Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Shannon wrote: "Hazel wrote: "we could start talking about Sean Bean if you like, instead, Travis... I especially like him as Sharpe."Speaking of SEAN BEAN, Hazel ....
He's in a new television show over here in..."
Just when you thought this thread couldn't get any more emotionally traumatizing...
Travis wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Hazel wrote: "we could start talking about Sean Bean if you like, instead, Travis... I especially like him as Sharpe."
Speaking of SEAN BEAN, Hazel ....
He's in a new television s..."
Ahhahahahahahahaha!!!!
Speaking of SEAN BEAN, Hazel ....
He's in a new television s..."
Ahhahahahahahahaha!!!!
Is it time for us blokes to start a similar conversation?! Probably not about Sean Bean, but then again, there's no reason why it couldn't be!
Cerebus wrote: "Is it time for us blokes to start a similar conversation?! Probably not about Sean Bean, but then again, there's no reason why it couldn't be!"Exit the religion believers....
Cerebus wrote: "Is it time for us blokes to start a similar conversation?! Probably not about Sean Bean, but then again, there's no reason why it couldn't be!"
I'm all about equal opportunity. Go for it!
I'm all about equal opportunity. Go for it!
Religion would have to go and I wish it would leave NOW! I cannot get on board with invisible sky fairies. Morality and ethics, right and wrong, these are things that can be taught to kids without bringing the ignorance of religion into it.
Shannon wrote: "Cerebus wrote: "Is it time for us blokes to start a similar conversation?! Probably not about Sean Bean, but then again, there's no reason why it couldn't be!"I'm all about equal opportunity. G..."
Seems like every ten pages or so, this thread takes an odd tangent... must be a stress release after all that serious debate..or we just all start thinking about all that 'begotting' that happens in the bible...
but, in the spirit of this page...am I the only one who bought opening night tickets to the new Batman movie after hearing the phrase 'Anne Hathaway in a skintight bodysuit?'
I stopped listening to what else the movies about after that bit.
Travis wrote: " 'Anne Hathaway in a skintight bodysuit?'"I'm sure there was more to your post than this, but I can't remember any of it.....
: D
Travis wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Cerebus wrote: "Is it time for us blokes to start a similar conversation?! Probably not about Sean Bean, but then again, there's no reason why it couldn't be!"
I'm all about equal..."
Oh, I think it is a stress release.
And ...
Hahahahahahahahaha!!
I'm all about equal..."
Oh, I think it is a stress release.
And ...
Hahahahahahahahaha!!
Hate to be a thread re-railer :-)I don't know if this has came up in the previous 63 pages, but the question is rather moot anyway.
Science isn't labcoats, computers and lectures. Science isn't atoms and equations. Science is "the search for knowledge."
Religion in this way is a science in itself. People interpret evidence (holy books, alleged miracles etc.) and use it to model the expected behaviour of the world around them through hypothesis and theory.
Therefore without science, you couldn't have religion at all.
The only problem with religion is the (literal) dogmatic adherence to a particular dated hypothesis that adherents will in one breath claim is a "product of its times" when its atrocities are highlighted and "completely relevant" when people miss the same.
Gary wrote: "The only problem with religion is the (literal) dogmatic adherence to a particular dated hypothesis that adherents will in one breath claim is a "product of its times" when its atrocities are highlighted and "completely relevant" when people miss the same.
"
We have talked about this part in the past, Gary.
I don't think it's that easy for some. In that ... I know there are people who say and believe the Bible, for example, is the divine word of God. Period. I'm not sure how they deal with the ugly parts of the Bible. I've not heard them address those issues.
For me .... The Bible was written by men. Given that, any word they might have been given by God (yes, I know someone is itching to write back and say ... but there is no God) would need to be interpreted by those men, who weren't close to being perfect and who were a product of their times.
Much has been said about people who pick and choose what they believe. Guilty. It makes sense to me that I should be able to use my intellect in making sense of, for example, the Bible and believe as I feel led. Am I perfect? Do I claim to have a perfect understanding of God? No. No. No. But, I'm not sure that's the point.
Further, I can look at the Bible and see certain things that were obviously a product of the times, given an understanding of history. I can also look at things like ... the fact that Jesus allegedly talked with, dare I say it, women, and reportedly stood up for women ... example ... the woman who was about to be stoned. Who among you has no sins ... let that person cast the first stone .... To take that a step further, His adherents spread this "gospel" verbally and, then, put it in writing. When we think about the times during which they lived, that's rather amazing. It would not have been a popular teaching, except among women and forward-thinking men. Yet, this was the message. And, it was picked up and believed, during those times!! That particular story is one that is completely relevant to me. I try to remember that story and live my life by that example.
So, I totally see what you're saying, Gary. I'm just not sure that all "adherents" fit within your idea regarding the problem with religion. Some? Yes. Many? Probably. Not all.
One thing that I've found ironic within this thread ... when discussing this issue. The leaders of many religions would have people shut down their minds, not think, and accept the holy books as divinely inspired and not question church dogma. While many atheists on this thread would have the people think ... along the lines of denying God ... they, too, argue that believers should not think and should not pick and choose the things that are obviously a product of the times and things to be despised and things that were obviously good and true. I find that interesting.
"
We have talked about this part in the past, Gary.
I don't think it's that easy for some. In that ... I know there are people who say and believe the Bible, for example, is the divine word of God. Period. I'm not sure how they deal with the ugly parts of the Bible. I've not heard them address those issues.
For me .... The Bible was written by men. Given that, any word they might have been given by God (yes, I know someone is itching to write back and say ... but there is no God) would need to be interpreted by those men, who weren't close to being perfect and who were a product of their times.
Much has been said about people who pick and choose what they believe. Guilty. It makes sense to me that I should be able to use my intellect in making sense of, for example, the Bible and believe as I feel led. Am I perfect? Do I claim to have a perfect understanding of God? No. No. No. But, I'm not sure that's the point.
Further, I can look at the Bible and see certain things that were obviously a product of the times, given an understanding of history. I can also look at things like ... the fact that Jesus allegedly talked with, dare I say it, women, and reportedly stood up for women ... example ... the woman who was about to be stoned. Who among you has no sins ... let that person cast the first stone .... To take that a step further, His adherents spread this "gospel" verbally and, then, put it in writing. When we think about the times during which they lived, that's rather amazing. It would not have been a popular teaching, except among women and forward-thinking men. Yet, this was the message. And, it was picked up and believed, during those times!! That particular story is one that is completely relevant to me. I try to remember that story and live my life by that example.
So, I totally see what you're saying, Gary. I'm just not sure that all "adherents" fit within your idea regarding the problem with religion. Some? Yes. Many? Probably. Not all.
One thing that I've found ironic within this thread ... when discussing this issue. The leaders of many religions would have people shut down their minds, not think, and accept the holy books as divinely inspired and not question church dogma. While many atheists on this thread would have the people think ... along the lines of denying God ... they, too, argue that believers should not think and should not pick and choose the things that are obviously a product of the times and things to be despised and things that were obviously good and true. I find that interesting.
Shannon wrote: "Hazel wrote: "we could start talking about Sean Bean if you like, instead, Travis... I especially like him as Sharpe."Speaking of SEAN BEAN, Hazel ....
He's in a new television show over here in..."
the question is, how long will he survive? Poor sean, he's been killed once every 1.24 years for the last 20 years...
The promo's for Missing are on TV here too.Sean Bean's "killed" in the promo, though that could be red herring.
Shannon wrote: "For me .... The Bible was written by men. Given that, any word they might have been given by God (yes, I know someone is itching to write back and say ... but there is no God) would need to be interpreted by those men, who weren't close to being perfect and who were a product of their times."No that's fair. Responding "yes there is", "no there isn't" is unproductive I agree :-)
Shannon wrote: "Much has been said about people who pick and choose what they believe. Guilty. It makes sense to me that I should be able to use my intellect in making sense of, for example, the Bible and believe as I feel led. Am I perfect? Do I claim to have a perfect understanding of God? No. No. No. But, I'm not sure that's the point."
I agree with what you state there, except for the last sentence. That is the entire point. There is a lot of conflicting messages and morality in the bible (just for example, commanding "thou shalt not kill" then ordering people put to death for other crimes). A lot of people read the bible and pick what appeals to them. For Christians I respect, they commonly pick the good messages ('do unto others', 'judge not' etc.) and leave bits like the homophobia, the rapists being forced to marry their victims as 'punishment' etc.
How do they make these picks? By applying their own ethics to the bible and selecting what agrees. This demonstrates clearly that far from being the source of ethics, religion is subject to ethical analysis. The problem being this process fails and people put scripture before their own ethics.
Shannon wrote: "I try to remember that story and live my life by that example."
I totally agree to that too (only snipping for length), and this time the last line is completely right.
If you are to believe the gospels as written (though there is little direct evidence that any of it happened, and far too many parallels to other mythical figures top be comfortable) Jesus was a rebel, and a blasphemer. He attacked the oppressive religion of the time and posited a more progressive and egalitarian ideology, for the time.
Now it is his legacy that is the oppressive, old version that needs to be challenged in the light of a more civilised and educated society.
Shannon wrote: "So, I totally see what you're saying, Gary. I'm just not sure that all "adherents" fit within your idea regarding the problem with religion. Some? Yes. Many? Probably. Not all."
No they don't and that's kind of my general point. I find that in these debates theists tend to excuse religious ideology while blaming the bad parts on adherents who have 'got it wrong' or are 'extremists' or 'deluded by satan'. While atheists do not believe that all adherents are the same, indeed some are wonderful and good people. However, the ideology of religion is the bad part. Without religion I fully believe the good people would still have chosen an ethical life, just as the less ethical or outright sadistic would have chosen an 'evil' path. The only difference would be that the evil ones would not have the good ones making excuses for them.
Shannon wrote: " While many atheists on this thread would have the people think ... along the lines of denying God ... they, too, argue that believers should not think and should not pick and choose the things that are obviously a product of the times and things to be despised and things that were obviously good and true. I find that interesting. "
No this part I disagree with. First "denying god" means implicit acceptance that there is one and then an active choice to deny 'him'. Atheists do not do this. I no more 'deny' god than I deny Osiris, Zeus, the flying spaghetti monster and Mega-rhyl (that I just made up).
Secondly we don't say that people shouldn't pick and choose the good stuff and ignore the bad. However, you can do that with Grimms fairy tales or Star Wars. Some of the Jedi teachings are very good advice.
Stories and mythology have been teaching us by example for tens of thousands of years. The problem is when faith gets involved. Faith means that people are forced to supplant their ethics with the ethics of the religious ideology. They end up agreeing with the good stuff, but then enforcing the bad because "it's god's will."
Oh and atheists never say "don't think", Mark Twain once suggested that everyone should read the bible, because that act creates more atheists than almost any other method. It worked in my case. I read the horrific morality in the bible and despite the rare good idea, I could not accept the bible as a book that inspired ethical behaviour.
Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "For me .... The Bible was written by men. Given that, any word they might have been given by God (yes, I know someone is itching to write back and say ... but there is no God) would..."Wow, so much good stuff here.
Gary pretty much covered everything on the whole cherry picking the bible, so I'll just say 'ditto'.
Mega-Ryll: Not sure what kind of deity he'd make, but sounds like a good name for a new monster to fight Godzilla.
Shannon: again, we have the false equivilancy tha being an atheist is just another belief system that discourages thought.
It's a bit like saying 'not jogging is a form of exercise'
Religion tends to narrow your thought, after all, if it has all the answers, you're good.
Being an atheist is a bit like being a teenager.
Time to let go of your imaginary friend and start taking steps out into the big world.
It's scary, the support net gets thin and you have to figure out how to do stuff and get through the day on your own.
Cerebus wrote: "cs wrote: "Again I repete......The phrase is today commonly used in contexts that are incompatible with the original meaning as intended by its first two proponents: British polymath philosopher..."
Phrases come and go, some stay with us and over the years society adapts them to fit new environments and times. Survival of the fittest is used quite a lot in these times we now live in and is alternative meaning is not new to me.
As you say, now you understand how I am using it we can enable the discussion to continue.... That’s not an issue and I am always happy to explain. The issue was when Hazel said I was wrong.
We already have a good working model of how society works from a religious concept, that is the default model we are stuck with and so any other concept is just pure guess work.
Would society be better or worse without religion. It would be neither; because If we were now living in a society without religion that would be the default concept and would not be able to compare it.
For all the negatives that this debate talks about regarding religion, removing religion altogether we would also lose the pluses.
Life would, I think, have less value or meaning than it does in a religious world.
cs wrote: "Cerebus wrote: "cs wrote: "Again I repete......The phrase is today commonly used in contexts that are incompatible with the original meaning as intended by its first two proponents: British p..."
That last sentence is utter horsesh*t, you don't need religion to have meaning in your life. All religion does is create fear in your everyday life but everyone wants to cover that fact up by saying that it gives them meaning, in other words, you're allowing yourself to be manipulated because you are too afraid to believe otherwise. Being a religious person is the equivalency of African tribes worshiping an idol, they were brought up that way and know nothing else so their beliefs and superstitions remain in tacked
cs wrote: "We already have a good working model of how society works from a religious concept, that is the default model we are stuck with and so any other concept is just pure guess work."Not pure guess work, science. We postulate hypothesis and then test.
For example, if we take the hypothesis that a religion is true (after all they are fairly mutually exclusive) and that morality is based on religious dedication rather than social conscience then we should be able to look at the crime and prison statistics of countries, and the amount that they have been condemned for human rights violations and the country with the 'right' religion should have markedly few issues with crime, violence and oppression. This has not been observed. The US is more religious than Europe in general and the US imprisons a higher proportion of its population than Europe. Meanwhile theocratic societies are almost always condemned for human rights violations and their treatment of women.
cs wrote: "Would society be better or worse without religion. It would be neither; because If we were now living in a society without religion that would be the default concept and would not be able to compare it."
Just because we cannot directly observe both exclusive situations does not mean we cannot hypothesise and speculate based on evidence.
cs wrote: "For all the negatives that this debate talks about regarding religion, removing religion altogether we would also lose the pluses."
What pluses? This statement assumes that their are positives to Religion that cannot be gained elsewhere. Are there any examples that are solely religious in origin and since there are many competing religions, a clear example that only a certain religion provides?
Morality? No. As much as people like to claim that morality is based solely on the fear of god (which paints a rather ugly picture of humanity as abject cowards) it can be shown that Hindu, Muslim, Celtic and Ancient Greek societies had their own morality and ethics, and though in some cases not very "modern" still completely functional. Though Americans would like to imagine their law is based on the 10 commandments (of whichever biblical version they prefer) it is in fact principally based on the laws and procedures of the pre-christian Roman Republic. (E.g. the word "testimony" is derived from the legal practice of swearing, not with your hand on the bible but placed on your 'testes'.)
Hope? Again only works with one true religion. If some religions are as false as the others claim then we can get hope from false religions too. Leaving aside how much we would want false hope in any situation, this means that we could easily gain this hope from another - truer - ideology than religion.
cs wrote: "Life would, I think, have less value or meaning than it does in a religious world."
Thank you for at least qualifying that with an 'I think' rather than making it an absolute statement :-) I think we could remember a little humility now and then (even me!)
However, I view it as a very sad statement. The universe is full of dazzling beauty and awe inspiring spectacle, and imagining that all this comes from something as mundane as a 'person writ large' seems somewhat disappointing. Moreover, most of these Judeanchristian ideas paint the world and us as broken and intrinsically sinful, leaving us grovelling to the ultimate in absentee father figures for forgiveness for the crimes of our ancestors. Hoping to get through this life bowing and scraping just so after our lives we can actually start really living.
Without religion, perhaps people would be less concerned in judging the sins of others and actually instead concentrate on making each others brief, fragile and precious lives in existence as happy as we can make each other?
Cllementine wrote: "I am religious.. to be honest, 'cause it's logical to me that things do not happen accidentally.Life without purpose would be, by definition, contradictory to it's existance.
When I say religion,..."
That's suppose to be logical Cllementine, sounds like the complete opposite of logical to me. Damn near everything in life happens accidentally unless you plan for something and even then things don't go according to plan most of the time.
Purpose for life? That crap has really got you messed up. Why do you need to have a purpose? I lead a completely happy life without a single purpose to it. Purposes are for lazy people who can't get out of bed because "what's the point, I have no purpose in life".
The people in my life, and me myself, give me purpose.
Cllementine wrote: "I am religious.. to be honest, 'cause it's logical to me that things do not happen accidentally."In what way logical? Does that mean that when an apple falls from a branch it does so by choice? How is that logical?
Cllementine wrote: "Life without purpose would be, by definition, contradictory to it's existance."
Now I accept that life is by it's nature hard to define, and indeed is somewhat blurred when we consider the continuum from simple chemistry, through complex biochemistry, to viruses, to the simplest forms we accept as life. However, never have I heard any definition that involves 'purpose' except in theology were it is assumed to have a purpose, but then again so does everything so even then it is a poor definition of life.
Cllementine wrote: "When I say religion, I don't think at earthly rituals with wich we pay respects to higher power.
I think of logical comprehension of something that can't be proven, but it must be true. :)"
You have really mixed terminology here. How can you claim 'logical comprehension' of something that 'can't be proven'. If you can logically comprehend it then that logic would be a proof.
Why "must be true"? For what reason? Wishful thinking? :-)
Cllementine wrote: "I'm also a scientist, 'cause I believe that the best way to spend life is to try to find answers to HOW and WHY."
So you are in direct opposition to yourself? If you want answers for 'how' and 'why' then do you look for them, or do you assume the answer to be 'god' then look for evidence to confirm this hypothesis?
Cllementine wrote: "If we are to small to understand, see or touch something it doesn't mean that IT doesn't exist."
Similarly if we can imagine something, it does not follow that the thing we imagine does exist. Particularly since the concept of a 'person' that is somehow both incredibly larger than ourselves but comprehensible as a similar entity to ourselves with similar emotions ideals and feelings is a bit of a failure of said imagination.
Cllementine wrote: "What I want to say is that Science is like a bridge that we are building to get to the the place where our belief is."
However, different people believe different things and this belief has changed and altered over the years. So where is this bridge being built too.
If you decide on an answer and then 'build a bridge' to that answer, without testing whether that answer was actually right, then that is not science, that is propaganda.
Cllementine wrote: "And by doing that we grow, we learn and our life improves significantly. "
Or we wreck someone elses life by condemning them for loving the wrong person, or believing something different, or being a woman, all because we chose a belief we are comfortable with and in our arrogance imagine that our belief is the supreme thing in the universe.
Hazel wrote: "The people in my life, and me myself, give me purpose."That still doesn't answer my question, why do you need to have a purpose, why can't life just be?
Drew, there is no destination for life, life can just be, the human species isn't heading to a predetermined destination, but I have purpose in my life, purpose for myself. As a species we are prone to higher thought processes, and those evolved processes have included a need for meaning. However, meaning does not come from fairy tales and religion, it comes from the real things we have in our lives. We have evolved these needs, we are a social species, that has developed a need for other members of our species, and with e volved higher thought processes that create a need for meaning, and so we create meaning and purpose for ourselves. I mean this in a response to the religious claim that there is no meaning without god or the promise of an afterlife, but I contend my life has intrinsic value and purpose, as created by myself, without the need for god, or the bribe of an afterlife to give it to me. I create my own purpose, this does not interfere with you saying that life can just be, as my giving myself purpose does not effect whether life will just be.Religion can also be seen to be a result of this innate need to create societies and purpose. It is however seperate to that, its an innate human drive linked to our higher thoughts.
No Hazel, religion is not a drive we have linked to our higher thoughts. Religion is superstition handed down from parent to child in most cases, or in cases where an adult "finds God" later in life it is just a way to diminish the fears they have about the world, death, etc. Religion is the furthest thing from higher thoughts, it's just plain ignorance.
Religion is ignorance, the need for meaning and purpose is not. You seem to be confusing the two. People do find meaning in religion, even if when we look at it objectively we can see it doesn't really have any that cannot be received or achieved by secular means. Religion had to come about somehow, Drew, and it cannot be just because of people trying to control others, if you go back, further, to basic animistic beliefs and religions, it was a way to understand the world, and give meaning to our place within it, more recently, we have explained much of what people attributed to spirits and gods with science, religion gave meaning and purpose to a species that needed it, but didn't have the means to explain their world properly. We, as a species evolved as social animals, and gained higher thought processes that included trying to undertand our place in the world, and our purpose, religion was a way to do that in the absence of the tools and information we now have. The native american religions taught a oneness with nature, and that we were part of it. I agree that religion does not give us meaning, I'm saying that our evolved need to find meaning because we have higher thoughts resulted in animistic, and religious, beliefs that provided answers (that were incorrect, but gave comfort and a feeling of control over a big,scary world) in the absence of the tools, knowledge and understanding that our species has come to have.
Hazel wrote: "Religion is ignorance, the need for meaning and purpose is not. You seem to be confusing the two. People do find meaning in religion, even if when we look at it objectively we can see it doesn't re..."It seems to me that you are the one confused, I'm not saying meaning and purpose go hand in hand with religion, I'm saying that meaning and purpose are not necessary to have a complete and fulfilling life. I feel that it is complete horsesh*t to say that in order to evolve and develop that we have to understand our place in the world. We are just animals with higher intelligence, animals don't need to understand their place in the world to live full lives.
Drew wrote: "cs wrote: "Cerebus wrote: "cs wrote: "Again I repete......The phrase is today commonly used in contexts that are incompatible with the original meaning as intended by its first two proponents: B..."
How am I afraid? I didn't know I was.
I'm not saying that in order to evolve we have to understand our place in the world, I'm saying we evolved a need to understand our place and to look for meaning, irrespective of whether there is actually any meaning or purpose (I don't think there is), we have evolved in a way that means we have the intelligence to even consider our place in the world, and that being able to consider it, in order to feel safe, we create systems that give us meaning. Its an evolved trait that we look for meaning, not that we need meaning to evolve.You're getting what I'm saying back to front. At no point did I imply that you said religion and meaning go hand in hand, but I inferred that you thought I was saying so. I also am not saying so, I'm saying that our evolved traits involve an intelligence that looks for patterns, and meanings, and purpose to things, and that religion developed as a side effect of this evolved trait.
Cllementine wrote: "I am religious.. to be honest, 'cause it's logical to me that things do not happen accidentally.Life without purpose would be, by definition, contradictory to it's existance.
When I say religion,..."
I agree.
cs wrote: "Cllementine wrote: "I am religious.. to be honest, 'cause it's logical to me that things do not happen accidentally.Life without purpose would be, by definition, contradictory to it's existance..."
I don't
Hazel wrote: "I'm not saying that in order to evolve we have to understand our place in the world, I'm saying we evolved a need to understand our place and to look for meaning, irrespective of whether there is t..."Ok, I believe I'm picking up what you're putting down now, lol. Having the ability to
cs wrote: "Drew wrote: "cs wrote: "Cerebus wrote: "cs wrote: "Again I repete......The phrase is today commonly used in contexts that are incompatible with the original meaning as intended by its first t..."
why do you believe in a god?
what do you think would happen to you if you didn't believe in a god?
Drew I actually think we're pretty much in agreement, there is no ultimate purpose or meaning to life, beyond "survive, produce more life". But we, as a species, are analytical and think about stuff, we've evolved this intelligence and ability to think (though I've met some people that make me wonder...), so we give ourselves meaning, some through the medium of religion, others off their own back. If you get what I mean :)
I gotta go, I'm leaving for the weekend but when I get back I'll check back in and see what everyone has to say. Just to be sure, I want you all to know that just because I say that religion is ignorance doesn't mean I think that all of you who do believe are stupid. Ignorance and stupidity are two completely different things. See ya next week.
Have a good weekend, I intend to, its my birthday weekend :D
Gary wrote: "cs wrote: "We already have a good working model of how society works from a religious concept, that is the default model we are stuck with and so any other concept is just pure guess work."Not pu..."
the country with the 'right' religion should have markedly few issues with crime, violence and oppression
Why?
Just because we cannot directly observe both exclusive situations does not mean we cannot hypothesise and speculate based on evidence.
Thats what it is speculation, but if have have evidence what is it.
What pluses?
First lets ask the question about the question, Religion or science, does the question mean if religion ended today or if there never was a religion. If religion ended today the world would have had the benefit of having had religion and it's morals from the past 2000 years. If there never was religion then I also would speculate and say we would be living in a fittest survives society with much less if any morals.
The universe is full of dazzling beauty and awe inspiring spectacle, and imagining that all this comes from something as mundane as a 'person writ large' seems somewhat disappointing.
Maybe, but it is better than having no imagination or answers.
You are seeing a wood, I am seeing the trees.
Drew wrote: "cs wrote: "Cllementine wrote: "I am religious.. to be honest, 'cause it's logical to me that things do not happen accidentally.Life without purpose would be, by definition, contradictory to it's ..."
What is this purpose that life has to have that people keep mentioning?
Things happen and they make other things happen.
That's really it.
It's big and scary and awesome and amazing. We hit the cosmic lottery.
We are standing on the skin of a rock spinning at thousands of miles a minute, while falling through space.
Hazel wrote: "I'm not saying that in order to evolve we have to understand our place in the world, I'm saying we evolved a need to understand our place and to look for meaning, irrespective of whether there is a..."Effing amazing explanatory writing! Hazel if you don't write books, you are missing a great corner in your life! I'm thinking you'd be a fantastic science journalist or writer! Talent talent talented lady! I'm serious. I wish I wasn't a simple retired poor ex-secretary and that I could connect you with someone. I read a lot of magazines, too. I suppose this is inappropriate, but I can help it. You make the intricate and involved clear and cool. Oh well, I promise I won't gush anymore and embarrass. Sorry.
I can't imagine how people can look at the sky, the sea, into someones eyes and say 'it's not enough. If there's isn't a plan, it's wrong."It's not a perfect design. It's sloppy and nearly all of it will kill us. The parts that don't, work just enough to keep us alive and no more.
Things just happen. Amazing things and terrible things.
The part that amazes me, clementine, is your last couple paragraphs about science and ideas are brilliant, spot on and have almost nothing to do with belief or religion.
Imagination and thought and looking at the world to try and see where the pieces fit, that's science in a nutshell and in those two paragraphs you can leave out the man in the sky and it doesn't change them.
Gary wrote: "How do they make these picks? By applying their own ethics to the bible and selecting what agrees. This demonstrates clearly that far from being the source of ethics, religion is subject to ethical analysis. The problem being this process fails and people put scripture before their own ethics."
Hey, Gary. At the outset, I need to say I'm absolutely exhausted today and am afraid I might be missing some of your finer points. However, given the time you put into your response, I did want to get back to you. :)
I guess I do apply my own ethics to the Bible. I'm not sure it's that simple, though. I mean, we know some of history and how people were treated at that time. We know slavery, for example, was acceptable. Rape victims being forced to marry their rapists was done then.
Of course, societies that weren't Christian or Jewish and didn't follow the teachings of the Bible or the Torah also followed had slavery, etc....
Genghis Khan comes to mind. If memory serves, his father stole his mother. I'm sure rape was part of it. In addition, Genghis was made a slave when a boy. Clearly, the people who lived in present day Mongolia were not Jewish or Christian. I'm trying to think ... did they practice a religion? I'm not sure.
My point is ... those are things that were done at the time ... almost everywhere. The Jews of the Torah (the first books of the Bible) did not invent slavery or forcing rape victims to marry their rapists.
In my mind, the religion did not create that. Did religion condone it and perpetrate it? Yes. But, it didn't create them.
So, when I read the Bible, I'm applying knowledge of history in addition to my own ethics. That's why I say it's not as simple as my just applying my ethical standards.
Slavery was slavery was slavery. Not invented by religion. Accepted by cultures throughout the ancient world and, horrifyingly, into the modern world and, worse, to this day in some places. I'd say that likely came before religion. But, that's a guess on my part. It's, frankly, quite easy to look at that and say ... that's not of God ... that's a product of the times. Might my ethics come into play, too? Maybe. But, when dealing with that example, I think it has more to do with history.
But! When I read the story of the woman who is allegedly about to be stoned and is reportedly saved by Jesus, I'm very definitely applying my own ethics to picking that as a truth of the Bible. I'd honestly never thought about that before, but I am. I think, when we apply our own ethics, it might be in picking the truths ... not discarding the products of the times ....
I've always had a thing about fairness and about honesty and our being hypocrites. All of that plays out in that story. So, for me, I guess it stands to reason that I'd read that and believe it was divinely inspired. I'm sure there are some who don't value the same things, at least with regard to women. They'd likely not pick that as a spiritual truth. So, my ethics do come into play in that instance.
You mentioned, Gary, my use of the word "deny" and the fact that atheism is not a belief system. I agree with you. I do not think it is a belief system. I know some believe it is such; I do not. Perhaps that was the wrong word to use. I don't know. My meaning ... many atheists would have believers think and question their beliefs ... and, through that, realize that God doesn't exist. At any rate, I just wanted to clarify.
Regarding thinking .... We had the "cherry picking" discussion months ago. I was struck by the fact that, if memory serves, atheists came out and said things like ... you can't cherry pick or you'd have a schism in the religion, etc....
So, frankly, it does seem to me that ...
Some atheists would have me question whether or not there's proof of God's existence, etc..., but wouldn't have me question which parts of the Bible have to do with societal mores at the time versus something else. It just seems odd to me.
To have an atheist say something like ... if you're going to believe, you have to believe everything ... shocks me. Really? Is the pope saying that? Or, is an atheist saying that? Both have said that. I find that hard to wrap my brain around. And, it doesn't seem to me, in that instance, that either the pope or the atheist is supporting independent thought ... at least with regard deciding what parts of the Bible a person accepts as spiritual truths.
Now, with regard to myth and Star Wars, .... ;) I agree. There are some amazing spiritual truths to be found in myth and in Star Wars.
Just wanted to get back to you ...
Now, Hazel and Shanna ... regarding Sean Bean and Missing ... Here's the thing. He supposedly died years ago and left Ashley Judd's character a widow, raising their son alone. Well! Their son, now in college, is kidnapped. While searching for him, she runs into, almost literally, Sean Bean ... alive and well. It seems he faked his own death ... supposedly because he was a double agent. But, I'm pretty sure the story doesn't end there. Whether he'll get killed later or not, I don't know. Good acting on his part. I'll not say a thing about his loos, but ... ;) His "American" accent is a bit bothersome, though, especially since you expect to hear his normal voice when you're looking at him and ... his true accent sometimes comes out a bit. ;)
Hey, Gary. At the outset, I need to say I'm absolutely exhausted today and am afraid I might be missing some of your finer points. However, given the time you put into your response, I did want to get back to you. :)
I guess I do apply my own ethics to the Bible. I'm not sure it's that simple, though. I mean, we know some of history and how people were treated at that time. We know slavery, for example, was acceptable. Rape victims being forced to marry their rapists was done then.
Of course, societies that weren't Christian or Jewish and didn't follow the teachings of the Bible or the Torah also followed had slavery, etc....
Genghis Khan comes to mind. If memory serves, his father stole his mother. I'm sure rape was part of it. In addition, Genghis was made a slave when a boy. Clearly, the people who lived in present day Mongolia were not Jewish or Christian. I'm trying to think ... did they practice a religion? I'm not sure.
My point is ... those are things that were done at the time ... almost everywhere. The Jews of the Torah (the first books of the Bible) did not invent slavery or forcing rape victims to marry their rapists.
In my mind, the religion did not create that. Did religion condone it and perpetrate it? Yes. But, it didn't create them.
So, when I read the Bible, I'm applying knowledge of history in addition to my own ethics. That's why I say it's not as simple as my just applying my ethical standards.
Slavery was slavery was slavery. Not invented by religion. Accepted by cultures throughout the ancient world and, horrifyingly, into the modern world and, worse, to this day in some places. I'd say that likely came before religion. But, that's a guess on my part. It's, frankly, quite easy to look at that and say ... that's not of God ... that's a product of the times. Might my ethics come into play, too? Maybe. But, when dealing with that example, I think it has more to do with history.
But! When I read the story of the woman who is allegedly about to be stoned and is reportedly saved by Jesus, I'm very definitely applying my own ethics to picking that as a truth of the Bible. I'd honestly never thought about that before, but I am. I think, when we apply our own ethics, it might be in picking the truths ... not discarding the products of the times ....
I've always had a thing about fairness and about honesty and our being hypocrites. All of that plays out in that story. So, for me, I guess it stands to reason that I'd read that and believe it was divinely inspired. I'm sure there are some who don't value the same things, at least with regard to women. They'd likely not pick that as a spiritual truth. So, my ethics do come into play in that instance.
You mentioned, Gary, my use of the word "deny" and the fact that atheism is not a belief system. I agree with you. I do not think it is a belief system. I know some believe it is such; I do not. Perhaps that was the wrong word to use. I don't know. My meaning ... many atheists would have believers think and question their beliefs ... and, through that, realize that God doesn't exist. At any rate, I just wanted to clarify.
Regarding thinking .... We had the "cherry picking" discussion months ago. I was struck by the fact that, if memory serves, atheists came out and said things like ... you can't cherry pick or you'd have a schism in the religion, etc....
So, frankly, it does seem to me that ...
Some atheists would have me question whether or not there's proof of God's existence, etc..., but wouldn't have me question which parts of the Bible have to do with societal mores at the time versus something else. It just seems odd to me.
To have an atheist say something like ... if you're going to believe, you have to believe everything ... shocks me. Really? Is the pope saying that? Or, is an atheist saying that? Both have said that. I find that hard to wrap my brain around. And, it doesn't seem to me, in that instance, that either the pope or the atheist is supporting independent thought ... at least with regard deciding what parts of the Bible a person accepts as spiritual truths.
Now, with regard to myth and Star Wars, .... ;) I agree. There are some amazing spiritual truths to be found in myth and in Star Wars.
Just wanted to get back to you ...
Now, Hazel and Shanna ... regarding Sean Bean and Missing ... Here's the thing. He supposedly died years ago and left Ashley Judd's character a widow, raising their son alone. Well! Their son, now in college, is kidnapped. While searching for him, she runs into, almost literally, Sean Bean ... alive and well. It seems he faked his own death ... supposedly because he was a double agent. But, I'm pretty sure the story doesn't end there. Whether he'll get killed later or not, I don't know. Good acting on his part. I'll not say a thing about his loos, but ... ;) His "American" accent is a bit bothersome, though, especially since you expect to hear his normal voice when you're looking at him and ... his true accent sometimes comes out a bit. ;)
Shannon, I got Game of Thrones, the first season, for my birthday. He even looks good when he's made to look haggard
Shannon wrote: "Gary wrote: "How do they make these picks? By applying their own ethics to the bible and selecting what agrees. This demonstrates clearly that far from being the source of ethics, religion is subje..."I really don't see how religion is what gives us morals, if it's okay to pick and choose what parts of the bible you want to follow.
If morality and religion are that fluid and prone to change and 'oh, that one doesn't count', then what do you need it for?
The bible starts at the beginning of the universe, but rape and slavery were there before religion?
That's timey-whimey logic worthy of Doctor Who,
Atheists would have you question the bible, all of it, and realize it falls into the 'myths and Star Wars' category. Entertaining with some spiritual truths, but not to be mistaken for reality.
When the bible is cherry picked for the good bits it is obviously being rejected as the word of god, but it is being accepted as a Miss Manners reference book, where those instructions and stories from centuries ago are treated as advice and not orders from an almighty god. If one does not accept the bible as direct from him to us, then you feel free to cherry pick. There has been no other released books by god saying its ok to cherry pick or here is my revised new bible updated to include scientific discoveries. Obviously, cherry picking the bible is a rejection of it being the word of god and acceptance of it being optional, simply an aide for creating a personal religion. Instead, one is obviously cobbling together bits of wisdom to make up a personal god. How is that different from writing a fictional universe? Or me knitting together bits of yarn to make a doll?
Shannon, even if religion didn't invent slavery, is not the Bible, God's prime opportunity to condemn it? To inspire the writers write that no person shall be a slave, make it a commandment, rather we have a list of the correct ways to go about it. Even Jesus command slaves to be obedient to their masters.
About Sean Bean in Missing Yeah I thought it might be a red herring
Happy Birthday Hazel!
April the Cheshire Meow wrote: "When the bible is cherry picked for the good bits it is obviously being rejected as the word of god, but it is being accepted as a Miss Manners reference book, where those instructions and stories ..."Well put ATCM, I never know how the religious can pick which are the commandment god wants and which are the ones optional, of course they apply their own internal ethics, but when you believe morality comes from the bible can you afford to hazard such a guess. The stricture against shellfish as an abomination is largely ignored but the one against homosexual acts...
Travis wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Gary wrote: "How do they make these picks? By applying their own ethics to the bible and selecting what agrees. This demonstrates clearly that far from being the source of ethics, r..."
I do not believe, Travis, that religion gives us morals. I've gone on the record regarding that several times.
I do not believe, Travis, that religion gives us morals. I've gone on the record regarding that several times.
Hazel wrote: "Shannon, I got Game of Thrones, the first season, for my birthday. He even looks good when he's made to look haggard"
Will have to look into that .... I don't get that channel and haven't seen any of it. Hmmm.... ;)
Will have to look into that .... I don't get that channel and haven't seen any of it. Hmmm.... ;)
Happy birthday Hazel:)
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...
Again, without proper quoting we cannot know which point it is you are claiming to have had proven, and what it was that was said that leads you to this conclusion.