PeterMP Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 Yes, but we can also use those "good" and "evil" words to label "constructive" and "destructive" tendencies, for example. That makes them a little less subjective It doesn't help. You've just changed the labels. What makes something constructive or destructive? How can anybody be a judge of that, when none of us know what the future is going to bring? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 Ah, the religious wars argument. The problem is that I think this whole thing is way overstated, because it was not the church that did these things, but instead it was the Princes who sought more power and land that used religion to rally the troops if you will. What's more is that the evidence that those people got it wrong is contained within the scripture itself, because it speaks against their actions. didn't the Pope himself order crusades? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted July 13, 2007 Author Share Posted July 13, 2007 This is the point, I've been trying to make. If you throw out God, the "right" to judge becomes very tenous. What makes your genetically (or societal) derived moral code superior to mine? Nothing. So why should you get to imprision me? Exactly, and this is what atheism cannot answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted July 13, 2007 Author Share Posted July 13, 2007 didn't the Pope himself order crusades? LOL, surely you aren't going to suggest that all Popes were men of God, and weren't more interested in land and power more than piety. Especially when some would routinely wear suits of golden armor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 Exactly, and this is what atheism cannot answer. But that's not what you've been saying. You have been saying that atheism can't explain the exsistance of a moral code in people. It can. It can't explain why any one moral code should be enforced on top of another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted July 13, 2007 Author Share Posted July 13, 2007 It is choosing to ignore the color that her body produces, for one reason or another. yes, it's a stretch...but I think you get the point. Yeah, I know what you're trying to say, and yeah its a real stretch because in the end she only gives the illusion that her hair is a different color, and in a couple days everyone will know the truth, hence all those touch-up kits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 LOL, surely you aren't going to suggest that all Popes were men of God, and weren't more interested in land and power more than piety. Especially when some would routinely wear suits of golden armor. Which answers my earlier point about religion. People that claim religion are no more moral than those who dont. Probably less so since they cant justify their actions with religion. A much more honest answer than your BS flag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headexplode Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 The problem is that if our morality is evolutionary and part of our DNA then it should be impossible to overcome it, free will doesn't work with DNA. Its like me choosing to not see in color. I don't believe morality is in our DNA. I believe it is a social construct formed in part perhaps because of a "hardwired" need to perpetuate the species (again I don't claim to know why that need or desire may exist). And if God really gave us free will, we would have the ability to choose "no" on the whole eternal life thing. We don't have that choice, we only have "free will" enough to choose between two limited and predetermined choices. Ultimate free will would allow for opting out of the thing altogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 LOL, surely you aren't going to suggest that all Popes were men of God, and weren't more interested in land and power more than piety. Especially when some would routinely wear suits of golden armor. so i guess the "child crusade" was also a grab at land? the men were losing therefore it takes the pure soul of a child to win the war? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 Anyways, Atheism doesnt have to answer anything. Its a LACK of belief in something. Religion is the belief system that necessarily has to have all the answers, not atheism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted July 13, 2007 Author Share Posted July 13, 2007 But that's not what you've been saying. You have been saying that atheism can't explain the exsistance of a moral code in people. It can.It can't explain why any one moral code should be enforced on top of another. I still don't think it can explain the exsistance, instead it just tries to reword and reinterpret that which those of the faith have always known, only in the end they can't figure out why there is such disparity, faith can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 Yeah, I know what you're trying to say, and yeah its a real stretch because in the end she only gives the illusion that her hair is a different color, and in a couple days everyone will know the truth, hence all those touch-up kits. ever seen the show Dexter? he is a serial killer who just gives the impression to everyone around him that he is normal. he doesn't not kill, he just controls how he does it. (its really a great show.) now of course it isn't a real-world example, but i think its pretty good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted July 13, 2007 Author Share Posted July 13, 2007 Anyways, Atheism doesnt have to answer anything. Its a LACK of belief in something. Religion is the belief system that necessarily has to have all the answers, not atheism. Wrong, if atheism wants to "save" an "liberate" people from their "faith" then they need to answer these questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 Let me break down this arguement to it's simplest terms Why don't you have all the answers? We do, it was the magical guy in the sky. Yeah, so what. I don't have an explanation, neither do you, I just didn't feel the need to make up some pixie dust Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrWill Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 I agree.Ah, the religious wars argument. The problem is that I think this whole thing is way overstated, because it was not the church that did these things, but instead it was the Princes who sought more power and land that used religion to rally the troops if you will. What's more is that the evidence that those people got it wrong is contained within the scripture itself, because it speaks against their actions. And, finally we have it.....organized religion was a population control, used to rally the troops, and give the uneducated peasants some form of moral imperative. Who would have thought that it would also go on to control the majority of what is generally a more educated populace. However, to deny religions' place in global conflict is ludicrous. Organized religion is in actuality not much different than cliques in high school......it is all about judging those who do not think, act, or dress like you while at the same time believing you are the chosen ones. This is most evident in the new Pope's declaration that only 'these' churches can lead you to salvation. If you take an objective look at all of this, it truly stinks of hypocrisy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headexplode Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 I agree.Ah, the religious wars argument. The problem is that I think this whole thing is way overstated, because it was not the church that did these things, but instead it was the Princes who sought more power and land that used religion to rally the troops if you will. What's more is that the evidence that those people got it wrong is contained within the scripture itself, because it speaks against their actions. I'm not simply talking about politicians using religion to serve their own nefarious purposes, although certainly that has a great history. For instance, in some parts of Europe if a young girl had an "illegitimate" child then that child was taken from them and they were sent to serve in bondage to the catholic church (basing this practice off interpretations of scripture). There are many different examples I could offer but I don't have the time and I think you can get my meaning. Watch the movie Seven, for instance. I know it is a fictionalized and extreme example of what I mean, but history is full of characters like the one Spacey plays, who have wreaked havoc on the world because of their grim and extreme views on the wrath of god. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted July 13, 2007 Author Share Posted July 13, 2007 Yeah, so what. I don't have an explanation, neither do you, Sure I do, just because you choose not to believe the answer does not mean that its not real. Oh and we didn't make the pixie dust, in fact we were made from the dust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted July 13, 2007 Author Share Posted July 13, 2007 And, finally we have it.....organized religion was a population control, used to rally the troops, and give the uneducated peasants some form of moral imperative. Who would have thought that it would also go on to control the majority of what is generally a more educated populace. However, to deny religions' place in global conflict is ludicrous. Organized religion is in actuality not much different than cliques in high school......it is all about judging those who do not think, act, or dress like you while at the same time believing you are the chosen ones. This is most evident in the new Pope's declaration that only 'these' churches can lead you to salvation. If you take an objective look at all of this, it truly stinks of hypocrisy. Ok, yeah, you have proven that you simply recite the garbage that is found on a million different hack job blogs, and that you simply have no understanding about the faith itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard saunders Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 I believe God gave us reason to make judgement on our own. I also believe he doesn't interfere with our day to day lives and that is partially the reason why we have a world like we have to today...beautiful, yet flawed. People, for the most, decide how they want to live their lives. I guess that's why I'm deist. Religons don't make sense to me. I'm supposed to believe somone else's revelation? I'll trust my own God given reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headexplode Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 I think, Asbury, that you confuse religion with god. One doesn't necessarily require the existence of the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCSaints_fan Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 OK, lets shelve the evolutionary/biological angle for a bit. Why couldn't a non-religious humanist assert things like the golden rule, "Treat others as you would yourself"(Budda, Christ, among others), "Never treat another person as a means, but as an end"(Kant), and treat them as axiomatic "self-evident truths" without all the religious baggage? He's basically doing the same thing that the religionist is doing, in asserting a truth, yet it is much simpler because he doesn't have to deal with divine revelation, and which religion is "correct". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrWill Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 Ok, yeah, you have proven that you simply recite the garbage that is found on a million different hack job blogs, and that you simply have no understanding about the faith itself. Ah, but I said nothing about the faith. It is organized religion I was discussing. And, no.....that is how I genuinely feel, it is not a quote from somewhere else. The FAITH is not the problem, it is the judgement of others faith that is. Are you denying that there is a strong tendency for organized religion to want to convert the world to its way of thinking? There are some religions that do not....but christianity is not one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 Wrong, if atheism wants to "save" an "liberate" people from their "faith" then they need to answer these questions. Why? If it doesn't, do you get to teach creationism in science class? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 OK, lets shelve the evolutionary/biological angle for a bit. Why couldn't a non-religious humanist assert things like the golden rule, "Treat others as you would yourself"(Budda, Christ, among others), "Never treat another person as a means, but as an end"(Kant), and treat them as axiomatic "self-evident truths" without all the religious baggage? He's basically doing the same thing that the religionist is doing, in asserting a truth, yet it is much simpler because he doesn't have to deal with divine revelation, and which religion is "correct". What makes it a truth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 I still don't think it can explain the exsistance. Well your wrong. It doesn't take much of an extension of Nash's Nobel Prize winning work to get there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.