If you're not a fundamentalist, what are you? - Page 5

snapshot · 08-04-2006, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Waves

I agree with most of your post but religion is just as objective as science, and there is just as much interpretation going on when a person reads a passage from the bible and when a person reads a passage from a science journal.

Science simply allows verification, which equals efficiency. Its not "better" than religion, they are both choices, its just more efficient. Which is a different concept than "better" because one incorporates judgement and one does not.

Of course its your choice to believe that science is "better" but its not very efficient

I must not know what religion is.

Is not religion getting your morals from some place other than your own experience?

Let's start from there.

This is what I got when I typed "Define Religion" into google.

a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"

Let's not get into "supernatural" just yet.

verklingen · 08-04-2006, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snapshot

Is not religion getting your morals from some place other than your own experience?

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Chickens make eggs, and eggs make chickens.

Morals make experience, and experience makes morals.

But here's the kicker: morals cause you to make religion as a attempt to give others what you had to work for. In this sense, "religion" is an attempt to get a head start. Like how your parents always told you that you can learn the easy way, or you can learn the hard way. The ends are the same; only the experience differs.

snapshot · 08-04-2006, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by verklingen

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Chickens make eggs, and eggs make chickens.

Morals make experience, and experience makes morals.

But here's the kicker: morals cause you to make religion as a attempt to give others what you had to work for. In this sense, "religion" is an attempt to get a head start. Like how your parents always told you that you can learn the easy way, or you can learn the hard way. The ends are the same; only the experience differs.

There's no such thing as learning the easy way. Learning the easy way is learning the hard way. If you think there is an easy way to learning you're buying into bullshit and making it harder on yourself.

And I think you're confusing religion and morals. I've never heard of anyone making a religion, unless you're talking about cults.

verklingen · 08-04-2006, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snapshot

There's no such thing as learning the easy way. Learning the easy way is learning the hard way. If you think there is an easy way to learning you're buying into bullshit and making it harder on yourself.

Far from being "no such thing" as learning the easy way, there are some things which can only be learned the easy way. One such thing is the subject of my previous challenge: the question of human mortality. The hard way would be to observe every human to see if they all indeed die. The easy way is my dad telling me that humans are mortal, and me accepting it. Is that me buying into my dad's bullshit?

What I meant by "learning the easy way" is this:

One can live his life amorally and "learn" that, generally speaking, the experiences which tended to improve his condition had as their catalyst an action which may be considered moral.

Or. . .

One can live his life morally, already understanding (or, as you say, already having bought the bullshit) that living within his morals will tend to improve his condition.

The difference between the two scenarios is that the individual in the first case had to, by trial and error, find the path of morality on his own and divine its merit by scrutinizing the effects of those times he was "good" had in his life. But the individual in the second case was already placed on that path, and knew which direction to walk.

Again, the ends are the same; only the experience differs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by snapshot

And I think you're confusing religion and morals. I've never heard of anyone making a religion, unless you're talking about cults.

Morals and religion are the chicken and the egg also. Someone had to make the chicken (or the egg).

Waves · 08-04-2006, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snapshot

I must not know what religion is.

Is not religion getting your morals from some place other than your own experience?

Let's start from there.

from dictionary.com:
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

science:
1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

Barring semantical differences, science and religion are alot alike.

Religion incorporates faith, science uses verification.

Thats the main difference. Both religion and science result in a set of morals, but the morals are not the objects themself. In religion, you are taking the word of someone else on faith, wether it be the bible or the quran or some other ancient text. With science, you are taking the word of someone, and if you choose to engage the same scenario, you will always come to the same conclusion. No faith involved. Its not that science is more objective, its that science is much more efficient because it incorporates validation, which equals sameness, which equals ease, which equals efficiency.

snapshot · 08-04-2006, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by verklingen

Far from being "no such thing" as learning the easy way, there are some things which can only be learned the easy way. One such thing is the subject of my previous challenge: the question of human mortality. The hard way would be to observe every human to see if they all indeed die. The easy way is my dad telling me that humans are mortal, and me accepting it. Is that me buying into my dad's bullshit?

What I meant by "learning the easy way" is this:

One can live his life amorally and "learn" that, generally speaking, the experiences which tended to improve his condition had as their catalyst an action which may be considered moral.

Or. . .

One can live his life morally, already understanding (or, as you say, already having bought the bullshit) that living within his morals will tend to improve his condition.

The difference between the two scenarios is that the individual in the first case had to, by trial and error, find the path of morality on his own and divine its merit by scrutinizing the effects of those times he was "good" had in his life. But the individual in the second case was already placed on that path, and knew which direction to walk.

Again, the ends are the same; only the experience differs.

Morals and religion are the chicken and the egg also. Someone had to make the chicken (or the egg).

Ok, I see what you mean with learning the easy way and learning the hard way. Even though I have some qualms about whether just knowing you're going to die is the same thing as really understanding it, I don't think it's that important right now.

I still have problems with the chicken and the egg thing. The chicken at least has to rely on the egg and vice versa, but you don't need religion to have morals, though you probably would need morals to start a religion. As far as I can tell, once someone learns morals there is no need for a religion. And if one never had religion there'd be no reason that one could still learn morals.

Can we pick a specific religion to talk about? It's a whole lot easier than saying "religion does this" or "religion says that." Can we define religion?

To me religion is nothing more than scaring people into doing the right thing. Because it always has to fall back on "If you don't do this, there will be consequences beyond the grave." Nobody has the authority to say that, no matter how religious you are. What it doesn't teach you is that you don't need religion to be moral.

If people need religion in order to be moral, they probably weren't very moral in the first place. And the difference between the person who needs religion and the person who doesn't is the ability to discern between right from wrong. If you need a book to tell you what is right and what is wrong, what does that say about you?

I think believing in God does not denote religion. I think 'believing that God somehow talks to someone else, and that person tells you what God says' is religion. Otherwise, what religion are you following.

See, I have many problems with people:religion, believing in God. uhhhh, probably others, but let's focus on one. I feel like once I've made my point about one, somebody wants to jump to another topic, and I'm not quick enough to pick up on that. I need some help staying on topic.

snapshot · 08-04-2006, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Waves

from dictionary.com:
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

science:
1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

Barring semantical differences, science and religion are alot alike.

Religion incorporates faith, science uses verification.

Thats the main difference. Both religion and science result in a set of morals, but the morals are not the objects themself. In religion, you are taking the word of someone else on faith, wether it be the bible or the quran or some other ancient text. With science, you are taking the word of someone, and if you choose to engage the same scenario, you will always come to the same conclusion. No faith involved. Its not that science is more objective, its that science is much more efficient because it incorporates validation, which equals sameness, which equals ease, which equals efficiency.

I don't think science results in a set of morals, it results in a way of defining your morals. Religion tells you what your morals are. If you believe in science you believe in being able to change your morals depending upon your circumstance. Religion doesn't allow for that. If I have faith in anything it's that it's necessary to change in this world because this is a changing world and that's based on facts and evidence.

I do think that science is much more objective. I don't know how you could say that religion was objective when typically there's one person or institution running that religion. Science is constantly being reviewed for errors and that just doesn't happen in religion. Please explain how religion is as objective as science in your opinion.

ziplock · 08-04-2006, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by verklingen

There is an unrelenting sense about this thread which continually asserts that rationality is the sole path to truth. Such is not the case.

While truth is indeed attainable through purely logical discourse (even the truth which I see and others deny), the fundamentalist attitude it engenders leads its practicioners away from the essence of the discussion in favor of adhering to the dogma of their particular conscious framework.

All fundamentalist attitudes have that effect. What would you describe as the essence of the discussion?

The logical fundamentalist will be open to new avenues of thought as long as they meet their logical standard. This is a standard that can easily be met by anyone with an understanding of logical consistency and the progression from premise to conclusion. The religious fundamentalist however can only accept avenues of thought that meet their religious standard, a standard that assumes absolute truth and excludes differing thought. This makes them incredibly difficult to approach anywhere outside of this specific school of thought. The avenue of thought available to reach them is extremely narrow and perilous making it far more difficult than logical discourse. This difficulty increases the likelihood of a violent outbreak.

It is true that the fundamentalist, regardless of the dogma they're committed to, is bound to move within it's doctrines limits. However, I submit that the logic and rational thought fundamentalist's limits are far more lenient, and efficient, than that of any similar religious dogma. A logical fundamentalist is much more open minded relative to a religious fundamentalist. Logic and rational thought also offers consistency, something that isn't exactly a strong point in religion.

Considering this, I submit that if one were to assume a fundamentalist mentality, I would much rather it be of the logical fundamentalism than anything else. At least then, I can use logic and rational thought as avenues of discussion which can touch on almost any subject. Whereas with religion, I'm restricted to that particular school of thought, and the subject is HEAVILY limited in comparison.

Quote:

Originally Posted by verklingen

I again bring up the charge: prove to me, using your particular conscious framework, that all humans are indeed mortal. And I don't mean this to assert that humans are actually immortal (I just realized that this may be what some of you read into this challenge) because I myself believe humans to be mortal. Despite my own belief in the mortality of material bodies, please use logic (science) to prove to me that humans are mortal. Thanks in advance.

This is not meant toward anyone in particular, its a general challenge.

First, one would establish what criteria classifies a human. They'd then search out those who fit this criteria and observe them. They would catalog their observations. Human A started off healthy, then became ill. After a sustained period of illness, Human A ceased biological operation and the body shut down. Over a period of time, Human A decomposed leaving skeletal remains. This shut down is death, and the consequent decay confirms that the process of death has fully taken place (the body will not become reanimated by whatever means).

We can then find many humans, observe them, and witness if they all follow this same path. We can do this over many generations, adding to our catalogs and observations spanning thousands of years. This would give us millions of cases of a human dying, establishing what we'd classify as mortality, over a long period of time showing consistency and homogeneity.

Following this, we can say that due to our observations, we have determined that the human is indeed for all intents and purposes mortal. This statement has yet to be contradicted throughout the duration of our extensive observation so we can safely conclude that, barring some extraordinary exception occuring that we've yet to come in contact with or be exposed to, humans are indeed mortal.

What would have to take place then after this, is the observation and cataloging of that "extraordinary exception." Even considering such an exception it wouldn't necessitate that all humans are not mortal, only that the exception is. If this was widespread to involve all humans, such as some second coming bestowing eternal life, then we can say that "following this occurance the state of human mortality was altered to the point that death no longer occurs and humans can no longer be considered mortal." If this occurance of immortality did not spread through all of humanity, then we would need to partition the human population into two subgroups in accordance to those who are mortal, and those who are not. We could then state that Group A is mortal, while Group B is immortal.

That's probably how I'd go about establishing human mortality through a logical framework.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JcP

Which is why we all have choice. I choose differently, apparently, than Ziplock and Snapshot. Again, not better, just differently. And from my personal perspective, it happens to be the 'better' choice.

If you cannot prove God exists, and you cannot prove he doesn't, then why not believe that love (the thing we all want) is God? What is your motivation for choosing "not knowing" Snapshot when we both can admit there is no factual proof? Why not choose what makes you happy? And what makes anything happier than compassion and love?

Because we lack compelling evidence and argument to equate "love" to "God." We can determine love and identify the occurance of this phenomena, guage it's effects, see how it integrates to various systems we encounter, gain an understanding of it's nature and have first hand experience of and exposure to it. However, due to our inability to approach the "God" concept directly, being able to prove neither it's existence nor nature, we can easily capitalize on it's current ambiguity and associate it to many consciously pleasing concepts. The ambiguity offered in the loaded God concept allows for a lot of space to move within and we can easily continue to change our position within this concept to avoid any attacks. This is a common tactic. We're basically fortifying ourselves in the "unknown" and using people's inability to scale our fortress of lacking proof to validate our position.

A belief in love and a lifestyle that reflects this belief is a beautiful thing and is amazingly beneficial not only on an individual, psychological level, but also on a wider social level. It's something that's desperately needed in our hollowed existence of materialism and cosmetics. However, God is not a necessity in any of this. It's simply where you choose to take it one step further. Now, while that step may be easy for you, some people, due to their current understanding and previous experiences, may not be as compelled to make that step. They'd then need a reason to make such an equation, one that isn't provided. Therefore, this is why it is not readily believed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JcP

It's the best choice we're given because it fulfills both your personal wants and the wants of others all at the same time. Of course "in my opinion."

I don't know is knowing you don't know. Which you do not know, you believe. I propose you DO know God because you exist. And the force that creates life is love.

Peace Seeker hit the nail on the head: being spiritual isn't about following rules. It's about loving and compassion for others through action.

The only thing I know is that I know nothing. Word to the late, great, Socrates.

Anyways, in this proposition, you must establish what qualifies as "knowing." You must also establish God. You must also establish WHY the force that creates life equates love, demonstrating how the cause of love leads to the effect of life. I would modify your proposal to say that "I propose you DO know existence because you exist." This would be a more logically sound proposal. If you wished to establish God in place of existence, you'd have to show how existence is interchangable with God. Again, this requires a defining of God in order to understand the nature of what we're dealing with here.

Loving and compassion for others through action is a beautiful thing, I admire anyone who does and has it reflect in their life. However, again, there's this necessity placed that isn't a necessity at all. Love and compassion does not necessitate God.

Quote:

Originally Posted by snapshot

I do think that science is much more objective. I don't know how you could say that religion was objective when typically there's one person or institution running that religion. Science is constantly being reviewed for errors and that just doesn't happen in religion. Please explain how religion is as objective as science in your opinion.

I second this, I'm interested in the explaination of how religion is as objective as science.

Waves · 08-04-2006, 06:11 PM

Religion is just as objective as science because they are both objective sources of information that one looks at to explain the world around him/her.

The results of the information may be more subjective in a sense that there is a wider range of possible beliefs and perspectives that a person can get from reading a religous text as opposed to the efficient sameness offered by science, but it does not make religion any more inherently "subjective" in any sense. Just because science offers consistency in its beliefs does not make it more objective. It makes it more consistent.

In fact id like your explanation as to why you percieve religion to be more subjective!

Waves · 08-04-2006, 06:13 PM

Quote:

I don't think science results in a set of morals, it results in a way of defining your morals. Religion tells you what your morals are. If you believe in science you believe in being able to change your morals depending upon your circumstance. Religion doesn't allow for that. If I have faith in anything it's that it's necessary to change in this world because this is a changing world and that's based on facts and evidence.

Ok, so all people that dont believe in a religion have no morals?

You can play semantics all you want, but the fact is that everyone has a set of morals. Science offers a way of looking at the world which will result in a different set of moral standards than a religous perspective. not better or worse, but different

snapshot · 08-04-2006, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Waves

Ok, so all people that dont believe in a religion have no morals?

You can play semantics all you want, but the fact is that everyone has a set of morals. Science offers a way of looking at the world which will result in a different set of moral standards than a religous perspective. not better or worse, but different

I think I said somewhere else that a person chooses their own morals whether they have religion or not.

If you're a christian you're supposed to read the Bible. If you don't read the Bible you're not a good christian. If you're a good christian you believe the Bible to be the word of God. Otherwise what is the purpose of placing it above all other works of literature that were written much better and were much more consistent.

For some reason religious people think it's ok to pick and choose what parts of the Bible to believe and that strikes me as blasphemous. Why is the Jesus part necessarily true and the parts you don't believe in necessarily false. My point was that with or without religion, people still make the decision themselves as to what is moral. Otherwise it would be normal for people to kill homosexuals, since it says that's what you should do to homosexuals in the bible (Leviticus).

But people don't follow the Bible, even when they say they do. They usually rationalize their inability to follow the Bible by saying that they were born with sin and it's impossible to carry out all the things the bible asks of you. How hard is it to go to the store, buy a gun and some bullets, and the next homosexual you see you shoot them? It is what God wants. It's in the Bible.

snapshot · 08-04-2006, 06:47 PM

I'm not smart enough to see the whole so I'm going to need your help. I'm going to go through this sentence by sentence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Waves

Religion is just as objective as science because they are both objective sources of information that one looks at to explain the world around him/her.

I don't understand how religion is a source of information. As new information comes in, religion does not bend. Only as social strife has come in has religion had to bend its rules, which I still think should be considered blasphemy and anyone who opposed the changes of the church should be going to hell. How can you change God's Word? God's Law?

Quote:

The results of the information may be more subjective in a sense that there is a wider range of possible beliefs and perspectives that a person can get from reading a religous text as opposed to the efficient sameness offered by science, but it does not make religion any more inherently "subjective" in any sense.

I think it totally makes religion subjective. The rules of religion are unchanging because they are supposedly the word of God. You can't change that with new information no matter how much new information comes in. All that information is irrelavent unless it follows the reasoning of the church.

Quote:

Just because science offers consistency in its beliefs does not make it more objective. It makes it more consistent.

What makes science objective is that it's peer reviewed. What makes science credible is its methods. What makes the scientific method credible is that the scientific culture has always found reasons to change and alter its ideas, but no one has ever come up with a better way to evaluate the world around us than the scientific method. You'd think if there was some flaw in the method someone would have pointed it out. So far, only those who discredit science in general have found a reason to be critical of the scientific method.

OldMan&TheWeed · 08-04-2006, 07:05 PM

The world would be a better place if belivers did not pick and choose among parts of the Bible.

KILL THE DREAMERS
"And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God..." (Deuteronomy 13: 5)

KILL DISRESPECTFUL KIDS
For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. (Leviticus 20:12)

KILL PEOPLE WHO DON'T GO TO CHURCH
“Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
31:15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.” (Exodus 31:14-15)

KILL ALL HOMOSEXUALS
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)

KILL THE BABIES AND RAPE THE WOMEN
"Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished." (Isaiah 13:15-16)

But then again maybe there are practical reasons for religous people to pick and choose.

Although I'm not religous myself, I imagine religous people focus on the elements of their faith that give them comfort, and help them deal with life when times get hard. The rest is the equilivent to junk DNA. The above scriptural refrences would not be useful to most Christians (unless he was a crusader) and so little attention is normaly paid to them.

Still, I keep the grisly and contradictory sections of my Bible highlighted for the benefit of the occasional door-to-door evangelist who stops by.

snapshot · 08-04-2006, 07:06 PM

^

Quote:

Originally Posted by JahBohl

No church, temple, religion, slick preacher, inerrant book, or "god" is required for any of these virtues.

To the O.P. :
I think that one of Sam Harris' arguments is that religious moderates (through the increase in tolerance for ideas which have little basis in reason) have caused rise in fundamentalist thinking. Historically this has led to violence...(believe this or else you'll go to hell/ or we'll kill you).

"As long as it is acceptable for a person to believe that he knows how God wants everyone on earth to live, we will continue to murder one another on account of our myths" (End of Faith pg.134).

It's an interesting line of thought because most people view tolerance of other's beliefs as a good thing. Maybe we've let it go too far. Instead of calling bullshit on beliefs like getting 72 virgins upon martyrdom, or transubstantiation we give them a free pass under the guise of "faith".

Thank you, Jah Bohl, for bringing up Sam Harris.

Sugar420 · 08-04-2006, 08:52 PM

i dont think of myself as fundamentalist or moderate, but radical
(assuming i correctly understand the meanings of those words)

snapshot · 08-04-2006, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by v3d4

i dont think of myself as fundamentalist or moderate, but radical
(assuming i correctly understand the meanings of those words)

I like ziplock's perspective on what a fundamentalist is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziplock

The logical fundamentalist will be open to new avenues of thought as long as they meet their logical standard. This is a standard that can easily be met by anyone with an understanding of logical consistency and the progression from premise to conclusion. The religious fundamentalist however can only accept avenues of thought that meet their religious standard, a standard that assumes absolute truth and excludes differing thought. This makes them incredibly difficult to approach anywhere outside of this specific school of thought. The avenue of thought available to reach them is extremely narrow and perilous making it far more difficult than logical discourse. This difficulty increases the likelihood of a violent outbreak.

It is true that the fundamentalist, regardless of the dogma they're committed to, is bound to move within it's doctrines limits. However, I submit that the logic and rational thought fundamentalist's limits are far more lenient, and efficient, than that of any similar religious dogma. A logical fundamentalist is much more open minded relative to a religious fundamentalist. Logic and rational thought also offers consistency, something that isn't exactly a strong point in religion.

Considering this, I submit that if one were to assume a fundamentalist mentality, I would much rather it be of the logical fundamentalism than anything else. At least then, I can use logic and rational thought as avenues of discussion which can touch on almost any subject. Whereas with religion, I'm restricted to that particular school of thought, and the subject is HEAVILY limited in comparison.

verklingen · 08-04-2006, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snapshot

I still have problems with the chicken and the egg thing. The chicken at least has to rely on the egg and vice versa, but you don't need religion to have morals, though you probably would need morals to start a religion. As far as I can tell, once someone learns morals there is no need for a religion. And if one never had religion there'd be no reason that one could still learn morals.

If you have morals, you are playing the part of the egg. If you have religion, you are playing the part of the chicken. Morals become religion as eggs become chickens. Religion begets morals as chickens beget eggs.

So one who is moral but not religious is as an egg unhatched, while one who has forged religion through morals is a mature chicken: ready and eager to beget eggs. The first has a potential, but that potential has yet to be expressed. The second exists as an expressed potential, yet has an especial merit: he is able to propagate and evolve the nature of his potential through subsequent iterations (eggs).

Quote:

Originally Posted by snapshot

Can we pick a specific religion to talk about? It's a whole lot easier than saying "religion does this" or "religion says that." Can we define religion?

To me religion is nothing more than scaring people into doing the right thing. Because it always has to fall back on "If you don't do this, there will be consequences beyond the grave." Nobody has the authority to say that, no matter how religious you are. What it doesn't teach you is that you don't need religion to be moral.

If a religion must fall back on such threats, the chicken which bore the egg from which it sprung begot a weak system. Or, if nothing else, that system had become corrupted by a sensational fundamentalist attitude which tended to grant decorum and the mythology behind it greater importance than the moral teachings handed down to them. Then, if the chicken (religion) is so afflicted, it can become over-anxious about its perceived mortality; fearfully resorting to drastic measures in order to maintain its desired condition.

This is the macrocosm of man's own fear of death and his unwillingness to be stripped of his materiality (the parallel on this term is drawn with mythology [illusion; the illusion which obscures morality as the flesh is obscured by a colorful garment]). If such is the case, he will find devils coming to his deathbed to strip him of all he holds dear. Otherwise, if he has made peace, he finds angels coming to relieve him of a burden.

I'll have to address everyone's further points another time, it's time I should go to bed. Have a good night everyone.

snapshot · 08-04-2006, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by verklingen

If you have morals, you are playing the part of the egg. If you have religion, you are playing the part of the chicken. Morals become religion as eggs become chickens. Religion begets morals as chickens beget eggs.

That's where I have a problem. Show me two people who have the exact same morals, and I'll show you the only two people who belong in the same religion.

Quote:

So one who is moral but not religious is as an egg unhatched, while one who has forged religion through morals is a mature chicken: ready and eager to beget eggs. The first has a potential, but that potential has yet to be expressed. The second exists as an expressed potential, yet has an especial merit: he is able to propagate and evolve the nature of his potential through subsequent iterations (eggs).

I just don't get this. Are you saying everyone who has morals has a religion already? Are you saying that only once you comply to a certain religion's standards you have become innately moral? I can only be moral if I bow to a certain religion? Are we talking about personal religion or an actual religion? Because to me it sounds like anyone who has morals that are recognized has their own personal religion. Which is bonkers because what if someone wants to change their morals? Are they suddenly areligious? Is that even a word?

Quote:

If a religion must fall back on such threats, the chicken which bore the egg from which it sprung begot a weak system. Or, if nothing else, that system had become corrupted by a sensational fundamentalist attitude which tended to grant decorum and the mythology behind it greater importance than the moral teachings handed down to them. Then, if the chicken (religion) is so afflicted, it can become over-anxious about its perceived mortality; fearfully resorting to drastic measures in order to maintain its desired condition.

Show me a religion that doesn't fall back on such fear mongering. Unless it's your religion that we're talking about--the religion of verklingen. I'm beginning to think you're talking about individual belief systems, which I have definite beef with since they are supposedly supposed to be set in stone (based on the definition of belief - any cognitive content held as true ). If something is true than everything opposing that idea must be false. Yeah, you won't get into any arguments over that one. /sarcasmo

Quote:

This is the macrocosm of man's own fear of death and his unwillingness to be stripped of his materiality (the parallel on this term is drawn with mythology [illusion; the illusion which obscures morality as the flesh is obscured by a colorful garment]). If such is the case, he will find devils coming to his deathbed to strip him of all he holds dear. Otherwise, if he has made peace, he finds angels coming to relieve him of a burden.

Again with the fear mongering. If I don't commit myself to a certain belief system I am destined to a life of devils. Or angels if I'm good! Yippie! A prize at the end of the tunnel! If only I turn to religion I'll be rewarded! /again, sarcasm

Quote:

I'll have to address everyone's further points another time, it's time I should go to bed. Have a good night everyone.

G'night. I hope you have some other way of showing me the light because I still think your carrot-stick approach is bullshit. No offense to your religion itself, just the way you sell it.

DubStyle311 · 08-04-2006, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snapshot

Don't you think that's a little rash when your eternal salvation is at stake? Shouldn't preparing for the afterlife be the most important part of your life?

This is what I can't comprehend: religious moderates. How can you consider yourself Christian but be unconcerned with the way that you are following your religion? Shouldn't you constantly be checking and double-checking to see if your actions are going to send you to hell?

As an educated Roman Catholic (one that knows what the Church actually teaches), I have a much better sense of heaven and hell than the average catholic.

Heaven isnt a place, its a state of being -- being able to accept God's love. God offers every single person His love unconditionally, there is nothing you can do that God wont forgive you for. Being able to feel His love is heaven, not being able to feel it is Hell.

According to this teaching, wheter you go to Heaven and Hell is based on how your soul or personality has conditioned itself thoughout you're life. If you constantly are doing things that are unloving, it is going to have a negative effect on you. An example would be somone who murders or lies or steals their entire life. These actions are going to have a perminant effect on their being. Rarely would you find someone like this who is a loving, happy person.

For me, it comes down to this. Is eating meat on Fridays in lent going to have a bad effect on my soul?

The Roman Catholic church is extremly misunderstood in this day and age. They teach that as long as you are a good person, eternal happiness (as is being able to accept Gods love once you die -- not living in some magical place with all your dead friends and family) is yours.

snapshot · 08-04-2006, 09:58 PM

I know. I'm a confirmed Roman Catholic. And I have problems with the way they conduct their religious practices as well as their religion as a whole that is laid out in cannonical law.

They also teach you that no matter what you've done, if you go to a priest and confess and are sincere you go to Heaven.

Basically if the antichrist realized he fucked up he could say he was sorry and be forgiven. How could you not join that religion?

08-04-2006, 06:11 PM	#89 (permalink)
Waves Duderino Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: chiburbs Posts: 15,475 Thanks: 991 Thanked 4,021 Times in 2,219 Posts	Religion is just as objective as science because they are both objective sources of information that one looks at to explain the world around him/her. The results of the information may be more subjective in a sense that there is a wider range of possible beliefs and perspectives that a person can get from reading a religous text as opposed to the efficient sameness offered by science, but it does not make religion any more inherently "subjective" in any sense. Just because science offers consistency in its beliefs does not make it more objective. It makes it more consistent. In fact id like your explanation as to why you percieve religion to be more subjective! __________________ On this life that we call home The years go fast and the days go so slow

08-04-2006, 07:05 PM	#93 (permalink)
OldMan&TheWeed been there done that Join Date: May 2006 Location: The West Posts: 2,287 Thanks: 293 Thanked 798 Times in 405 Posts	The world would be a better place if belivers did not pick and choose among parts of the Bible. KILL THE DREAMERS "And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God..." (Deuteronomy 13: 5) KILL DISRESPECTFUL KIDS For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. (Leviticus 20:12) KILL PEOPLE WHO DON'T GO TO CHURCH “Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. 31:15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.” (Exodus 31:14-15) KILL ALL HOMOSEXUALS "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13) KILL THE BABIES AND RAPE THE WOMEN "Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished." (Isaiah 13:15-16) But then again maybe there are practical reasons for religous people to pick and choose. Although I'm not religous myself, I imagine religous people focus on the elements of their faith that give them comfort, and help them deal with life when times get hard. The rest is the equilivent to junk DNA. The above scriptural refrences would not be useful to most Christians (unless he was a crusader) and so little attention is normaly paid to them. Still, I keep the grisly and contradictory sections of my Bible highlighted for the benefit of the occasional door-to-door evangelist who stops by. __________________ Nintey-three percent of what I say is brilliant, factual information and seven percent is complete bullshit. Have fun deciding which is which.

08-04-2006, 08:52 PM	#95 (permalink)
Sugar420 Old School Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 6,093 Thanks: 32 Thanked 132 Times in 706 Posts	i dont think of myself as fundamentalist or moderate, but radical (assuming i correctly understand the meanings of those words) Last edited by Sugar420; 08-04-2006 at 08:55 PM.

08-04-2006, 09:58 PM	#100 (permalink)
snapshot no custom. customize Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: The unOriginal Rorschach. Posts: 19,305 Thanks: 15 Thanked 18 Times in 17 Posts	I know. I'm a confirmed Roman Catholic. And I have problems with the way they conduct their religious practices as well as their religion as a whole that is laid out in cannonical law. They also teach you that no matter what you've done, if you go to a priest and confess and are sincere you go to Heaven. Basically if the antichrist realized he fucked up he could say he was sorry and be forgiven. How could you not join that religion? __________________ We are all atheists about most of the gods that society has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. -Richard Dawkins

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)