|
Post by 2bfoundwanting on Jul 25, 2006 1:23:06 GMT -5
A semi response to the 1984 thread in Literture 101
Well, that is wonderful that you are able to live alone on your own sense of accomplishment. I suppose that is a failing of mine. But i personally do not find myself to be a selfish person. And I do not wnat to put other people bellow me. I believe that everyone deserves respect.
Well. Thats what I tell myself anyways. And its true, each individual person deserves respect and freedom and their own opportunities. But you know what. To be blunt.. I dont want a perfect society. I just dont want it. To have everyone hunky dory and all equal and perfect. As disgusting as it might sound, having things that perfect would annoy me. I dont know how to express my feelings without sounding like I am condoning corruption and illegal activities... but I mean, its a part of human nature. It just is. Its how we work, and how we always have.
Not all of us, but as a whole species. And to take that away seems unrealistic and just unnatural. I know I sound really terrible at the moment. And I realize I am probably saying this because of how I was raised and that I am privelaged and that if I grew up in a different community I would think completely differently.
But the thing is, I wasn't raised somewhere else and as.. I guess.. maybe I am selfish in this way then... as selfish as it sounds, thats how i feel. I take risks every day with humanity, so Im not totally protected from it.
I just. I dont think it is moral or ethical for any of the corrupt and illegal ativities that happen.. to happen, and I personally would never engage in such activities... But to imagine a society completely without any "bad" where everything is perfect and equal.. and yay world peace.. just makes me shudder.
And it also makes me feel guilty, because I realize that makes me kind of a bad person. And while I believe that I am a good person in how I treat others and how I personally go about life and interaction in society, I guess my ideas make me a not so wonderful person.
|
|
|
Post by Tyual on Jul 25, 2006 2:00:40 GMT -5
You can respect people who are below you. Look at the military ranks, the higher officers have resepect for the guys below them. They are still doing the same service for their country.
And the thing most people don't get with communism/a perfect society, it wouldn't all be dull and dreary. There would still be comeptition and there could be luxury and stuff. It's not like Equal means dirt poor. I mean, everyone could be equal and have a 55 inch flat screen and a gaming console of choice, with a big nice house, etc. There would be comeptition in jobs. Who's the better doctor? People are selfish and would want bragging rights, so they'd still try to be the best at what they do. But it would eliminate the massive corporations and corrupt politicians doing whatever they can for a buck from running the country the way they'd like. And that's basically how it is. I'm sorry, but if you don't believe money buys the government, and therein massive corporations don't have their fair share in what happens, then that's naive. I mean, look at all the ways cars have been made to not use oil, but the oil industry is so large. Why? They already had enough money to push everything else down and keep their product in demand. They buy it off, because by doing so they make even more money.
The misconception with an equal society is that everyone would be exactly the same. That's not the case. Say you're given a yearly amount of money to spend on clothing. Well you can go buy whatever clothing you like, which is going to be different from the person next door's. It's not like a white shirt and jeans are your only option.
As for it being unnatural and such, and human nature, well I guess that depends on your view on human nature. I agree and disagree. I think humans are inheritantly good, but outside stimuli cause them to do negative things. Also, there's original sin. Humans are easily swayed into doing things for personal gain, aka Greed.
So with the way I view human nature, no, it's really not possible for widespread communism to exist. I agree. However, I do still maintain that it would be an ideal government.
As for illegal things, if it were moral and ethical, it wouldn't be illegal. There are exceptional cases, but they are few and far between.
As for how you were raised, yeah being priviledged probably did impact it a lot. Because I grew up just making ends meat, we made it, but we weren't like super comfortable. Even still, it gets really tight at times. And then I see some guy on TV blowing thousands of dollars on useless things, and I think about how stupid that is, and what good uses could be done with that money, besides buying an oversided picture that looks like crap to hang on your wall or something.
So yeah, not having a lot of luxury when I was younger, I appreciate the aspects equality would bring. I remember when people I went to school with even kinda looked down on me beceause I didn't have the money to go do all the stuff they did, I didn't go shopping at the mall every month and stuff, we didn't have the money, and the looks I got when I had to tell people that still makes me sick. I don't get that anymore, because I've gotten into athletics and I'm known around school for being an intellectual, so people look up to me for answers and leadership and stuff now, but it wasn't always that way. And I remember that it wasn't, and so yeah, I think it's fairly easy to see how I think the equality would be much better than diversity where people look down on others.
As for world peace, nah screw that. I mean right now, I'm just hopping up and down wanting Israel to send Lebanon off the map. I'm a bit of war monger, for the right reasons. (And in this case, I can't stand people f***ing with Israel! and they're supporting that terrorist group and stuff.) There are times when you just gotta duke it out to settle things, that's the way it is. And even in equality it would be the same. I may be equal to you, but I don't have to agree with you. and there are times where we would have to have it out until one of us was right, thus maintaining the equality. If you or I didn't agree still, then it would be creating superiority of thought, not equality. So in fact, conversion rather than my way over yours, would have to take effect to maintain equality. Funnily enough they did this in 1984, but not for equality, but to maintain the social structure of different classes. They used this manuver to put people in their place, rather low or high, instead of to make them all equal.
As for your views, they don't make you a bad person. I enjoy diverisity and such. I don't enjoy social status/structure that creates superiority. The way I look at it, we were all put equal on this earth, rather by God or by Big Bang, or the man on the moon, or whatever, and da*n anybody who thinks they're better than me, and I'll be da*ned if I think I'm better than anybody. That's my mentality on it at least.
Granted, someone might be better at this than me, and I might be better at that then them, but individual talents and skills make us diverse, they don't make us superior as a person. The only way for me to be superior to someone else, is for them to belittle themselves, not me boosting myself. (I.E. I feel superior to a man who beats women, because I feel he belittles himself and doesn't deserve to be called a man if he's beating women. So I feel that I have a superiority over him. But that's him belittling himself by beating women.)
Anyways it's 3AM and I think I'm getting incoherent so I'll stop for now....
|
|
|
Post by 2bfoundwanting on Jul 25, 2006 3:18:45 GMT -5
FRICK. I wrote a REALLY long response and accidentally hit the back button and it dissapeard. I tried rewriting it, but all the inspiration was gone.
And it was good. REALLY good. I brought up some points I had never even thought of before.
But Ill take it as a sign that everything is meant to happen for a reason and not repost it.
Hopefully later I will gain that inspiration and be able to write some of the stuff down again.
|
|
|
Post by Tyual on Jul 25, 2006 11:36:13 GMT -5
That happened to me that time when my browser went crazy in the middle of my relationships post. It happens. Just have to rewrite it sometime, haha.
|
|
|
Post by 2bfoundwanting on Sept 4, 2006 15:11:19 GMT -5
Im not sure if we have talked about this yet, but what are everyones views on respect?
I give everyone i meet a standard/basic level of respect as a fellow human being. Recognizing that they aren't less than me and deserve to have their thoughts heard just as equally as everyone else. But from there people can lose my respect quickly. Depending on their demeanor or what they say, my respect for them may drop. It is harder to gain my respect, but it is also almost impossible to lose it once it is gained. Those that i hold the highest amount of respect for are hardpressed to lose it and will have it for as long as i know them.
However, if someone who has gained my respect does something dispicable and loses it, it is almost a given that they will never earn it back. To me respect is important. And i do not ever condescend to others. I give them the same respect they give me, generally, and no one ever drops so far as to be beneath me. However, those that ARE at the basic level of respect are generally not people i want to surround myself with, i would rather be with people that i highly respect and like.
So what are your thoughts on respect?
|
|
|
Post by Tyual on Sept 4, 2006 20:30:52 GMT -5
Respect is a very big deal to me. I dropped a class this year because the teacher wouldn't treat us with respect. He tried to act better than everyone, and I told my councelor that I wasn't having that, and dropped it.
I give respect on a first meeting basis, expecting to get it in return. If I'm shown respect, I'll continue to give respect, if I'm not shown respect, then I cease to give it.
I respect people I disagree with even. Just because my ideals and views aren't the same as theirs, doesn't mean I don't respect them as a person or their right to their ideas.
However, my morals and ethics define a lot of things I respect or don't, and so if you cross those lines in a personal way with me or people I care about, then respect is out of the question and my disliking or hating of you is just a fact of life. (This being why I'm so heavily anti-arabic. Because ethically and morally, I disagree with their beliefs -a lot-, especially when it's taken into extremists hands.) I.E. A man who is poligimst(sp) I do not respect as a man, doesn't mean I can't get along with them, but as a man, I have no respect for him, because I believe it's -very- disrespectful to a woman to have another wife/mistress/whatever. And they believe it's fine to have multiple wives. Just for a simple example.
So it's a complicated, situation-to-sitaution matter, but my overall rule of thumb is give respect, get respect. or get respect, give respect. (depending on if i'm interacted with first, or interact with the person first.)
That's it in brief....I'm also doing AP US History homework, so I can't make any post too long right now.
|
|
|
Post by 2bfoundwanting on Sept 5, 2006 1:00:35 GMT -5
Well. I personally dont agree with your anti-arabic beliefs because, while i certainly do not agree with their ideas about killing others to make a point, i am very upset when all arabic people are lumped into one group because of one extremist group. How would you like it if people looked at you because you were and white and associated you with the KKK? Just because you were white? Even though the KKK is a very small percentage of the white population. I just think that that in itself is disrespectful. To stereotype people I mean.
And another issue. I personally do NOT believe in polygamy. However, I have been explained the reasoning behind it and I personally feel that its ridiculous to judge a man or respect him based on his belief in polygamy. Because you can ask the woman.. they dont think they are being disrespected. For them they believe that having extra wives is a good thing, its spreading the love and creating a community of fellow wives to help and be there for you. And while i personally wouldn't want to be in that situation and dont really think that it should be allowed in the US, in certain cultures and beliefs.. its okay.. its what they believe and how they feel and there is no disrespect involved.
For me, its very important that i look very carefully at all sides to an issue and if after extremely close scrutiny i can not find any justifiable reasoning for a persons actions then i write them off. But i have only found a handfull of people to do that with. I think its important to remember that these people have thoughts and opinions just like mine. They see the world and wonder about it and think about it JUST LIKE ME. And for me to say that they are wrong or that their ideas are wrong just because they are different is a foreign concept to me. I think there are alot of choices and paths in life that I wouldn't chose or go down but that are perfectly respectable and understandable.
There are even things that ARENT respectable in my opinion and should NOT be practiced, but i am still able to UNDERSTAND it which in my mind is extremely important. For example.. in my mind murder is extremely wrong. In VERY VERY few cases is it forgivable (ie. extreme cases of self defence.. ect.) However, that doesn't mean that I am not able to look at the murderer in CERTAIN cases and understand why he or she did what they did.
However, those cases are few and far between. Many times i just find murder to be one of those few issues I can not understand even under the closest scrutiny.
Anyways, this kind of segways into racism. I can not understand it. I mean, dont get me wrong. Its impossible for the human mind not to stereotype, and I will admit if a group of scary looking hispanic men come towards me ( I live in So. Cali) I will get more nervous than if they are white. But if one of those men were to come up to me and talk to me I would NEVER dismiss him because of his race. Its true that it is hard to escape all types of stereotypes, but people that dismiss INDIVIDUALS based on a group stereotype are ununderstandable to me. I have many friends of different races and no one race is really that different. I have a friend from Pakistan, China, Mexico, I have a few black friends (though there aren't many african american people in Santa Barbara, which has always bothered me) and I have white friends. And to me they are all the same.
Racism is unacceptable and it gets me extremely upset. I have heard in my own LIBERAL city one girl go on about how black people are inheritly stupider than other races... simply because of SCHOOL test scores and other racist ideas she had. And i think, have you ever thought that in this country it is unfortunate but true that there are many black people that are of low economic status? aren't as privelaged as you to go to a private school in santa barbara? Dont have parents who push them to do well academically, or cant because of work or other issues. Does school scores mean that they are unintelligent? HELL NO! No one race is stupider than the other and that is ridiculous to me that she can think that.
So, Im sorry to anyone that believes that there is a group of people that deserve to be thought less of, but I disagree with you and those thoughts do personally offend me. However, does that mean that otherwise you may not be a wonderful, nice, smart person that deserves respect? No. You very well be the best person in the world with amazing opinions and intelligent ideas other than those particular thoughts. And they dont mean that I dont respect you. Its just that those particular ideals are extremely uncompatible with mine.
|
|
|
Post by Tyual on Sept 5, 2006 20:44:37 GMT -5
"How would you like it if people looked at you because you were and white and associated you with the KKK? Just because you were white? Even though the KKK is a very small percentage of the white population. I just think that that in itself is disrespectful."
I live in ARKANSAS! That -DOES- happen. We're in the south, and white so we're automatically labeled as racist against black people even if that's not the case. Especially living in the town I do. Black people are generally unwelcome by the older inhabitants (my parents age and older generally) and it would be an absolute heresy to our town for any black person to move in. It wouldn't bother me, but it would them. I've known of them to quite literally run black people out of the town. I don't agree with it, but it's the popular view around here. So yeah, I do get labeled as racist just for being white and being where I'm from, which is something I can't help. So I do know what that feels like.
Also, I believe I made a note somewhere about my anti-arabic ideals being based mainly at their extremeist groups, if not I intended to and just forgot. However, with their treatment of women, that has no respect with me at all. It is my belief that women are to be respected, and there's nothing respectful about implying "You're not good enough, so I'm getting another wife.", which to me, is what poligamy implies. That's not respectful to women and I think deserves no resepct.
They probably feel they're not being disrespected because they've been raised in a society where women are lowered/belittled and they don't think they're meant to be important or respected, so having multiple wives wouldn't seem disrespectful to them, but to anyone cultured to views outside of that would find it disrespectful I believe. So though I understand poligamy and things about it, I still do not agree with it nor respect it.
Don't get me wrong, from what I read, it seems you're implying that I think everyone who disagrees with my ideals I don't respect. That's not the case. It's not that I would be disrespectful to a poligamist, but I have a lack of respect for their way of life, and i have a lack of respect for cultures that belittle women (since that's my example theme.) That doesn't mean I'm vicious and hateful to all people who are of that culture or lifestyle though. I respect their right of choice as a person to choose that lifestyle, but that doesn't mean I have to respect the lifestyle they choose.
And for the murder thing, yeah I may find it very wrong and very disrespectful, that doesn't mean I can't understand why it was done, but it still doesn't mean I respect it or the person who did it! Just beacuse I understand something or someone doesn't mean I have to find it up to my standards of respect. I think it's lowering of oneself to do something like murder (except in the extreme cases as mentioned) and that's probably what I disrespect more than the act or the reasoning.
The racism thing, I'm heavily surrounded by it. I always have to tread ice about what I say, especially around black people. Because as I said, I live in Arkansas, and they just LOOK for some excuse to call us racial or say we're discriminating them where I am. I mean if you said something that's referenced to the black culture, probably nothing would be said in So. Cali, but here, if you mention anything about their lifestyle, not even in a negative way, they start calling you racist and discriminatory and such. So I understand it pretty well.
Also, I've been raised in a fairly racist home/environment. The town I live in has -no- people who aren't white living in it. And it's been that way since I can remember. But I have a lot of black friends, asian friends (though they are long distance, I don't know of any asians who live in my local area really, not personally. I know there are a few in the town my parents work in, but I don't know them personally.), etc. I'm probably the least racist member of my family, and even still I catch myself saying something that may be racial based time to time. And I usually get upset with myself about it. But it's the environment I've been raised in, and it's bound to affect me to some degree, no matter how much I try to be concious of it.
So though I may not like the typical arabic lifestyle, that doesn't mean I'm going to be hateful to arabic people. I mean, I don't agree with everything in the local black culture, but I'm not rude to the black people here. I take them on a person-to-person basis. It's like church doctrine, we may all be christians but we have different denominations, and I don't disrespect other denominations for their belief. We just agree to disagree mostly. (I know that's not the best example, because I'm more passionate about differences in like the Mormon and Islamic lifestyle versus Christian or athiest or some other religion, but it gets the idea across I think.)
Now don't get me wrong, I'm as prone to make stereotype jokes as anyone, but ya know what, I make them about white people too! It's not like I make a lot of racist jokes about black people or islamics or hispanics, I make them about my own race too. I mean I just like to bash stereotypes, dunno why. But I do it about all races. Because I know they're just that, stereotypes, and not reality of what all people are like. So it's not like I'm attacking any one person.
I actually enjoy being around people of other cultures and races, because I learn about them as people and the culture, outside the stereotypes. I mean the stereotype you get about black people living in the hood versus living in the racist white community are way different. And it's really interesting.
And as for the lower level black people....I know a few bright black people at my school, but what I have noticed, is that they have a trend to be lazy and not do their simple school work. It's not that they're stupider than white people, they just don't give a dang or try. Because around here, they expect us to give things to them. They act like we owe them because of the history, especially being from the south where slavery was prominant. Now not all of them, but I must say a majority of them that I interact with on a daily basis -are- this way, it's not a stereotype, it's a first hand observation. And I'll presume from my experience, that in a lot of the south it's that way. I don't know about the rest of the nation though.
As for being lower economically, I'm quite sick of hearing that. I've seen it affect my local society so much it makes me sick. About them being all "Omg you have to employ a certain percenatage of minorities as a law! Fire your white people and hire in blacks and hispanics!" I've seen so many hard working people get put out of a job because they[minorities] gripe about not having jobs, (again, wanting things to be GIVEN to them. IE a job, but they refuse to try in school and get an education to EARN a job.) and their jobs[of the employed white people/just general hard workers, i've seen hard working people of a minority put out due to this too] given to minorities, just because they whine and complain. It makes me sick to see people and families hurt and put out of a job because people spend more time whining about not having a job than looking for one, and then having their excuse be "it's because I'm black ain't it!?" ......sorry but that's a sensative one with me. I think they should have to EARN their jobs and place in society just like everyone else, and not have it given to them. But again, this is heavily influenced by the region where I live and the whole "you're being racist" deal, in the south again and such. So yeah, I really have NO pity on them for that.
I mean don't blame it on their parents or environment. There are probably as many white kids with single, 1 parent homes, and the parent works so they dont get a lot of being watched after and taken care of except by themself. So we can't say "oh well it's because their parents work and can't watch them" or anything. That's just a BS excuse for them to act inappropriately. No matter what color you are.
Well I guess that's about all I have to say on it for the moment.
|
|
|
Post by 2bfoundwanting on Sept 6, 2006 22:29:35 GMT -5
Well way to difuse any anger Tyual. : )
Your response was very understandable. Very coherent and the explanations really made sense.
Now i still dont agree with certain views, but it doesn't make me angry anymore, because its obvious that you have good reason behind your thoughts.
I am from Santa Barbara, California. I dont know if you know of SB, I cant remember if you told me you had or not heard of it, but its a very very rich city. Its a little bubble of wealth that, while i love my city for its beauty, culture, art and understanding, makes me somewhat sick because of the rich b*tches, as one expression puts it, that this city can create. But anyways, it is a very different environment from what you have grown up in. Almost everyone in my city is very liberal, activist, politcally minded, anti-racist and so on. So i know what it means to be a product of your environment. I have struggled a long time to seperate myself from the way ive grown up and really examining life and situations to see if I truely feel a certain way about them.
Sometimes i find Im more conservative than my liberal neighbors, others i find Im even more liberal.
But anyways, we have a very very small percentage of black people, however not because they would be run out of town. We do though, have a large percentage of hispanics in our community, who live primarily in the city we practically run into, Goleta. In my school it is aprox. 30-40% hispanic kids.
Now, one thing that you mentioned, I have never personally come across, though i have heard it before. That the minorities whine their way into jobs or advantages because of what happened in our history. Because, here its almost the opposite, the hispanic families are eager to work hard to get the money they need with no help, keeping their culture intact and not asking for any advantages. So in SB, we have tons of programs that try to entice Hispanic children to take the advantages we offer, since it is true in our community that many more hispanic families are low income than white.
So you can see how very different the community and views are that i have been surrounded by from those you have.
So, I recognize that things are different where you live, and that I probably could never fully understand how minorities act, or society works there, but I admire you for also taking the time to step apart and really examining what you believe. Finding, that sometimes you agree and others you dont, but they are your thoughts not your families or towns.
So, thats all i have to say. I really really enjoyed this short debate. Wonderful stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Tyual on Sept 7, 2006 21:57:45 GMT -5
Agreed, I mean it's just where we live. My mom grew up in Los Angeles county, but the funny thing is she's very conservative, not liberal. She's more conservative than I am, although I say I'm about moderate, I'm liberal on this issue and conservative on that one, lol. Just take it case-by-case.
But yeah, if I lived there, I'd hate rich b*tches to. I hate people here who think they are rich b*tches, lol. Though I'm sure yours are a lot richer than the ones here, lol!
But yeah, it's very different where we're at and so our responces to our society are different, and that's understandable.
|
|
|
Post by 2bfoundwanting on Oct 10, 2006 19:09:59 GMT -5
Okay. So what do you guys think?
Do you think that morals are a set of truths that are imposed upon us by some outside force?
Or that they are innate?
Or that they are rules that have come about through evolution and trial and error through dealing with other humans?
another point.
Are morals different from culture to culture? Or are they the same and only twisted slightly by each society?
WHAT DO YA THINK? Ive got some pretty conflictin views on this, so Im curious.
|
|
|
Post by Tyual on Oct 10, 2006 19:55:17 GMT -5
I did a whole thing on this once. Morals, or our sense of right and wrong is defined by society. Society deems what is right and wrong. So what affects society? The people in it and their belifs. What affects believes? Religion and personal experience. However, since our society has had the ideas of right and wrong as they are now, we should look back to history. Early society. What affected all early societies? Religion. The Babalonians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Persians, the Indians (Native American and otherwise.) Chinese, and Japanese. All are examples of early cultures and much of their culture was based around or defined by their religion. So what defined some of these earlier religions, when the majors religions of today did not exist (Christianity, Islam....)? Hell if I know. But their early religions defined their societies and living standards. Thus, if society defines morals, and right or wrong, then it's logical to say that religion defines morals by defining religion.
Some other influences were things such as the Rennisance which changed people's methods of thinking on a wide-spread scale. So although not completely religious, the shift in thinking brought about change and thus the morals changed or were adapted/viewed differently I'm sure.
Now I'm not saying that all morals are defined by religion. No where does it say "you must say please and thank you" in religion as far as I'm aware. It may somewhere. However, in the early societies, which evolved into our modern society, it had a very large and unquestionable role.
Even in modern day it has a large effect. We find it immoral to kill someone in our society, which is highly affected by Christianity in America, rather we want to admit it or not. It is. Fact. Go take history classes, look at our society, and then try to argue with me on that.
However, in the middle east where their culture is influenced by Islam (Their holy law is even their secular law.) they believe that to kill to defend the faith is acceptable. (Although it happened in older days of Christianity, I don't believe anywhere that it was okayed by the teachings of Christianity. Again as I've said the religious boards, people using religion as a scapecgoat for other matters.) So while for them killing for certain purposes is not immoral (the "defending" of their faith), it is immoral in our society.
So yes, they differ from culture to culture.
I'd say our day-to-day morals such as being polite and please and thank you and such came with the Renissance and that way of thinking. Because in my reading of literature and study of history, especially early history like in the Roman era or before, they just generally weren't polite on a person-to-person basis, they were polite on a Peasant - to - King, or a Soldier - to - General type basis, because the person had a higher rank than them, for whatever reason. So they were respecting their society more than the person, really. Don't quote me on that, but I'd say roughly in that general era is where we can find a place to thank our basic day-to-day politeness and morals.
That's what I think anyways.
|
|
|
Post by 2bfoundwanting on Oct 10, 2006 20:31:13 GMT -5
Hm. Well i think I differ a bit.
I completely agree that cultures/societies/morals are compltely effected by religion. I have taken a history class thank you, i wont try to argue on that one. I agree.
But. I happen to think that religions are formed by people due to necessity not reality. Example: Mythology, a way to explain the ways of the world. They believed it like a religion whole heartedly... but it turned out it isn't true.
|
|
|
Post by Tyual on Oct 11, 2006 19:31:42 GMT -5
Rather man makes religion, or there is existance of God or whatnot, the fact is religion exists, and religion affects reality, which means it affects society. So on that note, rather it's real or not doesn't matter, it's effects do =p
|
|
|
Post by 2bfoundwanting on Oct 11, 2006 20:21:34 GMT -5
Hm, well i agree and disagree on that point as well.
I see it as a cycle. Religion is created by the necessity of the society, and those rules then go on to effect future generations and morph with the needs of the society and culture.
So, Society effects/creates religion which in turn effects/creates society.
What came first the chicken or the egg? Of course there is a simple answer to that! The Chicken EVOLVED and so slowly slowly there became an organism that grew into what we call the chicken today and plopped down an egg.
Of course, thats if you believe in evolution.
Do you watch the Daily Show, Mr. Tyual?
And also (ps) i am feeling really... off lately, so if i say... off comments, or dont take things seriously or whatever, forgive me, im not sure i can control what i say now, silly, offensive, or random.
|
|
|
Post by Tyual on Oct 12, 2006 13:20:49 GMT -5
No I don't watch the Daily Show, I don't have time to.
Also, I believe the chicken came first because it was created, not because it evolved. I don't believe in the evolution theory that everything came from fishes or whatnot. The idea of a species evolving within itself, sure. Like a human can evolve into a higher level of human, or a chicken to a higher level of chicken, but not a snake to a chiken or a monkey to a man.
Thus, there really ISN'T a simple answer to that, because the answer depends on what you believe, which is very diverse.
Society creating religion? I'd say not. Early man had religion, before they began to settle and form societies. The hunter-gatherers or whatever you choose to call them had a form of religion. Thus, before society and civilzation really began. So, from that I conclude that society does not make religion. Does it affect it? Not so much society as the people in society with their unique and individual believes, make minor impacts on the whole.
I mean Christianity has been Christianity for 2000 years and was not made because it was "needed" it was "made" because PEOPLE, not society, believed in it. See, society as a general at that time would've compeltely shut down Christianity if it could've. Especially in Rome.
So I'd disagree that society creates religion, but to say it doesn't affect it would be wrong as well. I mean Christianity has a crapload of denominations, all because of different people in society and their different perspectives on how the religion as a whole should be interpreted, thus affected by sects of society.
I could go on a bit but I'm in class and I believe the bell is fixing to ring, so I'm cutting it short. I think I got my basic idea across.
|
|
|
Post by seffy on Oct 15, 2006 17:48:31 GMT -5
There is no Creation, only Evolution. Creation was just a way for Humans to explain what they couldn't understand at the time and is now nothing more than a dieing myth. Society creating Religion? Deffinately. That's why there are so may diversities in todays religions, yet they all have one underlying fundamental, that their religion 'is' the 'true' religion. It's like a lottery with them. Pick one and go with it and, if it works for you, congratulations you're a winner. If not, hard luck but don't worry, there's plenty more to choose from. Have another go. Humans have always wanted to know things, to have a reason for themselves, the world around them. Back when we were the Hunter/Gatherers, our knowledge was limited. So we attributed those reasonings to divine powers, to gods and to the sun and the moon. Today, we are much more advanced than we were. We have a better understanding of the things around us and can explain our existance and our place in the Universe. Today, we have no need for the supernatural. That's why, in Britain anyway, religion is on the decline. Sunday Schools are almost a thing of the past and most churches only ever see large crowds at Weddings and Funerals. So, yes, society did create religion and does still affect it.
|
|
|
Post by Tyual on Oct 15, 2006 21:13:48 GMT -5
Seffy don't state that about evolution as fact unless you have proof. Which you don't, otherwise the arguement about it still wouldn't be going on to this day.
Society created the ideals of God or gods? No. Because that's been around since before society as we call it, like I said earlier, when they were hunter gatherers; before they started to group together in agriculture and make a society/civilzation. So the idea was already there, which means that it was not an idea created by society.
Now RELIGION, it to a degree was affected by society, yes. Because there are many different religions and many different ways to worship the same thing, or different things. However, the base idea behind them, the worship of and faith in a higher power, was there before societies began to develop. Religion is nothing more than a word used to describe our choice of preferences in how we worship, and the name of the god(s) we worship. The base idea is the same. And that idea was not created by society. History.
So saying the underlying idea that a religion is the "true" religion is really incorrect. Many people will admit the fact that there is an uncertainty factor that none of us can know about until we die which means that we could infact be wrong. Those of us who are not arrogant and egotistical at least. Those of us who will admit the possibility of our faults. The underlying idea is the worship of and faith in a higher power(s).
Early on yes, our knowledge was limited, but guess what, it still is today. To say that they blamed natural events on supernatural things, yeah sure, but I'm sure things happened even then that they -KNEW- should not have been possible. When someone survives a wreck that every bit of science and knowledge and technology we have says they shouldn't have, that defies what we -know-, and so rather you acredit it to God or something else, fact is we still don't know what caused it, and those of us who have faith, yes most likely we'll say it was the grace of God or the blessing of Allah or whatever that caused it to happen. What do you people with no faith acredit it to? Sheer luck?
Also, look at those early societies. Their culture was I'd guess.....95%? based on their religious laws. Many socities are that way today. So how does society create religion? It would go to say that religion was created off of theirs laws, but it was the other way around. Religion affects society much more than society affects religion. To say it doesn't affect it at all would be wrong, but to say it created and primarially affects it? I'd say no.
So yeah, we can't explain everything. We do not know our purpose in the Universe. It's quite impossible for us to understand our entire purpose in the vast universe with only the advancements in technology and knowledge we have. Just not possible to FULLY understand it. Have an idea, a hunch? Sure. be 100% without question positive? No.
So to say we have no need of the supernatural, if that's what you choose to call God, I'd disagree. Even going on your idea that society created it, there are still a lot of things we can't explain even with all the advancements we have in the world today, so what are you going to blame those things on? Obviously, the supernatural. Even with your idea, there is still a need for it.
Religion on the decline isn't much of a big deal. Religion is just how you choose to worship as I've said countless times, and so if everyone wants to worship in their own way, then they don't go to church, they may have the same basic ideals, but slight differences, and not go to church. So to say church attendance doesn't accurately reflect the number of people with faith and belief in God. I know quite a number of people who don't go to church frequently who believe in God, and strongly. My parents being some of them, as well as a number of the students I go to school with. And I live in the Bible Belt where going to church every Sunday and Wednesday is a big deal for a lot of people, and even knowing the large number of people I do who don't attend regularly, the number of people I know who have a faith in the higher power goes futher even into those who do not attend a church regularly. So even if you said that here, it wouldn't accurately reflect much.
|
|
|
Post by seffy on Oct 16, 2006 2:36:19 GMT -5
Dude, this isn't the Religion Thread, it's the Philosophy Thread and my Philosophy is that Evolution does exist and does explain the history of life on Earth. *I've continued this in the Religion Thread dude. I hope you'll join me in there.
|
|
|
Post by Tyual on Oct 16, 2006 9:13:33 GMT -5
Well religion and philosophy are pretty closely related a lot of times This isn't about particular religion, but how religion in general affected society. The religions of the era I'm talking about were around even before the religion I follow, =P
|
|
|
Post by 2bfoundwanting on Oct 16, 2006 19:33:05 GMT -5
Ty, there is alot of proof for Evolution. Its just proof you choose not to believe as true. But there is so called "proof" of God that i choose not to believe, that doesn't mean you dont think it isn't absolutely true.
Also, its again an opinion that idont think we can reconcile. You being religious and all have your opinions about how it came. Of course you have facts to back your opinions but they are interperted facts. I could find just as many to back my statement up as well.
I strongly believe that religion was created by man as a way of coping for things he does not understand. I am not saying that there is no God, but I believe that Christianity is made up as well as Judiasm, Islam, so on and so on. I think the bible is as much a creation story or myth as the Native American or Greek Myths are.
Now, again, I am not saying there isn't a God as is depicted by Christianity. But I personally believe that it would be coincidence, rahter than divine law.
I dont know how to explain it. Sorry. And i know you strongly dissagree... but.. I really do not think I can be persuaded on this one. I have taken several philosophy/critical thinking courses and an Anthropology of Religion course, all at City College and a Mythology course in my Highschool. Everything presented to me there, despite that my philosophy teacher was in fact religious, so it wasn't just my being indoctrinated by unreligious people, seemed to point to what i stated above.
So yah. Thats .. uh, yah. : )
|
|
|
Post by Tyual on Oct 16, 2006 20:50:24 GMT -5
There is proof of evolution within a species, yes. Like a human to a higher level of human. There's no proof to say that I came from a fish or a monkey. None. Are there similarities between them? Sure. Evolution from monkey to me? Hell no.
You're entitled to think that, and I guess all I can say is that you can answer to the big man for it when your time comes, not to me. =P
Also, classes are taught to support evolution. They have been for ages. They're geared to support science. However, I feel that they should also be inclined to include the idea of creationism on an equal basis, which they do not do. Thus, our education is given from a 1-sided view, as the course circiculum requires. To adequeately learn things from a religious standpoint and view, you have to take your own initiative to learn about it. Even if for a merely educational purpose.
|
|
|
Post by 2bfoundwanting on Oct 16, 2006 21:23:05 GMT -5
There is a thing called seperation of Church and State. The class is called SCIENCE not Theories about creation Class. If you want to take classes on religion there are plenty out there... I have taken classes on religion. And the only science that you are required to take that you learn about evolution is Biology and at least my teacher talked for a day or two about the idea of Intelligent Design... but the story the bible has is PURE RELIGION it isn't science, so why should a science class teach it? And he didn't even talk about evolution that much in contrast to how much else he talked about.
And listen.. I just, I dont understand it sometimes when people state things so difinitively. Dont you see that I believe in evolution just as strongly as you believe in God? How can you say that you are right over me when I am just as intelligent, just as educated and have researched almost as much as you have? I have never said definitively that there isn't a God. If there is, then yes I will answer to him in the end. And I recognize that you believe there is a God.. just as strongly as I believe there is evolution. So I would never dream of saying that there is no possible way that you are right! How do you KNOW for certain if I am just as sure as you? How can you say as if it is absolutley true that there is a God when others believe so strongly there isn't?
And we aren't talking about FACTS because as much as there isn't proof for evolution, so you say, there isn't proof for God. You can KNOW for certain proveable facts (though even that some philosophers would argue) But you can never know for certain something so elusive as god or evolution. SO why do you insist that that is the only possibility? Like it is the fact thats all. Like my idea of evolution will get me in trouble with your God?
It just kind of offends me. You are putting me under your standards and your beliefs when that is all they are. Beliefs.
I know I am not stating this well and i am sure you will come back with one hundred and one arguments, but its just how i feel. I dont think i can know something that isn't proven because I know that there are people out there who believe for and against it just as strongly and who is to say who is right?
Second. If there is a God. Do you really think he would punish people for believing in evolution? Becuase then there are many many wonderful, smart, and good scientists being punished by Him. That is just something that has always kept me from believing in God, because believe me, i really want to. I just dont think that if there is a God that is supposed to be all good and all that that he would punish someone for not believing in him. I think if a person is good and does the right things and is honest and pure it shouldn't matter what religion they are to God.
But sorry, i get off topic and am severely drifting into the religion topic. I just feel strongly about it and am almost offended when people tell me I will be punished for something despite my being a moral, good person. It just. It really does not make sense to me.
And iknow you have already defended this point, I have heard youre argument, sorry for pushing it forward again. You always make good, educated, and very worthwhile, respectable points, but sometimes i dont understand where they come from and that bothers me because i try so hard to understand other people and their thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by Tyual on Oct 16, 2006 21:52:23 GMT -5
In all seriousness, the idea of separation of church and state can't really work. Why? The morals of religion are far too deeply imbedded into our society. The people who founded our country founded them on their beliefs. Rather we agree or disagree with them. They are imbedded from society wayyyyy back. So the society's laws are in many ways based on church doctrine/ideas. The 10 commandments? Don't steal, don't kill, don't covet, don't be adulterous, etc. All things that are also tied to religion. I mean without religion, why would there be such a big deal about being adulterous and such? But there is a big deal. A president not too many years ago almost got impeached over it! So separation of church and state, honestly, just doesn't work in reality. Think about it for awhile. Science class, so what there's not a science to religion? There very much is. To studying and understanding it, in a very similar way to the way in which you study and understand sciences! And biology, mine was ENTIRELY based on the idea of evolution. He taught about 70% of the stuff based from it. He said he didn't personally agree to it, but he had to teach it that way. So your biology class was a lot different than mine. And I live in the bible belt even. Also to teach religion, it should most defenitally be taught in a history class, where it shows its importance and effects rather than in a science class, that I'll agree. Classes on religion? Sure that'll tell you what it's "about" Will you understand it? I'd say no. You'll understand the customs, some of the ideas, but to fully and intimately understand where the followers are coming from and why they believe? No you can't get that out of a text book or class. You get that out of interaction and taking time to talk to them and learn. I can't PROVE to you that creationism is right and evolution is wrong, unless you find some way for me to take you back to the beginning of linear time/existance of our universe. But at the same time, you cannot find a way to PROVE to me that evolution is right. I say I'm right, because that's what I believe. You believe you're right, so that's what you say. Do I say you're uneducated or unintelligent for your views? No. Not saying that. I'm saying I think you're wrong, but not wrong because of an uneducated decision. You think I'm wrong, but did you say it was because I was uneducated? No. It's just my personal choice to believe that which I do. As it is yours. That's why this is PERSONAL philosophies. We do not necessarially have to agree or have the same ideas, we just have the ideas and present them. "SO why do you insist that that is the only possibility? Like it is the fact thats all. Like my idea of evolution will get me in trouble with your God? " Actually, based on my religious beliefs, your disbelief in him and belief in evolution, WILL get you in trouble with him. I don't say it's the only possibility, but it IS the one I believe. So it's the one I go by and base my ideals on. For me it IS fact. For you, it may not be. For you evolution may be fact. You're welcome to it. But for me, my creationism is my fact. For me, it's as real as the air I breathe. If you were ignorant, and didn't have access to the religion or knowledge of it, then no. However, if you know about God and have been introduced to the religion and stuff, as it is believed, and you still choose to deny him, then yeah, you're pretty much screwed as my religion teaches. Do I think this is right, or fair? No. But then again life isn't fair and no one said God's judgement is either. I mean if you were God and created all of existance and then your little creatures that you made, with their only purpose to be to have a relationship with, then wouldn't you get pissed if they denied you and your exstance and didn't want to have a relationship with you if that's what you made them for? No ever said God was a God that works on logic and reasoning. If God made man in his own image, it goes to say that God is emotional as man, and his actions thus are much affected by such. Piss him off, he throws you in hell, piss a person off, they kick your tail. *shrug* Makes sense to me. Does this mean I think non-religious people are bad, evil people? No. I don't think it's necessarially right to punish them for things that they can't be 100% about, but hey, I'm not the omnipotent one to make that decision. Don't get me wrong, I don't always understand why God works the way he does, and sometimes I even disagree with religion as I was taught it on this because it doesn't seem logical or even emotinally correct to me. I question it and contemplate it myself. However, as far as I know, that's the way it is, rather I like it or not. Which, in the sense when I think of the people I know who are good people that will suffer eternity for being unsure and thus making the best guess they can with the information presented to them, well I don't necessarially think that's the right thing to do. But I'm not God, and maybe God won't do that, and they teach it wrong in religion for their propoganda and scare tactics. I dunno. I just know that's the way it's been taught to me, rather I think it's right or wrong to be that way. Yeah, I'm distracted with other people at the moment so I hope I kept a clear train of thought and made everything come out clearly, if not I appologize. Philsophy is often tied to a person's religious beliefs, it affects their philosophy, which is simply their beliefs and ideals. So don't think it's a stranger to see religion in this thread or philosophy in religion
|
|
|
Post by 2bfoundwanting on Oct 16, 2006 22:25:53 GMT -5
In all seriousness, the idea of separation of church and state can't really work. Why? The morals of religion are far too deeply imbedded into our society. The people who founded our country founded them on their beliefs. Rather we agree or disagree with them. They are imbedded from society wayyyyy back. So the society's laws are in many ways based on church doctrine/ideas. The 10 commandments? Don't steal, don't kill, don't covet, don't be adulterous, etc. All things that are also tied to religion. I mean without religion, why would there be such a big deal about being adulterous and such? But there is a big deal. A president not too many years ago almost got impeached over it! So separation of church and state, honestly, just doesn't work in reality. Think about it for awhile. Listen, i cant argue with the other stuff, because you believe in it so strongly that there is no point. Power to ya. But this, this i believe i can argue. I believe it is VERY important that church and state are seperated and I do believe that it works. Your whole thing on without religion we wouldn't have laws like "dont kill", i personally think is rediculous. Are you honestly saying that if GOD hadn't decided it was bad to kill, we wouldn't have that as illegal? You are saying that all those people that are affected by the murder of a loved one or the simple intrinsinc want of not wanting to be killed yourself would not lead to that law? And Bill Clinton did not get in all that trouble becuase of adultery, almost everyone ive asked, professors and peers alike agree that that was his business. It was that he LIED under OATH on NATIONAL TV that he got in so much trouble with the nation. And please please please, do not tell me to "think about it". Obviously I have "thought about it". My pondering some more isn't going to magically make me agree. And as for the rest, those things you said about God are some of the reasons I dont believe in him. I just.. I dont believe that.. ugh nevermind. I cant formulate my thoughts very well right now. Sorry. Ive been having alot of philosophical and religious debates lately, and while i think they are necesarry for a critically thinking person to have so they can grow in their views.. after having to debate and defend and so on several times in a row for several days Ive started wanting a break. Kinda like. THESE ARE MY VIEWS LEAVE ME ALONE type of thing, yah know? lol, sorry.. random tangent. But yah. ..
|
|
|
Post by seffy on Oct 17, 2006 3:09:58 GMT -5
A president not too many years ago almost got impeached over it! Adultery isn't against the law. It may be against your gods law, but not ours (by that I mean the Law of the land). The reason Clinton got in so much trouble was, as Lisi said, he lied to the nation under oath. Plus, as your nation's leader he was supposed to be whiter than white and lead by example 'and' he left himself open to massive security issues. The trouble he got himself into wasn't religious, they were moral and security based.
|
|
|
Post by Tyual on Oct 17, 2006 18:46:33 GMT -5
" Your whole thing on without religion we wouldn't have laws like "dont kill", i personally think is rediculous."
I'm not saying we wouldn't have them, but I'm saying they would not be as serious or as deeply imbedded into our society without religion. Think, what's the higher crime, murder or stealing an apple? The murder. Murder is known as a bigger sin than stealing an apple.
"Are you honestly saying that if GOD hadn't decided it was bad to kill, we wouldn't have that as illegal?"
No, but I'm saying it wouldn't be as deeply inbedded into our society if it weren't for religion. Does someone send you to jail for not saying please and thank you? No. I don't know of religion saying that you MUST say please and thank you for everything though, but it DOES say that you shouldn't kill. (at least the Christian religion.) You can't deny it's impact, it had a huge one. It can be seen especially in the weight of crimes. Just like one sin had a higher price to pay than others, death meant death, stealing meant loss of a hand. Stealing was the lesser of the two. Today, you go to jail for less time for stealing than murdering.
Or even look at the Islamic community, where killing to "protect the faith" is believed to be a good act. Even though it's murder. Thus, in our country it's easy to see that it was founded on ideals of the founding fathers, which means that it was founded with their philosophy, which is affected by their religion in mind. Which means it affected it. Which means that their churchly views affected their secular views.
Look at how many societies in the world have their religious law strictly as their secular law. Look at past Presidents and important people in the Congress or Judicial branch. They were affected by their religion in their decisions, votes, and stuff. Pretty sure that's not good separation of church and state.
In all correctness, everything would be based on more or less sheer logic if you took the religious part of philosophy out of a person, and people don't function that way. People make the government, the state. So you can't separate them. It just does not work.
As for Clinton, if they hadn't tried to make a big public deal out of his adultry, and would have let him handle his own business, then it wouldn't have ever turned into lying under oath or any such. But adultry is viewed as such a big bad thing, and a bad example and something that a "good" person doesn't do, they DID make a big deal out of it. Thus he lied, and almost got impeached. Had it not been for them making a big gripe about adultry that wouldn't have happened. So indirectly, yes, he pretty much almost got impeached for adultry.
So lets look at this. Even as modern as greek society, marriage was not such a big deal. Men had mistresses on their wives commonly, and there were mass orgies going on. That doesn't happen now. Why? Influence of religion on society. Later in the late Roman era, Christianity developed and it taught that adultry was bad, and behold, a decline in it and people start to view it was a "bad" and "inappropriate" thing, where just in the previous era, it had been perfectly acceptable. Thus, the affects of religioN in affairs of the STATE.
and I think in some states, Seffy, it is illegal to betray the legal marriage agreement stuff that you have to your spouse. Not sure. I do believe though that the discretion of that being legal or illegal is a state-to-state thing, in America at least.
|
|
|
Post by 2bfoundwanting on Oct 17, 2006 23:42:43 GMT -5
I dont think its illegal to comit adultury anywhere in the US. But I could be wrong i havn't researched it.
Basically i dont think you are understanding what I am saying, because your responses dont really apply to what i am saying completely. But i have tried to explain it several times and if you still aren't getting it, then i must just not be good or able at/to explain it in a concise fashion.
SO i end my argument there.
|
|
|
Post by Tyual on Oct 18, 2006 9:05:59 GMT -5
I understand what you were saying, and I addressed that. So I guess you either weren't saying what you were meaning to, or you said something with one meaning and I took it with another. So either way, misunderstanding I guess. Oh well, it happens. I think it's best that this one stops and something new starts anyways, it's getting too close to religion and politics, even though they relate to a degree, that line is getting walked all over, lol.
|
|