Society Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

[M3J]

Wasn't directed at you. At least, I thought you had knowledge of how they addressed the topics. I know you're Muslim homey, chillax.

 

[shaheer]

Wasn't directed at you. At least, I thought you had knowledge of how they addressed the topics. I know you're Muslim homey, chillax.

nah i thought you kind a forgot. Well i dun know about papacy to be honest thats why i was interested when this topic of popes resignation came to the thread.
Well now as far as Christianity is concerned i havent read it in the Bible i dont know from where pope got that part. As far as islam is there yes if there is a benefit using pils or contraceptive measures and prescribed to some one by doctor then its allowable as far as i know.
but it is not my speciality so i wont be able to give you any good opinion.... i am more interested in texual criticism and theology.

 

[M3J]

One thing that I like about religions is the mythology behind it. Well, two things if you count the history associated with it. I actually want to make time to read Greek and Egyptian mythologies again, as they've interested me so much more than Hindu mythologies, and Hindus have so many deities. X_x Religions have some awesome stories to tell.

Which is of course, how I think god came to be. Children wanted to know how things happened, but the elders didn't know how it happened, so they made up god to avoid losing face.

 

[Drmke]

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.

 

[Josef]

This is evolving into an ethical debate. Can I ask what are everyone's thoughts on the difference between morals and values?

 

[earthforge]

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.

 

[M3J]

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.

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.

 

[shaheer]

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 ----------

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.

 

[Drmke]

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.

 

[earthforge]

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.

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.

 

[DLord.Van.Buuren]

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 ?

 

[xi0]

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

 

[Kaiten]

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.

 

[M3J]

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.

 

[DLord.Van.Buuren]

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 ----------

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.

 

[M3J]

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.

 

[xi0]

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.

 

[M3J]

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.

 

[xi0]

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).

 

[M3J]

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