Not a member? Register now!
Announcements
Manga returns! Catch up with the details. Enjoy downloading, translating, and scanlating manga HERE legally!
Like us on Facebook, follow us on Twitter! Celebrate another year with MH and read our yearbook.
Manga News: Check out this week's new manga (9/8/14 - 9/14/14).
Forum News: Visit new sections for Nisekoi and Kingdom!
Translations: Bleach 595 (2)
New Reply
Page 56 of 60 FirstFirst ... 6 46 54 55 56 57 58 ... LastLast
Results 826 to 840 of 891

Thread: Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

  1. #826
    MH's Most High Quality Poster 英雄メンバー / Eiyuu Menbaa / Hero Member earthforge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Country
    United States
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    1,546
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by shaheer View Post
    i think you are not geting my point about morality, but then agian you didnt bring this topic, in short Truth must correspond to reality and logic. Now if catagorical imperetive is true then what reality or logic does it corrospond to? Kantian thesis argued against Gods existance (though its refutable but lets stick to it for a moment). So if Gods existance is argued out how can a Obligation in morality be impended? Is and Ought are two different things, for example : it IS wrong to lie and DONT lie because its wrong to lie are 2 different things.
    For something to be and 'ought' something transcendental must exist. For theist like me its God for atheist its evolution.
    Why does something necessarily have to be always true? "Transcendental" is a wacky word. Everything has boundary conditions - even the universe. It's a matter of determining those boundary conditions.

    Lying isn't exactly right or wrong. I think it's to be avoided because it confuses situations and can turn blame towards you. But "right" and "wrong"? I'm no cosmic overseer who can determine which is which. But neither can I trust in someone claiming to be such a cosmic overseer. You cannot make an absolute statement. You can only make a probabilistic one.
    Avatar © Chelsea Gordon, author of Not Quite Normal.

  2. #827
    MH Senpai 伝説メンバー / Densetsu / Legendary Member M3J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Country
    Vatican City State
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    32,805
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Josef K. View Post
    This is evolving into an ethical debate. Can I ask what are everyone's thoughts on the difference between morals and values?
    Morals are what you go and act by while values are what you think is important. For example, you may believe in not being brutally honest, but you value that trait in others.

    or something.
    Quote Originally Posted by Drmke View Post
    In Atheism (as there is no tenants to base any sort of belief off of), morality comes from whatever the individual wants it to. Morality is subjective. I know religious people hate to hear that but that's how I would imagine other Atheists see it. I don't get my moral code form the fact that my species has evolved over time. What kind of ethics could I gather from that to live my day to day life? Almost none. I decide my own morals based off what I feel and what I see, no more, no less.
    Basically, this. I base my ethics/morality on what I've experienced, what I feel, what I think, what I believe in, and how it affects me and others. Evolution or science does not provide such thing. Nor does science or any of its theory dump on or made to dump on god and his existence.

  3. #828
    Registered User 英雄メンバー / Eiyuu Menbaa / Hero Member shaheer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Country
    Portugal
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,946
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by earthforge View Post
    Lying isn't exactly right or wrong. I think it's to be avoided because it confuses situations and can turn blame towards you. But "right" and "wrong"? I'm no cosmic overseer who can determine which is which. But neither can I trust in someone claiming to be such a cosmic overseer. You cannot make an absolute statement. You can only make a probabilistic one.
    i dont really think you guys are getting me, I wasnt debating subjective morality i was debating catagorical imperative and kants antimony and the absurdity.
    Why in the world are you bringing in subjectivity ?

    ---------- Post added at 02:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:24 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Drmke View Post
    In Atheism (as there is no tenants to base any sort of belief off of), morality comes from whatever the individual wants it to. Morality is subjective. I know religious people hate to hear that but that's how I would imagine other Atheists see it. I don't get my moral code form the fact that my species has evolved over time. What kind of ethics could I gather from that to live my day to day life? Almost none. I decide my own morals based off what I feel and what I see, no more, no less.
    Atheist dont have a strict set of positive beliefs to believe on. One can think of morality as objective one can think of it as subjective.
    Moral epistemology deals with things like whether one thing is good or bad. What makes things inherently GOOD or BAD. IF the values are subjective then should there exist any form or unified law and all sort of things like that.

    But i wasnt TALKING about morality as a whole i was SIMPLY talking about Catagorical Imperative
    When did i bring in debate between subjectivity or objectivity. I was commenting on my objections ON catagorical imperiative ONLY. You can agree or disagree but what is ensuing is any thing but a discussion on the catagorical imperative.
    Last edited by shaheer; February 28, 2013 at 03:41 AM.

  4. #829
    MH Senpai 有名人 / Yuumeijin / Celebrity Drmke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Swallow Valley Mall
    Country
    Winterfell
    Age
    22
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    3,889
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

    Yeah, an Atheist can claim objective morality, but it would sound a little silly right? I mean sure there are a few religious sects that are Atheistic but they still claim some form of spiritual presence in the place of a god (usually, I can't possibly know every exception out there and I'm sure there are a few. For the most part, and I may be over-generalizing but I doubt I am, Atheists do not subscribe to the notion of a higher power dictating moral law. Now in my eyes, as I once again imagine is true for most Atheists, I don't see the categorical imperative as anything different than people who say God created morals. To me, anything that claims an absolute cannot claim to be a framework for morality. I reject the notion of absolute all together. The closest thing are the natural Laws of Science, but I suspect they too will one day be met with exceptions. As far as why something is good or bad, well, there isn't a reason. We're creatures seeking purpose in a universe lacking it.

    That response cover the points you were talking about? If not, it can just work as a stand alone comment.


    OCCUPY THE WORLD

    I got by Kaiten.
    <%M3J> Though I wouldn't mind Sari dominating me.

  5. #830
    MH's Most High Quality Poster 英雄メンバー / Eiyuu Menbaa / Hero Member earthforge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Country
    United States
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    1,546
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by shaheer View Post
    i dont really think you guys are getting me, I wasnt debating subjective morality i was debating catagorical imperative and kants antimony and the absurdity.
    Why in the world are you bringing in subjectivity ?
    1. Kant's thesis had many more problems besides just categorical imperative. Assigning one single axiom from which all morality derives, for one.
    2. I said probabilistic. Probabilistic is not subjective. It's a likelihood of different events. The determination of the likelihoods is a rather deep process.

    Quote Quote:
    Atheist dont have a strict set of positive beliefs to believe on. One can think of morality as objective one can think of it as subjective.
    Maybe that's the wrong way to view it. An electron's location cannot be pinpointed without losing perspective of how fast it is going. We can only determine the probability of where it could be. We can't pinpoint a generalized blanket "moral" without losing perspective of different situations. We can only determine the likelihood.
    Avatar © Chelsea Gordon, author of Not Quite Normal.

  6. #831
    英雄メンバー / Eiyuu Menbaa / Hero Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    My at home.
    Country
    Japan
    Age
    23
    Posts
    1,711
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

    So, I want to discuss the implications and dimensions of the following statement: "I believe in evolution". Should the word evolution(a theoritical, systematic and objective framework of explanation) be used in the same context, meaning and sentence as the word believe, which implies subjectivity and bias ? The statement itself contradicts the principles of scientificness and borders on blind faith. What are your thoughts ?
    "[I]If you think I'm gonna sit here idly by and do nothing, then you're right, because that's what I do here.[/I]"

    Steven Hyde

  7. #832
    ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つMOLLY༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ 伝説メンバー / Densetsu / Legendary Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Piltover
    Country
    Pyke
    Age
    28
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    47,919
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

    That's just poor word choice and more of a matter of semantics than anything else.

  8. Like 1 Member(s) likes this post
  9. #833
    Harasho 伝説メンバー / Densetsu / Legendary Member Kaiten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Towson
    Country
    United States
    Age
    35
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    27,239
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

    When someone says that they "believe" in evolution, they do not mean they take it as an article of faith. Evolution is a scientific law, backed by a large body of publicly available scholastic inquiry, lab work, and field study built over more than a century of study. Science does not ask taken as a matter of faith. Instead it asks to be taken with healthy skepticism. Science is a process, results must be repeatable, and data must be shared publicly. Hypotheses, theories, and laws can be studied, challenged, and confirmed by anyone with sufficient expertise. Faith is neither asked for, or given. It is a wholly empirical and objective process. Evolution itself is built on archaeological evidence, genetic research, and DNA mapping. Evolution and climate change are in the unenviable position of inviting skepticism from the religious and political communities. The public has been forced to choose what they believe in. When someone says that they "believe" in evolution, it means that they have chosen an objective, empirical body of scholastic knowledge, rather than blind faith.

  10. Like 2 Member(s) likes this post
  11. #834
    MH Senpai 伝説メンバー / Densetsu / Legendary Member M3J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Country
    Vatican City State
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    32,805
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by dark lord View Post
    So, I want to discuss the implications and dimensions of the following statement: "I believe in evolution". Should the word evolution(a theoritical, systematic and objective framework of explanation) be used in the same context, meaning and sentence as the word believe, which implies subjectivity and bias ? The statement itself contradicts the principles of scientificness and borders on blind faith. What are your thoughts ?
    Why isn't it subjective or bias? You can either believe in evolution because it has more proof, or you can have no faith in evolution over God because you have faith in God. Blind faith is possible with science/evolution, but it depends on WHY. Just like blind faith isn't a sure thing for those that believe in God, as they might have seen or experienced something that they think is God's doing.

    Science can be biased or at least, subjective to what we understand and experience.

  12. Like 1 Member(s) likes this post
  13. #835
    英雄メンバー / Eiyuu Menbaa / Hero Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    My at home.
    Country
    Japan
    Age
    23
    Posts
    1,711
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaiten View Post
    The public has been forced to choose what they believe in. When someone says that they "believe" in evolution, it means that they have chosen an objective, empirical body of scholastic knowledge, rather than blind faith.
    What I understood from this is that choosing a side has become imperative. And by choosing to adhere to an "objective", "empirical" body of scholastic knowledge", you are automatically opposed to faith. Perhaps I'm wrong, but isn't that intellectually oppressive ? You are obliged to adhere to a system of ideas based on a set of criteria agreed upon by the intellectual sphere. The margin of intellectual freedom is reduced here, which leaves no room for alternative and creative combinations such as faith+evolution and so on.

    ---------- Post added at 11:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:57 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by M3J View Post
    Why isn't it subjective or bias? You can either believe in evolution because it has more proof, or you can have no faith in evolution over God because you have faith in God. Blind faith is possible with science/evolution, but it depends on WHY. Just like blind faith isn't a sure thing for those that believe in God, as they might have seen or experienced something that they think is God's doing.

    Science can be biased or at least, subjective to what we understand and experience.
    That's definitely one way to look at it. But I find it strange that science has been obsessed with objectivity.
    Last edited by DLord.Van.Buuren; July 15, 2013 at 01:37 AM.
    "[I]If you think I'm gonna sit here idly by and do nothing, then you're right, because that's what I do here.[/I]"

    Steven Hyde

  14. #836
    MH Senpai 伝説メンバー / Densetsu / Legendary Member M3J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Country
    Vatican City State
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    32,805
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

    Funnily enough, science itself can be objective, but the scientists are more likely to be subjective. But no matter how you go on about it though, everything is subjective - it's based on what we know, like, hate, or accept. Scientists are no different - some scientists can understand evolution while others can refuse it despite proof, some may do so due to their religion.

    Also, did you know that science and religion did get along with each other? Science was never about proving or disproving the existence of God, it was about finding out more about the world around us, to gather knowledge.

  15. #837
    ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つMOLLY༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ 伝説メンバー / Densetsu / Legendary Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Piltover
    Country
    Pyke
    Age
    28
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    47,919
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

    That's because the roots of religion are actually considered protoscience. Divinity gets thrown in the there just because things truly were inexplicable at that time. Many things pre-Age of Enlightenment or lacking the scientific method, were shaky as well.

  16. Like 1 Member(s) likes this post
  17. #838
    MH Senpai 伝説メンバー / Densetsu / Legendary Member M3J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Country
    Vatican City State
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    32,805
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

    If I recall my reading, the concept of God/spirit came from elders who tried to explain how things happened, like why the sun rose or how it changes into a moon. They didn't know and to avoid losing face, they said it was the spirit, spirits, God, or Gods who did all of that. Didn't know that the roots of religion were considered protoscience though, always thought they were associated with God and controlling others.

  18. #839
    ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つMOLLY༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ 伝説メンバー / Densetsu / Legendary Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Piltover
    Country
    Pyke
    Age
    28
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    47,919
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by M3J View Post
    If I recall my reading, the concept of God/spirit came from elders who tried to explain how things happened, like why the sun rose or how it changes into a moon. They didn't know and to avoid losing face, they said it was the spirit, spirits, God, or Gods who did all of that. Didn't know that the roots of religion were considered protoscience though, always thought they were associated with God and controlling others.
    Monotheism is incredibly young compared to religion as a whole. So you can't look at it quite the same way we look at the religions of ancient cultures. The purpose was generally the same, just with less structure. A way to explain life, which science does better than any religion could (in my opinion).

  19. #840
    MH Senpai 伝説メンバー / Densetsu / Legendary Member M3J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Country
    Vatican City State
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    32,805
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

    If monotheism did come after polytheism, what inspired it? Was it because people didn't want to bother remembering the names of all the gods? Thought the Bible would be too big or take too long?

    I think it's a fact that science explains life better than any religion could. There are lots of evidences for evolution, and a successful experiment was done to show or figure out how life was created. I honestly think those whose are stubbornly ignoring these facts and continuing to believe in God/Gods are doing so out of selfishness, because they don't want to risk Hell or think God will give them everything.q

New Reply
Page 56 of 60 FirstFirst ... 6 46 54 55 56 57 58 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts