Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,829 Year: 4,086/9,624 Month: 957/974 Week: 284/286 Day: 5/40 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is religion good for us?
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 181 (577248)
08-27-2010 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Dr Adequate
08-27-2010 12:33 PM


Let me remind you that you are addressing an audience largely composed of people who are atheists, and who therefore know for certain that you are bearing false witness.
yet i am not, for God initiated morality with Adam and Eve, guess who distorted its source throughout the subsequent years--those who turned away from God.
Then Noah and his family taught God's way, guess who distorted the source-- those who turned away from God and followed evil.
one does NOT have to commit murder or rape to be considered following evil. one may say they are a good person BUT GOD looks on the heart and those who have not repented, He sees their sin. you can argue with me all you want but i am not the final judge, God is andHe sees far more than I do.
I am just a messenger and telling you that even mother theresa could go to hell, because salvation does not depend upon works--it depends upon John 3:16 and God's grace. if you do not do as Jesus said and be born again--you are out of luck no matter how moral you think you are.
Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-27-2010 12:33 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-27-2010 10:09 PM archaeologist has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 439 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 92 of 181 (577254)
08-27-2010 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by dronestar
08-27-2010 4:10 PM


Re: Religion = Bonbons
dronester writes:
To subtract our critical thinking capacity ANY percentage, would "necessarily" cause us to be at the very least, at risk.
You seem to be assuming that critical thinking produces Standard Answers™ for everybody. Unfortunately, it doesn't, which is why I've been saying that it isn't a magic wand. You could easily have two parties using all of their critical thinking skills and both coming to the conclusion to exterminate the other. Critical thinking is good for factual matters like evolution but it's not so good for matters of opinion like who should own Alsace-Lorraine.

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by dronestar, posted 08-27-2010 4:10 PM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by dronestar, posted 08-30-2010 10:32 AM ringo has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 312 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 93 of 181 (577277)
08-27-2010 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by archaeologist
08-27-2010 7:00 PM


yet i am not
What you wrote was, and I quote:
once you remove religion, especially christianity, ytou remove all morals and the need to be good.
This is false, and know to your audience to be false.
* Theological ramblings snipped *
The falsehood you uttered is not even remotely implied by the Pauline doctrine of grace.
Paul says that morals and the need to be good are insufficient for salvation. You say that they are absent in the absence of religion. And that is not Scriptural, it's just something you've made up. And it is false.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by archaeologist, posted 08-27-2010 7:00 PM archaeologist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by archaeologist, posted 08-27-2010 11:59 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 181 (577297)
08-27-2010 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Dr Adequate
08-27-2010 10:09 PM


didn't say one false hood if you remove religion you remove morality.
this has been proven time and again, north korea is another prime example.
Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.
Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-27-2010 10:09 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-28-2010 12:54 AM archaeologist has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 312 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 95 of 181 (577310)
08-28-2010 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by archaeologist
08-27-2010 11:59 PM


didn't say one false hood if you remove religion you remove morality.
And I know for a fact that this is false, since I have morality without religion.
This is not a point on which you can even hope to deceive me.
this has been proven time and again, north korea is another prime example.
An example does not prove a general statement.
If someone were foolish enough to claim that religion was utterly incompatible with morality, then referring to one event such as the Spanish Inquisition, or to two events such as the Spanish Inquisition and 9/11, or to three events such as the Spanish Inquisition and 9/11 and the sack of Jerusalem ... would not prove the point.
But one counterexample destroys a general proposition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by archaeologist, posted 08-27-2010 11:59 PM archaeologist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by archaeologist, posted 08-28-2010 3:27 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 181 (577316)
08-28-2010 3:27 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Dr Adequate
08-28-2010 12:54 AM


wrong again, for you confuse 'fear of punishment' with morality.
one will be good because they fear fines, imprisonment or some other form of punishment but that doesn't mean they are moral.
the japanese are a good example. their main 'religion' has no moral teachings then they suspended it for ww2. removing their religious beliefs allowed them to commit the most immoral acts against other nations.
remove religion remove morality. there are those who did not follow that path and kept to their moral teachings BUT all morality comes from God thus even though a secular person may teach a 'moral code' they did not invent it, they got it from someone else who got it from someone else who got it from someone else and so on until we get back to God.
atheism is not moral, just look at ho wyou all talk about christians and what you want to do with them. you want to strip them of the same rights you enjoy and manyother things hypocrisy, double standards, fibbing, fudging, being dishonest, manipulation, and so much more that you all practice is NOT morality.
you may think because you do not kill, rape or steal (cars, etc ) that you are moral, but morality goes a lot further than that. you may think you are a good person but you need to compare yourself with the sandard--Jesus and God-- then see where you stack up.
Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-28-2010 12:54 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-28-2010 3:57 AM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 99 by bluegenes, posted 08-28-2010 9:28 AM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 100 by jar, posted 08-28-2010 10:50 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 312 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 97 of 181 (577319)
08-28-2010 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by archaeologist
08-28-2010 3:27 AM


wrong again, for you confuse 'fear of punishment' with morality.
No I do not.
When you tell me falsehoods about my own opinions, you are not going to deceive me.
the japanese are a good example. their main 'religion' has no moral teachings then they suspended it for ww2. removing their religious beliefs allowed them to commit the most immoral acts against other nations.
remove religion remove morality. there are those who did not follow that path and kept to their moral teachings BUT all morality comes from God thus even though a secular person may teach a 'moral code' they did not invent it, they got it from someone else who got it from someone else who got it from someone else and so on until we get back to God.
History fail.
atheism is not moral, just look at ho wyou all talk about christians and what you want to do with them. you want to strip them of the same rights you enjoy and manyother things
You are, once more, telling me untruths about my own opinions.
hypocrisy, double standards, fibbing, fudging, being dishonest, manipulation, and so much more that you all practice is NOT morality.
And my actions.
you may think because you do not kill, rape or steal (cars, etc ) that you are moral, but morality goes a lot further than that. you may think you are a good person but you need to compare yourself with the sandard--Jesus and God-- then see where you stack up.
And I notice that I have committed genocide a lot less often than your imaginary godlet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by archaeologist, posted 08-28-2010 3:27 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 376 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 98 of 181 (577348)
08-28-2010 8:54 AM


population
How much are the doctrines of Christianity and Islam to blame for the over population of the world? Is it their ridiculous birth control policies or is it just the need to breed? What do the Hindus think about it?
It strikes me that uncontrolled population growth is a disaster in the making.
{AbE} Also striking that as general education rises pop growth slows.
Edited by Dogmafood, : No reason given.

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2504 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 99 of 181 (577349)
08-28-2010 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by archaeologist
08-28-2010 3:27 AM


God's low standards of morality.
archaeologist writes:
you may think because you do not kill, rape or steal (cars, etc ) that you are moral, but morality goes a lot further than that. you may think you are a good person but you need to compare yourself with the sandard--Jesus and God-- then see where you stack up.
Should we all start stoning people to death on a regular basis?
Would you torture someone to death for collecting firewood?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by archaeologist, posted 08-28-2010 3:27 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 421 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 100 of 181 (577360)
08-28-2010 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by archaeologist
08-28-2010 3:27 AM


archaeologist writes:
you may think you are a good person but you need to compare yourself with the sandard--Jesus and God-- then see where you stack up.
I do not destroy peoples businesses nor kill their livestock nor do I take money from the treasury to buy sweet smelling oils for myself.
Have you ever actually read the Bible?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by archaeologist, posted 08-28-2010 3:27 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
Woodsy
Member (Idle past 3401 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


Message 101 of 181 (577366)
08-28-2010 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by archaeologist
08-27-2010 6:55 PM


where do you think those maorals come from? theydo not come from the apes as one researcher claimed, they come from the Bible and have preceeded every secular nation on earth thus secularists were taught biblical principles andm orals even though it is not credited.
This is nonsense. The bible promotes all sorts of horrible evils: genocide, slavery, rape, family abandonment etc.
In any case, people do not get morality from the bible, they rummage around in it to justify whatever it is they want to do to start with. It has been used to justify apartheid, slavery, war, and a vast array of hatreds and bigotries.
The morals needed to allow people to live together are obvious to anyone with a brain. Of course this basis is mentioned by religions. Most of the rest is a con job designed to subject people to the will of priests, pastors, vicar, rabbis, imams - the whole sorry rabble.
The end effect of relion is people who are actually incapable of real moral reasoning, but rather are terrified followers of arbitrary rules.
Edited by Woodsy, : spelling fix

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by archaeologist, posted 08-27-2010 6:55 PM archaeologist has not replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1417
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 6.4


Message 102 of 181 (577767)
08-30-2010 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by ringo
08-27-2010 7:15 PM


Re: Religion = Bonbons
ringo writes:
You seem to be assuming that critical thinking produces Standard Answers for everybody.
No, and I don't where you are getting this? Except for the "necessarily harmful" part, I think my argument has been consistent, but if I am still failing you, here it is again:
Critical thinking is BETTER than irrational thinking. In early child development, it is BETTER to DISPLACE irrational thinking/learning (e.g., religious dogma) with critical thinking/learning (creative problem solving or science).
ringo writes:
You could easily have two parties using all of their critical thinking skills and both coming to the conclusion to exterminate the other.
I suppose, but this ultimately SEEMS like an argument AGAINST critical thinking, and possibly, in favor FOR irrational thinking. As you previously already wrote:
ringo writes:
Dogma of any kind should be discouraged. Critical thinking should be encouraged.
I am not sure where your seemingly contradictive current argument is leading. Do you or don't you want to encourage critical thinking skills?
ringo writes:
Critical thinking is good for factual matters like evolution but it's not so good for matters of opinion like who should own Alsace-Lorraine.
Are you saying critical thinking is "necessarily" not so good at matters of opinion?
Edited by dronester, : clarity
Edited by dronester, : clarity, clarity, clarity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by ringo, posted 08-27-2010 7:15 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by ringo, posted 08-30-2010 12:31 PM dronestar has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 439 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 103 of 181 (577793)
08-30-2010 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by dronestar
08-30-2010 10:32 AM


Re: Religion = Bonbons
dronester writes:
ringo writes:
You seem to be assuming that critical thinking produces Standard Answers for everybody.
No, and I don't where you are getting this?
I'm getting it from statements like this:
quote:
Critical thinking is BETTER than irrational thinking.
How can it be unequivocally "better" if there's no standard? How do you measure the quality of anything without a standard?
dronester writes:
ringo writes:
You could easily have two parties using all of their critical thinking skills and both coming to the conclusion to exterminate the other.
I suppose, but this ultimately SEEMS like an argument AGAINST critical thinking, and possibly, in favor FOR irrational thinking.
No. It's an argument against the notion that critical thinking produces "good" results and non-critical thinking produces "bad" results. It should be clear that critical thinking can produce conflicting results, which can have bad consequences.
dronester writes:
ringo writes:
Critical thinking is good for factual matters like evolution but it's not so good for matters of opinion like who should own Alsace-Lorraine.
Are you saying critical thinking is "necessarily" not so good at matters of opinion?
Yes. Critical thinking isn't going to help me choose a flavour of ice cream, nor is it going to determine the same "good" answer for everybody on political matters.
Like any tool, the use of critical thinking should be encouraged for those areas where it is applicable. It may or may not produce a net "better" result in the world.

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by dronestar, posted 08-30-2010 10:32 AM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by dronestar, posted 08-30-2010 2:39 PM ringo has replied
 Message 107 by Dogmafood, posted 09-01-2010 5:34 PM ringo has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1417
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 6.4


Message 104 of 181 (577819)
08-30-2010 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by ringo
08-30-2010 12:31 PM


Re: Religion = Bonbons
Ringo,
Perhaps it was the wrong day for me to start sniffing glue, but I am unclear in your statements/questions.
Your wrote in message #84 of 103 (577192):
ringo writes:
Dogma of any kind should be discouraged. Critical thinking should be encouraged.
Yet you're asking me:
ringo writes:
How can it [critical thinking] be unequivocally "better" if there's no standard? How do you measure the quality of anything without a standard?
If it is true that there is no standard, why do you ALSO think critical thinking should be encouraged? Please explain.
ringo writes:
No. It's an argument against the notion that critical thinking produces "good" results and non-critical thinking produces "bad" results.
Whoops, I noticed you switched my term "irrational thinking" with your term "non-critical thinking". Are they EXACTLY the same? If not exactly the same, let's continue using the word "irrational". (Reminder, my argument is: Critical thinking is BETTER than irrational thinking.)
ringo writes:
It should be clear that critical thinking can produce conflicting results, which can have bad consequences.
If critical thinking can produce conflicting results, then why are you also encouraging it: ?
ringo writes:
Critical thinking should be encouraged.
Please explain this apparent contradiction.
ringo writes:
nor is it going to determine the same "good" answer for everybody on political matters.
I've been trying to use "BETTER than" instead of "good":
dronester writes:
Critical thinking is BETTER than irrational thinking.
So the much better posed question becomes "will critical thinking be BETTER than irrational thinking when determining political matters?" Please answer.
ringo writes:
Like any tool, the use of critical thinking should be encouraged for those areas where it is applicable.
Of course.
ringo writes:
It may or may not produce a net "better" result in the world.
If this is so, then you need to explain why you wrote:
ringo writes:
Dogma of any kind should be discouraged. Critical thinking should be encouraged.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by ringo, posted 08-30-2010 12:31 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by ringo, posted 08-30-2010 3:31 PM dronestar has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 439 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 105 of 181 (577824)
08-30-2010 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by dronestar
08-30-2010 2:39 PM


Re: Religion = Bonbons
dronester writes:
If it is true that there is no standard, why do you ALSO think critical thinking should be encouraged?
I think it should be encouraged because it's a useful tool, not because it's the only tool or the best tool for every application.
dronester writes:
Whoops, I noticed you switched my term "irrational thinking" with your term "non-critical thinking". Are they EXACTLY the same? If not exactly the same, let's continue using the word "irrational". (Reminder, my argument is: Critical thinking is BETTER than irrational thinking.)
Yes, I deliberately backspaced to change it because "irrational' has negative connotations. Insisting on calling all non-critical thinking "irrational" is probably a false dichotomy too.
dronester writes:
If critical thinking can produce conflicting results, then why are you also encouraging it: ?
A hammer can produce conflicting results: fine woodworking or smashed thumbs. I encourage the use of hammers for fine woodworking.
dronester writes:
I've been trying to use "BETTER than" instead of "good":
dronester writes:
Critical thinking is BETTER than irrational thinking.
And I've been trying to say that critical thinking is only "better" in some situations.
dronester writes:
So the much better posed question becomes "will critical thinking be BETTER than irrational thinking when determining political matters?" Please answer.
The answer is "not necessarily". Consider the example of Alsace-Lorraine that I gave. Who should it belong to? The Germans say it should belong to Germany and the French say it should belong to France. Both sides have their rational reasons, cultural, historical, etc. How is that situation any "better" than just saying that one way or the other "looks nicer" on the map?
dronester writes:
ringo writes:
It may or may not produce a net "better" result in the world.
If this is so, then you need to explain why you wrote:
ringo writes:
Dogma of any kind should be discouraged. Critical thinking should be encouraged.
Dogma should be discouraged because it is an area where critical thinking is applicable. If the "word of God" is followed blindly without critical thought, it can result in persecuting homosexuals, etc.
That doesn't necessarily imply a net improvement in the world situation. The Alsace-Lorraine example, arguably a product of critical thanking, led to two world wars - arguably a huge net loss for critical thinking.

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by dronestar, posted 08-30-2010 2:39 PM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by dronestar, posted 09-01-2010 4:32 PM ringo has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024