sort who might do something harmful (rape kids), and therefore we should use that info to lock these people up for our safety. I think this argument is much closer to the reasoning people are actually going through, but I also have a problem with it on civil-liberties grounds. I realize that most people disagree, but I just don't like the idea of throwing someone in jail on that sort of probability argument.

This debate also brings up the issue, still debated in psychology and sociology, of whether pornography (and prostitution) acts as a fuel for rape, or more like a "substitute good" i.e. a less harmful release for dangerous urges. There is a traditional assertion that these activities fuel attitudes such as disrespect for women that encourage rape, but I have also seen studies that appear to show the "substitute good" effect is real in some cases. It isn't a result many people want to hear.

Also there is a general agreement that the rape of children is a much more despicable act than murdering someone.

I certainly don't think of any rape as being more harmful than murder. (If it were, wouldn't we just put a bullet in the rape victim's head and make it equivalent?) It might be more despicable, in the sense of being a behavior further than something we could ever imagine ourselves doing. But which of the two criteria: "harmfulness" or "despicableness", should determine how our justice system administers punishment? I see it as a fair question for debate.

[Svino]

Roe v. Wade itself is unconstitutional. The constitution does not protect a womes right to have an abortion. So a state should be able to inact its own laws when it comes to abortion.

Well, good luck with that.

[sbjj]

Lets also be realistic. Most anti religious types are actually anti-Christian. They have no problem defending a cross sitting in a jar of piss. Yet they were silent when it came to cartoons featuring Muhammad.

The Left in this country has successfully convinced alot of the public that most of their woes are because thier are rich white christians out there trying to keep them down.

[SPX]

I think since we are all degenerates, you are not getting an accurate representation of religions...

I go to church. I sometimes call myself a Christian, mostly for convenience if I am asked about my faith. But if you asked a true Christian if my beliefs make me Christian, they would definitely say no. I remain agnostic on the existence of God in general... but I like the philosophical teachings of Jesus, and I generally try to abide by them. I like the ideas of reverence for a God and that there is some thing that is above our immediate desires. I like the idea of making yourself less than your neighbor. There are other philosphical teachings that might be more well reasoned... but to me it is about both right and wrong, and also about admirable qualities. I don't think it is wrong to live your whole life to only satisfy your desires, but I don't think it is admirable either.

I look at the Bible in a literary and historical context for the most part, I don't actually believe that there is a heaven or a hell or that Jesus was divine. But I like to talk about ethics and metaphysics, and church-folk are the people that are the most adept at discussing these things and also being involved with your process IME. That is generally why I go.

I am an agnostic in the strictest sense--meaning that I have no idea whether there is a God or not, and in fact, suspect that it's probably impossible to know for sure.

But unlike many who label themselves agnostic, I think I'm more open to there actually being a supernatural component to the universe. As we've discussed before, this primarily goes back to my reading up on near-death experiences as well as other such related phenomena. In fact, I think that these types of experiences may actually have formed the basis for many religions, or at least the basis for their ideas about the afterlife.

While these experiences may have later been wrapped up tightly in myth and dogma, that doesn't mean that the basic truths--and literal realities--are not existent.

[sbjj]

Well, good luck with that.

Does not make it wrong. The Supreme Court could rule that Slavery is again the law of the land. It would not make it constitutional.

[sbjj]

I am an agnostic in the strictest sense--meaning that I have no idea whether there is a God or not, and in fact, suspect that it's probably impossible to know for sure.

But unlike many who label themselves agnostic, I think I'm more open to there actually being a supernatural component to the universe. As we've discussed before, this primarily goes back to my reading up on near-death experiences as well as other such related phenomena. In fact, I think that these types of experiences may actually have formed the basis for many religions, or at least the basis for their ideas about the afterlife.

While these experiences may have later been wrapped up tightly in myth and dogma, that doesn't mean that the basic truths--and literal realities--are not existent.

Spot on. I am with you. I have no problem with NOT knowing. It is the people that believe they have it all figured out that I do not understand. Why would you think that?

[Ludo]

I agree with this, more or less.

People always want to point to the negative shit about religion--wars, the Inquisition, suicide bombers, intolerance, etc. And all of that is true and all of that is certainly checkmarks in the "minus" box on the religion evaluation form.

But at the same time, religion has inspired a lot of people to live better lives, is the foundation of a lot of charities around the world, and has had many other positive effects.

Does the good outweigh the bad? I have no idea. But I really don't like it when anti-religionists try to make it a black-and-white issue where religion is bad and act like if religion disappeared then we'd all hold hands and live in peace with each other.

Religion is really just a manifestation, an easy one at that, of the human condition. Everyone searches for answers to questions that can't be answered and believing in a higher power/being that guides us even in ways we may not appreciate at times is comforting and soothing to some. While not everyone agrees with the setup of modern religion or necessarily believes in a higher power most people rationalize existence and the world around them somehow whether it be by science or prayer to any god(s), or even just to nature and the things around us from the morning dew to the food your about to eat. A sense of purpose is vital to morale in life.

[Svino]

Lets also be realistic. Most anti religious types are actually anti-Christian. They have no problem defending a cross sitting in a jar of piss. Yet they were silent when it came to cartoons featuring Muhammad.

You should read some of Sam Harris and Chris Hitchens' stuff.

[SPX]

I agree, and what people fail to realize is that all those negatives you speak of would still be around if religion was gone. Stalin killed a whole lot of folks(more than Hitler) and he was not religious. And I know a whole lot of liberal folks who are the most intolerant people out there.

Yes, and really even Hitler was not religious, he was an occultist who occasionally used the Catholic church to further his aims. And really, even most wars that were started in the name of religion undoubtedly had some other underlying political reason, with religion just used as an excuse to mobilize the masses.

I think the bottom line is that often times people are just dicks. If they can use religion to justify being a dick, then they will. If not, then they'll find another reason.

I mean, I do think that sometimes crazy ass religious beliefs have motivated people to do crazy ass shit when they otherwise would've just been a normal person doing normal shit. It's like I said before, it's not black and white.

[MMA_scientist]

Roe v. Wade itself is unconstitutional. The constitution does not protect a womes right to have an abortion. So a state should be able to inact its own laws when it comes to abortion.

Well many of the rights that we currently enjoy are not in the Constitution, including the right to privacy. The U.S. Supreme Court just interprets the existing Constitution and Amendments to include whatever rights fall under the "penumbra"... basically whatever they think is in the spirit of the Constitution. In Roe V. Wade, they found that the right to privacy was under the penumbra and that included abortion to a certain point.

I disagree with the Court, but if the U.S. Supreme Court rules, it is the law of the land. So, it is Constitional if they say it is.

[sbjj]

Big fan of Hitchens. One of the few non hypocrites.