2 of 7
2
Finally, a place to discuss the world logically!
Posted: 14 January 2011 11:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3799
Joined  2010-08-15
Write4U - 13 January 2011 10:49 PM

I agree. Scriptures do contain valid moral guides. Unfortunately, the good is often overwhelmed and obscured by the mythical falsehoods.

To say nothing of willful manipulation by worldly interests

 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 January 2011 02:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  137
Joined  2011-01-10

Adding to what I was saying about not knowing if there is an afterlife…......

I guess it just seems that most religious people spend a majority of their life here on earth (the only life we are certain of) - worrying about their place in “heaven”, Or being overly concerned with not doing anything wrong or bad and going to “hell” But lets face it - at some point in our lives, we are all going to do something that the bible condemns - or doesn’t approve of - Religion is the only part of this world that refuses to evolve and adapt to the continuously changing world - the pope recently adjusted his stance on condom use, and that it can be acceptable is one of the people involved has HIV….......

This totally reminds me of my philosophy classes - and this one discussion we had about THE DIVINE COMMAND THEORY. “Is it good because god commands it, or does god command it because it is good” Whatever stance the pope has on condom use, it doesn’t change the fact that the rest of the world is aware of how HIV is spread and knows the benefits of using condoms.  And how could the pope expect his followers to put the word of god before their own health and quality of life? That’s selfish and devaluing human life.

Another good point while im ranting on this topic….. the pope prohibits condom use and other forms of birth control, and claims that homosexual intercourse is condemned because it is not natural (aka - it can not result in conception) ................ that being said, I have a REALLY hard time believing that anyone of the same faith - only has sex to procreate…....... that would mean that fellatio, and other forms of universally common intimacies between two people is “wrong” There is NO way you can tell me that you can tell how many times a married couple has had sex by the number of children they have,

I sincerely hope that people can see religion for how and what it really is, before it’s too late. I know they say that life would lose meaning without God - but I will refuse that to anyone - Knowledge and truth is so much more satisfying on a spiritual level - the more you learn about the world, the more you realize how much you dont know and may never know - which is very humbling. Go to a park on a clear summer night and just look up at the stars, think about how far away they are, and how we came to discover how far they were, and then try to justify how this entire mysterious universe came to be made in just 6 days…..... the complexities in nature are beyond what most of us could imagine.

 Signature 

“Gods don’t kill people. People with Gods kill people.”

– David Viaene

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 January 2011 06:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5191
Joined  2010-06-16

Your argument is logical and rational, Missmac,  Unfortunately, many are taught to value the authoritative statements and biblical interpretations by their religious leaders far more highly than their own reasoning.  As I recall, there was even a post here some time ago quoting some minister as telling his congregation that logic and critical thinking were tools of the devil to instill doubt and should be avoided at all costs.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 February 2011 09:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  137
Joined  2011-01-10

I think doubt is a good thing….....we would not have learn all we know now, if we took all statements or exclamaintions as true.

like “the earth is flat” if someone didnt doubt that statement, and went about proving it to be wrong, who knows what people would be like today..

 Signature 

“Gods don’t kill people. People with Gods kill people.”

– David Viaene

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 February 2011 10:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7506
Joined  2007-03-02

Welcome MissMac.  Glad to have you here.  Sorry I’m a little late welcoming you.  Somehow I missed this one.  Anyway, if you haven’t already, please jump right in and join the conversations.  I’m sure you’ll enjoy it here.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 February 2011 11:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7641
Joined  2008-04-11
missmac - 02 February 2011 09:51 AM

I think doubt is a good thing….....we would not have learn all we know now, if we took all statements or exclamaintions as true.

like “the earth is flat” if someone didnt doubt that statement, and went about proving it to be wrong, who knows what people would be like today..

You’d be surprised to find that there is still a robust ‘Flat Earth Society’ in the USA today!

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 February 2011 04:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5191
Joined  2010-06-16

To paraphrase a similar statment - It’s probably impossible to think of an idea so stupid that there isn’t someone who believes it.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 February 2011 06:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4626
Joined  2007-10-05
Occam. - 02 February 2011 04:39 PM

To paraphrase a similar statment - It’s probably impossible to think of an idea so stupid that there isn’t someone who believes it.

Occam

Scientology proves that statement true.

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 February 2011 08:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7641
Joined  2008-04-11
DarronS - 03 February 2011 06:58 PM
Occam. - 02 February 2011 04:39 PM

To paraphrase a similar statment - It’s probably impossible to think of an idea so stupid that there isn’t someone who believes it.

Occam

Scientology proves that statement true.

No disputing THAT!

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 February 2011 05:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3024
Joined  2010-04-26
asanta - 02 February 2011 11:20 AM

You’d be surprised to find that there is still a robust ‘Flat Earth Society’ in the USA today!

If you’re talking about the actual Flat Earth Society, then no, there isn’t.  Last I saw, it had less than 100 members.

 Signature 

“In the end nature is horrific and teaches us nothing.” -Mutual of Omicron

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 February 2011 07:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7641
Joined  2008-04-11
Dead Monky - 04 February 2011 05:22 PM
asanta - 02 February 2011 11:20 AM

You’d be surprised to find that there is still a robust ‘Flat Earth Society’ in the USA today!

If you’re talking about the actual Flat Earth Society, then no, there isn’t.  Last I saw, it had less than 100 members.

100 IS robust for a view so clearly out of sync with the rest of the world. There are clearly more people who believe in a flat earth than those who actually belong to the organization. Sherri Shephard of The View stated openly that she believed in a flat earth. Whoopi Goldberg was completely gobsmacked. I think she thought Sherri was just kidding. Not only does Sherri believe the world is flat, but she said she will teach her son that view.

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 February 2011 12:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3024
Joined  2010-04-26

From what I’ve read about Sherri Shephard she seems to be basically retarded.  Or maybe just stupid.

But there are more people that believe in geocentrism, the hollow Earth, and Velikovskyanism than believe in a flat earth.  I’m not sure whether that should be reassuring or alarming.

At least nobody other than Gene Ray and a couple of crazy bag ladies believe in the Time Cube.

EDIT
Fixed a word omission.

[ Edited: 05 February 2011 01:19 PM by Dead Monky ]
 Signature 

“In the end nature is horrific and teaches us nothing.” -Mutual of Omicron

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 February 2011 01:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  118
Joined  2011-02-05
missmac - 16 January 2011 02:18 PM

Adding to what I was saying about not knowing if there is an afterlife…......

I guess it just seems that most religious people spend a majority of their life here on earth (the only life we are certain of) - worrying about their place in “heaven”, Or being overly concerned with not doing anything wrong or bad and going to “hell” But lets face it - at some point in our lives, we are all going to do something that the bible condemns - or doesn’t approve of - Religion is the only part of this world that refuses to evolve and adapt to the continuously changing world - the pope recently adjusted his stance on condom use, and that it can be acceptable is one of the people involved has HIV….......

I respectfully disagree with you when you say “religion is the only part of this world that refuses to evolve and adapt to the continuously changing world.” For one thing, I can think of many examples of both natural entities that resist adaptation (Taxodium distichum and Riziphora mangle are both extremely sensitive to thermal and pH conditions in the aquatic and marine environment, and tend to die rather than adjust when met with changing conditions), and corporate ones (how many successful industries have essentially disappeared with the introduction of simple, new technologies), but more importantly, I think you are kind of grossly overgeneralizing here. First by regarding religion generally…however your constituent example seems to be American Christian communities (proceeding out of the Baptist and Puritan traditions) and conservative Catholicism. These are rather limited subsets of Christianity, much less religion, and it is specious to cite them as examples of religion in general. Hints of selection bias renders your argument questionable. Secondly, I would challenge you to reexamine even the Christian subset of religion to see if it metes up with your diagnosis of “refusing to evolve and adapt.” The history of western theology, and specifically Christian theology is one of adaptation and evolution, not entirely dissimilar to what we see in the natural world. Small pockets and examples can be found adapting on the edge of cultural progress (similar to biological early-adapters and many r-selected populations) with a more slow coming-around of the general community. Examples of these “one the edge theologians” would be Karl Barth, Jurgen Moltmann (inter-ecumenicism and non-limited salvation, both deal with the juxtaposition of the characterization of God as “good” and the behavior of the gods as portrayed in the Bible), Paul Tillich (who crafted a beautiful and eloquent defense of morality and ethics not contingent on the existence of a god in “The Courage to Be”), Mary Daly (examines and questions the patriarchy of western religions and specifically Christianity in a post-feminist context), and even John Polkinghorne (deals with questions of god in the context of physics and mathematics, and makes a well thought out, if somewhat reaching argument for god). These are just a few examples of mainline Christian theologians proactively dealing with the challenges and modifications demanded by a changing world. In some ways, the burden upon religion to adapt is more severe than for the rest of us because of the fundamental risk of obseletion.

I don’t disagree with your being non-religious, and I especially find the extant arguments against a specific theistic god compelling, however, I think that religious folk deserve a fair shake. Just because the loud voices in religion aren’t modifying doesn’t mean that religion itself isn’t capable of a dynamic, ever-evolving conversation.

Thanks for posting, and sorry about the prolix response. I just felt like someone needed to be the devil’s advocate.

 Signature 

“Ah! How cheerfully we consign ourselves to Perdition!”
-Melville-

“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”
-Pynchon-

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 February 2011 05:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5976
Joined  2009-02-26

The_Au_Mean

Welcome,

I agree with a lot of what you said and even the Vatican has modified its stance on the Big Bang and Evolution of the universe.
I believe those are good development in theistic thinking, even though they do not result in rewriting the obvious (naive) creation falsehoods contained in almost all theistic scriptures.
Personally I believe in a natural metaphysical condition which was precursor to the Beginning. Logic demands that if we accept the premise of cause/effect, there must have been a general causality to it all. However, the notion that this causality has human qualities such as intelligence, purpose, love, and morals creates so many logical obstacles that are in direct conflict with scientific knowledge of the physical requirements of such qualities, that the concept of a motivated intelligent supernatural being is contrary to the scientific method of observation and analysis.  And therein lies the rub.
I am sure that many religious leaders and thinkers on theism know about these contradictions, but refuse to “edit” scripture to reflect current knowledge.  IMO, this persistence in misleading the people (flock) is not morally justifiable. It becomes a con game to maintain power. And that cannot be beneficial to mankind.

[ Edited: 05 February 2011 05:10 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 February 2011 06:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5191
Joined  2010-06-16

Damn, don’t people know how to separate posts into paragraphs?  Even if you can’t recognize idea shifts, just skip a line every fifth sentence.  That would be better than nothing.

Quoting The_Au_Mean:

I respectfully disagree with you when you say “religion is the only part of this world that refuses to evolve and adapt to the continuously changing world.”

I believe Missmac was merely speaking in hyperbole since she then gave an example of a church changing it’s view.  Your example of aquatic organisms doesn’t really fit, because when conditions change most entities die off and only a few manage to adapt, survive, then thrive.  I wouldn’t be surprised that as global warming continues so that water becomes both warmer and, because of added CO2, lower pH, while most of these organisms die, one would be able to find a few of the same species which, because or random genetic changes, manage to survive.

Quoting The_Au_Mean:

but more importantly, I think you are kind of grossly overgeneralizing here. First by regarding religion generally……however your constituent example seems to be American Christian communities

Not really.  Other than Missmac’s use of “bible” when she could have said “bible and koran” and her use of “god” when she could have said “god and allah” I believe her examples fit both christianity and islam from what I’ve read in both those documents in regard to reward and punishment in the afterlife, and views of homosexuality.

Quoting The_Au_Mean:

Hints of selection bias renders your argument questionable.

  No, choice of data that supports one’s contention is the core of rational debate.

Quoting The_Au_Mean:

I would challenge you to reexamine even the Christian subset of religion to see if it metes up with your diagnosis of “refusing to evolve and adapt.”

As I said above, I believe Missmac was merely using hyperbole to stress her point.  Certainly, the examples of liberal theologians who have worked hard to make christianity more consonant with present day knowledge would indicate that there are a few who are trying to help the religions evolve, however, in orthodox churches, mosques and temples, these views are still rejected and the old ways are considered sacrosanct.  And, without statistical evidence, but from my reading, it appears that these views are accepted by most priests, imams, rabbis, and their congregations.

Quoting The_Au_Mean:

Thanks for posting, and sorry about the prolix response. I just felt like someone needed to be the devil’s advocate.

I try to avoid being garrulous. but I guess it was necessary.  Don’t aplogize.  Discussion needs more than one viewpoint if it is to work.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 7
2
 
‹‹ Hello from Lille      tchb (Mike) ››