|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/16/2005 04:55:45 PM · #526 |
while religion can be one channel for ethical action and thought, I don't believe it to be the only one. Since when do Christians or Jews or Muslims or _______ (insert your favorite religion here) have a monopoly on ethics? Can't all people rationally think about and act on ethical principles without religious tenets? Can't they be taught to children without a religious based system?
When a person is open and able to see the realities of the world, and experience them on a personal and emotional basis and expand that to others, we can understand good and bad and form our own standards, but the "do unto others" rule does not have to come from relgion. In fact, coming from religion it may even confuse, given the religious intolerance of history. |
|
|
|
09/16/2005 05:15:27 PM · #527 |
Originally posted by "Olyuzi":
Can't all people rationally think about and act on ethical principles without religious tenets? Can't they be taught to children without a religious based system? |
I believe the current moral foundation of the day can indeed. The contentions are more so when change occurs.
The issue I have, is not to say an "atheist" is incapable of making a moral decision. But rather, objecting to the statement that because I am "religious" I am not accounted the same ability.
I make my decision just as any atheist would. I merely take added support from a like minded group that share common opinion.
Originally posted by "milo655321":
No. Blue laws were specifically enacted for religious reasons. |
I agree, and in most cases they were appealed or left unenforced. Every now and then you hear a case bring up a blue law. Perhaps the only exception is alchol prohibited on Sundays. And you know what...I "believe" that case is a violation of church and state.
The irony, is such is not even a dictate of the christian faith. Jesus Christ's first miracle was the creating of wine from water.
But yes, I do believe said laws should be struck in that regard. Not arguing that. In fact, the reason was much more societal back then for such laws. I put forth the doctor/science one just to show it is more a failing of man than any tie to religion.
An example, the upcoming "smoking prohibition" (yes, we are headed that way - and some would say we already have it when you can't smoke in public places, nor in a private place including your home if a child is present) now in this case there is no religious motivation. It's all "pop-trend" culture.
Originally posted by "milo655321":
Democracy is not a system to determine what is “truth.” Democracy is a system wherein each member participates in determining how best to govern themselves.
|
That is the over-laying aspect yes. But the idea being to be governed by that which is right or true. How does one determine moral truths? and on what basis? how does one decide the method and routine of government in line with morality? how does society determine which is true, this or that....well in our society we use democratic principles. Hence my statement.
With regards to the difference of "raw democracy" and a "republic or constitutional democracy". I've already stated my understanding of such. Even there, the check and balances are determined by democratic principles and can be added or removed. I didn't think I needed to explain it. Then when it was brought up in reply I agreed. Now, it's becoming a beaten dead goat. But even those check and balances can be altered. For example, we once had the "second place/runner-up" be the Vice President. We changed that. Constitutional ammendments can be made. I never stated we did not have checks and balances to regulate our Democracy. But that the basis is a majority has the greater affect and control and ability to alter or direct.
Originally posted by "milo655321":
The meaning of “establishment” and to what extent the First Amendment should apply is at the heart of what we are discussing. |
Yes...it is...
Originally posted by "milo655321":
So you are arguing for a restriction of religiously motivated acts which conflict with the laws of our current government. |
Yes to those which "force" globally harm. But at the same time to remove laws by the government that unduly restrict the freedoms to pursue the religion without harm. And so as to not take from said religious group that which they feel is sancrosant.
For example: I believe religious and conscientious objectors should have the option of declaring that none of their taxes go toward "war or military expenditures".
Originally posted by "milo655321":
Enacting laws purely based upon religious grounds is an act which infringes upon the religious minority and, in order to protect the religious minority, secular arguments for such laws must be made by all parties involved. |
If no cause can be given in light of society, then yes, I believe it can be questioned. (ie: blue laws regarding liqueur on Sundays). However, very few issues "today" that are hotly contested are for the sole reason of "religion" and one can make strong non-religious arguments for most.
"I don’t care that your religious. I care that any laws for which you argue affecting all members of society are religiously neutral."
Please give examples of those "current" (as in hot topics of debate) which you think have only religious reasons or motivations?
Originally posted by "milo655321":
It seems more that the government is, or should be, saying that it is wrong for one religious group to use government influence to tell another religious group that it is wrong. You can, for religious reasons, privately believe it’s wrong for people to wear clothing made out a mixed-weave cloth, but you can’t have the religiously-neutral government or representatives of that government behave as if it were true. |
Why do we require "clothing"? can you state a reason for this...why is walking around nude unacceptable in our culture? Is it only the religious who don't want to allow public nudity or sex on public sidewalks? Can you please provide me logical reasons for such?
Originally posted by "milo655321":
Science, by definition, is methodologically naturalistic and no more a religious belief than godless relativity, godless electromagnetism, godless astronomy, or godless gravity. |
Wrong... First, you are denoting an equivalence of science to the laws of physics (although a correlation, they are not one and the same). The laws of physics stand regardless, where as science (as being implied) is simply an understanding, interpretation of observances. Extremely subject and prone to human error. In fact, science is a method. And what I am addressing is not "science" but the dogmatic behavior of many scientists. That dogmatic behavior is akin to relgion.
Originally posted by "milo655321":
As a side note, I could bring up several instances of Hitler referring to his belief that he was doing the work of god, but that is neither here nor there. Unless we are actually talking about Nazis, please don’t bring them up again. It only serves to degrade the discussion and make you appear as if you’re grasping at straws. |
Bologna...people hate looking at the NAZI's because it was the actual result of slippery slope. People claim the use of such a fallacy. I do not adhere to such. I believe mankinda has the tendency and potential to slide into great depravity. To ignore history is foolishness.
Your comment regarding Hitler's belief that he was doing the work of God. Is in fact a great example of a breach; of a point when the government should not have allowed an act in such fashion - neither for science nor religion.
The NAZIs are in fact, perhaps the most perfect and relevant motive. For both claims were made on the parts of various NAZI leaders. For God and in the name of Science. My point, is the dogma of both infringed on the lives of others in a harmful way.
Originally posted by "milo655321":
However, religious beliefs don’t open themselves up to empirical testing and religious believers tend to ignore evidence which conflicts their religious beliefs. |
As do a multitude of scientists. Hence, I see much similarity and go with that the issue is the restriction of harm toward others. Regardless of what dogmatic ideology motivates said harm.
Originally posted by "milo655321":
Firstly, Christianity is not the only religion that has precepts against theft. Secondly, religion is not necessary for a moral code with the precept that stealing is wrong. |
Exactly....in fact. Many who are not religious feel that stealing is wrong. However, many...(obviously from our prisons) do not feel that stealing is wrong. Many feel there is no wrong in stealing from the richer more powerful who have much when they have little. So how did we come to determine stealing is wrong...and why, and in what instances?
You mention that it is common throughout many cultures and religions. So let me ask...wouldn't such an occurrence of a belief throughout many differing belief systems suggest a social inherency or need of such law in society? and although perhaps masked within religion is it not possible if not probable that there are socio-logical reasons for that law to exist within a given religious belief set?
Originally posted by "milo655321":
that a religious individual can vote on and contribute to the laws governing a group of people in a representative democracy without imposing his private religious beliefs on other members of society |
MY POINT!!!! Is HOW DO YOU MAKE THE DETERMINATION that it is merely a private religious belief? if I vote against "abortion" is my vote invalidated because most of my religion concurs with me that such an act is morally wrong? The problem, is that you're assuming there is no further understanding behind the votes when in deed there is much further understanding.
Originally posted by "milo655321":
You say it’s idiotic because you don’t understand my argument. If my religious beliefs, say, in the almighty Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, include that it is wrong to eat meat on Friday, I can still practice my beliefs without trying to force other members of society to abide by my personal religious beliefs. |
Agreed...such is an inappropriate law. However, if the eating of spaghetti led to the harm or death of Chinese on the other side of the world. Then opposing it would have validity. Would it not? Now, it might be that Flying Spaghetti Monster worshippers happened to feel it was inherently wrong. Perhaps, because their religion was aware of the deaths cause by spaghetti eating since early in it's inception and had codified against it.
But no, to simply ban spaghetti for a religious pretext would be wrong. As would demanding that everyone kept kosher. And I'm not arguing those points. And I agreed with you in regards to blue laws being foolish and unconstitutional.
But there are many issues where the matter at hand is more than simply it being "wrong in a religious book". And I ask. Please list the particular current issues of which this reflects.
Originally posted by "milo655321":
You’re the one who seems to be making that argument. I take it we agree that a person can be a moral person without religion? |
Well, I have my logic for my morality. Even outside my religious beliefs. That does not mean that others necessarily have the same logic nor have the same morality. I believe an individual can develop a moral code for themselves without religion. I am not sure if there is any way to make a determination of right and wrong. Except, perhaps by mass appeal.
Originally posted by "milo655321":
I disagree. Such a broad definition of religion don’t serve our discussion. |
And I greatly disagree with your disagreement. And think it absolutely serves the discussion. Take L. Ron Hubbard. Who established his own religion. When did that become a religion? As soon as it had a certain number of adherants? what? when? why? when does a philosophy, morality, a set of principles become a religion? Or maybe scientology is not in fact a religion....so they are free to vote according to their um...whatever it is...beliefs?
Originally posted by "milo655321":
If I could convince you today that there were no gods, would you go out and start murdering, raping and robbing banks tomorrow? You suddenly act as if, if one were an atheist, there are no longer any consequences for ones actions. |
No, I am arguing against your view which is directly the reverse of the above.
Your statements seem to say that you believe that if someone is "religious" than there only reason for morality is their religion and they are likewise incapable of believing "consequences for ones actions" in addition to religion. When in fact, most religious have their "religious convictions" and an atheists "consequences for ones actions".
This is my point, if someone votes against abortion you say that should not be allowed because it's a religious vote. When in fact they may have a multitude of reasons to vote against abortion.
If this is NOT what you believe, than please tell me how you are going to make a determination of votes? Do you really believe a religious person can have no understanding of "consequences for ones actions" - is that a right only atheists have?
???
Originally posted by "milo655321":
You don’t think that are secular arguments against murder or theft? A religiously neutral argument can be made that murder of one individual by another individual is wrong. |
Are there...of course...but it is tough to make a determination. For instance there are "survival theorists" who believe in the survival of the fittest and do not see death or murder if it eliminates the weak, unintelligent, etc. There are numerous cases where society has not had a stigma toward murder.
Now, I myself DO have such a stigma. I have logical moral arguments for it both in what cases I allow for it morally and which cases I don't.
Originally posted by "milo655321":
As a follow up, since we are on the subject of morals and religion, let me ask you this: is something moral because (a) god(s) say(s) it is moral or is do morals exist apart from (a) god(s)? |
I will state it this way. I believe there are morals which God agrees with. I believe there are laws of God which are not immoral to break. And I believe that there are morals which are not dictated by God. (example: the speed limits, no whre does God say I have to go 65....but I do. And so do most religious people (or reasonably close to it). The point....religious people are fully capable of making moral decisions according to the scope of society.
Originally posted by "milo655321":
Get thee to a sodomy law. |
Already addressed that...prior. Get me a real issue. One that is actually a contention in today's society and not some little backwater town with a 100 yr old law and someone bringing a case just to have a court decide against it.
Originally posted by "milo655321":
Great. If you can address something purely from a logic standpoint, the religious standpoint is superfluous to the discussion and need not be brought up. |
Funny you should say that....I find it is usually my opponents dismissing me and my views and writing me off because I am religious. Regardless of the fact that I seldom every bring up a religious argument. In the case of abortion, and my case against it, I never address a religious issue concerning it. It is NOT I who brings up the standpoint of religion but rather my opponents seeking to dismiss my statements. By declaring it merely religious they can proceed to dismiss me and my arguments and proceed without defense. I do not hold anyone but a "christian" to the laws of christianity. If you are not a christian. I hold you to the laws of "do not harm without cause".
Originally posted by "milo655321":
You can argue with someone else about the pros and cons of abortion. Secular arguments have been made both for and against its availability. I will just leave it by saying I will never, never, never get one. |
Nor will I...(being a male, and doubting technological developements to allow that to be an issue for me). Furthermore, I will oppose it openly and publicly.
Originally posted by "milo655321":
I agree. I don’t think we should try to change our history, just as I don’t think we should whitewash the bad parts of our history either â€Â¦ religious or otherwise. |
Of this I am much agreed. I believe we learn from our mistakes and failures. Forgetting them dooms us to repeat them.
Originally posted by "milo655321":
I think we can agree on this. The doctor’s purpose is medical and his practice is private and the doctor is not working solely as an agent of the government. Unless the doctor required the patient to listen to a sermon before treating him while receiving federal funds, I don’t see how his private religious beliefs expressed in his private practice affect his performance as a doctor. |
Nor I a soup kitchen. (And this is not to you but to others I've encountered) As I do understand that you agreed with me that so long as the food is provided and no forced "evangelizing" occurs then such should be allowed.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2005 05:25:23 PM · #528 |
From the beginning of a longish article in todays New York Times:
September 16, 2005
Celebrating Shaw, a Serious Optimist
By BEN BRANTLEY
THE old man is never going to shut up, so we might as well let him into the conversation once again. After all, it's not as if the subjects that raise middle-class hackles have changed so very much in the 55 years since George Bernard Shaw died, leaving mountains of plays (more than 50, and their prefaces and postscripts) and essays and pamphlets and treatises and letters and reviews to rumble on in an ardent and exasperated eternity.
Consider intelligent design, the God-incorporating alternative to Darwinism that is such a hot-button topic among scientists, theologians, educators and anxious parents of schoolchildren these days. Now, the Irish-born Shaw - whose exceptionally long and fecund career as a center of London theatrical and political life is being celebrated beginning tomorrow in a festival of talks, readings and performances at the New York Public Library, titled "Man or Superman?" - devoted rivers of ink to expounding his personal variation on the theory of natural selection. It was called creative evolution, a name that sounds a lot like intelligent design, don't you think?
Still, proponents of that theory probably don't want to hitch their wagons to Shaw's venerable star. While he had some problems with the biological randomness of Darwin, Shaw also pretty much eliminated God from the equation of how human life develops.
Creative evolution, put forth in jovial but dead serious dramatic terms in Shaw's play "Man and Superman" (published in 1903; first performed in 1905), is based on an ever upwardly striving phenomenon called the life force, which propels us away from our inconvenient bodily impulses and toward a state of pure cerebration. The life force, by the way, is transmitted by rare, world-shaking men of genius, "selected by Nature to carry on the work of building up an intellectual consciousness of her instinctive purpose." In other words, men like Jesus, Julius Caesar, John Bunyan, Napoleon, Goethe, Wagner and - but, of course - George Bernard Shaw. Shakespeare, by the way, almost doesn't qualify by Shavian standards (too pessimistic), but for a while there it looked as if Hitler and Stalin might.
Here is Shaw's alter ego in "Man and Superman," an asexual variation on that immortal rake Don Juan, on why he thinks religion is "a mere excuse for laziness": "It had set up a God who looked at the world and saw that it was good, against the instinct in me that looked through my eyes at the world and saw that it could be improved." And improvement of the species - which involved setting fire to rotting, imprisoning conventions and throwing cold water on smug faces - was always the first purpose of Shaw's plays. "It should be clear now that Shaw is a terrorist," wrote Bertolt Brecht, who knew from guerrilla theater. The critic Kenneth Tynan described Shaw as "the demolition expert." |
|
|
|
09/16/2005 05:39:31 PM · #529 |
I have just been reading some of this and you know what I think..................... you guys have way too much time on your hands, how about you put the same amount of time and research into commenting on photo's.
Don't you relize that you are not going to make any influence on each other's point of view, all your are really doing is being argumentive for the sake of you own personnal pride.
I'm probably going to get the reply of "if you don't like it don't read it blah blah blah blah it's ok if it's in the rant blah blah blah" well I don't give a rats because I just wanted to remind you guys that you are full of you own self importance, what we are here for ?
Why don't you go out and take some photo's get some fresh air and live a bit. |
|
|
|
09/16/2005 05:51:54 PM · #530 |
| Actually, this thread has been so edifying as far as I'm concerned...I'm very thankful for it. There is some great conversation here. |
|
|
|
09/16/2005 05:52:14 PM · #531 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
I have just been reading some of this and you know what I think..................... you guys have way too much time on your hands, how about you put the same amount of time and research into commenting on photo's.
Why don't you go out and take some photo's get some fresh air and live a bit. |
What other kind of importance is there?
Your opinion may have some validity; your desire to impose your values/work ethic on others does not.
I have a trip to a photo shoot scheduled for tomorrow morning.
Message edited by author 2005-09-16 17:53:28. |
|
|
|
09/16/2005 05:52:24 PM · #532 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
I have just been reading some of this and you know what I think..................... you guys have way too much time on your hands, how about you put the same amount of time and research into commenting on photo's.
Don't you relize that you are not going to make any influence on each other's point of view, all your are really doing is being argumentive for the sake of you own personnal pride.
I'm probably going to get the reply of "if you don't like it don't read it blah blah blah blah it's ok if it's in the rant blah blah blah" well I don't give a rats because I just wanted to remind you guys that you are full of you own self importance, what we are here for ?
Why don't you go out and take some photo's get some fresh air and live a bit. |
You blasted creep....why do you got to be so darn right and probably state the smartest thing posted in this entire thread. And considers the fact he has not picked up his Canon in a week.
(thought I do have a gig shoot tonight)
But yes,...you're probably absolutely right "Keegbow"
;-)
And with that, I will endeavor NOT to respond!
|
|
|
|
09/16/2005 05:54:56 PM · #533 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
Why don't you go out and take some photo's get some fresh air and live a bit. |
Some people actually enjoy the discussion. It focuses the mind to have to defend a position and it makes me exam my own views and why and how I accept what I do. I'm going out later if that's of any consolation.
Oh ... and I'm also full of my own self importance. :) |
|
|
|
09/16/2005 06:09:09 PM · #534 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
I have just been reading some of this and you know what I think..................... you guys have way too much time on your hands, how about you put the same amount of time and research into commenting on photo's.
Don't you relize that you are not going to make any influence on each other's point of view, all your are really doing is being argumentive for the sake of you own personnal pride.
I'm probably going to get the reply of "if you don't like it don't read it blah blah blah blah it's ok if it's in the rant blah blah blah" well I don't give a rats because I just wanted to remind you guys that you are full of you own self importance, what we are here for ?
Why don't you go out and take some photo's get some fresh air and live a bit. |
I'm using this discussion to germinate some ideas for the "conspiracies" challenge. So far, nothing has sprouted. :) |
|
|
|
09/16/2005 06:57:27 PM · #535 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by "Olyuzi":
Can't all people rationally think about and act on ethical principles without religious tenets? Can't they be taught to children without a religious based system? |
I believe the current moral foundation of the day can indeed. The contentions are more so when change occurs.
The issue I have, is not to say an "atheist" is incapable of making a moral decision. But rather, objecting to the statement that because I am "religious" I am not accounted the same ability.
I make my decision just as any atheist would. I merely take added support from a like minded group that share common opinion. |
Taking support and guidance from a religion is fine on a personal basis and I support that, but it's when a religion uses its rhetoric and resources to influence politics (and vice versa) that I take exception. Especially when that religion has many advantages in terms of money and media access and seeks to change Constitutional principles and elections.
Also, what changes are you referring to that lead to contention?
****************
Originally posted by "milo655321":
It seems more that the government is, or should be, saying that it is wrong for one religious group to use government influence to tell another religious group that it is wrong. You can, for religious reasons, privately believe it’s wrong for people to wear clothing made out a mixed-weave cloth, but you can’t have the religiously-neutral government or representatives of that government behave as if it were true. |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Why do we require "clothing"? can you state a reason for this...why is walking around nude unacceptable in our culture? Is it only the religious who don't want to allow public nudity or sex on public sidewalks? Can you please provide me logical reasons for such? |
I think you are evading the issue that Milo is bringing up...that it is not in the democratic interests of a government to be aligning with a specific religious group for whatever reason. Wearing clothes is not the issue he's talking about.
*****************
Specific question:
Should the Bush administration have listed Operation Blessing (a Pat Robertson controlled charity) on the FEMA website immediately after the hurricane, as one of the three major charities to donate monies to?
Message edited by author 2005-09-16 19:00:08. |
|
|
|
09/16/2005 07:55:05 PM · #536 |
Didn't want to start a new thread for this, but I found this article very interesting. It is from an engineering magazine in 2003. It's a very long article and if you are non-engineer you might find a lot of it really boring.
//www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0603feat.html
Some things I found particularly interesting:
Originally posted by Engineers:
According to Naomi, any concerted effort to protect the city from a storm of category 4 or 5 will probably take 30 years to complete. And the feasibility study alone for such an effort will cost as much as $8 million. Even though Congress has authorized the feasibility study, funding has not yet been appropriated. When funds are made available, the study will take about six years to complete. “That’s a lot of time to get the study before Congress,” Naomi admits. “Hopefully we won’t have a major storm before then.”
â€Â¦
In the 1990s, Suhayda began modeling category 4 and 5 storms hitting New Orleans from a variety of directions. His results were frightening enough that he shared them with emergency preparedness officials throughout Louisiana. If such a severe storm were to hit the city from the southwest, for instance, Suhayda’s data indicate that the water level of Lake Pontchartrain would rise by as much as 12 ft (3.7 m). As the storm’s counterclockwise winds battered the levees on the northern shore of the city, the water would easily top the embankments and fill the streets to a depth of 25 ft (7.6 m) or more.
Experts say a flood of this magnitude would probably shut down the city’s power plants and water and sewage treatment plants and might even take out its drainage system. The workhorse pumps would be clogged with debris, and the levees would suddenly be working to keep water in the city. Survivors of the storm—humans and animals alike—would be sharing space on the crests of levees until the Corps could dynamite holes in the structures to drain the area. In such a scenario, the American Red Cross estimates that between 25,000 and 100,000 people would die.
â€Â¦.
For the most part, New Orleans does not have places for people to go. The American Red Cross no longer provides emergency shelters in the city because its officials cannot guarantee the structural integrity of the locations. There simply are not enough buildings in the area that could withstand the forces of a category 4 or 5 storm.
Most people would not wish to remain in the city if a category 4 or 5 storm were in prospect, but evacuating could be difficult. Experts say close to 400,000 people could be stranded in the city. There are an estimated 100,000 people without easy access to automobiles, and those who can drive may not be able to do so. During Hurricane Andrew, interstates throughout the South were brought to a standstill because simultaneous evacuations were taking place in several states. The only major planning improvement since then has been the decision to keep traffic away from the coast on both sides of evacuation routes.
|
All I have to say after reading this is, shame on us for not having a rock solid evacuation plan when we clearly knew we could not evacuate and we could not withstand a cat 4 storm.
And, we really need to think hard about how much of NO is rebuilt, or this will happen again.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2005 08:02:24 PM · #537 |
Originally posted by louddog:
All I have to say after reading this is, shame on us for not having a rock solid evacuation plan when we clearly knew we could not evacuate and we could not withstand a cat 4 storm.
And, we really need to think hard about how much of NO is rebuilt, or this will happen again. |
Yeah, it will be very interesting what happens. Some of the stuff I have read said it did not matter even if they did all of the proposed improvments to the levee that should have been done years age...the same thing would have happened.
It would have broken and flooded the city even with the best of levees.
I dont know, its a very tough call. I am glad I dont have to make those decisions. |
|
|
|
09/16/2005 09:26:25 PM · #538 |
By GeneralE
<<< One day I was walking to the bus when a guy asked me if I "believed in Jesus."
My response was that if we'd all spend more time living accoding to the rules He outlined, and less time arguing the question of his divinity, the world would be a lot better off. >>>
LOL
Great reply!!
I'll make sure I use it to fend off unwanted prostheletizers (sp) !!!
I can just imagine that guy stalking off in a big snit...... |
|
|
|
09/16/2005 10:00:30 PM · #539 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
My ideas about good and evil were largely shaped without religious intervention -- I daresay they are pretty mainstream for all that, perhaps with a little less respect for greed and more concern for the truly disadvantaged than our current prominent Faith-based leadership. |
I have so much more respect for people when they just answer a question and don't take little jabs whenever they have the opportunity. Normally that doesn't describe you, General...but like I said before, anything having to do with christianity has you attacking like a cobra whenever you get the chance.
|
Do please enlighten us as to where exactly you found the General to be "attacking like a cobra".... I must have missed that part.
Ray |
|
|
|
09/16/2005 10:04:43 PM · #540 |
I believe in Jesus, who once said, he who denies me on earth I will deny before my Father in heaven.
How anyone can not believe in a creater is beyond me. I think it takes more faith to not believe than to believe.
Yep, I believe in Jesus. |
|
|
|
09/16/2005 10:13:00 PM · #541 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Do please enlighten us as to where exactly you found the General to be "attacking like a cobra".... I must have missed that part.
Ray |
You're correct Ray, I overreacted...but I think General knew what I meant. I was referring to his taking every opportunity to jab "christianity" whether it has anything to do with the question being asked of him or not. Like I said, my reaction was lame...apologies. |
|
|
|
09/16/2005 10:15:19 PM · #542 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Taking support and guidance from a religion is fine on a personal basis and I support that, but it's when a religion uses its rhetoric and resources to influence politics (and vice versa) that I take exception. Especially when that religion has many advantages in terms of money and media access and seeks to change Constitutional principles and elections. |
Yes yes yes!!! I completely agree! I'm as pissed off about the whoring out of Jesus for the sake of fundraising or electioneering as anybody. I hate that, it should be offensive to anyone with intelligence or heart. |
|
|
|
09/16/2005 11:38:46 PM · #543 |
Originally posted by frychikn:
By GeneralE
<<< One day I was walking to the bus when a guy asked me if I "believed in Jesus."
My response was that if we'd all spend more time living accoding to the rules He outlined, and less time arguing the question of his divinity, the world would be a lot better off. >>>
LOL
Great reply!!
I'll make sure I use it to fend off unwanted prostheletizers (sp) !!!
I can just imagine that guy stalking off in a big snit...... |
Actually, we had a nice friendly chat for 2-3 minutes waiting for the signal to change and crossing the street. Most everyone I've told this to is happy enough to discover shared values, even if the rationale behind holding those values might be of different origin.
I don't have such an argument with Christianity per se, but I will take every jab I can get in at self-righteous hypocrisy. |
|
|
|
09/16/2005 11:58:26 PM · #544 |
Since this thread seems to be about religion now, I will post this. It will probably make many readers angry.
I don't believe that religions should be exempt from taxation at any level. They can certainly afford to pay their fair share of taxes, and because they don't, they are being indirectly subsidized by those individuals and entities who do. |
|
|
|
09/17/2005 12:01:21 AM · #545 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I don't have such an argument with Christianity per se, but I will take every jab I can get in at self-righteous hypocrisy. |
That's because you're a big ol' sinner. And I'm flawless. Aahh, the flawless life, it's so sweet. |
|
|
|
09/17/2005 12:08:37 AM · #546 |
Originally posted by frychikn:
Since this thread seems to be about religion now, I will post this. It will probably make many readers angry.
I don't believe that religions should be exempt from taxation at any level. They can certainly afford to pay their fair share of taxes, and because they don't, they are being indirectly subsidized by those individuals and entities who do. |
Yeah, I wonder about this sometimes...I'm part of a very small church (really, it's just 25 or so people that meet every week and once in a while in between for beers) and pretty much every penny that is given goes towards the community or red cross or local pregnancy crisis centre, etc. Other than very few administrative costs and paying a pastor (who takes care of all the administrative stuff as well as spiritual leadership stuff) we have very little overhead. So in our case, I really feel that we are a non-profit organization that should be tax exempt.
I can't speak for others but I think a lot of churches, mosques, etc. are very focused on themselves and most of the money gets spent 'on the inside'...whether it be improved facilities, higher wages or more staff members, better programs, etc. It's a tough call...interesting point.
|
|
|
|
09/17/2005 12:12:22 AM · #547 |
I shortened up some of the extraneous bits. Those agreed to, agreed to enough or agreed to disagree. It was getting a bit long. It was seven pages long on Microsoft Word.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by "milo655321":
It seems more that the government is, or should be, saying that it is wrong for one religious group to use government influence to tell another religious group that it is wrong. You can, for religious reasons, privately believe it’s wrong for people to wear clothing made out a mixed-weave cloth, but you can’t have the religiously-neutral government or representatives of that government behave as if it were true. |
Why do we require "clothing"? can you state a reason for this...why is walking around nude unacceptable in our culture? Is it only the religious who don't want to allow public nudity or sex on public sidewalks? Can you please provide me logical reasons for such? |
I was giving a broad example based upon Deuteronomy 22:11. Address the underlying theme of the example as Olyuzi requested, please.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by "milo655321":
Science, by definition, is methodologically naturalistic and no more a religious belief than godless relativity, godless electromagnetism, godless astronomy, or godless gravity. |
Wrong... First, you are denoting an equivalence of science to the laws of physics (although a correlation, they are not one and the same). The laws of physics stand regardless, where as science (as being implied) is simply an understanding, interpretation of observances. Extremely subject and prone to human error. In fact, science is a method. And what I am addressing is not "science" but the dogmatic behavior of many scientists. That dogmatic behavior is akin to relgion. |
What dogmatic behavior? What evidence are you accusing mainstream scientist of ignoring? How is the fact that Dr. John Doe doesn’t leave room for Casper the Friendly Ghost in his test tube dogmatic behavior? He doesn’t leave room for Thor, Ra or Baal either. Though you call it dogma, it’s called the scientific method. Once you allow one supernatural force to fill the gaps of current knowledge you not only stifle the progress of knowledge you open it to all kinds of other non-testable explanations such as “the ball moves towards the ground because invisible, non-testable leprechauns carry them there.” Again, methodological naturalism is not philosophical naturalism.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by "milo655321":
However, religious beliefs don’t open themselves up to empirical testing and religious believers tend to ignore evidence which conflicts their religious beliefs. |
As do a multitude of scientists. Hence, I see much similarity and go with that the issue is the restriction of harm toward others. Regardless of what dogmatic ideology motivates said harm. |
Which evidence are you accusing mainstream scientists and researchers ignoring?
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by "milo655321":
that a religious individual can vote on and contribute to the laws governing a group of people in a representative democracy without imposing his private religious beliefs on other members of society |
MY POINT!!!! Is HOW DO YOU MAKE THE DETERMINATION that it is merely a private religious belief? if I vote against "abortion" is my vote invalidated because most of my religion concurs with me that such an act is morally wrong? The problem, is that you're assuming there is no further understanding behind the votes when in deed there is much further understanding. |
I said a person “can” vote or, in other words, “is able” to vote â€Â¦ etc., etc. Non-religious argument can and have been made against abortion. If you want to add a religious element to the public debate, it should be your added burden to give evidence that your religion is the correct religion. Evidence for the existence of an eternal soul would be a good start.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by "milo655321":
I disagree. Such a broad definition of religion don’t serve our discussion. |
And I greatly disagree with your disagreement. And think it absolutely serves the discussion. Take L. Ron Hubbard. Who established his own religion. When did that become a religion? As soon as it had a certain number of adherants? what? when? why? when does a philosophy, morality, a set of principles become a religion? Or maybe scientology is not in fact a religion....so they are free to vote according to their um...whatever it is...beliefs? |
Those are good question. When you can tell me when Christianity stopped being a cult and became a religion I think you’ll have your answers. (To paraphrase George Carlin: Religion: A cult you can take the grandkid too.)
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by "milo655321":
If I could convince you today that there were no gods, would you go out and start murdering, raping and robbing banks tomorrow? You suddenly act as if, if one were an atheist, there are no longer any consequences for ones actions. |
No, I am arguing against your view which is directly the reverse of the above.
Your statements seem to say that you believe that if someone is "religious" than there only reason for morality is their religion and they are likewise incapable of believing "consequences for ones actions" in addition to religion. When in fact, most religious have their "religious convictions" and an atheists "consequences for ones actions".
This is my point, if someone votes against abortion you say that should not be allowed because it's a religious vote. When in fact they may have a multitude of reasons to vote against abortion.
If this is NOT what you believe, than please tell me how you are going to make a determination of votes? Do you really believe a religious person can have no understanding of "consequences for ones actions" - is that a right only atheists have?
??? |
I’ve never said that a religious person should not be allowed to vote for or against abortion. Where did you get that? I did, however, say there are non-religious arguments for and against abortion. But if the only argument offered is a religious argument, then it should be the burden of the person bringing the religious argument to show that theirs is the correct religion.
My putting forth an atheist understanding “consequences of ones actions” was in response to your question “Do you have reasoning behind your decisions?” not any sort of accusation of religious people. Unlike the caricature presented by certain religious leaders, atheists can be ethical, law abiding citizens.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by "milo655321":
As a follow up, since we are on the subject of morals and religion, let me ask you this: is something moral because (a) god(s) say(s) it is moral or is do morals exist apart from (a) god(s)? |
I will state it this way. I believe there are morals which God agrees with. I believe there are laws of God which are not immoral to break. And I believe that there are morals which are not dictated by God. (example: the speed limits, no whre does God say I have to go 65....but I do. And so do most religious people (or reasonably close to it). The point....religious people are fully capable of making moral decisions according to the scope of society. |
So you would say that morals exist apart from god?
|
|
|
|
09/17/2005 12:22:07 AM · #548 |
| I knew it! Sooner or later the Deuteronomites would be brought into this! Have you no shame? Haven't they suffered enough in the last 3,600 years? |
|
|
|
09/17/2005 12:24:16 AM · #549 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
I knew it! Sooner or later the Deuteronomites would be brought into this! Have you no shame? Haven't they suffered enough in the last 3,600 years? |
LOL
No, no shame whatsoever. |
|
|
|
09/17/2005 01:10:17 AM · #550 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
I myself am still waiting to see proof of evolution. |
It's been out since 1859; what are you waiting for? The Origin of Species
And for updated information, this Wikipedia page has enough text and related links to keep you busy for a long time. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/04/2025 02:23:50 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/04/2025 02:23:50 PM EDT.
|
