Does Religion Have a Place in the Future of Humankind?

Oh, btw, I admit to being negative. That doesn't make me out to be the big bad wolf. Your assumptions is what makes you think my posts are attacks on you and your family. Get over it; it's not.

0 Replies

Ok first of all, no one here claimed that we are higher than anyone else on the earth. We don't claim to be "saints" either. So from what you say in reguards to us, is only telling me that you feel anyone that has our beliefs are out to get you or put you down.

0 Replies

Quote:

I care about a lot of things.

I'm glad to hear that, life without caring would be quite terrible. I wouldn't want to wish that upon you. You can blame me for "taking you out of context" if you wish, my shoulders are broad enough to take a lot of blame. However you may also want to consider how much you've been saying "I don't care about this, I don't care about that".

Perhaps people aren't reading the wrong things into your statements, perhaps you've been crafting the wrong image for people. It's a thought.

Quote:

I apologize, I didn't think I would have to note the intense sarcasm dripping off of that statement. Judas Priest, you want me to write it down on a piece of paper and send it to you through the mail?

<angst> No one gets my sense of humour.... </angst>

Quote:

I'm not Catholic and do not believe in the divinity of the Pope, and physicists can be wrong. But if the archangel Michael came down with a ten-thousand page Power Point presentation, I would at least have to take a step back and evaluate myself in the aftermath of what had just happened.

Nope, no one gets my jokes.

Quote:

Or I am sane, but do not engage in certain activities because I control myself in accordnance with -- and not necessarily because of-- my religious beliefs. Those activities range from having extramarital sex to committing a mass murder-suicide.

Your statements were that:
A) You would not harm people in your present religious state.
B) The removal of your religion would result in you harming people.
Ergo C) Your religion and those factors contingent upon it are what stop you from harming people.

This was the only logical meaning that can be infered. You claim in your discussion with Eorl later that your statements were only because That communication and empathy are strong human connections that Christians believe are God-given-- so, when you hypothetically ask what I would do if I learned there was no God, I take into account that it would mean those connections are also falsehoods.

However this does not logically follow as such an interpretation of the hypothetical would also clearly result in the world, the human race and yourself not existing. Thus you can blame no one for not deducing your meaning since it makes no sense. You see what I'm getting at?

Quote:

You really enjoy taking things out of context, don't you?

Actually I do, quite a bit. What one sees in one light, when moved into another can yield many answers. Much like a rock that looks normal may flouresce under ultra-violet light to give up its secrets. By taking situations or assumptions outside of their normal context we can see them clearly.

However your accusations that I am taking you out of context deliberately are inaccurate. If in this case I have done so, then it is by error, either thine or mine as I explained above in my first paragraph.

Quote:

they are my answers nonetheless, and I'm afraid I will not change them because they may not be to your liking.

Nor should you. I would be quite dissapointed if you did, I know to expect better from you.

Quote:

If you were lying on the ground dying of dehydration, I would give you some water. Even if it was all the water I had and it would mean would soon be on the ground dehydrated.

Not that I don't appreciate the gesture, I'm quite glad that you would save me from dehydration. I'm curious though, why? Why would you save me, particularly at the cost of your own life?

Quote:

Eorl wrote:
Logic alone is enough on which to develop a moral code similar to the Christian code and of most societies on the planet.
Exactly. But it has serious flaws. Whose logic? Yours? Maybe my logic differs from yours? Who's to say whose logic is right? Maybe I can justify murder, whereas you may say it's wrong? Who's?

Four words that I doubt anyone will be expecting, I agree with Rex. Logic depends upon axioms which vary between people. I don't believe that a society can be founded purely upon logic.

JLNobody wrote:

I have no "explanation" for our capacity for empathy and compassion; it is a marvelous wonder.

Evolution explains it quite clearly.

Rex wrote:

Because without the foundation of a God for a definitive moral structure, then the justification behind all the "rules" of society is in the minds of man--

The puritan comunities of early America had a justice system as well, there can be little doubt that they all accepted the foundation of God for a definitive moral structure.

Quote:

and we all know just from reading each other's statements that we all think differently, which brings us to the sticky stuff about "who's right"?

Odd isn't it, how a divinely granted code of conscience could vary so greatly between people? Almost makes it seem like a natural neurological process huh?

0 Replies

Quote:

The puritan comunities of early America had a justice system as well, there can be little doubt that they all accepted the foundation of God for a definitive moral structure.

First of all, once sin entered the world, man turn from god and went his own way. That means that these puritans had a different way of doing things b/c they felt that they were right in their own teachings. The catholic church is different from most b/c they have different teachings. This doesn't mean they are right in their laws, but it also doesn't mean that they are wrong.

0 Replies

From my perspective, headofthefield has the right idea about religious' teachings. Many live out their lives with religion as the foundation of their life whether they be protestant, catholics, jews, buddhist, and all the religions of the world (including atheists). They live by their own religious/ethics code believing that the teachings are true, and try to live up to those teachings. Some succeed and some fail; but that's a natural outcome of us humans. There is no way to determine it's rightness or wrongness; only by the way the individual has lived their life.

0 Replies

Thank you for the complement, but I do feel that there is a right religion. It is christianity. Although I know you will disagree with that statement, I just wanted you to know where I stood exactly. And when you say that the only way to know is how the individual lived their life;you must feel then(just an assumtion) that to get to "a better place"good deeds are the only way to get us there.

0 Replies

All my siblings, their spouse and children are all christians. I'm an atheist (first class) and my wife is a buddhist. I personally do not believe that good deeds are the only way to get to a "better place," because I believe we live and die on our home, earth. I also believe that those who believe in other than the christian religions also believe "good deeds are the only way to get us there." That doesn't make them wrong, because that's all they've known for their whole life.

0 Replies

As there are as many Gods as there are people to believe in God, the concept of God is both meaningless and universal at the same time.

0 Replies

So what I am getting in that is that all religions are "right" because they think they are. Does that mean that I am allowed to think that unjust killings are right because I think they are and no one can say I am wrong only because I think I am right. I think that is what is wrong with society today. They teach us that everyone is right because we are not allowed to tell them that they are wrong. They say that we aren't allowed to tell them they are wrong because we will hurt their feelings. That is why the law is being stretched all the time.

0 Replies

Steve, Not quite "meaningless" to the people who "believe." Some will stake their life and fortunes on it.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Who assumed? Show me.

You did. Let me refresh your memory:

Ain't it nice that Rex was created by an intelligent creator. Nature/god has been kind to him; he was not born with HIV/AIDS, mental disability, Siamese twins, heart problem, body deformity, and with an average mental capacity - which makes him "all-knowing."

Not only did you assume that I had none of those medical problems, but you then further assumed that I believed that without such problems I would be "all-knowing". When, in fact, I never ever implied I was even close to "all-knowing", and I have had intense medical problems in my life before-- and indeed, my own brother had a serious heart problem, like you mentioned.

cicerone imposter wrote:

Oh, btw, I admit to being negative.

And yet you scolded me for it-- when I wasn't even being negative at that point! A humongous contradiction if I've ever seen one. What a hypocrite.

cicerone imposter wrote:

Your assumptions is what makes you think my posts are attacks on you and your family. Get over it; it's not.

No, I never assumed that you had blatant intentions to attack me-- in fact, I was working off of the basis that you didn't know exactly what you were saying and I was attempting to bring you into light of the fact. Your comments I mentioned were offensive, and I was trying to prevent you from making such comments in the future. But, of course, you don't like taking responsibility for your mistakes, so it's to be expected that you would anyways.

theantibuddha wrote:

I'm glad to hear that, life without caring would be quite terrible. I wouldn't want to wish that upon you.

I agree.

theantibuddha wrote:

However you may also want to consider how much you've been saying "I don't care about this, I don't care about that".

The only thing I've outright said "I don't care about" is in regards to pleasing you with my answers. And I don't see that as a character flaw in myself-- in fact, I see it as a strength, that my opinions don't hinder on the responses I may get from them.

theantibuddha wrote:

Perhaps people aren't reading the wrong things into your statements, perhaps you've been crafting the wrong image for people. It's a thought.

Perhaps. But I've got more people agreeing with me at this point than disagreeing. So I'm going to go with, for the most part, people are reading the wrong things into my statements when they attack me for them.

theantibuddha wrote:

<angst> No one gets my sense of humour.... </angst>

Oh, I definitely got it. Didn't you see my comment about it in a later reply I made to someone else? Wink

theantibuddha wrote:

Nope, no one gets my jokes.

No, I got it-- you just must have mistook my reply as serious. Razz

theantibuddha wrote:

Your statements were that:
A) You would not harm people in your present religious state.
B) The removal of your religion would result in you harming people.
Ergo C) Your religion and those factors contingent upon it are what stop you from harming people.

Correction-- my statements were that:

A) I would not harm people in my present state because my personal beliefs are not to do so
B) The removal of my religion would cause my current belief structure to crumble, thus causing me to change my personal beliefs
Ergo C) My personal beliefs are what stop me from harming people, in accordnance with my religion

In other words (and get ready, there's a double negative ahead Razz

), I don't not harm people because of my religion, I don't harm people because of my personal beliefs. If my religion were to be proven completely false, my personal beliefs would probably also change, which would mean I would probably stop caring about people the way I do now because I would gain much more from just looking out for myself (keeping my water to myself as you died of dehydration, in other words).

theantibuddha wrote:

However this does not logically follow as such an interpretation of the hypothetical would also clearly result in the world, the human race and yourself not existing. Thus you can blame no one for not deducing your meaning since it makes no sense. You see what I'm getting at?

I see what you're getting at, and it's a very good point. Hopefully my explanation above clears that up a little bit.

theantibuddha wrote:

Actually I do, quite a bit. What one sees in one light, when moved into another can yield many answers. Much like a rock that looks normal may flouresce under ultra-violet light to give up its secrets. By taking situations or assumptions outside of their normal context we can see them clearly.

I agree-- but taking statements out of context and then attempting to infer into their original meaning without their context is not a catalyst for a good argument.

theantibuddha wrote:

However your accusations that I am taking you out of context deliberately are inaccurate. If in this case I have done so, then it is by error, either thine or mine as I explained above in my first paragraph.

Perhaps I should rephrase myself when I claim you are taking things out of context-- it is not a means to say you are doing it deliberately, rather it is a means to make you aware of the fact. And, like I said, to please stop it.

theantibuddha wrote:

Not that I don't appreciate the gesture, I'm quite glad that you would save me from dehydration. I'm curious though, why? Why would you save me, particularly at the cost of your own life?

Because I have compassion for other human beings, thus I am willing to sacrifice myself to save another.

thantibuddha wrote:

Four words that I doubt anyone will be expecting, I agree with Rex. Logic depends upon axioms which vary between people. I don't believe that a society can be founded purely upon logic.

You agreed with me? Hold on, let me go check the weather channel and see if Hell really did freeze over...

theantibuddha wrote:

Evolution explains it quite clearly.

So does Creationism. Very Happy

theantibuddha wrote:

Odd isn't it, how a divinely granted code of conscience could vary so greatly between people? Almost makes it seem like a natural neurological process huh?

Or that the deity which granted that conscience made all individuals unique when he created them, giving them their varying ways of thinking.

0 Replies

Rex, You're the one that brought your brother into this discussion. If you've had life-long health problems, I'm sorry for you. My statements were rhetorical in nature - from the way you seem to have an argument for every little statement made by others - you seem to have all the answers. "Know it all" is a rhetorical comment. Get over yourself. You're not that important - your comments or mine.

0 Replies

Since god created me, you have to show some respect. Wink

0 Replies

rex wrote:

The only thing I've outright said "I don't care about" is in regards to pleasing you with my answers.

Rex. I don't want you to try pleasing me (which is good because as you've made abundantly clear I'm not going to get it). You also said earlier "I'm not in the business of empathasing with people who don't believe in God". Which you've got to admit paints a very uncaring image of you, that you only care about people who believe as you do. That was where I got my original idea of you not caring much.

Quote:

Correction-- my statements were that:

A) I would not harm people in my present state because my personal beliefs are not to do so
B) The removal of my religion would cause my current belief structure to crumble, thus causing me to change my personal beliefs
Ergo C) My personal beliefs are what stop me from harming people, in accordnance with my religion

Well that makes more sense now. Thanks for clearing that up.

Quote:

In other words (and get ready, there's a double negative ahead )

Oooh, tricky waters. I'll prep myself.

Quote:

I don't not harm people

Aaaarrgh, there it is. He harms people because of his religion?? No, hmmm, let me think. Damn those double negatives, I just can't do it... Razz

Forgive me for saying this, I appreciate the arrogance of implying you don't know your own mind. However, human empathy is a natural trait that exists in sane people, not having it (at all) is enough to be clinically diagnosed as insane. I believe that you would be an empathetic and charitable atheist, just as you would be an empathetic christian.

In science one of the most common mistakes is to mistake the cause and the effect. Perhaps you think your christianity is the cause of your morality when it could in fact be the other way around. You were already moral so you found a justification for it in religion.

Quote:

I see what you're getting at, and it's a very good point. Hopefully my explanation above clears that up a little bit.

... I do get what you're saying now, that makes sense. I'm just a bit confused about what you wrote before and the explanations about it. However I'll just assume that I've misinterpreted something back there, I get it now so we might as well move on.

Quote:

I agree-- but taking statements out of context and then attempting to infer into their original meaning without their context is not a catalyst for a good argument.

When I do it (deliberately) I let people know and treat it as a side-consideration rather than as a statement of the other person's premises. If I do it accidentally then well... yeah.

Quote:

Perhaps I should rephrase myself when I claim you are taking things out of context--

Correction. You claimed I "enjoy it"...

Quote:

it is not a means to say you are doing it deliberately, rather it is a means to make you aware of the fact. And, like I said, to please stop it.

Next time perhaps asking would be better than insulting. Though if I was misquoting you then I can understand the annoyance that would lead to insults.

Quote:

Because I have compassion for other human beings, thus I am willing to sacrifice myself to save another.

Good reason. Just curious if it was that or anything else.

Quote:

You agreed with me? Hold on, let me go check the weather channel and see if Hell really did freeze over...

I've got a photo of hell frozen over on my computer somewhere.

Quote:

So does Creationism.

lol. So let's just say that it has plenty of explanations and leave it at that.

0 Replies

First of all imposter, rex did not bring his brother into it. Your exact remark was " Show us a picture of your disabled family member." Second of all, what gives you the right to mock him by calling him a know it all. Just because he has answers to your questions doesn't mean you should get frustrated with him. YOU SHOULD GET OVER YOURSELF!

0 Replies

I'm a humble senior, so I've been over myself many decades ago. Now, how in the world did I know Rex had a disabled brother? My ability to know how many brothers and sisters all participants on a2k have is a power I've had since childhood. BOOO!

0 Replies

1.)so being a senior makes you better than the rest of us. 2) You know b/c you asked him. Oh, and you should go get that "power" of your's checked out. it seems to be going to your head.

0 Replies

I don't take that seriously either. Hint: go back and reread all the posts. You might find something.

0 Replies

Just like you didn't know my or my family's medical history when you decided to make that little statement about deformities
....
Okay, I'm curious. Show us the picture of your family member with the deformity.
....
My brother was born with a heart deformity in which the organ could not function and had many holes in it.

0 Replies

What's the big problem? That his brother has a heart problem? What has that got to do with me? I only asked out of curiosity about his family's health problems/deformities. FYI many families have family members with health problems - including ours. Rex is not unique in that quarter. Grow up!

0 Replies

Does Religion Have a Place in the Future of Humankind?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know