|
Post by Caddi Fuller-Teabags on May 18, 2009 11:58:12 GMT
I know this is the one forum where we can say, "Is it me..." but I really wonder at times.
I am hearing that politicians lie, and it is seems that it is almost acceptable to many people that they should bend the truth but it is only when they actually get some monetary gain from the lies that it is noticed.
Hilary Clinton 'mis-spoke'; Tony Blair blatently lied and yet we hardly bat an eyelid.
Someone at work lied to me, and I caught them in the lie, I had proof by email, and my boss took a dim view of it - but only because he got caught in the limelight. It seems that as long as no one can prove that you lied it is ok.
I am shocked at how easily we seem to accept lies nowadays. do other Rectory readers feel the same?
Caddi
|
|
|
Post by revmichael on May 19, 2009 6:34:51 GMT
Yes Caddi. It is the same as the old army saying, 'You don't get punished for doing wrong; you get punished for being careless enough to get caught.' Listening to some of the MPs and their 'sorry' I get the impression that they are expressing more sorrow because they got caught than for the act itself.
I wonder if some people are athiests because they think that there is 'no one up there' to notice everything that they do, think and say.
|
|
|
Post by Beau Leggs on May 19, 2009 8:29:25 GMT
.... I wonder if some people are athiests because they think that there is 'no one up there' to notice everything that they do, think and say. Atheism is as much of a belief system as any religion. With Christianity you believe that there will be a Judgement Day in which all your trespasses will have to be accounted for. So why aren't all Atheists mass-murders, thieves and generally naughty folk - for them death is the end of life, there is no further judgement on their behaviour. Could it be that they have the same moral code as Christians (and other faiths) that makes society coherent. It could be said that atheists as more moral - because they don't have a devine body constantly watching over them and they do it because they want to and not because they have to.
|
|
|
Post by revmichael on May 19, 2009 9:15:13 GMT
.... I wonder if some people are athiests because they think that there is 'no one up there' to notice everything that they do, think and say. Atheism is as much of a belief system as any religion. With Christianity you believe that there will be a Judgement Day in which all your trespasses will have to be accounted for. So why aren't all Atheists mass-murders, thieves and generally naughty folk - for them death is the end of life, there is no further judgement on their behaviour. Could it be that they have the same moral code as Christians (and other faiths) that makes society coherent. It could be said that atheists as more moral - because they don't have a devine body constantly watching over them and they do it because they want to and not because they have to. Good point Beau. Of course your are correct (and I wish all religious people would accept it) - good thinking/behaviour etc. is not confined to those with a religious belief.
|
|
|
Post by Fi on May 20, 2009 13:06:36 GMT
Caddi, one of the fundamental problems is determining what is the the truth, what is honest. So, for example, Michael can honestly say he believes in God, whilst an atheist can honestly say that the existence of God is not true. As in another thread on the serious board, I think that it's important to distinguish between honesty and integrity. I'm not suggesting this was the situation in your office, but while a deliberate lie is certainly dishonest, there are situations when it may be said by someone with impeccable integrity. It's obvious from another thread on the SB that there are also a variety of opinions about what is dishonest - the situation when too much change is given for a payment is a classic. For one person, it is dishonest not to return the excess and for another it's the end of a legal transaction and therefore does not need to be returned. I happen to agree with the first opinion, but I don't think that the second is wrong. In such situations I do what I'm comfortable with and that, for me, is the end of the matter. However, I do have, like you, a lot of problems with deliberate lies for less than honorable purposes - be it monetary gain, "improving" vicious gossip, avoiding owning up to a mistake and all of the other situations that arise when individuals do not tell the truth for their own benefit, or lie at the expense of others. But, and this is a very big but, I have realised over the years that a lot of people believe their own lies and the classic case is that of those who have been in government for the last decade or more - one prime minster invaded Iraq on the basis of lies, and another, whilst a "prudent" Chancellor was borrowing billions rather than putting money aside whilst the economy was booming, and hiding those facts from the electorate, whilst many MPs were milking the allowances system and nobody was telling them that what they were doing was wrong. Unregulated bankers and hedge fund managers were making millions for themselves and billions for their shareholders based on lies about their assets. In other words, the underlying message from some of the most influenial people in the UK was that falsehoods and secrecy were "good", and any whistleblower who contended that assumption were either sacked or worse. Whether there will now be some sort of moral backlash waits to be seen. I don't believe for one moment that everyone is equally dishonest, quite the reverse and, if nothing else, I think that after the debacle at Westminster, some people will reflect on their own actions in future. If anyone deliberately lies, or is elastic with the truth, to me for whatever reason, then they lose my respect. However I learned many years ago to be slow to assume that an untruth was deliberate and never, ever ask the question "does my bum look big in this?". *grins*
|
|
|
Post by Fi on May 20, 2009 13:15:15 GMT
Atheism is as much of a belief system as any religion. With Christianity you believe that there will be a Judgement Day in which all your trespasses will have to be accounted for. So why aren't all Atheists mass-murders, thieves and generally naughty folk - for them death is the end of life, there is no further judgement on their behaviour. Could it be that they have the same moral code as Christians (and other faiths) that makes society coherent. It could be said that atheists as more moral - because they don't have a devine body constantly watching over them and they do it because they want to and not because they have to. Good point Beau. Of course your are correct (and I wish all religious people would accept it) - good thinking/behaviour etc. is not confined to those with a religious belief. ..... and sadly having a religious belief is no guarantee of "good thinking/behaviour".
|
|
|
Post by Beau Leggs on May 20, 2009 14:44:18 GMT
Caddi, one of the fundamental problems is determining what is the the truth, what is honest. So, for example, Michael can honestly say he believes in God, whilst an atheist can honestly say that the existence of God is not true. .... There is very little I could disagree with in your posting. The only exception I have quoted. Just because the existence of God cannot be proven dose not automatically lay claim that God does not exist. I would say that truth is a personal interpretation of facts and is basically the same as belief. Is a person a terrorist or a freedom fighter? The fact is that they blew up a government building. the truth lies with which side of the divide you believe in.
|
|
|
Post by Fi on May 21, 2009 1:00:53 GMT
Fair point Beau - I should explain that I was thinking of those religious people, of whom Michael is but one, who state that God does exist, and those atheists who state quite the opposite. They are both being honest, even though at least one must hold an opinion which is not true. I should have chosen a different example, because I don't think that what is true is determined by personal interpretation of facts - to me truth is recognising what the facts are, and part of that involves individuals recognising their own ignorance. But my main point was that telling the truth ands being honest are often two entirely separate actions which are readily confused. And of course there are also those who may tell untruths out of ignorance or misconception. Simply because someone tells untruths doesn't necessarily make them dishonest - that is reserved for those who deliberately tell lies in the full knowledge of what they are doing.
|
|
|
Post by Beau Leggs on May 21, 2009 9:08:32 GMT
We both agree that being honest is telling or acting upon what you know is the truth and lying is a deliberate deceit upon that truth.
It was held true that cholera came from 'bad air' because the evidence supported the fact that whenever there was cholera there was 'bad air'.
If a jag went down a town street at 30mph and a big motorbike (the type with the loud exhaust sound) did the same. then most witnesses would truthfully declare in a court of law that the motorbike was going faster.
There is that colour that is a bluey-green, in which some will truthfully say is blue while others would say it was green. Now whether that is due to a different physical reaction in the body or a reference in the brain's memory, but each hold their view to be honest and true.
|
|
|
Post by Fi on May 21, 2009 10:01:42 GMT
I love your example of the car and motorbike - the effect of prejudice on perceptions of what is the truth also permeates news reporting in all its forms. But of course, in that instance, much of the less than truthful reporting is a direct response to editorial policies, designed specifically to appeal to the target audiences' prejudices. I think a similar thing happens on a daily basis - telling other people what they want to hear, rather than an objective relating of the 'real' truth. It can, in certain circumstances be very much a force for good, that is it can enhance 'good' behaviour, but it can also lead to anything between arguments among friends to wars. It's the other side of Caddi's question about why do people accept lies, seemingly so readily - I'd ask the question why do so many people seemingly feel the need to agree with every 'truth' their 'group' identifies? And why do people reject different 'truths' out of hand, essentially with no consideration?
|
|
|
Post by Beau Leggs on May 21, 2009 10:51:36 GMT
I love your example of the car and motorbike - the effect of prejudice on perceptions of what is the truth also permeates news reporting in all its forms. But of course, in that instance, much of the less than truthful reporting is a direct response to editorial policies, designed specifically to appeal to the target audiences' prejudices. I think a similar thing happens on a daily basis - telling other people what they want to hear, rather than an objective relating of the 'real' truth. It can, in certain circumstances be very much a force for good, that is it can enhance 'good' behaviour, but it can also lead to anything between arguments among friends to wars. It's the other side of Caddi's question about why do people accept lies, seemingly so readily - I'd ask the question why do so many people seemingly feel the need to agree with every 'truth' their 'group' identifies? And why do people reject different 'truths' out of hand, essentially with no consideration? Thanks for the question. As a group animal, I suppose that confirming to the group is the best way to keep the group together. In our past, we need the group for survival - compared to other animals we shouldn't have survived (weak, slow, poinsonless, naturally defenceless, can't even hide well and well left the tree climbing ability behind). We may think that we are so sophisticated nowerdays, but evelutionary we are not that much different from those that first walked out of Africa. If anything we are more group dependant. Apart from going to Tesco, when was the last time most folk went hunting and gathering? Now whether this is the truth or just my hypothesis on the facts I can recall is open for questioning. Off topic, but can we have some more discussions or talks on religion (any or none). Although Twain's quotes are interesting, they are not more inspiring that loads of other quotes.
|
|
|
Post by idiotmittens on May 27, 2009 12:38:23 GMT
Fair point Beau - I should explain that I was thinking of those religious people, of whom Michael is but one, who state that God does exist, and those atheists who state quite the opposite. This may be splitting hairs here, but as an atheist it's not that I need to say 'there is no such thing as god (or gods)', it's more of an inner knowledge (for want of a better word) that we are here on our little blue/green planet, subject to the laws of nature and physics, and when we die, that's it - no superbeing controlling our actions, no heaven, no hell, just nothing. For some people that may seem a scary or uncomfortable thought, and so they enjoy the comfort of a belief in a here-after and a deity of choice. For me it's not.
|
|
|
Post by Fi on May 27, 2009 23:02:36 GMT
Fair point Beau - I should explain that I was thinking of those religious people, of whom Michael is but one, who state that God does exist, and those atheists who state quite the opposite. This may be splitting hairs here, but as an atheist it's not that I need to say 'there is no such thing as god (or gods)', it's more of an inner knowledge (for want of a better word) that we are here on our little blue/green planet, subject to the laws of nature and physics, and when we die, that's it - no superbeing controlling our actions, no heaven, no hell, just nothing. For some people that may seem a scary or uncomfortable thought, and so they enjoy the comfort of a belief in a here-after and a deity of choice. For me it's not. *glues hair back together* Maybe I could have worded it better, but I thought it was clear that I was referring specifically to "those atheists" who do declare that god doesn't exist. In my experience for most, saying "I'm an atheist" needs no further qualification. I agree that some people find the prospect of nothingness scary and find comfort in their beliefs, but don't forget Buddhists call it nirvana and make it their ultimate goal - bless.
|
|
|
Post by idiotmittens on May 28, 2009 11:56:03 GMT
Actually, I suppose it's a 50/50 chance that the believers or the atheists will be wrong. If the believers are wrong, and it's all a big nothing, they won't know anything about it. If us atheists suddenly pop up at the Pearly Gates, and a booming voice says "So, I don't exist do I? ?", then we're going to look a bit silly :-) Nirvana Clicky - stuff you learn about on here ;D
|
|
|
Post by Beau Leggs on May 28, 2009 14:04:40 GMT
Actually, I suppose it's a 50/50 chance that the believers or the atheists will be wrong. If the believers are wrong, and it's all a big nothing, they won't know anything about it. If us atheists suddenly pop up at the Pearly Gates, and a booming voice says "So, I don't exist do I? ?", then we're going to look a bit silly :-) .... It maybe 50/50 if god exists or doesn't. But assume a deity exists, most belief systems exclude others - A Christian God wont let anyone who has not come via Jesus and I suspect that a Jewish God won't let in those who have followed a false prophet, etc. Now just assuming that there is a Christian God, does he let in Mormons, as they have added to the bible - I think that it is the last paragraph in the John's Testament states that anyone added to the book is a follower of the Anti-Christ? There are so many schisms that very few will get in. But is there an actual Hell or is it just the eternal solitude of not getting into Heaven?
|
|
|
Post by madwomanintheattic on Jun 8, 2009 17:09:53 GMT
Actually, I suppose it's a 50/50 chance that the believers or the atheists will be wrong. If the believers are wrong, and it's all a big nothing, they won't know anything about it. If us atheists suddenly pop up at the Pearly Gates, and a booming voice says "So, I don't exist do I? ?", then we're going to look a bit silly :-) .... It maybe 50/50 if god exists or doesn't. But assume a deity exists, most belief systems exclude others - A Christian God wont let anyone who has not come via Jesus and I suspect that a Jewish God won't let in those who have followed a false prophet, etc. Now just assuming that there is a Christian God, does he let in Mormons, as they have added to the bible - I think that it is the last paragraph in the John's Testament states that anyone added to the book is a follower of the Anti-Christ? There are so many schisms that very few will get in. But is there an actual Hell or is it just the eternal solitude of not getting into Heaven? The concept of Heaven and Hell, for me, is a metaphysical one. I believe that they are states of mind. Heaven for me, would be eternal peace of mind and Hell would be a constant state of anxiety or of 'knowing no peace'. We all have our own ways of finding peace within ourselves. Some use religion, others find it elsewhere, choosing to forget or ignore, with the help of drugs or alcohol. It is when we examine our conscience that we come to terms with our own behavior and decide how to behave next time. Your conscience is your 'God'. You really only have to square it with yourself. I am not belittling religion. I myself am a Christian. I believe that JC walked on this earth and that he was a good bloke but I don't know who he was or where he came from. I just know that we could all do worse than to listen to the things he told us about how to live our lives.
|
|
|
Post by Glen B Ogle on Jun 8, 2009 20:33:48 GMT
I think madwoman has just about summed up my Christian beliefs as well!
I will recite the creed, I truly believe in God, I just don't know (or need to know) whether he's physical, spiritual, or only exists in our belief.
Glen
|
|