BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Goose Gander
Date: 16 May 10 - 11:07 PM

We have free will, despite all the baggage of our upbringing, education, etc. One may choose to be compassionate and helpful, and cite religious reasons for doing so; one may be cruel and cite religious justification. One may be compassionate and helpful and cite secular philosophy to explain his or her actions; one may be cruel and justify one's actions as naturalistic, darwinistic in nature. Either way, one's beliefs are subjective. We can't know either way, so we choose based upon who we are and who we would like to be.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Goose Gander
Date: 16 May 10 - 09:46 PM

"Conscience and morals are perhaps built into us, in the same way that pack animals look out for each other."

So is aggression. There are evolutionary advantages to both cooperation and competition, as there are to both compassion and aggression. To a certain degree, the capacity for religious belief may be built into us as well.

"Religion however is a man made abstract"

All moral codes are "man made abstract" in their specific details. Religious beliefs are simply moral codes with an overlay of the supernatural.

There is no definable distinction between between religious beliefs and moral conscience, and in practice they often blur together. Look into to the beliefs of Quakers and Buddhists if you need examples.

All moral codes and religious beliefs are subjective in this way. I believe it is right for society to look after the weak, but I can't offer objective proof for my beliefs. My beliefs developed out of my religious training, but while my faith has faded my beliefs remain.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Bill D
Date: 16 May 10 - 09:07 PM

"From what I've seen, many of these so-called 'liberals', are not 'accomplishers' of anything much of value"

So...you have a list of who HAS accomplished something of value, along with their political affiliations? Maybe the Noble prize winners?

*shrug*...ok, a slogan. I don't necessarily agree that 'love' is that historically relevant as a driving force, though it is a very nice sentiment.
Greed & power and sex have motivated more folks than love, I'd guess...but I don't have any learned studies about it to quote.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: mousethief
Date: 16 May 10 - 06:07 PM

knock on peoples' doors asking if they would like to be told what to do.

From an anti-religious screed of a post, this turn of phrase made me smile.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 16 May 10 - 11:48 AM

Aye, and (wrongly) conchies were convicted of breaking the law.

Conscience and morals are perhaps built into us, in the same way that pack animals look out for each other. Religion however is a man made abstract designed for plenty of reasons, but trying to explain what you don't yet understand and having power over others are two of the main reasons we have to put up with religion.

It is not a matter of being smug, (temper temper little pillock) more a matter of differentiating between conscience and religion. As I see it, one is weighing up the circumstances and coming to your own conclusion whereas the other is having somebody make your decision for you. Whatever floats your boat, but the law seems to have come down on the case for the former, not the latter. And that makes me just a little bit happier.

However, whilst it makes me happy, it doesn't make me smile more than is strictly necessary, and doesn't make me knock on peoples' doors asking if they would like to be told what to do.

God is not conscience. God may be what some people use as a proxy for conscience, but I can't help it if they are either tooo shallow or too thick to use their own judgement. Some people can't you know, and that is why the situation with priests buggering children is so tragic. Many people look up to religious leaders for their moral compass and prod towards conscience. Look where it gets them... No wonder the law is increasingly seeing religion as irrelevant.

After all, what is the difference between wanting a court to respect Christian values and people wanting sharia law to be used? Answer - none. If Christians want to be tried using the bible as a guide and Muslims want sharia law to apply to them, we would have a multi tier system for justice and that doesn't seem satisfactory on any level.

Therefore secular law is not anti religion, more recognising the irrelevance of it, and especially to the millions of rational people who don't have any belief whatsoever.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 May 10 - 10:56 AM

And my understanding is that there have in fact been conscientious objectors in UK history.

There could be again.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 May 10 - 10:47 AM

"Some pillock..."

Temper, temper, little man.    Not getting enough sleep these days?

I note with interest that no one--particularly no lawyer-- has addressed the actual issue raised by GooseGander and me---that what is called God by some is called conscience by others.

So if God has no standing in law, all you have to do is call your reason for not obeying a law conscience, not God, and you'll be fine.

Unless of course conscience also has no standing in British or US law--and in that case conscientious objectors all lose their cases.

Those who so smugly applaud the official banning of God from the law are not considering the logical consequences of this--too broad--decision.   As GooseGander has pointed out.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 16 May 10 - 05:21 AM

Some pillock snorted at my comment about law being conscience, saying "ask any solicitor."

That's a bit like saying there is a God, ask any priest.

Solicitors would have you believe law is more than conscience. Ok, I will meet them half way. it is applied conscience.

Oh, something which Goose Gander may find interesting; Unlike The USA, we don't have a written constitution, so to say we have an established church here in Blighty is missing the point somewhat. We have a tradition of an established church and whilst it doesn't piss us off too much we put up with blokes in absurd hats rattling on about aspects of society they have no comprehension of.

But there is nothing in law or constitution other than we put up with Monarchy, and Monarchy holds the title of head of the establishment church. that makes the church of England by royal appointment, just like HP Sauce and Andrex Toilet paper.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Jack Campin
Date: 16 May 10 - 01:56 AM

If God doesn't exist in Britain, why do they have an established church?

We don't.

England and Wales do, but not Scotland.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Goose Gander
Date: 16 May 10 - 12:35 AM

Yes, I am pointing out that American law on this subject is superior to British law and custom. You and your hoary, old established church. Bah!

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Goose Gander
Date: 16 May 10 - 12:28 AM

Back to the first amendment, two important points regarding religion - no established religion, and no laws preventing the free exercise of religion. The second premise flows from the first. Based upon this, religious beliefs have standing under US law. Of course there are limitations upon freedom of religion, just as there are limitations upon any freedom. You can't commit human sacrifice. Polygamy is still illegal as well. It's one thing to accept that there are limitations upon freedom of religion, and quite another to say that religious beliefs have no standing in law because they are subjective. The first is pragmatic, and reflects moderation and accommodation within a pluralistic society; the second not only fails to guarantee freedom of religion, it actually undermines the basis for the free exercise of religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Goose Gander
Date: 15 May 10 - 06:16 PM

Regarding human sacrifice, don't be silly. There are perfectly good reasons why human sacrifice is not allowed by law. It is not necessary to assert that religion has no standing under the law to construct a legal prohibition against the practice. In the United States, religion does have standing under the law. The 1st amendment forbids both an establishment of religion and laws preventing the free exercise of religion. And yet human sacrifice is not legal in the United States. Go figure.

It is the principle in Laws' decision that is dangerous, not the specific case. You apparently believe this is a progressive decision that will protect the rights of the weak. Well, if so, your faith is touching. Do you realize it would be very easy to apply the logic of this decision AGAINST religious minorities? Against ANY who object to a law based upon matters of conscience?

"Well, as no such law exists, that's pure conjecture." No, it isn't. It follows logically from Laws' decision. Just because there's no conscription law at present doesn't mean there never will be.

The more I think about this case, the more convinced I am it stinks all around. This is simply a matter of someone refusing to do their job. Let's try a thought experiment: suppose the man in question was not a Christian but a Muslim. Suppose he got a job at a fast food restaurant and refused to make a bacon cheeseburger, based upon his religious beliefs, and for this he was fired (substitute any scenario you like: a Hindu on a cattle ranch; a Buddhist in a butcher shop; etc.). Suppose he "took his case to an industrial tribune" and invoked his religious beliefs. The judge would only need to remind him that this is not a matter of religion, but of meeting the terms of his employment. Complaint dismissed, case closed. Laws used a cannon when he should have used a flyswatter.

And, finally, let's be clear: Gary McFarlane certainly inconvenienced the couple and likely offended them, but he did not "infringe upon their rights." He did not prevent them from receiving therapy from another counselor. He did not physically attack them, or vandalize their property. He did not offer them up as human sacrifices to his god. He refused to do his job, and for this he was fired. The employer's decision was correct, Laws' decision was wrong. Wrong, and dangerous.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 May 10 - 05:55 PM

Bill D: "Is that a slogan or just an aphorism?"

The word 'religion' means, 'way of life'.

Slogan?? aphorism??

What is music?..another vehicle to get people to 'notice' you??..as if one deserves to be noticed for doing nothing but boring shit?

I guess, it's how much you 'believe' in what you are doing. From what I've seen, many of these so-called 'liberals', are not 'accomplishers' of anything much of value, but hide behind what they think is 'hip' to hide their self inadequacies!

To answer your question, Love is the reason, the motivator, and the objective of much anything worth accomplishing.

If you write a piece of music, is the objective to make people yawn? or feel nothing?....and what you want them to feel, is it anything more than just horny??(if they needed any help?) Is it to make them feel more greedy? More selfish? Inspired to become a serial murderer?

No,...it just a slogan...(rolls eyes).

Wink,

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Art Thieme
Date: 15 May 10 - 04:41 PM

As I have stated, it's the old leap of faith thing;---deja vu all over again. Applying all that I have learned and thought in this life, I cannot make the jump. This is why I think that religion, faith, all of it, all the dogmas, are nothing more than wishful thinking; designed, mostly, to strive to circumvent the fact that death is the one real ending a person can intellectually expect.

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: theleveller
Date: 15 May 10 - 04:18 PM

"The logic of his decision undermines the basis for any religious or - as I understand it - moral objection to the "legal obligations" that concern you so much."

Why? Are you saying that religious beliefs, which are subjective and cannot be substantiated, should override the law? Pretty much an argument for anarchy. As Hume said, "freedom of thought does not mean freedom of action" (or words to that effect).

"What would be the basis for conscientious objectors?"

Well, as no such law exists, that's pure conjecture.Let me state, once again, that where a person's belief leads to actions that infringe the right of others, they are unacceptable, but where they do not infringe the rights of others (such as refusal to kill another person no matter what the situation) then the law protects that right. You still haven't answered my last question in my previous post - if you're not missing the point you are certainly evading it.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Goose Gander
Date: 15 May 10 - 02:54 PM

I think you are missing the point, the wider point contained in the judge's logic. If the fool in question had refused to do his job, the job for which he was hired, that should have been reason enough for dismissal. But Laws went much further than that. The logic of his decision undermines the basis for any religious or - as I understand it - moral objection to the "legal obligations" that concern you so much.

"We have no conscription in the UK, so no-one is obliged to serve in the armed forces or go to war. It would require an Act of Parliament to bring in such conscription and this act would probably provide for conscientious objectors"

What would be the basis for conscientious objectors? Any reason put forward for refusal to serve would necessarily be subjective.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: theleveller
Date: 15 May 10 - 12:28 PM

I think you're missing the point, Goose Gander, we're talking about legal obligations here. We have no conscription in the UK, so no-one is obliged to serve in the armed forces or go to war. It would require an Act of Parliament to bring in such conscription and this act would probably provide for conscientious objectors - as in WW2. People have the right to believe what they like. What they do not have the right to do is infringe the rights of others by their actions - rights that are protected in law.I may have religious beliefs that require me to perform human sacrifices - are you saying that this would be OK?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Bill D
Date: 15 May 10 - 12:17 PM

Is that a slogan or just an aphorism?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 May 10 - 11:39 AM

Love is the law....Don't break it, keep it!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 May 10 - 11:34 AM

"Law is conscience."   Drivel.   As any lawyer will tell you.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 May 10 - 11:06 AM

Steamin' Willie: "Thought it would happen..
The word "faith" has quietly slipped in.
Oh dear."

When people's 'faith' in the almighty dollar fails, you might just look to 'faith'...in something!..certainly not into your 'hipness'!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Leadfingers
Date: 15 May 10 - 10:16 AM

200

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 15 May 10 - 10:05 AM

Thought it would happen..

The word "faith" has quietly slipped in.

Oh dear.

Look, faith and religion are not necessarily exclusive terms but they can be. I have faith in Sheffield Wednesday. They lose, I say next time we will win. They get relegated, I say we will bounce straight back. They win, I accept this is their divine right.

Now... I know they are a board on behalf of shareholders just like any other club, there is no mystic metaphysical aspect to them. Just a ground with 42,000 seats, turf in the middle and a large echoey trophy room.

You see, I don't think there should be laws that everybody supports Sheffield Wednesday and Sheffield United supporters need to be removed from society. I can't understand why not everybody supports Sheffield Wednesday but at a push, I can just accept that the law of the land is not the place to ensure allegiance. The game after the one we just lost should be enough.

So, if I don't need laws to protect my right to faith, why should people need the law to protect what they have faith in?

There is no difference between having faith in your football team and having faith with a god concept. Each can give moments of euphoria and long periods of testing your faith when they move in mysterious ways. (Not playing wide enough, Johnson not getting enough possession, not making the rains come today, not turning disbelievers into a pillar of salt.)

Oh, and to those still harping on about it. Law IS conscience. Pillock..

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: steve in ottawa
Date: 15 May 10 - 07:40 AM

Sorry, I didn't read ALL the posts. The first 30 or so seemed to uniformly agree that the fired person was the wrong person for the job, but many people worried about the judge's reasoning.

First: the thing we should be MOST worried about is that it's so difficult for an employer to fire individuals who turn out to be unsuitable for a job. That affects us all, every day. (And no, I don't want everyone to live in fear of a tiff with their boss, but clear and admitted evidence of non-performance...)

Second: the implications of one legal judgment don't necessarily carry over to the cases we see as logically similar. For example, while some people might see here a clear statement that a conscientious objector could no longer avoid being drafted into combat, it's unlikely that the judge in this case saw ANY similarity, or was trying to reverse older decisions of other courts relating to CO status.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 15 May 10 - 07:01 AM

Do let me assure I was not trying to be slippery nor knowingly invoking quivocation with my questions below. What I was trying to point to is that there are things we all believe in with little proof of their existence but we still 'know' they are there, or think we do. The two things were meant to be two very different examples of such things. There are others.

Initial love is a chemical cocktail mix that flows around us giving us certain feelings. The longer lasting, steadfast type love takes a little more understanding and, whilst I accept it may not be an act of faith for many, in nonetheless shows a faith in someone.

Trust is harder to pin down. We know what it is and we know what it is not to have it. We know what mistrust does and feels like. Yet trust is a concept of some sort that cannot be demonstrated. That was all I was trying to point out.

In religion maybe love and faith should go hand in hand. Certainly in counselling you need trust. As in most relationships, trust is paramount. It will never work for you if you have no trust in the person counselling you nor if they do not trust you because you go against their core belief system.

Anyway, maybe my commets muddled thing ups a bit. If they did I apologise. They certainly were not meant to. I should have left it with my comments at the start of the thread

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Goose Gander
Date: 15 May 10 - 12:08 AM

Religious faith and moral conscience are equally subjective, and in practice there is often no clear distinction between the two. A Quaker may oppose military service based upon feelings of conscience, which in turn are grounded in religious belief. Someone may turn to Buddhism, as friends of mine have, based upon feelings of compassion toward other living things. Speaking for myself, I believe members of civilized societies are obligated to protect the weak and suffering. I developed this belief while under the influence of Maryknoll sisters who taught me at school. Though my religious beliefs have faded - I am a collapsed Catholic, if anyone's wondering - I retain my core moral beliefs. But it is not possible for me to objectively prove that my social views are correct. Someone might argue that caring for the weak only prolongs suffering and prevents the down and out from bettering themselves. The whole 'pull yourself up by your bootstraps' argument. While I might with time, persistence and a little luck convince such a person that my views are superior and healthier for society and individuals, I cannot empirically prove my beliefs, at least not to the satisfaction of my intellectual opponents.

And that's just about what I have to say about matters of conscience and faith. If someone would like to respond to the wider argument I outlined in my initial post regarding the legal decision in question, I'll be following this thread and would be happy to engage in further discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Ron Davies
Date: 14 May 10 - 11:24 PM

I notice no lawyer has come on to tell us if conscience has any standing in law. Interesting question, because what some people call God is called conscience by some others--as has been pointed out earlier.

So it's definitely a question we need a clear answer to--( naively assuming that there is such a thing as a clear answer in law)--British law being the one at issue, though the question should also be raised re: US law.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Goose Gander
Date: 14 May 10 - 08:36 PM

"Not at all. As far as memory serves, contemporary moral philosophers will usually use non-religious reasoning in their arguments."

That has nothing to do with my argument. Anyone - even a 'contemporary moral philosopher' - can construct an internally consistent argument. Just as theologians can and do construct arguments that are logically sound and consistent, as long as one accepts the underlying premises. But neither can be verified empirically.

I do believe there is a biological basis to conscience, compassion, empathy, etc. There are biological bases and evolutionary advantages to aggressive behavior as well. There may well be an evolutionary advantage to religious faith, for that matter. But specific points of religious faith and matters of conscience remain empirically unverifiable.

So where does truth reside?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Bill D
Date: 14 May 10 - 07:03 PM

By the way... there is a specific term for misusing words in the manner I noted.

"Equivocation is classified as both a formal and informal fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time)."

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Bill D
Date: 14 May 10 - 06:52 PM

The word 'faith' can have several interpretations under different circumstances.
It can simply mean 'trust'...which in matters of love can be just a 'hunch' or even a set of feelings and indications that some sort of reciprocal caring can be discerned.

But **faith**, as a matter of accepting claims or ideas or entities for which no direct evidence can be easily found, is on another level....which is why the language has words like 'belief' to say certain things.

Defending having faith by giving examples of one sort, when the issue is about another, leads to slippery arguments.

Similarly, 'conviction' and 'certitude' get tossed into discussions, often with careless references as to exactly what is meant.

It can be REALLY hard to find the right words to state precisely what you want to say about some things...and many upsetting arguments are a result of people mistaking what the other is saying.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 14 May 10 - 06:21 PM

I aught to add that us Gnostics are not too into 'faith', experience is everything.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 14 May 10 - 06:13 PM

Does not loving each other call for faith of sorts? What is trust?

Two very different questions. For the former, no love doesn't necessarily imply 'faith' (it doesn't for me) - it's an attachment based on strong human empathy, attraction and compatability - and even emotional dependency at times. I have NO "faith" in love - but nevertheless it seems to endure..

What is trust? Umm, a basic need if you're tiny, so it comes as a default setting in response to certain pre-programmed key triggers. Otherwise, we trust what we learn to know doesn't kill us. Basic empirical pragmatism.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Bill D
Date: 14 May 10 - 06:07 PM

There's a very fine line between an "open mind" and gullibility. It takes constant work to discern where one is treading.... more work than many are willing to do. Still, a genuine open mind is a wonderful thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: mousethief
Date: 14 May 10 - 06:05 PM

You might as well ask "if fairies don't exist, why are there fairy stories?"

No, it's more like, if I don't believe fairies exist, why do I keep writing them a cheque every week?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: mauvepink
Date: 14 May 10 - 06:00 PM

We have chocolate. Of course there's a God!

What other proof do you all need?

;-)

On a more serious note it all comes down to faith in the end. Faith cannot be seen or measured as such but we know it when we come across it. Does not loving each other call for faith of sorts? What is trust?

So many things we cannot see and yet we accept them every day. For those who have a God so be it. Until it is proved otherwise, one way or the other, I'll keep an open mind I suppose

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 14 May 10 - 05:54 PM

You might as well ask "if fairies don't exist, why are there fairy stories?"

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: mousethief
Date: 14 May 10 - 05:49 PM

If God doesn't exist in Britain, why do they have an established church?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 14 May 10 - 12:13 PM

" . . . religious faith is necessarily subjective, being incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence."
The same could be said for matters of conscience in general."

Not at all. As far as memory serves, contemporary moral philosophers will usually use non-religious reasoning in their arguments.

"Conscience" IMO is pretty much founded on a biological mammalian instinct to care for and support the group (including 'self sacrifice'), the finer details of which tend to be something we learn in order to integrate successfully with our society, however it happens to have developed.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Amos
Date: 14 May 10 - 11:34 AM

(And to add an answer to GfS's question, my assertions about spiritual matters is entirely my personal opinion.)

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: theleveller
Date: 14 May 10 - 11:11 AM

"I just proved that God DOES exist. "

If you were staying in a Greek holiday resort you'd have a much harder job proving that plumbing exists.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 14 May 10 - 10:54 AM

But but but...

I just proved that God DOES exist. Worse, I don't believe in all that nonsense....

So if he / she / it does exist, (and the local B&Q shutting at 4.00pm on Sunday proves it,) then it is either inside or outside of the law. Leveller asserts it does not have standing in UK law.

So, in that case, it is an outlaw concept.

Ok, put bars on the church windows and lock the ruddy doors whilst they are clapping and hugging each other. Might be able to enjoy my Sunday mornings without them knocking on my door smiling too much.

On a serious note, conscience does have a standing in law; it is called judgement. the guys with the silly wigs, once they have finished playing top trumps with points of law have to use conscience to interpret the spirit (now there's a word...) of the law when the word of the law isn't enough. Sentencing is society's instruction to a judge to use his or her conscience, (coupled with political tariff nonsense.)

(If I changed all my taps for quarter turn ones that don't need washers, would God stop existing? Just a thought.)

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: theleveller
Date: 14 May 10 - 10:13 AM

Better ask a lawyer about that. Richard?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Ron Davies
Date: 14 May 10 - 09:45 AM

"...as far as British law is concerned...."

Fine.   It's interesting that Goose Gander's excellent points have not been addressed by any atheist.

If God has no standing in British law, how about conscience?   Also no standing?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: theleveller
Date: 14 May 10 - 09:07 AM

Before we venture too far down the existentialist, epistomological, ontological or experientialist arguments as to whether god exists or not, can I just reiterate that, as far as British law is concerned, he/she/it doesn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 14 May 10 - 07:41 AM

Mousethief reckons things can exist without us seeing them.

Depends.

I have every faith in the fact Tokyo exists yet I haven't ever seen it. So does it? After all, there is more documentary assertions that God exists than there is Tokyo, yet I know Tokyo does and I know God is a human abstraction designed to fill in the gaps of knowledge and useful as a tool of subjugation.

If things can exist without us experiencing them, then god is as tangible as Tokyo. If you have experienced either, you are either well travelled or schizophrenic.

Just out of interest, this thread ventured into quantum mechanics earlier. Heisenberg shows that nothing at all exists unless and until it affects us. Interesting, as that means when I can't buy a washer for a leaking tap on a Sunday, it is proof that god exists after all...

Oh shit...

Nice God, get down boy. there, there, who's a frisky little god then eh? Do you want to go walkies???

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 May 10 - 06:34 PM

Amos: "2. There are so many vias, filters, alterations and translations between any pure spiritual intention and the form it takes in the average confused human mind that there is no reliability."

Do you know this from 'experience'...or from something you heard some one say, or logic you came up with..or what?

Yes, I understood you the first time...but you weren't making sense, from your original statement, of "God has no voice'...now he does, from your second statement. I was just wondering if you were changing your thought on it, or modifying your argument?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Amos
Date: 13 May 10 - 03:39 PM

Both statements are perfectly valid, GfS, once you understand them. It is clear to me that you do not, yet.

1. Spiritual "voices" may be rational or irrational just as human voices are.

2. There are so many vias, filters, alterations and translations between any pure spiritual intention and the form it takes in the average confused human mind that there is no reliability.

3. Spiritual impulses or thoughts are not "voices" but they can be translated into seeming like "voices" by step-down transformations, filters, dub-in and all kinds of other human twists.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 May 10 - 01:55 PM

Gooser: "The same could be said for matters of conscience in general. Go back and read your Nietzsche. Are you certain you want to discard anything that cannot be empirically verified?"

Saw this quote carved on a rest stop wall in California: " God is dead
!-Nietzsche.............."Nietzsche is dead."- God

Amos: "God does not have a voice',...THEN: "Just because a voice is "spiritual" (a very loose term, here) does not mean it is sane, and knowing the difference is critical to "spiritual" survival (another somewhat oxymoronic proposition, but that's another thread). Ghosts tales and voodoo stories are full of examples of "spiritual" entities in the grips of insanity."

Neil Young: "Is it hard to make arrangements with yourself?..."

I think you might need to think this through, Amos..and figure out just what exactly you're trying to say. It sounds like,

Roses are red,
Violets are blue.
I'm a schizophrenic,
And so am I!??

Winking,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Amos
Date: 13 May 10 - 01:44 PM

If the truly spiritually connected person picks up the message that he should drown his children in the bathtub

From a false premise, all things become possible. "Truly spiritually connected" people (speaking in general) learn to discriminate (just as intelligent, non-spiritual people do) between messages that are coherent, relatively rational and which aid broad well-being, and those which emanate from the deep black wells of psychosis. Just because a voice is "spiritual" (a very loose term, here) does not mean it is sane, and knowing the difference is critical to "spiritual" survival (another somewhat oxymoronic proposition, but that's another thread). Ghosts tales and voodoo stories are full of examples of "spiritual" entities in the grips of insanity. One could argue, even, that it takes a certain measure of madness to become a ghost at all, obsessing about the past, revenge, incomplete discussions, and the like.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: frogprince
Date: 13 May 10 - 01:11 PM

"I'm sure Robots don't understand LIFE, and are presumably 'appalled' at it, being as being 'appalled', required emotions...which of course robots don't have."

That's quite an "answer" to the question. Allow me to exposit it:

If the truly spiritually connected person picks up the message that he should drown his children in the bathtub, hey, that's life; the "robot parrots" may be appalled, because they have nothing like real working minds with which to grasp the greater truths of life.

And no, I don't even begin to imagine that that is anything like what you meant; it's just that your statement was so incoherent that it could mean that, or almost anything else.