Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Religion IS crazy!

Jump to new
Tink said:
Oh well, keep dreaming McLovin, The Church is here to stay, its been here for a long time and will stay for a long time. I noticed you didnt answer my last question about 'where is the moral code in society now?', but thats your choice.
Click to expand...
Don't you actually read what McLovin, Ruby, I and others have written? We have all addressed the question of the origin of a moral code in some detail.

I guess it's simply not possible to have a rational discussion with anyone whose adherence to indoctrinated dogma outweighs the capacity for objective thinking.

Perhaps that's the key to religious affiliation? Obedience to the indoctrinated beliefs simply replaces critical thought?
 
Julia said:
Don't you actually read what McLovin, Ruby, I and others have written? We have all addressed the question of the origin of a moral code in some detail.

I guess it's simply not possible to have a rational discussion with anyone whose adherence to indoctrinated dogma outweighs the capacity for objective thinking.

Perhaps that's the key to religious affiliation? Obedience to the indoctrinated beliefs simply replaces critical thought?
Click to expand...

+1

Exactly.

The pattern is fairly clear, as a population becomes more educated the less they need to rely on wizardry and magic to explain the workings of the Universe. Those who choose to believe will continue to do so. Thankfully, their influence will continue to wane. One day, children will be brought up in families that don't impose religious dogma on young, easily influenced minds.
 
No, they just go through drugs to get there, think of the children ;)

Magic and wizardry?
Its obvious none of you believe in God, but thats your business, but dont crush others.

Science has its own dogma..

My opinion...
 
Morality is an interesting thing to discuss.

I have no doubt that there are many morally good atheists and many morally bad people who claim to be 'religious.' Not believing in God doesn't mean a person can't be moral. That is nonsense.

I guess the question is 'what is morals?'. If you believe in a transcendent God (e.g. the Christian God for example), then you are able to believe that there are 'absolute' morals that exist that are over and above any opinions, society etc. You have a moral framework to operate within and if you are truly a 'believer' as you claim to be then you are to adhere to these (note not all religions are equally 'moral'). You won't always be successful but your motives 'should' be to uphold them.

If you are an atheist then it is different. You are free to determine what morals you believe and what is right and what is wrong (it will vary from person to person). As many of the great atheist philosophers have concluded and expressed, there are no moral absolutes because there is nothing transcendent that can determine what is good and bad (if there is such thing) in absolute terms. We can have opinions as individuals, as society but that is as far as it goes. These can agree with religious morals or disagree.
I don't believe that we can say society determines absolutes because if say, Hitler or someone similar indoctrinated a mass of people to believe that weeding out genetically inferior people is the highest good we can aspire to, this doesn't make that act morally good even if the whole world agrees.

So anyone can be morally good, religious or not but the question is 'what morals are good?'. They will vary from person to person. It is all mere opinion without any sort of transcendent being who is'above and beyond' which determines their goodness.
There may be an atheist like mother Teresa who is so morally upright that they gain the admiration and respect of the world. There may also be someone like Hitler who is adhering to his moral code equally well and believes he is equally good for ridding the world of genetically inferior people. Both are upholding their moral code. Society doesn't determine whether one is right or wrong because society could be composed of 100% people like Mother Teresa who agree with that moral code or 100% like Hitler who agree with his moral code.

But I guess the short answer is that atheists can be as good morally, or even superior to religious people, even in regards to the majority of any religious code of morals.
 
dutchie said:
So its OK for religions to influence/crush non believers into believing but not vice versa?

Just asking.
Click to expand...

It's a good point. Like with trading, everyone should have reasons for their beliefs and evidence to support it.

Whether it's someone reading from a book behind a pulpit or someone reading from a book behind the teachers desk in the science class, we cannot accept the information just because someone tells us.

Unfortunately most people don't care and believe what they want to believe. We will never have objectivity.

Personally all I care about in any area of life is TRUTH. Most do not. Not to say I'm right about all areas of life but I will at least endeavor to weigh up the evidence as objectively as I can.
 
pavilion103 said:
Unfortunately most people don't care and believe what they want to believe. We will never have objectivity.
Click to expand...
The subjectivity vs objectivity debate is an interesting one. Unfortunately, it is a necessary part of existence that humans are finite beings. Therefore any ultimate objectivity is impossible. Any objectivity that we experience will be through the filter of our finite existence, and only be seen in degrees.

Should that stop anyone from pursuing truth of any description? Probably not, because ultimately part of, or degrees of truth, is better than fatalism. We all seek (or ascribe) some sort of truth (or meaning) whether we consciously think about it or not.
 
Ves said:
The subjectivity vs objectivity debate is an interesting one. Unfortunately, it is a necessary part of existence that humans are finite beings. Therefore any ultimate objectivity is impossible. Any objectivity that we experience will be through the filter of our finite existence, and only be seen in degrees.

Should that stop anyone from pursuing truth of any description? Probably not, because ultimately part of, or degrees of truth, is better than fatalism. We all seek (or ascribe) some sort of truth (or meaning) whether we consciously think about it or not.
Click to expand...

Yeh that is true.

I know it's impossible to be completely objective about some (all) things. Consistency is important to me. Adopting a standard and applying it consistently across ALL evidence.
 
Ves said:
The subjectivity vs objectivity debate is an interesting one. Unfortunately, it is a necessary part of existence that humans are finite beings. Therefore any ultimate objectivity is impossible. Any objectivity that we experience will be through the filter of our finite existence, and only be seen in degrees.

Should that stop anyone from pursuing truth of any description? Probably not, because ultimately part of, or degrees of truth, is better than fatalism. We all seek (or ascribe) some sort of truth (or meaning) whether we consciously think about it or not.
Click to expand...

A good post. :xyxthumbs

We have science, of which I subscribe, and we have beliefs. As you aver, human nature will take its own individual path.

There are those who find comfort in belief and we need to appreciate that whilst at the same time focus on revealing facts, truth and education to the young so that they may hopefully make the human road a better one than the mess we have so far.

It does seem that the respective authourities are slow to curb the disgusting practices of some in the high offices of trust but as the facts are only now being clearly revealed, and acknowledged we might add, the change will now come and be accepted. These changes will also bring about some readustments in bleiefs systems too in my view.

Also it seems that to pool those divergent ideals for a higher ethic we may agree the questions where the shades of grey meet should be of growing interest.

Blasting each other serves only to narrow thoughts.
 
Tink said:
No, they just go through drugs to get there,
Click to expand...
This is the sort of silly and unsubstantiated remark that adds nothing useful to the debate.
What you are effectively suggesting is that unless we subscribe to the dogma of the Church we are destined to become pathetic slaves to drugs and other evils. Utterly illogical.
think of the children ;)
Click to expand...
Quite. Something the Catholic Church has utterly failed to do in any positive sense.

Ves said:
The subjectivity vs objectivity debate is an interesting one. Unfortunately, it is a necessary part of existence that humans are finite beings. Therefore any ultimate objectivity is impossible. Any objectivity that we experience will be through the filter of our finite existence, and only be seen in degrees.
Click to expand...
Sounds very esoteric, Ves. Perhaps we don't really need to have Socratic like wisdom to conclude that an organisation, cloaked in wealth, pageantry and smoke signals for communication, which deliberately and systematically covers up the vile abuse of children by its members, is something less than a force for good.


explod said:
There are those who find comfort in belief and we need to appreciate that whilst at the same time focus on revealing facts, truth and education to the young so that they may hopefully make the human road a better one than the mess we have so far.
Click to expand...
Are we in fact in 'such a mess'? From where I sit, human beings continue to make ongoing discoveries for the betterment of humanity, many of us are primarily motivated with kindness and generosity of spirit, whilst at the same time having minimal tolerance for hypocrisy.

I know it's fashionable to engage in self flagellation, such being encouraged by a nanny state which encourages people to be 'offended' and to require apologies for any slight upset, but imo it's something that's misplaced.
Rather, let's encourage those who would have us think for ourselves, and take responsibility for our own actions, and to celebrate what is good and useful.
 
Ves said:
The subjectivity vs objectivity debate is an interesting one. Unfortunately, it is a necessary part of existence that humans are finite beings. Therefore any ultimate objectivity is impossible. Any objectivity that we experience will be through the filter of our finite existence, and only be seen in degrees.
Click to expand...

The body is definitely finite. But since I can observe my body, then I cannot be my body. I can also observe my thoughts, so i can't be them either. Anything I can observe and perceiev cannot be me/I. So what in fact is the 'I' that says "i am this, I am that"? That's the the "Self without object" or the 'I-I' as Ramana calls it. Small 's' self is subject confused with object. Big 's' Self is subject on its own, which is (apparently) the ultimate Truth..
 
Thank you all for the quality discussion here. Been reading with great interest, and enjoying. :)
 
Gringotts Bank said:
The body is definitely finite. But since I can observe my body, then I cannot be my body. I can also observe my thoughts, so i can't be them either. Anything I can observe and perceiev cannot be me/I. So what in fact is the 'I' that says "i am this, I am that"? That's the the "Self without object" or the 'I-I' as Ramana calls it. Small 's' self is subject confused with object. Big 's' Self is subject on its own, which is (apparently) the ultimate Truth..
Click to expand...
The mind-body problem is pretty interesting. A lot of that line of thought can be blamed / praised (depending on your view on it) on Descartes. His Cartesian dualism influenced much thought along this lines. His "rationalism" even influenced scientific methods from what I have read.

I'm probably more with Aristotle on this issue though:

For Aristotle (384–322 BC) mind is a faculty of the soul. Regarding the soul, he said:

“It is not necessary to ask whether soul and body are one, just as it is not necessary to ask whether the wax and its shape are one, nor generally whether the matter of each thing and that of which it is the matter are one. For even if one and being are spoken of in several ways, what is properly so spoken of is the actuality” (De Anima ii 1, 412b6–9)
Click to expand...

To link back to explod's post the modern developments in neurosciences and other related fields cross-referenced against the great philosophers of the past are starting to show that there is a place for both scientic thought and metaphysical discover.

Perhaps one day we will have an in-depth scientific understanding (as opposed to an absolute truth) of consciousness.
 
Julia said:
Sounds very esoteric, Ves. Perhaps we don't really need to have Socratic like wisdom to conclude that an organisation, cloaked in wealth, pageantry and smoke signals for communication, which deliberately and systematically covers up the vile abuse of children by its members, is something less than a force for good.
Click to expand...
Apologies to you Julia, but my post was not intended to provide argument for either side of the debate that you are participating in. Personally I'm not interested in participating. :)

Was my post Socratic or Platonic? Probably not either. :D
 
Tink said:
No, they just go through drugs to get there, think of the children ;)

Magic and wizardry?
Its obvious none of you believe in God, but thats your business, but dont crush others.

Science has its own dogma..

My opinion...
Click to expand...

Yes, think of the children who have been molested by Catholic preists over many years.

So much for religion.
 
noco said:
Yes, think of the children who have been molested by Catholic preists over many years.

So much for religion.
Click to expand...

If the doctrine encouraged molesting children I'd say 'so much for (that) religion' too. As it stands I'd be more inclined to say 'so much for those who claim to do good but do evil (rather than pointing to bad acts as evidence against all religion as if those are somehow part of the doctrine).

As an aside (probably little relevance), I do not support the teachings and traditions which form the Catholic Church. In fact I disagree considerably to varying degrees on different aspects of the church.
 
pavilion103 said:
If the doctrine encouraged molesting children I'd say 'so much for (that) religion' too. As it stands I'd be more inclined to say 'so much for those who claim to do good but do evil (rather than pointing to bad acts as evidence against all religion as if those are somehow part of the doctrine).

As an aside (probably little relevance), I do not support the teachings and traditions which form the Catholic Church. In fact I disagree considerably to varying degrees on different aspects of the church.
Click to expand...

If the doctrine encouraged...

Well, that leaves you open to interpretation really, doesn't it?


Good Quran

Don't confuse truth with falsehood or knowingly conceal the truth. 2:42

Pay the poor-due. 2:43, 110, 277

Be good to parents, relatives, orphans, and the needy. Speak kindly and pay the poor-due. 2:83

If you believe it, prove it. (A good rule, but does it apply to Muslims, too?) 2:111

The Jews say the Christians are wrong, and vice versa. Yet they both believe in the Scriptures. 2:113

Give of your wealth to family, relatives, and the needy. Set slaves free. 2:177

Do not fight wars of aggression. (Does this apply only during Ramadan?) 2:190

"Do good." 2:195

Spend your money for good: to help your parents, your family, orphans, wayfarers, and the needy. 2:215

Help orphans. 2:220

"Kill not one another." 4:29
Click to expand...


Bad Quran

Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."


Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah').


Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward." The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle, as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. Here is the theological basis for today's suicide bombers.
Click to expand...
 
Tink said:
The Church is here to stay, its been here for a long time and will stay for a long time.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be too sure of that Tink. The church has maintained its supremacy through the centuries by contolling (through fear and threats) a largely ignorant and illiterate populace. Look around you - now that people are educated and have learned to think for themselves, church attendances have dwindled dramatically, even in my lifetime, and continue to do so. These are verifiable facts.

Tink said:
I noticed you didnt answer my last question about 'where is the moral code in society now?', but thats your choice.
We hear so much about the good old days and how the values were so much stronger then within the families...
What happened?
Click to expand...

No, but I answered your question. The moral code in society is where it has always been. As I said before, read some social history!

Oh yes............."the good old days"........... Come on, Tink - take off the rose coloured spectacles!!!! "The good old days" exist only in peoples' memories!

Tink said:
The Church has always been about families.............
Click to expand...

No, the church has not always been about families - only if families obey its rules; rules made by an unmarried clergy! It has a history of ripping families apart, and causing untold misery.
 
Top