Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

rodeo

A morality question.

206 posts in this topic

http://www.tektonics.org/gk/harrisletter.html

http://reformedfaith.wordpress.com/2007/11/07/an-article-from-the-most-dangerous-man-in-the-world/

The End of Reason by Ravi Zacharias is a wonderful book that shows the hopelessness of a atheistic world view and how it hold no weight at all.

Its really who you want to put your faith in. We all base everything we believe on who we chose. There isnt anymore true free thought. Its all made up of what we take in and what we ultimately choose. Believing there is a God or there isnt is a choice with two sides that have equally educated people with equally valid points. I chose God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a lot of people here are lying to themselves. Of course if god came to you and you only, you would still act moraly because you wouldn't know if you were crazy or you would still do jailtime. However, many people would let their natural instincts take over and get whatever girl they always desired.

If god came to multiple (I'm talking about a lot here) people at a time and told them this, society would begin to crumble, because why abide by human law if we know it holds no water. There are plenty of sick and degenerate people who would do whatever they wanted, why wouldn't you? And it would create a chain reaction to the good people, because they would have to act immorally to defend their families (think breaking bad here).

I do agree with tattoorhinos point though, that nature is inherintly (sp?) savage and violent and it is strange that we as people act with morals. But you keep up saying to read theological arguments and writers and what not. If we don't put value in the bible because it was written by man with no proof to any of it holding any water, then why would we hold value in modern day writers? They know nothing more then we do, I took plenty of religion classes, and although these guys may be "deeper" and one of them was one of my favorite professors....when it comes down to it they know nothing more then us and can speculate all they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am always amazed that someone will go to great links to try and believe every other weird crazy here today gone tomorrow theory to disprove the existence of God, but wont take that same time to actually research both sides. If you dont want to believe there are several people you can put your "faith" in. Just because someone is a believer and writes an astonishing piece on God you discredit it because it isnt secular. Well duh, if its about Gods existence it cant be secular.

How the hell do you know people haven't researched both sides?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.tektonics.org/gk/harrisletter.html

http://reformedfaith.wordpress.com/2007/11/07/an-article-from-the-most-dangerous-man-in-the-world/

The End of Reason by Ravi Zacharias is a wonderful book that shows the hopelessness of a atheistic world view and how it hold no weight at all.

Actually it failed to do both.

Also, because someone thinks it's hopeless doesn't make it not right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tattoorhino, how do you discount the religious predecessors to Christianity in favor of more recent "teachings" and accept them as fact?

I ask this while especially interested in why you would do so, considering the numerous obvious similarities (or borrowings, plagiarisms, etc.) that the Abrahamic faiths all took from said predecessors...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was almost going to make this its own thread, but decided that would be too many lately on the subject of god.

The bes evidence with a somewhat scientific background that could be related to a creationist type story is sex. Think about it.

Why did single cell- asexual reproducing organisms evovle into more complex, more naturally difficult and confusing sexual reproducing organisms we have today.

When did the first non asexual organisms evolve, why? Why 2 sexes? How did the sexual organs come to be. What was the first fully comptent sexual female.

IF the organisms split and evolved separatly why did they each evolve at the same rate and practically in unison, why do they have the perfect number of chromosones that complement eachother?

This is the biggest hole biological evolution, that as far as I have read cannot be explained. Too my knowledge there is no widely accepted theory that peers from different fields have reviewed and agreed upon. And I am not saying evolution did not happen, but if evolution takes place to make something better, able to surivive, then why change to a more biologically complex system.

I would love if someone could link some scientific journals explaining this, that are widely accepted and hold up to all peer scrutiny. Maybe I am just out of the loop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listen folks...

This really isn't about science having an answer for everything, but more so religious institutions making up an answer for everything...

The moment you stop questioning the "who, what, when, where, how and whys" of life in favor of "God did it," you are conceding defeat in the battle for human understanding.

Sure, it may be good enough for you, but it isn't for everyone. Quite honestly, it is the easiest way out, and basically requires no further critical thought.

I work with scientists every day. Despite what the religious institutions (mainly the Christian one, in America) would have you believe, most scientists are far from atheists. Some are even religious, because they see that science doesn't always have the answers.

The differences in them and the mainstream religious ilk is that they don't disregard the potential for science to eventually help us find all the answers, and they don't adhere so strictly to the religious parables of the holy books.

Most anti-religion sentiment comes not only from its almost forced integration into our everyday lives, but also the willingness of its devotees to so willingly give up on the critical thought and analysis process...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never seen a religious person disregard science anywhere close to the caricature that is painted by the internet agnostic.

Why does religion require critical thought? By definition, it exists outside the realm of it. Is there critical thinking behind what you favorite color is? Why you love your wife? Why you cheer for the panthers when there are clearly better teams out there? Why you like chicken nuggets when they are clearly not even food?

And that's where the anti-anti-religion sentiment comes from. The caricatures painted of religious folks, the exaggerate-the-opposing-viewpoint-then-ridicule routine. The seeking of concrete evidence for that which isn't concrete.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never seen a religious person disregard science anywhere close to the caricature that is painted by the internet agnostic.

Why does religion require critical thought? By definition, it exists outside the realm of it. Is there critical thinking behind what you favorite color is? Why you love your wife? Why you cheer for the panthers when there are clearly better teams out there? Why you like chicken nuggets when they are clearly not even food?

And that's where the anti-anti-religion sentiment comes from. The caricatures painted of religious folks, the exaggerate-the-opposing-viewpoint-then-ridicule routine. The seeking of concrete evidence for that which isn't concrete.

Why build the foundation of your belief system on something that isn't concrete?

There should be critical thinking in all aspects of life. Even in all the things you listed. Yes, even chicken nuggets.

As far as the first part of your post, you obviously aren't paying attention if you truly believe that, or turning a blind eye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I'd like to point out that in a roundabout way, Jase compared religion to chicken nuggets...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jsquared summed it up nicely.

Just because there is no answer currently does not mean you can throw god in there and call it a day. Because then you have people, like now, that try to discredit the theory of evolution purely to save their own faith or because they never read about it in the bible, therefore, it couldn't have actually happened.

There has still been no evidence to support the existence of god. And I don't suppose there will be, since there have been multiple posts since I originally asked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does religion require critical thought? By definition, it exists outside the realm of it. Is there critical thinking behind what you favorite color is? Why you love your wife? Why you cheer for the panthers when there are clearly better teams out there? Why you like chicken nuggets when they are clearly not even food?

And that's where the anti-anti-religion sentiment comes from. The caricatures painted of religious folks, the exaggerate-the-opposing-viewpoint-then-ridicule routine. The seeking of concrete evidence for that which isn't concrete.

I'll bite and for conversational purposes accept your premise that religion exist out side of reasoning. If that is the case then reasons should never be given to back up religious claims. And we ALL know that isn't what happens.

Also I do have reasons for why I love my husband, why I like the Panthers even though they suck and why I think some food taste better than others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites