Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Whirlwind wrote: "Tina wrote: "I actually strangely agree with you...with the fact that this wonderful world can not fit into a narrow-minded box of religion,
and that it is without gender"
...but um, didn't..."
God is not a male or a female. He is not any gender, He is a being. A being separate than anything we can understand.
And yes Jesus was a male, but that was God in the form of Man, it doesn't really matter which gender He was.
my history texts gave prerequisites for a "civilized" society. I can't remember all of them; there were several. One was writing. Another ... religion. Ummm.... What think you of that? :) I can guess. Well, I can't let you down now, can I. :P
So, yes, its a history text, thus the prerequisites were written in a time when religion was considered to be a requirement. Now we know better. Highly atheistic societies actually have lower crime rates, suggesting that with todays evidence, writers of such lists would claim the opposite.
Tina wrote: "God is not a male or a female. He is not any gender, He is a being. A being separate than anything we can understand.And yes Jesus was a male, but that was God in the form of Man, it doesn't really matter which gender He was.
Yet you still refer to it as "he"
Hazel wrote: "my history texts gave prerequisites for a "civilized" society. I can't remember all of them; there were several. One was writing. Another ... religion. Ummm.... What think you of that? :) I can gue..."
My history texts were written in the late '80's to early '90's. Not that long ago! :) I find myself wondering how today's texts define "civilization" and if religious beliefs still count as a prerequisite.
I didn't give this example as proof that religion equals "civilized" society. Oh, my .... As an American Indian, talk of "civilized" society and how we define the term "civilized" makes me shudder. I do find it interesting though ... that "we" continually feel the need to define others ... and what constructs do we use define them ....
My history texts were written in the late '80's to early '90's. Not that long ago! :) I find myself wondering how today's texts define "civilization" and if religious beliefs still count as a prerequisite.
I didn't give this example as proof that religion equals "civilized" society. Oh, my .... As an American Indian, talk of "civilized" society and how we define the term "civilized" makes me shudder. I do find it interesting though ... that "we" continually feel the need to define others ... and what constructs do we use define them ....
the texts were written in the 80's or 90's, yet you don't tell me what society it was referring to with these prerequisite lists. I could buy a book written last week with similar lists in, but that tells you nothing about what society and culture wrote the lists that the book speaks of. And who wrote the history text itself is an important aspect too.Its generally recognised that things taught through a history text are in relation to historical events, not current ones.
Its an interesting definition, but if taken down to its bare bones, you can actually see that religion is symptomatic of civilisation, not the other way round. But the people writing such prerequisites are doing it from a point of view of those who live in a religious civilisation, and so see it as a requirement. An outsider would probably assume the same thing if they hadn't seen the creation of civilisations and the creation of religions, instead seeing a civilisation thats already established,and has built a complex set of rules and rituals, but in the end, communities come first, then comes religion. In fact, all that the term civilisation presupposes is that there is the presence of agriculture and urban settlements.
Shannon wrote: "Do the questions asked and answered need to be different for both groups?"I think the religious world view has in most cases morality wrapped up as part of the package, morality based (or justified) by the faith or holy book.
Science is dependant on the morals the scientist brings with them, whether from a secular background or religious background the scientist brings their morals into the field they work in.
Shannon wrote: "So, do you ask spiritual people about their picking and choosing the good and throwing out the bad due to the fact that you believe religion is based on a moral framework? Hinting at hypocrisy, perhaps?"Unfortunately many "spiritual people" pick some of the less pleasant bits of their faith and dwell on it...intolerance for instance.
What I meant to get across was my irritation with the more fae side of some spiritual "paths"...the way neo-pagans (for instance) claim an ancient tradition when what they practice has so little resemblance to the "old ways" as they have sanitised things so much. Now it's obviously bad to put folk in wicker men and set fire to them, but it is irritating when folk go on about "tradition" when most of it is made up in the 19th or early 20th cent. with very little basis in earlier practices, save that claimed by a select group of self styled mystics.
Mmmm.... Well, the question was posed to me on this thread, though not by you, Old-Barbarossa. And, I've seen it posted on several occasions, if memory serves ... not to neo-pagans but to people who focus on the good in religion and not the bad. Lot offering his daughters for rape, for example. That makes me wonder ....
What is the point of the question in general? If the question has a point, shouldn't it be asked in relation to both. And .... Do those who pose the question think it's "wrong" for spiritual and religious folk to take the good from spiritual beliefs and overlook the bad? If so, do they feel that way simply because religion is sets up a moral construct and it seems short-sighted or hypocritical? Or, do the people who ask the question find it hard to stomach accepting the "good" from something that has come from something they deem harmful ... a misogynistic religion that advocated for (and sometimes advocates for) the disenfranchisement of groups of people?
If the latter is true, it seems to me that the question should be asked in both spheres. Should spiritual people pick the good in certain faiths ... even if it stems from something dark or from something with dark aspects? Should people pick the good from science ... even if it stems from something dark and murderous ... Nazi scientists who studied rocketry and committed war crimes against innocent children in the name of science?
I think those are likely hard questions to answer, for all of us, and would take us, all of us, to uncomfortable places.
Hazel ... I don't have the texts anymore. I can't remember who wrote them, etc.... But, I do believe that little "gem" was located in the text between humans as hunter-gatherers and humans as farmers and "town folk" ... dealing with the emergence of "civilization" and the marks of said civilization. We're more in agreement than not on this issue. What is civilization? Who defines that? How? Does the definition change if asked of different cultures or of people of different times, etc...? It all comes down to perspective ... and our need for such definitions in the first place. :)
What is the point of the question in general? If the question has a point, shouldn't it be asked in relation to both. And .... Do those who pose the question think it's "wrong" for spiritual and religious folk to take the good from spiritual beliefs and overlook the bad? If so, do they feel that way simply because religion is sets up a moral construct and it seems short-sighted or hypocritical? Or, do the people who ask the question find it hard to stomach accepting the "good" from something that has come from something they deem harmful ... a misogynistic religion that advocated for (and sometimes advocates for) the disenfranchisement of groups of people?
If the latter is true, it seems to me that the question should be asked in both spheres. Should spiritual people pick the good in certain faiths ... even if it stems from something dark or from something with dark aspects? Should people pick the good from science ... even if it stems from something dark and murderous ... Nazi scientists who studied rocketry and committed war crimes against innocent children in the name of science?
I think those are likely hard questions to answer, for all of us, and would take us, all of us, to uncomfortable places.
Hazel ... I don't have the texts anymore. I can't remember who wrote them, etc.... But, I do believe that little "gem" was located in the text between humans as hunter-gatherers and humans as farmers and "town folk" ... dealing with the emergence of "civilization" and the marks of said civilization. We're more in agreement than not on this issue. What is civilization? Who defines that? How? Does the definition change if asked of different cultures or of people of different times, etc...? It all comes down to perspective ... and our need for such definitions in the first place. :)
Its nice when we agree Shannon :DON your question about taking the nice bits. I have no problem with people taking the nice bits per se, I think that are some good things to be taken from holy books. I don't think they were original to those books though, the bad things probably weren't either. Its when people attribute those good things to a supernatural being that I don't like it, and then reject the bad things which, logically by being within the same book many people take as gospel (budum tisch) should also be taken as the teachings of god too. Before you think I mean you Shannon, I don't, I know you don't attribute the bible to divine origins, but there are many people that do, and as such, it is hypocritical of them to attribute some of it to god, and not all of it, or even worse, and as most often happens, to only even know about the good bits, and then to claim that because the bits they know are good, that all of it is, without even checking.
And when someone, like yourself, does pick the bits they like, I don't understand where the god bit comes in at all. I am assuming that god and moral are mutually exclusive for you? Correct me if I'm wrong in this assumption, but it seems you hold your morals based on your own determinations of whats right and wrong, and then you have a seperate belief in a god that isn't quite what christians claim it to be, but that it fits your idea of what it should be, or is?
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/i...This article, and the book it refers to, say it better than any of us could.
Whirlwind wrote: "http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/i...This article, and the book it refers to, say it better than any of us could."
On that note: The Origins of Virtue is worth a look.
The more I hear Michio Kaku explain string theory, the more he explains how all the various energies of the cosmos are managed. The more advanced the science the more science is proving there is a Source. It's just not that old guy in the sky separate from man stuff.
Shannon, science do have ethic codes to make sure that all that is discovered is used to the common good and not the other way around. Of course there are bad people anywhere, even scientists, which don't follow those ethic codes. Anyway I believe Nazis didn't know they were doing something bad, killing people was just a way to achieve their dream. Is like Breivik when he killed all those people in Norway, he said it was for an higher good.
About civilization, in my opinion we still have much to do to achieve that state. We're not even close of being civilized. In a capitalist society that's impossible, when money means power and power means everything and all means are good to achieve that we're not going nowhere besides killing human race and the whole earth.
Oh and we need to label things because it's the way we communicate. Well, not really labelling, but defining. We need to differentiate things so when I say table you'll not think of a chair. Science specially needs that: without defining the world around us, it can't observe properly the object of study. It has to say: this is a ladybird because it's red and has black dots and this is a mosquito because it stings and it's grey. Both are insects and both fly but if we don't label them we will be observing something that has no interest for us which will result in very bad results.
That's why you say you're Catholic and I'm an atheist, you don't want us in the same bag, do you?
About civilization, in my opinion we still have much to do to achieve that state. We're not even close of being civilized. In a capitalist society that's impossible, when money means power and power means everything and all means are good to achieve that we're not going nowhere besides killing human race and the whole earth.
Oh and we need to label things because it's the way we communicate. Well, not really labelling, but defining. We need to differentiate things so when I say table you'll not think of a chair. Science specially needs that: without defining the world around us, it can't observe properly the object of study. It has to say: this is a ladybird because it's red and has black dots and this is a mosquito because it stings and it's grey. Both are insects and both fly but if we don't label them we will be observing something that has no interest for us which will result in very bad results.
That's why you say you're Catholic and I'm an atheist, you don't want us in the same bag, do you?
Shannon wrote: "Mmmm.... Well, the question was posed to me on this thread, though not by you, Old-Barbarossa. And, I've seen it posted on several occasions, if memory serves ... not to neo-pagans but to people ..."With many people of faith they pick the bits of their religion they like and ignore the nasty bits, the difficult to reconcile with their world view...this is also a pick and mix take on religion. The thing with most religion, especially the ones based round a text, is that the dogma is there in many cases whether you like it or not. When you start picking the bits you like then you start down the path of heresy/schism. If you follow a religion selectively why follow it? Find another one.
Like a "vegetarian" who eats fish...is that still a vegetarian? A christian that doesn't turn the other cheek? That doesn't love their fellow man? Is that a christian? A druid that doesn't spill blood on the alter to Crom Cruach? Still a druid?
I know there's that great catch all "spirituality" thing, but if your just making it up as you go along, picking crystals/channeling/runes/faeries/etc at will to suit...why bother dressing it up as faith?
Having said all that, I'm not gone on any of the religious arguments, organised or anarchic.
Of course you can be a druid and not spill blood, they haven't for centuries.Everything that is truly spiritual is constantly evolving, vibrating at higher and higher rates on the journey back to Source. What I may need to add is that this is done lifetime after lifetime, each life learning or not learning another lesson. The main lesson is love everything and fear not dying. Dying is simply going on summer vacation between lives. Source does not rule through fear, that is something only man could concoct.
They haven't spilt blood for centuries, because despite some peoples beliefs, they've not existed for centuries, the romans quite successfully wiped them out. It was a resurrected term, in the last 150 years, and I've known plenty of druidic practioners to know that many of them would partake in sacrifice, in as humane a way as possible, if the law allowed it. INstead, these days such practioners make "sacrifices" and offerings of prekilled animals.I often wonder where reincarnation comes in too, as from what I can tell, most paganistic religions still have an afterlife, where you go for eternity after death.
You didn't answer my last question about how you deal with anyone who commits sacrilege.
I have the Gwers (Lessons) of The Order of Bards, Ovates and Druids, the group that was headed by Phillip Carr Gorham the Druid who used to run the services at Stonehenge there are no blood sacrifices taught. As far as sacrilege, the word religion is the root and religion is a human word, not a Spirit concept. Source is all embracing, everything is one, everything is Spirit. Only man can create the delusion of separate and that's why the school planet Earth was created so we could study the illusion of separate and learn it's all nonsense. Source is perfect Love. We only have power with source, we can't judge God and everything is God so therefore no one and nothing can stand in judgement it's an impossibility. A delusion created by man and his religions.
So if someone steals a sacred object from you, so commits sacrilege (from sacrum = sacred object, and legere = to steal or pick up), and maybe goes on to destroy it, how would you deal with the person committing sacrilege? As really, you picked at the choice of words, when you no doubt understood the spirit of the question, and thus avoided answering.The word for what you are by the way, is panentheistic,
And you've just used the same old "god is beyond investigation argument" as other theists, but put in a flowery way. If its part of this universe, its open to investigation, if its not part of this universe, then its a moot concept.
Tina wrote: "Whirlwind wrote: "Tina wrote: "I actually strangely agree with you...with the fact that this wonderful world can not fit into a narrow-minded box of religion,
and that it is without gender"
...b..."
Actually it does matter. I don't think a woman claiming to be the messiah would have gotten of the ground in that time, do you?
God picked the time, place and culture to send his messenger to, he and his teachings (the old testament/torah) made the gender relevent.
I'm working on becoming more spirit and less physical so if someone were to take someTHING from me no mater what it was it wouldn't be all that important. You are asking me to be dualistic, that is the old energy. What er are being asked to do now is follow the 6th card in the major arcana, The Lovers, we embrace all and hold them close so we all become One. So we all become Source, this is the secret of spiritual alchemy. This is the true meaning of the sorcerer's stone.
OK, just out of interest, how does using a computer work out with you striving for less physicality, and its derived concept of less materialism? On the sorcerors stone, first, its the philosophers stone, and is to do with physical alchemy, not spiritual alchemy, which is about transmutation of elements (chemical elements, not the four traditional ones), how can you achieve spirituality through something that, if accepted as achievable, is a)physical, b) is used to create an elixir of everlasting (physical) life, among other things.
And you realise that the tarot, like the ouija board, was originally a toy, a game, and nothing more, don't you? In fact, tarot is still played in france. Tarocchini, a more complex game, but still using the tarot deck, is played in Italy. Thats all it ever was, a game.
You do realize that all things spiritual are written about metaphorically, spirit is by nature limitless and words are by nature limiting. I did say spiritual alchemy, not profane. As far as the elixir of everlasting life we don't need that's just another human delusion. As far as the tarot cards they are just like our fairy tales was the means by which the occult was protected during the burning times. The tarot can be a silly game used by fortune tellers or they can become over a study of many years a means to study a lot of the Western Mysteries. It all depends if you are working on the profane level ((the dense physical world) or the spiritual (using your higher self to connect to the sacred.
To quote Jack Nicholson, people who talk in metaphors ought to shampoo my crotch. ;POf course all spiritual things are written about metaphorically, because they're not real, you can't write about them in any other way, because their is no empirical evidence for anything you're claiming. Its not because words are limiting, because when describing a human construct, which is what spirituality is, words are more than enough, its because you can't describe something that isn't real as anything but a metaphor or in an esoteric fashion.
I had a look at your profile btw, the pendulum thing, look up the term idiomotor effect. While you're at it, look up cold reading too.
I do like to finish on a song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBUc_k...
basically, like Mr Minchin says, show me the evidence. Get one of your teachers to do the James Randi test, or do it yourself, if any of them pass it, then, maybe then I'll be willing to believe anything you say is anything beyond new age bunko artistry
Someday you will learn from your own soul that what you can see, feel, touch etc. all density is delusion. It is that, that you cannot see is the reality. Absolute unconditional love is the most powerful magic that exists, Absolute perfect love is the essence of Spirit, it is limitless, free and can be experienced by anyone who wants to still their racing mind, open their heart and receive. BE STILL AND KNOW THAT YOU ARE GOD. LOVE
Nicia -- Hey, there. To clarify, I'm not Catholic. But, I do believe in God. (I have no connection to any denomination.) I do want to answer your question, though. Your question ...
That's why you say you're Catholic and I'm an atheist, you don't want us in the same bag, do you?
Not only do I want us in the same bag, Nicia, I know we're in the same bag. Truly. I really mean that. Because, for me, we're humans. I mean it when I say it. Whether you're a man or a woman, Catholic or Atheist, a dog person or a cat person, a vegetarian or a steak lover, you're a human. I truly believe we're all connected and connected with everything.
Now, before someone jumps to the conclusion that I'm coming from a religious standpoint, I'm not. I've always believed that we're all connected. Hey, I was reading a book to my students that had some really interesting facts in it. Now, I can't remember the name of the book, but I think it was a Discovery book. It had all sorts of science facts and facts about the world and how people live. One of the pages said to take a deep breath and hold the breath. Then, it went on about how some percentage of the particles of the breath that Julius Caesar last took was in that breath we just took. It talked about ... I'm the humanities person, so bare with me ... air and I don't know what and evaporation and rain and .... There was a page that said to stand and jump and explained small particles of dirt and other debris fell when we jumped. It further stated that some of that dirt came from Africa and talked about wind and air currents and .... This was a year or so ago, so only the gist of it is sticking with me. My point is the fact that I truly believe we're humans, first and foremost, and we are all in the "same bag" and I not only accept that but am okay with that. (Though, I must admit the idea of being in the same bag with Hitler and others of his ilk makes me ill. However, I do believe we're in the same bag.)
Regarding definitions, yes, we need to define things and label things in order to communicate. Things like tables. But, I wonder .... Do we really need to define people and label people in order to communicate? Given my personality and cultural background and experiences, my answer to that question is, "No, but heck no!"
And, I first started posting to this thread however many weeks ago due, in part, to this point. Some were going on about doing away with religion ... religion brought everything that's bad to the world, hypocrisy, war, etc.... One of the points I tried to make then and will echo now is ... doing away with religion will not do away with all the horror that we deal with. There will still be bullies, greed, hypocrites, war, etc.... That's the case, in part, because "we" almost constantly see people as different ... as the "other" ... as apart from the rest of "us" ... that's the root of the problem. Regardless of religion or no religion ... science or no science ... until we stop defining everyone and categorizing everyone and seeing others as different, we're still going to have all of the problems we've always had. So, while I sometimes struggle and even fail, I do try to see us as humans and not separate and sort people.
Whirlwind and Old-Barbarossa ...
I checked the sites you listed and read them. I found them interesting and might try to find those books. I must say, though, that I've not read them ... the books. Given the fact that I've only read the sites, I'm still not sure how you'd answer the questions .... I can make assumptions based on what I saw, but I don't want to do that.
While it's likely a philosophical question and veers from the original question that started this thread, I find the question posed by Old-Barbarossa and others to be intriguing. But, I'd extend the question. Do we pick and choose? Should we pick and choose? Should we, whether in religion or science, reject things if they stem from things that were "bad" ... dark ... harmful? Or, if they're for the greater good, do we accept "good" things that come from the bad ... whether within religion or science? Oh, and, if the answer is yes to religion but not science ... or yes to things that come from science but not religion ... I'd want to explore that a bit. That would truly be an enlightening and fascinating exploration and conversation.
Hazel ...
Regarding your questions .... Forgive the "religious" reference, but I think I've pretty much laid my soul bare in this thread ... to the point that I asked myself what I was thinking. I've shared my confusion and the conflicts I have and my personal experiences and why I believe. Frankly, some people likely wanted to respond by saying ... "To much information!" So, I'm not going to go into your questions. Please don't see that as disrespect. I just feel it's all been asked and answered.
And, truthfully, the questions I asked weren't asked from a certain point of view ... had no basis in my beliefs. So ... my moral and spiritual beliefs don't really matter. The question is ... is the question valid ... if the question is valid, does it need to be asked by all and of all ... what would our answers be ...? I'm fascinated by the ideas behind it.
That's why you say you're Catholic and I'm an atheist, you don't want us in the same bag, do you?
Not only do I want us in the same bag, Nicia, I know we're in the same bag. Truly. I really mean that. Because, for me, we're humans. I mean it when I say it. Whether you're a man or a woman, Catholic or Atheist, a dog person or a cat person, a vegetarian or a steak lover, you're a human. I truly believe we're all connected and connected with everything.
Now, before someone jumps to the conclusion that I'm coming from a religious standpoint, I'm not. I've always believed that we're all connected. Hey, I was reading a book to my students that had some really interesting facts in it. Now, I can't remember the name of the book, but I think it was a Discovery book. It had all sorts of science facts and facts about the world and how people live. One of the pages said to take a deep breath and hold the breath. Then, it went on about how some percentage of the particles of the breath that Julius Caesar last took was in that breath we just took. It talked about ... I'm the humanities person, so bare with me ... air and I don't know what and evaporation and rain and .... There was a page that said to stand and jump and explained small particles of dirt and other debris fell when we jumped. It further stated that some of that dirt came from Africa and talked about wind and air currents and .... This was a year or so ago, so only the gist of it is sticking with me. My point is the fact that I truly believe we're humans, first and foremost, and we are all in the "same bag" and I not only accept that but am okay with that. (Though, I must admit the idea of being in the same bag with Hitler and others of his ilk makes me ill. However, I do believe we're in the same bag.)
Regarding definitions, yes, we need to define things and label things in order to communicate. Things like tables. But, I wonder .... Do we really need to define people and label people in order to communicate? Given my personality and cultural background and experiences, my answer to that question is, "No, but heck no!"
And, I first started posting to this thread however many weeks ago due, in part, to this point. Some were going on about doing away with religion ... religion brought everything that's bad to the world, hypocrisy, war, etc.... One of the points I tried to make then and will echo now is ... doing away with religion will not do away with all the horror that we deal with. There will still be bullies, greed, hypocrites, war, etc.... That's the case, in part, because "we" almost constantly see people as different ... as the "other" ... as apart from the rest of "us" ... that's the root of the problem. Regardless of religion or no religion ... science or no science ... until we stop defining everyone and categorizing everyone and seeing others as different, we're still going to have all of the problems we've always had. So, while I sometimes struggle and even fail, I do try to see us as humans and not separate and sort people.
Whirlwind and Old-Barbarossa ...
I checked the sites you listed and read them. I found them interesting and might try to find those books. I must say, though, that I've not read them ... the books. Given the fact that I've only read the sites, I'm still not sure how you'd answer the questions .... I can make assumptions based on what I saw, but I don't want to do that.
While it's likely a philosophical question and veers from the original question that started this thread, I find the question posed by Old-Barbarossa and others to be intriguing. But, I'd extend the question. Do we pick and choose? Should we pick and choose? Should we, whether in religion or science, reject things if they stem from things that were "bad" ... dark ... harmful? Or, if they're for the greater good, do we accept "good" things that come from the bad ... whether within religion or science? Oh, and, if the answer is yes to religion but not science ... or yes to things that come from science but not religion ... I'd want to explore that a bit. That would truly be an enlightening and fascinating exploration and conversation.
Hazel ...
Regarding your questions .... Forgive the "religious" reference, but I think I've pretty much laid my soul bare in this thread ... to the point that I asked myself what I was thinking. I've shared my confusion and the conflicts I have and my personal experiences and why I believe. Frankly, some people likely wanted to respond by saying ... "To much information!" So, I'm not going to go into your questions. Please don't see that as disrespect. I just feel it's all been asked and answered.
And, truthfully, the questions I asked weren't asked from a certain point of view ... had no basis in my beliefs. So ... my moral and spiritual beliefs don't really matter. The question is ... is the question valid ... if the question is valid, does it need to be asked by all and of all ... what would our answers be ...? I'm fascinated by the ideas behind it.
On this question of what is good and what is bad-- It's all a matter of values, circumstances, need, and so on. An example would be (for instance) a Catholic couple who already has five children, all of them difficult pregnancies and risky births. The mother finds herself pregnant for the sixth time. She's terrified because the doctors told her with the last child that if she were to have another baby she would likely die.
They're Catholic, so no artificial means of birth control can be used, and this arbitrary rule has put the woman's and the children's lives at great risk. Now, she is faced with the possibility of losing this 6th child, or herself dying, leaving her husband a widower and the children motherless. Or, she could have an abortion, a hard choice, but one that might be essential in a critical time like this.
What does she do? What should she do? Would abortion be "good" or "bad" in this case? Would it be "bad" if the poor woman died as a result of her religion dictating what she and her husband can do in the privacy of their own bedroom, i.e. take birth precautions? Is it "bad" for a religion to take such measures and go so far as to be so involved in individual sex and reproduction decisions? Would it not be really "bad" for the 5 kids to live out the rest of their lives without a mother? Remember, her parents would lose a daughter, too. But if she has the abortion, which might be the best choice, she risks being ex-communicated.
As a woman I know what I would do. I KNOW what would be good for me and my kids. I know what would be good for my husband.
In this scenario, is abortion "good" or would it be "bad"? Who is to say what is good or what is bad? What's good for this family might not be good for you, in fact whatever their choice is to be, others could see it as downright evil.
There are shades of gray. Things aren't either one or the other, the world is not painted in black and white. In this case the right choice for them might be wrong in their religious life, but does the church give a flying fig if the woman lives or dies, or is the church more concerned with her adherence to their ridiculous dictates, which is harmful (mostly) to women?
On which side would the pendulum swing here? On the side of science (consent to a safe, therapeutic abortion), or risk a sad and tragic death for mother and child (religion)? Imagine the father with five growing children and a newborn with no mother, no wife.
Shanna wrote: "God picked the time, place and culture to send his messenger to, he and his teachings (the old testament/torah) made the gender relevent. "You're kidding me.
The people of the time believed that this guy was a messiah. Messiah myth was old, old, old, and in ancient times such as you are referring to, people were still very superstitious since they did not have the advantage of advanced knowledge like we have today! They still thought that supernatural events took place.
People called him a messiah, and believed him to be one, but no 'god' sent him. And he's male because at the very same time the patriarchy was becoming more and more deeply entrenched.
Kathy wrote: "Someday you will learn from your own soul that what you can see, feel, touch etc. all density is delusion. It is that, that you cannot see is the reality. Absolute unconditional love is the most po..."Illusion is the word, actually. :P
And some day maybe you'll recover from these ideas that have got you floating around on a mind-bubble of mystifying esoterica.
YOU are being deluded.
Isn't that what I said? I was responding to Tina's assertion that gender didn't matter, and crediting her belief in god not stating my own. You know, honesty and manners are not mutually exclusive, nor are honesty and rudeness joined at the hip.
Which post are you referring to, and are you talkin' to me? :-)
Whirlwind wrote: "Which post are you referring to, and are you talkin' to me? :-)"yep and #1732
No....the one before that, that I apparently got wrong.And do NOT lecture people about honesty or manners.
Whirlwind wrote: "On this question of what is good and what is bad--
It's all a matter of values, circumstances, need, and so on. An example would be (for instance) a Catholic couple who already has five childre..."
Interesting ideas ... but .... I believe the original idea was not just deciding if something is "good" or "bad" ... but picking the "good" from something (a religion) even though there is "bad" within it (the religion) or ignoring the "bad" (within the religion)....
Several people in this thread have questioned people who believe in God and made comments about their picking "good" aspects from a religion. How can they? Some have mentioned the horrid things done in the name of religion and asked, given those horrors, how anyone can find "good" within it. Others question why some pick the "good" and ignore the "bad" and, therefore, question whether or not those people are even following a religion.
So, it occurred to me? What would happen if we applied the same question to science? After all, if it's a valid question for believers, isn't it a valid question for all of us? Enter Nazi scientists. Rocketry and the advances in science and technology that stem from the work done by those scientists ... which originated in carnage and murder. Nazi scientists who conducted horrid and gruesome experiments on human beings. Hmmm....
For those who argued believers should not believe in God due to His paternalism, need for control, and the misogynistic elements found within many religions (...in addition to the fact that there is no way to prove God's existence) and have argued that it, for all intents and purposes, it's illogical and abhorrent to pick "good" out of something that has such harmful aspects, I ask the same question.
Should we accept and benefit from science and technology that stems from murder? And, frankly, I think all of us, believers and non-believers, should ask that question.
Now .... What would be the answer to that? And, how does that answer influence how we see the questions we ask of others? How does it influence the judgements we make with regard to people who don't hold the same views? Are we willing to explore those questions? Does the question hold value when asked about religion but not about science or vice versa? If so, why?
It's not merely about deciding what's "good" and "bad" and realizing there are shades of gray. However, having said that, I'd say the ultimate answer, in both the case of religion and science, is that there are shades of gray. It's just never as easy as some would have us think ....
It's all a matter of values, circumstances, need, and so on. An example would be (for instance) a Catholic couple who already has five childre..."
Interesting ideas ... but .... I believe the original idea was not just deciding if something is "good" or "bad" ... but picking the "good" from something (a religion) even though there is "bad" within it (the religion) or ignoring the "bad" (within the religion)....
Several people in this thread have questioned people who believe in God and made comments about their picking "good" aspects from a religion. How can they? Some have mentioned the horrid things done in the name of religion and asked, given those horrors, how anyone can find "good" within it. Others question why some pick the "good" and ignore the "bad" and, therefore, question whether or not those people are even following a religion.
So, it occurred to me? What would happen if we applied the same question to science? After all, if it's a valid question for believers, isn't it a valid question for all of us? Enter Nazi scientists. Rocketry and the advances in science and technology that stem from the work done by those scientists ... which originated in carnage and murder. Nazi scientists who conducted horrid and gruesome experiments on human beings. Hmmm....
For those who argued believers should not believe in God due to His paternalism, need for control, and the misogynistic elements found within many religions (...in addition to the fact that there is no way to prove God's existence) and have argued that it, for all intents and purposes, it's illogical and abhorrent to pick "good" out of something that has such harmful aspects, I ask the same question.
Should we accept and benefit from science and technology that stems from murder? And, frankly, I think all of us, believers and non-believers, should ask that question.
Now .... What would be the answer to that? And, how does that answer influence how we see the questions we ask of others? How does it influence the judgements we make with regard to people who don't hold the same views? Are we willing to explore those questions? Does the question hold value when asked about religion but not about science or vice versa? If so, why?
It's not merely about deciding what's "good" and "bad" and realizing there are shades of gray. However, having said that, I'd say the ultimate answer, in both the case of religion and science, is that there are shades of gray. It's just never as easy as some would have us think ....
Whirlwind wrote: "No....the one before that, that I apparently got wrong.And do NOT lecture people about honesty or manners."
I'm not sure what you got wrong there, the post before that was you...
As for manners I'm calling it as I see it.
Shannon: I don't think it's very fair to compare religion & science in this context but I completely agree that we (both theists and atheists) need to "pick good out of bad" when dealing with religion or any other belief system. On the other hand, you do not need to believe in God to read bible, and many organized religions seem to be way too willing to force people swallow whatever their leaders think is appropriate.
Just what did you think was rude? I call it like I see it too, sweetie. And if you think that's rude, then deal with it. And WTF wasn't honest?? How dare you moralize with me. Also, I have no idea what I got "wrong" so let's drop that one.
But, Shannon one first has to decide whether a thing truly IS good or bad, and for whom is this thing good or bad? Follow? An abortion for instance, is thought of as being murder, by SOME people. OK fine. But for someone else, the end of a pregnancy is a huge relief and maybe saved the mother's life. Good or bad?
The end result and ensuing consequences have to be considered, so you cannot simply pronounce that a thing is good or bad without examining and considering it first.
Xdyj wrote: "Shannon: I don't think it's very fair to compare religion & science in this context but I completely agree that we (both theists and atheists) need to "pick good out of bad" when dealing with relig..."
Hmmm.... I don't know. While I agree that one is very broad (picking the good out of a religion based in patriarchy, for example) and one is narrow ("picking" or benefiting from an aspect of
science ... rocketry, etc...), I think the question can be asked of both.
I'm not talking about science in general ... as some speak of religion in general. I'm talking about the view, voiced by some within this thread, that it's illogical ... it's ... pick the word ... to choose certain "good" aspects and leave or ignore or make excuses for the bad.
Does that theory apply only to religion and those who are religious or spiritual? Or, does it apply to all things? Shouldn't the question be asked regarding what we learned through Nazi scientists? Heck, I suppose we could even extend that to animal testing. Ouch.
I mean, seriously, these are hard questions. And, the questions and answers aren't really about being spiritual/religious or not. Not the way I see the questions and answers at least. I think they're questions to be asked of and by human beings period. What would happen, what would we learn, how would we change and grow if we actually, seriously, asked and answered such questions?
Or ... are the questions only designed for some to answer?
Hmmm.... I don't know. While I agree that one is very broad (picking the good out of a religion based in patriarchy, for example) and one is narrow ("picking" or benefiting from an aspect of
science ... rocketry, etc...), I think the question can be asked of both.
I'm not talking about science in general ... as some speak of religion in general. I'm talking about the view, voiced by some within this thread, that it's illogical ... it's ... pick the word ... to choose certain "good" aspects and leave or ignore or make excuses for the bad.
Does that theory apply only to religion and those who are religious or spiritual? Or, does it apply to all things? Shouldn't the question be asked regarding what we learned through Nazi scientists? Heck, I suppose we could even extend that to animal testing. Ouch.
I mean, seriously, these are hard questions. And, the questions and answers aren't really about being spiritual/religious or not. Not the way I see the questions and answers at least. I think they're questions to be asked of and by human beings period. What would happen, what would we learn, how would we change and grow if we actually, seriously, asked and answered such questions?
Or ... are the questions only designed for some to answer?
Whirlwind wrote: "But, Shannon one first has to decide whether a thing truly IS good or bad, and for whom is this thing good or bad? Follow? An abortion for instance, is thought of as being murder, by SOME peopl..."
Do you mean like moral relativism v.s. universalism?
Whirlwind wrote: "Just what did you think was rude? I call it like I see it too, sweetie. And if you think that's rude, then deal with it. And WTF wasn't honest?? How dare you moralize with me. Also, I have n..."
Well "sweetie" was rude, cupcake.
I never accused you of dishonesty. I'm sorry if that's what you took from that, I know you prize honesty.
"Do you want "NICE" or do you want "HONEST"?"
I pointed out a lack of manners...
Who are you, though, that you are so far above my daring to moralize with you?
Shannon wrote: "Xdyj wrote: "Shannon: I don't think it's very fair to compare religion & science in this context but I completely agree that we (both theists and atheists) need to "pick good out of bad" when deali..."I wouldn't say there is anything "illogical" drawing moral lessons from religious texts. Most of us (theists or atheists alike) have to pick our moral values from somewhere anyway. I think the "view" you mentioned are not saying it's illogical to "pick" but the existence of God is unfalsifiable and redundant, and doesn't make a difference if people treat religious texts the same way as secular ones.
Personally I don't think believing in God is inherently any worse than children believing in Santa Claus and I'm mostly only against religious beliefs I perceive as immoral like those support censorship, condone violence, promote pseudoscience, marginalize/oppress nonbelievers/women/children/lgbt people etc. and not liberal churches or whatever you call the stuff you believe in :)
Shannon wrote: "Several people in this thread have questioned people who believe in God and made comments about their picking "good" aspects from a religion. How can they? Some have mentioned the horrid things done in the name of religion and asked, given those horrors, how anyone can find "good" within it. Others question why some pick the "good" and ignore the "bad" and, therefore, question whether or not those people are even following a religion.So, it occurred to me? What would happen if we applied the same question to science? After all, if it's a valid question for believers, isn't it a valid question for all of us? Enter Nazi scientists. Rocketry and the advances in science and technology that stem from the work done by those scientists ... which originated in carnage and murder. Nazi scientists who conducted horrid and gruesome experiments on human beings. Hmmm..."
I think it's a valid question for us as people but not for science as it's just a tool people use. It's the person using the data/technique/proceedure/technology that has to make a moral decision whether to use it. There is no moral code that science teaches, but it can explain why we have evolved traits that let us help our fellow humans.
The example of a christian US president using the atom bomb, that has been mentioned previously on this thread, is a good illustration I think...the bomb is just tech until it's dropped, it doesn't drop itself.
Religion on the other hand tends to have a heavy emphasis on morals at the core of the teachings.
Kathy wrote: "Someday you will learn from your own soul that what you can see, feel, touch etc. all density is delusion. It is that, that you cannot see is the reality. Absolute unconditional love is the most po..."Kathy, been there, done that, realised I was deluding myself, and grew out of it. Its all in your head, none of it is real, psychic ability doesn't exist (like I said, look up cold reading, I bet you didn't, and I bet you won't). Pendulums aren't moved by the spirits, look up idiomotor effect, the same thing as explains ouija boards (as shown by Micheal Faraday, and many people since). Watch some Derren Brown, I suggest "Seance" and "Messiah".
Shannon: Yes, you're right, it has been covered before, but I think the rest of my answer still stands as a reasonable response to your question about picking and choosing :)
Hazel wrote: "Watch some Derren Brown, I suggest "Seance" and "Messiah"..."Agree.
I chuckled when I heard some of the complaints about "Seance" when it first aired..."he's dabbling in the dark arts" etc...obviously missed the whole point of the program.
I giggled all the way through, even if it did make me jump on occasion. I just don't get how we still have people teaching these "skills", many of which have been debunked for over a century, and that are expounded by people who refuse to put them to the test and prove they can do what they say, even though, if they could do it, they'd be the scientific story of the century, and would do their cause nothing but good... I can only assume they know that they can't actually do any of it. James Randi test, Kathy, go for it.
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1...
I'm still in a minchiny mood, so:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhGuXC...
Hazel wrote: "Shannon: Yes, you're right, it has been covered before, but I think the rest of my answer still stands as a reasonable response to your question about picking and choosing :)"
Actually, no one has answered the question about whether or not we should benefit from the science and technology stemming from the work of Nazi scientists. But, that's okay. It is a very hard question, a hard question for all of us. Yes?
Old-Barbarossa has shared his thoughts, but he's not one of the people who claimed believers should not believe based on the fact that there is "bad" in religion. Hmmm.... Perhaps that statement was too strong. Questioned how people could choose the "good" from something with so much "bad" ... that's likely more accurate.
I know, for the most part, the argument has been one shouldn't believe due to the fact that there aren't facts to back God's existence. I'm the one who admitted I couldn't prove God's existence with scientific facts nor could anyone else. But, I distinctly remember the course of the conversation and argument veering
to ... why/how could someone take "good" from something "bad" ....
Right? Yes.
So, .... My question is not about a Catholic family struggling over whether or not to abort. If only they were allowed birth control! That's got religion and believers written all over it, doesn't it? And, it's not about a Christian president using the atom bomb.
My question was and is ... do we as a society choose to benefit from science and technology that stem from the work of Nazi scientists? Yes. Many people today, each day, benefit greatly from their work. The next question ... should we? Should we take the "good" from something that started with carnage and murder?
Is the idea behind the ... how can you take something "good" from something "bad" argument valid? If so, it can be applied to more instances than one. And, what a good question? If I needed glasses (I don't) and wanted contact lenses for convenience and vanity and ..., would I get the contacts? Or, would I say, "Whoa, now. I'm going to try, in as many ways as possible, not to benefit from the science and technology that stems from the Nazi scientists, rocketry and the space race." Huh? Which choice would I make and why? Which choice would all of us make? Which choice would the people who made the comments about believers and picking "good" from something that is so "bad" make?
Those are my questions, and they've not really been answered. But, as I say (and I truly mean it), I get how hard the questions are and understand that there aren't easy answers.
Actually, no one has answered the question about whether or not we should benefit from the science and technology stemming from the work of Nazi scientists. But, that's okay. It is a very hard question, a hard question for all of us. Yes?
Old-Barbarossa has shared his thoughts, but he's not one of the people who claimed believers should not believe based on the fact that there is "bad" in religion. Hmmm.... Perhaps that statement was too strong. Questioned how people could choose the "good" from something with so much "bad" ... that's likely more accurate.
I know, for the most part, the argument has been one shouldn't believe due to the fact that there aren't facts to back God's existence. I'm the one who admitted I couldn't prove God's existence with scientific facts nor could anyone else. But, I distinctly remember the course of the conversation and argument veering
to ... why/how could someone take "good" from something "bad" ....
Right? Yes.
So, .... My question is not about a Catholic family struggling over whether or not to abort. If only they were allowed birth control! That's got religion and believers written all over it, doesn't it? And, it's not about a Christian president using the atom bomb.
My question was and is ... do we as a society choose to benefit from science and technology that stem from the work of Nazi scientists? Yes. Many people today, each day, benefit greatly from their work. The next question ... should we? Should we take the "good" from something that started with carnage and murder?
Is the idea behind the ... how can you take something "good" from something "bad" argument valid? If so, it can be applied to more instances than one. And, what a good question? If I needed glasses (I don't) and wanted contact lenses for convenience and vanity and ..., would I get the contacts? Or, would I say, "Whoa, now. I'm going to try, in as many ways as possible, not to benefit from the science and technology that stems from the Nazi scientists, rocketry and the space race." Huh? Which choice would I make and why? Which choice would all of us make? Which choice would the people who made the comments about believers and picking "good" from something that is so "bad" make?
Those are my questions, and they've not really been answered. But, as I say (and I truly mean it), I get how hard the questions are and understand that there aren't easy answers.
OK, I haven't said that people shouldn't believe BECAUSE there is bad in religion, I have simply questioned why people would believe the bible (or other holy book) is divinely inspired, and then not acknowledge that means that they have to accept the bad stuff as divinely inspired too. I've admitted several times that there are good things to be taken from holy books, but when there are people who believe it to be the word of god (or allah etc etc) then they have to accept that they follow a god that has lax morals at best. And if someone chooses to just take the good, why do they need to include a god, especially if they admit that the good was written by men, and as such, can only be attributed to men and there is no need for a deity to give it credence. Whats even worse is when someone takes the good bits, and attributes them to god (or jesus, which basically means they're being attributed to god),and then claims the bad stuff isn't attributed to god, but to men. Thats hypocrisy.I think people shouldn't believe because theres no proof that theres anything there to believe in, that they are deliberately making themselves credulous.
The nazi question, again, like Barbarossa says, the science is a tool, its the people who use it that make it bad (like the old adage of guns don't kill people). If we can then take something that was bad, and make something good, then why not? In fact, I think we're morally obligated to make something good from it, so the people harmed by it weren't harmed for no reason. We had no control over the bad things that happened, but we would be wrong to ignore what was found becuase of where it came from. Its a shame that the space programme came from the development of the V1 (doodlebug), its upsetting that some nazi scientists were protected from prosecution because the amercians decided to use them to help in their pursuits, but at the same time, its quite uplifting that these scientist who probably simply did what they were told for fear of what would happen if they didn't (a common ploy used by the nazis was to suggest that your family was in danger ifyou didn't comply) were given the chance to contribute to something worthwhile. But what came from that isn't a shame, its not something to be upset about. The ends don't justify the means, by as we had no control over the original means, then our only responsibilty is to try and derive something good and/or useful from it. The people responsible, the people that were really responsible, were those in charge of the nazi party, and they were punished, and they were pretty much, to a man, religious, so its swings and roundabouts, and will always come back to who was giving the orders and in the case of nazis, who's holding a proverbial gun to your head.
Science is a tool, we can do our best to police how it is used, but we're not going to be able to stop it being misused every time. INterestingly, the next skeptics in the pub talk I'm attending is on the uses and misuses of science, its on 12 december, I'll try to remember to keep notes, and let you know what was said, I suspect it will be interesting.
So, yes you can make something good from something bad, but that doesn't make the bad thing good (as many people claim with the bible - they make excuses for the bad stuff because its "god who said it"). However, its wrong to be credulous about it, to say "we got space flight, thus the doodlebug was a good thing", which is analogous to what many people do with religious teachings.
So by all means, take the good teachings, and create something good, but why add a god into the mix? If the good are the teachings of god, then the bad in the same book are too OR if the bad isn't from god, then neither is the good. And if you take the latter stance, and know that there are rational ways to explain "religious" experiences, and you can acknowledge that theres no proof of god, and that theres no rational reason to believe it exists, why construct a god to believe in? It adds nothing to who you are, it doesn't make you a better person, (general you, not specific you), and you can be a happy, useful and constructive member of society without it, as it adds nothing to your abilty to be such. (This last bit is intended as a reiteration, not a new enquiry, and as such, no response is expected or sought, as you've rightly pointed out, we've covered this)
Shannon wrote: "My question was and is ... do we as a society choose to benefit from science and technology that stem from the work of Nazi scientists? Yes. Many people today, each day, benefit greatly from their work. The next question ... should we? Should we take the "good" from something that started with carnage and murder..."I see no reason not to benefit from the science if it is valid science. The initial methodology may have been wrong/evil etc but if the tech/maths/proceedure works and stands up to peer review and modern techniques of criticism/testing then it is good science. The science doesn't try and justify its future use based on previous Hx or how it came about (religion tends to do this though), science's future use is driven by whether it works or not...is the maths sound? does the technique save lives? etc
I think the moral valuation of science is not relevant, fine to apply morals to the use of science/the actions of scientists though...therefore the moral condemnation of nazi doctors due to their actions I have no problem with...but the results of their research into (for example) treatment of hypothermia can be used and built upon to enable improved survivability in cold water casualties etc, which I think is a good thing.
Many bits of science were driven by people trying to improve trade, which is usually Hx linked to the exploitation of "the other"...I wouldn't ignore my compass due to it's early use in navagation enabling the slave trade...if the compass was being used in East Africa to continue the slave trade though, I would condemn the slaver not the tool.
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...
Yes, I agree. A tool is a tool. It's an inanimate object and has no morals.
So, do you ask spiritual people about their picking and choosing the good and throwing out the bad due to the fact that you believe religion is based on a moral framework? Hinting at hypocrisy, perhaps?
I wonder .... I suppose it depends on one's viewpoint, doesn't it?
I'm not sure if you've shared your perspective on this. My perspective is as follows ....
If the question is valid, it's valid on many levels?
Should spiritual/religious people pick the good and throw away the horrific aspects of their beliefs? Regardless of the moral framework, should one pick and choose?
Should people, in general, religious or not, pick the good that science and technology has to offer? Regardless of the fact that a moral framework does not exist within science, should one accept and benefit from science and technology that stems from ... a Nazi eugenicist?
Despite the fact that there is no moral framework within the scientific method, etc..., should scientists ask themselves moral questions when dealing with something that has such power ... the power to give life or to destroy life?
Should scientists and doctors have ethics panels, etc... in order to determine how best to use science and technology? Or, do they ...? I don't know. Do they do anything and everything within the bounds of scientific discovery?
Do the questions asked and answered need to be different for both groups?
Or, should both groups ... should all of us ... answer the same sort of questions?
What answers might we arrive at if we went down this particular avenue?
You see, I find the question and its applications fascinating ... but not just for the spiritual and religious among us.