h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>>Have I got the problem correct, and, if so, what is the solution?<<

Exactly what the Jesuits said

..... give me the child

From the Wikipedia entry on Antisocial Behaviour Disorder:

Diagnosis is based on observation of three or more of a list of seven behaviours:

"1. failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors [...]"

Top of the list! Score! Two Christians on this thread score one each for sociopathy.

"2. deceitfulness[...]"

Hmm. Dishonest forms of argument (e.g. the straw man of "fundamentalist atheists") hardly counts. No score.

"3. impulsivity or failure to plan ahead"

Hmm. Again, if anything Christians are in my experience irritatingly organised. No score.

"4. irritability and aggressiveness [...]"

Hard to judge. I'll be charitable and say no score.

"5. reckless disregard for safety of self or others"

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. Quite a common one among the religious, that one.

"6. consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain steady work or honor financial obligations"

Hmm. Again, I can't hold that one up. No score. So we're on two so far, and we need three...

"7. lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt [...] another "

SCORE! Was there ever a more remorseless statement than "lock meup if you like, it wont change the fact that following my beliefs and God are more important than the laws of the land"?

Corker.

SoRB

"Religious people (who will, I am sure, correct me if I have misrepresented them) see that their view about God existing is not a 'belief' but a certainty, they do not think he exists, they know it. Therefore whatever God has said is definitely right and true, and absolutely what they must do. Dismissing it a belief does not wash with religious people, because that is not how they see it.

Have I got the problem correct, and, if so, what is the solution?"

You have it correct from what I've seen of what the two Christians currently posting here have said. I leave it to them to disagree if necessary.

As to a solution, it's quite simple. They have, as I pointed out, freedom of thought, assembly and worship - right up to the day they break the law.

When they do, lock them up, the same as any other criminal. It's the rational, non-discriminatory thing to do.



I have a question to our resident Christians:

You feel that what your god has told you to do is more important than what the law of the land tells you to.

Can you explain, in simple terms, how your position on this is qualitatively different from Peter Sutcliffe's?

Thank you

SoRB

* off to google peter sucliffe*

Oh good grief.

The Yorkshire Ripper. Murdered 13 prostitutes because God told him to.

SoRB

Priceless!

My apologies for inaccuracy: Peter Sutcliffe murdered 13 WOMEN, several of them prostitutes.

SoRB

Just a second.......

There's nothing unusual in a Christian saying that their beliefs are more important to them than the law of the land. In fact, I've never met anyone for whom that is not true.

Of course, there are good arguments for following the law even when we don't agree with it (it's part of living in a democracy), but we can all think of unjust laws which we would not hesitate to break.

"we can all think of unjust laws which we would not hesitate to break."

Really? And yet you don't supply even one example...

I can think of situations where breaking, say, an administrative law was defensible on grounds of mitigating circumstances. For example: if I have a woman in the back of my car who is in labour, I may choose, rationally, to ignore the speed limit, judging the safety of her child more important than the safety of some hypothetical pedestrian in my path. However, if snapped by a speed camera, I'd pay the fine, on the grounds that it's a fair cop and the law is the law and it's there for a reason.

What "unjust" laws are you thinking of?

SoRB

I said "I believe the suicide/air force bombing body count for the atheist fundamentalist party currently stands at zero. I'd vote for 'em any day, seeing as they are responsible for a great deal less slaughter than the 'love thy neighbour/though shalt not kill' types."

Runescribe said "Personally I have never bombed anyone, nor heard it suggested that I should. If you don't want to be tarred with Stalin's brush, don't tar me with that of a handful of Muslims who are not even supported by the majority of Muslims."

I asked if he was a Muslim and he said "No, I am not a Muslim. The post I was replying to mentioned suicide bombing, which unless something is being seriously underreported is a mainly Muslim activity."

This conveniently ignoring the "air force bombing" part of the sentence, thus demonising Muslims, and conveniently ignoring the Israeli attacks in the Lebanon, and the Christian led American attacks on various countries at the moment. He then went on with...

"I apologise for bringing Stalin into the discussion; it was a cheap bit of point-scoring and irrelevant to the question at hand."

I disagree - it wasn't a cheap bit of point scoring, it was pointless bit of non-scoring and a transparent attempt to cloud the issue.

Also "I find the prospect of a world run by atheist fundamentalists terrifying. Religion would be banned, in all its forms, or at least those holding religious beliefs would be barred from positions of influence. We would certainly be unable to secure academic positions, and could plausibly be denied higher education. At worst, believers would be institutionalised due to their dangerous and potentially infectious mental illness. Morals are already being ignored in favour of convenience."

Sounds like Middle-Ages Catholic Spain, amongst other places. And while I'm at it; "Morals are already being ignored in favour of convenience." Wrong. What religion does is hand you a moral template with which you can judge others. George Bush describes himself as a devout Christian - do you think his decisions are in accordance with your set of morals? We unbelievers have morals too, but they are usually based on personal experience and informed decisions. Morals are not the sole territory of the church.

If you can learn to stop thinking in terms of extremes and right and wrong behaviour you might be able to come up with a decent point. As it is you are simply displaying the kind of irrational instinct based thinking that probably drew you to religion in the first place, and is a crucial ingredient in starting wars.

Face it - all non meditative peace based religions are actually meeting points for insecure people who feel better about the universe when surrounded by like-minded company. The universe can be a scary place, and I don't blame any of you for inventing a giant ghost daddy to make you feel more secure, but please don't tell me *I* should be doing what he tells me to. Kepp him in your head - if he was real, we'd *all* know about it.

'What "unjust" laws are you thinking of?'

Perhaps something like Rosa Parks illegally sitting on a bus seat.

Well, if I smoked dope I wouldn't hesitate to light a spliff, just because it's illegal.



But I don't, anyway

Quick recap

The theists want to change some items of UK law because they permit others to contravene biblical law.

The theists reserve their right to contravene any UK law that conflicts with biblical law.

.. and biblical law (much of which was given to Jews like Moses, not Christians) may be superseded by guidance from The Spirit.



Where's a pride of lions when you need it

"Perhaps something like Rosa Parks illegally sitting on a bus seat."

Exactly. My point is just that you can't single out Christians as a special case as the only people who are prepared place their personal conscience over the law of the land.

In my own case, I hope I would be brave enough to assist a friend or family member with a terminal and painful illness to end their life if that's what they wanted and I was confident that it was an informed decision. That would be an illegal act on my part. But although I take the law very seriously, I believe my duty to my friend or family member might - in this case - outweigh my duty to obey the law even when I disagree with it.

I don't expect everyone to share my intuition here, but my point is that everyone should be able to think of historical laws which it would have been morally acceptable (or even morally required) to break, and that many people will be able to think of current laws in their country that they would break before breaking their personal moral code.

These people need not be Christians. Indeed, in my example above I would expect to find Christians among my strongest critics.

I have never met anyone who would obey the law under all circumstances, whatever the law said.

Well, the laws prohibiting fox-hunting.

The one law that the listeners of Radio 4 at Christmas needed to be repealed.

It is obviously the most unjust, ill-thoughtout, evil, stupid, moronic law ever created and affects the vast majority of the population, ruining jobs and livelihoods.

It basically stops chinless, hooray-henries and henrietta galloping around the country side killed foxes with hounds...which they then kill at 6 years old because they aren't good enough for chasing foxes anymore.

And this line of arguement has swayed precisely how many people who opposed it?

Congratts Roy , did you plan this ?



What gets me is If their is a one true god then you could go to hell n If their is no god then their is no hell,



In answer to post 70 My daughters teacher thinks their are thousands of gods all over the place and I hope he is teaching evolution or I'll kick his ruddy arse

SoRB, by the definitions presented there we could all have ABD at one time or another.

Still awaiting an answer as to how Peter Sutcliffe differs qualitatively from any other Christian ignoring the law because their god tells them to.

SoRB

On the subject of disregarding the law due to conscience/belief/whatever, there's still a problem.

A rational person may disregard the law for a reason based on reality and evidence - the excellent example given above was helping a loved one to die with dignity. It is quite clear in that case that one can say "yes, the law says I must not take a life, but this person that I love is suffering, and I cannot stand by and let them continue to suffer". There's a clear, real world reason behind the action.

Now... what clear, real world reason is there behind Christian persecution of homosexuals? Or for that matter any other time when Christians threaten, as they have in this thread, to disregard the law if it's in conflict with what their imaginary friend tells them?

This is the qualitative difference between religious people and rational people.

SoRB