How beliefs affect behavior

[marina]

I don't necessarily agree that we'd have any responsibility to anyone except ourselves.

[HighMike]

Originally Posted by marina

I don't necessarily agree that we'd have any responsibility to anyone except ourselves.

its not that they would argue we have responsibility for only our self but the opposite.. a responsibility to EVERYONE equally. i.e. you cant kill iraqis to save americans...the argument is basically no life can be held over another because what reason you provide for doing so is a political reason that excludes and justifies extermination of others

[ncfcyank19]

Originally Posted by paul_r

where does Mohamed fit into the scheme of things

As far as the LDS church is concerned, he's no different than George Whitefield, Luther, Peter Cartwright or whatever. People who had some inspiration but were not directly taught by God in the way that we believe that prophets are and where. He's certainly not seen as a messiah or avatar at all. The church rarely talks about him but perhaps in a lesson or talk he may come up.

To me I kinda feel the same but to be honest I haven't read the Qu'ran all the way through and I haven't learned enough about him to really know. I know that through him many people made the world better and in the name of some twisted forms of his teachings, many people made the world worse. I don't discredit the man at all but he was human and therefore he was flawed and because of his authority his mistakes proved to be magnified.

[HighMike]

Originally Posted by ncfcyank19

As far as the LDS church is concerned, he's no different than George Whitefield, Luther, Peter Cartwright or whatever. People who had some inspiration but were not directly taught by God in the way that we believe that prophets are and where. He's certainly not seen as a messiah or avatar at all. The church rarely talks about him but perhaps in a lesson or talk he may come up.

To me I kinda feel the same but to be honest I haven't read the Qu'ran all the way through and I haven't learned enough about him to really know. I know that through him many people made the world better and in the name of some twisted forms of his teachings, many people made the world worse. I don't discredit the man at all but he was human and therefore he was flawed and because of his authority his mistakes proved to be magnified.

How do you know he was human or existed at all? Don't mistake religion for any thing other then FAITH.

[horo]

Originally Posted by ncfcyank19

I know that through him many people made the world better and in the name of some twisted forms of his teachings, many people made the world worse.

... and this is different from Jesus how?

[Bebe]

Originally Posted by HighMike

its not that they would argue we have responsibility for only our self but the opposite.. a responsibility to EVERYONE equally. i.e. you cant kill iraqis to save americans...the argument is basically no life can be held over another because what reason you provide for doing so is a political reason that excludes and justifies extermination of others

That is a good point. Using an 'ends justifies the means' argument means that we can always twist this so that our prejudices cloud our decision-making. Before and during the American Civil War, slavery was justified on the basis that America could not be economically powerful without it. America derived much of its economic might from the use of slavery. This has meant that lots and lots of people are able to live the American dream, but is it justifiable if it caused other people suffering? The same argument gets made today about sweatshop labour.

Appeals to rationality are problematic because rationality is always culturally-bound, and thus changes over time and in different contexts. Most people now agree that slavery is wrong. But at one point it was considered the rational solution to a problem.

Think of the things that we do now (sweatshop labour, child abuse, health care provision etc etc); how harshly will these things be judged by future generations with a different set of understandings of what is rational and right.

[HighMike]

Originally Posted by Bebe

That is a good point. Using an 'ends justifies the means' argument means that we can always twist this so that our prejudices cloud our decision-making. Before and during the American Civil War, slavery was justified on the basis that America could not be economically powerful without it. America derived much of its economic might from the use of slavery. This has meant that lots and lots of people are able to live the American dream, but is it justifiable if it caused other people suffering? The same argument gets made today about sweatshop labour.

Appeals to rationality are problematic because rationality is always culturally-bound, and thus changes over time and in different contexts. Most people now agree that slavery is wrong. But at one point it was considered the rational solution to a problem.

Think of the things that we do now (sweatshop labour, child abuse, health care provision etc etc); how harshly will these things be judged by future generations with a different set of understandings of what is rational and right.

So uh when are you going to marry me?

[Bebe]

Originally Posted by HighMike

So uh when are you going to marry me?

Just as soon as you buy me a huge conflict-free diamond ring

It is nice to find some interesting people to talk to. And no-one has quoted wikipedia once (subtle dig at Spooky)!

[HighMike]

Originally Posted by Bebe

Just as soon as you buy me a huge conflict-free diamond ring

It is nice to find some interesting people to talk to. And no-one has quoted wikipedia once (subtle dig at Spooky)!

Spooky and I used to go at it a lot back in the day. His Texas politics contains rather easy openings for criticism :P ...
I was a big poster and I called in a few times during the show. Life took over and it's been awhile since Ive posted or listened.

[Tiger]

I am an atheist and a sceptic (No, I will not misspell that with a "K" Firefox spell checker)

I don't believe in God but if overwhelming evidence of it's existence was proven,
I would change my view and accept that I was wrong.
As a sceptic it is proof I require to believe in something.

Would I go to church? No. How would you decide which was the correct religion?

I am a nice person already so my personality wouldn't change either.

Nothing would change except I'd probably get sick of the smug "I told you so's" from all the zealots out there.