|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Atheism Examined | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Yes and that without them (religions) we would have less moral structure
I do not think so. I think we would have one less path in which to develop our structure. But I do not think it would decrease anything, or leave us without anything if we had simply used another path to get here. Well there's no way to know. It just so happens that religions were one of the paths in developing our structure. Would we have arrived here without them? Who knows? I think they were a pretty important part in the very early developments of our structure and that it would have failed without them.
On a simple over-looking glance, I do not see anything in our current moral social structure that is only available through religion. I don't think there are certain things that could only be provided through religion, but that religion was the best way at that particular time in providing those things. Almost like it was a result of natural selection. But like you said, this part of our discussion would be better in a different topic. Let's not drag this thread further off-topic.
But what is your alternative? I submit to you that society is all we have. Yes, and I don't find that to be a sufficient reason to do the right thing because it is the right thing to do.
Would your alternative be God? Something that cannot even be shown to another person? Something that cannot be proven? Something that there is a possibility (no matter how large, or small...) that this God could be made up? Or may even be just a creation from our ancient society in the first place? Well, yes and no. I think it suggests god but it doesn't necesitate one.
I submit that our thoughts of being "good"... our thoughts of striving to be the best we can be... our thoughts of somehow becoming more than we are... our thoughts of constant improvement... I submit that these thoughts are extremely important. I put forward that they are the most important thoughts our society currently has. With this in mind, I am not able to let any of it possibly rely on something that has any chance (no matter how slim) of being a falsehood. But I don't think that adding god removes importance from those things. Sure, if the only reason you do the results of those things is from the fear of god then the importance of them, themselves, is removed. But in actuality, I don't think that the fear of god is the only reason people do those things, and that those things maintain their importance. I think the fear of god adds to the doing of the results of those important things. And in our early history, we might not have been able to put a firm footing on those things without the threat of god.
My important thoughts, this human society's important thoughts... are too important to leave to chance. What do you mean leave them to chance and what are the consequences of leaving them to chance?
with all the knowledge humans have collected over the thousands of years we have been on this planet... we have decided that these are the right things to do. Like I just typed, I'm not sure we would have been able to accomplish this without using religions. I'm not suggesting that religions have something to offer that something else cannot, but that with our given history, religion was the way it needed to be done.
Yes, since society is all we have. And "us" is all there is to communicate with... This might be the crux because I don't feel that society and "us" is all that we have. It really does seem to me that god exists.
why should anything else be used? If it really is there then we might as well use it.
What's wrong with using the only available measuring stick (our own society) to guide our own advancement? IMHO, it wouldn't be this good if we didn't have the religions and it might have failed altogether. ABE: Wow... that got preachy. I apologize 
No need to apologize... I liked it  Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The point I'm trying to make, is that I personally find these thoughts... let's sum them as "human advancement"... as very important. Perhaps even the most important. Do we agree on that? We can say that human advancement is the most important, yes.
I cannot honestly-intellectually leave their guidance and further development up to chance. On one side I'm thinking that you don't really have a choice and that chance might be inevitable (natural selection). But on the other side, I understand your concern with leaving human advancement in the hands of religions, when they could all be B.S. anyways. So you're justified in wanting to have human advancement in the hands of society, not religions.
I am saying that handing these things over to Religion, or God, is taking a chance... hoping that these things are real, and beneficial. and yet you say:
I do not fully conceed the point, because, well... I hope it isn't right  Funny, that hope stuff 
I would rather hand these things over to Society, which we know to be real, and beneficial. What are you gonna do if and when, after handed over to society, society chooses the religion route?
IMHO, it wouldn't be this good if we didn't have the religions and it might have failed altogether.
As I said above, I am slightly inclined to agree with you on this point. However, we are here now, and (regardless of how) we are past that point. Eh.... notta so much in the Middle East, yeah?
We know things now that we did not know then. To me, we must use our current knowedge to the best of our abilities. If that means laying to the side some very helpful things from the past before they hold us back, then so be it. I agree, although I could argue against that if I was a fundamentalist. Because if the fundy's are right, then human advancement isn't the most important thing, don't you think?
Tradition cannot be allowed to stand in the way of the importance of human development. I don;t think human development should destroy tradition though.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
When I say Society, I am not talking about a snap-shot of our current modern system. I am talking about the entire feedback process... from 5000+ years ago, and still very much in-progress today. Consider the term defined for the purpose of this discussion.
If Society chose to go the Religious route, I would take this as "wrong" and "bad" for human advancement, and strive to make people aware of this, and hopefully get Society back on track in an evidence-based beneficial path. I see benefits to religions and think they can promote human advancement. I'm still trying to come up with that thing that can only be provided with religion though.... So I'm not totally convinced it is absolutely necessary, but I do think it is a good think to keep around. As long as it doesn't get too much in the way of advancement (muslim women's rights for example).
In balance to this, I am certainly open to being persuaded by my fellow Society-members that I am wrong, and am actually pushing Society in the wrong direction. However, in order to convince me, they will have to be able to actually convince me with valid evidence. Sounds like another thread to me...
I agree with you again. But I must point out that just because "people over there" are doing bad things, does not give us an excuse to continue the same practices when we know better, and are capable of correcting those problems. I would have thought such a practice would be obvious, no? The point was that we might not be past that point yet.
You really do like to pick out the obvious points, eh? Yes, I agree again. If the Fundy's are right, then human advancement (trying to be the best, most caring and benevolent society we can be) is not the most important thing. I realize they're not profound but I think its a good idea to explore the boundaries of the other's position.
I guess I'm just lucky that it's rather simple to show that the Fundy's aren't right. Oh....no, its not luck
If you truly are teetering on this edge... perhaps you should be in the Noah's Ark threads? I'm not teetering, I've got my feet firmly planted in reality. Just not too firmly
However, if we mean becoming the most benevolently advanced human society possible... which I did when I said that... and tradition is nothing more than something we did in the past that we no longer need... which I also meant when I said that... then I think you're just trying to attack my tank with your feather
Just trying to figure out exaclty what you are Do you think that a lack of need for a tradition is enough reason to destroy it? Or only if it is inhibiting human advancement?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
My main concern is when Religion starts meddling in things it really shouldn't be meddling in. School curriculums and social morals come to mind here. The Catholic high school that I went to provided a much better education than the public school, but I suppose you're talking about teaching Creationism... That isn't an issue with religion, in general, its an issue with a specific type of a specific religion. Some people's social morals come from their religion. Would you still be as concerned if someone had a social moral that you disagreed with and never mentioned their religion versus some who did mention it? Why? I hate to bring up abortion but... If someone thought it should be illegal because of their religion I assume you'd be concerned. What if they thought it should be illegal for a non-religious reason? Would you still be concerned? If not, why single out religion for concern? Is it really the religion, itself, that is the concern?
Basically, I think it's about time Relgion got the talking to it deserves: "Know your role". Get out of politics. Get out of education. Put your efforts into those places where they are supposed to be... helping people. What about the people who think their religion is helping people through politics and education? I don't think religion is this "thing" that gets into stuff. Its a part of the people. People are going to hold political beliefs with or without religion. I don't see a problem with molding your political beliefs around your religious ones.
Do you think that a lack of need for a tradition is enough reason to destroy it? Or only if it is inhibiting human advancement?
I don't really want to destroy anything. heh, destroy is a harsh word. I was just asking if you think we should get rid of traditions that we don't need anymore. Or only if the are inhibiting us.
But it is obvious in our society today that many churches are reaching beyond this, and being taken advantage of by bad people to further certain corrupt, personal ideologies. And the church won't do anything to stop their own because they see it as "showing a weakness" or something. That isn't a problem from religion, though. Its a problem from those churches.
But Religion would not be allowed to set educational standards, Even if the standard is higher?
nor would they be allowed to sway political power Ha! Good luck with that one. Hasn't religion been swaying political power since Day 1?
These important notions of our growth would be left to those things we can actually show to be correct and right. No showing, no accepting. But now you're just leaving things to your criteria/belief system. Its not really any different than religion running the show. Whether or not your belief system is of a religious nature, should not be what decides what things are left to.
A Religion certainly should be allowed to have a voice in education or political power. But only so much as they can show why it should be that way. Just because they are "The Church" or that "This Book" says so... No. Just No. That doesn't count, Your's is starting to look more and more like a religion. People (Society) are going to do what the want and if their reasons come from a religious nature, they shouldn't automatically be discarded just because they don't meat your evidense criteria. And even if it was your way, all people would have to do is just not mention religion, but still leave religion be behind it anyways.
If they want to get involved with these important aspects of our lives, they need to follow the same standards everyone else does. Only promoting those notions which can be shown to be correct. Yeah  because that's the way our political system is really run. You seem too idealistic for me. I think religion is going to be behind a lot of things whether it is forbidden to be or not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
My beef isn't with Religion. It is with people who do not use actual reasons to put forward their own agendas. You seem to equate religion with not actual reasons That's fine, though, it is faith based rather than evidence based and I can accept that lacking evidence is lacking actual reason, for practical purposes, but I don't think it is necessarily true.
What I have a problem with, is corrupt people abusing others. Tradition, and especially Religious Tradition makes this extremely easy. Hence, my surface-seeming problems with Religion. Do you have the same surface-seeming problems with government? Its corrupt people abusing others, no? Do you really think that government decisions are based on actual reasons? All the time? More than half the time?
No one ever said that doing the right thing was also going to be easy. Heh, did they say it was even possible?
No more relying on the possibility of one person being currupt and taking over. Things must be shown and proven to our fellow members of Society before they can take affect. The good thing for me is that a working system similar to this is already in place. All we need to do is use it correctly. Its just too bad that politics doesn't work this way.
I am idealistic. Perhaps extremely so. But isn't everyone? I try not to be. One of the important things about setting goals is that you set acheivable goals.
But what is better? Me... living with extreme ideals that promote love and good fellow-human relationships... even if these ideals are never met in my lifetime. You... living in the current system, not trying to make any of it better, and simply wallowing in the fear that "I'm not able to change anything, so what's the point anyway?"
Well, in that case it would be you, but you described me inaccurately. Being realistic doesn't mean doing nothing, it means attempting things that are actually possible and accepting the inevitable. When your idealism leads you to attempting the impossible and rejecting the inevitable you're gonna have a lot of upsets. Of course, I realise that some things are only thought to be impossible and if they are never attempted then a lot will be missed, you can be too realistic too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
