|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Religion or Science - How do they compare? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Paboss Member (Idle past 1766 days) Posts: 55 Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
My question about you conceding was rhetorical. I know you did not concede. That's why after acknowledging that you had made a bad argument, I asked for a different one.
If you knew I did not concede and all you wanted is for me to make a different argument, why not plainly ask for that in the first place? Why do you think my argument is bad? Why don’t you elaborate your own argument so that I can see where am I wrong?
NoNukes writes:
For example someone killing an homosexual cannot get away by saying that he is doing God’s will. He is liable regardless of his religious views. But in this case, a religion has been influential in the way this person sees homosexuals as sinners against God.
Have you ever noticed that there are bigots with or without religion?
Have you ever noticed that I did not say the contrary?
NoNukes writes:
Religion is just an excuse.
I said myself before that people do use religion as an excuse.
NoNukes writes:
I don't believe Christianity requires or demands that I treat homosexuals different from the way I tread anyone else.
But many Christians do believe it. Christianity has an extremely wide range of possible views due to the contradictory nature of the books and stories that inspired it. You seem to be towards a secular end of Christianity; so no, I don’t think you particularly see Christianity as requiring you to mistreat anyone.
NoNukes writes:
Yes, people did use the Bible to justify things like slavery, but did not slavery exist in cultures that were not Christian or Jewish at all? I simply don't buy the idea that religion, and in particular, Christianity, is even largely responsible for those problems.
I don’t think any one of the myriad of made up religions of antiquity came up with the idea of slavery. Religion has been quite effective at justifying bad things already in existence, like slavery. See for example slavery in USA. Was it Religion the reason it existed? No. Was it the excuse to maintain it for so long? Absolutely. The reason for the white southerners to support slavery was economical. Slavery was key in the production of cotton, reducing the cost of labour and making it economically worthy for the land owners. When the North started pushing to abolish slavery, would it help the cause of the South if they recognised this economic interest? Fortunately for them, Religion was at the rescue of their interests and was the perfect excuse to justify slavery as something endorsed by God and morally acceptable to oppress those African descendants of Ham, who was cursed by his father Noah just because he saw his dick. For this huge offence by the African ancestor, those religious apologists justified themselves in oppressing the Afro-American population.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Paboss Member (Idle past 1766 days) Posts: 55 Joined: |
Faith writes:
For me, it’s not Christians as people but any ideology that is used by some as an excuse to carry on their agendas, denying the rights of others if they feel they have to. It doesn’t matter if is a Muslim, Christian, Hindu or whatever; if they are displaying homophobia, I will oppose their ideas.
Oh you poor poor thing. I don't know why it is only Christians who are the butt of all this Liberal Nazi accusation of denying people "equality,"
Faith writes:
. when until recently most of the world would have thought the idea of gay marriage ridiculous.
I don’t care if until recently some stupid prejudice led most of the World to see that as ridiculous. Now we know better and it’s about time we started recognising the rights of a largely oppressed chunk of the population.
Faith writes:
Marriage is so obviously for the uniting of the two sexes, who together have the power of procreation, the idea of extending it to any other couple just because they want to live together is a trashing of the concept of marriage, reducing it to a sentiment felt by individuals instead of an institution with a fundamentally social meaning.
Same sex marriage doesn’t take away the meaning that traditional couples may want to give to their marriages; each to their own. The hostility towards homosexuality developed in small tribal communities when reproduction and population was paramount. Do you think we still need to worry about replenishing the Earth?
Faith writes:
Yes it is biblical, it's not made up.
You may mean: it is biblical, so it’s made up.
Faith writes:
But you can feel righteous for your twisted idea of equality,
It’s not about feeling righteous. It’s about understanding that whatever two consenting adults decide to do with their sexuality is nobody else’s business.
Faith writes:
while I'm going to have to hear how I'm a bigot and all the rest of the Liberal Nazi arsenal of politically correct character assassination.
I personally haven’t accused you of anything, but if you don’t want people calling you names you could set the example.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Was it the excuse to maintain it for so long? Absolutely. Wrong. It was not "the" excuse. It was "an" excuse to do what folks were already doing. It was also a driving force for those who were already abolitionists and for those who thought slavery was evil primarily because of its effect on white people. My point is that targetting religion does not accurately target the impetus for homophobia. ABE:
Paboss writes: If you knew I did not concede and all you wanted is for me to make a different argument, why not plainly ask for that in the first place I did ask plainly. I'll quote my question here.
NoNukes writes: If you have a case to make after conceding that your original statements don't prove your case, then make it. That's asking for a new argument in plain words. And I note that the concession I mentioned here is about not making your case and not about giving in. Not sure what you are asking me to do? Perhaps my tone was inappropriate? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door! We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World. Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
NoNukes writes:
Firstly it is obvious that our sense of morality is heavily influenced by family, culture etc. In the final analysis though if we all we are is a collection of mindless particles then how can there be an absolute right and wrong. Right and wrong then is simply what we as individuals or collectively decide what the distinction is, at a particular point in time. The material you quoted suggests that morality is universal. What you are adding to that is your belief that it comes from a divine source, and in particular from Jesus Christ, regardless of one's belief system.So, no argument from you. Just belief. At least that what I think you are espousing. If I've missed something, let me know. If however there is built into creation a moral code that distinguishes right from wrong, or more specifically good from evil then we should ask the question of where does that come from. Materialists take the point of view as I understand that our moral code has evolved based on what works best for us and individuals and society. There are aspects of that that I question. To start with, what is our society? Is it our gene pool, is it our country or is it the world? If there is no moral code that would exist apart from our existence the I question the idea that we would have adapted a moral code that gives us the notion of sacrificing our own well being for people of different gene pools, different nationalities and even with different moral codes. Why do millions of us send our personal resources of time and money to those less fortunate in other parts of the world when our own gene pool or society would be better off if they would die away and give us full access to their resources? Somehow we instinctively know, that whether or not we act on the instinct to do live altruistically or not, we know that it is good to do so. I would also add that I'm not saying that this comes from Jesus. I'm saying that it comes from an external moral intelligence that I refer to as God, and that Jesus received His morality from the same source , which He usually called Father, and the one to whom He prayed. It is interesting to note that we can see the moral code of Jewish and Christian faith in my Old Testament quote in my signature. I'd also add of course that all mainline religions have similar ideas in their holy books as well, which I suggest might be an indication of an absolute right and wrong that is universal.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
GDR writes: If however there is built into creation a moral code that distinguishes right from wrong, or more specifically good from evil then we should ask the question of where does that come from. Materialists take the point of view as I understand that our moral code has evolved based on what works best for us and individuals and society. I don't see why anyone would want an absolute moral code. What if that absolute moral code says that we have to kill everyone who has red hair? It would seem to me that the preferred moral code is the one that is based on humans, not some outside list of rules.
If there is no moral code that would exist apart from our existence the I question the idea that we would have adapted a moral code that gives us the notion of sacrificing our own well being for people of different gene pools, different nationalities and even with different moral codes. Why do millions of us send our personal resources of time and money to those less fortunate in other parts of the world when our own gene pool or society would be better off if they would die away and give us full access to their resources? What if there was an absolute moral code that did say to let those people die off. What then?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
If however there is built into creation a moral code that distinguishes right from wrong, or more specifically good from evil then we should ask the question of where does that come from. I don't believe that there was a moral code built into creation because I see no evidence and further, no scripture that dictates any such belief. That's a pretty big if, and it is not one I can accept as the basis for an argument. In fact, what you are actually doing here is assuming the entire question and putting that forth as your premise. Even if I agreed with you, I would reject an argument of that type. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door! We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World. Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Taq writes:
OK, but we have also seen humans come up with a moral code that tells them to kill those who don't agree with them, or of another culture. If there is a universal moral code we are obviously free to ignore it whatever it might be. I don't see why anyone would want an absolute moral code. What if that absolute moral code says that we have to kill everyone who has red hair? It would seem to me that the preferred moral code is the one that is based on humans, not some outside list of rules.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
NoNukes writes: In fact, what you are actually doing here is assuming the entire question and putting that forth as your premise. Even if I agreed with you, I would reject an argument of that type.
I'm not at all sure how to respond. Would you accept that Christ's teaching that we should love our neighbour as ourself is universally true?He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
GDR writes: OK, but we have also seen humans come up with a moral code that tells them to kill those who don't agree with them, or of another culture. That would be an immoral code, not a moral code.
If there is a universal moral code we are obviously free to ignore it whatever it might be. Well not quite, no. There *is* a universal moral code programmed into us called empathy. It tells us right from wrong and is the source of the 'golden rule'. If there's a 'still small voice' it's the brain function we call empathy. Unless we're psychopathic or trained to ignore it we are all affected by it to a greater or lessor extent. We can overcome it with our intellect, but it's still there holding us back from doing the worst and informing our secular laws by reinforcing and normalising good behaviour and punishing bad. This is why violence and crime has reduced in every society in the developed world for centuries.
quote: https://www.psychologytoday.com/.../the-neuroscience-empathy Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
OK, but we have also seen humans come up with a moral code that tells them to kill those who don't agree with them, or of another culture. If there is a universal moral code we are obviously free to ignore it whatever it might be. We have also rejected human based moralities that we judge to be flawed. That's the advantage of a subjective moral code, we can continue to improve on it and progress. If morality is absolute and objective, then that's it. You can't change it and it doesn't matter if you disagree with it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I'm not at all sure how to respond. Would you accept that Christ's teaching that we should love our neighbour as ourself is universally true? Yes, I would accept that as a principle. But please don't make it about me. I just gave you my opinion of an argument. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door! We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World. Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Tangle writes: Says you. If there are no absolute that is only your opinion based on your life experiences.
That would be an immoral code, not a moral code.Tangle writes:
You can come up with theories of how empathy evolved but it doesn't tell us anything about how the possibility of empathy came to exist in the first place. Well not quite, no. There *is* a universal moral code programmed into us called empathy. It tells us right from wrong and is the source of the 'golden rule'. If there's a 'still small voice' it's the brain function we call empathy. Unless we're psychopathic or trained to ignore it we are all affected by it to a greater or lessor extent. We can overcome it with our intellect, but it's still there holding us back from doing the worst and informing our secular laws by reinforcing and normalising good behaviour and punishing bad.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Taq writes:
OK, but that is only if absolute morality is based on laws and what we do. I'm suggesting that absolute morality is simply the desire to desire the good of others as individuals or as societies, even when it affects us negatively. We have also rejected human based moralities that we judge to be flawed. That's the advantage of a subjective moral code, we can continue to improve on it and progress. If morality is absolute and objective, then that's it. You can't change it and it doesn't matter if you disagree with it. Our human laws are an attempt to provide a framework that encourages that outlook on life.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
NoNukes writes: I think if I really understood the point you're making that I would agree with you. Yes, I would accept that as a principle. But please don't make it about me. I just gave you my opinion of an argument.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
GDR writes: Says you. Do you disagree?
If there are no absolute that is only your opinion based on your life experiences. NO! There are oviously no absolutes - that's why morality has changed over time. My opinion is pretty much the same as yours in matters of murder, rape, theft, slavery etc and the same as the society's and the times we live in - roughly. We all look back now at the horrors of the past and declare them immoral.
You can come up with theories of how empathy evolved but it doesn't tell us anything about how the possibility of empathy came to exist in the first place. If you accept that empathy evolved - as you appear to do - then you also know how it came to exist 'in the first place'. Ie it evolved, just like all our other traits. So what's special about empathy not's not special about, say, jealously, rage, love, hate, fear, smell, upright stance, hairlessness etc etc etc? Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024