| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/04/2008 11:01:00 AM · #1401 |
Originally posted by Flash:
What wordly evil comes from the reading, understanding, and following the basic messages of scripture? |
In addition to what Matthew said, religions that are exclusive and in direct conflict with others (basically all of them), CREATE conflict and suffering where none might otherwise exist. Just look at shiites vs. sunnis or protestants vs. catholics... rather than work together as people who would be otherwise indistinguishable from one another, they are too often willing to kill each other to promote their particular form of peace and love.
To take this idea further, I think people (and maybe ALL animals) are naturally inclined to help those to who look and believe as they do, and turn against those they view as different. Whether the difference is black/white, male/female, democrat/republican, or whatever... we tend to help our own kind. Religion just invents another (and entirely manmade) way to distinguish people, and it doesn't even stop with belief in a particular god. Two people can attend the same church, recite the same prayers, and live basically identical lives, but as soon as one takes a stand that conflicts with the other's ideals, we learn he's not "really" a Christian or Muslim. IMO, the whole system at its core is just a way to hide personal prejudices and fears behind a cloak of absolute morality that can neither be questioned nor confirmed, but is subject to "reinterpretation" under social pressures.
Even if men are by nature predisposed to war, we could certainly do without one of the primary justifications for it. Blind faith in dogma from ancient civilizations can indeed provide some useful guidance, but it also chains us to similarly ancient ideas of morality and justice, and such texts are all too often used to justify slavery, subjugation, honor killings, ethnic hatred and other evils that should have died along with the societies that promoted them.
Message edited by author 2008-02-04 12:11:23. |
|
|
|
02/04/2008 11:08:58 AM · #1402 |
Matthew,
Although this link has almost nothing to do specifically with this thread, it does raise a question or two. For me at least, it speaks volumes. I'm not sure however, that we would do much better in that particular age group. It is sad.
Message edited by author 2008-02-04 11:11:05. |
|
|
|
02/04/2008 11:11:05 AM · #1403 |
Originally posted by Flash:
So what. What wordly evil comes from the reading, understanding, and following the basic messages of scripture? |
If it were this simple, nothing. To put it more plainly: I don't care what anyone reads, understands, and follows the basic message of. Couldn't care less. Taken as stated, the idea presented in your statement has nothing to do with me and I just don't care. To make yet another über-hilarious analogy, you could read, understand, and follow the basic message of the back of a soup can for all I care.
But it's not all that simple, now, is it? In the extreme, people who share your view want to change the fabric of society, don't they? They want to disenfranchise people, jail people for innate sexual behaviour, segregate the sexes and the races, remove body parts from those that offend their various scriptures, war over intreprations of those scriptures, set up governments in the United States headed by their deity somehow, obliterate foriegners in a shower of nuclear weapons, and on and on.
Religion and belief in gods are dangerous. They are a man-made calamity. To point out that, yes, they do some good in the world by venting a message of peace and love does nothing to mitigate the fact that the exact opposite is always true. There's something wrong. Eschewing science, reason, and fact for fantasty and supernatural happenstance is a communal dysfunction. |
|
|
|
02/04/2008 11:13:56 AM · #1404 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Religion and belief in gods are dangerous. They are a man-made calamity. |
So you would pose Atheist China as a bastion of perfection to be mirrored by the whole earth? No? So, it is not religion then is it? It is as I stated - man. |
|
|
|
02/04/2008 11:18:55 AM · #1405 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Louis:
Religion and belief in gods are dangerous. They are a man-made calamity. |
So you would pose Atheist China as a bastion of perfection to be mirrored by the whole earth? No? So, it is not religion then is it? It is as I stated - man. |
I did not ascribe all the world's ills to religion (as you have just seemingly done for atheism). Taken the other way, what about the Islamic Republic of Iran? Is that the bastion of decent national religious behaviour you hope the US to show some day?
By the way, have you ever heard of "The Hitler and Stalin" cliche? It describes the attempt to associate atheism with Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and any historical outcast leader or regime that suppressed organized religion for political advantage. It's a false argument, and resembles what you're trying to do with your China example. |
|
|
|
02/04/2008 11:34:09 AM · #1406 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Thus, even if we were to conclude that religion and more specifically Christianity, was based on a compilation of fiction literature. So what. What worldly evil comes from the reading, understanding, and following the basic messages of scripture? . . . [W]hat does it matter, if religious texts exist and promote followers to live a more compassionate life? A life dedicated to sharing peace and love. What does it matter that ministers like Billy Graham can lift the spirits and souls of individuals, and replace their despair with hope. What does it matter that people can receive forgiveness for transgressions they committed in life and carried a burden on their hearts - sometimes for years, to be washed clean of that burden and receive an immense joy, from believing in their forgiveness? What problem is there for families to receive some measure of comfort at the passing/funeral of a loved one, in the hope of another time together and a "peace" for their departed? What problem is there for persons to dedicate their entire lives to serving mankind (like Sister Theresa) or providing services (ie charity) to communities in need? Are these things a problem for society - even if the literature these actions stem from is fiction? |
Faith or religious belief can be a positive force in individual lives. On the other hand, as Matthew also points out, individual belief can be the basis for much suffering inflicted by believers on those who they determine don't fit within the boundaries of acceptable behavior that is defined by their belief.
Further, it is hard not to see organized religion as an ultimately corrosive social force -- in general, not excluding nor exclusive to Christianity. Organized religion, at its core, is factionalism. By its very nature, it cannot tolerate dissent, difference, or discord. It relies upon the unfounded elevation of its members and the equally unfounded marginalization of "outsiders." Organized religion is the enemy of the independent thought, the empathetic embrace, and the hand extended in peace across borders.
Finally, even if faith or belief may be a positive for an individual, that is not an argument for its adoption as a basis for scientific inquiry, social organization, or governmental policy. Faith, because of its rejection of evidence and reliance on ideology is inherently unfit to serve as the basis for any of the above areas of society.
Your belief -- or any one person's belief or faith -- is not a problem. You are a thinking adult that can make your own decisions on what to believe and what your life should be based upon that belief. But your faith cannot be used as a justification for what others should believe, or to tell others how their lives should be organized and lived. You can present evidence in order to persuade the rest of us that your ideas are better, but "because I believe" or "because my holy book says so" is not evidence. It is just a further articulation of your faith.
Message edited by author 2008-02-04 12:29:04. |
|
|
|
02/04/2008 12:51:37 PM · #1407 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Matthew,
Although this link has almost nothing to do specifically with this thread, it does raise a question or two. For me at least, it speaks volumes. I'm not sure however, that we would do much better in that particular age group. It is sad. |
I would take that story with a pinch of salt - the Daily Mail is a sensationalist paper that likes to drum up stories around certain themes, and the failings of the youth of today are a favourite.
However, it does underline the point that myth and reality can become very quickly confused - and I suspect that the youth of yesteryear were no less immune to it than the youth of today (despite what certain papers would have you think).
|
|
|
|
02/04/2008 01:02:01 PM · #1408 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Louis:
Religion and belief in gods are dangerous. They are a man-made calamity. |
So you would pose Atheist China as a bastion of perfection to be mirrored by the whole earth? No? So, it is not religion then is it? It is as I stated - man. |
I did not ascribe all the world's ills to religion (as you have just seemingly done for atheism). |
Louis,
The example of Atheist China was simply another example of an entity that commits war and persecutions that was not at its core religious - (similar to my other examples like the MS-13, Hells Angels, etc). They are simply examples of man, specifically men/groups without a religion as their core reason for warring. The purpose, and the only purpose was to head off this argument on whether religion's "evil" was its association with historical wars/persecutions. As I stated then, and I state again, it is man, that at his central being, is the culprit for war/persecution, and even if there was no religion (it has been argued that atheism is not a religion), as China/communism is an Atheist nation/governnment, and China certainly employs warring methods, then religion or lack of it, is not the reason for war/persecution.
Therefore, even if we had no religion and were all Atheists, we (imo) would still have war/persecution - just as we had before we had any religion - hell even before we had any language. During the dawn of man, he made war. Thus, war/persecution is inherent in his being, regardless of reasons he invents to justify it.
|
|
|
|
02/04/2008 01:04:45 PM · #1409 |
//lee.mit.edu/xanga/2005-08-02%20Japan%20-%20World%20Expo%202005/balls.gif
Message edited by Manic - please keep images under 500px and 30kb, or post links or thumbs instead. |
|
|
|
02/04/2008 01:23:35 PM · #1410 |
Originally posted by Flash:
The example of Atheist China was simply another example of an entity that commits war and persecutions that was not at its core religious - (similar to my other examples like the MS-13, Hells Angels, etc). They are simply examples of man, specifically men/groups without a religion as their core reason for warring. |
The Falklands war and the War of 1812 weren't fought over religion either, but that doesn't mean their disputes were based on Atheism, nor does it negate the fact that many (perhaps most) wars WERE fought over religious beliefs. The point remains that any inherent predisposition toward warring does not excuse religion as a fabricated justification for it.
Message edited by author 2008-02-04 13:26:05. |
|
|
|
02/04/2008 01:39:17 PM · #1411 |
Originally posted by Flash:
The example of Atheist China was simply another example of an entity that commits war and persecutions that was not at its core religious - (similar to my other examples like the MS-13, Hells Angels, etc). |
I think the point you are trying to make is that the argument that religion is the cause of wars is moot, because people are predisposed to warring. Presented like this, your point is quite correct. Your response regarding China becomes moot as well, because amorality can be ascribed to both religious and non-religious states.
However, it is still legitimate to point out the sheer hypocrisy of religious peoples and states that war in the name of their religion. They are acting in a fashion that is diametrically opposed to their stated views. To take an example, the religious state of Iran acts hypocritically when it uses bellicose language against the United States, and then professes to espouse the compassion and peace of Islam. However China commits no such egregious tongue-turning no matter what it says, since it's not beholden to any religion.
Just to head you off, when you respond with, "But it's man's fault, not God's," I don't accept that, because you argue from an untenable position. |
|
|
|
02/06/2008 06:04:50 PM · #1412 |
Seems to tie the two themes of this thread together quite well
|
|
|
|
03/05/2008 09:53:24 AM · #1413 |
researcher claims Moses on drugs
Well at least we have this part figured out. |
|
|
|
03/05/2008 09:59:05 AM · #1414 |
| ...and the inevitable Orthodox rabbi chimes in, "The Bible is trying to convey a very profound event. We have to fear not for the fate of the biblical Moses, but for the fate of science." Uh huh. I wonder if he's friends with the same guy who thinks homosexuality causes earthquakes? |
|
|
|
03/05/2008 02:25:58 PM · #1415 |
Is that who coined the phrase "rock my world"? |
|
|
|
03/13/2008 04:45:21 AM · #1416 |
| That just about wraps it up for god... |
|
|
|
03/13/2008 09:32:13 AM · #1417 |
A couple of interesting, if soft, interviews, with Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins
Fixed link (which is a bit of a different page than Louis' below - that's just the Dawkins interview, this link is both)
Sorry about that
//www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=13&prgDate=03-07-2008&view=storyview
Or direct links to both pages:
Richard Dawkins: An Argument for Atheism
Francis Collins: A Scientist's Case for God
Message edited by author 2008-03-13 09:51:57.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2008 09:35:21 AM · #1418 |
|
|
|
03/20/2008 12:17:54 AM · #1419 |
Interesting evening
No real surprises, although a huge turn out. Probably about twice as many people showed up as could fit in the large auditorium.
Entertaining speaker. I'd have rather heard him talk more about evolution and less about atheism though. That seems to be his particular cross to bear these days.
Loud and clear, several times 'Natural selection is the total opposite of chance and random occurances'
I guess he gets fed up of people claiming the opposite who haven't bothered to read the theory. |
|
|
|
03/21/2008 06:20:40 PM · #1420 |
I found this one in the dictionary beside 'irony': (and couldn't find it posted earlier in this thread)
//tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/txconst/sections/cn000100-000400.html
The Texas Constitution
Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 4 - RELIGIOUS TESTS
No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.
|
|
|
|
03/21/2008 06:39:43 PM · #1421 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I found this one in the dictionary beside 'irony': (and couldn't find it posted earlier in this thread)
//tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/txconst/sections/cn000100-000400.html
The Texas Constitution
Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 4 - RELIGIOUS TESTS
No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being. |
Texas isn't the only one
ETA: These have been struck down by the Supreme Court so they are not actually enforceable.
Message edited by author 2008-03-21 18:45:13. |
|
|
|
03/26/2008 03:14:38 PM · #1422 |
|
|
|
03/26/2008 08:15:30 PM · #1423 |
Interesting article that is also interestingly mischaracterised by your link.
The story relates to the discovery of evidence that the European landmass was inhabited by a known predecessor to modern humans earlier than first understood. It is not evidence relating to man, but an evolutionary predecessor, nor that mankind is older than thought, but that this predecessor was more widely distributed (in a fashion that is entirely consistent with evolutionary history).
It is just one more piece supporting the overwhelmingly convincing theory of evolution and one more "coincidence" for creationists to ignore (or mischaracterise).
|
|
|
|
03/27/2008 11:37:25 AM · #1424 |
Matthew,
I think you are taking some liberties here. Attached are the headlines of the article as well as a sentence from the photo's caption.
Oldest known human fossil found in Europe
The jawbone is the oldest known fossil of a human ancestor in Europe and suggests the continent was peopled much earlier than previously believed, scientists say.
Now I'm not sure what your definition of Human and Peopled are, but it smacks of "man" to me. The fact that this small fragment is 500,000 years older than was previously thought in 1997, it is logical to deduce that man is older than thought - exactly what I wrote.
Sheesh. |
|
|
|
03/27/2008 11:47:08 AM · #1425 |
Originally posted by Flash:
...it is logical to deduce that man is older than thought - exactly what I wrote. |
No, it's not. Humans may have arrived in Europe earlier than thought, but to say that man (in general) is older than thought is a gross innacuracy that ignores significantly older finds in Aftrica. |
|
