Tchebu wrote:NONE of those are of religious origin, except perhaps the one about the "houses of worship"... but that one DOES come from the assumption that it's the house of God and therefore should be treated as such.
Actually it's an issue of people making money off of religion. How the house of God should be treated is covered more closely in the many laws listed out in ridiculously boring detail in Numbers (and Leviticus, if my OT isn't too awful rusty). And as for the "religious origins," you're going to have to show me some pretty good records of the very beginnings of mankind dealing with morality to say definitely that none of this stuff had origins in religion. Remember we're talking about "religion" here, not Christianity.
Tchebu wrote:Because religion says "This is the answer... cuz God said so", whereas philosophy says "This is the answer because [insert long and complicated explanation which does not involve supernatural unobservable agents]"
I have to admit I don't know much of anything about philosophy as I find it incredibly boring and mostly useless. That said, I can't really defend attacks that philosophy replaces all the useful bits of religion without any real knowledge about how it works, its history, etc. without that knowledge and so I won't really try. I hate to believe that you honestly think that all of religion is based on a "because God said so" argument, especially since some religions don't even incorporate a god.
Tchebu wrote:There's no such thing as a "religious question". Religion isn't a separate domain, it's a... thing... that pokes its conceptual nose into every other domain it can find. It tries to tell us how the world works, without ever even looking at it properly. It tries to tell us what our "purpose" is, without ever investigating if such a notion is even relevant in our context. It tries to tell us what we should consider "moral" without even giving a better reason than "God spoke to [insert prophet] and said so".
I think space-raptor did a decent job of addressing this. Again, I don't have much background in many eastern religions, but I've never seen a physics or chemistry lesson in the Bible (at least not that I've been aware of). Other than the creation story, of course, which is only taken literally by people who take such a book literally of which (I'll repeat) I am not.
fjafjan wrote:And here's the deal, you are picking and chosing. For every trule of the bible you think is good there are half a dozen that are insane. Respect your mother and father? I'll respect them if they deserve respect, not because they are my mom and dad, that's a dumb rule, honor the sabbath? Hell no. etc.
It doesn't say to respect them, it says to honor them. Honoring them is much different than respecting them. I have little respect for my father at this point, but I still honor him. I call him up on his birthday and on father's day. I don't trash him behind his back. I do my best not to dishonor him, I feel that he can choose whether or not to do that for himself. But honoring and respecting are two different things. Respecting is what you feel, honoring is what you do.
As for the sabbath, I'm kind of surprised you picked that one when you had so many better ones to choose from.
fjafjan wrote:ANd prostitutes are also people, but there is alot in the OT that suggests that infact prostitues AREN'T PEOPLE as they are promiscuous (which you shouldn't be) etc. So which do you chose? WHy do you disregard some rules but stick with others?
I'm not sure I know the text you're referring to. Would you point me in the right direction?
As for the "picking and choosing" bit, this has actually already been dealt with, though I don't remember if it was in this thread or another. But the basic idea is that God changed his approach with the world when he brought Jesus into the picture and so anything in the NT that conflicts with the OT takes precedence over the OT. Just so that's laid out.
fjafjan wrote:Are you trying to suggest the only people trying to determine what is right and what is not (as proffesionals) are priests and the ilk? Because that is rediculous.
Actually, it's ridiculous. Again. And no, that's not what I said or suggested or anything. *Exactly* what I said was
me wrote:I doubt most people are going to turn to philosophy to deal with whether or not they should put someone to death, but rather their morals.
Which is me saying that when people deal with the big moral issues, there's a tendency to lean toward religious and spiritual teachings over philosophy. People have an issue with "playing God" and that can affect their decisions on matters like the death penalty. In other words, the vast majority of people have found religion more helpful in answering these questions than philosophy.
fjafjan wrote:So back to morals, I can tell you one tihng, religion didn't give you you morals. Or ethics. Now you say "zomg that's not true I read "thou shalt not kill in the bible" true, but you also didn't read, or were told to empathise any of the "you should stone ..." bits of the bible, so baically you have a book full of rules and you are told that a couple of them are good. What decides that is more or less social norms, which change, and religion adapt. religion is not the changer of norms, that is why it is a regressive element.
I don't know that I've ever thought "zomg," but thanks for the vote of confidence. This has already been dealt with. Stoning people is how we used to deal with it. For the last couple thousand years we've been trying a different approach. And I really don't get how you can argue that "religion didn't teach [me] morals. Or ethics." This last part about being the changer of norms and a regressive element... I'm not parsing what you're saying. Reword please?
fjafjan wrote:Science cannot account for purpose of life because as far as we know there is none.
22/7 wrote:You've got that backwards, afawk, there is no purpose for life because science cannot account for it.
fjafjan wrote:It is reasonable to assume that there is no purpose to life as there is no evidence suggesting that so is the case. that better?
Yes, because you restated what I said, not what you previously said. What you previously said indicated that science couldn't find it because, as far as we know, there is none. The truth of it, however, is the reverse. You had if A, then B, and you knew B and therefore assumed A, which logically doesn't follow.
fjafjan wrote:It's dogmatic, that's as easy as it gets. What happens when we die? You go to heavne or hell. That's pretty easy, now if you try and understand it logically or whatever it's complex and doesn't make sense, but it's an easy awnser. What should I do with my life? obey the rules of the bible. Actuallg doing so isn't easy, but it's an easy awnser.
That's like saying "Mr. Jones, your car broke down because it needs to have every single piece of the drivetrain replaced" is an easy answer because it's easy to say, even though it's really hard to do.
fjafjan wrote:It also says all you have to do to get into heaven is to repent to god and he will forgive you and it'll be fine. I'd say that's pretty comforting (and also I think that is one of the main things religious people say it gives them) however it is not incredibly constructive as people ask forgivness to themselves ("god") rather than the people they have wronged.
Actually, some forms of Christianity have these things called "mortal sins" which are not forgivable. Not so easy as a "whoops, I'm sorry" in that case. Also, saying that people ask forgiveness of themselves, not to God, is a completely different discussion.
fjafjan wrote:I never said that was the onoly thing it is there to do. However it DOES. Why do you think so many old people get "more christian" as they get older?
It does "take the edge off of death," or it does offer "purpose to life, which can make someone quite comfortable with the prospect of death?" And many, many people get wiser as they get older. I'm sorry, but you walked into that one.
fjafjan wrote:At risk of semi godwinning the thread do you think it is correct that white power movements grant a sense of superiority to the followes? Do you think I could say this and THEN go on to say how shitty white power movements usually are? I hope you say yes. I don't think I am a better person than religious people, however I do think not being religious is better than being religious.
I have to admit I'm not familiar with the term "godwinning," do explain.
I'm not sure your current arguments against religion and the mindless sheep that follow it can support your assertion that you are no better than them.
fjafjan wrote:personally I don't know because i've never been interested in that question, but if you think it is a question reserved to religion then I think you are sorely misstaken.
Because you *don't* know anything about the answer to it, though you admit that science *doesn't* have it?
fjafjan wrote:and you assume that they are fundamentally different. If a rock falls down a mountain why did it occur? does there need to be some grand intelligent scheme behind it for you to accept it, rather than that the ground shook a bit due to the tautanic plates moving and then gravity pulled it down? Why are we here? Because a couple atoms shashed together and then some time passed and here we are.
They are most certainly fundamentally different. Yet again, I punched Jimmy in the face by thinking about it, which moved my muscles. Oh, and I used a closed fist. But I did it *because* he stole my lunch money. But However, I think we need to get off this path because it leads here.
fjafjan wrote:As for you next reply, please trim your quote tree.
Sorry, it slipped through. Should have used the preview button first. But I suppose you're right, everyone could use a good proof read now and again.
fjafjan wrote:I agree with you on morals not being science, but I also claim they are equally far removed from religion which does not argue morals but simply dogmatically teach them.
I'm sorry, but did you just say that religion teaches morals but is far removed from them? Explain please?
ID wrote:Everything does something. If you hunt in a group, you have the advantage of numbers, if you hunt solo, you have the advantage of stealth. So, no matter how they go about it, it still seems to have a purpose.
Which is actually in support of my point. Animals do things with reasons and purposes. But this has already been dealt with.
ID wrote:And, how about cats sitting around blearily. They have the energy to go and do something to fulfill their needs, but they choose not to. That has no purpose in the grand scheme of keeping them alive, they should always be active!
That's ridiculously specious reasoning. That's like saying bears should go out in the winter and kill stuff instead of hibernating. If the cat gets up and runs around and does stuff all the time, it's metabolism will increase. This means it will have to go hunt for more food. Since wild cats have to work pretty hard for their food, and have no refrigerators to keep their food fresh enough to eat, between meals it's a good idea for them to stay chill and not move around much, as it will burn fewer calories and allow them to stay alive longer with less work. If they had refrigerators, then they might be able to go on a hunting spree for a few weeks/months and then eat whenever they want, but as there current scheme goes something like, expend tons of energy hunting/killing food, eat as much as possible, wait until more food is available (which might be a very, very long time) and then go hunt some more, it makes much more sense for them to burn as few calories as possible between eating animal A and animal B, as animal A must last them until animal B rolls around.
ID wrote:You tread dangerous ground. Anyway, science hasn't proven any sort of morality to it (you could go so far as to say that morality is an illusion (hint: since it's in parentheses, it's just conjecture, and should in no way be considered a serious argument)), as morality is subjective. However, science can prove that there is no reason to believe that homosexuality is detrimental or problematic. There are numerous species that practice homosexuality, homosexuals are just as healthy as heterosexuals, homosexuals do not suffer especially from anything except fascism (I couldn't resist), homosexuals are in fact no different from heterosexuals except in choice of sexual partners (which has no bearing on anything). Thus, there is no basis on which to say there is a problem with homosexuality.
I tread on no such dangerous ground. If you'd read the post I was responding to, you'd see that the claim was that religion claimed homosexuality was wrong (once again, we're calling Christianity religion) and that that's been proven wrong. What I was saying was that it had *not* been proven wrong. And why do you think that is? Is it possible that it *cannot* be proven either way because it is not a fact, capable of being proven? You might have to read between some lines on this one.
And your rant about homosexuals isn't completely true. Homosexuals do suffer from living no more than a single generation unless they stray from their sexual preferences. They are incapable of passing on their genetic data without doing so. Oh, and one more difference between the hetero and homosexuals of the human persuasion. Homosexuals tend to increase the value of real estate simply by owning/renting nearby real estate. Heterosexuals do no such thing.
Wowza that was a long post. I've either got to stop posting in SB or go back to checking it more often.