In response to our declining christain morality
-
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
I'm sure Buddhism is great. I just don't know enough about it, nor do I have time to meditate. I got bills to pay.
Yeah, so do I... I think you missed the point. I happen to be amongst the stronger critics of religion in the SoapBox. You're kind of stepping on my territory here and not doing a very thorough job of it. I mean you rant about how the Bible is wrong and there is no God and then you go off about "values" and "ideals" and "God-given" this and that. I mean, it's not really helpful to me; as a result you're kind of undermining my position. Red is amongst the more vocal proponents of Christianity, but occasionally this Matthew Faithfull dude does the same thing to Red as you just did to me - the "undermining" bit... So it's like a balance, you see. The Yin and Yang - so I suggested that perhaps both Red and I were wrong in our respective positions and the Bhuddists were maybe right... Anyways, I give your rant about 6.5 out of 10. Why? You've internally contradicted yourself and have done nothing to strengthen my position.
73Zeppelin wrote:
I happen to be amongst the stronger critics of religion in the SoapBox.
a bit narcissistic are we? but seriously, i dont have much time to post on here, but i get enough time to read the back and forth. even though i dont support any or red's rants, i believe he helps to open these debates, and i find them entertaining and on the very RARE occasion somewhat informative. If I had the time to both post and look up the resources to cite, id be right here with you, but all i can supply are bits and pieces from past readings...
------------------------------ I win because I have the most fun in life...
-
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
I don't know if there is a god or not.
You said there is a 0% chance of an afterlife. So you just change your mind when challenged? :rolleyes:
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
What I do know is that the big three Christianity / Islam / Judiasm are not the answer.
How? Certainly an esteemed man of reason such as yourself can summarize how you've methodically come to this conclusion.
Red Stateler wrote:
You said there is a 0% chance of an afterlife. So you just change your mind when challenged?
No you misunderstood. 0% chance of a biblical heaven and hell.
-
Give me a break. I'm telling you right now. When you die there is 0% chance that the after life (if there is one) is as described in the bible. There is flat out no chance that you will be in heaven with Jesus and I will spend eternity rotting in hell. As if I will concisously suffer for Billions of years because I chose to use my brain instead of blindly following a book full of non-sensical contradictions that don't apply to modern life. Much of biblical morality was needed in a society without birth control. The Bible was a great framework for creation of a stable society. But times change, and Christianity is becoming increasingly more irrelevant. I would argue that increasing "social anomie" - Alienation and purposelessness experienced by a person or a class as a result of a lack of standards, values, or ideals - is a major part of our problem. Since our victory in World War II, Americans do lack purpose. No matter how money you make, you're still gonna die, so what's the point? The solution is not to find Jesus, but rather for all of us to use our god given intelligence, imagination and technology to figure out why the hell we are here in the first place. IMHO, the purpose of humanity might just be to figure out the purpose of humanity. Once we figure that out, perhaps we can start living for each other instead of living in a state of purposelessness and these murders / suicides will decrease.
Hope that hook was tasty... ;)
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
Once we figure that out, perhaps we can start living for each other instead of living in a state of purposelessness and these murders / suicides will decrease.
We could just do that anyway. I mean, living for each other instead of being so self-absorbed that when unable to find some grand driving Purpose we conclude our lives and by extension everyone else's are worthless. We could totally do that right now, without any assurance that the menial tasks we've found for ourselves are or are not the purpose for which we exist. And yet, we don't...
----
Yes, but can you blame them for doing so if that's the only legal way they can hire programmers they want at the rate they can afford?
-- Nish on sketchy hiring practices
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
I happen to be amongst the stronger critics of religion in the SoapBox.
a bit narcissistic are we? but seriously, i dont have much time to post on here, but i get enough time to read the back and forth. even though i dont support any or red's rants, i believe he helps to open these debates, and i find them entertaining and on the very RARE occasion somewhat informative. If I had the time to both post and look up the resources to cite, id be right here with you, but all i can supply are bits and pieces from past readings...
------------------------------ I win because I have the most fun in life...
VonHagNDaz wrote:
a bit narcissistic are we?
I hear the ocean's a tad wet these days too... :rolleyes:
----
Yes, but can you blame them for doing so if that's the only legal way they can hire programmers they want at the rate they can afford?
-- Nish on sketchy hiring practices
-
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
The one thing that makes me hopeful that the absurd notion of God / After-Life exists is that it is completely absurd that people exist in the first place.
You should really quit while you're ahead... :doh:
Why is there only one species that has the ability to contemplate its own existence? We are the only species on Earth that no longer lives to procreate. We have moved beyond the rules of nature. Why?
-
string name = "" wrote: Yeah, i'm sure... Yes, secretly I want you to bear my children... :rolleyes:
-
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
Simple. Because if you look at religion outside of the context of the religion itself you can see how it has been molded / modified by man and not by an omnipotent being. Why would God give people the ability to reason only to ask them to disregard their reason in favor of blind faith.
Your premise is flawed since it assumes that reason is abandoned with religion. As I pointed out yesterday, reason and science actually sprouted from the religious. Secondly, how is the Bible "blind faith"? As I also recently pointed out, it's a historical text written by witnesses. If your belief system requires that historical texts be disregarded, then I'd have to say that yours is based on a lack of reason.
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
I grew up with some friends who came from a Muslim nation. People in that nation are indoctrinated into Islam just Christians are indoctrinated here. It's not God that is controlling these people, it is other people.
Or like atheists are indoctrinated in our school system or in Europe or in communist nations. Once again, your belief system depends on the opposite of reason as it assumes that you have a special monopoly on it and Christians simply have no access to it. That is backwards and a fundamentalist belief shared by Muslims. Also, Christians are not coerced into Christianity here as Muslims are in the Middle East, so your "reasoned" comparison is lacking. Oh yeah, and you failed to answer my question. Exactly how did you logically calculate the odds of an afterlife?
I can't say with 100% certainty OK. You win, there is a 0.000000009% chance that a biblical heaven and hell exist.
-
Give me a break. I'm telling you right now. When you die there is 0% chance that the after life (if there is one) is as described in the bible. There is flat out no chance that you will be in heaven with Jesus and I will spend eternity rotting in hell. As if I will concisously suffer for Billions of years because I chose to use my brain instead of blindly following a book full of non-sensical contradictions that don't apply to modern life. Much of biblical morality was needed in a society without birth control. The Bible was a great framework for creation of a stable society. But times change, and Christianity is becoming increasingly more irrelevant. I would argue that increasing "social anomie" - Alienation and purposelessness experienced by a person or a class as a result of a lack of standards, values, or ideals - is a major part of our problem. Since our victory in World War II, Americans do lack purpose. No matter how money you make, you're still gonna die, so what's the point? The solution is not to find Jesus, but rather for all of us to use our god given intelligence, imagination and technology to figure out why the hell we are here in the first place. IMHO, the purpose of humanity might just be to figure out the purpose of humanity. Once we figure that out, perhaps we can start living for each other instead of living in a state of purposelessness and these murders / suicides will decrease.
I have to disagree with your anti-religious statements because my beliefs require me too nor would debating about those statements sway either of our opinions so I will not discuss them further. Those statements aside, I really disagree with your statement quoted below.
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
As if I will concisously suffer for Billions of years because I chose to use my brain instead of blindly following a book full of non-sensical contradictions that don't apply to modern life.
Correct me if I am wrong but I think you are trying to discredit the bible as a good source of moral values in today's world. Many of the values written in the bible (New Testament especially) is a basis of moral framework that is the US and many other countries today. Are the ideas of loving your neighbor, enemy, etc not revelant in today's world? Granted, you may not have learned your morals from the Bible (or some other religious source), I would be willing to bet that someone in your ancestry did. However, I do agree with your statments about "social anomie". I propose that another big source of the problem is that people are no longer being held accountable for their actions. If someone is doing something wrong they are not being called out by others. It is kind of like parents not disciplining their children for doing things that are not right. Many of these people committing the suicide do not have a support structure to fall back on. They sit at home watching TV instead of creating supportive relationships to help. For many people, religion helps them get out into the world to meet others like themselves. This gives them the support structure they need.
Brett A. Whittington Application Developer
-
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
Simple. Because if you look at religion outside of the context of the religion itself you can see how it has been molded / modified by man and not by an omnipotent being. Why would God give people the ability to reason only to ask them to disregard their reason in favor of blind faith.
Your premise is flawed since it assumes that reason is abandoned with religion. As I pointed out yesterday, reason and science actually sprouted from the religious. Secondly, how is the Bible "blind faith"? As I also recently pointed out, it's a historical text written by witnesses. If your belief system requires that historical texts be disregarded, then I'd have to say that yours is based on a lack of reason.
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
I grew up with some friends who came from a Muslim nation. People in that nation are indoctrinated into Islam just Christians are indoctrinated here. It's not God that is controlling these people, it is other people.
Or like atheists are indoctrinated in our school system or in Europe or in communist nations. Once again, your belief system depends on the opposite of reason as it assumes that you have a special monopoly on it and Christians simply have no access to it. That is backwards and a fundamentalist belief shared by Muslims. Also, Christians are not coerced into Christianity here as Muslims are in the Middle East, so your "reasoned" comparison is lacking. Oh yeah, and you failed to answer my question. Exactly how did you logically calculate the odds of an afterlife?
Red Stateler wrote:
As I pointed out yesterday, reason and science actually sprouted from the religious.
Bah! Science sprouted from the most advanced societies of the day. The fact that those societies also had religious underpinnings is meaningless. Hell, religion (with its pseudo ability to "explain" origins and consequences) was actually the "science" of the time. Some religions actually claimed that the earth was supported by large turtles. Science proves otherwise. What will today's religious zealots say when science can create life or find it's true origin?
-
I can't say with 100% certainty OK. You win, there is a 0.000000009% chance that a biblical heaven and hell exist.
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
You win, there is a 0.000000009% chance that a biblical heaven and hell exist.
I can't say with 100% certainty either. I'm just curious as to how you come up with 0% or 0.000000009%. You said you reasoning is entirely based on the proper use of your brain. I'm astonished at its capabilities and I just want to know your methodologies.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
As I pointed out yesterday, reason and science actually sprouted from the religious.
Bah! Science sprouted from the most advanced societies of the day. The fact that those societies also had religious underpinnings is meaningless. Hell, religion (with its pseudo ability to "explain" origins and consequences) was actually the "science" of the time. Some religions actually claimed that the earth was supported by large turtles. Science proves otherwise. What will today's religious zealots say when science can create life or find it's true origin?
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Bah! Science sprouted from the most advanced societies of the day. The fact that those societies also had religious underpinnings is meaningless. Hell, religion (with it pseudo ability to "explain" origins and consequences) was actually the "science" of the time.
The individuals who progressed natural philosophy did so in the name of religion, not to rebel against it. The notion that science belongs to atheists is simply incorrect. It's an attempt to hijack science and make it your own while painting religion to be at philosophical odds with science.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Some religions actually claimed that the earth was supported by large turtles. Science proves otherwise. What will today's religious zealots say when science can create life or find it's true origin?
So?
-
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
Give me a break. I'm telling you right now. When you die there is 0% chance that the after life (if there is one) is as described in the bible. There is flat out no chance that you will be in heaven with Jesus and I will spend eternity rotting in hell.
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
I chose to use my brain instead of blindly following a book
Can you explain how you used your brain to come to this very quantified conclusion?
-
Can you explain how you used your brain to come up with the very quantified conclusion that God exists? Oh, wait, that is a loaded question.
The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. - John Adams
Yes it is, since I never made that claim.
-
Yes it is, since I never made that claim.
-
You have never claimed that God exists?
The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. - John Adams
I have never claimed that I can calculate the probability of or prove his existence.
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Bah! Science sprouted from the most advanced societies of the day. The fact that those societies also had religious underpinnings is meaningless. Hell, religion (with it pseudo ability to "explain" origins and consequences) was actually the "science" of the time.
The individuals who progressed natural philosophy did so in the name of religion, not to rebel against it. The notion that science belongs to atheists is simply incorrect. It's an attempt to hijack science and make it your own while painting religion to be at philosophical odds with science.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Some religions actually claimed that the earth was supported by large turtles. Science proves otherwise. What will today's religious zealots say when science can create life or find it's true origin?
So?
Red Stateler wrote:
The notion that science belongs to atheists is simply incorrect.
I never made the claim.
Red Stateler wrote:
It's an attempt to hijack science and make it your own while...
Again, nobody is claiming that the first (or all) scientists were atheists or that atheists "own" science. Sheeeesh!
Red Stateler wrote:
...while painting religion to be at philosophical odds with science.
You cannot deny that at times in history organized religion has attempted to stifle science when it discredited some current religious belief. Science discredits more and more religious tenets in every generation. At some point in the near-ish future science will steam roll religion. Deal with it.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Can you explain how you used your brain to come to this very quantified conclusion?
Simple. Because if you look at religion outside of the context of the religion itself you can see how it has been molded / modified by man and not by an omnipotent being. Why would God give people the ability to reason only to ask them to disregard their reason in favor of blind faith. I grew up with some friends who came from a Muslim nation. People in that nation are indoctrinated into Islam just Christians are indoctrinated here. It's not God that is controlling these people, it is other people.
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
Simple. Because if you look at religion outside of the context of the religion itself you can see how it has been molded / modified by man and not by an omnipotent being.
For arguments sake, assume that God exists and revealed a message to humankind would you be able to see that (using your reasoning and criteria for truth) from where you are standing and if so would you follow that path?
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
Why would God give people the ability to reason only to ask them to disregard their reason in favor of blind faith.
From an Islamic perspective, you reason so that you may discern the true message from falsehood. Once you are convinced of that, you do not go on questioning every detail (especially in the matters of the unseen) because you are already convinced it is from the creator. That is not to say you do not try to understand it.
Who is the creator? Finding Allah (Video) Surah Al-An'aam (Ayah 74-110)
-
I don't think I contradict myself. I don't know if there is a god or not. What I do know is that the big three Christianity / Islam / Judiasm are not the answer. The one thing that makes me hopeful that the absurd notion of God / After-Life exists is that it is completely absurd that people exist in the first place.
-
I have to disagree with your anti-religious statements because my beliefs require me too nor would debating about those statements sway either of our opinions so I will not discuss them further. Those statements aside, I really disagree with your statement quoted below.
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
As if I will concisously suffer for Billions of years because I chose to use my brain instead of blindly following a book full of non-sensical contradictions that don't apply to modern life.
Correct me if I am wrong but I think you are trying to discredit the bible as a good source of moral values in today's world. Many of the values written in the bible (New Testament especially) is a basis of moral framework that is the US and many other countries today. Are the ideas of loving your neighbor, enemy, etc not revelant in today's world? Granted, you may not have learned your morals from the Bible (or some other religious source), I would be willing to bet that someone in your ancestry did. However, I do agree with your statments about "social anomie". I propose that another big source of the problem is that people are no longer being held accountable for their actions. If someone is doing something wrong they are not being called out by others. It is kind of like parents not disciplining their children for doing things that are not right. Many of these people committing the suicide do not have a support structure to fall back on. They sit at home watching TV instead of creating supportive relationships to help. For many people, religion helps them get out into the world to meet others like themselves. This gives them the support structure they need.
Brett A. Whittington Application Developer
bwhittington wrote:
I would be willing to bet that someone in your ancestry did.
And those ancestors that predate religion? Where they completely immoral at all times or did religion just happen when people needed it? How many religions have emerged when people were a-ok? None.
"People who want to share their religious views with you almost never want you to share yours with them." - Anonymous Web - Blog - RSS - Math - LinkedIn - BM
-
Red Stateler wrote:
The notion that science belongs to atheists is simply incorrect.
I never made the claim.
Red Stateler wrote:
It's an attempt to hijack science and make it your own while...
Again, nobody is claiming that the first (or all) scientists were atheists or that atheists "own" science. Sheeeesh!
Red Stateler wrote:
...while painting religion to be at philosophical odds with science.
You cannot deny that at times in history organized religion has attempted to stifle science when it discredited some current religious belief. Science discredits more and more religious tenets in every generation. At some point in the near-ish future science will steam roll religion. Deal with it.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
I never made the claim.
It was intended to be a general statement.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Again, nobody is claiming that the first (or all) scientists were atheists or that atheists "own" science. Sheeeesh!
Actually secular humanism contends that science makes religion obsolete. The entire concept that science and religion is at odds, when in fact science was created by the religious, is flawed.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
You cannot deny that at times in history organized religion has attempted to stifle science when it discredited some current religious belief.
Of course. Because prior to science, philosophy was used to describe with world. But I fail to see the relevance.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Science discredits more and more religious tenets in every generation. At some point in the near-ish future science will steam roll religion. Deal with it.
Um...No it doesn't. It basically discredited Genesis, but the literal interpretation of "days" was debated for centuries. But having just denied that atheists attempt to wield science as a supposed prop for their philosophy against religion, you just attempted to do so.