Religion - the root of all evil?

02/06/2006 11:01:20 AM · #126

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Pure science is the study of the universe for understanding and knowledge sake.
Applied science the application of that knowledge and understanding.
Spirituality is an emotional understanding of the universe.
Religion is applied spirituality.

Out of spirituality/religion came Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., Father Oscar Romero, and Bishop Desmond TuTu, as well as the Inquistion and Crusades.

Out of science came penicillin and the hydrogen bomb.

The scientific method is just a tool. Prayer is just a tool.

Science, especially the applied kind, is no more morally neutral than religion and both can serve mankind in constructive, as well as, destructive ways. The parts of both that I detest most are those that destroy nature/god's work.

Excellent post Olyuzi

It all comes down to the man who is using the tool. Is he using fire to warm his house or burn down his neighbor's house. Is he using an axe to chop down a tree to build a house or is he using the axe to chop down his neighbor?

HighwayFlower

Konica Minolta DiMAGE Z5

02/06/2006 11:27:43 AM · #127

Originally posted by blindjustice:

The problem with religion, especially fanatical ones, is that "followers" assume and take a starting point that their god exists, and their interpretation is correct. Any challenge is evil or mean-spirited.
Unfortunately, the majority non-denominational Christian right wing refuses to have tolerance for the beliefs or lack of belief of others. They are snuffers... snuff out other people's right to choose in reproduction, snuff out the right to choose life partners, snuff out medical research, snuff out threads, etc.

The last part was half joking; but really, the religious should be a little more tolerant and a little less fanatical. Alittle more kind/a bit less righteous.

But cant you see, that the argument works both ways? Atheists also assume that their interpretation, that there is no God is correct, and they tend to mock and ridicule those who disagree.

You say Christians need to be more kind and less self righteous, but where is the tolerance/kindness for them? Why can't the Athiests and Scientists, also try to be a little less self righteous?

As for the snuffing, there is plenty of that on both sides as well.

02/06/2006 11:32:05 AM · #128

"The problem with religion, especially fanatical ones, is that "followers" assume and take a starting point that their god exists, and their interpretation is correct."

[ So is that different than the atheist who takes a starting point that god does not exist? Is my assumption baseless? I look at the design and the order and pattern of the world around me. I see it's artistic beauty. I see a likeness between the art, design, order and pattern seen in that which is made by man. So I see a similarity. This leads me to see an artist, a designer's hand in the universe. And from there to search this artist out. It's like seeing your first Ansel Adams and going wow...then going on google to find out more about this artist. ]

It was not a baseless assumption.

"Any challenge is evil or mean-spirited."
[ Not necessarily, but some clearly are. Those that come focused on condemning, and bearing much intolerance and leaving no room for discussion. Just one sided accusations of opinion. Yes, those I will see as a challenge. ]

"Unfortunately, the majority non-denominational Christian right wing refuses to have tolerance for the beliefs or lack of belief of others. They are snuffers... snuff out other people's right to choose in reproduction, snuff out the right to choose life partners, snuff out medical research, snuff out threads, etc."

[ I think the aspect many atheist's miss is that these snuffer's are on both sides. They snuff out a student's right to bring a Bible to school and read during recess. (Not evangelize...just read.) They snuff out a church's right to hire according to their beliefs and the views they want to represent. They snuff out a child's right to live.

Furthermore, I find many atheists quite mis-informed. Please tell me where they snuff out medical research. You mean fetal stem-cell research? They didn't snuff it out. They simply did not want the government taking their money and spending it on something they found morally reprehensible. They still allowed private monies to support such.

So much of this deals with $$$ and a socialist government. As soon as government was expanded beyond it's role of defense/trade/foriegn diplomacy and became socialistic we ran into a problem.

And with our modern technology, much of this could be resolved by allowing citizen's to specify exclusions on their tax usage and to specify where they want their monies to go."

"but really, the religious should be a little more tolerant and a little less fanatical. Alittle more kind/a bit less righteous."

So should the atheist side. They need to be a little more understanding. A little more compromising, a little less vindictive. For example, when a church is forced to hire a homosexual which goes against their beliefs. Then after being forced to do so, they are sued for not providing health insurance for their significant other. They are being forced to accept and act on another's moral values. Now, you may think that such morals are right. But do you have the right to force those morals on another...while at the same time condemning the other party for forcing their morals on you?

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

02/06/2006 11:25:43 PM · #129

Iâ��m always wary when I post a reply to you. You tend to write a lot and I have a very limited attention span â�¦ oh, look, a shiny metal object!

Originally posted by theSaj:

â��Religion is not morally neutral."
[I agree with the above. Though, the morality varies. Some religions have codes of what we'd commonly call moral statutes and others have codes that dictate inaction against others. But regardless of whether a religion says to do x & y and not z. Or do a and let anyone else do b,c,d, or anything else. Yes, there is usually an admonitive in religion.]

Agreed.

Originally posted by theSaj:

"Science"
[Science is method for observation and conclusion. The observations are inherently neutral. The interpretation and presentation of interpretation to the masses are subject to the nature of the individual. In other words, the interpretation and presentation may be biased by the individual's personal beliefs or agendas.]

Agreed, though I suspect you reserve yourself a wider berth of wiggle room with the last sentence than I would have with a similar statement.

Originally posted by theSaj:

"Evolution does not equal atheism"
[Quite right, there are quite a few theologians who accepted evolution as the design of God. And there are evolutionists who believe the complexity was by design of a Creator. So they are not inherently in opposition. In fact, ID includes "evolution by design" on one end of it's spectrum.]

Agreed. However, I would label those who accept a designed evolution as a version of â��theistic evolutionistsâ��, rather than strict evolutionists. Secondly, as you recall, the Kitzmiller decision ruled that ID is not science and it has been labeled as pseudoscience by every major scientific organization in the U.S. That being said, Kitzmiller is only in effect in central Pennsylvania and several state and local school boards and legislators have proposed to introduce ID or the concept of â��teach the controversyâ�� into middle and high school curriculums (Kansas, Ohio, and, recently, South Carolina). It remains to be seen if Intelligent Design Creationism can survive the several predicted court challenges in any meaningful way.

Originally posted by theSaj:

"Weak Atheism, at its base, is simply a lack of belief in gods."
[ I can accept that. And I really have no problem with such. Might discuss and debate a point. I actually accept the removal of the "In God We Trust" from our money and the "One nation Under God" from our pledge. I do view these as breaches. My issues stem with "dogmatic atheism", those that want to prevent any use of public property by or for a religious purpose. (ie: any other group can hold a bake sale on the town green, accept for a church).

I agree. I think if one religious group has access to a facility, all religious groups should have access. It probably wonâ��t surprise you, but I donâ��t think itâ��s the governmentâ��s job to tell its citizenry whether there is/are one god, two gods, thirty gods or no gods.

Originally posted by theSaj:

Or file a lawsuit against a high school because members of their girl's volleyball team prayed off to the side before a game that everyone would have fun and no one would get hurt.

Do you know the name of the case? Do you have more details? Did you know that many prayer case complaints are not brought about by atheists, but rather by minority religious groups such as Catholics, Jehovahâ��s Witnesses and Mormons?

Originally posted by theSaj:

Or, IMHO, posting threads that subjectively attack religion while ignoring the full scope of history.

Actually, though I knew of Dawkinâ��s show, I was surprised to see legalbeagleâ��s opening post. I thought, â��Why? Why? Why? We were playing so well together.â�� And then, for him not to be able to participate, it felt like it fell upon me and others to pick up the pieces.

Originally posted by theSaj:

But lately, I see a lot of atheists modelling themselves on 16-18th century religious models. They preach tolerance...but seem to spend much time assailing religion. And I do not merely mean assailing political issues such as homosexual marriage or the "In God We Trust" sort of thing. But rather, opposing religion and endeavoring to restrict it's free exercise. And they do so with a religious ferocity.]

I think some atheists are sick of being characterized as immoral and openly condemned by some within the religious community, especially in the Bible belt, and are declaring their own version of the 1970â��s Stonewall movement. The internet has really helped the non-religious to see that there are others out there like them and they donâ��t have to hide their disbelief as they once did.

As long as all religious groups have the right to the same â��free exerciseâ��, Iâ��m not too worried, but you may be surprised how many local governments are not amenable to minority religious groups, especially pagan and wiccan (of which, I am neither), sharing the same rights as the majority religion. Within the last several years, there was a case concerning a woman practitioner of Wicca who sued and won the right to say the invocation before her local city council meeting. She subsequently received numerous threatening phone calls invoking God to punish her, several death threats, her car was vandalized, her home was broken into and her pet parakeet killed.

After this point, you wrote a lot of words and I saw another shiny metal object. Once I hit two total pages in reply on Microsoft Word, Iâ��m trying to train myself to think the phrase, â��Itâ��s only an internet message board.â��

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

02/07/2006 09:09:06 AM · #130

Originally posted by milo655321:

Originally posted by theSaj:
Or, IMHO, posting threads that subjectively attack religion while ignoring the full scope of history.

Actually, though I knew of Dawkinâ��s show, I was surprised to see legalbeagleâ��s opening post. I thought, â��Why? Why? Why? We were playing so well together.â�� And then, for him not to be able to participate, it felt like it fell upon me and others to pick up the pieces.

I had intended to represent an argument with my initial thread that would excite some interest. A couple of people were trying to start a debate with limited interest, and more were querying the absence of a decent discursive rant. Professor Dawkins presents a highly intelligent, though admittedly strongly pro-scientific, argument.

I see now that in fact we are covering a lot of old ground in this thread and might have chosen another topic that might excite a bit of interest. I have another in mind.

Unfortunately, I am still loaded down with the work that arrived on Friday, and my home computer is only half fixed (no time to go and buy parts). Otherwise, I would be interested to consider a couple of points:

1. the extent to which someone who preaches tolerance should be tolerant of intolerant people;

2. the extent to which morality is derived from religious principles, or the extent to which the religions we choose to believe (or perhaps devise) reflect something more innate (evidence for which is the apparent existence of moral judgments being made by non-religious social creatures, such as chimps);

3. the extent to which the "one true God" aspect of Abrahamic religions, when taught/believed strictly, fundamentally creates a tension and intolerance that is unhelpful in modern society.

I would suggest that people recognise that Christianity is probably seemingly coming under extra scrutiny due to a lack of general knowledge about other religions and cultures here. It is not a criticism of any one religion, but of extreme religiosity.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

02/07/2006 10:58:45 AM · #131

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Please don't take my remark as an attack on you as I think discussing and possibly confronting violence and oppression done in the name of religion is an important topic and very current, just look at the protests and, now, deaths that have occurred in the Middle East over a few drawings representing Muhammad. I guess I was expressing disappointment in your inability to participate in what potentially was a very inflammatory discussion. If you havenâ��t read it already, you may be interested in reading Sam Harrisâ�� The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason.

Speaking of Dawkins, Iâ��m on the last chapter of Climbing Mount Improbable so, a few days ago, I picked up his book The Ancestorâ��s Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution, though, at 688 pages, it may take me some time to get through it. Also, that same day, on your recommendation, I purchased Simon Singhâ��s Big Bang: The Origin of the Universe but I have no idea when Iâ��ll have the time to get around to reading it.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

I would suggest that people recognise that Christianity is probably seemingly coming under extra scrutiny due to a lack of general knowledge about other religions and cultures here. It is not a criticism of any one religion, but of extreme religiosity.

Iâ��m guilty of that. Though Iâ��ve read the Bible from cover to cover several times, I have yet to finish the Quâ��ran. So far, Iâ��ve read several sections (ajzaâ��) and itâ��s waiting patiently on my shelf for me to return to it. Another stumbling point in discussing Islam in general is that it doesnâ��t have the rich history of apologetics and debate found in Christianity â�¦ well, that, in no small part, being due to the willingness of some Islamic governments/populaces to execute anyone who commits what may appear to be heresy. For instance, one Islamic scholar was arrested and accused of heresy for pointing out that Muhammadâ��s parents couldnâ��t have practiced Islam because they both died before Muhammad turned 40 â�� the year of his first "vision" of the Angel Gabriel while meditating in a cave near Mecca.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

02/07/2006 12:46:38 PM · #132

Originally posted by Imagineer:

I have just witnessed on TV followers of Islam marching through the world's streets holding banners stating "Behead those who insult Islam' and the like, simply as a result of a drawing. ...Rather than rise above any offence it caused many of these followers have instead risen up in violent protest. Why? Their sacred beliefs should protect them from such banality as a cartoon, surely?

There is immense irony in the violent reaction that has resulted from the editorial depiction of Muslims as violent (even if most are peaceful). The original publication many months ago didn't attract much attention, but the reprint has been seized upon by religious leaders to incite violence and galvanize their followers. How many of the thousands of demonstrators in rural Indonesia and Afghanistan do you suppose have even seen the newpaper cartoons they're supposed to be offended by? These people are often blindly following their mullahs and will kill or be killed if they are told it is "right" to do so. The Supreme Ayatollah of Iran has actually told his people that the offensive cartoons were an Isreali conspiracy in response to Hamas' election victory (nevermind that they were published LOOONG before the election). Lovely.

Whether religion itself can be considered evil or not, the most devout believers of any faith are subject to manipulation by their leaders. Be it Mullah Omar, Jim Jones, Pat Robertson, a Pope bent on Crusade, or even your local pastor, it's the very human "representatives" of religion that teach us what to believe and what is right or wrong. In poor communities and countries, desperate people are drawn to the siren song of hope and promise, however intangible, and they listen. They WANT to believe. Is it any surprise that the first (and often only) schools in rural areas are church missionaries? Religious leaders and texts teach us that knowledge is a sin and questioning the church is blasphemy, that God is invisible and depicting the face of Mohammed taboo, that science is an illusion, that our very lives are little more than an entrance exam for an afterlife that REALLY matters. No wonder spiritual leaders are often portrayed as shepherds tending their flocks of sheep- the less we know, the less we can question authority. The intentions of any given religious leader may be philanthropy or greed, peace or hatred, kindness or power, but they all rely on the principle of, "God said..." and that's a powerful motivator to those who are taught only to believe.

I doubt any of us are in a position to say with absolute certainty that there is or isn't a divine creator. The moral messages and fellowship of organized religion are usually (though not always) a very good thing, but in the end we are still people heeding the words of other people.

Hoo, boy... I'm in trouble now! :-O

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

02/07/2006 12:48:23 PM · #133

Originally posted by theSaj:

"Evolution does not equal atheism"
[ Quite right, there are quite a few theologians who accepted evolution as the design of God. And there are evolutionists who believe the complexity was by design of a Creator. So they are not inherently in opposition. In fact, ID includes "evolution by design" on one end of it's spectrum. ]

theSaj, not to dwell on this too much, but I just found The Clergy Letter Project. A statement signed by over 10,000 members of the clergy representing numerous Christian denominations supporting evolution. It was written in 2004 by a college professor with the help of several clergy in reaction to a series of anti-evolution policies passed by the Grantsburg, WI school board.

The content of the endorsed letter are as follows:

Originally posted by The Clergy Letter:

Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible â�� the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark â�� convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.

We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as â��one theory among othersâ�� is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among Godâ��s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that Godâ��s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.

blindjustice

Canon EOS-7D

02/07/2006 01:16:23 PM · #134

Originally posted by theSaj:

I just think that religious people seem to "get off" and self justify forcing their beliefs on other people more. I guess I have just been a bit anti-religious lately; Definitely leaning toward anarchist rather than athiest though.

jtf6agent

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

02/07/2006 02:30:06 PM · #135

Wow, some pretty sharp views here on religion.

I am turning 41 in April and I grew up being exposed to all sorts of religion. When I was old enough to make a decision on my own behalf ( about 17 yrs old)I chose a more Athiest view on life. You could not talk to me about religion without out getting very close to a fist fight. I had VERY strong feelings and views against religion. I would not tolerate anyone "Preaching" to me or attempting to sway my beliefs. 4 months ago I had a life altering situation that I could not control nor even begin to deal with. I turned to God as a last resort. I am not hear to "Preach" to anyone or try to sway your beliefs in any way I just want to share a TRUE story with anyone who is interested. If you would like to hear a pretty amazing story feel free to PM me. If you PM me to harrass or antagonize me I will just ingnore you.

Both sides make some pretty strong points and it will ultimately come down "Free will"

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

02/07/2006 02:37:13 PM · #136

This dichotomoy between science and religion actually may be opposite sides of the same coin. I never understood how religionists could intermingle science in their "pious" lives, such as when they seek medical care for help with health issues. It appears to be a hypocracy when they claim that their god is the source of all fates, but attempt to change that fate through science.

However, at this stage in the history and state of the world, it is the religion of modern science with its cold calculations that may be responsible for far more "evil." The war in Iraq has killed how many people with its science of warfare for what resource that is scientifically used in our energy, materials, and transportation systems that poison our environments? Will the high priests of molecular science change the anatomical and physiological traits and heritages of our bodies and the world we live in through their genetic manipulations to produce the kinds of lifeforms they wish? Who will we allow to decide these important issues, business leaders? Politicians? Scientists?

At the bottom of this debate between religion and science is the conflict as to the choices we make and who is in control. Proselytizing and evangelizing exist in both church and the halls of science.

"Science does not produce evidence against God. Science and religion ask different questions" â�� Richard Dawkins, biologist and professor of public understanding of science at Oxford University.

02/07/2006 02:50:19 PM · #137

"It probably wonâ��t surprise you, but I donâ��t think itâ��s the governmentâ��s job to tell its citizenry whether there is/are one god, two gods, thirty gods or no gods."

[ It may surprise you that I agree.... ]

"Do you know the name of the case?"

[ Sorry, I don't...this was 10 yrs ago when I was up in the Lake Arrowhead, CA area and it occurred at a near-by school. Not sure if it ever went to trial. But recently there was the case of the asst. teacher fired for merely wearing a cross. Yes, she got re-instated after various court processes. But it was unjustified.]

"Did you know that many prayer case complaints are not brought about by atheists, but rather by minority religious groups such as Catholics, Jehovahâ��s Witnesses and Mormons?"

[ Catholics are a minority religious group? *ponders the fact*

And note, I am opposed to forced prayer. But if individual students want to pray together, than I believe that is their right. ]

"I think some atheists are sick of being characterized as immoral and openly condemned by some within the religious community"

[ I do not believe atheists to be immoral. However, I feel that both sides demonize each other. And that is a large part of the problem. Neither side like's to be demonized, and each responds in turn. It can be an easy thing to fall into. ]

"The internet has really helped the non-religious to see that there are others out there like them and they donâ��t have to hide their disbelief as they once did."

[ Okay, I guess it's got a lot to do with region. But such always baffles me. I've really only lived in south California and New England. Two extremely liberal areas. I've never, not once ever seen anyone shy from admitting to be non-religious. On the other hand, I've seen a fair amount of antagonism, especially within the schools on the part of teachers who will repeatedly pinpoint and attack a student of faith's ideals, often with emotionalism instead of arguments. Putting them in a situation of standing alone in a classroom. So, if it's any consolation - it works both ways.]

"As long as all religious groups have the right to the same â��free exerciseâ��, Iâ��m not too worried, but you may be surprised how many local governments are not amenable to minority religious groups, especially pagan and wiccan"

[ Of that I am aware, of course, I've had a fair number of pagan friends. (Being involved in the goth scene it's pretty much a given.) ]

"She subsequently received numerous threatening phone calls invoking God to punish her, several death threats, her car was vandalized, her home was broken into and her pet parakeet killed."

[ And said perpetrators should be punished to the accordance of the law. Of note, I've often seen such situations. Abuse of homosexuals, pagans, etc. And often it is people of no faith perpetraiting the act. I won't label them atheists as I believe an atheist is one who has made a decision. These are often people who haven't even bothered to think about existance. (ie: in the world of "jocks" being homosexual is often taboo. Often is the case, these jocks have no faith nor really have given it much consideration - to busy with skirts and downing beer. But they'll attack and persecute a homosexual. Heck, they'll do it to a dweeb that may be heterosexual and whom they just think is "gay". Many of these incidents are purely out of ignorance.

Oddly, when one of my closest friends in high school had her coming out party. (My friends were hesitant to tell me because they knew I was a christian.) It was I, the christian who accepted her and stated that no it didn't affect my friendship with her. Oddly, it was many of my non-christian friends who had much more trouble accepting her. So I think much of it is culture and just a tendency on the part of mankind to strike out at that which they fear.]

â��Itâ��s only an internet message board.â��
[ I need to learn that one...actually I disabled "Rant" option so I don't get myself pulled into more of these. ]

"Religious leaders and texts teach us that knowledge is a sin and questioning the church is blasphemy"
[ See, I was never taught that. I was always taught to question. Heck, you should have seen some of the fusses I raised with professors in a couple seminary courses. *lol* ]

"I doubt any of us are in a position to say with absolute certainty that there is or isn't a divine creator. The moral messages and fellowship of organized religion are usually (though not always) a very good thing, but in the end we are still people heeding the words of other people. "

[ No trouble with me. I think it's a fair statement. ]

"The Clergy Project"

[ I've stated a number of times that there are quite a few religious people who believe in evolution. I believe even C.S. Lewis was accepting of it. There are many who believe in evolution as a design of God. "theistic evolution" if we so label it. They believe in the existence of God. They believe in evolution. They believe the complexity and order of design points to a Creator. There is scientific observation that justifies said theory and the continued scientific pursuit of continued observation and possible approval or disproval of said theory. But elements in the scientific community want such restricted as well. Why? I can only conclude that like their religious counterparts they are more concerned with their dogmatic beliefs than with science. And I think that is wrong. ]

"I just think that religious people seem to "get off" and self justify forcing their beliefs on other people more."

[ Well, I've encountered no few number of atheists who enjoy the same. So let's either count this as an attribute of humanity; that there is a tendency to "get off" on forcign their views on others. Or, I find it rather unfair to lay blame to one demographic without applying the same judgment to another. And that's where most of my issues arise. ]

02/07/2006 02:50:40 PM · #138

ATTN: LegalBeagle

"Professor Dawkins presents a highly intelligent, though admittedly strongly pro-scientific, argument."
[ I disagree. He provided and extremely subjective argument filled with numerous common fallacies. The above sentence is also merely a subjective statement. ]

LegalBeagle, perhaps your intent was unobtrusive. But I think your method or pattern of thinking in relation to these topics put you on a poor path. Perhaps, a negative path is a more accurate description of the problem. For an atheist, you seem to be more caught up with religion than most anyone I know online. And I think your methods of presenting said discussion lay a negative foundation. Their divisive and de-constructive.

If this is really what you intend to do, then do it from a non-confrontational direction. (That's not to say conflict won't arise. It always will. Someone will ram religion down people's throats. And another will endeavor to prove them wrong and ram their own views down said first person's throat. It just happens. But at least it can be presented in a conducive way.)

Here are some examples:

1. the extent to which someone who preaches tolerance should be tolerant of intolerant people;
[ This is a better start. As long as it is kept there. Don't put the focus of tolerating onto any one group or lay blame from onset. Do we tolerate NAZI's? when should said toleration stop? how far should we go to understand? I believe that many pro-choice advocates and pro-life advocates are both well intentioned. I do not think that pro-choice advocates get a kick out of aborting babies. I believe that it is their belief that they are helping a woman in need. Likewise, I've seen pro-lifers often described as being unconcerned about women. Which is also not true. But as they believe that baby is a life they believe they are helping to save a life. And it's a very gray area in the minds of many. Posting a thread by either the title of "Why to pro-choicers like to kill babies!" or "Why do pro-lifer's hate women!" is not conducive to discussion. Nor is it even a proper opening for a philosophical discussion. Rather, it opens with essentially an ad hominem and a few other fallacies. And does no one justice.

So, I am all for a discussion of "where the boundaries of tolerance stand, and how do we know where to place them". ]

2. the extent to which morality is derived from religious principles, or the extent to which the religions we choose to believe (or perhaps devise) reflect something more innate (evidence for which is the apparent existence of moral judgments being made by non-religious social creatures, such as chimps);

[ Once again, why so much focus on religion? Why not an address more like thus: The vast majority of both atheists and religious people believe murder is wrong. Why? Sure, one might retort - "God said it!" but if he did, wouldn't he have reasons for doing so. So whether atheist or religious,...let's delve in to reason and see if we can come up with rational reasons that justify the common morality that most accept (Do not murder, Do not steal, Do not lie, etc.)

Heck, such would be a blast. Sure, a few will say "God said it, and that's good enough for me!" but that does not encompass the mindset of all religious people and sure does not encompass the mindset of the atheist "The God who does not exist said it and that's good enough for me!" *lol* obviously doesn't fly.

This is actually an enlightening discussion. One I've had with atheist friends to the great enjoyment and enlightment of all. We were able to come to some justification on murder, and even stealing. Others became more difficult. But there is only so much we could conclude in one night's philosophical discussion.
]

3. the extent to which the "one true God" aspect of Abrahamic religions, when taught/believed strictly, fundamentally creates a tension and intolerance that is unhelpful in modern society.

[ Once again, why focus on religion. Sure it might be the easiest example to point to. But in that, it is merely an example and not the argument which is more so "Do exclusive beliefs, religious or otherwise, have a place in modern society?" As tension and intolerance are derived from many beliefs when fundamentally held leading toward tension and intolerance. A common example: "All whites are responsible for slavery." This mentality has brewed much tension and intolerance within segments of certain communities. It's not a true statement. But the fundamental belief of such as held by some creates an extremely difficult situation within modern society. So the scope is not limited to religion. And by addressing such outside of a single arbitrary focus, perhaps we can find insights to resolving them all.]

The problem is, that when focus is targeted on one demographic, it will cause said demographic to become defensive. The end result is an offensive/defensive situation that results in great tension and conflict. And very little productivity.

Oh yes, I am very much in need of learning from my own words...and others. And I do! A while back we had a debate on the death penalty, (re: Tookie Williams) and I came away a bit changed in my perspective. And I now approach the matter from a somewhat different angle than I once did. I may even vote differently in the future. (In truth, although it was lively I thought it was one of the best discussions we'd had in these rant boards.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

02/07/2006 02:53:34 PM · #139

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Will the high priests of molecular science change the anatomical and physiological traits and heritages of our bodies and the world we live in through their genetic manipulations to produce the kinds of lifeforms they wish? Who will we allow to decide these important issues, business leaders? Politicians? Scientists?

Wait...I've seen this move...that's right "Gattaca"

(good flic for anyone who hasn't seen it)

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

02/07/2006 03:04:30 PM · #140

Originally posted by theSaj:

Do not murder

Okay, so I just plucked 3 words out, which can certainly be construed as quoting you out of context, but it struck a chord (probably because I live in Texas, in the US, with at least a pretend Texan in charge, who claims to be a very moral, Christian president)

the 10 commandments actually don't say 'do not murder' it says
'thou shalt not kill'

No nice clauses for 'unless you are the government and feel like you are punishing someone' or 'unless you are the government and want to go to war/ invade another country'

Never quite understood how Texans and Texas can claim to be so devout, apparently believe the bible is the literal word of god, yet have a death penalty.

I don't particularly have a problem with religion, but I do have a problem with the political application of Religion with a big R, selectively and when it is morally convenient.

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

02/07/2006 03:13:26 PM · #141

Originally posted by Gordon:

Never quite understood how Texans and Texas can claim to be so devout, apparently believe the bible is the literal word of god, yet have a death penalty.

This isn't an argument for or against anything, just one possible answer regarding Christian's and the death penalty. Feel free to disagree and/or ignore.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

02/07/2006 03:21:11 PM · #142

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by theSaj:
"Religious leaders and texts teach us that knowledge is a sin and questioning the church is blasphemy"

See, I was never taught that. I was always taught to question.

Eating fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and Galileo's troubles are two basic examples.

Originally posted by Gordon:

Never quite understood how Texans and Texas can claim to be so devout, apparently believe the bible is the literal word of god, yet have a death penalty.

I never understood how people can believe so fervently that God actively directs all things- even to the point of leveling natural disasters like Katrina upon the sinners- yet pray under a church steeple with a lightning rod on top. That seems like a lack of faith to me. :-/

Imagineer

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

02/07/2006 03:30:14 PM · #143

Originally posted by theSaj:

"Religious leaders and texts teach us that knowledge is a sin and questioning the church is blasphemy"

Well that's a good policy for mankind's progress - ignorance.

I suppose this is why most religions have a healthy bank balance. Shame they don't sell uniforms to help boost income, then they could change the 'kit' each season with a new fashion element and make even more money from the gullible...

02/07/2006 03:35:19 PM · #144

the 10 commandments actually don't say 'do not murder' it says 'thou shalt not kill'

Actually, it was in reference to individual actions. Goverment is prescribed by God in same said book. And the dictates of which, regarding capital punishment are referenced that said authority is divine and that government, or rather judges, are in fact acting with divine authority and hence, their judgments should be akin to said precepts. In fact, in the establishment of the judges they are not called judges but referred to as "gods" so as to denote from where the authority was derived. (And much is said about God's displeasure of judges who act in his authority but with injust actions toward the innoncent.)

So when one simply reads "Thou Shalt Not Kill" out of context and alone. It would seem to be such. Does that also apply to not killing bacteria in your body with penicillian? No, you've got to address the statement in context and with understanding. So, individuals do not have the right to kill on their own authority.

But, according to that which is prescribed, Texas' authority to executre a perpetrator is not a breach of the Scripture. No excuse is being made. Just clarifying the context. Now that said, Texas' methods of arriving and pronouncing judgment may or may not be valid according to judeo-christian Scriptures. That is opening to discussion. Furthermore, our means to intern said individuals reasonably safely may also put into question whether capital punishment is any longer a necessity.

However, take a nation like Yemen who just had 20+ known Al-Quaeda operatives escape. This pointing to the fact that they cannot ensure the incarceration of prisoners nor the safety of it's law-abiding citizens, and thus, those prisoners who pose a continual threat to it's citizens may necessitate their use of capital punishment in order to protect their populace.

There really is no conflict, just a lack of thorough understandin of the passage in the context and mandates of Scripture.

It is also recorded that Christ showed mercy in the New Testament, and this gives us an example to do so as well. Especially when there is doubt or failure to adhere to the legal code. In that particular case the woman was caught in the act of adultery. However, the law expresses states that both the man and woman were to be brought forward. Only the woman was brought forward. Putting serious question, if not into her guilt, then into the circumstances and whether said situation was staged to cause harm and conflict. Either way, there were grounds for dismissal due to failure to adhere to the legal codes of the day.

Anyways, hope that provides some insights. It's a commonly brought up situation as a seeming contradiction but it's really not.

"Eating fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil"
[ There is this concept that God wanted to forbid knowledge. I find it rather flawed. However, I think most father's can find examples of things that they forbid the use of or wait to bestow knowledge of to their children.

I had to wait till a certain age before my parents trusted me with the stove. And I was entrusted earlier than most anyone else I know. Likewise, the day I was caught playing with a match in the bathroom I had my butt beaten. Did my father not want me to use matches? no, he wanted me to use them safely. And just cause a child isn't quite ready for some knowledge does not insinuate it won't be given when the time is right. Parents usually do not have the "birds & the bees" discussion with 3 yr olds. But when the child is ready....the time comes. (At least good parents explain to their children such information.) So it was not that God did not want them to have such knowledge. But rather, man wasn't yet ready for it.
]

"Galileo's troubles are two basic examples."
[ First off, I was not saying examples did not exist. Just not universal. Likewise, I feel the onslaught against ID at all levels shows to me that the "scientific community" is no different than the "religious community". Evolution by design has scientific merit as a theory. ]

Anyways, my point was not to say that such does not occur but that it is not universal as some might pre-suppose. Heck, I learned more about physics and the universe from a particular pastor I listened to for years than I did in high school. I found it interesting that various concepts & understandings that were instilled in me regarding physics 15 yrs ago have become much more mainstream in general. As in recent years we've had an abundance of physics announcements regarding manipulation of light, etc. All quite fascinating. But strangely, I heard about this sort of thing first through preacher many years ago. So no, not all are opposed to science, etc. Yes, some are...

Message edited by author 2006-02-07 15:36:45.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

02/07/2006 03:38:18 PM · #145

Originally posted by Imagineer:

Originally posted by theSaj:
"Religious leaders and texts teach us that knowledge is a sin and questioning the church is blasphemy"

Well that's a good policy for mankind's progress - ignorance.

I suppose this is why most religions have a healthy bank balance. Shame they don't sell uniforms to help boost income, then they could change the 'kit' each season with a new fashion element and make even more money from the gullible...

Of note, I was quoting those words and disagreeing with their universal application. See prior post. Yes, it is not uncommon...but it is not universal either.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

02/07/2006 04:02:28 PM · #146

Originally posted by Imagineer:

Ah, that fine British religion that is soccer

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

02/07/2006 04:28:08 PM · #147

Originally posted by Gordon:

the 10 commandments actually don't say 'do not murder' it says
'thou shalt not kill'

In actually, there are MANY Greek words translated as "kill" in the King James Old Testament, some of which are only applicable to animal sacrifice. In addition to "ratsach" ( the Greek word contained in the the scripture quoted ) are the Greek words nakah, harag, muwth, shachat, tabach, zabach, chalal, and nagaph.

That being said, the Greek word "ratsach" is most often transated as "slayer/manslayer" and "murderer".

In other words, in the Greek, there is a much stronger implication of "Thou shalt not MURDER" than of "Thou shalt not KILL".

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

02/07/2006 05:06:38 PM · #148

Originally posted by RonB:

...in the Greek, there is a much stronger implication of "Thou shalt not MURDER" than of "Thou shalt not KILL".

Whew! So as long as we kill without murdering we should be in good shape. Unless of course "kill" was intended to mean stream or creek as it does in Dutch, in which case streaming media companies like Akamai would be in a world of trouble! ;-)

MadMordegon

02/07/2006 05:06:46 PM · #149

Originally posted by theSaj:

So theSaj you downloaded and watched Dawkins 2 part documentary?