Yes, he also wanted to contaminate all your precious bodily fluids.
:rolleyes:
— G. Raven
Morrison’s Lament, you are aware that Lennon was for some time a believer in (and advocate of) Communism, are you not?
Spare me your rolleyes, and take the time to study the apparent object of your worship.
spoke-
I know it’s not the point of your post, but I do believe the song refers to Lenin, not Lennon. As in Vladimir.
Nope. It’s about Lennon. As in John. 
(Though to be fair, I’m sure Don McClean was making a Lennon/Lenin pun.)
The whole song is about the transition of music from the 50’s through the 60’s. The loss of musical innocence, as it were. There are references in the song to Dylan, The Byrds, The Stones, and yes, John Lennon.
Lennon’s flirtations with Communism are well-known. And it seems pretty obvious (to me, anyway) that “Imagine” is Lennon’s very own musical manifesto.
spoke-
Of course, it is a double-entendre. Sometimes the lyrics are printed with Lenin, and sometimes with Lennon. The first one I saw was Lenin, way back when, which I believe to be the original.
But I was wrong to imply that the song was about Lenin. Of course the song was about the music scene.
Peace on earth and goodwill towards man is what I’ve always taken the song to be about, and that’s what he claimed it to be about.
He may have flirted with communism, but writing your own, personal manifesto surely means you don’t subscribe to ANY previously established doctrine.
Lennon was a highly spiritual man and was deeply involved in spiritual matters for his entire life.
And I apologize for the rolleyes, they were out of place.
— G. Raven
And how many of these “blood baths” are even today caused by differences in religious belief? Not all, but a fair number of them… if there was no war tomorrow, there’d be less war, at least a first, since a major cause would be eliminated.
elfkin-
Did you mean to say that if there were no religion tomorrow, there would be less war? If so, I definitely agree. (I also agree that if there were less war tomorrow, there would be less war, but…you know.)
Morrison-
I think you’re talking about the song referred to in the title of the thread, John Lennon’s “Imagine.” I agree, that song was about peace on earth. spoke- and I were quibbling about the reference in Don’ McClean’s “American Pie.” My fault; I interrupted to point out what I thought was a simple spelling mistake, but first, I might have been wrong, and second, it was completely beside the point anyway.
Lennon did not claim to subscribe to communism; he studied it some, as he studied eastern religions, but didn’t strictly follow any of these doctrines. I too am sometimes accused of John Lennon “worship,” just because I express respect for him. I know, he read unpopular literature, and Julian says he was a bad father. But he was also one of the most peaceful humans that has ever been widely known.
To address the OP, I’m sure that if religion disappeared tomorrow, some religious people would feel rather ungrounded for a while. I’m also pretty sure that the world would benefit immeasurably from the disappearance. Kids could grow up learning to think about what was right and wrong, rather than following a list of ancient rules because they’ve been threatened with an eternity roasting on the coals if they don’t. I believe that if morality in general changed, it would improve. No, society would not degenerate into chaos, any more than it already has.
Mr. O, kids learn to think about what is right and wrong, and then do the exact opposite.
Well…some kids learn to think about ethical issues, and some also do the exact opposite. Some learn their ethics according to the dictates of a “higher power,” or the dictates of an old patriarch of a camel rancher a few thousand years ago, and some of this group also does the exact opposite.
I think I’m missing your point, and I apologize for that. For me, I never really developed any ethical maturity until I finally threw off the mental shackles of religion. Oh, I was never particularly immoral or unethical–never had the power to be, even if I had wanted to.
By ethical maturity, I mean the ability to think critically about the ethics of a situation, to balance compassion for the individual with responsibility to the society. I was always a pretty “good” person, but I never really understood being good. I was an ethical robot, and robots are not ethically or morally responsible. They just follow rules. No list of rules was ever enough to cover all the situations we find ourselves in, but many religions, particularly Christianity, claim exactly that: to offer the final, comprehesive guide to right and wrong, the highest moral authority.
But on whose authority are we to accept this claim? Where is it written that the Christian Bible has the final say on moral matters? Oh, in the Bible. Does no one else see this tautology?
I can make better ethical decisions on my own than when I trust the authority of a person who, though very likely wise in his or her time, does not live in my time. I can learn from those people, and I have. But it would be irresponsible of me to allow them to control my ethical behavior.
Didn’t address the possibility that religion’s moral codes really do come from a higher authority, did I? (I’m guessing everyone wishes I wouldn’t, but I can’t help it.)
I just can’t find any reason to believe that there is a higher authority, except for that tautology I mentioned before. I don’t just mean I can’t find scientific evidence; I accept that “things of the spirit must be spiritually discerned,” and that logical evidence might not be enough. But I have also tried to discern it spritually, and my honest, open-hearted spiritual searches always lead me back to myself: I am responsible for what I do; I cannot rely on some giant celestial insurance plan to pay my debts. No one can “die for my sins.”
But why should I care, if there’s no reward or punishment in the afterlife, because there’s no reason to suspect that there is an afterlife? As has been said before, for at least two reasons: first, I don’t like to hurt people, so I wouldn’t do it even if there were no negative consequences for me; second, it is advantageous to the entire society, me included, if we don’t hurt each other.
Religion, however, is a moral code allegedly based on a higher authority. Many of these “higher” authorities demand a lot of sacrifices from their followers–I don’t mean a burnt offering, or tithing. I mean that followers are asked to sacrifice their ethical responsibility. Perhaps those who consider ethical responsibility a burden would say that they are “allowed” to give it up. Either way, I see this as damaging to the individual and to society as a whole.
No, I meant… 
I thought I read it over before posting, too. Oh well.
Interesting. I happen to not believe in any sort of god. I also happen to have a moral viewpoint that is very similar to Libertarian’s. Libertarian is a very religious (if unconventional) Christian. I’d say that this shows that moral views can be completely unrelated to belief in a higher power.
Incidentally, I was raised Catholic, and strongly disagree with many of the church’s teachings.
Good evening, Ladies and Gentlemen. I’m pleased to be appearing at the half-time of Gaudere versus Grimpixie. For your entertainment pleasure, I will perform some very spectacular miracles, which will convert some of the good heathens among you.
[Turning to Jab … ZZZZZZZZZZAAAAAPPPPP!]
[Jab:] “Lib, I just want you to know that I respect your beliefs even though I disagree with them.”
[Turning to David B … ZZZZZZZZZZAAAAAPPPPP!]
[David B:] “Lib, you made a good point.”
[Turning to Spiritus … ZZZZZZZZZZAAAAAPPPPP!]
[Spiritus Mundi:] “Stop taunting Lib. He’s my buddy.”
[Turning to WaterJ … ZZZZZZZZZZAAAAAPPPPP!]
[WaterJ:] “There’s a big difference between religious and spiritual. Lib is the latter.”
[Turning to Grimpixie … ZZZZZZZZZZAAAAAPPPPP!]
[Grimpixie:] “D’oh! You mean some people just like goodness for its own sake?”
[Turning to Gaudere … ZZZZZZZZZZAAAAAPPPPP!]
[Gaudere:] “Way to go, Lib!”
Thank you, thank you! Now, back to the match and enjoy the show!
Could an atheist define what the word “should” refers to in the above quote?
Based on this quote, I can’t figure out why David Duke, who has sympathy (with white people), education (reading racist literature which has apparently convinced him), and social ties (with other racists) and needs (to feel superior to someone - God knows they must be tough to find), is not being ethical.
Al was a heck of a physicist, but he is begging the question here.
Regards,
Shodan
(Yes, Gaudere, I’ve seen the other threads. I would like to see if anyone else has an answer to the question.)
Suddenly I’m having flashbacks to grade school. “Yes, I know you know the answer, Shannon, let’s see if anyone else can figure it out…” Is there gonna be a pop quiz on morality for all the SD atheists, and does it count towards our final grade?
Shodan
[sigh…]
No, he may be raising a question (at least in your mind), but he is not begging the question.
Gaudere
Please stop fidgeting in your desk. And put out that gum. 
You should stop picking on Gaudere. She’s my buddy. (Did I get that right? I’ve been feeling strange recently.)
shodan, in a non-dictated morality the obligation of the individual can be either to one’s self or to one’s group(s) (family, culture, caste, etc.) In some analyses, all obligations reduce to an obligation toward self, but that’s a different discussion entirely. It really is not that complicated a concept, but determining how to accept/deny/balance those obligations is not a simple exercise I sometimes like to call it “growing up”.
**
Could an atheist define what the word “should” refers to in the above quote?**
[/QUOTE]
It doesn’t take an atheist to define “should”; it serves an auxiliary function expressing obligation, propriety, or expediency.
As for David Duke and his ilk, I would say that their “sympathy” and “education” are far too limited in scope to qualify as ethical. The reason I repeat part of the quote from Al here is to point out that there is no comma after “ties,” implying that “needs” does not stand alone, but is modified by “social.” A racist fails to consider the social needs of a large enough group. If we pay attention to the needs of society as a whole, Al’s prescription covers it pretty well.
All three of which, of course, are entirely subjective . . .