DK's and religion

[Behrens]

A good example of that would be the center of the universe (galaxy/solar system/whatever). Despite being proven wrong (Earth is not the center, it is not flat, etc) (the assumptions changed with advances in tech/math/etc), religions cling to old, indisputedly incorrect dogma.

You can argue for years (people have) on this.

Behrens is assuming that goodwill and morality came from religion. The counter argument is that religion came from goodwill and morality. There is very little difference between a law from the bible and a law on paper (in terms of the law itself).

Whether or not you have laws of morality does not determine if you are secular or not. I can have a society in which I declare spitting is immoral. I am not suddenly a religious state. If I write a book of such laws, it is not suddenly a religion.

edit: To go the next step...perhaps research finds that spitting has wonderful health benefits..so that law could be changed. The continual changing and adaptation to advancement/environment/etc is not a bad thing.

I disagree, of course, that Christianity contains any scientifically inaccurate dogma.

I am indeed asserting that morality comes from religion, and I argue that it is a required precursor. No animal has any morality, and likewise morality is not core to the human animal, as is evidenced by the feral nature of aboriginal peoples and inner city gangs, which revert to the primitive tribal conflict.

You are correct. The source of the laws (typically the majority of laws in places where they are drawn from multiple places) determines the "religiousity" of any society. Which is why most European societies, despite being fairly post-Christian in the beliefs of their populace, tend to be viewed as Christian nations. If most laws are derived from Marxist ideals, the country is said to be Marxist, if most derived from sharia, the country is said to be Islamic, etc.

Therefore, since Marxism is a secular philosophy, I refer to Marxist nations as secular.

[Celerity]

I disagree' date=' of course, that Christianity contains any scientifically inaccurate dogma.[/quote']

Read Genesis.

No animal has any morality,

Many animals do have a sense of morality. Most mammals care and protect their young. Primates eat bugs from their friends. You might call these survival instincts..but then again you can call all things related to morality survival instincts.

and likewise morality is not core to the human animal, as is evidenced by the feral nature of aboriginal peoples and inner city gangs, which revert to the primitive tribal conflict.

Nobody is trying to argue that morality hasn't advanced over time. Christian morality 2000 years ago is different than modern Christian morality. Morality is here because benefit can be gained from it (it allows civilizations, advancement, trade, many things). Religion isn't the only justifable reason morality exists.

The source of the laws (typically the majority of laws in places where they are drawn from multiple places) determines the "religiousity" of any society. Which is why most European societies, despite being fairly post-Christian in the beliefs of their populace, tend to be viewed as Christian nations. If most laws are derived from Marxist ideals, the country is said to be Marxist, if most derived from sharia, the country is said to be Islamic, etc. Therefore, since Marxism is a secular philosophy, I refer to Marxist nations as secular.

US Christian is a lot different than Dutch Christian. Moral laws predate Christianity on the timeline. Most international lawyers divide it up based on the roots of the law system (greco-roman, common law, whatever), not based on the religion held by the populace (Christian, etc).

[a-guitarist]

I'll have to disagree that morality comes from religion. When I was a hard core atheist, I was still a moral person. I believed in treating others well, disrespecting no one (although I now realize I did, accidentally), and honouring my comitments.

Simply stating that someone who has no religion isn't a moral individual is something that I do find offensive. I may not be a christian, jew, muslim, or any other 'denomination', but I am STILL and ALWAYS HAVE and ALWAYS WILL be a moral person. Anyone who says differently is blind to the fact that good is in the hearts of all people, in my opinion. (The reason for putting this last sentance in is that everyone is basing their opinions as fact, so why can't I?)

Every person is a moral person, because every person has good in their hearts. I've seen people do dispicable things, yet still do honourable and magnificant deeds the next day. What does this prove? Just because you, or your friends, may not agree with their standards and way of life doesn't make them unmoral. It means that they have different views than you. Most "evil" deeds are done with good intentions. And yes, I know the saying, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

a-g

In addition, saying that a person who isn't religious won't kill for a few reasons, none being their morals, is bull. I don't kill because I don't want it to come back to me by way of imprisonment. Nor do I do it so I won't get outcasted by my friends. Although those are good reasons, they aren't the reason. The reason why? I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I killed another person. And no "GOD" is telling me to feel this way, I do it because I believe all living things have a right to live. Although, I still kill some bugs, and such, but that is something I take up with myself, not anyone else.

And also, I find it funny that when someone says "God talks to me." everyone looks at them like they are normal. But when I, and many people like me, ended up seeing things and having things talk to me, I got thrown on a cornacopia of drugs and treatments and hospitalizations, all of which made my condition worse. Where is the morality in that? When the things a person sees and talks to don't line up with what you believe them to be? Someone help me with this one, it's been kicking my *** for the past five years.

[Behrens]

Read Genesis.

Many animals do have a sense of morality. Most mammals care and protect their young. Primates eat bugs from their friends. You might call these survival instincts..but then again you can call all things related to morality survival instincts.

Nobody is trying to argue that morality hasn't advanced over time. Christian morality 2000 years ago is different than modern Christian morality. Morality is here because benefit can be gained from it (it allows civilizations, advancement, trade, many things). Religion isn't the only justifable reason morality exists.

US Christian is a lot different than Dutch Christian. Moral laws predate Christianity on the timeline. Most international lawyers divide it up based on the roots of the law system (greco-roman, common law, whatever), not based on the religion held by the populace (Christian, etc).

I disagree that Genesis contains any inaccuracies. Merely saying that is no more a refutation of my point than me saying "Read the Bible" refutes your claim that religion derives from morality. I can get into a specific debate at another point, but you're not making an argument here.

Many moral systems have specifically ANTI-survival protocalls. For example, caring for an aged, senile relative is anti-survival. It wastes resources, and he can provide no resource to the society. However, we are willing to do so.

I disagree strongly that morality has evolved over time. I believe that Biblical morality has remained constantly the superiour moral system. Remember that Christianity is in fact a continuation of Judaism, which is one of the oldest religions, if not THE oldest religion, according to all sources, secular and religious.

I do not disagree that other religions have given rise to other moral systems, merely that moral systems do not arise without religion.

[Chayesh]

I think as an addendum to what Behrens is saying, and to hopefully clarify, it is not that a secular humanist thinking person, not religious, atheist, whatever label you wish to give them, cannot be moral. That's not his point. His point is, from the secular humanist viewpoint, everyone is right. How can I exercise my rights if they conflict with yours? How I can do and say whatever I want and it be right where our desires and interactions overlap. Popular secular thinking subscribes to this fallacy of situational ethics that whatever you think is right for the situation is okay to do.

Again, secular persons can be totally moral people. I know lots of them. But, if they fully believe in what they profess, that situational ethics is okay and there is no higher moral calling than what they feel is right and good, they need to be fully willing to accept the short end of the stick when someone else takes advantage of them, infringes upon their rights, and does basically whatever they want to them because who are they to enforce their version of right and wrong on the offender.

That is why there must be some higher authority to appeal to for an established moral code or society's conflicting overlapping perspective devolve into moral anarchy.

[Zavero]

Wow, you're scary Behrens. No offense but it is the people that are so fanatical about religion that scares me away from it. People give up their entires lives based on something they cannot even see or touch because they believe everything a single book of short stories written by someone like you, or me says. All heresay. The worlds greatest con.

Maybe religion does create morality, but it also creates wars.

[Zrothum]

FF12 is badass. Go buy it

And again...the concept of religion was only instituted, in it's many different varieties, to answer the questions that some people would rather leave to faith, instead of science. To give meaning to parts of some lives that would otherwise feel empty. To teach morals/ethics of a particular group of people to the world.

With the hundreds of types of religions out there, no one can "prove" theirs to be true. It comes down to faith, which in it's raw form, is blind ignorance. Not to call anyone ignorant...just saying, to put FAITH into something, is to understand you do not know, can never know....just that you agree to believe.

[Behrens]

Correct, Chay, and I'm sorry if it has come across that I did. I am accusing no one in this thread of being an immoral person. I am merely stating that ethics derived from any source besides G-d have no true foundation.

I'd like to clarify that I personally know several homosexuals who are close friends of mine. My personal views are that they should not be able to "marry" their partners or have any special rights based on their homosexuality, but that doesn't mean that I hate them as people.

[Zrothum]

WWJD

Based on the teachings of Christianity, coitus is to be shared between a man and a woman. So, how can Christians, have "close" friends who's very lives defy the teachings of your faith?

[Behrens]

Wow, you're scary Behrens. No offense but it is the people that are so fanatical about religion that scares me away from it. People give up their entires lives based on something they cannot even see or touch because they believe everything a single book of short stories written by someone like you, or me says. All heresay. The worlds greatest con.

Maybe religion does create morality, but it also creates wars.

Well, I may be scary, but that has nothing to do with religion.

Seriously though, wars happen, and religion is very rarely a cause of them. In fact, there are 489 wars listed in Wikipedia, of which only 53 (10.8 percent) can be considered religious, even if you consider each of the ten Crusades as seperate wars.

As for hearsay, almost all that you have learned is likely hearsay, as I'm sure you've never studied directly in high powered observatories to study astrological phenomena, or used generational observation to study gene drift in animal species.

In fact, the things that I know are fact because of my connection to the spiritual are likely less hearsay than you suspect.

[Behrens]

WWJD

Based on the teachings of Christianity, coitus is to be shared between a man and a woman. So, how can Christians, have "close" friends who's very lives defy the teachings of your faith?

Yes, because Yeshua NEVER walked with sinners and ate at their table...

Wait, yes he did, and that's what pissed of the religious leaders of the time.

I AM doing what He would do. All my friends know of my faith, and I do what I can to bring them to Him.

[Zrothum]

Please, no sarcasm, I was being sincere.

Your last line answered my question and was what I was looking for. I wouldn't think, what I would call a "True" christian, could be their friend AND turn a blind eye to what they were doing.

[Chayesh]

The Pharisees of Jesus' day asked the same question of Him when he spoke with, shared meals with, and allowed Himself to be in close proximity to all sorts of "sinners". His answer, "The Son of God came to seek and save those who are lost." He also stated that anyone person walking down the street loves people who are their friends and think like them. That's not great accomplishment. It is the evidence of the power of God to love those who are your enemies, completely unlike you, aggravate you, and despise you.

Though the terminology will sound as if I'm being disparaging of them {those God declares sinners} or self-righteous, which I am definitely not, sick people need a physician and a cure, not well people.

EDIT: Behrens typed faster than I did.

[Zavero]

Scary...

[WagesofSin]

I think as an addendum to what Behrens is saying' date=' and to hopefully clarify, it is not that a secular humanist thinking person, not religious, atheist, whatever label you wish to give them, cannot be moral. That's not his point. His point is, from the secular humanist viewpoint, everyone is right. How can I exercise my rights if they conflict with yours? How I can do and say whatever I want and it be right where our desires and interactions overlap. Popular secular thinking subscribes to this fallacy of situational ethics that whatever you think is right for the situation is okay to do.[/quote']

You need to explain to me how under a secular worldview everyone is right. I don't know how you came to such a conclusion. I assume you are talking about human value judgements and not empirical information? Also, what is preventing you from exercising your rights if they are in conflict?

I would object to your claim that in secular worldviews "anything goes".

Again, secular persons can be totally moral people. I know lots of them. But, if they fully believe in what they profess, that situational ethics is okay and there is no higher moral calling than what they feel is right and good, they need to be fully willing to accept the short end of the stick when someone else takes advantage of them, infringes upon their rights, and does basically whatever they want to them because who are they to enforce their version of right and wrong on the offender.

They don't need to "accept" anything. They can get angry, and slap the other person for infringing on their rights. The other person will stop doing it because he doesn't want to risk getting slapped again. Isn't that how the world works? We do try to enforce our ideas/views/morals on others!

On the contrary, how should a religious person act when someone "infringes upon their rights, and does basically whatever they want to them because who are they to enforce their version of right and wrong on the offender.".

They act the same way, they will fight back enforcing their own idea/views/morals.

*note: when I say "slap" I don't mean physical violence necissarily. It could be emotional, financial or some other type of pressure.

Situational ethics(I assume you mean relative morals) do work, just be ready to accept the consequences when you take someone elses car for spin without asking them.

That is why there must be some higher authority to appeal to for an established moral code or society's conflicting overlapping perspective devolve into moral anarchy.

An authority that there is no evidence for, people disgree upon what it is and what it wants. All of this under the assumption that this autority is good or well meaning. Even if god made up a moral code, it is still relative(i.e not absolute).It's relative to god. (and going by the bible, he gladly steps over his own rules)

[Celerity]

I disagree that Genesis contains any inaccuracies. Merely saying that is no more a refutation of my point than me saying "Read the Bible" refutes your claim that religion derives from morality. I can get into a specific debate at another point' date=' but you're not making an argument here.[/quote']

Alright, I guess we can make it more specific. How do you explain the world in a week, or the flood..using scientific means? How do you explain long life and all that?

Many moral systems have specifically ANTI-survival protocalls. For example, caring for an aged, senile relative is anti-survival. It wastes resources, and he can provide no resource to the society. However, we are willing to do so.

Elderly have always been a resource. Just because they don't produce anything doesn't mean they don't serve a social/instructional/etc role. Do you have a different example? Just because something doesn't have meaning today, doesn't mean there is no meaning behind it.

I believe that Biblical morality has remained constantly the superiour moral system.

Superior to what? How do you gauge that?

Remember that Christianity is in fact a continuation of Judaism, which is one of the oldest religions, if not THE oldest religion, according to all sources, secular and religious.

Doesn't the bible even talk about pre-existing pagan religions? Monotheistic religions were the among the last to evolve.

Chayesh:

I don't see how you are combining situational ethics. Just because people are motivated by their environment doesn't mean that motivation is short-term, concrete, or even logical.

Secular authorities have all the same punishments we have today..why wouldn't they be able to enforce their own rules? Secular doesn't mean relativist.

That is why there must be some higher authority to appeal to for an established moral code or society's conflicting overlapping perspective devolve into moral anarchy.

This is what some secularists do..authority can come top-down. Governments can control their provinces which can control districts and so own..right down to the household. Many philosophers talk about this without using religion. In Christianity, the authority is in the middle tier, not the highest tier. God has 'enforcers' in the way of priests, etc, to make sure her will gets done. She doesn't directly enact it. When people break a Christian ethic, they aren't punished by God (during life). Anarchy has to do with a lack of authority/governence. This can happen under any system, not just secular ones.

Don't get me wrong..I'm not atheist.

I'd like to clarify that I personally know several homosexuals who are close friends of mine. My personal views are that they should not be able to "marry" their partners or have any special rights based on their homosexuality' date=' but that doesn't mean that I hate them as people.[/quote']

Maybe you don't hate them, but you are certainly willing to discriminate and label them as inferior by not giving them the same privledges that you enjoy.

Seriously though, wars happen, and religion is very rarely a cause of them. In fact, there are 489 wars listed in Wikipedia, of which only 53 (10.8 percent) can be considered religious, even if you consider each of the ten Crusades as seperate wars.

Wars always have a lot of causes. Maybe they are not 'religious wars', but how many were strongly influenced by the ideals of a religion?

As for hearsay, almost all that you have learned is likely hearsay, as I'm sure you've never studied directly in high powered observatories to study astrological phenomena, or used generational observation to study gene drift in animal species.

You don't need to directly observe something to believe in it. If it has enough testable evidence, then it can be considered common knowledge. God lacks this testable, observable evidence.

In fact, the things that I know are fact because of my connection to the spiritual are likely less hearsay than you suspect.

What does this mean?

sick people need a physician and a cure, not well people.

Sick people need a physician and cure, not blind faith..unless they want to become dead people.

Edit: Some of us HAVE studied in high powered observatories and looked at gene mutations, etc. How sure were you again?

Edit2: Although, I guess we study astronomical things..not astrological.

[a-guitarist]

I'd like to say I'm sorry. I reread my post and realized I came across as an angry jackhole. Although I was perturbed slightly, I didn't mean to cause this thread any damage.

Correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm not exactly sure (Even when I was a christian, I didn't really learn much about it or follow it too closely), but didn't Jesus love all men/women? Now that I think of that, isn't that why he was brought on this earth according to the bible and other holy scriptures?

The way I look at it is this... Love is the most profound emotion on the planet. If you love someone, you respect them, accept them, and view them as your equal. This is what I'm also taking from the religious posters perspective on this aswell. That is, that they agree with my statement on love.

Just because they follow a different path than you, that doesn't make them any less superior than you, or does it?

Anyways, here's what I think. Love everyone (be they peers, Gods, or whatnot) and you can truely love yourself. Isn't that what religion is trying to teach in the broader sense of it's meaning?

And as to the first religion, Shamanism is considered the first, or "proto", religion I thought. The section of it that first spawned or was learned in Siberia-ish region way back in the day?

In my readings on Shamanism, cultures all around the world have very similar beliefs in their shamanic traditions no matter the distance from one another. Most, if not all I think, believe in the three teired reigns of existance that overlap one another creating the lower, present and higher realms. Which can be aligned to the Hell, Earth, and Heaven lands. As the Sub, lower, lands are where the dead can walk when they are "lost", if you will, and travel along and the Higher plain of existance is one where understanding and love and such is felt, while the current level being the physical world.

Actually, I'll have to get back to you on all of this. I have to reread some of my books, it seems my memory problems are causing me to forget much of it.

a-g

[songofsixpence]

While I haven't felt the need to say anything in this conversation yet, I feel that I should point out something that isn't quite correct.

Remember that Christianity is in fact a continuation of Judaism' date=' which is one of the oldest religions, if not THE oldest religion, according to all sources, secular and religious.[/quote']

Christianity is not a continuism of Judaism, and if you give me some time I will dig up the sources that I have for this argument (it will take some time as they're back at my parent's house). Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are all sister religions. Modern Christianity was born of a proto-religion formed by the lower class parts of society (slaves and grunt workers). It has similar aspects to Judaism, but the aspect of "the meek shall inherit the earth" is directly derived from this mentality.

In addition, it is hard to argue that Christianity is a direct continuation of anything as the Church has at multiple points in its history adopted or otherwise used pagan worship elements. This dates back to Paul himself, the first church he established already had elements of a pagan religion (Mithraism) incorporated. These are still seen today in the form of the Death and the Resurrection as well as the Epiphany.

[Zrothum]

I'd like to point out again that all religions were put in place to pass down the morals/ethics/beliefs of different types of people. It's meant to give meaning/fullfillment to people who can't find it elsewhere, so need to put "faith" into something that they can give themselves blind answers for, to questions they can find no other way to answer.

Where are you going when you die? To Heaven? You can't prove it, it's just something you'd like to believe, so you feel as though your day to day life in the world has some meaning.

Can't fault people for wanting to believe something like that, I guess. Everyone wants to think that their time on this planet isn't for naught. But, there is no factual/scientific evidence seperating one religion from the next. Maybe we return to the earth? Maybe we go to Heaven?

Physically, scientifically, whateverishly...there is no answer. For people who want an answer to questions like this......they find religion.

I love religion because it teaches people morals and ethics and best practices in everyday life. I'd like to think I can learn these things on my own, in my own way...but for the people who can't...there exists religion. It does good things for many people...I just laugh at the idea of religion in general...not at specific religions or their followers....just the concept

[Dale]

When was the last time dk's were spoken about in this thread.

[Lexi]

Roughly 20 pages back, Dale.

[Behrens]

It would take quite a long time for me to explain my beliefs on Genesis, as they're not in the majority of Christians. I've mentioned them before in this thread.

However, since you've obviously not read everything I've read in this thread, I believe in an ancient earth, as it says in Habbakuk 3: 6 "the ancient mountains and the age-old hills". If you want a website of some people that believe similarly to me (scientists and astronomers), www.reasons.org is an excellent one. Obviously my saying astrology was a typographical error. I meant astronomy. My point with hearsay is that if 5.3 billion people believe in the spiritual (the approximate total of all religious people in the world), and you do not, perhaps you are the one in error. It is true that majority does not make you correct, but neither does minority, especially with something that every person can experience themselves.

I'm not talking about the wiser older men, the Chuck Norrises of our world, who are still physically and mentally hale, and can teach the younger. I am talking of the senile, those who have less value than a child, and are as hard or harder to keep alive.

The problem with your ethics are that a government has the ability to remove rights if they do not come from an authority above the government. Our Constitution states that we are endowed by our "Creator" with our rights. If rights come from the government, then the government can remove them. If they come from G-d, they cannot. The result of a government that can take rights away is the USSR, North Korea, China, etc.

The reason this results is that even if you have good men leading the country, once they remove a right, it is gone, and in the future you do not have that right. This is why you end up with forced abortions in China, gulags in the USSR, and murders of religious Koreans in Pyongyang.

They don't need to "accept" anything. They can get angry, and slap the other person for infringing on their rights. The other person will stop doing it because he doesn't want to risk getting slapped again. Isn't that how the world works? We do try to enforce our ideas/views/morals on others!

On the contrary, how should a religious person act when someone "infringes upon their rights, and does basically whatever they want to them because who are they to enforce their version of right and wrong on the offender.".

They act the same way, they will fight back enforcing their own idea/views/morals.

*note: when I say "slap" I don't mean physical violence necissarily. It could be emotional, financial or some other type of pressure.

Situational ethics(I assume you mean relative morals) do work, just be ready to accept the consequences when you take someone elses car for spin without asking them.

The problem is that you are assuming a more powerful person who can enforce your right to property. What happens if I want, for example, to have sex with a pretty girl? I am 6'0", in great shape, and a black belt in Taekwon-do. A tiny percentage of women would even have a chance against me in combat. Does that mean that I have to right to have sex with any of them since they can't slap me around? In my moral system, obviously not. In yours, their only defense is to enforce their morality themselves which they would be incapable of doing, or hire a big man who is stronger, faster, and more skilled than me, which merely becomes an arms race.

Christianity and Judaism ARE the same religion. Christianity was originally a sect of Judaism known as the Way. The incorporation of pagan holidays and systems into Christianity happened at the time of Constantine, as Acts and Paul's letters makes it clear that Paul still considers himself Jewish, and even worships at the Temple.

Islam is a seperate religion with roots in the pagan Arab society of the time, which incorporates some Jewish traditions into it.

[Dale]

This is why I tend to stay away from religious topics. They never end.

[Behrens]

This is why I tend to stay away from religious topics. They never end.

But we enjoy the discussion.

[Goomf]

It's also an easy way to multiply your post counts.