Should the religious world thank the secular world for improving older religious law to the level of excellence we now enjoy?

[French Patriot]

Should the religious world thank the secular world for improving older religious law to the level of excellence we now enjoy?

 

If we grade secular law against theistic laws, I think we will agree that God’s laws are unjust when compared to the laws of most lands.

 

Three cheers for secular world and the world’s intelligentsia. They are the Gnostics of the world and their just laws prove it.

 

Regards

DL

[dialamah]

This improvement is more apparent in the Western world than other parts of the world.   Religious people do tend to fight this kind of progress, but are then quite proud of themselves when they finally accept it; they then give credit for those improvements to God, conveniently forgetting that his representatives had to be dragged kicking and screaming to these progressive ideals.    

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, French Patriot said:

Three cheers for secular world and the world’s intelligentsia. They are the Gnostics of the world and their just laws prove it.

 

Regards

DL

Many of their actions don't. Don't get me wrong, I'm definitely an atheist but when I look at the pure evil that some modern secular nations commit I'm convinced the amount of delusional thinking guiding people's actions is actually increasing.

[French Patriot]

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

This improvement is more apparent in the Western world than other parts of the world.   Religious people do tend to fight this kind of progress, but are then quite proud of themselves when they finally accept it; they then give credit for those improvements to God, conveniently forgetting that his representatives had to be dragged kicking and screaming to these progressive ideals.    

U C 20/20.

Regards

DL

 

[French Patriot]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Many of their actions don't. Don't get me wrong, I'm definitely an atheist but when I look at the pure evil that some modern secular nations commit I'm convinced the amount of delusional thinking guiding people's actions is actually increasing.

U C wrong on two points. One, the vast majority still claim religious affiliation and two, you are ignoring the best stats for evil markers that the world has ever enjoyed.

Some of those are spoken of near the end of this link which speaks of our improving morality.

 

Regards

DL

[eyeball]

48 minutes ago, French Patriot said:

U C wrong on two points. One, the vast majority still claim religious affiliation and two, you are ignoring the best stats for evil markers that the world has ever enjoyed.

Some of those are spoken of near the end of this link which speaks of our improving morality.

 

Regards

DL

1. I agree most are still religiously inclined but I didn't specify a majority or minority so I don't see what's wrong about my answer.

2. What constitutes evil is usually quite subjective - that said I regard the aiding and abetting of dictatorships, especially by so called 'enlightened' modern nations, to be just about the greatest evil that can be committed. Doing so should be amongst the highest most egrecious crimes one can commit against humanity.

Another example of deeply delusional thinking is that climate change is a hoax. This almost makes the anti-vaccine, chem-trail and flat-Earther's look rational in comparison.

 

[French Patriot]

46 minutes ago, eyeball said:

1. I agree most are still religiously inclined but I didn't specify a majority or minority so I don't see what's wrong about my answer.

2. What constitutes evil is usually quite subjective - that said I regard the aiding and abetting of dictatorships, especially by so called 'enlightened' modern nations, to be just about the greatest evil that can be committed. Doing so should be amongst the highest most egrecious crimes one can commit against humanity.

Another example of deeply delusional thinking is that climate change is a hoax. This almost makes the anti-vaccine, chem-trail and flat-Earther's look rational in comparison.

 

Evil is indeed subjective, but improvements in the stats, which you do not seem to have looked at, do not objectively nor subjectively lie.

Regards

DL

 

[eyeball]

22 minutes ago, French Patriot said:

...improvements in the stats, which you do not seem to have looked at, do not objectively nor subjectively lie.

Regards

DL

 

There's certainly reason to hope but I just don't think these statistics tell the whole story. Greater numbers of individuals may have a greater capacity for morality due to better awareness and appreciation for being moral but given how some our most powerful institutions behave, governments and corporations for example, I think on balance there's still as much capacity for amorality as ever and its perhaps even more insidious.  It's easy for people to imagine they're better and more moral than their ancestors when looking at how they behave individually in a society and even easier to imagine they're not associated with or can divorce themselves from institutional amorality - but not in a democracy and where electorates are responsible for the things they vote for.

Our pigheaded determination to change our climate is good example of what I mean by a more insidious amorality.  How moral will people in the future think we were if the worst case scenarios that we've been warned about come to pass?  I doubt our ignorance will be a very plausible excuse given what we know.  

[French Patriot]

19 hours ago, eyeball said:

There's certainly reason to hope but I just don't think these statistics tell the whole story. Greater numbers of individuals may have a greater capacity for morality due to better awareness and appreciation for being moral but given how some our most powerful institutions behave, governments and corporations for example, I think on balance there's still as much capacity for amorality as ever and its perhaps even more insidious.  It's easy for people to imagine they're better and more moral than their ancestors when looking at how they behave individually in a society and even easier to imagine they're not associated with or can divorce themselves from institutional amorality - but not in a democracy and where electorates are responsible for the things they vote for.

Our pigheaded determination to change our climate is good example of what I mean by a more insidious amorality.  How moral will people in the future think we were if the worst case scenarios that we've been warned about come to pass?  I doubt our ignorance will be a very plausible excuse given what we know.  

There is no argument on your last and yes, the public is allowing corporations and governments way too much leeway.

A lot of the negatives you see are from The U.S. and not so much the rest of the West that seems to walk their talk better than Americans. Just the horrendous jail stats for non-whites in the U.S. tell us quite a bit.

You might have noted that even though Trump did not sign the last environmental accord, that many mayors and companies in the U.S. are ignoring that stooge and putting environmental programs in place in spite of him.

The fact that the next generation seem brighter and more left wing than the current voters, give me hope for the U.S.

Regards

DL

 

[bush_cheney2004]

2 hours ago, French Patriot said:

...A lot of the negatives you see are from The U.S. and not so much the rest of the West that seems to walk their talk better than Americans. Just the horrendous jail stats for non-whites in the U.S. tell us quite a bit.

 

Of course...we'll just pretend that Canadian mining companies or British oil services companies or French infrastructure contractors don't have many  negatives around the world.   Why can't the Americans be more like them !

Crazy high First Nations' incarceration rates in Canada are no big deal, right ?

 

Quote

You might have noted that even though Trump did not sign the last environmental accord, that many mayors and companies in the U.S. are ignoring that stooge and putting environmental programs in place in spite of him.

 

U.S. cities and corporations were free to do that long before the Paris Climate Agreement, which was not voted for in the U.S. Congress.    The U.S. invests far more in data collection, analysis, and research for the environment than many other western nations combined.    NASA and the NOAA are not Canadian, but you will find their data sets and analysis routinely used by many world organizations.

Religious freedoms are not the only rights that Americans enjoy.

Edited May 20, 2018 by bush_cheney2004

[French Patriot]

I was not whitewashing any nation including Canada.

I was just pointing out that the leader of the free world is not walking it's talk as well as others.

If you ever have a chance to watch Sicko, you will see what I mean.

Regards

DL

 

 

[bush_cheney2004]

6 minutes ago, French Patriot said:

I was not whitewashing any nation including Canada.

I was just pointing out that the leader of the free world is not walking it's talk as well as others.

 

Donald Trump (or any U.S. president) is not the leader of the free world....they are leaders of American interests.

Canada and Germany have been NATO deadbeats for decades...long before Trump.

Cheers

[betsy]

14 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Donald Trump (or any U.S. president) is not the leader of the free world....they are leaders of American interests.

Canada and Germany have been NATO deadbeats for decades...long before Trump.

Cheers

Bang on!

Though majority of the world sees the USA as the leader of the free world -  Trump's been very vocal about whose primary interest he's fighting for!

Edited May 21, 2018 by betsy

[French Patriot]

47 minutes ago, betsy said:

Bang on!

Though majority of the world sees the USA as the leader of the free world -  Trump's been very vocal about whose primary interest he's fighting for!

The U.S. arms industry profits more from war than most countries and thus should pay more.

Regards

DL