 |
|
bayraven
|
|
I've heard theologians say you can't have morality (your stuff listed above) without (their) God.
Ghandi was a good dude.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Elok
|
 |
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Snowflake
Why would one need a religion to have the right intentions and act to the best of his ability? Why couldn't people without a religious belief abandon wordliness, throw aside pride, turn right at the know yourself, etc, using your own words? Do you really have to belive in a supreme being or some supreme beings for you to behave or do things that you believe to be good? |
In theory, there is no "need." In practice, it gets sticky. You have an easier time figuring out what to do when you have at least some general idea of what it is you're doing. Since morals are ultimately derived from a religious belief (secular "moral systems" appear, to me, to be rationalizations of preexisting beliefs cooked up to avoid the accompanying unpalatable idea of a God figure), it's hard to work without that foundation. Not impossible, but bloody hard. And many faiths are built on similar ground.
Secular morals are usually built on hamfisted amateur sociological theories, as laughable as "Creation Science" in a different way. They ultimately construct a flimsy and impersonal god figure, vaguely labelled as the Greater Good or something of that ilk, and decide to follow it for reasons unknown, towards goals unknown, based on the consensus that a large number of folks think it's probably a swell idea...and stuff. It's like worshipping John Kerry.
Not that "need" as such is a factor. Continuing the desert metaphor, tired of it as I am at this point, you can try to retrace your steps and it might work, but it's a lot easier to get a map. A guy who says, "I'm a rugged outdoorsman, I don't need a map," might be a brave and resolute spirit, but he's also an idiot, and not to be emulated.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
debeest
|
|
Whaleboy, I read through the first page and found Russell's commentary very worthwhile and the responses not so much so, so I skipped the next three pages. Just wanted to thank you for posting this.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Elok
You know my stock response: There is no "scientific argument for God," or against. |
This not a debate wrt scientific arguments, this is a philosophical argument. I completely agree that there's no scientific argument against the Judeo-Christianity god, because such an entity cannot be quantified, has no phyical characteristics we know, and simply defy scientific laws.
quote:
Originally posted by Elok
How do you know that the interplay of parts is not the passing amusement of a divine will, like children setting up tinkertoys to watch the parts turn? |
This sort of arguments is mildly annoying. The people who bring them out don't answer anything, but for some reason refuses to admit they don't know.
quote:
Originally posted by Elok
Nor is Hell necessarily a byproduct of sadism. Every parent starts teaching a child good behavior by threatening punishment as consequences for misbehavior. |
I am not sure if you realises this, but this amounts to Christianity treating us as children. No, we are incapable of critical thinking, but must be told what to do. On second thought, anybody who's capable of critical thinking will most likely reject religion.
quote:
Originally posted by Elok
But a muslim, a jew, a hindu, a daoist, or anything, anything at all, is better than a complacent atheist, who sits smugly in a world full of gossip, lies, hatred and cruelty, and knows with confidence in his heart that Human Reason Will Prevail, though there is evidence all around him that such a thing as human reason doesn't even exist. |
You know what's a sad sight? A healthy person insists on walking with crutches. This is exactly what Christianity reminds me of, crutches. Mental crutches to be precise.
What's even sadder is when a bystander tells this person that he could walk on his own, he bellows, "No, my legs are broken! Nay, I don't even have legs!"
I don't understand this at all. What do we need religion for? There is absolutely no indication that a person who is nonreligious is less ethical than a religious person.
quote:
Originally posted by Elok
Religion is at least in part the quest to scourge the infection of inhumanity out of our souls. |
That's so deeply ironic - since Christianity is the greatest scourge mankind faces. It had never improved any sociopolitical issues. Adding Christianity to any such problems will only aggravate the situation, because all you have done is to add another dimension of conflict.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Whaleboy, I read through the first page and found Russell's commentary very worthwhile and the responses not so much so, so I skipped the next three pages. Just wanted to thank you for posting this.
|
Thanks, no problem 
Islam is like Judaism in that it holds that the messianic age is yet to come, Muhammed was not the messiah but the last in a series of prophets (which include the likes of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Elijah  , and Jesus iirc). As a result, Islam reveres Muhammed but doesn't worship him as a deity, it's analogous to how the Jews revere the likes of King David and Abraham.
quote:
No it isn't. Though "fanatics" would be a better word.
|
Agreed, though you'll find fanatics of every position, I prefer the term dogma, or those that seem to have some kind of faith in this position. The thing with scientific or rational arguments is that they require and ask no faith, merely provisional concurrence, because they can be empirically verified, which undermines and renders faith useless. As a result, I always get alarm bells going off to check the reasoning of those who I think have faith in their argument. One wouldn't expect them to change in the face of superior reasoning and that to my mind is a mistake (that is with scientific/rational arguments of course).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BeBro
|
 |
of the Krauts
Mar 2000
time: 06:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Elok
BeBro: I think atheism is often symptomatic of a failure, or a refusal, to see evil in the world as it really is. Earthquakes and such happen, yes, but much of the troubles of the world are caused by people, to people. We either hate each other or can't be bothered to prevent it. And that springs from within the character of every human. The original Greek phrase for sin is etymologically similar to "missing the mark."
When it is said that nobody is without sin, the meaning is not that we're all overblown cartoon supervillains who want to eat puppies alive, but that there's something within us all that doesn't care what happens, something mad and cruel and selfish. Too often we listen to it. But in a godless worldview-every godless worldview I've heard of-the problem is ignored entirely. People either call our problems a necessary evil or else shrug and say there's nothing to be done about it, it's just human nature. If it is human nature, we need to try to stop being human, because our natural human nature is killing us.
Or worse yet, we blame evil on ideology. That's the most popular delusion that I've seen. Problems are caused by people believing the wrong thing, and if we had a different, more perfect set of ideals, things would be better. The most frequent scapegoat on Poly is Religious Fanaticism. Also favored among various factions are America-Haters, Communists, Libertarians, and Corporate Fat Cats. We firmly believe that catastrophes come about from flawed personal philosophies, even while we propound the completely incompatible belief that zealots, crusaders and assassins are just doing what they want and using their beliefs to justify their actions.
The French Revolution is to me the best example of why this manner of thinking is stupid. It was the first documented religious war without any kind of religion. They had show trials and executions in the name of no doctrine beyond a basic commitment to liberty, fraternity, and equality. The problem isn't some belief, or even lack of it, but that people themselves are freaking nuts.
And I've never met an atheist who really seemed to understand what I was talking about when I said that. They all seemed to think that scientific progress or a stronger commitment to democracy could compensate for human weakness. I've met religious people who are stupid that way too, only their answer is for everybody to take a loyalty pledge to Jesus, give a televangelist a check, and have a big slice of American apple pie. Different kind of stupid, but they're basically culturally biased pseudo-pagans in my book. They believe in magic. But there are some who actually know what they say when they tell you they believe, and I'm on their side.
|
Well, to be honest, I don't understand you as well I think generalizing about "evil" and how it is caused by "people to people" isn't much better than what you complain about. These are generalities everyone - christian or not - could say, they are always right. Same with this part:
quote:
When it is said that nobody is without sin, the meaning is not that we're all overblown cartoon supervillains who want to eat puppies alive, but that there's something within us all that doesn't care what happens, something mad and cruel and selfish. Too often we listen to it. But in a godless worldview-every godless worldview I've heard of-the problem is ignored entirely. People either call our problems a necessary evil or else shrug and say there's nothing to be done about it, it's just human nature. If it is human nature, we need to try to stop being human, because our natural human nature is killing us. |
What exactly do you complain about? People have the potential to be "mad and cruel and selfish"? That explains all - and at the same time nothing. So what's your idea? And why do you think a "godless worldview" ignores the bad side of humans?
Similar to the "ideology" part: I don't think that all problems are solved when people would have an "ideal" or "good" or whatever ideology. But at the same time it would be unwise to ignore that in reality certain ideologies caused, or at least fueled absolutely inhumane actions, so of course I don't want them winning ground.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
"Lie" indicates malicious deception. That leaves you not only attempting to prove Christianity is incorrect, but there is malice in attempts to preach it. Good luck. |
Does the English language have such a thing as the French concept of "pieux mensonge" (lit. 'pious lie'), i.e. a lie that has a benevolent intent?
When I use the word "lie", I do not want to induce that every preacher is malicious. In fact, the religious belief in itself is not necessarily malicious.
Religions are an early attempt by humankind to explain the universe that surrounds us, in a fashion that is understandable for the layman. Such an attempt is not inherently malicious nor benevolent, but simply mirrors human nature. There is a reason why all human cultures developed beliefs in supranatural forces.
However, these explanations can only be false, because we live in an extremely complex universe, that we as a species will probably never fully understand. Science is a very imperfect tool to that effect. And religion is even worse.
About this here thread: "Why I am not a Christian"
Christianty is just yet another religion. I don't feel compelled to justify my disbelief of this particular religion, just like I don't feel compelled to justify my disbelief in any other particular religion. Christianty may be mainstream in the society I happen to live in, but its quality is no different than other religions: Christianty like the others is a simplistic attempt at explaining the universe, an attempt doomed to failure.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
bayraven
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
About this here thread: "Why I am not a Christian"
|
the title came from the title of the opening essay.
Is this topic an ongoing OT conversation on poly?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by bayraven
Do athiests believe in a supernatural Evil? (supernatural anything?) |
No. Evil, like Good, is a human conception, which changes.
Most people in the Middle Ages would have seen the extermination of heretics and heathens as a great Good, in the service of the lord. Today we would see it as a great evil.
The ancient Hebrews sacrificed to the lord- most evangelical Christians today would see that as a perversion and an evil.
What changed? If there is such as thing as absolute evil, supernatural and outside the realm of man, then who is correct? Were the ancient Hebrews wrong to sacrifice? or are we wrong today for not sacrificing?
And to go off Spiffors simple question:
Can a Christian prove to me that Christ died on the cross, came back and is the Messiah, and then show proof that thus Mohammed was not the last true prophet of God, and that Jesus was just another prophet, like the prophets of old? (and note that the Koran does accept the virgin birth of Jesus)?
Or can a Christian prove that there is only one God? And prove that the HIndus are incorrect?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
bayraven
|
|
Man, i've been sheltered. i've believed that AG/ATH people were just bitter and dissapointed by some percieved failure from God (which is ironic knowing as many bitter Christians as i do)
I appreciate the discourse.
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
The ancient Hebrews sacrificed to the lord- most evangelical Christians today would see that as a perversion and an evil.
? |
to take issue with just this point; Christians believe in the sacrificial system, starkly stated, blood payment for sin. It is our belief that the ultimate purpose of Christ was to be the final sacrifice. To then offer up a pigeon is pointless
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-12-2004 03:39
.
|