Forum menu
religion is not the only available framework. people can communicate ideas cross faith. where do you say you live??? 😉
that's come out wrong, all i'm saying is that ideas can flourish and spread without religion. we live in a somewhat cross cultural country but many moral ideals are shared despite different a lack of religion.
Theology, on the other had, induces a dogmatic belief that we have knowledge where in fact we have ignorance, and by doing so generates a kind of impertinent insolence towards the universe."
Good illustration of a man who demonstrates he knows sod all about theology. I find that's one of the main problems with these discussions - people are invited to argue in defence of a mangled cliche of orthodox Christian belief, a process that would first require considerable investment of time explaining what we [i]do[/i] believe, then continuing with the debate. Given the hostile environment in which that would be taking place, it's not really surprising that most folks who could, don't bother.
I'd just like to point out (again) that "insulting" a belief, is just that. "Insulting" the belief, not the person who holds it.
No doubt such a person might be "offended" by that. Well - O.K. Be offended. Nothing's going to happen, though...
Maybe a few books might get burned. That's about it.
So, how would you propose that such moral codes were propagated and spread without the framework of organised religion?
Its called evolution my dear.
And the main problem with organised religeon is that it cannot evolve with progress and the current zeitgeist of humanity. For example the ridiculus rules implemented by the catholic church (i.e. condoms).
religion is not the only available framework
It pretty much has bin for much of Human history.
You'd better get on with that homework you know; Mr Barker is an extremely unpleasant man...
Elf,
I have no issue at all with people believing what they want.
I do have an issue with people using those beliefs, whether they be religious, political or philosophical to cause suffering to other human beings.
Religion is responsible for continued human suffering.No, people using Religion as an excuse to try to gain power and control over others is. Let's have it right, eh?
Sadly, you're wrong. Many religions actively enshrine continued human suffering within their basic doctrines.
I don't believe in the supernatural.
If people are of the opinion that the supernatural exists, despite all the evidence we currently have pointing to the opposite conclusion, then I feel I am perfectly justified in labelling their opinions as nonsensical.
As to 'idiotic', people call each other idiots every day without major wars breaking out.
You've called me an idiot on several occasions, I really couldn't care less. Mockery is part of human interaction and always has been. It's how you choose to react to it that defines you.
Question: can you be an atheist, but still believe in extraterrestial life that may be millions of years more evolved and intelligent than our own? (i.e. beings that are more "supreme" than humans?)
"Believe" or merely accept the possibility?
I don't believe in extraterrestrial life. However, given the unimaginable vastness of universe, I think it's highly likely that life exists somewhere else other than just our planet. This may be the form of single-cell protozoa or something far more advanced than us, or anything inbetween. Perhaps there's many, many planets out there just like ours, albeit an unfeasibly long way away. I'd be surprised if there wasn't, but that doesn't make it a belief.
So, how would you propose that such moral codes were propagated and spread without the framework of organised religion?
Give me an aexample of a moral code that could only be spread through religion? and dont use the "golden rule" as that pre dates Christanity but I'm not giving you any more help.
seeing as i can't see a summing-up of the video (not even by the OP, who saw fit to quote a critic of the video, who also hadn't seen it), i'm going to listen/watch myself 😮 wish me luck! 😆
no, it hasn't. What about nationality, self preservation, profit, gender, the list really does go on, but you're late for remedial.
Good illustration of a man who demonstrates he knows sod all about theology. I find that's one of the main problems with these discussions - people are invited to argue in defence of a mangled cliche of orthodox Christian belief, a process that would first require considerable investment of time explaining what we do believe, then continuing with the debate. Given the hostile environment in which that would be taking place, it's not really surprising that most folks who could, don't bother.
I don't have to go to the best tailors in Italy and France to learn all about the cut of cloth, the use of needle and the properties of all dress types to be able to say : "The emperor wears no clothes."
Usually though, people of religion don't ever say what they believe as if you define something then you can be questioned upon it.
Saying that, I say: let everyone believe whatever they like, but keep religion a personal matter and have a hulking great wall between religion and state.
Hey sorry I’m not bashing anyone, just posting to try to find some answers to my own questions I have with the whole thing.
"So why should Dawkins/anyone else (and he's not 'my' Dawkins - that is usually used as a way to group people you don't like together in order to bash them) believe in your god and not one of the thousands of others? "
Well that's kind of my point.
My understanding of it or how I'm interpreting it is... that God, any God, IS personal… so unless you find your own one you can’t have proof ???
I might add that I haven’t find God…. not sure I will … I’m just enjoying the experience at the moment and would say that my life is richer for it.
As an atheist, it's true that I don't have any "theology".
However, I also don't have any "Unicornology", Leprechaunology" or "Fairies-at-the-bottom-of-the-garden ology".
I'm quite comfortable with saying that, in my opinion, none of those things exist either.
... and now I realise I'm repeating myself in response to repeated arguments posted many times before and have just spotted a giant snickers bar.
Exit stage left, pursued by a (imaginary) bear...
And the main problem with organised religeon is that it cannot evolve with progress and the current zeitgeist of humanity.
This is laugh out loud funny! The shelves of library of your local university's theology section will be loaded with books on this very subject. You could make a case for saying it's [i]the[/i] primary catalyst in the development of theological thought - certainly has been since the Enlightenment.
seeing as i can't see a summing-up of the video (not even by the OP
There's a reason for that - it's a 48 minute video, doesn't repeat itself lots and I don't have the time. As I keep pointing out, you don't miss much by just listening to the audio.
who saw fit to quote a critic of the video, who also hadn't seen it
Critic is a bit harsh about somebody with a very moderate and non-judgemental outlook, which I thought those from either end of the spectrum might do well to read.
You've called me an idiot on several occasions
Care to point out some examples please, because I have no recollection of such a thing.
Sadly, you're wrong. Many religions actively enshrine continued human suffering within their basic doctrines.
Again, examples please.
One problem with many organised religions, speshly the Big Hitters, is that they are far too rigid and inflexible, also haven't aged well as global societies have evolved. Yet they've done quite a good job helping Humanity to get to this point, in't they? In fact, many universities where lots of Science stuff gets done were founded by religious organisations, in all parts of the Globe.
I'm in no way going to defend all that has occurred in the name of religion, but I can be objective enough to see the good that it has done, and how in it's many forms, it has helped shape the development of Humanity to the point we're at now.
no, it hasn't. What about nationality, self preservation, profit, gender,
Hmm. Nationality. Why do nations exist? Along what lines were their borders drawn up?
Self-preservation; many faiths believe in an afterlife of some kind, so the motivation that being good in this life to help you in the next is quite strong.
Profit; which were the wealthiest institutions, historically? And how did such institutions use the concept of profit to further their own ends and perpetuate their own existence?
Gender; for good or bad, Religion has also ensured that definite gender roles were recognised and utilised in terms of social organisation.
You can't simple discount the role Religion has had to play in Human History, simply cos you don't share the views of others. That's just folly.
development of theological thought
Am oxymoron if ever I have heard one. No place for this in any university.
Again, examples please.
Oh come off it Fred, if you want to be taken at all seriously dont talk such rubbish or someone is gonna "cut and paste" all over yer.
I don't have to go to the best tailors in Italy and France to learn all about the cut of cloth, the use of needle and the properties of all dress types to be able to say : "The emperor wears no clothes."
True, but that's not what you're doing here - your wrapping a sack round your waist and tying it on with a bit of twine, then claiming you understand [i]"the cut of cloth, the use of needle and the properties of all dress types"[/i].
This is not particular to theology by the way - your argument wouldn't doesn't stand discipline in any form of rational inquiry. If you don't believe me, go and have a look at the Credit and Qualifications Framework for any discipline in Higher Education.
Again, examples please.
Elf, as a gay bloke I have had a lifetime of religious nutters (including my own family) telling me I was going to boil in hell etc. A quick google about ex-gay ministries and all that sort of stuff will give you loads of examples.
it stopped when I shouted extremely loudly at my mother to eff right off and to keep her beliefs to herself. She still constantly tells me (a 45-year old!) that one day I'll find Jesus and god. Its like banging your head against a brick wall, trying to stop her telling me what I do/will believe! 🙄
Cougar: not sure I get your distinction: You [i]"think it's highly likely that life exists somewhere else other than just our planet"[/i] but [i]"don't believe in extraterrestrial life"[/i].
Are you just saying that it is a balance of probabilities rather than a "faith"?
If so, fair enough. But the point stands: if you accept that, on the balance of probabilities, humans are not likely to be the most advanced lifeform in the universe then can you still truly call yourself atheist?
HTH - to be fair he does call himself an idiot lots, but there are also other victims...
Am oxymoron if ever I have heard one. No place for this in any university.
Fortunately for us, several of the best universities tend to disagree.
This is not particular to theology by the way - your argument wouldn't doesn't stand discipline in any form of rational inquiry. If you don't believe me, go and have a look at the Credit and Qualifications Framework for any discipline in Higher Education.
Good try. The basic premise is the existence of god/s, not their properties. Unless the first can be agreed then all else that comes after it is pure conjecture and flummery.
Or are you also a believer in the Flying Spaghetti Monster*? By your argument you couldn't possibly say anything unless you have studied him and wear the pirate outfit?
PS Attempting an insult based on uni is, arm, interesting. Again, good try. Nil point.
* May you be touched by his noodle appendage.
... and now I realise I'm repeating myself in response to repeated arguments posted many times before and have just spotted a giant snickers bar.Exit stage left, pursued by a (imaginary) bear...
Bit worried about you there - those imaginary bears can be dangerous. Bop them on the nose, I reckon. Or is that sharks?
Fortunately for us, several of the best universities tend to disagree.
I look forward to its enlightening output. I am sure we will make great strides when we understand if unbaptised children are going to Hell or just Limbo 🙄
Maybe you can enlighten us on any output of note or contributions to critical thinking etc?
You could make a case for saying it's the primary catalyst in the development of theological thought - certainly has been since the Enlightenment.
So how do you explain the treatment of say ....women, Gays and in some religeons non believers?
I'd say that pretty much all the abrahamic religeons are still well behind the times and are being dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century in a vain bid to survive as a viable inclusion on modern life.
Come on ...tell me where I'm wrong! 😀
Elf, just have a read of the Bible.
Lots of nastiness, smiting and eternal damnation for those who don't believe.
I don't want to spoil the story, but it doesn't end well for the hero.
Shame, as he comes across as basically a nice bloke. Bit preachy though.
As to calling people idiots, I'm not trawling back through countless posts just to find an example.
My point is that mockery is an essential part of human nature and by extension the way we interact with each other.
Is it reasonable to express an opinion completely contrary to the sum of human intellectual knowledge and progress and NOT expect a bit of ribbing?
Elf, as a gay bloke I have had a lifetime of religious nutters (including my own family) telling me I was going to boil in hell etc. A quick google about ex-gay ministries and all that sort of stuff will give you loads of examples.
I never said that all religious doctrine was for the good and of benefit to all people everywhere. Quite the opposite in fact. I myself rejected Islam as it was not right for me. But I still feel that certain tenets of faith are important to me, in terms of my own personal rationalisation of my existence on this planet and within Human Society.
HTH - to be fair he does call himself an idiot lots, but there are also other victims...
Especially Binners, it seems! 😆
Is there a bit where I've called Rusty Spanner an idiot then?
As to calling people idiots, I'm not trawling back through countless posts just to find an example.
Ah, so without proof of the existence of such an incident, can we therefore safely claim that it never happened? 😀 😉
[i]So, how would you propose that such moral codes were propagated and spread without the framework of organised religion?[/i]
Are you suggesting that religion predates any kind of morality?
...or is it perhaps more likely that religion reflected and codified the existing moral framework of the societies in which it was produced?
Think about while you blow up your water wings, and search for more religious building pictures with which to muddy those rising waters....
OK Let's just see how the three main beliefs of the Abrahamic religions stack up.
You have a "soul" an eternal part of you that never dies.
When your body dies this soul continues on and either spends eternity in paradise or spends eternity in hell and is subject to no end of pointy hurty things and nashing of the teeth etc.
The deciding factor in this fairly important allocation of next life streaming is based upon how "well" you live your life and that in turn is based upon a number of "rules" laid down in several books which may or may not be accurate and have certainly got a lot of conflicting statements about the "rules".
Oh also there is absolutely no physical evidence of any kind for any of the above.
So where do I sign up, sounds like a great deal. frankly if you believe any of the above I think it's likely you need professional help and quite strong medication.
Think about while you blow up your water wings, and search for more religious building pictures with which to muddy those rising waters....
No, [i]you[/i] think about how such moral codes wooduv bin disseminated without the framework of religion, in the context of Human history.
I'm actually quite a good swimmer. I can happily splash about in the deep end and everything. 😀
Elf, stop prevaricating and answer the question 🙂
Anyone would think that you were trying to divert peoples attention away from the real issues ..... 😀
how would you propose that such moral codes were propagated and spread without the framework of organised religion?
Two thousand years ago, you may have had a point. It's hardly required [i]now [/i]though, is it?
people are invited to argue in defence of a mangled cliche of orthodox Christian belief, a process that would first require considerable investment of time explaining what we do believe, then continuing with the debate. Given the hostile environment in which that would be taking place, it's not really surprising that most folks who could, don't bother.
You're saying you have the means to put us right, to avoid being misrepresented and to settle all the debates. But you can't because we're all 'hostile'?
Ignoring the irony in that claim for a moment, don't you think perhaps that there would be a lot less hostility if you put forward your sensible beliefs instead? If we've all misunderstood, I'd love to be corrected.
My understanding of it or how I'm interpreting it is... that God, any God, IS personal… so unless you find your own one you can’t have proof ???
Years ago, when I was still getting my head around faith, I came up with the idea that "god" is exactly that, it's like part of the psyche. So when people "pray," they're steeling themselves up and providing self-support in the same way that an athlete (say) might give himself a pep talk before a race or whatever. There's no actual 'god' involved, but in talking to god you're actually giving yourself a talking to.
Are you just saying that it is a balance of probabilities rather than a "faith"?
Pretty much, aye.
If so, fair enough. But the point stands: if you accept that, on the balance of probabilities, humans are not likely to be the most advanced lifeform in the universe then can you still truly call yourself atheist?
Can I not? Assuming an advanced life form exists, does that make them gods? Did they make the Earth in six days, including creating light three days before creating a light source, and everything?
No, [i]you[/i] answer the question.
Is there a bit where I've called Rusty Spanner an idiot then?
Come on, Scientific Method and all that.
😉
I win again. This is too easy...
Two thousand years ago, you may have had a point. It's hardly required now though, is it?
We woon't be here [i]now[/i], it it was not for [i]then[/i].
> So, how would you propose that such moral codes were propagated and spread without the framework of organised religion?Are you suggesting that religion predates any kind of morality
When you say to a child [i]"Don't do that!"[/i] and they say [i]"Why?"[/i] then a simple answer is [i]"Because the bogeyman will get you."[/i]
That is the founding basis of pretty much all religious teaching that I have encountered and seems to be the framework on which humanities "moral code" was established and passed on. So in that respect I... I... [i]*gnashes teeth*[/i] I agree with Elf.
It's for the best, Graham. The sooner everyone else does it, the better a place the World will be. 😐
We woon't be here now, it it was not for then.
And?
Why we (arguably) needed religion != why we currently need it. And "but we've always done that" is the worst reason to do anything. By that logic we'd still be burning witches.
You can't simple discount the role Religion has had to play in Human History, simply cos you don't share the views of others.
i'm not, i'm just suggesting that you have your cause and effects slightly schewed. you're implying that without religion no rules would exist, i'm suggesting that religion is an example of rules, not the dictator of rules.
Why we (arguably) needed religion != why we currently need it. And "but we've always done that" is the worst reason to do anything.
That's not actually what I'm saying though, is it?
Rusty Spanner's going to turn up next with some silliness but no answer to my question asking him to prove his allegation against me, in an attempt to divert attention away from the fact that his allegation may very well be unfounded and unfair....
This is like the Manchester v London music debate all over again.... 😀
He'll stop twitching in a minute and start a thread about bus shelters.
i think it's interesting that all tags have been deleted except for the one about bingo wings and the one about angry birds and the tagageddon one. two out of three of those left are pretty offensive, i'd say. says something about the moderator charged with removing tags 😮
Can I not?
It was a philosophical question, not a statement.
Assuming an advanced life form exists, does that make them gods? Did they make the Earth in six days, including creating light three days before creating a light source, and everything?
Don't confuse the Christian bible story with theism in general.
I don't believe in the "Gods" of any of the world's religions, past or present, that I have encountered.
But the ET question means I accept there are "supreme beings" out there (or at least "more supreme than us") whose form and power I have no real notion of.
They may even choose to "seed" worlds.
Does that make them gods?
And if I accept they might exist am I not an agnostic rather than an atheist?