27 Aug 06
2 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnzAre you saying the religion is hypocritical, underhand, lying, cheating
Well? Which is the most hypocritical, underhand, lying, cheating religion in the world?
or the people within in it? Because if it is the people, we are no
longer looking at the beliefs, unless the beliefs ask its people to
be hypocritical, underhand, lying, cheating and so on. If we are looking
at people than the playing field is level, because I don't care what
you are, or where you are, or what you belong too, people do what
people do.
Kelly
27 Aug 06
Originally posted by whodeyOf course, it is the people within the organisation. However, some organisations tolerate lying and cheating better than others.
What makes a religion currupt? What causes corruption? That is your answer. You can demonize certain groups and canonize other groups as saints if you like. However, this line of questioning is akin to asking which race of people are the most corrupt. You would automatically be dubbed a racist if you asked such a question. However, those who are religions seem to be fair game, no?
27 Aug 06
Originally posted by jaywillI am without religion, therefore, theoretically, an independant observer.
Because you can point out who is lying, cheating, underhanded, cheating and religious .... because you KNOW that does that make you one bit more righteous?
That's what some of us call "the knowledge of good and evil". That is something that man is very proud of.
That you can point out who is a hypocrit, how does that make you superior?
27 Aug 06
Originally posted by googlefudgeGood post.
Defining someone by their race is with almost no exceptions, moronic. Religion and culture are fair game however because they are choices, you don't choose your race, you are born into it, and it is unchangeable (unless you're Michael Jackson). But you can choose whether to have, and which religion you follow, and you can chose which cultural/moral value ...[text shortened]... another till the cows come home and all that would result is short tempers and flying insults.
27 Aug 06
Originally posted by KellyJayAs googlefudge points out, humans in the past wrote the rules that you now live by. If there is some "institutional" underhandedness then that should be exposed and corrected. For example, look at the number of Chritian priests and ministers which are exposed as paedophiles. The church does nothing to them. I'd call that "inherent badness". The rules of the church (written by humans) do not punish priests for this type of behaviour. Whether you like it or not Kelly, the church is very definately a human organisation, not a godly one.
Are you saying the religion is hypocritical, underhand, lying, cheating
or the people within in it? Because if it is the people, we are no
longer looking at the beliefs, unless the beliefs ask its people to
be hypocritical, underhand, lying, cheating and so on. If we are looking
at people than the playing field is level, because I don't care what
you are, or where you are, or what you belong too, people do what
people do.
Kelly
27 Aug 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzDoesn't atheism require a lot of faith?
Precisely, atheism is not a religion. It's a lack thereof.
I mean if we are dealing with uncertainties then our lack of absolute knowledge has to be supplemented by faith.
The universe came into existence by a Creator or the universe came into existence by itself with no Creator. The athiest nor the theist knows for certain. The athiest wasn't there any more than the theist was there.
But which requires more faith? To believe that the universe poped into existence by no cause or that there was a causing Creator?
27 Aug 06
2 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnzChritian?
As googlefudge points out, humans in the past wrote the rules that you now live by. If there is some "institutional" underhandedness then that should be exposed and corrected. For example, look at the number of Chritian priests and ministers which are exposed as paedophiles. The church does nothing to them. I'd call that "inherent badness". The rul ...[text shortened]... like it or not Kelly, the church is very definately a human organisation, not a godly one.
You mean Christian?
The fact that pedophiles become ministers has as much to do with
religion as it does when they join the cub scouts, girl scouts,
teachers, day care workers, or anything else. The reason it occurs
is because it is where the kids are and where they can get close
to kids.
I’d also point out like this Karr guy who they have brought back
from Thailand for the JonBenet Ramsey case was in the American
school system too. A news story that particular story caused
pointed out that some schools instead of flagging pedophiles that
are educators or part of the school system simply push them out
the door, then they can attack other kids in other schools. It is a
human trait to protect one’s bread and butter, and it seems that not
only the religious institutions but public ones share that problem.
If your argument is that some religions are caused/written by
just mankind I’d agree. All of them, no I would not agree, but that
is simply a point of faith for us both.
Kelly
28 Aug 06
Originally posted by jaywillAtheism requires no faith. It asserts nothing.
Doesn't atheism require a lot of faith?
I mean if we are dealing with uncertainties then our lack of absolute knowledge has to be supplemented by faith.
The universe came into existence by a Creator or the universe came into existence by itself with no Creator. The athiest nor the theist knows for certain. The athiest wasn't there any more than the t ...[text shortened]... elieve that the universe poped into existence by no cause or that there was a causing Creator?
Why would uncertainties have to be supplemented by faith? I see absolutely no reason for faith. That which we know, we know, to whatever degree we may be said to know them. That which we do not know, we do not know. I don't need faith to fill in the blanks.
As for the two competing naturalistic and theistic claims for the creation of the universe, the naturalistic is preferable because it is the most parsimonious. It requires fewer assumptions. Introducing a god into the problem introduces far more questions than it solves. It requires far more assumptions for it to work.
28 Aug 06
2 edits
Originally posted by rwingettAtheism requires no faith. It asserts nothing.
Atheism requires no faith. It asserts nothing.
Why would uncertainties have to be supplemented by faith? I see absolutely no reason for faith. That which we know, we know, to whatever degree we may be said to know them. That which we do not know, we do not know. I don't need faith to fill in the blanks.
As for the two competing naturalistic and thei ...[text shortened]... introduces far more questions than it solves. It requires far more assumptions for it to work.
The athiests I know are pretty ascertive. They are ascertive that a God does not exist. How can you say that atheism asserts nothing?
Why would uncertainties have to be supplemented by faith? I see absolutely no reason for faith.
In the area of the origin of the universe we are dealing with probabilities. We were not there. So we are uncertain.
The atheist excercises a kind of trust that something can come into existence from nothing without any cause. For lack of a better word I use the word "faith". Though I admit that Christian faith in my experience is trust with some sense of confirmation that you are on the right track.
But whether we borrow the word "faith" or "trust" there is some attitude supplementing our lack of total certainty.
That which we know, we know, to whatever degree we may be said to know them. That which we do not know, we do not know. I don't need faith to fill in the blanks.
The atheist believes that there is no God. Some say they KNOW that there is no God and no gods period.
Those who admit that it is a belief that they have that a God does not exist excercise a kind of "faith". It is a belief. It is a trust. There is no way around that.
My question is which requires more of this kind of trusting attitude when it comes to the origin of the universe? Does it require more faith to believe that a God created the universe or that the universe poped into existence because of nothing and no Causing Agent or agent?
28 Aug 06
Originally posted by rwingettYes it does, it has God/god as a 0/nothing value. It asserts that there
Atheism requires no faith. It asserts nothing.
Why would uncertainties have to be supplemented by faith? I see absolutely no reason for faith. That which we know, we know, to whatever degree we may be said to know them. That which we do not know, we do not know. I don't need faith to fill in the blanks.
As for the two competing naturalistic and thei ...[text shortened]... introduces far more questions than it solves. It requires far more assumptions for it to work.
is no power over us other than the universe as they define it.
It is faith, you may not want to call it a religion, but there are beliefs
in that faith.
Kelly
28 Aug 06
Originally posted by jaywillWhile there are some atheists who assert that there is no god, most knowledgable atheists do not. I have no way of knowing if there is a god or not, but I see no reason to believe there is one. Therefore I act as if there is no god, but I have no way of knowing that for certain. Once you see that atheism, properly speaking, is the lack of belief in a god and not the belief that there is no god, then you'll see that atheism asserts nothing and requires no faith.
[b]Atheism requires no faith. It asserts nothing.
The athiests I know are pretty ascertive. They are ascertive that a God does not exist. How can you say that atheism asserts nothing?
Why would uncertainties have to be supplemented by faith? I see absolutely no reason for faith.
In the area of the origin of the universe we are de ...[text shortened]... hat the universe poped into existence because of nothing and no Causing Agent or agent?[/b]
As for the rest of your post, look up the word 'parsimonious'. I see no need to keep repeating myself. Introducing a god into the problem introduces far more questions than it solves.