In response to our declining christain morality
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Parts of Judaism take into account that we don't know 100%. Learning and debate is so important that a library has higher importance than a synagogue. You could convert a synagogue into a library, but not the other way.
______________________ stuff + cats = awesome
-
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
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
How many religions have emerged when people were a-ok? None.
How about the Greeks?
-
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.
Red Stateler wrote:
The entire concept that science and religion is at odds, when in fact science was created by the religious, is flawed.
Hardly... automobiles sprouted from horse drawn buggies in much the same way science sprouted from religion. Humans had a need for transportation - ultimately science provided a more efficient model. Humans have a need to understand their origins - ultimately science will provide an answer and religion becomes obsolete.
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
How many religions have emerged when people were a-ok? None.
How about the Greeks?
Are you admitting that Greek mythology was a religion? Then maybe today's religions are tomorrow's mythologies? Although I am familiar with Greek and Norse mythology/religion, I have never heard of how they came about. I believe back then, a god was created for everything, which means it was done out of habit, but I could be mistaken.
"There are II kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who understand Roman numerals." - Bassam Abdul-Baki Web - Blog - RSS - Math - LinkedIn - BM
-
Red Stateler wrote:
The entire concept that science and religion is at odds, when in fact science was created by the religious, is flawed.
Hardly... automobiles sprouted from horse drawn buggies in much the same way science sprouted from religion. Humans had a need for transportation - ultimately science provided a more efficient model. Humans have a need to understand their origins - ultimately science will provide an answer and religion becomes obsolete.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Hardly... automobiles sprouted from horse drawn buggies in much the same way science sprouted from religion. Humans had a need for transportation - ultimately science provided a more efficient model. Humans have a need to understand their origins - ultimately science will provide an answer and religion becomes obsolete.
So having just denied that science sprung from religion, you're now admitting it did. Again, your comparison is flawed because it assumes that science and religion have the same goals: Natural philosophy. That is wrong. Religion concerns itself with theology, the spirit, the after life, etc... In fact, Christianity specifically opposes the application of theology to the physical world (denouncing it as mysticism and sinful). A thousand years ago, when mankind lacked the intellectual tools to study the world around it, it naturally used the tools it had available... Namely philosophy (specifically that philosophy derived from Aristotle). There was a natural overlap with theology because the Catholic Church was basically the dominant philosophical force and would recognize various theories as official or not (just as they recognize evolution today), thereby giving rise to accusations of "heresy" now and again. They were not necessarily derived from religious texts. But therein lies the problem with your thinking. While you have philosophically merged natural philosophy and theology (much in the same way as it overlapped in the middle ages), Christianity correctly treats them as two distinct philosophies. So no, given that science has difference goals and a different domain that religion, it cannot make religion obsolete. It can only attempt to displace existing religions by treating it as a religion.
-
Are you admitting that Greek mythology was a religion? Then maybe today's religions are tomorrow's mythologies? Although I am familiar with Greek and Norse mythology/religion, I have never heard of how they came about. I believe back then, a god was created for everything, which means it was done out of habit, but I could be mistaken.
"There are II kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who understand Roman numerals." - Bassam Abdul-Baki Web - Blog - RSS - Math - LinkedIn - BM
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Are you admitting that Greek mythology was a religion? Then maybe today's religions are tomorrow's mythologies?
So you think atheism will become a mythology? Read Plato and you'll see how seriously they took their Gods.
-
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)
A.A. wrote:
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?
Good question. I'd like to think I would but one never truly knows until it happens. I'll wait... :) Let's reverse it now: If science could absolutely disprove the existence of God thus discrediting any/all prophets could you accept that from where you are standing?
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Are you admitting that Greek mythology was a religion? Then maybe today's religions are tomorrow's mythologies?
So you think atheism will become a mythology? Read Plato and you'll see how seriously they took their Gods.
Atheism is not a religion by my definition and there will always be atheists for it to ever go away. I'm not claiming the Greeks didn't believe in it, but religion becomes mythology when people "outgrow" it. To me, faith and religion are two separate things.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle Web - Blog - RSS - Math - LinkedIn - BM
-
A.A. wrote:
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?
Good question. I'd like to think I would but one never truly knows until it happens. I'll wait... :) Let's reverse it now: If science could absolutely disprove the existence of God thus discrediting any/all prophets could you accept that from where you are standing?
Mike Mullikin wrote:
If science could absolutely disprove the existence of God
That is an impossibility. :)
"This perpetual motion machine she made is a joke. It just keeps going faster and faster. Lisa, get in here! In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" - Homer Simpson Web - Blog - RSS - Math - LinkedIn - BM
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Hardly... automobiles sprouted from horse drawn buggies in much the same way science sprouted from religion. Humans had a need for transportation - ultimately science provided a more efficient model. Humans have a need to understand their origins - ultimately science will provide an answer and religion becomes obsolete.
So having just denied that science sprung from religion, you're now admitting it did. Again, your comparison is flawed because it assumes that science and religion have the same goals: Natural philosophy. That is wrong. Religion concerns itself with theology, the spirit, the after life, etc... In fact, Christianity specifically opposes the application of theology to the physical world (denouncing it as mysticism and sinful). A thousand years ago, when mankind lacked the intellectual tools to study the world around it, it naturally used the tools it had available... Namely philosophy (specifically that philosophy derived from Aristotle). There was a natural overlap with theology because the Catholic Church was basically the dominant philosophical force and would recognize various theories as official or not (just as they recognize evolution today), thereby giving rise to accusations of "heresy" now and again. They were not necessarily derived from religious texts. But therein lies the problem with your thinking. While you have philosophically merged natural philosophy and theology (much in the same way as it overlapped in the middle ages), Christianity correctly treats them as two distinct philosophies. So no, given that science has difference goals and a different domain that religion, it cannot make religion obsolete. It can only attempt to displace existing religions by treating it as a religion.
-
The problem as I see it, is that organized religion keeps changing its goals and philosophies along the way in an effort to stay viable and maintain control over the unwashed masses. Thats really what its all about.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
The problem as I see it, is that organized religion keeps changing its goals and philosophies along the way in an effort to stay viable and maintain control over the unwashed masses. Thats really what its all about.
In the course of nearly 2,000 years, Christianity has not changed its core foundation as a path to salvation and forgiveness of sins. Secular humanism, however, has adopted moral relativism which guarantees changing goals and philosophies from person to person and day to day. While Christianity incessently espouses freedom and democracy (since salvation is a personal responsibility and cannot be coerced), secular humanism incessently espouses Marxism. No form of government in the entire history of the world has sought control over the unwashed masses (literally catering to them as part of its foundation) as those governments sprung from atheism.
-
The problem as I see it, is that organized religion keeps changing its goals and philosophies along the way in an effort to stay viable and maintain control over the unwashed masses. Thats really what its all about.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
The problem as I see it, is that organized religion keeps changing its goals and philosophies along the way in an effort to stay viable and maintain control over the unwashed masses.
most of us bathe, honest.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Thats really what its all about.
you're delusional. "This" is about community, charity, common belief systems.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
The problem as I see it, is that organized religion keeps changing its goals and philosophies along the way in an effort to stay viable and maintain control over the unwashed masses.
most of us bathe, honest.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Thats really what its all about.
you're delusional. "This" is about community, charity, common belief systems.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
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:
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.
It is mostly the sexual mores of Christianity that I take issue with. Also, I see a lot of nice cars in the church parking lot where they are worshiping a guy who probably wouldn't even own one if he was alive today. The ideas of loving your neighbor had to exist before the bible because someone had to think them up in order to write them in bible. My guess is that Jesus was a stoner, that's why he preached all those hippie values.