07 Oct 07
2 edits
As one can see, great emphasis is placed on the "heart" of mankind and with good reason. I say that knowledge is power which includes scientific knowledge. Therefore, who are we empowering with such knowledge? If they have a "good" heart they will be empowered to do good things but if they have an "evil" heart, they will be empowerd to use such knowledge for our ill. However, science does not address the issue of the heart, however, religion does. Which field of study then goes to the heart of the problems within society? Which is needed the most?
I don't believe in "good" and "evil" as a dichotomy. good and evil are not absolut. What for some maybe evil, for others it is not. So, people in society decide in their laws what is permitted and what is not.
Science does not address the issue of the heart (metaphoric heart... for the real heart we have cardiologists). For that there is philosophy, meditation.
Science does not intend to be a philosophy by itself. It is not a way of living, it can't be compared to religion.
I think this topic is most relavent for this thread. This is because Dawkins is implying that religion is the enemy. Therefore, he is implying that the absence of such an enemy would result in a type of utopia. You rightly point out that there are other ways to control people within society and if religion did not exist then they would use those tools available to them. Really, religion is not the issue, rather, the issue is what makes men try to contol us?
I don't care about Dawkins, I never heard of him until i started coming to this forum. He's just another guy with an opinion. There are thousands what makes him so important?
I think religion in general is not an enemy. Sometimes it can be, sometimes not. Sometimes good, sometimes bad. My point is religion is useless and god is useless in modern society.
07 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyIt's true those problems would be solved if we followed the church's "advices".
As far as God making sense, I will talk about the previous post of yours asking about marriage and sex and condoms etc, etc. The Bible outlines what is acceptable sexual behavoir which is sex within the confines of marriage. You may argue that marriage is not needed but I would say think of the implications of a sexual union. What are the implications? Is partook of the fruit? Are you one of the ones who would insist on finding out the hard way?
The problem is I don't believe the ideal. I think I have the right to have a sexually active partner before marriage. I have to right to have sex without impregnating my partner. Most people think the same. Most Christians think the same.
It would be immoral 500 years ago, but no it isn't. And church is defending the same moral of ages ago. I say moral evolves with time. I say no book should impose a moral. I say religion is obsolete.
07 Oct 07
Originally posted by serigadoMatthew 22:37 Jesus said to them, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and all thy mind and with all they soul. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it. You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang ALL the laws of the prophets."
I say moral evolves with time. I say no book should impose a moral. I say religion is obsolete.[/b]
So have we outgrown the greatest commandment on which all commandments are based? Have we outgrown the usefulness of the command to love? Really if you keep these two commandments you will never break a Biblical commanmdment.
07 Oct 07
Originally posted by serigadoHow has man changed from today compared to 500 years ago? Technology perhaps? Social norms perhaps? What of significance has really changed?
[b]It's true those problems would be solved if we followed the church's "advices".
The problem is I don't believe the ideal. I think I have the right to have a sexually active partner before marriage. I have to right to have sex without impregnating my partner. Most people think the same. Most Christians think the same.
It would be immoral 500 years ago, but ...[text shortened]... o it isn't. And church is defending the same moral of ages ago. I say moral evolves with time.
07 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyYes, i was talking about society. I made an error in the previous post. I wanted to say "but now it isn't".
How has man changed from today compared to 500 years ago? Technology perhaps? Social norms perhaps? What of significance has really changed?
I think we agree a lot changed in values and morality in our society, right?
07 Oct 07
Originally posted by gaychessplayerEven if you didn\'t bother to read the link I gave, you might try using your imagination. One hardly needs to resort to thuggery to have a powerful coercive effect.
How exactly can Mr. Bozell \"force\" anybody to do anything? Did he break into the office of the president of Paramount Studios and point a gun to the president\'s head and tell him to clean up Hollywood or his head will get blown off? Please explain.
07 Oct 07
Originally posted by whodeyTheir website, which you quoted from, used to be called the \"Conservative News Service\", before they realized they shouldn\'t revel so openly in their bias.
I don\'t think that Dawkins positions are in question here. After all, many of us here are familiar with similar positions in books he has written. Are you disputing these positions?
When it comes down to it, no news source is 100% reliable. All sources have a bias to them because none of us are 100% reliable nor are we 100% objective. Granted, there a ...[text shortened]... to do so. Is this what you are saying they are doing? If so, how are they skewing the facts?
08 Oct 07
Originally posted by SwissGambitJust out of curiosity, how did you interpret a bias? Was any of the information not factual or was it merely presented from a slanted perspective in your opinion?
Their website, which you quoted from, used to be called the \"Conservative News Service\", before they realized they shouldn\'t revel so openly in their bias.
08 Oct 07
Originally posted by serigadoNot really. For the most part I think that our laws throughout time reflect the Biblical mandate to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. For example, throughout the ages such things as murder, stealing, bearing false witness etc, etc, has been frowned upon since the beginning of societies existence. However, there have been some alterations here and there that have varied over time.
Yes, i was talking about society. I made an error in the previous post. I wanted to say "but now it isn't".
I think we agree a lot changed in values and morality in our society, right?
As human beings we value loving relationships and the focus of such love usually revolves around the family unit. I don't see how this has changed much either.
08 Oct 07
Originally posted by serigadoSo with this statement are you willing to retract the notion that my faith is obsolete? It seems you find its teachings useful as well.
Then God would have to teach me and do some arguments for me to change my opinion. I'm open minded and ready to be convinced by arguments of anything.
About loving enemies, it always made sense to me. It's like saying "be tolerant, don't get into conflicts". Strangely, the church didn't quite promote it for centuries.
08 Oct 07
Originally posted by whodeyThe full-color ad for Ann Coulter on the right [of the page...hah!] was a good starting point.
Just out of curiosity, how did you interpret a bias? Was any of the information not factual or was it merely presented from a slanted perspective in your opinion?
Next we have as a \'top story\' - abortion linked to breast cancer.
And the coup de grace - a link to \"Bozell\'s column\" at the top of the page.
I know enough of the history of the two names mentioned to save me the bother of taking their writing seriously.
08 Oct 07
Originally posted by SwissGambitI see. So it was not the article itself you had an objection to, rather, they were simply guilty by association?
The full-color ad for Ann Coulter on the right [of the page...hah!] was a good starting point.
Next we have as a \'top story\' - abortion linked to breast cancer.
And the coup de grace - a link to \"Bozell\'s column\" at the top of the page.
I know enough of the history of the two names mentioned to save me the bother of taking their writing seriously.
08 Oct 07
Originally posted by whodeyChristianity has many positives things. As a philosophy, and filtering most of the information in the Bible, it would be great. The same for many other religions.
So with this statement are you willing to retract the notion that my faith is obsolete? It seems you find its teachings useful as well.
But some of the teachings don't make sense nowadays. And many of the concepts it defends either.
09 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyThe article sucked, too. The last two paragraphs show the author\\\'s bias and desire to slam those he reports on. They should at least be honest and admit that it\\\'s an opinion piece and not a news article.
I see. So it was not the article itself you had an objection to, rather, they were simply guilty by association?
09 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by serigadoThe verse that I gave above indicates that all teachings/laws/commandments given in the Bible were based in love. For example, the concept of obeying the Sabbath may seem nonsensical. However, what if we dig deeper into why the commandment of the Sabbath was given? In fact, Jesus was accused of breaking the Sabbath for healing someone on the Sabbath. He then turned to them and asked them what they would do if they needed to work to retrieve their beast of burden after having fallen into a pit on the Sabbath. Would they not resuce it just as he had rescued the person needing healing? Also, Christ said that the Sabbath was made for man and not the other way around. It was a day set aside for man to refect upon his life instead of working away his life without the oppurtunity for such reflection so that one can ask such basic questions as to why I am here and what meaning does my life have? In other words, the command to obey the Sabbath was given out of love for mankind, rather than being a nonsensical command at its core.
Christianity has many positives things. As a philosophy, and filtering most of the information in the Bible, it would be great. The same for many other religions.
But some of the teachings don't make sense nowadays. And many of the concepts it defends either.