Polite discussion on.........

[Paul]

Your choice to exclude classic religious constructs in your consideration of these dimensions is legimate, but no moreso than someone who wishes to express them in a Native American relgious construct, for example.

With respect I'm not sure I understand your statement here  , but here goes:

My exclusion of religion in this point is known as 'Occam's Razor' (look it up) and is only used to emphasise that religion is not necessary for an ethical and moral life. Nor is it necessary to appreciate art, love, philosophy, beauty etc. In fact religion stifles values like learning and free thinking  by claiming it is "the truth" and therfore claiming more than it can possibly know or justify. On the other hand science does not claim to know everything - that is it's strength - but it works within a framework without fairies goblins and other nonsensicle beliefs in the search of truth.

Again, I have strong adherence to the scientific model of the physical world, but I do not for one minute think that the scientific model fully explains the human experience. (Unless you consider civilization a cruel hoax in the same fashion as religion).

I think you could be making the common  mistake of filling the gaps in science with god/religion by default.  Philosophy and science are compatible though - indeed crucial.

[Mr. Whippy]

I think you could be making the common  mistake of filling the gaps in science with god/religion by default.  Philosophy and science are compatible though - indeed crucial.

No, you're making the mistake that philosophy can have only one right answer--like science.  How you define good and evil is purely subjective based on your belief system (with or without a God).  Same as a Buddist, Hindu, Catholic etc.  You may reject their belief system for defining morally right or wrong, but equally, they can reject yours with similar validity.  There is no proof of morality.  It is subjective, and ever changing.

[GraysonK]

Well said Grant!  
People find their "reason" in different ways.  Some in hard science, some in philosophy, and some in religion.  I agree that religion is a fascinating topic.  Granted, there are many many civilizations who began around a "religion" and then changed and evolved often against the rules of the Church.  But IMO, Church and religion are two different things.  
With regard to the report in Ireland, I fail to see the "special treatment".  And I'm pretty sure that the people who committed those horrible crimes did not ask either the church or the public for permission.  But those crimes were committed by humans in a church.  Not a religious belief.  And all religions everywhere have followers that can and should be called corrupt and hipocritical.  But judging a whole religion on the basis of a few isn't logical.  
I'm not a conventional Christian according to most of the church's where I live because I listen to and respect other points of view.  I was practically kicked out of church as a teenager because I dared to ask my pastor "how do we as Christians know that we are right when there are more than a dozen other religions out there that believe that they are".  When speaking of atrocities committed in the name of a god, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, polytheistic Greeks, Egyptians, Romans, don't have a leg to stand on when condemning others for those acts.  If you take religion out of the equation completely, humans are still humans.  They act in very predictable ways to all kinds of things.  And I personally believe that if you take religion away completely, if there were no knowledge of it at all that, even today eventually it would surface again in some form or another.  People exercise their free will everyday.  Free will is the most precious gift that we were given, according to Christianity.  Does it bite us in the butt at times?  Oh yeah!  But we are all still free to exercise it.  
And here's a question, not to prove any point I'm trying to make but just because:  If there is no religion at all, if there never was...what would constitute right or wrong?  Good or evil?  How would the rules that we live by in any society be established?  If there is no concept of religion is there a concept of right or wrong?  It seems to me that humans are hardwired to believe in something otherwise we wouldn't have a reference for what is right or wrong.  We would simply be acting on animal instinct.  The ability for our minds to reason and question is how religion evolved in the first place.  I think.

[Mr. Whippy]

And here's a question, not to prove any point I'm trying to make but just because: If there is no religion at all, if there never was...what would constitute right or wrong?  Good or evil?  How would the rules that we live by in any society be established?  If there is no concept of religion is there a concept of right or wrong?  It seems to me that humans are hardwired to believe in something otherwise we wouldn't have a reference for what is right or wrong.  We would simply be acting on animal instinct.  The ability for our minds to reason and question is how religion evolved in the first place.  I think.

Precisely. 

[Paul]

This makes an untrue assumtion: that religion has a monopoly on "right and wrong" ...it does not.
Do you honestly believe that we would of wiped ourselves out if it wasn't for religion? 

People with 21st century weapons and religious beliefs in the 14th could well wipe us out though. 

[Mr. Whippy]

This makes an untrue assumtion: that religion has a monopoly on "right and wrong" ...it does not.
Do you honestly believe that we would of wiped ourselves out if it wasn't for religion? 

People with 21st century weapons and religious beliefs in the 14th could well wipe us out though. 

No...

I believe you are defining philosophy as having to be devoid of a theistic basis.  What KGrayson and I are saying is, morality is subjective and can be derived of a theistic or atheistic basis.  Both are valid, since both are subjective.  It is what the group decides is pertinent to them which selects belief system--not an inherent rightness or wrongness of concept.

[GraysonK]

This makes an untrue assumtion: that religion has a monopoly on "right and wrong" ...it does not.
Do you honestly believe that we would of wiped ourselves out if it wasn't for religion? 

People with 21st century weapons and religious beliefs in the 14th could well wipe us out though. 

Actually, that wasn't the assumption I was making.  I was asking if there was another source.  I honestly hadn't ever thought of it before.  I'm open to the idea that right or wrong isn't founded in religion, but was asking where then it comes from.  Out of legitimate curiousity not mockingly or challenging any of your established thought.
I also didn't say or mean to suggest that we would have "wiped ourselves out if it wasn't for religion".  I said that we seem to be hardwired to explain things or live by rules that we have no or very little understanding of where those "rules" come from.  
You seem to have no problem acknowledging the existence of religion in past centuries...is it merely this one in which you wish that it would be done away with completely?  If religion is so wrong according to scientific construct then were did it come from?  And why has it lasted so long?  And why do people continue to practice it when they've had the option for centuries to do away with it?  Humans in positions of power, yes, have used religion as a way of controlling the masses and in some cases (sadly) still do it today.  People with 21st century weapons would have wiped each other out anyway regardless of religion in centuries well before and after the 14th.  

[Pacu]

While i'm against organized religion i feel that there is something that binds all of creation. There is something to whole evil and good battle that has been going on since man walked the earth. It's a shame that religion and war are usually in the same sentence.

Until i figure out what that "something " is i tend to steer clear of the collection plate.

Funny thing is i have southern baptists on my moms side and LDS on my dads side. Man did i hate church as a kid. Bunch of geezers tellin me i'm goin to hell in a handbasket.

[Grant Lamontagne]

What color is your handbasket?  Mine's blue with red flames up the side...

Def

[yud]

just as bald is not a hair colour" true but it can be a style

I can not show you that god is there, if you can't see him I can't make you, sorry.

Proof is hard since to me since to me life its self is proof, no one that I know of has come up with a way to make life or even how it could be done so that to me is proof

sorry I've got to go I'll pick this up later

[Styerman]

Color me very sceptical , for a universal truth , there seems to be a regretable lack of standardization . If God truly existed , why would we go to such extremes ; we would just accept him as a matter of course . I hope God is not as petty and stupid as those who claim to represent , and have a special relationship with him .

Organized/corporate religions seem to spend a disproportinate amount of time on our sex lives . They would probably gladly castrate us as a method of social control , but that is clearly beyond their resources . They do the next best thing by trying to impose B.S. rules and regs - thereby taking all the fun out of it . Why all the hype about an act , that to a healthy male or female animal is no more mysterious than defecating ?

Chris

[american lockpicker]

I believe in God but I could care less if anyone else does(what someone else does as long as it doesn't negatively affect me in fine). My dads a minister but doesn't force me to believe the same way. I went to church a lot as a kid until I turned 18. Then I stopped going my parents were ok with it. I only starting going to church again(usually once a week) last year because my dad got a new church that takes an active part in the community and collaborates with all the other churches of other denominations in the county with foodbanks, homeless shelters and other stuff(thats the only stuff I'm really interested in). I'm not devout I believe I'm going to Hell(by choice). One thing I don't like is the people above my dad seem to only care about statistics and apportionments like its a business or something.

[Poncho65]

Not to be offensive just to get 1 to think



I am a Christian and try daily to live a life that God and his Son would be proud of I am only human and have and probably will slip as I am human and not perfect by any means whether you choose to believe in God or not is up to the individual.  But telling me to make it a hobby is like telling an atheist that he is completely wrong I don't want an argument out of this because I feel everyone has a choice to believe how they want to believe But because you can't see God doesn't mean he doesn't exist.  I know he exist because I can feel him the same way a person can't see the wind but can feel it. That is my faith If I have said anything that might not should have been said then I really can't help it I just wanted ppl to know how I feel about it Thanks 

[ringzero]

The most horrific religion in history is Communism.

True Believers deny that Communism is a religion, but consider how well that description fits the facts.

Supposedly based on scientific analysis of economics and history, it is in fact a Faith Based belief system premised on an overly simplistic worldview, promising to deliver Paradise on Earth.

Its Great Prophet was Marx.

Its Great Messiah was Lenin.

Its Apostles were Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, etc. who worked to spread the True Faith far and wide across the globe.

Like most religions, it needed a Great Satan in opposition to everything good:  Capitalism.

The Communist Religion killed more people during the 20th Century than all previous religious wars in all of history combined.  Exact numbers may never be obtainable, but historians generally agree that somewhere between 50 and 100 Million people were killed by Communist wars, mass executions, forced relocations, purposeful famines, destructive labor camps, and other means.

Communism crushed the basic human freedoms of hundreds of millions of people who fell under its sway.  It also retarded progress, locked countless millions into poverty, and produced massive environmental degradation that still persists in Eastern Europe.

Yet, despite this lamentable record, there are still plenty of True Believers.

.

[american lockpicker]

"it needed a Great Satan in opposition to everything good:  Capitalism."

I'll agree with that capitalism is very bad its ruining the USA.

[cliosguy]

now we jump to politics

Capitalism is a good idea in theory and so is Communism

now people on the other hand, people is f**ked up

[american lockpicker]

now we jump to politics

Capitalism is a good idea in theory and so is Communism

now people on the other hand, people is f**ked up

What would be nice but could never happen would be a balance between the two that benefits everyone.

[Freudian Frog]

Sooo... I can't touch this topic with but a ten foot pole for various reasons... but I've been noticing for several years now that faith can often become ignorance, which leaves the human condition stagnant. I'm not saying you can't believe in a higher power... it just shouldn't get in the way of science, of which you learn by observing facts (a most sensible system is it not... why do people call it into question?), is all...

And as much as I'd like to call communism a relgion it is not. From its creation it was never meant to be such, and the only reason the system doesn't work is because of humanity.

And a shoutout to Poncho65... no offense, but that video was stupid.
Instead of getting me to think it got me rolling my eyes a lot.

EDIT: I forgot my disclaimer! If you've ever been offended by my posts, or thought of me as a bigot or racist - I have a simple explanation. I do not hate you for your race, creed, color, or beliefs. I merely think that humans are morons.

It's the only belief that's proven itself to me time and time again... sadly.

[nuphoria]

[Paul]

No, you're making the mistake that philosophy can have only one right answer--like science.  How you define good and evil is purely subjective based on your belief system (with or without a God).  Same as a Buddist, Hindu, Catholic etc.  You may reject their belief system for defining morally right or wrong, but equally, they can reject yours with similar validity.  There is no proof of morality.  It is subjective, and ever changing.

Nah, Neither philosophy or science have one right answer as you assert, as both subjects  evolve - unlike faith which is blind and static. Good and bad are of collective (not subjective) significance with a good Darwinian explanation.

We could have our wires crossed here and be saying similar things.......not sure of you point

[Styerman]

This thread has stayed pretty civil , on most other forums it would have turned pretty nasty .

Chris

[Mr. Whippy]

Nah, Neither philosophy or science have one right answer as you assert, as both subjects  evolve - unlike faith which is blind and static. Good and bad are of collective (not subjective) significance with a good Darwinian explanation.

We could have our wires crossed here and be saying similar things.......not sure of you point

This is simply wrong. Science has singular answers.  When an answer is incomplete, it is modified to a BETTER answer, replacing the previous answer.  That is a cornerstone of the scientific method and is a corollary of Occam's Razor.

Multiple philosophies can and do exist none of which is more or less correct--just different views of the same event.  Example:  One cannot credibly say that a Hindu's view of right and wrong is more correct than a Muslim's view of it or an atheist's view of it.  Both are valid, but different.

...and to further the point, in the wild, when one of a pack of wolves attacks (and possibly kills) another member of the pack, there is no moral value placed on it by other members of the pack.  It is simply a fact--and in general the pack continues on.  That humans place a moral value on the same act, but with different moral meanings depending on situation, is indicative of morality's subjective nature.

[Benner]

This thread has stayed pretty civil , on most other forums it would have turned pretty nasty .

Chris

That's because everyone knows I am watching this one very closely with my finger hoverring over the big red button. 

[GraysonK]

Nah, Neither philosophy or science have one right answer as you assert, as both subjects  evolve - unlike faith which is blind and static. Good and bad are of collective (not subjective) significance with a good Darwinian explanation.

We could have our wires crossed here and be saying similar things.......not sure of you point

This is simply wrong. Science has singular answers.  When an answer is incomplete, it is modified to a BETTER answer, replacing the previous answer.  That is a cornerstone of the scientific method and is a corollary of Occam's Razor.

Multiple philosophies can and do exist none of which is more or less correct--just different views of the same event.  Example:  One cannot credibly say that a Hindu's view of right and wrong is more correct than a Muslim's view of it or an atheist's view of it.  Both are valid, but different.

...and to further the point, in the wild, when one of a pack of wolves attacks (and possibly kills) another member of the pack, there is no moral value placed on it by other members of the pack.  It is simply a fact--and in general the pack continues on.  That humans place a moral value on the same act, but with different moral meanings depending on situation, is indicative of morality's subjective nature.

You said it WAY better than I did.   

[Paul]

Multiple philosophies can and do exist none of which is more or less correct--just different views of the same event.  Example:  One cannot credibly say that a Hindu's view of right and wrong is more correct than a Muslim's view of it or an atheist's view of it.  Both are valid, but different.

...and to further the point, in the wild, when one of a pack of wolves attacks (and possibly kills) another member of the pack, there is no moral value placed on it by other members of the pack.  It is simply a fact--and in general the pack continues on.  That humans place a moral value on the same act, but with different moral meanings depending on situation, is indicative of morality's subjective nature.

Morals can come from philosophy or religion - agreed, but  you seem to be saying  that these are one and the same thing?
Phlosophy is based on reason and inquiry while religion discourages it.

[ducktapehero]

I'm gone for a couple of days and the whole place erupts into a religious/political argument. I must be the ducktape that holds this place together. 

Anyway, I'm not going to delve into politics and economics. If you want to see how capitalism VS communism compares look at the 20th century and see who won. 


I do want to address a few things though. One, that "religion is stagnant and blind". 1st of all you're assuming that being religious means ignoring science. Quit assuming. I'm religious but I certainly don't think the world is flat or that the sun revolves around the Earth. God gave us brains and I'm sure he wants us to use them.   

And "religion is a hobby and can't be proved"? Well atheism can't be proven either. However, if you open your eyes and look at near death experiences, ghost sightings, ESP and other "paranormal" things, there IS evidence of things existing that science CANNOT account for. Now whether you want to accept that evidence is quite a different story. But it IS there.

However, to suggest that what I believe is fairy tales just because it can't be proven scientifically proven(regardless of the fact that YOUR stance can't be proven either) is insulting. Quit being arrogant and assuming you're "smarter and more enlightened" than religious people. Arrogant atheists are as annoying as self righteous religious people. That is a funny way to start a "polite" conversation. 

One last thing. As far as you don't think you should have to lawfully respect my beliefs? Well yes, that is the basic concept of FREEDOM. You do what you want and I'll do what I want. I'll respect your beliefs and you respect mine. I certainly don't agree with your beliefs but I would fight and die to protect your right to believe that way. It's wrong for ANYONE to force their religious(or non-religious) beliefs on anyone. Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Atheist etc etc.



The next 2 paragraphs are what I believe. I do not feel the need to force them on you nor do I feel the need to defend them. If you want you can skip them.

I consider myself a Christian but that's misleading. I was raised Catholic and over the years I have been Protestant, agnostic, "generically religious" and even flirted with other things. I guess I would classify as a Christian Universalist. I don't believe in Hell. I believe that the concept of an "eternal microwave" was NOT taught by Christ and the early church. That all came from bad translating and pagan concepts into the Christian church.

The concept of the eternal microwave and hypocritical Christians are the two biggest problems that most non-religious people have with God. I've never met anyone who has a problem with what Jesus taught, it's what his followers have taught that they have a problem with. And that's a shame. Jesus came to save the world, not divide it.

[GraysonK]

But religion is practiced by people who can't help but inquire and reason, even about their religion.  At one point in time, yes religion played a major role in controlling others, but it was done by those in charge who didn't know any other way to control their people except to tell them that they had an immortal soul and then scare them into believing that if the didn't follow the rules set forth by their leaders then they risked their souls burning forever.  (I'm speaking of Christianity here because I'm most familiar with it) While it's true that some still try to control their congregations through scare tactics, by and large people started questioning, reasoning, and discovering for themselves what they want to believe.  

Well said, DTT.  And welcome back.  I hope all is well. 

[american lockpicker]

I agree with "It's wrong for ANYONE to force their religious(or non-religious) beliefs on anyone." 100%.

[Mr. Whippy]

Multiple philosophies can and do exist none of which is more or less correct--just different views of the same event.  Example:  One cannot credibly say that a Hindu's view of right and wrong is more correct than a Muslim's view of it or an atheist's view of it.  Both are valid, but different.

...and to further the point, in the wild, when one of a pack of wolves attacks (and possibly kills) another member of the pack, there is no moral value placed on it by other members of the pack.  It is simply a fact--and in general the pack continues on.  That humans place a moral value on the same act, but with different moral meanings depending on situation, is indicative of morality's subjective nature.

Morals can come from philosophy or religion - agreed, but  you seem to be saying  that these are one and the same thing?
Phlosophy is based on reason and inquiry while religion discourages it.

Depends on the religion, now doesn't it?  Seems to me you attribute all negative aspects to theist based philosophies--religion if you will (essentially) and all positive aspects to Non-theist philosophies.  Sorta prejudicial viewpoint, I'd say...

[Paul]

Multiple philosophies can and do exist none of which is more or less correct--just different views of the same event.  Example:  One cannot credibly say that a Hindu's view of right and wrong is more correct than a Muslim's view of it or an atheist's view of it.  Both are valid, but different.

...and to further the point, in the wild, when one of a pack of wolves attacks (and possibly kills) another member of the pack, there is no moral value placed on it by other members of the pack.  It is simply a fact--and in general the pack continues on.  That humans place a moral value on the same act, but with different moral meanings depending on situation, is indicative of morality's subjective nature.

Morals can come from philosophy or religion - agreed, but  you seem to be saying  that these are one and the same thing?
Phlosophy is based on reason and inquiry while religion discourages it.

Depends on the religion, now doesn't it?  Seems to me you attribute all negative aspects to theist based philosophies--religion if you will (essentially) and all positive aspects to Non-theist philosophies.  Sorta prejudicial viewpoint, I'd say...

"prejudicial" ?.. No.... Skeptical yes.

You say "Depends on the religion, now doesn't it?"

I would say we don't have the scope to go into all the details of all religions, but it's fair to say religions generally are dogmatic and discourage free thinking and claim to have ALL the answers. I've already said that morals can come from religion which makes a nonsense of your "all negative" comment. All I'm saying (AGAIN) is faith heads seem to think they have a monopoly on all that is good and that they themselves show arrogance with the holier than thou attitude.

Just what exactly are you saying Mr Whippy?