<p>I love talking about tila tequila</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Just to throw oil on the fire:</p>
<p>Atheists, in my opinion, are far more ethically sound people than religious folks. They stand up for their beliefs (or lack there of) even when it has been unpopular and have decided to stand by what is TRUE (in their world view) and not what they WANT to be true. Their dedication to truth and their rigorous standard of testing of science, religion, and philosophy should be applauded and recognized as displaying a true heart and interest in pursing "the Truth." </p>
<p>Furthermore, from what I've seen, atheists do not self-deceive themselves into believing in "warm fuzzy theories" (such as God being a caring loving being who guides your life towards betterment only if you believe in hir) but rather are courageous about the realities of life. They recognize that individuals must take responsibility for their actions, and that they alone must be depended on to make the world a better place, rather than taking the easy route of simply praying and hoping for a better life/tomorrow.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Okay. That oil on the fire got me back for a bit. First of all, in describing the "merits" and laud-worthy traits of atheists, I'm pretty sure you described CHRISTIANITY.</p>
<p>Standing up for unpopular beliefs and truth (according to one's worldview): how about opposing abortion and gay marriage (I don't WANT gay people to be stuck with chastity, but that's the TRUTH I believe in), how about maintaining for millennia that Jesus is the only way to Heaven (talk about standing up for something for a long time and not changing with the world's opinion), or how about unconditional love and forgiveness??? You see many Christians not living up to the laws of God, but you cannot deny that those Christians who take their Bibles seriously do believe in things like peace, forgiveness, mercy, abstaining from casting judgement (it's God's job, which is why we can't tell you what happens to unexposed unbelievers or newborns), loving unconditionally even our 'enemies,' etc, and stand up for these beliefs. The atheist has no truth-based reason to put any value in love, forgiveness, or charity. Only personal feelings and senses of right and wrong (I don't understand how people think our common ideas about morality come from natural selection, btw) can guide the atheist's morals. Your statement, Peskythebobcat, is incredibly ironic.</p>
<p>"Atheists, in my opinion, are far more ethically sound people than religious folks." Here you just go completely irrelevant because you fail to define "ethic." After reading the entire post, I still don't get why atheists are more "ethically sound."</p>
<p>You also misrepresent the most basic ideas about Christianity. Like God will look out for you only if you believe in him? He'll only take you to Heaven in that case, yes, but we've got free will here. And God will look out for all his children (meaning all people) by never handing them more than they can handle. Death sometimes come early, disease strikes, and disasters occur, but God 'works in mysterious ways.' Who on here said that science is good because you can't figure it out, or something? Like God is an open book? We cannot comprehend God in his full glory; we are limited to what is in the Bible, his Word given to us through humans, according to the Christian faith. And please do not suggest Christians are making up laws and rules as they go along. We have always been and still are restricted to that which is disclosed in the Bible, which we hold to be our infallible TRUTH, no matter how unpopular it may be with some people. I expect Peskythebobcat is now applauding? I didn't think so.</p>
<p>Finally, Christians are very responsible for their own lives and actions (in a theoretical sense - I don't mean to imply that Christians all are responsible) and must not 'just pray' and hope for a better world. How insulting you should say that. We are excused of our sins, should we repent (see how easy it is to get to Heaven when God loves you?), but we are still responsible to God (1 Chorinthians 7:24). We must not live willfully in sin, but rather strive for obedience and repent when we fail. He who lives in sin and simply asks for forgiveness, thinking he can continue to sin when he likes so long as he confesses each time, is walking a road I must speculate leads to Hell (aka eternal separation from God). BTW, I must interject here that Dante's hell is an invention of his, and that purgatory is not an idea present in protestant Christianity because God never says anything about such a place for humans who are "moral atheists" to go. In fact, Jesus explicity says, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father [goes to Heaven] except through me [accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior]." And while Christians do have hope (rather, a certainty) for a better life after death, we are not to hide and pray when the world hurts, but should instead "Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes [evil on earth]" (Ephesians 6:11). In the beginning, God entrusted the earth to men [inclusive of women], and as a result, to "take the easy route of simply praying for a better life/tomorrow" is to reject God's commandments.</p>
<p>In response to the scientific method bit, we could disprove Christianity, I imagine, in some ways (were it false), but I must say that God exists outside of nature. He is supernatural. So you cannot use methods of nature to test him. So in that way he is not 'scientific.' God created science, and imagined Creation with the laws of science governing them. In that sense, Christianity and science are reconcilable, and that is the context in which I meant to make the argument earlier.</p>
<p>I don't understand why being omniscient means God can't give humans freewill (and he didn't give up his omniscience, that's preposterous to anyone who takes he Bible seriously, and is just an example of theist trying to respond to atheists' concerns without admitting some things are just beyond our understanding, IMO). God can give us free will, while knowing what we will do, and not affect our decisions. What will happen is known, but not determined by God. Does this mean he created us with our damnation in mind? Well, we cannot love him without free will. He wanted to build a creation to share in his love and community (the trinity has a community within itself that has persisted eternally - well, outside of time is more like it). With Satan's presence, there existed the opportunity for the corruption of his creation. (I don't know why he's allowed Satan to persist this long - that is beyond my reasoning ability. But I trust God.) God has the tools to allow Satan's influence to be negated by sacrifice of Son and resultant mercy and forgiveness. So God now has creation, he knows it will suffer, and he knows it will be saved if it wants to be. Yeah, I don't know that I can begin to explain God - in fact I know I can't - but I think the situation is not as bleak as one might make it out to be, nor is God in any way not omniscient or not omnipotent. He just works in mysterious ways. ;)</p>
<p>Almost 2am, time for bed.</p>
<p>EDIT: Oh yeah, but atheists can be moral too. I don't mean to say they can't be. And that many Christians are less disciplined ethically than some atheists. I just mean that the Christian worldview is most "ethical" because it actually has morals, while atheism is a disbelief in a God who establishes objective morality for humanity to follow.</p>
<p>^ There you go, CoffeeBreak. One of the examples of the people you want to avoid if you're seeking an intellectual environment :rolleyes:</p>
<p>EDIT: THIS WAS WRITTEN TO REFER TO DUCKEDTAPE. But this is funny, too.</p>
<p>
[quote]
and assume that nothing can be assumed, not our senses, not causality, not even the assumption I just made, lol...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Reminds me of the season finale of House in season 2 when he got shot, and decided to kill a patient to check up on reality.</p>
<p>Someone of another religion come here and spice things up. </p>
<p>Do you.. practice, believe in, or are from, a religion? I'm not sure what the term is. hahahaha.</p>
<p>I think of it this way... why do people need an all knowing and all powerful, mysterious deity to look over their shoulder in order to be "good" people. (Good in relevance to what their particular society adheres to be socially beneficial to all and Good in relevance as to what remains an underlying moral truth in every society, ex: murder is bad, as in not beneficial)</p>
<p>By the concept of free will and by the concept of God being all knowing (meaning ALL, past, present and future), then it is impossible for both to exist simultaneously. Unless all there is to know is that the future has yet to occur, which is a silly thought, it is impossible for God to know everything and for human beings to truly make spontaneous decisions that could not be foreseen.</p>
<p>Not are only Christians responsible for their lives, but every person, regardless of religion, is responsible for his/her own life. The exception being if they have no control or understanding of their actions.</p>
<p>To be "ethical" is an interesting concept. If we were to follow Aristotle, it means that we have good "ethos" (which is where the word "ethical" clearly comes from) which means to have good "habits." Many debate that ethics pertains to the individual society, however there may be a universal truth amongst all societies, such as "murder is bad/wrong."</p>
<p>Anyone can be moral or immoral, however you wish to define those terms. I'm not sure how one group can have morals and another NOT have morals, does this depend on whether or not their morals are similar, therefore one group condemning another for not being "righteous" or "morally correct"?</p>
<p>I don't think God needs to tell me "Thou Shalt Not Kill" and make Hell a very distasteful prospect for all eternity, for me to NOT kill someone. I don't need fear tactics, harsh words but years of sunday school makes me feel this way, to MAKE me be a "good" person.</p>
<p>SaltyBruin, I greatly respect your view points and find your passion and commitment inspiring (truly), but it will forever remain the case that we do not believe in the same "truths" (capital "T"? maybe...).</p>
<p>What forever creates a divide between me and a formal religion, I am a "devout" agnostic, is the issue of civil liberties/rights for gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgenders. We all remember what life was like when the government felt that they had the right to call one group of people inferior to another. By denying them rights like giving blood to getting married, I feel that such oppression will continue to exist.</p>
<p>I oppose to the right for persons like Pat Robertson to speak or have access to people through Public Media. Do I WANT to deprive him of his rights? No. But keeping hateful, homophobic, prejudice and ignorant people away from the public is a TRUTH I believe in.</p>
<p>What's the difference between Christianity and Greek Mythology? In both cases, some old guys wrote some books, and the people of the time believed them. Mythology's time passed, Christianity's time is passing (along with other current religions), and the time of science as a replacement for religion is arriving. What's the big deal? In another few hundred years, there may be only science. No need to argue about it!</p>
<p>What forever creates a divide between me and a formal religion, I am a "devout" agnostic, is the issue of civil liberties/rights for gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgenders. We all remember what life was like when the government felt that they had the right to call one group of people inferior to another. By denying them rights like giving blood to getting married, I feel that such oppression will continue to exist.</p>
<p>Anyone can be moral or immoral, however you wish to define those terms. I'm not sure how one group can have morals and another NOT have morals, does this depend on whether or not their morals are similar, therefore one group condemning another for not being "righteous" or "morally correct"?</p>
<p>You just contradicted yourself. You said that you can't condemn another group for not being righteous or not being morally correct, but you just "condemned" (or disapproved of) people who discriminate against LGBT folks. </p>
<p>Clearly, you believe that there is at least one absolute moral principle: You believe that people deserve equal rights and that discrimination is wrong. What you attacked was the doctrine of a specific religion(s); you actually upheld the concept of moral absolutism (which is so often considered religion itself...) in your argument.</p>
<p>(Good in relevance to what their particular society adheres to be socially beneficial to all and Good in relevance as to what remains an underlying moral truth in every society, ex: murder is bad, as in not beneficial)</p>
<p>Also, you said that "good" is what adheres to be socially beneficial to all. If you believe that LGBT people deserve equal rights, you can't justify that on the grounds of that being "socially beneficial." For example, what if a study concluded that giving LGBT people rights actually decreased the net happiness of society as a whole? In this context, would giving LGBT people rights be socially beneficial, even if it harmed society as a whole?</p>
<p>What's the difference between Christianity and Greek Mythology? In both cases, some old guys wrote some books, and the people of the time believed them. Mythology's time passed, Christianity's time is passing (along with other current religions), and the time of science as a replacement for religion is arriving. What's the big deal? In another few hundred years, there may be only science. No need to argue about it!</p>
<p>Do you seriously believe that such an integral part of human society (for over 50,000 years) will disappear in a few hundred years? What if someone argued that science would "disappear" in a few hundred years? That is absurd, as the search for understanding (science) and meaning (religion) are fundamental aspects of human nature that won't be changed unless we're talking about transhumanism.</p>
<p>Science will not replace religion, here's why: science will probably be able to explain exactly "how" the universe came to exist and everything in it (the theory of everything??). Science, however, will never be able to provide an answer to our fundamental questions about "why." I understand why you believe that science will completely (or almost completely) supplant religion in the next few hundred years - in the past few hundred years, science obviously has replaced religion in many areas. However, these areas in which science has replaced religion are in the realm of "how," not "why." For example, the religious explanation of "how" the world was created was replaced by the scientific explanation. However, the "why" issue has not, and cannot be addressed by science, hence there will always be a role for religion, because questions of "how" and "why" are equally important to humanity.</p>
<p>In your example regarding Greek Mythology and Christianity, you made a sudden jump from a religion replacing another religion(s) to science replacing religion (which will not happen because of the reasons in the paragraph above).</p>
<p>I think it is impossible to benefit everyone. </p>
<p>If we applied moral relativism in all societies, many large societies we know today would greatly benefit from dividing up into smaller societies.</p>
<p>I don't make myself the exception as a person who does not feel prejudice towards other people. But do I treat these people any different? Do I tell them to shut up or that the life they lead is incredibly wrong and I hope our nation will prevent them from living their lives as they so desire?</p>
<p>No. It is not my place, it is unjust if I do so, and it is their right to live their lives as they wish.</p>
<p>As much as I may disagree with other groups, such as Nazis, I believe they have the right to speak their mind and are allowed to be prejudice or "condemn." Do they have the right to discriminate, or act upon their prejudice? No.</p>
<p>christianity pathetically attempts to explain the how's also. that's why it's becoming less popular. people realize science does it and it does it accurately. nobody wants to follow a religion with contradictions all around, so some people try to justify their religion by "loosely interpreting" it. they're losing though</p>
<p>IMO there is no "why". things happen because it was caused by something else. there's no "meaning to life" or "meaning to the creation of the universe". why should i believe in such a thing?</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Also, you said that "good" is what adheres to be socially beneficial to all. If you believe that LGBT people deserve equal rights, you can't justify that on the grounds of that being "socially beneficial." For example, what if a study concluded that giving LGBT people rights actually decreased the net happiness of society as a whole? In this context, would giving LGBT people rights be socially beneficial, even if it harmed society as a whole?
[/QUOTE]
the constitution and the people of the US have already defined what we wanted in our laws: for adults to be treated equally until they have done something to harm someone else. under this rule, gay people should have equal rights as straight people (or should i say men and women should have the same rights. a man can marry a woman but a woman cannot marry a woman). minority rights must be considered if we are to have a fair society. we've legally discriminated against different races, and now society views that as horrendous. in a few decades people will realize how retarded they are and give gays the rights they deserve</p>
<p>That's what I wanted to say: There is no why. It all just happened.</p>
<p>You might ask yourself why God exists. God always was? The universe always was. What was there before the Big Bang? We don't know, but we don't invent God in order to explain it. Would you say that you believe in God because there is no other explanation? Do you believe in God because some old guys wrote some books? We all believe what we want to believe. Enjoy!</p>
<p>Believing that there must be a "why" is one of the fundamental assumptions that some religions need make, similar in primacy to certain assumptions required of science.</p>
<p>There is a weakness that is present within both doctrines: science does not know why or if there even is a "why," and religion's "why" is "because God wants it that way."</p>
<p>Also, I don't believe that xleper17 ever actually defined her usage of "good" as "that which is socially beneficial to all," but opened it to both that AND "that which remains an underlying moral truth in every society," which then encompasses both the universalist and the relativist definitions for morality...so to argue against her opinions based on only one half of that definition is somewhat unjustified. (If I have misconstrued this, feel free to let me know...)</p>
<p>i wouldn't say it's a weakness of science. there's nothing to suggest there IS a why. the subject is only good for discussion purposes and cannot be applied practically because it is based on a premise that cannot be backed up. science may be "limited" by only what we can provide evidence for, but at least it doesn't "make things up"</p>
<p>That's what I wrote:</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
There is a weakness that is present within both doctrines: science does not know why or if there even is a "why,"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I believe that in relation to finding "truth," that DOES present a weakness, as does religion's tendency to, and I definitely agree with you here, "make things up."</p>
<p>And yeah, this entire discussion is based on various premises that differ from person to person, and cannot in themselves be objectively backed up. I guess I'm just overly fond of deconstructing all strongly one-sided arguments. (One-sided in terms of opinion, not scope.) To have a discussion that departs from the most basic assumptions, though, I think it necessary to establish such assumptions.</p>
<p>science not acknowledging a "why" is a weakness as people looking both ways before crossing the street is a weakness. the former will usually produce a better outcome, but there's always that chance that you'll be part of some crazy game show that rewards you for not looking both ways</p>
<p>Science not being able to determine whether or not there even is a "why," much less what that why is, IS a weakness, as I said, in relation to finding "truth," regarding all the mysteries of life and whatnot. Perhaps, if one is only interested in determining HOW things work, the mechanisms of reality, then this quality would be irrelevant.</p>
<p>Perhaps we should nail down the actual question...is it "the validity of science v. that of religion" or "the truth of human existence," etc.? Because we seem to be unable to progress past a certain point as a result of this disparity. (Although it's pretty fun, so...)</p>
<p>you are already assuming that there IS a why when in actuality, there is no reason to assume so. but if you still insist on calling it a weakness, then philosophy has the weakness of not being able to elaborate on the "why". all you can do is throw around opinions, which is fine and dandy, but is useless when you're trying to find truth</p>
<p>and i don't really know what you mean by your second paragraph</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
you are already assuming that there IS a why when in actuality, there is no reason to assume so. but if you still insist on calling it a weakness, then philosophy has the weakness of not being able to elaborate on the "why". all you can do is throw around opinions, which is fine and dandy, but is useless when you're trying to find truth
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, I am not assuming that there is a why. I am saying that we do not know if there is a why, which is a philosophical question, that neither science nor philosophy can answer. I am in no way saying that philosophy is "stronger" than science in terms of its ability to find this truth. They are, in fact, racing after the answers to different questions. This is because there are two different paradigms...the scientific paradigm is defined by its own questions, and the philosophical paradigm is defined by different questions. I hope I am not projecting my opinion inaccurately: what I am trying to say is that we (humans) just really don't KNOW anything, and that nothing can be substantiated to beyond a reasonable doubt when coming from sides that are as different as science and religion. (Though this does not mean I am saying they are irreconcilable, just a disclaimer.)</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
and i don't really know what you mean by your second paragraph
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I was referring to the question this thread is discussing. Or is it just a free-flowing back-and-forth among the various participants? Either way's cool.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
No, I am not assuming that there is a why. I am saying that we do not know if there is a why, which is a philosophical question, that neither science nor philosophy can answer.
[/QUOTE]
you still haven't demonstrated how it's a weakness of science</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
I hope I am not projecting my opinion inaccurately: what I am trying to say is that we (humans) just really don't KNOW anything
[/QUOTE]
sure we do. we know math, correct spelling, etc. because WE made the rules for them.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
and that nothing can be substantiated to beyond a reasonable doubt when coming from sides that are as different as science and religion. (Though this does not mean I am saying they are irreconcilable, just a disclaimer.)
[/QUOTE]
but they ARE irreconcilable. science is ALL based on evidence. religion dismisses it.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
I was referring to the question this thread is discussing. Or is it just a free-flowing back-and-forth among the various participants? Either way's cool.
[/QUOTE]
what question? there have been tons of questions so you'll have to be more specific than that. the topic keeps changing though, so i just go with the flow</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
you still haven't demonstrated how it's a weakness of science
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Okay, now I'm just repeating myself. IF the question is about truth, as opposed to simply how the visible, perceptible world functions, then it IS a weakness. It is a weakness that ALL paradigms are subject to. I don't mean to sound sharp, but you seem to be unable to grasp the concept that what you see, and what you feel, may not in fact be reality. After all, someone who suffers from a mental illness may see the world as one way...who's to say you, or I, or anyone, does not suffer from the very same illness? The argument between you and an equally strong-minded person would be akin to that of two patents suffering from schizophrenia, who both think they are Jesus. One would say, "I'm Jesus," and the other, "No...I'm Jesus!" But they would never be able to agree because they see things in different ways. (Sure the example is rather extreme, but it applies.)</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
sure we do. we know math, correct spelling, etc. because WE made the rules for them.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So what you're saying is that we know because WE KNOW. That argument is fundamentally flawed. What's the value of knowing something that is GIVEN? Mathematics (spelling, less so) is a closed system. It is no more true than one's senses. Besides, getting into the question of "what do we know" requires defining "knowledge." After all, there is experiential knowledge and academic knowledge, knowledge with different degrees of belief involved, etc.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
but they ARE irreconcilable. science is ALL based on evidence. religion dismisses it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I wasn't arguing either. It was a disclaimer. You just seem to like to argue, but that's alright...so do I. In terms of the whole picture, sure, the two may be irreconcilable. I am in no way qualified enough in either field to dismiss it completely. But it also seems like neither rules out the other entirely, i.e. if anything in science is true, everything in the Bible is false, and vice-versa.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
what question?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Lol, I was under the impression that this thread began with one question. Apparently not. That's fine: it just makes discussion a tad more difficult.</p>
<p>But yeah, mr muffin, you seem like a passionate debater! This is fun! Let's just not let this get too heated or personal...I'm not looking for confrontation.</p>