[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by rosy

I'd suggest this is only partly true. I'll grant you the human tendancy to xenophobia, but would contend that where specific "outside" groups are designated, or perceived to be so, by a religion that it is more difficult to bring those people into the "inside" group if the communities are living side by side... bigotry is accompanied by a belief that it's righteous, rather than a set of unthinking assumptions which can (I would suggest) more readily be broken down in the face of real people who turn out to be much like the people on the "inside".

I would ask whether what you are talking about is religion or God?  There are religions that have no notion of God (Buddhism being one that comes to mind), and I would also suggest that communism itself has many of the properties of a religion, although they would be horrified to think of it so.

Unless you accept the tenets of moral relativism, then it becomes inevitable that you have to fall back on some kind of notion of a righteousness that makes your notion of right superior to someone else's notion of right.  Whether you attribute your notion of right as God given, or simply somehow 'self evident' or otherwise unarguable, by whatever mechanism, you have to either accept that there is no absolute right, or that a particular version of right that is superior is based on irrational bigotry.

Once you accept that your version of right is the superior right, then it follows that anyone who believes a different version of right must be inferior to you.

[tony6789 (OP)]

But what if some punk thought of a good fairy tale to write so he called it the Bible. Waht if people spent there intire lives worshiping a fairy tale if God is real we had better know and soon! Because the way this world is going we could all be killed in an up coming World War 3. IN 1902 when Mary supossedly appeared she predicted a devastting tsunami, Many earthquackes, and a World War 3. 2 of 3 of these evaents has happened. Whitch raises more questions than ansewers. Is God real? It is all a big mystery. I don't know how many Cathlics we have out there but at sometime or another you must have asked your self this question: Is God Real??? And i will not come to this conversation again because obviusly no one to date really knows the answer.

- Big T

[rosy]

quote:I would ask whether what you are talking about is religion or God? There are religions that have no notion of God (Buddhism being one that comes to mind), and I would also suggest that communism itself has many of the properties of a religion, although they would be horrified to think of it so.

Religion. I don't know much about Buddhism, but religions in general proscribe certain activities (and I'll go back to the sexual morality example because it's the one that comes to mind) simply because they're "wrong". I'd agree with you that communism (in some of its manifestations) has some aspects of a "religion" too... and it's those aspects, both of religion and of communism that I find objectionable. I'm not saying that I like anything else in particular just because I'm suspicious of religions.

quote:Unless you accept the tenets of moral relativism, then it becomes inevitable that you have to fall back on some kind of notion of a righteousness that makes your notion of right superior to someone else's notion of right. Whether you attribute your notion of right as God given, or simply somehow 'self evident' or otherwise unarguable, by whatever mechanism, you have to either accept that there is no absolute right, or that a particular version of right that is superior is based on irrational bigotry.

No. I disagree. If we accept that there is only one "truth" (whether or not any of the existing religions/non-religions have any kind of handle on what that is), then moralities based on writings purporting to be "divinely inspired" by the deity of a religion which doesn't correspond to that truth is of less value than one which is based on truth.
Since we can't know who, if anyone, has the right idea then we have to reach a pragmatic balance where *provided no harm is done to other people*, we're all allowed to get on with what we believe is right. The effects of this are quite close to those you'd get by taking a relativist view *but* is philosophically very different.

quote:Once you accept that your version of right is the superior right, then it follows that anyone who believes a different version of right must be inferior to you.

No. That is exactly my problem with the whole thing. Religion requires belief without rational backup. A rational view says "this appears to be best so we'll run with it until we find something better". Essentially it's a case of approaching right as you would science.

quote:And i will not come to this conversation again because obviusly no one to date really knows the answer.

I don't suppose you'll read this, Tony, but didn't you say you were a Christian? Isn't the not knowing pretty firmly entrenched in Christian doctrine? The need for Belief and all that?

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by tony6789

And i will not come to this conversation again because obviusly no one to date really knows the answer.

Did you really expect that, after thousands of years of people asking this question, there would be a simple answer to it.  On the other hand, are you so lacking in curiosity to be satisfied with the easy questions?

George.

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by rosy

Religion. I don't know much about Buddhism, but religions in general proscribe certain activities (and I'll go back to the sexual morality example because it's the one that comes to mind) simply because they're "wrong". I'd agree with you that communism (in some of its manifestations) has some aspects of a "religion" too... and it's those aspects, both of religion and of communism that I find objectionable. I'm not saying that I like anything else in particular just because I'm suspicious of religions.

But does that not happen whether formal religion is involved or not?

150 years ago, sodomy (of either gender) was illegal, but girls could legally marry at 14 years of age.  We may argue arbitrarily for one or the other, but aside from our own emotional prejudices, one cannot prove a utilitarian argument in favour of either state of affairs.  It is still the case that in many countries in the world, marriage at 12 is not illegal, and polygamy is also accepted – not something that is likely to happen in the near future in this country in this country, but the only argument against it is that it is 'wrong'.

Other issues that are debated in this country are issues regarding animal rights – again, there is no utilitarian test one can pursue to determine an independent notion of right and wrong in such questions.

quote:

No. I disagree. If we accept that there is only one "truth" (whether or not any of the existing religions/non-religions have any kind of handle on what that is), then moralities based on writings purporting to be "divinely inspired" by the deity of a religion which doesn't correspond to that truth is of less value than one which is based on truth.
Since we can't know who, if anyone, has the right idea then we have to reach a pragmatic balance where *provided no harm is done to other people*, we're all allowed to get on with what we believe is right. The effects of this are quite close to those you'd get by taking a relativist view *but* is philosophically very different.

But how do you judge harm, and is harm itself independent of social context.

We regard harm as primarily a physiological issue, whether it be harm to the body or measurable harm to the mind.  Many religious doctrines regard harm to the soul as greater than harm to the body or mind.  I am not saying they are right or wrong, but merely suggesting that there can be different perspectives on harm.  Even any discussion of measurable of mental harm is fraught with difficulty (to a lesser extent, this difficulty also extends to measuring physical harm).

One can make simple measurements, such as what might effect life expectancy, and often through lack of any better measure, that is what is used; but it is generally wholly inadequate for what most people would aspire to, and denies people the right to take action that might risk shortening their life.

quote:

No. That is exactly my problem with the whole thing. Religion requires belief without rational backup. A rational view says "this appears to be best so we'll run with it until we find something better". Essentially it's a case of approaching right as you would science.

So how do you, without falling back on any irrational judgements, disallow human slavery but yet allow the farming of animals, and allow the enforced education of children.

One can in both cases suggest that what is being done is in the interests of society, that assumes that whatever is good for society is right, and in different contexts, where the needs of society are different, the rights of these situations are different.  Thus we get back to moral relativism, and as such, we would have to accept that where slavery is in the interests of society, in such a society there is nothing wrong about slavery.

[daveshorts]

I think that there is a difference between irrational judgements that are a product of society and therefore alterable, and those that were divinely inspired 2000 years ago and therefore, the truth, the absolute truth and nothing but the truth, and therefore one is right in doing anything to promote these truths, and they can't be tempered with new information.

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by daveshorts

I think that there is a difference between irrational judgements that are a product of society and therefore alterable, and those that were divinely inspired 2000 years ago and therefore, the truth, the absolute truth and nothing but the truth, and therefore one is right in doing anything to promote these truths, and they can't be tempered with new information.

At a theoretical level, yes; but in practice, there is much less difference than the theory might imply.

Religion creates a legal framework, no different from the secular legal framework of the land.

Just as the secular legal framework can use historic precedent, and can claim rights going back to the Magna Carta, so too can religious law claim a continuity with the past.

Just as lawyers keep reinterpreting the secular law, so too do religious groups keep reinterpreting the religious law.

I would agree that religious legal reinterpretation moves slower than secular legal reinterpretation, but it is a matter of degree rather than a true difference in nature.

George

[G-1 Theory]

Dear Tony;

   "Science" is what we are talking about here, to me science is the study of just what our cerater did at the begainning of time!!!!

    And the creator is my "God"

Edward E. Kerls


"Learn the facts and go on from there, and never stop asking questions."

Admiral Rickover

[tony6789 (OP)]

WOWWWWWWWWWWWWW you people sure do post looks like i am staying in this argument!


- Big T

[BigBen]

GOD IS REAL IDIOTS!!!!!! i AM A VRY STRONG CHRISTIAN!!!!! BESIDES WHO MADE THE BIBLE IF HE DIDNT EXISIST

[tony6789 (OP)]

Exactly who did make the bible if He doesn't exist? Was it just a fairy tale that a grandma made up to put the kids asleep? or was it really Matheuw, Mark, Luke, and John?

- Big T

[daveshorts]

A load of people who thought he did exist, essentially. Doesn't mean they were right.

Why do you need a supernatural being to write a book? If you need a supernatural bing to write a religious text then he must have also written the torah, quran, various hindu, buddist, shinto, anamist, pagan etc texts. If god did write or inspire them all, either he is, or he wants us to be, very confused...

[ROBERT]

quote:Originally posted by daveshorts

 a supernatural bing

Indeed Mr Crosby's crooning was heavenly.  []


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bing_Crosby

[neilep]

I don't recall ever seeing a rally of athiests !!..I seem to forget the mass protests and demonstrations against religion, and the posters and flyers and people coming up to me to help me find the right way by disbelief !

As an athiest, I usually comment in response ...I am not on the active duty list of the PRO-ATHIEST campaign.....however, I may present an opinion based on something I have seen or heard and I ususally find it's the religious who make the most noise !


ie: BigBen calling us IDIOTS !!


The bible was written by a bunch of people over a period of quite a few years and is allegorical (look it up)...it's the best selling book of fiction there is !...oh by the way..that is MY opinion !

However, I am willing to be persuaded otherwise by proof that I require so perhaps I am an athiest with agnostitcal leanings !!



Men are the same as women.... just inside out !!

[rosy]

Ben, that's not really an argument that's going to convince anyone. Just because you, personally believe something doesn't make it so... I *don't* believe there's a god (tho' I accept the possibility) but just because I don't think there's anything out there doesn't make that so either.
Since (at least most of) the bible doesn't even purport to be more than a true account of the history of god's people (the Jews, and subsequently the Christians) written down by their scribes often considerably after the event, to suggest that it could only have come from god is not a remotely helpful argument for his existence.
Unlike the Islamic Koran (sp?) which is said to have been revealed to the prophet directly by an angel, the stories of the bible are simply accounts of certain stories, written down by many different individuals over the years, and even if the originals were true they have been given a slant to suit a particular school of thought at the time when they were written down.
So no, Tony, I don't think grandma made it up to tell the kids, and yes, it's entirely possible (as far as I know) that the gospels were written (or at any rate first related by )Matthew, Mark, Luke and John respectively.

[ariel]

let me just clear things up
there is a god
FSM
visit www.venganza.org if you wish to find out more and quite possibly become a pastafarian like myself

it's sacrilicious!

[neilep]

Well...I'm convinced !

Men are the same as women.... just inside out !!

[tony6789 (OP)]

this is a personal response to ben. ben what if the priests are wrong? What if there really is no god. I mean i go to church and every thing but i not a 100% sure it is real. What evidence is there ,besides a book, that supports that God is real?

- Big T

[rosy]

Have *you* been touched by his noodly appendage?

[Carolyn]

quote:Originally posted by BigBen

GOD IS REAL IDIOTS!!!!!! i AM A VRY STRONG CHRISTIAN!!!!! BESIDES WHO MADE THE BIBLE IF HE DIDNT EXISIST

I believe God is real also and I'm a Christian, but God is love. I don't believe He wants us to call people idiots because they disagree with us. Being a "strong Christian" should mean that people can see the love of God through you, not by how loud you can yell "I'm a Christian".

Carolyn