Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Elaine wrote: "I'm not American so I don't understand the connection between the IRS and religion. I'm guessing that churches (and just churches or all faith groups?) get some form of tax break. Is this current..."
No. We've discussed it here before. On the thread. Not many in DC want to discuss it. All sorts of special interest groups, secular and religious, get all sorts of tax breaks here. Wouldn't exactly be in the politicians best interests to curb that, given who supports them in political campaigns.
Some non-believers here have voiced that the government shouldn't give tax breaks to religious groups. Frankly, I agree. However, I think that should extend to secular groups who are no more doing the public good than the man in the moon.
The recent IRS mess was mentioned here, by me, to make a point about trust. Many Americans distrust the government and don't believe what the government says ... for many reasons, not just religious reasons and misconceptions. We were discussing vaccinations at the time, if I remember correctly.
No. We've discussed it here before. On the thread. Not many in DC want to discuss it. All sorts of special interest groups, secular and religious, get all sorts of tax breaks here. Wouldn't exactly be in the politicians best interests to curb that, given who supports them in political campaigns.
Some non-believers here have voiced that the government shouldn't give tax breaks to religious groups. Frankly, I agree. However, I think that should extend to secular groups who are no more doing the public good than the man in the moon.
The recent IRS mess was mentioned here, by me, to make a point about trust. Many Americans distrust the government and don't believe what the government says ... for many reasons, not just religious reasons and misconceptions. We were discussing vaccinations at the time, if I remember correctly.
The only exemption should be for poverty.
Tough question to ask since religion was one of the first sciences. They also seek answers to different question ... I think moderation is best. The world needs both knowledge and spiritualism ... but if I must choose... a world without religion. Religion itself is good, yet those who practice religion are sometimes not good and often use religion as a weapon to harm.
cerebus wrote: "I recall the issue of the IRS "targeting" conservative groups was raised here before. It appears things weren't quite as claimed.http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/06/......"
I've been telling people for weeks that this is really not the Nixon/ Bond villain level evil conspiracy that FOX news has been making it out to be.
The republicans are just so desperate to find a scandal to pin on Obama that they are blowing everything out of proportion.
If he was really the criminal mastermind they say he is, Obama could easily sneak a couple real crimes in and no one would notice with FOX coming up with a scandal every five minutes.
Travis wrote: The republicans are just so desperate to find a scandal to pin on Obama that they are blowing everything out of proportion...."
Over here we have a word for that; we call it politics.
cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: The republicans are just so desperate to find a scandal to pin on Obama that they are blowing everything out of proportion...."
Over here we have a word for that; we call it politics."
Here too.
It wouldn't be so bad, but it's all they are doing and until they find a scandal that gets everyone's attention and makes us all hate Obama as much as they do, they won't let anything get done.
I , personally, would rather live in a world without religion. I find comfort in proof and there is no way you can argue with science. With that said, i also think it is crucial for people to believe in SOMETHING. Whether that something be science, buddha, God, or a flying spaghetti monster.
Are you trolling for a response?
It would be nice, if we could just "discuss" science and religion and not politics. Like I have stated before we need both I don't think the human race would survive with just one.
Let's clear these things up. Whatever world we wanna live with(probably the choices stated with the question here above), doesn't really makes sense. The viewpoint was: 1.) Earth is still an Earth. 2.) World is still a world. The preferences were human-made. The people itself was the one who created his/her own choices. Objectively speaking, the intricated conception was quite amusing.
Rachel, why do you think the human race wouldn't survive without religion?
I think we would find something to worship, I think it is innate to seek out a higher power or god or what ever you choose
I personally don't think that the problem lies with either science or religion. The problem lies with the fact that there is evil in the world and it corrupts morality and things that could be good, like science and religion. In my opinion the presence of evil comes from us having free will. If you take a moment and think of the world with no free will we would not have to necessarily worry about people taking something out of context and being extreme in their actions.
This also brings up the question on how people define things. Take religion for example it has been given a bad name mostly because it has been associated with being a cult. It is human beings that have taken religion and divided it so many times to fit their point of views that in my opinion the Highest One's message has gotten lost in the world of humanity.
We seem to ignore the fact that even though we read something one way someone else may read it differently because lets face the fact that we all want to be right and not proven wrong. The question then turns into who is right? This then creates conflict and then division. This division is both present in the world of science and religion so in my opinion seeing one as right and wrong doesn't really make sense.
There are too many unanswerable questions in the science and religion worlds for justification that one outranks the other. What it all comes down to is whether or not humanity is willing to see this and whether or not they can see that maybe by working together to find the answer will bring unity. In my opinion they are both trying to answer the same question as to whether there is a greater force out there and how humanity came into being.
I am not trying to stir the pot or anything but I think it is important for people to be open to one another's beliefs whether they agree or not. Ultimately both are trying to find reason for life, humanity and reality. The likelihood of people forgetting their pride and trying to find common ground but in my opinion why not hope for it.
That is why I thing A&D does a good job of demonstrating that they are both searching for similar things but people refuse to see this and go extreme in their beliefs instead of humbling themselves and taking a look to see if their is a chance that there may be truth in both fields.
Sorry for the long ramble but I just find this stuff interesting and seek to expand my knowledge and my faith. I am not trying to refute anyone's beliefs I am just stating my own opinion and hope for what it could be.
Royal wrote: "I personally don't think that the problem lies with either science or religion. The problem lies with the fact that there is evil in the world and it corrupts morality and things that could be good..."First you must define good and evil.:)
Also define morality. One person's immoral is another person's lifestyle choice.
lol that is true and for me is what makes this stuff so complicated and interesting. Now one question I have for you Elaine is do you think or could one person's immorality and another persons life choice be considered the same or even just similar?If you take a look at what C. S Lewis states in Mere Christianity he gives good reasoning as to why "there are no such things as good and bad impulses" (Lewis) it has to do with when it can be considered appropriate to use an impulse that can be seen as one or the other depending on the timing. If you take the fighting instinct for example. Say some person decides that they want to harass you in a way that absolutly infuriates you and makes you want to actually lash out at either that person or the next person that irritates you. Now in this instance the idea of morality if you take C.S Lewis' description of it will tell you that the Moral Law always leans more towards the weaker impulse and in this case it would be letting it slide and moving on. It all then comes down to how you choose to act. One person may take the moral route and turn the other cheek, where as someone else may go with the stronger impulse and lash out and in both instances it would be someone making a choice, but one goes against morality in this sense.
How do you define morality? Is it similar to Lewis or a little different? By the way I hope you don't feel like I am being pushy in any way I am just interested in how you choose to define it and how you think these two things work together.
cHriS wrote: "Royal wrote: "I personally don't think that the problem lies with either science or religion. The problem lies with the fact that there is evil in the world and it corrupts morality and things that..."Yep I totally agree :)
Royal, here is my definition of an immoral action: something a person does deliberately and knowingly (with the understanding that it will do harm) to another person (or persons) that negatively impact him/her either physically or psychologically. Based on this definition my answer to your question would be: one person's immorality could be another person's life choice. e.g. premarital sex between two consenting adults is considered immoral by some but it would not be immoral according to my definition.
Elaine wrote: one person's immorality could be another person's life choice. e.g. premarital sex between two consenting adults is considered immoral by some but it would not be immoral according to my definition. ."
...... is your definition wrong then, or are the couples who consider it to be wrong; wrong for having that view?
Neither. Everyone has a different "moral compass" based on their own personal beliefs and the way they were raised. So neither is "wrong" - what's right for me might not be right for you.
Jean wrote: "Have you ever noticed that even babies have distinct personalities? How is this explained scientifically? I ask this with no guile."Jean wrote: "Have you ever noticed that even babies have distinct personalities? How is this explained scientifically? I ask this with no guile."
I think personality is probably a strong word. Temperaments might be better. Genetics. Different genes, different brains, different brain chemistry, equals different temperaments.
cHriS, do you think my definition to be wrong? How would you change it?
Elaine wrote: "cHriS, do you think my definition to be wrong? How would you change it?"Not wrong, but the example you gave does not seem to equate with your definition of an immoral action.
Where is the harm in your example and who is being harmed?
cHriS, in my example I mentioned premarital sex as an example to explain my definition. I guess I wasn't clear enough in my comment. No one is being harmed, therefore, it is not immoral according to my definition. I should have mentioned that I personally don't believe premarital sex is immoral but many other people would consider it to be an immoral action.
I think it depends on the individuals whether it is immoral or not, going by Elaine's definition. If the premarital sex is between two adults with no other parties involved, then it wouldn't be immoral. But if it's a teenage couple, still in school, etc. then maybe someone could be harmed. An unwanted pregnancy, with the couples' parents having to raise it (or the taxpayers having to pay for it). Or an abortion, with all the guilt and other baggage that would harm the teen.... or just the lack of self respect that they might have afterward, if it was a casual encounter.
That's why I say whether something is immoral is in the conscience of each person. Some people have sensible, mature consciences, some, like youngsters - may not have a fully developed one yet.
Maria wrote: "I think it depends on the individuals whether it is immoral or not, going by Elaine's definition. If the premarital sex is between two adults with no other parties involved, then it wouldn't be im..."I think the idea of 'harm' depends on where you stand on the issue in question. In some cases, and to some people, there is moral harm in premarital sex, gay marriage, being an atheist, eating meat, voting republican or paying money to watch the new Star Trek movies.
There are few absolutes when it comes to morality. It's mostly lots of shades of grey.
Maria, even with the teenage couple I would still not consider it immoral because my definition also states that the action was done knowing that it will cause harm to another person or persons. Assuming it was consensual sex, the couple did not have sex with the intent to harm another person or persons. Many times people do actions that may unintentionally hurt others. I don't consider these actions to be immoral.
This question may not need an explicit answer from an atheist's perspective, that there is just science and no religion.From personal experience I can say that blind belief in religion and god sometimes makes life easier, but being rational and accepting the reality is nerve wrecking at times.
So for most people it might be an impossible question to find an answer for... :-)
Most people would agree that each person needs to determine what they think is immoral and guide their behaviours accordingly. Unfortunately, however, there are many people who feel that their morality is the correct one and they are very vocal in condemning people who think differently. What comes to mind is the furor over homosexuality and gay marriage by most Christian sects.
Well, my definition mentions physical or psychological harm. I haven't been able to figure out what psychological harm is being done to anyone else by what other people do in the bedroom or what other people believe religious-wise. (I'm referring only to beliefs not to actions that spawn from the beliefs. Once actions are taken that harm others, then, according to my definition, it is immoral.)
Of course there are few absolutes when it comes to morality; however, political decisions are based on the moral code of the elected officials. Thus, you get situations in which the government states that it's illegal for two people of the same gender to get married or a government that prevents the passage of a law that would allow all of its citizens to get access to health care.
Elaine wrote:Unfortunately, however, there are many people who feel that their morality is the correct one and they are very vocal in condemning people who think differently.."But is this not just a double edged sword? The people who think differently, have their own set of morals and are just as able to be 'very vocal' about them.
Very true, cHriS. And being vocal about one's beliefs is one thing, when the beliefs are acted upon to deny another person's his or her rights is another. (Again, gay marriage is an example.)
Elaine wrote: "Very true, cHriS. And being vocal about one's beliefs is one thing, when the beliefs are acted upon to deny another person's his or her rights is another. (Again, gay marriage is an example.)"
Or, ... their right to express their faith, as another example.
Or, ... their right to express their faith, as another example.
I consider the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to be a moral code.
Travis said: "There are few absolutes when it comes to morality. It's mostly lots of shades of grey."I agree.
Elaine said: "Maria, even with the teenage couple I would still not consider it immoral because my definition also states that the action was done knowing that it will cause harm to another person or persons."
Understood. The teenage couple may have either been so caught up in the moment or so ignorant so as to not realize that their actions might cause harm to themselves, their possible unborn child, their families, etc. So their actions were not purposefully heinous, but could have harmful consequences.
Is that immoral of them to be so oblivious to the possible harm their actions could cause? Or just plain stupid?
I think it's only "immoral" if morals were instilled in them to start with, either by their parents, their church, their own conscience, etc. You can't expect someone to behave morally when they have no moral values to begin with.
Elaine wrote: "I consider the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to be a moral code."
I've been waiting for Cerebus or someone to raise this ... but ... in the absence of that ....
People have made arguments for and posted articles regarding animals and animals being moral. The idea of natural morality.
Is there natural morality?
If so, I'm guessing it has nothing to do with belief systems, unless animals have belief systems, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Wondering about morality .....
I've been waiting for Cerebus or someone to raise this ... but ... in the absence of that ....
People have made arguments for and posted articles regarding animals and animals being moral. The idea of natural morality.
Is there natural morality?
If so, I'm guessing it has nothing to do with belief systems, unless animals have belief systems, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Wondering about morality .....
In my opinion: naïve and stupid but not immoral.
I agree, Elaine. Hi Shannon - I don't think I've ever thought of animals as being "moral". Interesting concept.
When a mother cat lets an orphan puppy nurse and raises it as one of her kittens (or something similar) is that morality, or just the mothering instinct - the instinct not to let a baby die?
Interesting...
How would you define natural morality? I guess I'm asking, what do you mean by natural?
Maria wrote: "I agree, Elaine.
Hi Shannon - I don't think I've ever thought of animals as being "moral". Interesting concept.
When a mother cat lets an orphan puppy nurse and raises it as one of her kitte..."
Others have brought it up and posted articles, off and on, in the past. I read one of the articles; it was mentioned that some scientists disagree with the idea that animals are moral and/or exhibit morality. Why? Lack of rational thought, in part at least and if my memory is correct. Which, goes to your point about instinct and is separate and apart from some things within the Declaration of Human Rights, like the right to join a trade union.
What is morality? Truly. Is it something more elemental than is being discussed? Or, is morality actually far more complicated and does it deal with beliefs and rational thought?
I don't have the answer.
Hi Shannon - I don't think I've ever thought of animals as being "moral". Interesting concept.
When a mother cat lets an orphan puppy nurse and raises it as one of her kitte..."
Others have brought it up and posted articles, off and on, in the past. I read one of the articles; it was mentioned that some scientists disagree with the idea that animals are moral and/or exhibit morality. Why? Lack of rational thought, in part at least and if my memory is correct. Which, goes to your point about instinct and is separate and apart from some things within the Declaration of Human Rights, like the right to join a trade union.
What is morality? Truly. Is it something more elemental than is being discussed? Or, is morality actually far more complicated and does it deal with beliefs and rational thought?
I don't have the answer.
Elaine wrote: "How would you define natural morality? I guess I'm asking, what do you mean by natural?"
I don't know how I define morality. If, by morality, we're talking about something that I think should be imposed upon all humans everywhere. I have my own moral compass, though I can't define it in a sentence.
Regarding natural morality, I think you should hold out for Cerebus, Hazel, Gary, etc.... I think they'd discussed it before and know Cerebus has posted articles on it. It would be best if they explained.
I don't know how I define morality. If, by morality, we're talking about something that I think should be imposed upon all humans everywhere. I have my own moral compass, though I can't define it in a sentence.
Regarding natural morality, I think you should hold out for Cerebus, Hazel, Gary, etc.... I think they'd discussed it before and know Cerebus has posted articles on it. It would be best if they explained.
My favorite quote on morality.“What is moral is self-evident.”
― Friedrich Theodor Vischer
without religion. That's my dream
Elaine wrote: And being vocal about one's beliefs is one thing, when the beliefs are acted upon to deny another person's his or her rights is another.(Again, gay marriage is an example.)"Maybe, but not a good one. Although on this thread I am in a minority about that, it seems. Rights 'over rule' religious belief, I agree with that; but rights are only rights once they have been passed in law, by which ever country a person lives in.
The issue I have here is that it seems 'morals' are ok to have as long as one agrees with them, and we all it seems, agree with our own morals
Elaine wrote: "I consider the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to be a moral code."A man murders five members of his own family and get a life sentence with no chance of being set free.
Anything wrong with that?
Has his Human rights been violated?
Has he violated the rights of the five people he murdered, by taking their life?
It seems that his rights have been violated.
BBC News The men claimed that being denied any prospect of release was a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights - which protects people from inhuman or degrading treatment.
The court found that for a life sentence to remain compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights there had to be both a possibility of release and a possibility of review
So do you agree that this man should have a possibility of release?
Yet in another country he could be given the death sentence.....
...morals have no moral value.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23245254
This is an interesting situation that engenders several challenging questions. The easy one: yes, he violated the rights of the five he murdered. (Just curious: is mental health an issue here?) Is jailing someone with no chance of being released inhumane or degrading treatment? I wouldn't consider it degrading. Inhumane? Possibly. Should he have a possibility of release? Yes, but his actual release would be determinant on whether or not he would be likely or capable of harming someone again if he was released.
Sorry, cHriS, but I only got involved in this thread recently. You mentioned that you are in a minority. I assume you mean about gay marriage? In my opinion rights don't become rights only when they have been passed by law, although many politicians believe this to be the case.
Elaine said: "In my opinion rights don't become rights only when they have been passed by law...."Quite true. Everyone has the right to do or say whatever they want. However, if they exercise the right to do something that is against the law or to do something stupid then they can expect to reap the consequences.
Their "right" or free will/choice to act in a certain way is certainly theirs to exercise. But if it's against the law of the place they live, exercising that right might be something they decide against.
I have the right to go stand in traffic on the interstate - but maybe it's smart for me not to exercise that right....
Example: "You have the right to remain silent - but I doubt you have the common sense to do so." - - Lenny Briscoe on Law and Order.
And in the situation that Chris describes above - yes that man's human rights have been violated and yes he's being treated inhumanely. So what? As well he should. That is his punishment for killing those people. Should we instead send him to a luxury hotel until he realizes the horrendous nature of his crime and has sufficiently repented?
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
As far as I know it's not being discussed in the house or in any official capacity but churches are tax exempt in the US. Well that's the easy answer anyway... The pastors, priest, ect do pay taxes on their salaries but any contributions, donations, ect given to the church are not taxed. Also I don't think they have to pay property taxes on land or buildings used for religious purposes (churches, schools, parking lots around them, ect.). However I do think they have to pay property taxes on any other property they might have. I could be wrong on that last part so please correct me if I'm wrong.