Rhetoric of Religion Debates (thinking caps, please)
- Thread starter cheezMcNASTY
- Start date
There is always something better that I could be doing with my time, I could be curing cancer or finding Cthulhu but I can't do these things, and I, alone, can't stop starving kids from suffering. My point didn't make sense to you because you misinterpreted it. World hunger isn't my problem, it's the entire world's problem. Debate is just another world for argue, and if people stopped arguing about religion a lot more good could be done.
Blah blah is the perpetrator the person holding the gun or the gun itself blah blah.
/more philosophical junk
Tsuyu
is wearing Queen's lace panties.
What kind of question is that? How can a tool be a perpetrator? I'm feeling that you're sidestepping the issue here.
It's a metaphor.
I'm getting the feeling we're beating off a dead horse here, but my point is you can't blame religion as the direct cause of the starving kids. These people choose to fight for religion thus causing the starving kids(which I'm sick of coming back to). Anyway, the metaphor. Of course the tool can't be the perpetrator. The point of the metaphor is to ask yourself what killed the man, the person pulling the trigger or the gun, or rather bullet? Technically the gun causes the death, but the gun would not have fired were it not for the person pulling the trigger, but the bullet still killed the man. In this scenario, the person pulling the trigger is religion and the gun is the situation, the situation would not exist were it not for religion but religion didn't starve the children, the situation did.
I'm truly sorry if that made no sense, but I find it difficult to type out my train of thought, there's way too many cogs all going at once.
Also, I may have been sidestepping but only because I didn't want a debate in the first place. Cheez said he didn't want one but meh, mention the word religion, and BOOM GOES THE DYNAMITE
Tsuyu
is wearing Queen's lace panties.
I'm not really looking for a verbal confrontation either, but if you've said A you gotta say B, my dear.
The issue with conflict arising from religious issues is not simply a result of when people of faith disagree. The debates are a prime example of when it's okay to argue about it. The conflicts arise because all of the monotheistic religions claim that they are the sole owners of the truth and therefore can't bring themselves to compromise with nonbelievers (aka everyone else). That much will not go away regardless of how much it's debated, in a controlled setting or otherwise.
Religious organizations have been almost entirely concerned with the poor and hungry throughout their entire history for the reasons you mentioned. The solution to the problem, I think, is a secular one; therefore not entirely relevant but I'll say it anyway. There has been a direct correlation between poverty levels and women's rights. Curious to think that pursuing such a basic moral good as equality between the genders could have such a huge and positive economic impact, no? Also curious to think that all of the christian-based nonprofits that sink money into solving the problem may not be necessary in the near future.
It's fine so far. So long as we all keep it at the level that it's been at so far and it doesn't devolve into finger pointing. Everyone, continue to use your grown-up voices. That'll be all.
I'm open to the idea of a possible creator, however I can't see myself getting on board with any of the known religions, I'm not so much apposed to belief in itself as I am the rituals and mania of it all.
I was raised as a Christian was sent to church from a young age and I didn't like what I saw or felt, all those forced hymns we had to sing in primary school too ( Jeeze those always made me cringe, so hollow and empty especially when you had an entire assembly hall full of joyless children singing it all at once ughh!)
So much emphasis on worship and submission to the Devine will etc, honestly I think if there was a creator then quite frankly he/she wouldn't give a toss whether we prayed 5 times a day or sacrificed a lamb in his name etc. I mean if I created an entire world bustling with life, I'd be satisfied to see them just getting on with their daily life's and working towards their goals, I would want them to pat themselves on the back for growing their yearly crops rather than throwing themselves on their knees and shouting praise be! I may have created them but it took their will to grow them, it's like me thanking my own father for something he didn't have a hand in just because he created me.
What I'm trying to say,is that I reckon the best way to show gratitude is to just live your life and do what's Best for others too if you can. I think that would please whatever God there may be much more than bizarre abstract rituals in his name, to show him that we know what we're doing and don't have show him our thanks every 5 minutes as stuck in some obsessive compulsive loop. Who's to say if there is a God, he/she would even want to be worshipped? Yeah sure the holy books spew all that out like water from a hose, but when it comes down to it that's just an interpretation, no irrefutable concrete proof that it's the true word of God.
Personally I think if there is a creator then he wouldn't be as needy for our eternal undying thanks as the abrahamic faiths make him out to be. I believe you can show your thanks without even thinking about it let
alone praying, just by living your life, by loving. Anyone of any faith or creed can do this, I honestly think merely
enjoying your life and being good to others is enough for God, regardless of wether you consciously choose to
prove your faith through prayer, rituals or not.
I was raised as a Christian was sent to church from a young age and I didn't like what I saw or felt, all those forced hymns we had to sing in primary school too ( Jeeze those always made me cringe, so hollow and empty especially when you had an entire assembly hall full of joyless children singing it all at once ughh!)
So much emphasis on worship and submission to the Devine will etc, honestly I think if there was a creator then quite frankly he/she wouldn't give a toss whether we prayed 5 times a day or sacrificed a lamb in his name etc. I mean if I created an entire world bustling with life, I'd be satisfied to see them just getting on with their daily life's and working towards their goals, I would want them to pat themselves on the back for growing their yearly crops rather than throwing themselves on their knees and shouting praise be! I may have created them but it took their will to grow them, it's like me thanking my own father for something he didn't have a hand in just because he created me.
What I'm trying to say,is that I reckon the best way to show gratitude is to just live your life and do what's Best for others too if you can. I think that would please whatever God there may be much more than bizarre abstract rituals in his name, to show him that we know what we're doing and don't have show him our thanks every 5 minutes as stuck in some obsessive compulsive loop. Who's to say if there is a God, he/she would even want to be worshipped? Yeah sure the holy books spew all that out like water from a hose, but when it comes down to it that's just an interpretation, no irrefutable concrete proof that it's the true word of God.
Personally I think if there is a creator then he wouldn't be as needy for our eternal undying thanks as the abrahamic faiths make him out to be. I believe you can show your thanks without even thinking about it let
alone praying, just by living your life, by loving. Anyone of any faith or creed can do this, I honestly think merely
enjoying your life and being good to others is enough for God, regardless of wether you consciously choose to
prove your faith through prayer, rituals or not.
BELIEVE IN YOUR EMPEROR
LOVE YOUR EMPEROR
OBEY YOUR EMPEROR
OBEY
HE IS THE ULTIMATE
HE IS PERFECTION
BELIEVE IN YOUR EMPEROR
OBEY
LOVE YOUR EMPEROR
OBEY YOUR EMPEROR
OBEY
HE IS THE ULTIMATE
HE IS PERFECTION
BELIEVE IN YOUR EMPEROR
OBEY
Tsuyu
is wearing Queen's lace panties.
I'm just gonna end with this:
"If a man hears my words, but does not believe, do not judge him. For I came not to judge the world, but to save it." - John 12:47
There's no need for the scientific community to debunk religion and there is no need for the religious to convert the unbelievers.
Let's not debate. Let's not argue. Let's just get along.
"If a man hears my words, but does not believe, do not judge him. For I came not to judge the world, but to save it." - John 12:47
There's no need for the scientific community to debunk religion and there is no need for the religious to convert the unbelievers.
Let's not debate. Let's not argue. Let's just get along.
Thing is - there will always be religious people trying to impose their rules on the law, or at least on the rest of society. There's always a need to prevent that. I want to get along with everyone, though. I really try.
Not saying that those without a belief in anything can't make laws that work (because that's just silly talk), but you cannot just erase the fact that many many countries have the basis for their laws in some sort of religious text. When you start to shake the established foundations of something, even if your intention is for good, it's going to cause problems. People don't like the status quo getting messed with - even if whatever it is needs messing, whether that be religion or established and accepted science.
Tsuyu
is wearing Queen's lace panties.
Actually, science works against itself constantly. There is nothing under greater scrutiny than a scientific theory. The status quo is constantly messed with.
Those who accept change are the first to evolve. Those who are afraid of it will fall behind. Question every truth and challenge every foundation.
Tsuyu
is wearing Queen's lace panties.
Awww hell yeah. What's this about breathing air?! That's not my choice! I bet we don't even need to breathe, it is just a conspiracy to keep the masses silent!
Not sure if agreeing with my point but trying to make fun of it anyway, or trying to point out its flaws with an example of something stupid...
Tsuyu
is wearing Queen's lace panties.
I'm very much against atheists or believers going on a mission to seek out people who disagree with them and argue. I'm open to discussion on the subject, and I'd hope anyone else who believes in something else would too. I hope we can all at least agree that it's healthy to examine the basis for your beliefs and question how you know what you think you do... and that goes for anything. I'm against the idea that people should just accept anything because they are told it's true. What can you say to someone who comes up to you and asks how you know that we landed on the moon? That the earth is round? That our planet is covered by shifting plates? If the only answer you can muster is "because it's true" then your beliefs are not your own. They're someone else's that you were told to be true and just accepted without question.
Of course, I'm not forcing any believers here to stand up and justify what they believe in before a committee, but I'd very much like to have a civilized and pragmatic talk about it, if that's not too much to ask. It'd be a first for PEgo if it didn't devolve into people bashing each other.
I agree that you can't just uproot people's belief system. It's disastrous. But wouldn't you agree that any country should be made to conform to a system where people are able to think and decide their thoughts on the subject for themselves?
Of course, I'm not forcing any believers here to stand up and justify what they believe in before a committee, but I'd very much like to have a civilized and pragmatic talk about it, if that's not too much to ask. It'd be a first for PEgo if it didn't devolve into people bashing each other.
I agree that good laws can be made with a religious text as a basis, but wouldn't you agree that the same law, if truly good, could have been made from secular reasoning as well? If so, by what reasoning are the texts needed?
I agree that you can't just uproot people's belief system. It's disastrous. But wouldn't you agree that any country should be made to conform to a system where people are able to think and decide their thoughts on the subject for themselves?
In general, I agree with this. However, sometimes it's detrimental to society to just let things run their course. If someone tries to teach creation in schools as an equally valid idea as evolution, it's a good thing if someone actively goes out to lecture them about it. But yeah, just living your life looking for people who agree with you and then start an argument is a bad idea.
1. Which is why I firstly put "Not saying that those without a belief in anything can't make laws that work" - it's my cack-handed way of putting it out there that those with a faith in any sort of deity are not the only ones on the planet with some understanding of society and how to make it function. Because that's simply not the case. Look at secular countries such as France - their whole society hasn't fallen into anarchy just because they no longer adopt a "national faith" as it were. I think what is more to my point is that I don't actually know of any current societies that have NOT been influenced by a religious aspect when it comes to organising and regulating the people. Sure, you can get a bunch of atheists, stick them on a desert island and they'll most likely create a sensible society with laws, structure and stuff like that. But if you got those atheists from a country where the laws they've grown up with were steeped in religious texts, however long ago that may have been, then it would be fairly certain to say that they have been influenced by how that society worked. Unless they came from a society originally that had NO religious basis WHATSOEVER throughout all recorded history then one could argue that, however subtly, religion has affected their ability to create laws. Because if you've grown up with "one wife only", whether you agree with the religious source of it or not, to be dropped into a culture that says "no, have at least 10" it's going to grate on what you perceive to be acceptable and right (plus who in their right mind would want 10 nagging fishwives as opposed to just one?). And that's the significance of the religious impact on many of our laws today - even if no one believes in any god, one cannot deny that the original precepts of "do not kill, do not steal" etc come from some sort of belief - whether that be the Judeo-Christian god, a witchdoctor, Mohammed or the flying spaghetti monster.
I probably haven't been overly articulate here and there's bound to be a load of misunderstanding following this bout of typing diarrhoea, but to my thinking there would be no such thing as "secular reasoning" if there was not religious thinking to compare it against. The very notion of secular reasoning presupposes that there is something else to reason against and therefore unless someone knows of a society without any belief in anything other than themselves - even if it's a holy coconut - the idea that people could create laws utterly devoid of religious influence is a little...unlikely. Even if you consider yourself to not be at all religious or even to hate religion, the laws you have most likely grown up with and accept came from the Bible or something similar in nature. How can one then say "I could make laws without that influence" when they know nothing else to take roots from? However you spin it, "thou shalt not kill" has been a major law in many religious books for hundreds if not thousands of years before you were born - we can only really hypothesise how secular reasoning would create laws because the vast majority of us will not have been born into an utterly belief-barren society.
2. To me that seems like an ideal but not a reality insofar as at what point do you stop taking on the multitude of differing opinions in order to create some sort of structure and regulation to society? If it is by general consensus then someone somewhere is bound to be put out by laws created because their opinions, values and beliefs have not been considered as far as they are concerned. All that can be done currently is for the individual to make a personal decision regarding various issues and then vote accordingly next time around - if something really gets to a large enough group of people then there is more noticeable action such as protests, strikes and even coups. The issue of belief is such a tricky one because for those with a religious belief, it affects everything they do, say and think (on the whole). How they perceive certain things is affected by what they believe. This can also be said of those who passionately have NO belief in any sort of higher power/being/coconut. People vote according to their beliefs, whether they be theistic or otherwise. People stand up for change according to their beliefs. Belief (or lack thereof) is a powerful thing and should not be underestimated as a result. Could a rational, reasonable and liveable societal structure be created with every single member's conclusions regarding various issues being included without anything or anyone being left out in some measure? I really don't think so. Sometimes what you as a person want gets voted out in favour of the majority and I don't know how that would ever be able to change and still function correctly.
/can of worms. Please don't hurt me.
Tsuyu
is wearing Queen's lace panties.
One could however argue that "Thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal" was originally created with the addition of "...from your own tribe.". It could just be the natural extension of how we evolved from animals living in a pack to humans living in a tribe, with no moral or religious influence behind it, but rather the natural need for the "pack" to survive and thrive. Chimps rarely get violent with members of their own pack (unless they are in some sort of dominance conflict) but they happily bash outsiders upside the head with rocks and sticks to steal their food or territory.
I'd imagine early man acting similar.
I'd imagine early man acting similar.