|
Post by Ginnie on Nov 13, 2007 22:08:11 GMT -4
How does one define good and bad outside religious context? If this cannot be done, then there is no discussion. Bill, I don't believe in God. I am not religious. But I still think I can be really good, or really bad. BTW: A Mae West quote: "When I'm good, I'm good. But when I'm bad, I'm even better."
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Nov 14, 2007 10:56:55 GMT -4
How does one define good and bad outside religious context?
The only way to define good and bad is outside the religious context. You are delicate. You suffer and die if you act one way; you live a long and happy life if you act another way. The good is what keeps you on the latter track. Your own life, in other words, is the standard of the good. You discover what is good for you and what is bad for you like you discover everything else: through your own experience and through learning from the experience of others.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 14, 2007 12:11:58 GMT -4
That is not my position. That would be like saying, "no, Santa doesn't bring gifts." It would be illogical to claim that Santa doesn't bring gifts, because the claim would seem to imply the existence of Santa. The same is true of the claim that "He doesn't answer prayers." If "He" does not exist, the claim that he doesn't answer prayers is nonsense. So your answer is "no he doesn't because he doesn't exist." Now why was it so hard to get that answer out of you? Sounds like it to me. Saying "there is no reason to believe in god" is different from saying "there is no god." One sounds much more cautious to me.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Nov 14, 2007 14:43:26 GMT -4
I am sick of this place. You are all idiots, and lunar orbit is the biggest idiot of all. Does it make you feel importent to be an admin? This is bullsh*t, anyone can do it. When you try to pick up girls in bars and tell them you are the administrator, are they impressed? Or do they call you a pathetic looser? You are a joke. It is not posible to have intelligent discussion in your playgroup, people are too illogicial and beleive in ridiculous supersticions. I will not waist anymore time here, it is hopeless, you people do not want to think, there are things in the world and the universe that make you uncomfortable, so you make up nice stories to make yourselves feel better. You are pathetic.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Nov 14, 2007 15:21:38 GMT -4
I am only being cautious insofar as is required to keep you from misunderstanding my position - though I have obviously not been successful.
To say "there is no god" would give you grounds to challenge me to prove the statement. As I've said before, it is a logical absurdity to attempt to disprove the existence of that for which there is no evidence. To say there is no reason to believe in a god is to say exactly that - there is no reason to believe in a god and therefore I do not.
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Jan 1, 2008 17:46:40 GMT -4
I am a Christian agnostic. I think there is truly no way of proving or disproving scientifically the existence of a god. I Belive, as an act of faith, in a personal interpretation of the Christian god. Just like I take it on faith, that the world will not end tomorrow, and all my hopes and dreams would go to waste. For me, my belief helps me look at the future. On that note, I think that religion, is a tool of mankind. Whether or not there is a real deity behind any number of them is irrelevant, there is real science behind war, but that doesn't mean it isn't a terrible thing. Even a Just war, that rarest of creatures, is terrible. Religion is a tool, to be used for good or ill. Many religiose people were against the slave trade, and were instrumental in womans suffrage. But it can also be said, others, and I am sure most believed as earnestly as any other, founded the Inquisition. Religion fuelled most of the crusades, it fuels Salvation army and many homeless shelters. Religion is a prime mover in human society, it effects change, even if that change is an attempt at back peddling. It can fuel zeal, what that zeal is driven to do is up to the person. Like any creation of mankind, it is corruptible, been turned to evil uses by many, but it can also drive others to create works of surpassing beauty that resonate through the ages. It can provide hope, it can breed despair. It can preserve knowledge, it can destroy it. It is a template upon which most of the worlds population build there lives. It has done great good and great evil. And despite what most science fiction would have you think, I belive it will always be with us in one form or another. Religion, can not be good or evil, it is a hammer, a tool raise men to heights or dash them low. To call it strictly good or evil is in fact a rather religious thought in and of itself.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 3, 2008 12:33:43 GMT -4
It is interesting that many science fiction settings confine religion to a trait to add color to some of its alien characters, while making humans strict secularists (with Star Trek being the most obvious example). This is probably the result of having largely irreligious writers. If religion is not an important force in your own life then of course it won't be one in any fictional society you create. It may also stem from the idea that religions were originally created to explain the unknown. When more scientific explanations for natural phenomena were found, this idea goes, then religion became unnecessary. Well, there will probably always be questions science cannot answer, and something must fill that gap. In fact science is not very good at answering moral questions, and this is the primary role modern religion has in society. I see it as holding that role for the foreseeable future as well, and having it disappear completely from future societies is in my view unrealistic.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jan 3, 2008 13:13:44 GMT -4
In fact science is not very good at answering moral questions, and this is the primary role modern religion has in society.
Science is a tool of investigation and not meant to answer moral questions. Science helps us to discern facts from intuition and superstition, which ultimately is very important in making good moral decisions.
I often question whether religious institutions have been particularly helpful in answering moral questions. While it is helpful to have a community to support your moral believes in daily life this does not always translate into broader investigations into moral significance.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 3, 2008 13:23:48 GMT -4
I'm not blaming science for not being able to answer moral questions, merely pointing out that it's often the wrong tool for that job. And I think it's pretty obvious that religions do provide answers to moral questions. Whether those answers are correct is a different matter.
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Jan 3, 2008 19:19:06 GMT -4
Do we use a hammer to saw wood, or a hacksaw to pound in nails? Each tool must be used in it's proper place. Science can not discover moral answers because morality isn't logical.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Jan 3, 2008 20:03:49 GMT -4
And moral answers derived from faith can't be tested for validity and therefore have none.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 4, 2008 0:16:32 GMT -4
I disagree, both with the idea that moral answers cannot be tested for validity and that answers gained from faith have no validity. Moral answers can be tested, and faith can provide accurate answers.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 4, 2008 11:59:22 GMT -4
Let me clarify a bit. There are some questions that religion answers that cannot be tested, at least not in this life. But there are many more practical answers that can be tested. And by tested I don't necessarily mean in a strictly scientific context, though some of them can be tested in that way.
An example: since 1833 the LDS Church has felt (because of a revelation given to Joseph Smith) that the use of tobacco had health consequences and should be avoided. Members of the church have been enjoying the health benefits of avoiding tobacco use since that time, and those health benefits were later confirmed by science. A valid principle derived from religious faith, in other words.
A counter-example might be the belief of the Jehovah's Wittnesses that accepting blood transfusions is unhealthy. While there are cases of disease being transmitted in this way, blood transfusions have saved far more people then they have harmed.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Jan 4, 2008 12:46:55 GMT -4
I don't think that health enters into the motivations of Jehovah's Witnesses refusing transfused blood: I'm sure that most of them are rational enough to accept that it is a life-saving procedure; the evidence is quite overwhelming. Unfortunately for them, Jehovah says no, so...
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Jan 4, 2008 13:13:54 GMT -4
I'm not at all up to speed on the revelations to Joseph Smith - but - wasn't it also revealed to him that one is not to drink wine? Are there not health benefits to drinking wine? Was he talking about health benefits or was he speaking of what is right and what is wrong?
|
|