Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
basic morals yes, but it also teaches things that can be immoral.
Ok, i will ignore the red herring above and respond: Immoral according to whom? Are you referring to a particular religion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cleatis
not to mention, not all the followers of practice these morals.
Contradiction. You can't both adhere to a position and not practice the basic principles thereof; Such is called "lip service".
Quote:
Originally Posted by cleatis
knowledge of a god, but having to be taught the finer points of god opens a titanic size door to human interpretation, opinion, exploitation, fabrication and a myriad of other things. It doesn't do much to solidify any religion.
Another redherring. Nonetheless, the format of your response presumes that the saying is correct, that.. Men have an innate awareness of the existence of God.
So you are saying that anyone who is not religious has no morals?
Uh.. I wasn't "saying"(asserting) anything, I asked a question. You said that Religion "seems to split society into those who are religious - 'do good - and go to heaven'. And those who are atheist - made out to be bad - and go to hell." My response is interrogative not rhetorical, namely, ...and this is a bad thing because..? I could replace the word "religion" above with the word "truth" and your statement would still be true...but would it be as negative as you seem to wish to make it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Racket
i'm sorry to tell you this but I'm sure I read somewhere that only about 2 percent of people in prison are athiest. And that fact could actually be used to prove my point that people need to learn morals other than just because god says so.
This is what is called an "association fallacy", not to mention, irrelevant heresay that does nothing for your argument. Most importantly, the question is still unanswered: right/wrong according to whom or what???????????????????????
Quote:
Originally Posted by racket
So you are saying that if a child was born and nobody ever taught them about god they would still 'know' about him(/her). I think not. Children form christian familys moslty grow up to be christian (if religious at all), Hindu familys...hindu etc. This is because it is what the children have been taught (by parents mostly but also the society around them) NOT because they are born with a build in knowlage of the existance of god.
If god made us all (for arguments sake saying god is real) with a built in knowlage of him, why is there such varience in religions? and why do athiests exsist?
You know, I just love it how you ask me if im "saying something" (that i never stated) and then go on to answer your own question as if you're responding to something that I stated. Tis a clever way of disguising straw man arguments.
The invisible things of God from the foundations of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and divine existence.. so that all are without excuse.. and we happen to be discussing one of the particular principles that insists that God does exist...conscience/morality. But to respond to your non-response, there's a difference betwixt knowing God and his ways ..and.. instinctly understanding that He's real.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Racket
And one more thing:
You are really trying to say that dogs/cats/etc have a knowlage of the exsistance 'god'. We have to teach them to sit, stay etc but yet they can comprehend god?? Personally I dont think a dog can comprehend the scale of the planet it lives on never mind who or what created it.
No one ever said that animals can comprehend God. For the final time.. There is a difference between knowing God and his ways and being instinctly aware of his existence. It called instinct! Surely animals don't have the capacity to comprehend the complext things of God, of life, of anything.. seeing that they don't have the ability to reason and understand vividly.
So... are you going to begin responding to the points being made now, or will i have to continue to chase you in circles?
Ok, i will ignore the red herring above and respond: Immoral according to whom? Are you referring to a particular religion?Contradiction. You can't both adhere to a position and not practice the basic principles thereof; Such is called "lip service".
what i meant by the last post was that just because some book says that you are supposed to follow a moral, doesn't mean that you will. People aren't supposed to kill, but most followers of most religions have found some shoddy way of justifying it. I am simply saying that people aren't going to be moral because a book says so, or because they are supposed to.
Quote:
Another redherring. Nonetheless, the format of your response presumes that the saying is correct, that.. Men have an innate awareness of the existence of God.
How is that a red herring? just because you say? Assuming for a moment that people actually did have some inborn sense that there is a god; people teaching about who that god is, what they want, why they are there etc opens a door to people preaching whatever in the hell they want to preach - whether it is true and right or not.
If that's a red herring, or some utter impossibility then I can see that it is plainly and simply pointless for me to even try and discuss this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Racket So you are saying that anyone who is not religious has no morals? TheStudent: Uh.. I wasn't "saying"(asserting) anything, I asked a question. You said that Religion "seems to split society into those who are religious - 'do good - and go to heaven'. And those who are atheist - made out to be bad - and go to hell." My response is interrogative not rhetorical, namely, ...and this is a bad thing because..? I could replace the word "religion" above with the word "truth" and your statement would still be true...but would it be as negative as you seem to wish to make it?
You said "is that a bad thing?" Well yes actually becuase whether a person is religious does not define whether they have morals or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheStudent
Quote:
Originally Posted by Racket i'm sorry to tell you this but I'm sure I read somewhere that only about 2 percent of people in prison are athiest. And that fact could actually be used to prove my point that people need to learn morals other than just because god says so.
TheStudent: This is what is called an "association fallacy", not to mention, irrelevant heresay that does nothing for your argument.
How do you manage to consider that irrelevant? You say "Religion teaches basic morals". If only 2% of people in prison are not religious then would that not show that far more religious people do wrong i.e have no morals. So religion obviously is not doing a very good job of teaching basic morals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheStudent
TheStudent: Most importantly, the question is still unanswered: right/wrong according to whom or what???????????????????????
Acording to how you would want people to treat you. You wouldn't want somebody to kill you would you, no, so dont kill anyone else. Simple. Instead of the bribery/blackmail that religion poses- Please dont kill, then you can come and spend eternity in the perfect place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheStudent
Quote:
Originally Posted by racket So you are saying that if a child was born and nobody ever taught them about god they would still 'know' about him(/her). I think not. Children form christian familys moslty grow up to be christian (if religious at all), Hindu familys...hindu etc. This is because it is what the children have been taught (by parents mostly but also the society around them) NOT because they are born with a build in knowlage of the existance of god. If god made us all (for arguments sake saying god is real) with a built in knowlage of him, why is there such varience in religions? and why do athiests exsist?
TheStudent: You know, I just love it how you ask me if im "saying something" (that i never stated) and then go on to answer your own question as if you're responding to something that I stated. Tis a clever way of disguising straw man arguments.
The invisible things of God from the foundations of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and divine existence.. so that all are without excuse.. and we happen to be discussing one of the particular principles that insists that God does exist...conscience/morality. But to respond to your non-response, there's a difference betwixt knowing God and his ways ..and.. instinctly understanding that He's real.
And that was my point exactly, that that is absolutely ludicris. If you state that there is an instinct in us all which tells us there is a god, then you must also believe that without a child ever being taught/talked to about/heard rumours w.e, they would still know, which i clearly pointed out is a ridiculous argument seen as most religious people are taught to be religious from being very young (and gullable).
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheStudent
Quote:
Originally Posted by Racket And one more thing:
You are really trying to say that dogs/cats/etc have a knowlage of the exsistance 'god'. We have to teach them to sit, stay etc but yet they can comprehend god?? Personally I dont think a dog can comprehend the scale of the planet it lives on never mind who or what created it.
TheStudent: No one ever said that animals can comprehend God. For the final time.. There is a difference between knowing God and his ways and being instinctly aware of his existence. It called instinct! Surely animals don't have the capacity to comprehend the complext things of God, of life, of anything.. seeing that they don't have the ability to reason and understand vividly.
To be aware of somethings existence you must be able to comprehend it to some degree, even if you cannot fully explain or understand it you must be able to comprehend that it could be, which, as i pointed out, would make it far fetched to think that all animals etc could do this.
And as for you saying "You know, I just love it how you ask me if im "saying something" (that i never stated) and then go on to answer your own question as if you're responding to something that I stated." I simple take your statments and expand them in context to a real situation to make you see how preposterous what you are saying is.
So... are you going to continue...or just except your wrong?
Look around you and you see the secular world in action There are no rules or guideline for them to follow.Kind of a whatever turns you on.What rules are there for them to beleive .so the rules are self-centered.
Look around you and you see the secular world in action There are no rules or guideline for them to follow.Kind of a whatever turns you on.What rules are there for them to beleive .so the rules are self-centered.
You mean the secular world in places like Sweden, Finland, Japan, etc... that have some of the lowest crime rates in the world??? That secular world? Yeah, it's pretty heinous isn't it??
Yet the greater majority of the population in prison are christians, hmmm.
I have heard that said before and it does not hold much weight. More people in this country are Christians than anything else. That would be like going to India and putting down Hindu's because more of them are in jail than any other faith.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.