• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

islam

RJKarl said:
You can't bomb an idea.

Although I'm sure of al baghdadhi (sp?) being a true believer. He might just want power.
Click to expand...

No, but you can shoot a hellfire missile at the suckers who believe it, and spread their constituent parts as a fine mist over the valley that contains their friends and family to send the appropriate message about that idea's utility in modern society.
 
And that really seems to calm them down and not help them recruit more followers.
 
jhmd2000 said:
No, but you can shoot a hellfire missile at the suckers who believe it, and spread their constituent parts as a fine mist over the valley that contains their friends and family to send the appropriate message about that idea's utility in modern society.
Click to expand...

Hellfire missile

get it? get it???
 
beatrix said:
Thanks for the follow-up. You touched on a few things there.. waving the flag in the face of dead innocents: No. Celebrating the death of bullies who themselves have no qualms about killing others to further their objectives, yes. Nuking an ally out of existence due to extremist elements in their government and society, no (thus my digging Obama's willingness to use drones).

Taking it a little further... I think Darwin was right.. and the US (messy though it is) is an interesting check on the other predators.

I think our country is 'human rights which are: 1) anchored in the rule of law, 2) shielded by various checks and balances, 3) vetted and broadcast by a free press, 4) massaged and evolving per the voice of the people, and 5) protected by enormous power capable of projecting itself across the globe'. That's an interesting combination which doesn't really exist anywhere else... so while I don't feel like a warmonger, I do like our willingness to stand up to bullies and defend like-minded allies, and I think the world is a better place when a player like that exists.
Click to expand...

Well this is what we have done for 13 years in the region. How do you like the results?

Also. You left out a bullet point 6) bought and sold by monied interests who dictate foreign policy to secure natural resources.

Perhaps we are the bullies you speak of in some circumstances. Is that possible, that out great power could be corrupted?
 
Last edited:
ThinkingWithMyDeac said:
Logical to attempt to explain to others why he doesn't believe in religion in hopes of convincing others to stop believing as well as their belief directly impacts his as well as many others way of life. If his lack of religion existed in a vacuum sure, but it doesn't.
Click to expand...

birdman said:
He thinks religion is a dangerous delusion, that over the millennia has caused immeasurable strife and suffering and he wants to try and limit that cause and effect in the future. Furthermore he thinks that religious belief and faith, i.e. belief in something despite evidence to the contrary, impinges on scientific progress in a society. For example, despite overwhelming evidence to the positive, global climate change is still called into question with religious zealotry and this continued questioning will cause our society major problems in the next 50 to 100 years. Religious belief requires a mode of knowledge accumulation that allows for ignoring data that opposes a preconcieved conclusion and that mode of learning has tremendous capacity to be harmful to society. So, Dawkins, the so called pussy, is trying to save society from it's own delusions that he thinks are extremely dangerous, that's why he writes fucking books.
Click to expand...

WakeandBake said:
Well without religious ideology a lot of today's problems surrounding inequality and needless death/suffering could be avoided.

But religion over history has helped a lot of people, most certainly. Not always fairly or equally, but net help has occurred. usually at the expense of non believers, of course.

But all this religious superstition about sexual activity and territorial conflict is outdated and a hindrance to all sides. These religions are outdated and sorely in need of a renaissance.
Click to expand...

But why does he care about any of that? Without religion to create and guide morality, why as an atheist does he feel concern about either the rest of current humanity other than himself or the future of humanity? That morality is rooted in religion; I'm not saying atheists don't have morality with respect to themselves within society as part of a societal code, but I don't see how their morality spreads to a concern for others without the religious undertones. It is like he is trying to take the positive aspects of religion because it conforms with his beliefs while at the same time saying they don't exist. His whole stance seems pretty logically flawed to me (not atheism itself, but actively promoting atheism).
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
But why does he care about any of that? Without religion to create and guide morality, why as an atheist does he feel concern about either the rest of current humanity other than himself or the future of humanity? That morality is rooted in religion; I'm not saying atheists don't have morality with respect to themselves within society as part of a societal code, but I don't see how their morality spreads to a concern for others without the religious undertones. It is like he is trying to take the positive aspects of religion because it conforms with his beliefs while at the same time saying they don't exist. His whole stance seems pretty logically flawed to me (not atheism itself, but actively promoting atheism).
Click to expand...

Why is morality intrinsically tied to religion? I want everybody in the world to treat one another with respect and fairness. Just because that's the "Golden Rule" of religion doesn't mean it can monopolize it and say that it's only religion that states that.

Killing people/infringing on their rights to live is clearly wrong in my eyes. I don't need religion to tell me that.

An argument could be made that those living "right" by utilizing morality through their own "know-how" are more righteous than those doing it because it will grant eternal salvation.

C.S. Lewis makes a pretty good argument in Mere Christianity where he postulates that the knowledge we have as to what is right vs. wrong comes from a third party source, and that is why it is intrinsically known.
 
there are many ways to decide to behave in a way that you are calling "moral"

most basically, it's generally in one's own interest to not instigate violence against another person or property.


besides, are you really acting "morally" if you're simply obeying a law to avoid "damnation"? Sounds like you're just avoiding punishment.
 
Last edited:
Deacsfan27 said:
Why is morality intrinsically tied to religion? I want everybody in the world to treat one another with respect and fairness. Just because that's the "Golden Rule" of religion doesn't mean it can monopolize it and say that it's only religion that states that.

Killing people/infringing on their rights to live is clearly wrong in my eyes. I don't need religion to tell me that.

An argument could be made that those living "right" by utilizing morality through their own "know-how" are more righteous than those doing it because it will grant eternal salvation.

C.S. Lewis makes a pretty good argument in Mere Christianity where he postulates that the knowledge we have as to what is right vs. wrong comes from a third party source, and that is why it is intrinsically known.
Click to expand...

While I don't disagree, wouldn't you rather believe in God and eternal life, and be wrong, than not be a believer and burn in hell for eternity when you die? I think the safest play is the acknowledge your boy Jesus Christ and be sure you don't get passed on at the pearly gates.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
Why is morality intrinsically tied to religion? I want everybody in the world to treat one another with respect and fairness. Just because that's the "Golden Rule" of religion doesn't mean it can monopolize it and say that it's only religion that states that.

Killing people/infringing on their rights to live is clearly wrong in my eyes. I don't need religion to tell me that.

An argument could be made that those living "right" by utilizing morality through their own "know-how" are more righteous than those doing it because it will grant eternal salvation.

C.S. Lewis makes a pretty good argument in Mere Christianity where he postulates that the knowledge we have as to what is right vs. wrong comes from a third party source, and that is why it is intrinsically known.
Click to expand...

Why?

ImTheCaptain said:
there are many ways to decide to behave in a way that you are calling "moral"

most basically, it's generally in one's own interest to not instigate violence against another person or property.


besides, are you really acting "morally" if you're simply obeying a law to avoid "damnation"? Sounds like you're just avoiding punishment.
Click to expand...

Right. But that doesn't explain why would be in that same person's own interest to spread that belief to other people, assuming said person lives in our current society that is not strife with rampant lawlessness. Unless this dude himself is running from the KKK or ISIS, why does he care what those groups are doing to other people?
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Why?



Right. But that doesn't explain why would be in that same person's own interest to spread that belief to other people, assuming said person lives in our current society that is not strife with rampant lawlessness. Unless this dude himself is running from the KKK or ISIS, why does he care what those groups are doing to other people?
Click to expand...

sure it does. "hey, how about we don't punch each other and instead go hunt together"

pretty simple stuff
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
But why does he care about any of that? Without religion to create and guide morality, why as an atheist does he feel concern about either the rest of current humanity other than himself or the future of humanity? That morality is rooted in religion; I'm not saying atheists don't have morality with respect to themselves within society as part of a societal code, but I don't see how their morality spreads to a concern for others without the religious undertones. It is like he is trying to take the positive aspects of religion because it conforms with his beliefs while at the same time saying they don't exist. His whole stance seems pretty logically flawed to me (not atheism itself, but actively promoting atheism).
Click to expand...

If for no other reason, because he is a father and a grand father and from a Darwinian perspective it makes complete sense that and individual would try to establish a safe, stable and secure society so that their genetic progeny can in turn grow up to make more genetic progeny. How/why do you think religion started in the first place?

Furthermore the notion that morality (your apparent definition here is selfless altruistic type behavior) is senseless without religion, is facile. Altruism and, more prevalently, reciprocal altruism are behavioral modes that exist in nature across a wide variety of species. Even inter-species altruistic behaviors exist. Why does an antelope on the Savannah give a warning call loud enough for all the other antelopes and wildebeests and zebras to hear when a lion quietly approaches in the tall grass? Why not quietly slink away and let one of those other animals get munched? Because next time a Zebra might be the first one to see the lion. Helping others out is highly beneficial in the long run when you live in groups. Humans obviously evolved as social animals so the tendency for reciprocal altruistic behaviors is prevalent. So, in a sense, he can't help but try to help others out when he sees a lion sneaking about in the brush.

Lastly, he undoubtedly make money off the proceeds of his fucking books.
 
CreamyGoodness said:
While I don't disagree, wouldn't you rather believe in God and eternal life, and be wrong, than not be a believer and burn in hell for eternity when you die? I think the safest play is the acknowledge your boy Jesus Christ and be sure you don't get passed on at the pearly gates.
Click to expand...

We talked about Pascal's Wager yesterday, but I can't make myself believe in something I don't believe in. I also think that were God to exist, he's probably more interested in judging intent of the person as opposed to somebody who is just "doing it to do it".
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Why?

Right. But that doesn't explain why would be in that same person's own interest to spread that belief to other people, assuming said person lives in our current society that is not strife with rampant lawlessness. Unless this dude himself is running from the KKK or ISIS, why does he care what those groups are doing to other people?
Click to expand...

Well, for starters, if everybody in the world treated each other with respect and the way they wanted to be treated, it would be the most reasonable step towards world peace. I don't want the ability to live life the way I want to be infringed upon by other people, so I give those people the same respect.

That's why when somebody who is born a male wants to be called a "she", I usually do it because that's their wish and it doesn't hurt anybody.

Basically the "don't be an asshole" rule can go pretty far.
 
CreamyGoodness said:
While I don't disagree, wouldn't you rather believe in God and eternal life, and be wrong, than not be a believer and burn in hell for eternity when you die? I think the safest play is the acknowledge your boy Jesus Christ and be sure you don't get passed on at the pearly gates.
Click to expand...

This argument falls apart. Couldn't this equally be true about another religion that requires belief to achieve salvation?
 
Deacsfan27 said:
Why is morality intrinsically tied to religion? I want everybody in the world to treat one another with respect and fairness. Just because that's the "Golden Rule" of religion doesn't mean it can monopolize it and say that it's only religion that states that.

Killing people/infringing on their rights to live is clearly wrong in my eyes. I don't need religion to tell me that.

An argument could be made that those living "right" by utilizing morality through their own "know-how" are more righteous than those doing it because it will grant eternal salvation.

C.S. Lewis makes a pretty good argument in Mere Christianity where he postulates that the knowledge we have as to what is right vs. wrong comes from a third party source, and that is why it is intrinsically known.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I would disagree that religion creates morality. From an orthodox (small o) Christian perspective, morality comes from humanity bearing the image of God - meaning each person both displays and mars the image of God - that all goodness, justice, etc. comes from that image in us. So it is not belief in God that makes us good (to varying degrees), but the existence of God and our reflection of God's character that makes us "good," etc. Thus, regardless of faith/belief each person carries that image and is capable of incredible good, justice, mercy, etc. I think one of the great tenets of Christian belief is that everyone on earth carries that image, so one should treat all other people as one who bears the divine image (almost a "namaste" idea without the pantheistic overtones).
 
CreamyGoodness said:
While I don't disagree, wouldn't you rather believe in God and eternal life, and be wrong, than not be a believer and burn in hell for eternity when you die? I think the safest play is the acknowledge your boy Jesus Christ and be sure you don't get passed on at the pearly gates.
Click to expand...

There is almost no risk here when you believe with 99.99% certainty that hell does not exist. Why waste your highly limited time alive going to church and praying and living by silly rules and stressing out about gay people when you are convinced there is no evidence that those activities have any benefit. It is almost a reverse Pascal's wager... In that I am wagering I have only about 45 years left to enjoy life and accomplish anything of value, why would I waste even 5% of that limited 45 years engaging in activities that I am 99.99% are a waste of time and energy.
 
birdman said:
There is almost no risk here when you believe with 99.99% certainty that hell does not exist. Why waste your highly limited time alive going to church and praying and living by silly rules and stressing out about gay people when you are convinced there is no evidence that those activities have any benefit. It is almost a reverse Pascal's wager... In that I am wagering I have only about 45 years left to enjoy life and accomplish anything of value, why would I waste even 5% of that limited 45 years engaging in activities that I am 99.99% are a waste of time and energy.
Click to expand...

This assumes that the point of following Jesus is not going to hell (which is a completely understandable assumption giving the revivalistic history of the US and how most talk about the faith in our individualistic dominant culture), but the story of Christianity is much much larger than that (and our popular understanding of hell is more informed by medieval artists and Dante than it is by Scripture). It isn't even the story of heaven and hell at all, but rather heaven and earth. The story of Scripture is one where God is setting all things right and the restoration of humanity to it's God-image-bearing self is a big part of this. The culmination of the story isn't being plucked off the earth and rewarded with heaven or tossed into hell, it is the restoration of the earth and humanity to the way it is supposed to be, as the Christians pray, "[God's] will be done on earth as it is in heaven." And the majority of my time as a follower of Jesus is spent working toward that end - talking about and working for the future God envisions for the earth (the Kingdom of God as it's called in Scripture) inaugurated by the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. So our church feeds the hungry because one day there will be no hunger. We fight economic and racial injustice because one day those will not exist. I don't consider one second of being part of the church wasted. Reducing Christianity to living by silly rules and worrying about the gays, while completely understandable [and regrettable] in our current climate, especially if you're in the American South, is incredibly myopic.

Most other things are political/power consolidating distractions from what the church is supposed to be.
 
I think if everybody had that interpretation of Christianity it would certainly reduce the stigma attached to it, as well as appeal to a broader base of people.

Good posts on this thread IaT. Appreciate your insight immensely.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
Well, for starters, if everybody in the world treated each other with respect and the way they wanted to be treated, it would be the most reasonable step towards world peace. I don't want the ability to live life the way I want to be infringed upon by other people, so I give those people the same respect.

That's why when somebody who is born a male wants to be called a "she", I usually do it because that's their wish and it doesn't hurt anybody.

Basically the "don't be an asshole" rule can go pretty far.
Click to expand...

Except when it comes to tax policy. Then I want other people to pay for my preferences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top