EmployeeoftheMonth Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 I wasn't talking about difficulty, I was talking about being a better person. But since you went down that rabbit hole, which is more difficult, believing in God or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 I can't tell you how many times I've heard this awful assumption that non-religiousness is associated with not only cold-heartedness but killing the weak merely because of the principles of evolution. This is purely assumption, and a bad assumption at that, especially when science, not "Yahweh", is used to further medicine and has been the guiding force behind keeping people healthy and living longer. I could not imagine a more baseless assumption. It's inconsequential because it has no bearing on reality, therefore has no place as a moral compass in the real world. The usage of religions that surround the belief of the existence of certain creators justify some of the worst possible behaviours mankind has known. Due to the complete lack of evidence of a deity, and extensive evidence of the heinous acts committed in the name of this fiction, logically one can deduce it's worthlessness once stepping outside the fantasy world of superstition and into the real one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
key2thecup Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Uhmm.... Jesus actually created the Marijuana party I don't know why you guys are choosing to overlook that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Well, according to reliable sources, (Kris Kristofferson): Jesus was a Capricorn, he ate organic foods. He believed in love and peace and never wore no shoes. Long hair, beard and sandals and a funky bunch of friends. Reckon they'd just nail him up if He come down again. 'Cos everybody's got to have somebody to look down on. Who they can feel better than at anytime they please. Someone doin' somethin' dirty, decent folks can frown on. If you can't find nobody else, then help yourself to me. Get back, John! Egg Head's cousin Red Neck's cussin' hippies for their hair. Others laugh at straights who laugh at freaks who laugh at squares. Some folks hate the whites who hate the blacks who hate the clan. Most of us hate anything that we don't understand. 'Cos everybody's got to have somebody to look down on. Who they can feel better than at anytime they please. Someone doin' somethin' dirty, decent folks can frown on. If you can't find nobody else, then help yourself to me. Help yourself, brother. Help yourself, Gentlemen. Help yourself Reverend R.I.P. (Resurrect in Peace) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 The assumption is accurate because scientists worldwide use a moral compass that is based on the principles already outlined by the world's religions. Take away that compass and yes, you may see a darker world of science. You may not, but who's to say? This argument is part of the religion vs. science stalemate. I know what you're saying in that Yahweh's existence has no bearing on reality, but at the same time the majority of the world's population believes in his existence. If reality is simply what one believes to be real, then Yahweh's existence has a definite bearing on reality, at least with the majority of the world's population. That would be why these 'heinous acts' are being committed. Anyway, to deny that religion has no place as a moral compass is simply wrong. Great scientific minds such as Einstein have already admitted that religion's place as science's compass is important. They just don't like the other, abused aspects of religion, such as righteousness. The idea of a 'chosen people' is idiotic, and that deserves heavy criticism from the scientific world, not so much the broader scope of religion, which is a peaceful moral compass. That's what i was getting at when i said Yahweh existing or not existing is unimportant, as the peaceful moral compass transcends what Yahweh has to say or command. All Yahweh ever said was things we already know. Kindof leads to the whole idea of Yahweh being a fabrication of our mind, but that's another argument. The need to personify our moral compass was apparently great back then. At the time we needed an all-seeing joe kickass party pooper that roasted you if you ever did wrong. Not exactly appealing, but needed at the time. Then at the time of Jesus some people thought we needed an ultra-forgiving approach to life. You can see the appeal of that, definitely. Both characters are merely personifying what we already know, as religiousness and spirituality, as well as our inner moral compass, transcends both of them. It's too bad so many people disregard their inner moral compass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Your prewritten wall of text indicates nothing other than you didn't read my non-prewritten post. Take your time, captain confusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Your prewritten wall of text indicates nothing other than you didn't read my non-prewritten post. Take your time, captain confusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 That wasn't all that abusive, but pre-written walls of text are just an ultra-annoying way to appear smarter than what the thread requires. And in this case the wall of text was misused. You'll find that people in general, not just Christians, have committed atrocities over the centuries. This is partly due to them not listening to their inner moral compass, which transcends Yahweh and all religions. But then again, how can there be good without evil? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 That wasn't all that abusive, but pre-written walls of text are just an ultra-annoying way to appear smarter than what the thread requires. And in this case the wall of text was misused. You'll find that people in general, not just Christians, have committed atrocities over the centuries. This is partly due to them not listening to their inner moral compass, which transcends Yahweh and all religions. But then again, how can there be good without evil? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 Ugh, that's like saying people don't kill people, guns do. The principles are still there. Obviously they weren't carried out by your wall of text personnel. What needs to happen is that religion, or religiousness needs to be defined in a more broader sense. It transcends the church, for starters. You're talking on an individual scale and i'm talking in a universal scale. btw. You don't have to come up with a wall of text to outline atrocities done by a church. This is already known, and it is not denied. If we would carry out the wall of text to include all non-church vs. church atrocities in human history, then i'm afraid there is not enough room on the internet for the wall of text needed. Let's just agree that yes, humans like committing atrocities. The question is why. The answer can be complex... or simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 Your prewritten wall of text indicates nothing other than you didn't read my non-prewritten post. Take your time, captain confusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 Ugh, that's like saying people don't kill people, guns do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 Oh snap, you're getting into this? Sht must be really boring now. Bring hockey back!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 Here's a sign: lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 Albert Einstein was a genius. Here's some interesting thoughts by him on this topic: Does there truly exist an insuperable contradiction between religion and science? Can religion be superseded by science? The answers to these questions have, for centuries, given rise to considerable dispute and, indeed, bitter fighting. Yet, in my own mind there can be no doubt that in both cases a dispassionate consideration can only lead to a negative answer. What complicates the solution, however, is the fact that while most people readily agree on what is meant by "science," they are likely to differ on the meaning of "religion." As to science, we may well define it for our purpose as "methodical thinking directed toward finding regulative connections between our sensual experiences." Science, in the immediate, produces knowledge and, indirectly, means of action. It leads to methodical action if definite goals are set up in advance. For the function of setting up goals and passing statements of value transcends its domain. While it is true that science, to the extent of its grasp of causative connections, may reach important conclusions as to the compatibility and incompatibility of goals and evaluations, the independent and fundamental definitions regarding goals and values remain beyond science's reach. As regards religion, on the other hand, one is generally agreed that it deals with goals and evaluations and, in general, with the emotional foundation of human thinking and acting, as far as these are not predetermined by the inalterable hereditary disposition of the human species. Religion is concerned with man's attitude toward nature at large, with the establishing of ideals for the individual and communal life, and with mutual human relationship. These ideals religion attempts to attain by exerting an educational influence on tradition and through the development and promulgation of certain easily accessible thoughts and narratives (epics and myths) which are apt to influence evaluation and action along the lines of the accepted ideals. It is this mythical, or rather this symbolic, content of the religious traditions which is likely to come into conflict with science. This occurs whenever this religious stock of ideas contains dogmatically fixed statements on subjects which belong in the domain of science. Thus, it is of vital importance for the preservation of true religion that such conflicts be avoided when they arise from subjects which, in fact, are not really essential for the pursuance of the religious aims. ... The interpretation of religion, as here advanced, implies a dependence of science on the religious attitude, a relation which, in our predominantly materialistic age, is only too easily overlooked. While it is true that scientific results are entirely independent from religious or moral considerations, those individuals to whom we owe the great creative achievements of science were all of them imbued with the truly religious conviction that this universe of ours is something perfect and susceptible to the rational striving for knowledge. If this conviction had not been a strongly emotional one and if those searching for knowledge had not been inspired by Spinoza's Amor Dei Intellectualis, they wouid hardly have been capable of that untiring devotion which alone enables man to attain his greatest achievements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 I agree it's a possibility and I also realize you were putting it out as a possibility but my point was that using the "moral compass" of religion as the foundation of that possibility is kind of weak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jägermeister Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 jesus was a communist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 I agree it's a possibility and I also realize you were putting it out as a possibility but my point was that using the "moral compass" of religion as the foundation of that possibility is kind of weak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Light Racicot Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 Albert Einstein was a genius. Here's some interesting thoughts by him on this topic: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 Not really, when he's talking about the relationship between religion and science. Have you read the whole article that i linked to? It's quite interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.