Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Star Trek
»
General Trek
»
Religion
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Omega: [QB] Ooh, FUN! :D Let me start out with Ryan's most recent post... [i]Religion's negative influence is not the result of individuals, it is a result of the existence of religion itself.[/i] *L* You're funny. Of COURSE it's the result of individuals. The religions' basic teachings can't possibly cause anything negative in the outside world. Therefore, the negative things that have happened in the name of religion must have been caused by other teachings. Thus the negative results are caused people, and NOT religion itself. Try replacing the word "religion" in that quote with "humanity". It's a similar argument, and makes exactly as much sense. ;) [i]Religion as a whole continually plays a game of back-stepping to change its doctrines in light of new discoveries...[/i] Yeah, but the funny thing is that when that happens, it's consistantly beecause someone overstepped the bounds of their basic doctrine to begin with. Take the flat-earth-is-the-center-of-the-universe bit. It's not ANYWHERE in scripture, stated or implied, but the Catholics assumed it and declared it dogma. That's THEIR mistake, not the mistake of the original teachings. [i]I believe that no belief is justified without evidence.[/i] And you're talking to us... why? For all the evidence you have, we don't exist. :D [i]My point is that religious thinking, of all kinds, can lead to problems.[/i] Of course it can. ANY kind of thought can lead to problems. Shall we then eliminate all thought? [i]As soon as you think you have a source of authority other than the use of rational thought, you open the door to irrationality.[/i] One supposes that that would follow. ;) But it's not irrationality. It's perfectly logical. It simply proceeds from a different set of assumptions from yours. [i]No, religion doesn't control the distribution of condoms, but it does play a role in influencing people into accepting or rejecting them.[/i] Religion also plays a role in keeping kids from having sex before they're ready. Religion plays a role in keeping people from every kind of immorality. Religion plays a role in keeping some people SANE (like, say, me). Sure, the CONCEPT has lead to bad things occasionally, but that doesn't necessarily mean you need to eliminate the concept all together. First you need further analysis to figure out if there's some aspect of the concept that's the problem. [i]I have no fault with religious organizations running hospitals... but the point is that these things could be run just as well without religion[/i] Except that they would not EXIST without religion. [i]If religion disappeared today, we'd still have hospitals; the difference is that the people who were wasting their time with Benny Hinn could get real treatment instead.[/i] Except for the fact that people wouldn't contribute nearly as much to charities, and thus many hospitals would be shut down. [i]But why do most people (and I am definitely using the qualifier "most" here) reject "death with dignity?"[/i] Because they haven't thought it through. Most people don't give the issue much more than a surface analysis. [i]However, religious ideas about souls are overwhelmingly influential in the opposition to stemp cell research, abortion, and cloning.[/i] Well, stem-cell research requires the termination of a living fetus, at least beyond what's been authorized already, so that's included under "abortion". As for abortion, it has nothing to do with a soul, any more than laws against murder do. It's the termination of a human being against their will, who threatens no one. Everyone agrees that such a thing is wrong, but they make an exception for abortion for some inscrutable reason. [i]The pressure from the religious right is powerful enough that over half of all public-school biology teachers don't even mention it at all.[/i] Or maybe it's because there's no evidence. [i]Nevermind that evolution is the basis of modern biology, integral to nearly every single thing we know about life on our planet.[/i] *L* Hardly. Just why would a biologist need to know about evolution to study a new plant? [i]I am often asked, as an atheist, "If there is no God, can't you do anything you want?" If there is a God that forgives any sin, then it is the religious who can do whatever they want! I also find myself asking them, "If you found out God didn't exist tomorrow, would you go around murdering and raping since there aren't any eternal consequences? No? Then why would I?"[/i] Reminds me of the book "Caliban". The no-law robot was often asked, if he had no first law, what kept him from running amok and killing people left and right. His answer was always, "The same thing that keeps you from doing it." And as for whether we can do whatever we want, read Romans. Paul deals with that quite thoroughly. [i]What if everyone took an hour every Sunday to read a classic work of literature, or the writings of philosophers, or a science book?[/i] I'd be a far more depressed and volitile person, due to the lack of interaction with other believers, for one. [i]what if religion disappeared? There would still be charity, people could still feed the hungry.[/i] The question isn't whether they COULD, it's whether they WOULD. And most people wouldn't. And now for Mr. Oedipus... [i]evolution can been shown in a laboratory.[/i] No. It can't. You can create most amino acids, but you can't even create a single protein, much less anything that could possibly be considered to be alive. Further, showing evolution with pre-existing life (something of a cheat) would take billenia, in the most conservative scenarios. I don't think we have any labs that old. [i]it might be a theory when applied to the real world, but in and of itself it is indisputable fact[/i] And just how does THAT work, praytell? [i]i already had strong beliefs about the corrupting affect that religions can have (note the word "can")[/i] Yes, CAN. Not all religions have these problems. The root of the problem is almost invariably when a believer doesn't have a coherant understanding of what they believe. They can then be misled. Unfortunately, that's how a lot of religious people are. And if they get power, God help us all. (Look! I made a funny!) [i]you perhaps think humanity's progress would march forward without the old ball-and-chain of religion holding it back. I think that is both true and false. Certainly, in the past, the notion was true. My own religion, back when it "ruled the world" (ah, the glory (or should I say gory?) days) was a notable offender.[/i] Yes, to some degree, but WITHOUT the church there would never have been a Renaisance, nor would the Germanic tribes been civilized as quickly. It was a unifying, stablizing influence in all of Europe. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3