Jump to content

DK's and religion


WagesofSin

Recommended Posts

Impossible. Compromises must be reached between moral systems in government. I personally believe that a fetus is an actual person with a right to live. Libertarians believe that a woman's right to kill the fetus is superior to that fetus's right to live.

An enviromentalist believes that releasing ANY pollutants into a pristine mountain stream is too much. Our government has reached a compromise that results in small, non-harmful amounts of certain chemicals (example: arsenic), in streams abutting factories. The result is that neither the enviromentalist who believes all factories are immoral nor the industrialist who believes that all resources are his to use is completely happy, and a balance is struck.

The other question is financial. Are taxes imposed on my personal freedom? Does any other person have a right to take my money and spend it on anything? National defense, welfare, health care, foreign aid, pick whatever you think is overspent right now. A true Libertarian would not allow taxes for any of these, with the exception (usually) of national defense.

As good as that statement sounds, it is unsound for a form of government.

In my opinion though Fetuses (sp?) have less rights than an actual human being. I certainly believe that abortion isn't the best choice, adoption being a good alternative, I don't think a woman should be denied her right to choose. And I don't believe that taking an arguement to its extreme is a good way of making a point. Obviously you need taxes and there needs to be compromise, everything else that a person would find morally objectionable (drugs, homosexuality, firearms whathaveyou) should be allowed to all people that seek it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 254
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

In my beliefs, Hell is not so much a physical place as much as a state of being. Hell, literally, is being completely and utterly seperated from God and his blessings. Even people who do not believe are blessed, they can still come to God. At Judgement Day, God will judge people. Unbelievers = Hell; Believers = Heaven. Believers go to Heaven and be with God for eternity. Unbelievers live in a state of Hell, seperated from God without any blessings whatsoever. God WANTS to bless everyone. He -is- just. He set rules: "Believe and you are blessed forever, don't and you are seperated from me forever." Don't believe, and according to the law he set, you are seperated. But just because God WANTS everyone to go to Heaven, doesn't mean he'll take everyone there. He's given us the way there, and it is up to us to take it. And before anyone even says "What about people who don't have a chance to believe?" I'll say that I can't answer that. That is one thing we really don't know. From what I can tell, they will be in Hell(seperated from God). Is that fair? Not really, but just like on Earth, ignorance of the law doesn't mean you're off scot free. But you also must realize that you're judging from your own sense of fairness. People aren't perfect, God is. He sets the rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well.. Believe in what? Several billion people will go to hell because they were raised the wrong way and are not catholic christians, but are protestants or jews or muslims or hindus? Does not make sense. What would make sense, however, is if you came to heaven if you lived a good life and to hell if you lived a bad life - no matter what faith you belonged to, or didn't belong to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have always found it odd that there are so many religions out there claiming to be the "One True Religion". Go to each of their places of worship, listen to the holy man. They all speak as if they are the single true religion out there. Who's to say they are? Who's to say they aren't?

The way I see it, all these different religions and spiritual differences are like doors (or windows, in some cases) to the same house. Does that make sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well.. Believe in what? Several billion people will go to hell because they were raised the wrong way and are not catholic christians' date=' but are protestants or jews or muslims or hindus? Does not make sense. What would make sense, however, is if you came to heaven if you lived a good life and to hell if you lived a bad life - no matter what faith you belonged to, or didn't belong to.[/quote']

Yet another objection of mine to the supposed "goodness" of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are justified in believing there was a creator of my Mazda because we can see the creator' date=' we can observe the process of its creation, we can see the car roll out of that factory. You are not justified in believing the same for the universe.[/quote']

I have never been to Japan. I have never even seen a picture of a Mazda factory. Therefore, there is less evidence to me for the human construction of my car than there is for the existance of G-d, with whom I have spoken personally.

A Cell is more complex than your car? The term "complex" is itself difficult to define. How do you quantify/qualify complex? Isn't god infinitely more complex than a cell or car? Why is it ok for him to be infinite' date=' but not the universe? Also, the universe isn't as "random" as you state it to be.[/quote']

Complex is very easy to define:

characterized by a very complicated or involved arrangement of parts, units, etc.: complex machinery.

There is no question that a cell meets this definition. A cell has as many individual parts as my car does. A cell is irreducibly complex. That is, it cannot be disassembled any further than it is and continue to function. Therefore, it must have been combined in its current status by some process. The first cell must therefore have an assembler with the complexity to create a cell. Such a mechanist has never been discovered in nature.

G-d can be infinite because he is timeless. We live in time's arrow, so we think of things in terms of cause and effect. In timeless space, cause and effect are not required. No time means no beginning and no end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion though Fetuses (sp?) have less rights than an actual human being. I certainly believe that abortion isn't the best choice' date=' adoption being a good alternative, I don't think a woman should be denied her right to choose. And I don't believe that taking an arguement to its extreme is a good way of making a point. Obviously you need taxes and there needs to be compromise, everything else that a person would find morally objectionable (drugs, homosexuality, firearms whathaveyou) should be allowed to all people that seek it.[/quote']

Hold on, you said there have to be compromises, then proceeded to expound your exact position.

WHY should everything that a person would find morally objectionable be allowed to the people seek it? What moral code requires it? Mine does not, and why should I be required to vote your moral code?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea of irreducible complexity has been almost completely rejected by modern science, Behrens. One of the lovely little things about evolutionary theory is that it (by all observations correctly) predicts that certain parts of organisms will be used and combined with other parts to form new structures. I'm in class at the moment, so I don't really have the time to find the various articles discussing this, but I'll post them later. I do recall that one of the original irreducible complexity arguments dealt with the ear and the bones inside, that they could not work if one of those bones was missing, etc., and this was later proven wrong by the discovery of fossils showing that those bones were originally part of both the jaw and the ear, and over time moved back to be purely part of the ear as they are more functional there.

EDIT: The bacterial flagellum, another favorite of those who believe in irreducible complexity, cannot work without a certain part according to them. http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html is a rather good counter to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In timeless space' date=' cause and effect are not required. No time means no beginning and no end.[/quote']

That's so clever... I really never thought about that before. How would time (past, present and future) function then? You think it could apply it to space as well? No space means no beginning and no end..?

EDIT:

After some further thought I realized... If God experiences a state where time does not exist, where there is no beginning or end, he would indeed be all-knowing, right? I'm feeling so smart now.

:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's so clever... I really never thought about that before. How would time (past, present and future) function then? You think it could apply it to space as well? No space means no beginning and no end..?

EDIT:

After some further thought I realized... If God experiences a state where time does not exist, where there is no beginning or end, he would indeed be all-knowing, right? I'm feeling so smart now.

:P

Exactly, Melinda. The same way you can see both ends of a string laid upon the ground, G-d can see the beginning and end of time because he is timeless. I admit I cannot personally imagine being timeless. I am too tied to my perceptions, which require time to process. I can, however, view the concept of timelessness, and understand that it is required for G-d to be the Prime Cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never been to Japan. I have never even seen a picture of a Mazda factory. Therefore' date=' there is less evidence to me for the human construction of my car than there is for the existance of G-d, with whom I have spoken personally.[/quote']

I can show you a picture of the factory, then I can take you on a trip to the factory, then once you start working full time on FL we'll be able to drive out in your new Mazda. How about it? We know humans build things, you see evidence of human construction in a car. You have no way to observe how god does anything or has done anything.

Since god has "talked" to you, then I can't argue with that! Can you ask him to ring me up one of these days?

Complex is very easy to define:

characterized by a very complicated or involved arrangement of parts, units, etc.: complex machinery.

There is no question that a cell meets this definition. A cell has as many individual parts as my car does. A cell is irreducibly complex. That is, it cannot be disassembled any further than it is and continue to function. Therefore, it must have been combined in its current status by some process. The first cell must therefore have an assembler with the complexity to create a cell. Such a mechanist has never been discovered in nature.

If it's so easy to define and to quantify/qualify: Whats more complex? Jupiter or a mouse? The universe or the molecular structure of an element?

Please explain to me what criteria you used to reach your conclusions if you can.

Also irreducible complexity is not true. Check out

It's a long, albeit interesting presentation by Ken Miller(a christian evolutionist) on the topic of intelligent design, towards the middle he talks about irreducible complexity. I'm sure you and all other readers will find it interesting.

G-d can be infinite because he is timeless. We live in time's arrow, so we think of things in terms of cause and effect. In timeless space, cause and effect are not required. No time means no beginning and no end.

You know this? Please explain to me how you reached the fact that god is timeless(or that he even exists, but I get the feeling we're just going to run around in circles)? Fact is, we don't even understand time completely yet. Where is this timeless space? Have you observed it?

You claimed that you used reason to reach your truth. I'm still waiting, though we probably won't get anywhere with these posts. There are entire web forums on such topics and we might as well agree to disagree.

One final question: Is the earth 6,000 or 10,000 years old in your opinion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We not only don't understand time completely, we don't know how many dimensions exist, or how they tie into and affect 4-dimensional space-time. Theoretically, the inside of a black hole could be timeless.

EDIT: About the god talking to people idea... why is it that when someone says God talks to them through their hairdryer, they're considered insane, but if you remove the hairdryer they're devout?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol.

I belive in a higher being... what ever be his/her/its name... but I don't know how to proove it. I have never spoken to them... or seen a picture, I can only say its a belief. I do not belive however in conformed religion, as it is as I have seen it, a breeding ground for hypocrits.

General deist? Belief that a god started everything, then stepped back to let things unfold as they will?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...