4
   

Religion Does Not Engender Respect

 
 
Chumly
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 27 Dec, 2011 05:51 pm
@georgeob1,
Without time there is no cause and effect.
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Dec, 2011 06:13 pm
It's been fun chatting with you-all and I appreciate your perspectives, see you in the new year...duty calls!
0 Replies
 
George
 
  5  
Reply Tue 27 Dec, 2011 08:25 pm
@Chumly,
Chumly wrote:
When a religious person claims they have just as much right to their beliefs
as I do to my doubts, I point out that would mean I should treat their beliefs
with equal respect to the methodology of skepticism . . .
OK, so I read through this whole thread and I still don't understand why
I have no right to my beliefs. What am I missing?
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Dec, 2011 10:35 pm
@Chumly,
Chumly wrote:

May I suggest that you consider the scientific method as to your arguments or even more to the point the methodology of skepticism?


May I suggest that you not dodge my questions?
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Dec, 2011 10:38 pm
@George,
You're missing Chumly's insistence that he is not only correct, but profoundly so.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Dec, 2011 10:44 pm
@Chumly,
Chumly wrote:

Without time there is no cause and effect.


Certainly not in a sequential sense. However the time defined by physics may not be the only possibility here. You are, as a result, asserting that it all started with something that can neither be defined nor described, but, despite this, you are certain it was not a creator.

The persistent methodology of your skepticism appears to have deserted you here. Perhaps it is but a short step from methodoligical skepticism (what a ponderous and overloaded term !) to servile credulity.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  2  
Reply Wed 28 Dec, 2011 07:09 am
@Chumly,
Chumly wrote:

Methodological skepticism is at the heart of science. When methodological skepticism is ignored, pseudoscience arises.


Pseudoscience is avoided by methodological naturalism, not methodological skepticism. Methodological naturalism limits science to an investigation of natural phenomena only (things that can be observed, measured, and quantified). Science is not designed to judge issues outside of that.
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Dec, 2011 07:37 am
@Chumly,
My weigh in if it matters.

The problem with religion and christianity is that the followers have the notion that they can fix the world by imposing their idea of morality onto everyone. But what they fail to notice is that, "the road to hell is paved in good intentions." By imposing their will that everyone behave how they "want" them to behave causes nothing but turmoil and death.

They turn a blind eye to it because those who are "outside" the lines of their morality, deserve nothing more than turmoil or death. So they justify their imposing because they believe they are on the side of right. It isn't about human justice or peaceful resolve, although they will attempt to claim that to be their case.

Jesus is love, yet he is the one who will turn father against son, son against mother and daughter against son. How can you claim one thing to be true when the very next thing contradicts it one hundred percent? There is no love in turning a person who is a believer against another who is their very own family, just because they don't believe.

Religion nor christianity will solve the worlds problems. It is out of date, the old method that no longer works. We need a new method, one that accomplishes the most for everyone, not just a small group. The only solution that fills that bill is secular morality and skepticism. It is time we the religious and the christians get their update notice. The future will inevitably drag you kicking and screaming into the reality that religion and chrisitanity are old man made methods to get everyone to play nicely for one group and only one group.
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Dec, 2011 08:55 am
@Krumple,
In my opinion, only a minority of religious people try to impose their ideas on others.
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Dec, 2011 02:04 pm
@wandeljw,
wandeljw wrote:

In my opinion, only a minority of religious people try to impose their ideas on others.


I certainly agree with you there.

The problem,however,arises when that minority is in a position of power. I would never vote for anyone who announces himself to be a "born again Christian."
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Dec, 2011 02:53 am
@wandeljw,
wandeljw wrote:

In my opinion, only a minority of religious people try to impose their ideas on others.


Although it would seem that way, I disagree. It might be a minority that actually go about imposing their will onto the rest of us, but those who believe the same thing actually support this small minority by inaction. What do I mean? Well moderate christians don't actually object to the extremists. I rarely if ever see a moderate chrisitan attempting to correct an extremist. Likewise rarely if ever is there a christian who objects to a political leader imposing their morality onto society. So in reality it is much larger than a small minority doing the damage to our society.
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Dec, 2011 04:25 am
@Chumly,
you can be skeptical and respectful at the same time. there are many moral values that we choose to believe in even if we don't believe in God. Truth, love, kindness -- they are not related to logic, yet most of us would agree they are worth pursuing in and of themselves. should we disrespect moral values as well? after all, religions are organized moral norms to a large extent.
i am an atheist, but i see no reason whatsoever to disrespect the beliefs of my Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu friends. I am neither smarter nor better than any of them. The position you propose is also divorced from culture, identity, and society... and is looking down on large communities of people. thus maybe it is rational thinking, but it is out of context.
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Dec, 2011 04:34 am
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple... and wrong". H. L. Mencken.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/27/2021 at 08:31:24