Christian Vets

[Armymutt25A]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Discounting a completely irrelevant statement is not an argument for your own position. Next.

There are lots of hypotheses that remain unproven. Doesn't mean they are wrong. Just like the notion of aliens. Haven't seen any, but it doesn't mean they don't exist. The word is called faith.

Still haven't answered why you follow laws based on religion. It's not like they are absolutes like the laws of physics. Why should an atheist follow a non-absolute law?

 

[Bisbee]

YOU say our laws are based on religion; WE do not agree. Additionally, now that you've used the word "faith" there is not much more to say because faith is believing in something for which there is no evidence. All I can do, as a person of science, is use reason and measurements. I cannot argue with faith because that does not come into play in a rational debate. But in the end, that is what generally happens in these types of discussions...the religious person throws "faith" into the ring, and we're done. Faith does not prove the existence of a god.

 

[alliecat44]

There are lots of hypotheses that remain unproven. Doesn't mean they are wrong. Just like the notion of aliens. Haven't seen any, but it doesn't mean they don't exist. The word is called faith.

Still haven't answered why you follow laws based on religion. It's not like they are absolutes like the laws of physics. Why should an atheist follow a non-absolute law?

Agree with Bisbee re: "faith." Sigh. Too bad.

As to why I follow laws--I did answer it. Look up ethology. Done.

 

[Cautionary Tail]

There are lots of hypotheses that remain unproven. Doesn't mean they are wrong. Just like the notion of aliens. Haven't seen any, but it doesn't mean they don't exist. The word is called faith.

Still haven't answered why you follow laws based on religion. It's not like they are absolutes like the laws of physics. Why should an atheist follow a non-absolute law?

Not to be argumentative, but I'm still not seeing compelling evidence that said laws actually have a basis in religion. The fact that they've been incorporated into the tenets of a particular system of belief doesn't necessarily imply that they originated there... correlation vs. causation, all that good stuff.

 

[JulesMichy]

Obviously, you've never been in the Army. First off, that questionaire is anonymous, so no backlash can be made. The spiritual aspect is simply a way to see if the soldier feels that there is something to live for

The ambiguous language presented in the questionaire makes it quite clear what they're assessing: "connection to something larger than yourself", "belief", etc. You can water it down all you want, but they are using faith in a higher power as an assessment of the "fitness" of a soldier. Anonymous or not, the soldiers get their results. An atheist soldier receiving a big, fat F in the spirituality department might feel that their service is being devalued.

There is also the very real possibility that should the results of these surveys determine a "spirituality" problem, more federal funds will be funneled into chaplains and religious events.

To address your event paranoia, you are referring to what we call "Rent-a-crowd" or mandatory fun. Basically, someone either decides to bring in some entertainment or an group volunteers to come. In order to not offend our guests, incentives are offered to get people to go. So, the commander says if you go to this event, you don't have to come to work. The event is your place of duty. The place of duty for those who don't want to participate is the normal company area. The Army is all about menial labor. We can't be training all the time. It's not just for religious events. Do you have any idea how many times I was subjected to Winona Judd while at Ft. Campbell?

And you see no difference between coercing someone to attend a religious event funded by federal dollars versus attending a music concert that isn't particularly to their taste? Both are ridiculous, but one is actually disgustingly unethical.

Tell you what, next time a bunch of Christian soldiers are forced to either attend an atheist event or scrub toilets, we'll see what the reaction is. If the nation doesn't throw a fit, I'll eat my shoe.

 

[Armymutt25A]

I took a world religion class in college and I think it was the best thing I have ever did. It is remarkable how almost all major religions are exactly the same. If I can remember correctly I think there were several that pre-dated judaism. If morals come from god, and if there is only one god, then only one religion would have morals. Yet we see many, many, many religions all over the world exuding the same message on morals, life, and afterlife, coincidence or human nurture?

Of course there were many religions that pre-date Abraham. Only a fool or ignoramus would think otherwise. Abraham took off because he did not agree with his father's religion. To think that there was no religion prior to 5000 years ago is nuts. It is interesting how you focus purely on mono-theism, which is the basis of Judaism, and then use that as your entire argument. Do you think that poly-theist haven't spread the work load among several deities? Abraham just consolidated the idea under one god. Perhaps the reality is that that there are several gods and one messenger. Who knows. My argument is that laws stem from religion and that an atheist must disregard those laws in order to remain true to their beliefs. To put it another way, I don't subscribe to the regulations of the Navy. My only guide is the uniform code of military justice and the Army regulations. Of course, these encompass the US Code.

 

[JulesMichy]

You have just proven my point. The threat of retribution is your guide.

No. Not even in the slightest. You oversimplified an entire, complex process into only what you wanted to see. I said that early in the evolution of man retribution in the form of both cultural and physical (survival) pressures eliminated individuals from the gene pool who were predisposed to behavior that was undesirable or incompatible with a group dynamic. Therefore the remaining breeding individuals were more altruistic, less violent toward one another, etc. "Morality" as you call it could have easily evolved via this mechanism (and most of the scientific community believes that is indeed how it happened) so that being "moral" is simply a part of us.

Who are you to decide where the burden of proof lies? I can't prove existence any more than you can prove non-existence.

We're not claiming non-existence. We are claiming that the evidence for existence is insufficient. Since you are the one making the claim, the burden of proof falls on you to support that claim. If you don't have anything to offer up beyond faith and hypothetical, philosophical dilemmas then you have no business acting surprised or offended when people don't believe the same thing as you do.

For what purpose do humans exist?

Why do humans have to have a purpose?

Every other object nature has created has a purpose somewhere, except humans.

No. Every species has filled a niche. They have adapted to utilize a food source/environment/etc. that other species are not so adept at. So have humans.

 

[Armymutt25A]

The ambiguous language presented in the questionaire makes it quite clear what they're assessing: "connection to something larger than yourself", "belief", etc. You can water it down all you want, but they are using faith in a higher power as an assessment of the "fitness" of a soldier. Anonymous or not, the soldiers get their results. An atheist soldier receiving a big, fat F in the spirituality department might feel that their service is being devalued.

There is also the very real possibility that should the results of these surveys determine a "spirituality" problem, more federal funds will be funneled into chaplains and religious events.

And you see no difference between coercing someone to attend a religious event funded by federal dollars versus attending a music concert that isn't particularly to their taste? Both are ridiculous, but one is actually disgustingly unethical.

Tell you what, next time a bunch of Christian soldiers are forced to either attend an atheist event or scrub toilets, we'll see what the reaction is. If the nation doesn't throw a fit, I'll eat my shoe.

Well, seeing as how most soldiers don't bitch on the national level about small things, I doubt you'll see the nation throwing a fit. What would you describe as an atheist event? One absent of religion? The dining in is a tradition of drunkenness. Soldiers who don't drink are forced to attend, in the same manner an atheist was forced to attend the concert. Those that don't drink and party have traditionally been treated differently than those who do. Until you are actually inside the culture you are discussing, you can't really understand it. You are simply taking sound bites and running with them. Would feel warm and fuzzy if the survey read Metaphysical instead of spiritual? Same thing. The Army strives to be a cross section of society. The fact remains that America in general is a spiritual nation. Finding out if a soldier feels like he has something to live for is important in assessing if we need to attend more suicide briefings. A smart soldier answers the questions in a way to get the score high so that the rest of us don't have to sit through more mind numbing BS.

You are never going to see a non-denominational chaplain in the military. Chaplains have to be sponsored by a religious entity. The Army only trains them in performing emergency rituals required by other religions so that they can attend to the spiritual needs of the dying.

No more money gets funneled to chaplains based on surveys. The chaplain corps is fixed in its numbers just like every other branch. The money used for programs goes to things like retreats. These are not like your typical retreat. The single soldiers retreat usually consists of an hour of classes on keeping your moral character up and three days of skiing in the mountains or hanging out on the beach. The married retreat was 3 hours of classes on making your marriage strong through communication and a weekend "putting those concepts into practice" on the beach or an indoor water park. Those who chose not to participate go to work, as do those of us who don't sign up soon enough. The chaplain corps is responsible for the morale of soldiers in its essence. If a soldier has an issue, the chaplain is there to listen and advise. No chaplain I have ever dealt with has used his position as a pulpit, except when actually in a pulpit. The chaplain is the command's sensor on soldier well being, as well as a great source of candy, snack, and sundry items while deployed. They need more money so we can afford to send more soldiers on getaways.

 

[JulesMichy]

Well, seeing as how most soldiers don't bitch on the national level about small things, I doubt you'll see the nation throwing a fit. What would you describe as an atheist event? One absent of religion?

No, I am talking about something comparable to a Christian revival concert such as many atheist soldiers I've talked to have been forced to attend. Replace being forced to listen to hymns and prayers, and asking those in attendance to "testify", come to the front, bow their heads, etc. to Christian soldiers being forced to listen to Richard Dawkins calling them all idiots, telling them that their God is a myth and having microphones shoved in their face and being asked to renounce the holy spirit.

Somehow, I doubt that would go down.

You are never going to see a non-denominational chaplain in the military. Chaplains have to be sponsored by a religious entity. The Army only trains them in performing emergency rituals required by other religions so that they can attend to the spiritual needs of the dying.

*buzz* Wrong! The Secular Humanist Society, the Freedom from Religion Foundation, Unitarian Universalist Church, etc. have all volunteered to sponsor humanist chaplains. Chaplains are not just for performing last rites, etc. for the dying and dead. They are also present to counsel soldiers in war zones on how they are coping with being away from home/family, the emotional trauma of killing, or any other emotional/psychological problem they might be having. Currently an atheist soldier cannot go to a chaplain for guidance without listening to a sermon. That is wrong.

 

[deleted266066]

.

 

[Armymutt25A]

No, I am talking about something comparable to a Christian revival concert such as many atheist soldiers I've talked to have been forced to attend. Replace being forced to listen to hymns and prayers, and asking those in attendance to "testify", come to the front, bow their heads, etc. to Christian soldiers being forced to listen to Richard Dawkins calling them all idiots, telling them that their God is a myth and having microphones shoved in their face and being asked to renounce the holy spirit.

Somehow, I doubt that would go down.



*buzz* Wrong! The Secular Humanist Society, the Freedom from Religion Foundation, Unitarian Universalist Church, etc. have all volunteered to sponsor humanist chaplains. Chaplains are not just for performing last rites, etc. for the dying and dead. They are also present to counsel soldiers in war zones on how they are coping with being away from home/family, the emotional trauma of killing, or any other emotional/psychological problem they might be having. Currently an atheist soldier cannot go to a chaplain for guidance without listening to a sermon. That is wrong.

If they were forced to attend, please present their sworn statements, IG complaints, etc. No one is forced to do anything in the military outside of the regulations. Are humanist chaplains a religious organization with identifiable doctrine? Can't have a chaplain without such things. Exactly what sort of ordination does an atheist go through? I stand by my statement that chaplains don't preach during counseling sessions. Again, please present the sworn statement and IG complaints pertaining to these actions. Otherwise, it didn't happen. Every chaplain I've dealt with handles these things in a professional manner. I make a point to try to stress them into preaching and not one has cracked.

Funny how you use the word faith as a dismissible excuse, yet what you describe is faith in human nature, which I have personally experienced to be completely false. Faith means trust. If you lack faith, then you must have a lot time to verify every experiment ever conducted.

As far as why people must have a purpose, then why exist? Is it not madness to consume resources with no ideal outcome?

 

[HopefulAg]

Who are you to decide where the burden of proof lies? I can't prove existence any more than you can prove non-existence. If you don't think a negative can't be proven, plug in a Hoover.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJRy3Kl_z5E

So, here's a question for you. For what purpose do humans exist? Every other object nature has created has a purpose somewhere, except humans.

Because we evolved into existence. Evolution has no purpose other than fitness.

If the laws are based on religion and you don't believe in religion, then why do you follow the laws derived from such?

Again, you are assuming that the laws were derived from religion. The laws were created by man. Religion was created to supply the ultimate punishment. How do you keep thousands of subjects happy with their lot in life? Promise them something better when they die.

My argument is that laws stem from religion and that an atheist must disregard those laws in order to remain true to their beliefs.

Well, there's an argument I've not heard before. It's an inane one, but unique all the same. But it follows the same as above.

As far as why people must have a purpose, then why exist? Is it not madness to consume resources with no ideal outcome?

Of course it is, and eventually humans will hit a breaking point where we exhaust our resources or expand to other systems. Thus is the way of evolution, adapt or die. It has no goal other than survival. That's your ideal outcome: continuing to exist, and so far it's been pretty ideal. Better than the alternative at least.

 

[JulesMichy]

Are humanist chaplains a religious organization with identifiable doctrine? Can't have a chaplain without such things.

Really? Because I think the humanist chaplains serving with the military in Belgium and the Netherlands might disagree.

I stand by my statement that chaplains don't preach during counseling sessions. Again, please present the sworn statement and IG complaints pertaining to these actions. Otherwise, it didn't happen. Every chaplain I've dealt with handles these things in a professional manner. I make a point to try to stress them into preaching and not one has cracked.

And atheist soldiers have been posting on blogs and websites for years that they have attempted to go to a chaplain for non-religious guidance and been told to pray, to ask God for guidance, or trust that God has a plan, blah blah blah. Such that they are reluctant to go to another chaplain when they're having difficulties and need to talk to someone.

Funny how you use the word faith as a dismissible excuse, yet what you describe is faith in human nature, which I have personally experienced to be completely false. Faith means trust. If you lack faith, then you must have a lot time to verify every experiment ever conducted.

No. Again, you're trying to equivocate completely separate ideas and it's intellectually dishonest and completely transparent. You also seem to have no concept of how peer review works, if you think every "experiment" ever conducted was accepted on faith.

 

[Armymutt25A]

Really? Because I think the humanist chaplains serving with the military in Belgium and the Netherlands might disagree.



And atheist soldiers have been posting on blogs and websites for years that they have attempted to go to a chaplain for non-religious guidance and been told to pray, to ask God for guidance, or trust that God has a plan, blah blah blah. Such that they are reluctant to go to another chaplain when they're having difficulties and need to talk to someone.



No. Again, you're trying to equivocate completely separate ideas and it's intellectually dishonest and completely transparent. You also seem to have no concept of how peer review works, if you think every "experiment" ever conducted was accepted on faith.

Seeing as neither the Belgian or Dutch governments hold sway over the US, that's a moot point. I believe we were discussing the US Army. A chaplain must come from an organized religion.

Again, if this is such an issue, where are the IG complaints? Soldiers go to the IG because their 1SG won't let them go on pass. Surely such an offense of this nature would spur one to go directly to IG. Do you have the sworn statements or just some whining on the internet? If a soldier won't put it on paper and put his integrity behind it, then it didn't happen. I've dealt with Catholic, Southern Baptist, some other Baptist, Methodist, and Jewish chaplains. Not once has there been the mention of God outside of a religious service. I suspect you have fallen into the sensationalist trap where only the bad stuff is presented rather than the norm.

I was speaking directly to your personal faith in the experiments conducted. Since you dismiss trust as an unreliable source to base one's life upon, then surely you must be repeating every experiment to prove it to yourself. I personally have faith in a lot of things. I trust that J. Haldane didn't b.s. his results when he was blowing up goats every time I step off a boat, and I adhere faithfully to his recommendations. I have faith that the the anthrax vaccine will protect me, but I'm not about to test it.

 

[bbeventer]

Of course there were many religions that pre-date Abraham. Only a fool or ignoramus would think otherwise. Abraham took off because he did not agree with his father's religion. To think that there was no religion prior to 5000 years ago is nuts. It is interesting how you focus purely on mono-theism, which is the basis of Judaism, and then use that as your entire argument. Do you think that poly-theist haven't spread the work load among several deities? Abraham just consolidated the idea under one god. Perhaps the reality is that that there are several gods and one messenger. Who knows. My argument is that laws stem from religion and that an atheist must disregard those laws in order to remain true to their beliefs. To put it another way, I don't subscribe to the regulations of the Navy. My only guide is the uniform code of military justice and the Army regulations. Of course, these encompass the US Code.

I only focused on monotheism because that seems to be the primary religion of debate in this thread. My answer for Abraham stemmed directly to your question pertaining if any religions pre-dated Abraham.

Your argument is that laws stem from religions, my argument is that they don't for the reasons I stated earlier. I don't see the issue.

 

[that redhead]

So let me get this straight, just because one religion has a certain law in their code (ie: don't kill peeps), no one else is allowed to use it without remaining true to their beliefs?

I agree with some of the laws and "religious doctrines", regardless of their origin (eg: I think not killing people is a pretty sweet idea. I also think it's pretty cool to not cheat on your spouse, etc.) I also disagree with certain religious AND judicial laws (eg: gays can't marry. Sure that's not law everywhere, but keeping it simple here).

People borrow ideas from each other all the time. I grew up in multiple countries and have thus incorporated ideas from a variety of cultures into my belief system. I have also been exposed to many religions (and was raised Catholic but strayed years ago), and think some of their thoughts on certain things are cool so I've absorbed those too, and rejected others...Being closed minded doesn't help us improve anything.

This touches on a lot of my thoughts on the matter - really well said 👍

 

[breenie]

I went and painted a table and like 20 replies were made to this thread. Keep up the hard work, guys!

 

[JulesMichy]

Seeing as neither the Belgian or Dutch governments hold sway over the US, that's a moot point. I believe we were discussing the US Army. A chaplain must come from an organized religion.

Which, A.) The Unitarian Universalists are, and B.) If the U.S. military truly won't let anyone be a chaplain unless they represent a dogma, then I am saying that the U.S. military is dead wrong.

If a soldier won't put it on paper and put his integrity behind it, then it didn't happen. I've dealt with Catholic, Southern Baptist, some other Baptist, Methodist, and Jewish chaplains. Not once has there been the mention of God outside of a religious service.

Of course, because your subjective personal experiences count as evidence but others don't unless there's a record on file. Because there couldn't possibly be a reason that a member of a minority that is as misunderstood and demonized as atheists would be reluctant to come forward and challenge the status quo.

Since you dismiss trust as an unreliable source to base one's life upon, then surely you must be repeating every experiment to prove it to yourself.

Again, you're falsely equivocating. Faith and trust are not interchangable.

It is completely bogus to compare faith in an invisible sky wizard to a study has been conducted, its materials and methods documented, it's statistical analysis published, and the experiment is repeated by unrelated researchers and the results obtained are consistent with the first, and thousands of other researchers closely examine each one and search for flaws in experimental design or conclusions and can find none. Not even close. And if you think they are, you've got a severe disconnect somewhere and I truly hope you never attempt to enter this field.

 

[Armymutt25A]

I only focused on monotheism because that seems to be the primary religion of debate in this thread. My answer for Abraham stemmed directly to your question pertaining if any religions pre-dated Abraham.

Your argument is that laws stem from religions, my argument is that they don't for the reasons I stated earlier. I don't see the issue.

US common law descends from English common law, which descends from the Roman law of the Holy Roman Empire and was influenced by the Normans. French law is heavily influenced by Canon Law.

 

[Armymutt25A]

Which, A.) The Unitarian Universalists are, and B.) If the U.S. military truly won't let anyone be a chaplain unless they represent a dogma, then I am saying that the U.S. military is dead wrong.

Of course, because your subjective personal experiences count as evidence but others don't unless there's a record on file. Because there couldn't possibly be a reason that a member of a minority that is as misunderstood and demonized as atheists would be reluctant to come forward and challenge the status quo.

Again, you're falsely equivocating. Faith and trust are not interchangable.

It is completely bogus to compare faith in an invisible sky wizard to a study has been conducted, its materials and methods documented, it's statistical analysis published, and the experiment is repeated by unrelated researchers and the results obtained are consistent with the first, and thousands of other researchers closely examine each one and search for flaws in experimental design or conclusions and can find none. Not even close. And if you think they are, you've got a severe disconnect somewhere and I truly hope you never attempt to enter this field.

Since a chaplain is responsible for the spiritual morale of a soldier, and an atheist lacks a spirit, then how can you have a chaplain? The lack of a dogma means that there is no standard by which to hold the chaplain accountable. The chaplain would be able to do anything and say it was a tenet of their non-religion. Do you see how this would cause a problem? The Army is all about control. It's that whole discipline thing. We also don't have chaplains from the Church of Body Modification. Are you going to take up that crusade? According to this article http://celestiallands.org/wayside/?p=62 it would appear that there is a schism in the UU on the subject of military chaplains. Seems that many don't believe UUs should be in the military. This site seems to indicate actively serving UU chaplains: http://clfmilitary.uurgl.com/moodle3/ Seems that the UUs need to do a better job of letting athiest soldiers know they are out there for them.

It is painfully obvious that you have no clue what you are talking about regarding IG complaints.

Faith is derived from the Latin word for trust. Webster defines it as complete trust. Oxford defines it as complete trust or confidence in someone or something. I'd say they are interchangable.

 

[JulesMichy]

Faith is derived from the Latin word for trust. Webster defines it as complete trust. Oxford defines it as complete trust or confidence in someone or something. I'd say they are interchangable.

You forgot the first half of that Webster definition: " (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust"

Typical, cherry-picking religious distortion.

Also, fides in Latin does not mean "trust" it means, quite literally, "faith." fidere, which is a derivative of fides, means "to trust."

Might want to try arguing word derivations with someone whose husband doesn't have a degree in anthropology and minors in classical studies and greek/Latin. Try harder.

 

[lostbunny]

I went and painted a table and like 20 replies were made to this thread. Keep up the hard work, guys!

I went and watched the table dry, and like 120 replies were made. I agree, please take more time off your life trying to prove why there is one God and simultaneously no God.

I'm going to go feed a starving child, and save a puppy.

 

[Armymutt25A]

I went and watched the table dry, and like 120 replies were made. I agree, please take more time off your life trying to prove why there is one God and simultaneously no God.

I'm going to go feed a starving child, and save a puppy.

Well, my genealogical research hit a brick wall with my family arriving in an area before the county existed and I can't figure out my 3x great-grandmother's maiden name. Obits aren't working out for me and the churches they mention don't exist. Got nothing much to do other than raise the hackles of other people. Gotta burn 62 days of vacation somehow and the chaplain isn't around for me to offend.

 

[lostbunny]

Well, my genealogical research hit a brick wall with my family arriving in an area before the county existed and I can't figure out my 3x great-grandmother's maiden name. Obits aren't working out for me and the churches they mention don't exist. Got nothing much to do other than raise the hackles of other people. Gotta burn 62 days of vacation somehow and the chaplain isn't around for me to offend.

🙄 👍

 

[Armymutt25A]

You forgot the first half of that Webster definition: " (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust"

Typical, cherry-picking religious distortion.

I'm not sure how this is a purely religious definition. There are a lot of things out there that people believe in for which there is no firm proof. Let's start with the future solvency of the USG.

I noticed you ignored the Oxford definition, which is a more widely accepted source than our colonial edition.

 

[No Imagination]

You are never going to see a non-denominational chaplain in the military. Chaplains have to be sponsored by a religious entity. The Army only trains them in performing emergency rituals required by other religions so that they can attend to the spiritual needs of the dying.

I remember seeing a BBC? report on a recent "Buddhist" Chaplin in the US Army. Isn't that non-denominational?

 

[Armymutt25A]

I remember seeing a BBC? report on a recent "Buddhist" Chaplin in the US Army. Isn't that non-denominational?

It's no less non-denominational than Islam. I suppose non-denominational is the wrong word to use with people used to a Christian world. How about, you will never see a non-secular chaplain in the Army?

 

[JulesMichy]

It's no less non-denominational than Islam. I suppose non-denominational is the wrong word to use with people used to a Christian world. How about, you will never see a non-secular chaplain in the Army?

You mean secular. Non-secular = religious.

 

[realjoe]

Well, when you really think about it, being a christian hasn't got a lot to do with being a vet...or that is just my opinion

 

[flyhi]

(I was raised Catholic and that particular moral code really, REALLY does not sit right with me. Way too judgemental, exclusionary and dare I saw it downright MEAN.)

Mean?? Please explain

It seems way too many choose a religion for what fits best with their lifestyle

 

[alliecat44]

Mean?? Please explain

It seems way too many choose a religion for what fits best with their lifestyle

Hope you'll forgive me (pun intended), but I'm not going to get into an argument on the tenets of Catholicism on this board. Way too hot a topic. But yes, I find it to be downright MEAN especially (and most importantly) to those who are NOT Catholic and, at WORST, not Christian.

Anyways. 🙂

 

[flyhi]

I for one live by the golden rule: I treat people well because that's how I want to be treated, I don't steal b/c I wouldn't want to be stolen from etc. etc.
And just a strong desire to be a good person, no religion involved whatsoever

To be honest, it seems better to me to have morals based on the things mentioned above as opposed to just not wanting to go to hell.....

hmmm, interestingly, these are all taken straight from the Bible, which has been around a bit longer than you.

The 'Golden Rule' (Matthew 7:12) "Do for others what you want them to do for you: this is the meaning of the Law of Moses and the teachings of the prophets."

Don't want to steal? That is straight from the Ten Commandments. #7: You Shall Not Steal

The 7th Commandment requires respect for the universal destination and distribution of goods and the private ownership of them, as well as respect for persons, their property, and the integrity of creation. The Church also finds in this Commandment the basis for her social doctrine which involves the correct way of acting in economic, social and political life, the right and the duty of human labor, justice and solidarity among nations, and the love of the poor.

OH, and it also includes people's attitudes towards animals - people must treat animals with kindness as creatures of God and avoid both excessiveness when it comes to them, as well as indiscriminate use of them that entail needless suffering for the animals.

A strong desire to be a good person, you say??? I could write a book citing the Church's position on this...it's the basis of religion, really...the constant striving to be holy. I certainly don't have religion in my life just because I'm fearful of going to Hell. It's because it's all good....it promotes being the best person you can be and for all the right reasons.

so, yes, i would agree that your 'moral code' originates from within yourself. Because, that is what religion (at least mine) is about. God works in us all and that is the 'proof' for me...

 

[flyhi]

Hope you'll forgive me (pun intended), but I'm not going to get into an argument on the tenets of Catholicism on this board. Way too hot a topic. But yes, I find it to be downright MEAN especially (and most importantly) to those who are NOT Catholic and, at WORST, not Christian.

Anyways. 🙂

Aww, c'mon, no bite on that one? It should be so easy for you.

 

[alliecat44]

Aww, c'mon, no bite on that one? It should be so easy for you.

Sorry to disappoint. 😀 (and btw, I am a confirmed member of the Catholic church, lest you think I just need some education)

 

[flyhi]

Sorry to disappoint. 😀 (and btw, I am a confirmed member of the Catholic church, lest you think I just need some education)

😱 I dunno, maybe. 😀 I've met plenty of Catholics (mostly cradle, btw) who could use some education. I admittedly was a very uneducated, unbaptized soul two years ago and while I do not agree with all of the Catholic religion's 'rules', it is my religion and I try and do my best. After much research and self reflection, I now at least understand what comes from where and why. I am no apologetic, but I just see myself in so many of these posts (the ones that sound angry, bitter and/or defensive) and without for a moment trying to be condescending, I think some of it comes from lack of education on the subject matter. I had a mentor say to me quite some time ago after I made an inflammatory remark about Catholicism, "flyhi, if you would spend a fraction of the amount of time studying religion as you do other things in your life...work, mountain biking, researching vet schools, etc etc, you may surprise yourself." It stung for a while, but he was right. I was speaking out of ignorance and chose to do something about it. In the meantime, I learned about myself and what I needed to do. To each his own, though.

I'm glad you didn't bite, honestly..I'm not into trying to change people's minds or try and see who can ruffle their feathers more... but I enjoy watching the debate from the sidelines

It is amazing to me, though, that the vast majority of pre-vets (at least here) seem to be anti-religion. I think at least some of that has to do with younger/more liberal attitudes of traditional college-age students.

Off to go read the Bible and pray the rosary

 

[alliecat44]

flyhi, it sounds as though you are probably a born-again Catholic, which is fine and great for you, as it has obviously provided many positive benefits to you. 🙂

I understand what you are saying about lack of education, but rest assured that in my case that is not the issue. I went to CCD every Sunday until I was 13, participated in the appropriate sacraments at the "typical" time in my life, church every Sunday, began going to confession (and cried and cried while waiting in line and in the confessional due to the sheer humiliation of the exercise), etc.

I have a born-again aunt and uncle who made every attempt possible to get me back to church when I had to live with them during my senior year of high school after my parents lost our house and our family became homeless (though luckily we were all able to find separate roofs to cover our heads for that year). They tried to get me to join their Bible study, bought me a teen Bible, tried to insist on taking me to church, etc. They kicked me out the night of my high-school graduation because a black friend came over to print a history paper and they had previously banned her from the house. So much for being holy and tolerant. (Said black friend went on to undergraduate school at Harvard, graduated from Harvard medical school, and is now practicing at Brigham Women's Hospital in Boston.) I was lucky enough to live with kind strangers (parents of an adult co-worker) that summer before college.

I also double-majored in philosophy, and so I have spent MUCH time thinking about and discussing spiritual concepts, epistemology and religion.

Just because you weren't particularly educated about Catholicism until two years ago and you have CHOSEN to become Catholic does not mean that others have not KNOWINGLY rejected it. 🙂 That's all.

I respect your beliefs and am glad that you have found fulfillment in your religion. I think many atheists on here are speaking out precisely because it is a "safe" (anonymous) place for us to do so. There are many, many times when I would have loved to have a thoughtful discussion on religion with the religious but it becomes clear that religious folk quickly deem me a heathen with all sorts of negative connotations therein.

I think for most of us this conversation is really about showing the religious folks that we really ARE good people at heart--and having religion versus not having religion is NOT what makes someone a good person. That's all. 🙂

Oh, and P.S.--to this day my aunt and uncle continue to send me those special religious greeting cards for my birthday, Christmas, etc and always write long flowery messages about how I'm under God's care and God is watching out for me and they are praying for me, etc--and it makes me EXTREMELY UNCOMFORTABLE. Try explaining that to your family!!

 

[StartingoverVet]

After staying away, I just want to add one point.

Many people (myself and my wife included) avoid religion because we despise the hypocrisy of the religious institutions. That does not mean that we disagree with all, many, or some of the moral tenets of a particular religion.

The question of ethics (study of morals) is appropriate to all and is not "owned" by religion, and certainly not by modern religions.

I, like, AllieCat, am tired of people of religion thinking they maintain some moral ground. They don't. It is how you act, not what building you go to once a week that makes you a moral person.

If religions kicked out the hypocrites from the rank and file and from their leadership then maybe I would be more interested. Unfortunately, there would probably be lots and lots and lots of empty seats.

Having said that, SOME people of certain religious groups do a lot of good and live moral lives, but in my experience, that has less to do with any particular religion and more to do with the individual.

 

[WhtsThFrequency]

It is amazing to me, though, that the vast majority of pre-vets (at least here) seem to be anti-religion. I think at least some of that has to do with younger/more liberal attitudes of traditional college-age students.

I don't think the majority are "anti-religion". I think the majority are not religious. There's a big difference.

 

[No Imagination]

I for one live by the golden rule...

Sometimes I wonder if people who actually 'say' they follow such rules or idioms, really take the time to think them out?

I mean, the "Golden Rule" SOUNDS good... I mean, "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself" - Sounds great!

So... what if I was a Sadomasocist, and I like to give and receive pain?

Should I live by the golden rule? I don't need some old book to tell me how I should live my life - especially when they are at best incomplete, at worse, down right dangerous.

 

[nyanko]

I mean, the "Golden Rule" SOUNDS good... I mean, "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself" - Sounds great!

Yeah, I like for people to be honest with me even if it means offending me and/or "hurting my feelings." You can see what kind of trouble that gets me into.

 

[EllieGirl89]

Sometimes I wonder if people who actually 'say' they follow such rules or idioms, really take the time to think them out?

I mean, the "Golden Rule" SOUNDS good... I mean, "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself" - Sounds great!

So... what if I was a Sadomasocist, and I like to give and receive pain?

Should I live by the golden rule?

As it is, you're being too specific. A sadomasochist who lives by the Golden Rule wouldn't cause someone pain who didn't want it because they wouldn't want something forced upon them that they weren't comfortable with. It's less about the specific ways one would like to be treated than it is about the general things-i.e. it's about fairness, respect, kindness, hospitality, compassion, empathy in general rather than whatever quirky, specific things that one might like or dislike. As in...my girlfriend loves tomato sandwiches, but she would never make me a tomato sandwich for lunch because I hate tomatoes, and she would hate it if I made her a cheeseburger for lunch even though I love them, because she hates them.

That whole thing makes so much more sense in my head.

 

[Coquette22]

I don't think the majority are "anti-religion". I think the majority are not religious. There's a big difference.

*applauds* Very well put.

 

[HopefulAg]

hmmm, interestingly, these are all taken straight from the Bible, which has been around a bit longer than you.

The 'Golden Rule' (Matthew 7:12) "Do for others what you want them to do for you: this is the meaning of the Law of Moses and the teachings of the prophets."

That's also in the Code of Hammurabi, though not in so many words (simply boiled down to an eye for an eye). That is, what you do unto others shall be done unto you. It's also in several other religious texts in different wordings: by no means unique to the bible. But that's not really surprising because many religions borrow from one another. Hell, even one of the biggest Christian holidays, Christmas, is borrowed from a pagan ritual.

Don't want to steal? That is straight from the Ten Commandments. #7: You Shall Not Steal

Again, the bible is not the only source of this. Seems that people haven't been wanting their stuff stolen for a very long time. Also I wouldn't worry about the ten commandments too much because it's missing a lot of stuff, like 'thou shalt not rape' and 'thou shalt not have slaves' and other important issues.

OH, and it also includes people's attitudes towards animals - people must treat animals with kindness as creatures of God and avoid both excessiveness when it comes to them, as well as indiscriminate use of them that entail needless suffering for the animals.

Well, IIRC the hindu worship cows, and there's another religion that worships rats, so it'd seem they have one up on christianity by not just merely respecting animals, but worshiping them too. And Druidism takes it to a whole new level by worshiping nature as a whole. Not just animals, but plants as well.

A strong desire to be a good person, you say??? I could write a book citing the Church's position on this...it's the basis of religion, really...the constant striving to be holy. I certainly don't have religion in my life just because I'm fearful of going to Hell. It's because it's all good....it promotes being the best person you can be and for all the right reasons.

It's not the basis of religion, it's the basis upon which religion was written. The ruling class needed their subjects to fall into line, and what's the greatest threat one can offer them? You said it yourself, the fear of a hell. So yah, being a 'good person' was a strong incentive to be included into religion.

And one can't expect their subjects to follow them if they don't adopt the same religion (can still be seen today by the grand majority of US citizens refusing to consider an atheist president), so the ruling class followed that religion as well, then their children followed it (as they were taught), and so on. And of course anyone wanting to usurp the ruling class had to either do so through sheer domination and purge all the heathens and heretics, or adopt the same religion of the populace, or the wildcard option: make up your own religion/beliefs and slowly win people over to your side.

so, yes, i would agree that your 'moral code' originates from within yourself. Because, that is what religion (at least mine) is about. God works in us all and that is the 'proof' for me...

And here's the problem with debating religion. Nothing is ever accomplished because the ultimate refuge is 'faith'.

 

[flyhi]

flyhi, it sounds as though you are probably a born-again Catholic, which is fine and great for you, as it has obviously provided many positive benefits to you. 🙂

no, not quite. brother was baptized Catholic, i was not for some reason. Also attended CCD growing up and went to a Catholic college. Just took a while for me to give a crap enough to investigate it seriously rather than taking it for granted.

Sorry about your upbringing..doesn't sound like your aunt and uncle were Catholic though? Catholics are not typically Bible thumpers..... not that it makes any difference here, just saying.

I do not think all people that are anti-religion...er...non religious are bad people or don't have morals. However, i have found that those that are truly religious seem to ME to be.....just better and more genuine. And, i ain't talking about the ones that just show up to church every Sunday just to be seen.

 

[flyhi]

I don't think the majority are "anti-religion". I think the majority are not religious. There's a big difference.

that's fine. not into the semantics of it.. To me, it's basically the same thing and I don't care to make a distinction. I have personally found that those who are 'not religious' are for the most part 'anti'.

 

[eventualeventer]

Ever been out on the ocean? From the surface, the Earth looks flat. Until you change your perspective, you can't prove that it isn't flat. You can't even visually tell that the Earth isn't flat until you are in space. These are easy things to check and yet it took thousands of years for humans to prove them as facts.

Actually, the fact that things disappear over the horizon faster if you're close to the water vs higher up shows that the Earth/sea surface can't be flat - if it were, air quality would be the only limiting factor on visibility. Why do you think ships had tall crow's nests? If the Earth were flat, you'd be able to see everything in front of you just by standing on the deck at the bow, as far as visibility allows.

Others have put it more eloquently than I could, but I think you are wrong about morality being derived from religion. As an atheist, I am motivated not just by self interest but also by reciprocal altruism (which has also been found in vampie bats) and in some cases by a gut sense of altruism or "it just feels right"/compassion, even if there is no possibility of reciprocity. I know very little about religion, I've never been part of a religion, and both of my parents are atheists. While out and out altruism is hard to find, there are so many examples of various types of reciprocity, etc., in the non-human world that I find your claim that organized religion is the source of human morality to be utterly ridiculous.

 

[Coquette22]

Actually, the fact that things disappear over the horizon faster if you're close to the water vs higher up shows that the Earth/sea surface can't be flat - if it were, air quality would be the only limiting factor on visibility. Why do you think ships had tall crow's nests? If the Earth were flat, you'd be able to see everything in front of you just by standing on the deck at the bow, as far as visibility allows.

And the Greeks proved a spherical Earth based on shadow angles as far back as the 3rd century BC: http://books.google.com/books?id=L-...tarchus to Halley.&pg=PA4#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[Bigcatlover]

I do not think all people that are anti-religion...er...non religious are bad people or don't have morals. However, i have found that those that are truly religious seem to ME to be.....just better and more genuine. And, i ain't talking about the ones that just show up to church every Sunday just to be seen.

um, in my experience I'd have to say I've noticed the opposite of this to be true. The non-religious people I know tend to be good people for the sake of being good people, whereas religious people are being good people just so they can kiss up to god....it seems all too easy for people to use their religion to justify hate towards others (other religions, sexual preference, etc.) And even if a religious person does do something horrible they can often (depending on the religion of course) repent for their sins are be forgiven. The most vile and racist people I've met have been Christians, but maybe that has just been coincidence.

Now of course this isn't true for everyone, there are good and bad people everywhere. I'm mostly just making a point here, but honestly in my experience I would be more inclined to trust a non-religious person.

 

[flyhi]

um, in my experience I'd have to say I've noticed the opposite of this to be true. The non-religious people I know tend to be good people for the sake of being good people, whereas religious people are being good people just so they can kiss up to god....it seems all too easy for people to use their religion to justify hate towards others (other religions, sexual preference, etc.) And even if a religious person does do something horrible they can often (depending on the religion of course) repent for their sins are be forgiven. The most vile and racist people I've met have been Christians, but maybe that has just been coincidence.

Now of course this isn't true for everyone, there are good and bad people everywhere. I'm mostly just making a point here, but honestly in my experience I would be more inclined to trust a non-religious person.

hmmm...ok.

um, you don't just get to go stealing, killing and pillaging, ask for forgiveness of your sins and then walk up the stairs to the pearly gates with the code to gain entrance. Doesn't quite work that way. That's where my comment about being uneducated about religion(s) comes in to play. And yes, I can relate to you, because those were some of my arguments against religion before I took the time to understand.

Being 'religious' in my book, does not include 'justifying hate towards others'. Quite the opposite. Just because the Bible says being gay is wrong, does not mean that some of my best friends aren't gay and that I don't love them. Religion is a personal decision and does not make me more judgemental, but actually, less. In my life, it gives me more reasons to be accepting of others.

In every walk of life, we will run into those that misrepresent. You will unfortunately encounter people that curse a vet for being a no-good-for-nothing bad person just out for money, greed, etc. Nothing we can do about that and it certainly doesn't mean that all vets are bad.

 

[flyhi]

That's also in the Code of Hammurabi, though not in so many words (simply boiled down to an eye for an eye). That is, what you do unto others shall be done unto you. It's also in several other religious texts in different wordings: by no means unique to the bible. But that's not really surprising because many religions borrow from one another. Hell, even one of the biggest Christian holidays, Christmas, is borrowed from a pagan ritual.

Again, the bible is not the only source of this. Seems that people haven't been wanting their stuff stolen for a very long time. Also I wouldn't worry about the ten commandments too much because it's missing a lot of stuff, like 'thou shalt not rape' and 'thou shalt not have slaves' and other important issues.

Well, IIRC the hindu worship cows, and there's another religion that worships rats, so it'd seem they have one up on christianity by not just merely respecting animals, but worshiping them too. And Druidism takes it to a whole new level by worshiping nature as a whole. Not just animals, but plants as well.

It's not the basis of religion, it's the basis upon which religion was written. The ruling class needed their subjects to fall into line, and what's the greatest threat one can offer them? You said it yourself, the fear of a hell. So yah, being a 'good person' was a strong incentive to be included into religion.

And one can't expect their subjects to follow them if they don't adopt the same religion (can still be seen today by the grand majority of US citizens refusing to consider an atheist president), so the ruling class followed that religion as well, then their children followed it (as they were taught), and so on. And of course anyone wanting to usurp the ruling class had to either do so through sheer domination and purge all the heathens and heretics, or adopt the same religion of the populace, or the wildcard option: make up your own religion/beliefs and slowly win people over to your side.

And here's the problem with debating religion. Nothing is ever accomplished because the ultimate refuge is 'faith'.

Ok, great...but you've completely missed the point.BigCatLover said they felt a certain way just because they were a good person, and it was NOT because of religion. My point, was that just in Christianity, her/his idea of how to live a good life could be traced back to Christianity. So, every other religious example you gave on top of my Christian ones, just further proved my point. Thanks for that

Secondly, I was not the one who mentioned being religious to avoid going to Hell, again...in response to BigCatLover's theory. My point was that gong to Hell was NOT a reason for my being religious.

C'mon Hopeful, get with the program