Abbott thinks reading the Bible should be compulsory in schools (2 Viewers)

[Cazic]

So we are born with an intrinsic sense of right and wrong? And if we aren't, then it's obviously society that lays them upon us. Where has the majority (if not all) of societies morals come from? Oh, right, Australia is a majority Christian country >.>

Evolutionary ethics? You don't honestly think they come from a booming voice from the sky do you?

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

And if that is the case, they shouldn't be reading the Bible anyway as they'd probably think stoning adulterers and homosexuals is somehow justified.

Oh no, don't bring that up. They'll start throwing nonsense about the "new testament" and "old testament" in your face now.

 

[0bs3n3]

Have you ever thought that some morals and ethics might be intrinsic in all cultures for a reason other than society/religion?

Morals and ethics have a clear evolutionary advantage. If a species is able to co-exist peacefully, this will ensure that more of said species will survive to procreate. In many cases, universal morals/ethics ensure the propagation of species, and thus are an evolutionary advantage.

Wut.

So you can pass on morals and ethics through birth?

"Below" chronologically, not numerically, retard.

lol. I'm pretty much as cynical and jaded as the come. Pretty much a prerequisite for being conservative, innit?

Oh no, don't bring that up. They'll start throwing nonsense about the "new testament" and "old testament" in your face now.

So we aren't to correct anything?

Science goes out the window then.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

Evolutionary ethics? You don't honestly think they come from a booming voice from the sky do you?

^ Deserves an applause mate. Made me lol so hard.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

So we aren't to correct anything?

Science goes out the window then.

Who tells you what to fix and alter in the bible? If you say god, I shall implode dammit.

 

[Ethanescence]

Wut.

So you can pass on morals and ethics through birth?

It's possible that what we call "morality" may be a cognitive trait that is universal to (most) humans, and possibly other animal species.

Evolution example...

Species A does not kill any fellow species A, but kills species B (this is intrinsic to all species A). While species B kills both species A and species B. If species A and species B are competing for resources, species B will eventually become extinct due to killing within its own species reducing its population.

Therefore morality in this case has an overall evolutionary advantage.

 

[wendybird]

The question of where our ethics come from is another issue really. Not the topic anyway. But while we're here..

While some people feel that religion (not necessarily Christianity - but Islam etc) instills ethics and values, this is not necessarily true.

I'm quite taken with Plato/Socrates' argument in The Euthyphro where he asks where piety (or ethics) comes from and whether it comes from the Gods (or God if if we're being modern about it).

I mean do we think that ethics and values are "there" objectively and in a real sense? Such that there are such things as "moral truths"? Or do we think its constructed - moral relativism perhaps?

Immanuel Kant didn't think that ethics needed to be grounded in religion, he argued that it could be grounded in reason. Other thinkers have said other things.

I'm not going to decide one way or the other, but I'm not prepared to accept the ONE as of now. Nor, am I going to let anyone dictate what I DO think. See that's why I keep mentioning random authors - because educating onself and reading a wide variety of opinions is the best way of making an educated assessment and part of being informed in our beliefs rather than blindly following anything.

 

[0bs3n3]

It's possible that what we call "morality" may be a cognitive trait that is universal to (most) humans, and possibly other animal species.

But why do different cultures have different views on morals?

If you honestly think society would uphold itself without government (for example of course) because of this 'evolutionary advantage' then you're sorely deluded.

Anyway, like wendybird said this is pretty offtopic.

 

[Ethanescence]

i'm not going to decide one way or the other, but i'm not prepared to accept the one as of now. Nor, am i going to let anyone dictate what i do think. See that's why i keep mentioning random authors - because educating onself and reading a wide variety of opinions is the best way of making an educated assessment and part of being informed in our beliefs rather than blindly following anything.

+1.

 

[Cazic]

But why do different cultures have different views on morals?

If you honestly think society would uphold itself without government (for example of course) because of this 'evolutionary advantage' then you're sorely deluded.

The government is the result of 100,000 years of ongoing fine tuning within our species, fine tuning that included evolutionary ethics, and ideas that existed long before your prized religion existed.

Turning it around, society would uphold itself without your religion, and would likely still exist had some goat herders not invented it.

 

[Planck]

The government is a joke

 

[Ethanescence]

But why do different cultures have different views on morals?

If you honestly think society would uphold itself without government (for example of course) because of this 'evolutionary advantage' then you're sorely deluded.

I never claimed that all morals were intrinsic/genetic, I just offered up the possibility. And I'm not going to deny the influence of society on what we view as moral or ethical either, as it's probably a combination of various factors that determines ethics/morality.

I'll just like to make a note that government could be described as a complex system of hierarchy, much of which is observed in the animal kingdom in small groups (alpha male, etc). Which again lends itself to the idea of evolutionary advantage and a system of organisation/authority that ensures survival.

 

[0bs3n3]

The government is the result of 100,000 years of ongoing fine tuning within our species, fine tuning that included evolutionary ethics, and ideas that existed long before your prized religion existed.

I have to disagree. Why do revolutionary ideas (ie. communism) exist? Is that the next step in evolution? lol

Anyway, massive sidetrack about government. I won't respond anymore unless it's back to the actual topic.

 

[jet]

I'm not going to decide one way or the other, but I'm not prepared to accept the ONE as of now. Nor, am I going to let anyone dictate what I DO think. See that's why I keep mentioning random authors - because educating onself and reading a wide variety of opinions is the best way of making an educated assessment and part of being informed in our beliefs rather than blindly following anything.

I completely agree.

In a Catholic school, during Religion, Catholic Studies in year 9, my teacher stood up and told us that the Bible was a collection of myths, legends and other fictional narratives. We were told not to take the stories themselves as true, rather to understand the message behind them.

Now I don't identify with Christianity, though I think that these days, this is the case for many people. Just like we tell stories like "The Boy Who Cried Wolf", or "Little Red Riding Hood", the bible offers a selection of stories through which one might gain ethical guidance, if they so choose.

The fact of the matter is, it has given (and still does give) ethical guidance to people, and arising from a Christian colony we cannot escape that fact.

If we study the Bible in a way which both acknowledges this fact whilst understanding the teachings within it, then I don't have a problem with that. We might do the same for the Qur'an and the Torah, or even some of the lesser known religious texts, and then we might actually be able to bridge the gap between some divided cultures.

Though if they are going to teach the Bible as the ultimate truth, then I am completely opposed.

From Abbott's words, I cannot tell which side he takes, and I don't like that. Right now the government is pretty crappy.

 

[Cazic]

I have to disagree. Why do revolutionary ideas (ie. communism) exist? Is that the next step in evolution? lol

Yeah, right after the crocoduck you spec.

 

[0bs3n3]

Jetblack, + 1 for level heads (if I could give you rep that is )

 

[Essjaybee]

Ok, I'm going to be a dick here, but it insults you to be Australian?

As mentioned by jetblack, a lot of our history is intertwined with Christianity, as are our legal institutions, government, public holidays, etc. which - taking a leap here - somewhat define us as a nation. A good grasp of ones history is necessary for identity. Apologies if you are an immigrant and/or Asian

Are you kidding me? So you're saying to be Australian by definition a person should have the Bible forced upon them. Yes, the Bible did have an affect on the history of our nation, but it shouldn't be forcefully administered to everyone.

Wendy bird said she was insulted at the idea of it being compulsory. So how exactly does being against the forcible Bible classes in schools make a person un-Australian? Furthermore, why do you apologise specifically to the Asians? Australia is a multicultural, secular nation and the ideas you suggest here are both appalling and offencive.

I suppose the main idea I'm trying to make here is that your "retort" had nothing to do with the statement you quoted. She never said she was offended by the Bible or Christianity. Your notion that one must side with Abbott to be an Australian (implied through what you chose to quote and your reply) is a load of rubbish.

 

[annabackwards]

Too many quotes to quote =='

But basically, 0bs3n3 you have some issues that you should work out as other people pointed out.

I agree that ethics/morals are passed down/influence by society/families/own sense of right and wrong.

The bible isnt needed to instill decent morals on someone, they should be common sense.

*nods*

So we are born with an intrinsic sense of right and wrong? And if we aren't, then it's obviously society that lays them upon us. Where has the majority (if not all) of societies morals come from? Oh, right, Australia is a majority Christian country >.>

They're families and own sense of "right" and "wrong". If you observe a child of a non-religious background and a religious child, they pretty much act the same unless one of them is ADHD or something.

But yeah, we're off track.

Stuff reading the Bible. Why not just read the Australian Constitution then? That way there's no religious bias and we'd all really understand Australia's history and it's laws!

 

[wendybird]

Are you kidding me? So you're saying to be Australian by definition a person should have the Bible forced upon them. Yes, the Bible did have an affect on the history of our nation, but it shouldn't be forcefully administered to everyone.

Wendy bird said she was insulted at the idea of it being compulsory. So how exactly does being against the forcible Bible classes in schools make a person un-Australian? Furthermore, why do you apologise specifically to the Asians? Australia is a multicultural, secular nation and the ideas you suggest here are both appalling and offencive.

I suppose the main idea I'm trying to make here is that your "retort" had nothing to do with the statement you quoted. She never said she was offended by the Bible or Christianity. Your notion that one must side with Abbott to be an Australian (implied through what you chose to quote and your reply) is a load of rubbish.

+1

Yes I thought that was rather odd as well. lol.

Tony Abbot, the liberal party, and being "australian" *snickers*.

 

[0bs3n3]

Are you kidding me? So you're saying to be Australian by definition a person should have the Bible forced upon them. Yes, the Bible did have an affect on the history of our nation, but it shouldn't be forcefully administered to everyone.

Wendy bird said she was insulted at the idea of it being compulsory. So how exactly does being against the forcible Bible classes in schools make a person un-Australian? Furthermore, why do you apologise specifically to the Asians? Australia is a multicultural, secular nation and the ideas you suggest here are both appalling and offencive.

I suppose the main idea I'm trying to make here is that your "retort" had nothing to do with the statement you quoted. She never said she was offended by the Bible or Christianity. Your notion that one must side with Abbott to be an Australian (implied through what you chose to quote and your reply) is a load of rubbish.

lol. I did say I was being a dick now didn't I. Even gave you a troll alert >.>

And no, liberals (or whatever you define yourself as) are no less Australian than me. Oh and I already apologised to wendybird, so congrats on being late AND bleeding heart.

EDIT: And I apologised to Asians because I was pretty sure I read elsewhere (perks of having an awesome ATAR) that she was Asian.