1. Welcome to Smogon! Check out the Smogon Starters Hangout for everything you need to know about starting out in the community. Don't forget to introduce yourself in the Introduction and Hangout Thread, too!
  2. Welcome to Smogon Forums! Please take a minute to read the rules.

The Elevation of Religious Ideas

Discussion in 'Congregation of the Masses' started by lati0s, Dec 24, 2010.

  1. MrIndigo

    MrIndigo

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    Messages:
    2,249
    I've found the definition of agnosticism changes a lot too; I think in part because people didn't want to be tarred with the same brush as 'atheist' and began using the agnostic term inaccurately.

    The 'weak' agnosticism is "I am not sure that God exists." The 'strong' agnosticism is "It is impossible to ever know if God exists". Either way, I still understand them as subsets of atheism in a broad sense.
  2. sonickid01

    sonickid01

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2006
    Messages:
    239
    Yes, I know many people who call themselves agnostics because "atheist" is such a hissing term; it's very derogatory, anti-societal and evil in connotation. It's used as a dirty word and therefore some people are afraid to refer to themselves as one, even if I show them that it isn't in contradiction with agnosticism. :/

    Strong versus weak agnosticism is not a term I had ever heard before, but I suppose then I'd lean toward strong agnosticism, since in a matter of practical terms it is very unlikely that natural evidence will ever appear which unambiguously and unquestionably point toward a supernatural deity.
  3. Acklow

    Acklow

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,530
    I usually don't get into these anymore, but I think something everyone needs to check up on is the difference in the definition of "faith" and "belief".

    That is all...
  4. lati0s

    lati0s

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,492
    its not silly, its true. what is silly is to think that this statement lends any credence to the idea

    I didn't say they were reasonable I said they were possible.
  5. J-man

    J-man

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2009
    Messages:
    795
    Really?
    In the words of the preacher of Hebrews:

    are not beliefs the driving force of actions?

    Ironic. You say so confidently that logic rolls off my back, when it is your religious beliefs that are so irrational and illogical. The very manifestation of non-material laws such as logic deals such a lethal blow to your beliefs.

    i have alot more to respond and am out of time. (ironic, i'll never know why i attract so many responders than DK in this thread). I'll be back.
  6. Morm

    Morm

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2008
    Messages:
    4,239
    J-man, you attract more responses because you spew the same rhetoric but with less precise and well presented ideas. You're also less versed in some of the counter arguements so you are basically being corrected more than debated. Also, to respond to you, I don't appreciate you applying religious belief values to me at all. That number should be zero. I would like to know what is irrational and illogical about demanding evidence. A reminder for you: A feeling in your heart does not constitute empirical evidence. Can you please show me how logic deals such a "lethal" blow to my "beliefs"? Let me help you define them: I believe in nothing to maintain fairness as best I can.


    I hope you never work within the constructs of scientific research. This quote is exactly why. No evidence, no credibility. I myself understand I'm not fit for proper research, but it's more because I'm a total asshole about everything and my unwillingness to "get along" and work in a community of peers rather than a lack of ability. :/

    Well of course it's possible, but with an open attitude like that it's almost impossible to sort the wheat from the chaff which is why it's easier to just whitewash and demand adequate data for everything. The problem is the modifier adequate, cause everyone seems to have a different line (fucking anthropologists).

    The problem with being human is the human condition itself, I fear.


    This is something I struggle to understand about other people. For me, science and metaphysics are the same; I can't see value in metaphysics because I don't see the world in that way and instead offer an alternative view. Science presents as a way of working through some of that indeterminability through Occam's Razor, parsimony (same shit different pile) and other processes. I kinda wonder sometimes how anyone, anywhere, gets anything done with a thought process like that and from my perspective, it is ubiquitous and very wormy.
  7. sonickid01

    sonickid01

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2006
    Messages:
    239
    Yet you still assert that atheism is a religion, despite how many people have clarified what it is and what it isn't. For a last time, atheism is in its basic form the lack of belief or the rejection of claims of a supernatural deity and in most cases religion as well.
    I'm religious because I'm not religious.

    I.
    Am.
    Thoroughly.
    Convinced.

    To say "I'm not convinced that I'm getting a free autograph" and "I am certain I will not be receiving any free autographs" is vastly different in meaning. In the most technical sense, the atheism that I think most of us here are referring to is the default logical position, that is, no claims are being made with 100% certainty.

    As Kitten, Hipmonlee and a few others are arguing, the degrees between gnostic atheism and agnostic atheism may vary or not and may be functionally or technically different or not, but at its root atheism is very simple; it's isn't believing in no deity, it's saying that your claims do not convince me. Yet the agnostic atheist does not rule out every possibility with 100% certainty that it is untrue.

    I see no mention of any superhuman controlling powers, much less a personal one and far less the worship of any, in those definitions.

    Rather than confront my argument directly and actually assert why my definition is false, you went and drew from a quote from the Bible as counterevidence that simply repeats your point. The fact that multiple people accept your point is not convincing me all of the sudden that my definition was skewed and I was wrong. I'd like an explanation as to why your definition and my definition is not at all the same thing, rather than random appeals to authority.

    I realize my criticisms apply to my own assertions about the definition of faith so I'll expand on my own.
    The substance of things hoped for - this very glaringly points out "fallacy of wishful thinking" to me.
    Evidence of things not seen - essentially faith is equivalent proof by this part of the definition. From what I glean of this, then, hoping is on the same level as proving any claim. Is this what you mean to tell me?

    You'll now, predicting based on my past encounters in this debate, probably ask how I know that air exists when I cannot see it. Yet the evidence can be easily measured by observing combustion in a non-vacuumed area of open space and the lack thereof in a vacuumed area which would, according to the Theory of Air, be devoid of the oxygen, a large component of our hypothetical air, which is necessary for combustion, according to the Theory of Burning. We could use spectroscopes and similar devices and measure other reactions to further determine the makeup of air. This is proof. If this requires any kind of faith, then it is vastly different than the one needed to accept the claim of a deity who cannot or has yet to be tested or demonstrably verified.

    The second definition is the one that applies to our argument.
    How interesting that when criticizing others' definitions you demand they consult a dictionary, but when applying a definition you fail to do so yourself.

    Oho! If you've had evidence this whole time you should have just shown it from the beginning.
    EDIT: Responding to Kitten:
    You're confusing an open attitude with a fair analysis of very small but still real probabilities. In no way is lati0s advocating deities by saying "there's a very small chance that there is a deity." Credibility and very minute possibility is very different.

    I can sympathize with what I'm guessing is the motivation behind your adamant insistence that we should deal at all with things of low probabilities. My guess is that you're hesitant to give any margin for proponents of deities to claim, "look, you can't disprove it therefore it's possible I'm right and therefore I'm going to say I am." I'm very cautious of things like quantum mysticism or other tangents of supernatural nonsense, and don't want to give it any opportunity to wiggle anywhere. However to be fair even quantum mysticism has some credence at an extremely low level. I think, Kitten, that you're confusing the claims made through sheer logic and the acceptance that we don't have infinite knowledge with saying that scientifically the idea of a deity has credibility. It does not. I'd like to point out the inherent nature of our finite (but ever expanding, I'll add optimistically) understanding of anything/everything, and the fact that the way quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and other aspects of our universe behave points toward a view that "every possibility has a near infinitely-small possibility," it seems somewhat foolish to discredit an idea with certainty.
  8. lati0s

    lati0s

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,492
    I don't get what you're trying to say here. I never said anything that would imply that I would give credence to an un-evidenced idea. In fact I explicitly stated that the fact that an idea cannot be perfectly disproven does not give it credence. All the time you've been responding to me you've been acting like I said "you can't disprove god so its a solid theory" I never said that or anything like it. what I said was "you can't disprove god so to make the claim that he does not exist with certainty is foolish"
  9. assassinfred

    assassinfred

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    692
    Why, then, don't you provide it? Why don't you put us non-believers in our place? I'd love to see your proof.

    The fact is, no matter what "proof" you put on the table, it cannot be an actual proof. There is no way to prove that God exists, nor is there a way to prove that he doesn't exist. This is the reason I am not religious. Science has proofs. There is at least evidence that evolution actually happens, and while it is not undeniable proof, it is still evidence. I see no evidence that God exists.
  10. DrunkRaccoon

    DrunkRaccoon

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Messages:
    23
    I don't think you read my post :/

    Sure, in a way, beliefs are the driving force of actions, but pointing that out in no way invalidates my argument. What I'm saying is that a person doesn't have to be atheist to drive a "green" vehicle. Consequently, the owner of the lot is not exclusively rewarding atheists, since, most likely, the majority of the people who park in that space aren't even atheists. The owner of the lot is rewarding a people for a particular action, behind which there could be various possible motives, such as those which I mentioned in my previous post.
  11. CaptKirby

    CaptKirby

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2006
    Messages:
    7,181
    Okay this thread was a messy train wreck from the start, so it was never really going to get better, and J-man will probably not even read this, but the reason that gays feel they have to hide who they are is because they are beaten as children (gays are beaten more relentlessly than non gays, I do not remember by how much, something like 20%+ was what I think was cited before), bullied at home by parents, bullied in churches by other adults, and bullied by public messages at large and the belligerent use of homosexuality as an insulting state of existence. I do not even know what fucking point you thought you had about gays not having a right to be open, what do you want to do, take away free speech if it involves making homophobes uncomfortable? Accommodating the right to make people uncomfortable by telling them that they are going to hell is not the same as making people uncomfortable by being gay and being proud of it, especially when most of the reason people need to be something ridiculous like "proud" of being gay is because people people, like say those in the former group, relentlessly try to repress the other group. Being obnoxious about how gay one is could be the same, but just being gay and trying to make people aware of the problems is not the same as the relentless promotion of religion for your souls/money. Gay people do not want your souls or money, they just want to be allowed to be gay + not be relentlessly harassed like they have been until now (and will be for at least a long while longer!) + probably not to really be around you if you have a problem with anything mentioned previously.

    As to actual religious rights, religious rights should be those that are legal and do not bother people in an unwarranted manner. At the University of Texas, every single loud, public, annoying as shit pander I saw was religious. We have a main street where most of the classes are (all the math, most of the business, most of the base level general classes), and about 10,000 students are on it between each class period. For religious panders, they would often allow them to block off the middle of this street and make people late for class while we were annoyed by the general affair. While that may not be so bad, the biggest offender to me was when they put up a gigantic monument decrying abortion, including saying that it was a sin and you would go to hell if you aborted, and no I am not exaggerating this shit or distorting this shit. They also had students with loud speakers (whatever you call them, not microphones but the other thing) shouting at us. Daily we also had religious zealots shouting at us around campus in general (not sure if this was tacitly allowed or not, or just random zealots). There were masturbatory school sponsored "debates" that always just turned into Chrirstians shouting at Muslims and Muslims shouting at Christians (by far the most common result...really not a good one), but alternately Jews shouting at Christians, Muslims shouting at Jews, and all sorts of fun! They just did this outside where we ate food at most commonly...yup. Anyway, any protection or sponsorship of this shit was ridiculous, especially for something like the abortion monument, and the only reason it was allowed was because religious ideas get special protectionism. Sure they could do something similar for the environment or something, but this all routinely happened for religious purposes, not other purposes, at least a couple times a year something as absurd as the monument thing happened.

    As to Deck Knight's ridiculous moralistic screed that I only saw the beginning of because I am forced to have him off ignore since you cannot ignore moderators, it takes a lot more ego and sinful arrogance to decry the morals of everyone not adhering to the arbitrary writings of 40+ men in a codex that books were put into and taken out of at random than to respect the morals of people who do not have some holy book. The reason our morals might slightly change is because it takes a lot of effort to decide and get them right, although like I just explained surely you should understand this, since Christians had to deal with matters like if gnosticism was okay, the varying takes on when Jesus was coming back, and various other fun debates that resulted in a shiftless, varying morality that was settled rather at random! Religious ideas and morals are elevated not because they are better or make more sense but because they have been adhered to and people cling to what they have adhered to, since change is scary, people living freely is scary, and whatever other silly reasons people cling to traditions far after they have plainly become farcical. I do not know about other schools, but in Texas elementary schools, religious ideas are relentlessly promoted. Of course people will end up regarding the morals more highly in the end when you inculcate them as children and hit them at school, home, and church. That does not make them more valuable or sensible, it only means that people are clinging to them harder.

    A good paraphrase would be that the idea that only religion can provide morals is an alternative to a hell as an all damning reason that religion is utterly necessary. Unfortunately, it is a much more human, much more vain idea than the general idea of a scary afterlife (which is just silly idea more than malicious, it is a genuine fear anyone could invent for her or himself). Actually, the idea that only religious ideas can be correct is a microcosm of religion with a slightly different message...it is just a ridiculous notion.

    Finally, to the insane derailing into what atheism is or is not, I do not see how it could possibly be seen as a religion.

    1.
    a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
    b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

    2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
    3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
    4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
    Idiom: get religion Informal 1. To become religious or devout.
    2. To resolve to end one's immoral behavior.

    I realize that not everyone is the same, but the essence of what I try to get at in the following is that it does not have to be about a fixation with religion, which in the end essentially makes it the same as a religion to religious people (for some reason, why should it matter). If anything, for people like me at least, it is about not being a fixation. I moved on from religion completely, other than enjoying philosophy at large and it entering some of my readings. I only deal with it when others bring it up, I am comfortable with my complete lack of "spirituality". Then again, I am not sure any of this should even matter, why should it be a religion even if atheists were too fixated on other religions/the idea of god? It is just simply completely not religious...but even if you cannot accept that, I think I am providing some pretty no brainer reasons for why rejection does not have to be religious itself or a fixation.

    1a. I do not remotely give a shit about gods or how the universe was created. It makes a lot more sense for some crazy scienctific shit to have happened no matter how it means "something had to be there" since a god cannot just spring out of nothing either!
    1b. I do not have an institutionalized system of beliefs, and my atheistic beliefs only involve rejecting the idea of gods existing or that I should fucking remotely care. It is not even so much a rejection as "this makes no sense, please leave me alone, no one should care, seriously stop talking about it already". Christians have this obsession with how atheists must be obsessed with them back (and, unfortunately, a lot of atheists do not really help the case).
    2. There is no religious order.
    3. There is no spiritual leader.
    4. There is no cause, although there could be principles formed from a rejection of a god as a starting point. I do not have any of these personally (when I dropped the jesus gods from my life, the only change in my morals was to pursue sex eventually, and while that was zealous, it has nothing to do with my rejection of god, I just really like women and every part of their bodies!), but I think any principles formed with/because of atheism would be more philosophical anyway, since they should not be formed with religious influence. A lack of religious influence can be a factor if religion was moved away from, but since it is not a necessary condition, it is not binding to "what an atheist is" in any way.
    i.2There is definitely no resolve to end immoral behavior. I do not care about traditional ideas of moral or immoral, but rather sense and freedom. I enjoy life, others should try to enjoy theirs.
    (i.1 was irrelevant)

    These definitions were taken from thefreedictionary.com, and whatever definition of religion you use, my beliefs are not religious. The beliefs that stem from/cause me to be atheistic are also not antireligious. I am antireligious because I think religion is really fucking stupid, but nothing I said above needs any of that vitriol to be true or ever did, the two matters are separate.

    Anyway, this whole post has not been as well linked together as it could be, my apologies for my nearly 4 A.M. writing.
  12. Morm

    Morm

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2008
    Messages:
    4,239
    Clearly you got mixed up in something, I'm sorry, but I stand by the requirement for evidence for ANY progress. I hope you agree.

    CK is great, once again.
  13. J-man

    J-man

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2009
    Messages:
    795
    I'm bowing out, not because i am losing, but because i am doing the same things that i did i had done before that got me in trouble, and i didn't desire to do that. Unfortunately, i'm doing it again. I feel it's best to apologize and just leave and let the thread return to normal.
  14. MrIndigo

    MrIndigo

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    Messages:
    2,249
    *slow applause*
  15. assassinfred

    assassinfred

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    692
    ^agreed. CaptKirby takes the cake of this debate.
  16. November Blue

    November Blue NO YOUTUBE, I DO NOT WANT TO WATCH VIDEOS AT MAX VOLUME!!
    is a Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,644
    Show Hide


    Not much left to say really. But I would like some opinions on my earlier post^ How many of you agree with my interpretation? I know it's not chronologically sound, but it's interesting nonetheless.
  17. CaptKirby

    CaptKirby

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2006
    Messages:
    7,181
    Well, my viewpoint is atheistic, so obviously I will not have the instant anger a lot of people would have over the bible being called a storybook, but I can answer in a way. I kind of dealt with how the formation of the new testament was rather at random, with books being put in and taken out over religious debates and their contradicting (literally contradictory) ideas about the rapture and the like. I think that the particular fixation with JESUS IS THE BEST MAN EVER! and the rapture as well have both really skewed Christianity away from some of the better moral ideas and lessons actually in the book. The rapture definitely does not matter (if it happens, then great, but spending time fixating on it or actually practically deifying it is insanity), but a lot of Christians have this mindset of wanting to be saved from this life. Originally the different ideas about Jesus coming back in the gospels were because of the war the Jews were having with the Romans, the deep oppression they experienced at the time...the rapture is irrelevant to us now, where we basically have blessed modern lives except in the worst parts of the world compared to the past. There is no need for escape. Similarly, while it is great that Jesus might have been a really radical dude, actually fixing one's morals and following his lessons is a lot better than just praising Jesus so relentlessly! I get that his supposed death and resurrection have big implications to the actual faith as a whole, but not much relevance to daily life or following the religion!
  18. Oddish On Fire

    Oddish On Fire

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Messages:
    678
    You always say the same thing dude. I'm not asking for you to become an atheist. Instead, I'm just asking that you think about why some people are atheists and realize that the answers you give are just legitimately horrid/unconvincing. I have heard completely legitimate arguments from religious people, but you make none of those.
  19. Obsessed

    Obsessed

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    544
    Deck Knight: Protip for you. Social animals such as wolves, and monkeys are able to form social constructs much like the ones human beings have formed. Something tells me that they don't believe in objective/absolute morality, or deities. I think humans would do just fine without a belief in either of those two things. We are social animals.

    Here is an interesting little article. It details some of the social constructs that several types of godless barbaric, soulless, animals have formed in order to get along. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/5373379/Animals-can-tell-right-from-wrong.html
  20. sonickid01

    sonickid01

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2006
    Messages:
    239
    ^In addition, some species of primates have been known to launch scarily organized guerrilla (no pun intended) warfare against other members from other troops or groups which they have broken off from, in order to establish some kind of dominance or exact some sorts of vengeance at others.
  21. J-man

    J-man

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2009
    Messages:
    795
    It's completely inaccurate. You clearly do not know what the Bible was viewed as and what early Christianity was. If you want a taste of what it was, then go to your local Lutheran (Missouri Synod), PRC, OPC, URC ect....
    Or you can turn in your Bible and read Acts 2, which is a description (and prescription for today's churches against mainstream BULL CRAP *cough megachurches* with there works righteousness junk.) of the early church. Luke, its certified author, has not been refuted, nor his descriptions refuted.

    It [The Bible] was never meant to be a "story book", or a "moral compass". It IS a history book. The people of the early church was a church that celebrated the risen Christ, whose resurrection can not, and shall never be refuted. This Christ is the Christ of the Bible.
    In regards to the Bible, the early church put up a hard standard to decide what New Testament books would get in and what weren't viewed as "inspired by the Holy Spirit". the fact that books such as "Revelation" were debated only confirms that the Early Church wanted to get it right. You do not understand the biblical doctrine of salvation. For a quick taste of what it was, see the sig. Creationism is no culprit. Creationism is a defense of the Bible as God's authority (1 Timothy... Urgh, can't think of the verse). We don't argue against Science. Some of the science invovled in what you call "evolution" (in the molecules to man sense) we do not disagree with. Only an ignorant fool would try and dispute Natural Selection or variation within species. We do have sound scientific arguments (but that is for another day, but i encourage you to give it a chance and look into some). We do not oppose science, we promote its advance. We only oppose that which intentionally opposes the Authority of God's word.

    As for God's existence, it can be proven. Much of the immaterial things we know can only be accounted for in the Christian World View. Only in a universe created by the Christian God (also the God of Judaism, though many Jews reject his gospel, and thus unfortunately worship in vein)

    See:
    http://carm.org/transcendental-argument
    http://carm.org/failure-of-atheism-to-account-for-morality
    http://carm.org/i-lack-belief-god
    http://carm.org/failure-atheism-account-rationality

    In addition, no other world religion makes rational sense in regards to Humanity. They all require some form of working righteousness that is impossible in reality to achieve. They offer no assurance of salvation.

    Claiming that God has ceased to interact with this world is also false. He continues to uphold his creation, though he has cursed it. He continually builds his church through the Holy Spirit. He sets up rulers and knocks them down. He "knit you together in your mother's womb". In fact, when the sun rises and the clock turns to 12:00 midnight and the new day arises, guess what? We Christians profess that to be an act of God as well. There are plenty of interactions between God and his creation. Most of it just isn't in the ways the Bible displays, but they are just as important and necessary for the Church.
    In regards to morality, i don't think anyone, The American, The Frenchman, The Russian, The Japanese, would disagree that it is not okay to murder. There is a striking universal standard held. However, in an irrational Atheistic worldview There is no need to conform to moral standards (or listen to them for that matter) (however, to say that the Atheist can not be ethical and live morally would be very wrong and ignorant, even though morals are constantly shifting), because there really is no harm in doing wrong unless you get caught (see, snitching- one of the most hated actions of human beings in our high schools apparently). For example, teachers in classrooms continue in vein to silence their pupils for the sake of their education, but they never stop. Clearly they aren't being held to a standard that has any relevance to them. They will continue to talk. Morality requires religion because there is now a standard that you are measured to. We, as Christians, though we may fall because it is a fallen world, are commanded (thought it has no effect on our salvation) to be Christ-like. Why? Because we are dead to sin and our new man is struggling with our old man. Faith without good works is dead.
    To conclude, religion is no bane, however world peace is a farce and will never be reached. There will always be that one Adolph Hitler type. Christianity, in its truest form, offers nothing but peace and logically sound assurance that though i am a sinner and have fallen mightily short of my Creator's expectations, I have an advocator in Christ. The true picture of Christianity is nothing like this garbage that you have attempted to paint, nor is it the picture that most smogonites hold i would wager.

    Here is the response you asked for.
  22. Eggbert

    Eggbert

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2009
    Messages:
    1,076
    ie "It's ok as long as it doesn't step over the line. But if it does it is false by default."

    And the website has a minor problem. It basically says if you take away god there is no right or wrong, so we should believe in god. But that doesn't mean a god exists. It's just wishful thinking. Sure it would be nice if a god existed but that doesn't make it true...
  23. MrIndigo

    MrIndigo

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    Messages:
    2,249
    Historical evidence refutes several parts of the Bible, notably in relation to statistics and population numbers in different regions. In any case, the fact that something is written down does not make it true.
    We do have sound scientific arguments (but that is for another day, but i encourage you to give it a chance and look into some).[/quote]

    No they don't. Every single Creationist argument against evolution comes from profound misunderstanding of the science.

    We promote Science as long as it doesn't show us we're wrong.

    Prove it. None of this is true.

    No, religion at all makes no rational sense. All of the problems with atheism in terms of rationality and "atheism is irrational why do we have morality" are all logically incorrect and stem from either misunderstanding or deliberate falsehoods about what atheism and rationality are.

    What's your point? There are plenty of reasons to conform to moral standards; the chief among them being that humans are a social species and the benefits of being in society and following the rules outweigh the short-term gains of going against them.

    This argument fails because the comparison of human morality to god's morality necessarily assumes that there is a baseline of human morality to judge. It therefore follows that the standardised God morality is not actually necessary; humanity could enforce it's own morality independently.
  24. LeviLamprey

    LeviLamprey

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2010
    Messages:
    1,158
    RESPONSE TO ORIGINAL POST:
    As a non-believer, I say religious people certainly have rights to perform their neccessary cultural obligations. Public holidays for religious people are perfectly fine: the people who are comitted to their religion will spend their day doing what the holiday is for. Small and trivial things like kosher meals reflect on the culture of religious people and their country, but for very small perks, there is little reason to deny others that privilege. One reason some people find this infuriating is because undedicated or plain shifty people may misuse their religion to gain their small and unneccessary perks. This does not mean everyone should get the same thing. In Australia, I know a large number of undedicated Christians, who never seem to bring up their religion, and are treated identically. Having been at a very multicultural school and a very open-minded school I can say that accomodations are made for religions in highly overseen controlled working environments, but because a child is Bhuddist or Christian does not give them comfits from their teachers and peers. However, at my first primary school, all the children bar one or two were Christian. Here the tables were turned: Christianity was the norm, but all the Christians were still given favouritism and us few atheists were shunned. I support others' religions, and am not going to assert a god/s do/es not exist, but it seems that often religious people are given benefits in no way related to their actual religion too.

    RESPONSE TO CURRENT ARGUMENT:
    The Bible is at least partly a history book. Many events have been proven to be true eg: 'Moses'did lead some people across a shallow seasonal lake called the Reed Sea.
    Also, J-Man, many religions in their base ideal(like political ideals) are perfect, but looking at Europe's bloodthirsty massacres between Christians, Atheists, Protestants, Catholics and such it is clear to see that (while you did say world peace is unnattainable) religion is not as pure as you claim. I'm not discrediting any religion, but pressing yours upon someone else and disparaging everyone's views as garbage when scientific atheists have just as much of a right to claim their beliefs in unreligion isn't right.

    EDIT: Also, to everyone I'd just like to point out further the very spurious link of morality and a deity. I won't trash-talk it, but arguments need a stronger base than this link-free style.
  25. Hipmonlee

    Hipmonlee Have a rice day
    is a Smogon IRC AOp Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnusis a Past WCoP Winner

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Messages:
    7,337
    On the Carm logic arguments. These come from a fundamental lack of understanding of what logical laws actually are.

    When we say it is impossible for a thing to be a cloud and not a cloud. The statement, while appearing to be about the nature of clouds, is actually a statement about what sort of sentences are meaningful in the English language and which ones are not. In this case, the statement "its a cloud and not a cloud" is not meaningful. Think about it, if someone said this to you, you would actually be no wiser about what the thing described actually is. Because this is a meaningless statement.

    Logical laws are nothing to do with the universe and are in fact solely concerned with language. They describe what sentences are functionally equivalent, as well as what sentences are meaningful and what are not.

    So ultimately, the logical laws are indeed created by Mankind.

    Have a nice day.

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)