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.
I agree that if you are an atheist, you aren’t in theory prohibited from anything.
Because atheism has no moral standard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WK91
“The implications of Darwinism: No ultimate foundations for ethics exist, no ultimate meaning in life exists, and free will is merely a human myth” Professor Provine, Cornell University.
“If evolution is true, there can be no universal moral code that people should adhere to.”
When evolutionists (atheists) attempt to be moral, they are borrowing from different religion’s worldviews.
Scripture tell us that everyone knows the biblical God, but atheists suppress the truth about God.
We have individual moral standards. Rejecting slavery for example. Funny how the biblical god doesn't seem to mind that.
You can keep your biblical 'morals'. Thanks so much anyway.
Nobody ever said that India was the only country with class distinctions. In fact, I never mentioned India. But few countries in today's world suffer from the caste distinctions still seen in India today. You want to provide links to articles you can read that say just that. Such articles are profilif when you do a Google search. PROLIFIC. But of course, your only defence is to cast aspersions on other cultures.
Read the book.
Caste exists in the US and everywhere else except it is not called caste. Just because you switch to class does not mean the discrimination is any less nasty. Discrimination is not called caste even in India, it was coined by the British colonialists who borrowed a Portuguese phrase. Facts are aspersion only in a fevered mind.
Nobody denies India has problems, caste is only one of them. More fundamental than that is economics - poverty, literacy, and jobs. But you would rather focus on religion in every case because you are unable to get past your fear and hate for religion.
So let me ask you this, for religions like Christianity and Islam, others if you choose but are there any lines of scripture or verses that just leave you feeling as though this is not something I resonate with in relation to god. I am just asking you to think more critically about these religious texts and their meaning and impact. Many have been responsible for untold suffering and misery. These texts specifically and I do not think that we can just create interpretive scapegoats. That said, please help me consider how I am simply ignorant of religion and thus misguided here.
I should add that your second paragraph is not at all what I am getting at criticizing religion or a religion. I did not focus on one and i am not about advocating for individuals to be labelled terrorists or anything else simply because of their religious beliefs - i am speaking about the religion itself and asking for a critical thinking on them on a case by case line by line basis.
I think there are alternative ways a society can create discipline, organization and structure and I think the move to secularism in Constitutions and legal systems is the greatest example of that.
We are already organized and structured with a secular constitution and a judiciary system. We are not a theocracy - assuming we both mean the US. I agree theocracy is a bad situation for all. Theology is for the spirit not for the body.
You cannot separate people from religion! No people no religion! When you attack Islam you attack Muslims, a minority in the US. Minorities are always vulnerable and attacking them based on religion is the wickedest thing one can do. Within a religious community there are a variety of ways it is practiced from orthodox to atheists. By attacking the religion, say Islam or Judaism, by highlighting the acts of a few people who are Muslims or Jews, you make all people who follow the religion easy target for abuse.
Why do you think religious people cannot also think critically? I can only sneak for Hinduism, not for any other religion, but what say about H holds for others as well.
There are two sides to religious texts (speaking only of Hj. One received and transmitted through only by teaching, heard. The rest are all what was written. Both are foundations of the religion, but the former is spiritual, the latter is worldly. The worldly stuff can be anything from how to build your house so it is filled with good fortune, to amazing and sublime works of poetry and literature, to sexual practice, yoga, medicine, administration, and punishment.
The first kind, received spiritual wisdom, never changes, it is truth.
The second kind can be followed to the word or completely ignored, of half half. Most Hindus are half half. The caste system for instance is the written kind. It was set aside and discrimination made illegal when the Indian Constitution was formed. It was not ignored because affirmative action needs to be made based on castes that were discriminated. It is a messy business just as achieving racial equality is in the US.
Some 90% of Hindus are religious. They have not lost their critical thinking.
You cannot separate people from religion! No people no religion! When you attack Islam you attack Muslims, a minority in the US. Minorities are always vulnerable and attacking them based on religion is the wickedest thing one can do.
Even more wicked than dropping stones on the heads of women because they did not want to be forced into a marriage?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb2008
Within a religious community there are a variety of ways it is practiced from orthodox to atheists. By attacking the religion, say Islam or Judaism, by highlighting the acts of a few people who are Muslims or Jews, you make all people who follow the religion easy target for abuse.
As if the neo-Nazis are waiting for an excuse. But wait, if we can not attack religious fundamentalists because that is attacking the majority, then you can not attack the neo-Nazis.
You can also not attack the minority of men who are pedophiles. Or the minority of men who are rapists. Because then you would be attacking all men.
You can also not attack the Muslim men who stone women to death because that would be attacking Muslims AND men. Oh, but you did not attack them, because they have their special get out of jail free card, being religious.
We are already organized and structured with a secular constitution and a judiciary system. We are not a theocracy - assuming we both mean the US. I agree theocracy is a bad situation for all. Theology is for the spirit not for the body.
You cannot separate people from religion! No people no religion! When you attack Islam you attack Muslims, a minority in the US. Minorities are always vulnerable and attacking them based on religion is the wickedest thing one can do. Within a religious community there are a variety of ways it is practiced from orthodox to atheists. By attacking the religion, say Islam or Judaism, by highlighting the acts of a few people who are Muslims or Jews, you make all people who follow the religion easy target for abuse.
Why do you think religious people cannot also think critically? I can only sneak for Hinduism, not for any other religion, but what say about H holds for others as well.
There are two sides to religious texts (speaking only of Hj. One received and transmitted through only by teaching, heard. The rest are all what was written. Both are foundations of the religion, but the former is spiritual, the latter is worldly. The worldly stuff can be anything from how to build your house so it is filled with good fortune, to amazing and sublime works of poetry and literature, to sexual practice, yoga, medicine, administration, and punishment.
The first kind, received spiritual wisdom, never changes, it is truth.
The second kind can be followed to the word or completely ignored, of half half. Most Hindus are half half. The caste system for instance is the written kind. It was set aside and discrimination made illegal when the Indian Constitution was formed. It was not ignored because affirmative action needs to be made based on castes that were discriminated. It is a messy business just as achieving racial equality is in the US.
Some 90% of Hindus are religious. They have not lost their critical thinking.
Being critical of religious texts amounts to an attack. That is news to me. I could counter that this view is an attack on religious diversity, free thinking, Atheism and Agnosticism etc because if you cannot critique any single religion, than you probably must adhere to it. I see this creating a lot of issues. So to be clear, i am not attacking individuals, I am critiquing religious texts and versus. I was also framing this from a global perspective, not the U.S. Im not American myself and I have no interest in singling out any religion be it majority or minority just for the sake of it. however, I must be critical of it if I want to examine whether this is something I want to make a part of my life, or make the decision to just say nah - this stuff is dated and does not reflect my value system and beliefs in general. I do not know how one would be able to reconcile it.
I did not say religious individuals cannot think critically, however I do think it is reasonable for individuals to be critical of texts and versus that are simply horrific. So I ask you again, are there any religious texts or versus that do not sit right with you and are an affront to your values. If the answer is yes than I personally would find it difficult to adhere to a religion that does not represent my value system.
I did not say religious individuals cannot think critically, however I do think it is reasonable for individuals to be critical of texts and versus that are simply horrific. So I ask you again, are there any religious texts or versus that do not sit right with you and are an affront to your values. If the answer is yes than I personally would find it difficult to adhere to a religion that does not represent my value system.
When I encounter them i first try to understand it in context. I look for resources that addresses that particular text, that particular verse and content. I ask questions, i look at several interpretations. The language the texts speak in and the terms used is ancient and it is anchored in a time and place and culture. I love this process because it reveals other discoveries. Once i have cleared my doubts and completed my research and understood it completely, it sits very well with me, and adds to my value. I am yet to encounter one that I found offensive at first glance that did not ended up aiding my understanding and adding to my amazement and appreciation of the teachings. This only strengthens my confidence in the wisdom of the ancient texts, and the rishis who have written commentaries on them.
Let me ask you if you encountered such religious texts, particularly if you do not have that language nor are you familiar with its culture, and you only approach it in translation in the only language you can read and write in, how much effort did you expend in trying to mine the meaning of the text before you dismissed it as horrific?
Being critical of religious texts amounts to an attack. That is news to me. I could counter that this view is an attack on religious diversity, free thinking, Atheism and Agnosticism etc because if you cannot critique any single religion, than you probably must adhere to it. I see this creating a lot of issues. So to be clear, i am not attacking individuals, I am critiquing religious texts and versus. I was also framing this from a global perspective, not the U.S. Im not American myself and I have no interest in singling out any religion be it majority or minority just for the sake of it. however, I must be critical of it if I want to examine whether this is something I want to make a part of my life, or make the decision to just say nah - this stuff is dated and does not reflect my value system and beliefs in general. I do not know how one would be able to reconcile it.
.
I have not seen your critiques of texts and verses so I am unable to comment on them. If they are texts that I have only superficial knowledge of, I still cannot comment on them. I would not know how much effort ypu have expended in understanding the texts thoroughly in context of its culture and in its original language. Until then i would not trust your critique of religious texts. I need to know your qualifications and authority to critique them with some expertise. Otherwise such critique has no value other than mere entertainment. Using other cultures and beliefs for entertainment is attack and yes, harmful. Insee THIS causing a lot of issues, an attack on religious diversity, free thinking and practice.
When I encounter them i first try to understand it in context. I look for resources that addresses that particular text, that particular verse and content. I ask questions, i look at several interpretations. The language the texts speak in and the terms used is ancient and it is anchored in a time and place and culture. I love this process because it reveals other discoveries. Once i have cleared my doubts and completed my research and understood it completely, it sits very well with me, and adds to my value. I am yet to encounter one that I found offensive at first glance that did not ended up aiding my understanding and adding to my amazement and appreciation of the teachings. This only strengthens my confidence in the wisdom of the ancient texts, and the rishis who have written commentaries on them.
Let me ask you if you encountered such religious texts, particularly if you do not have that language nor are you familiar with its culture, and you only approach it in translation in the only language you can read and write in, how much effort did you expend in trying to mine the meaning of the text before you dismissed it as horrific?
Sorry I didn't respond earlier. I forgot about this thread lol..
Sure i'll fire one at you
Leviticus 20:13
"If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have
committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense."
I mean i'm not sure how much digging needs to be done with this or any sort of woopidity doopity context blah blah blah about it.. By all means though - if I'm missing the gay love in this please help me to understand it..
In terms of my authority - well i'm just like the rest of us in here tapping away on my keyboard not professing to be an authority. If we needed to be experts in here i'm sure most of us wouldn't be having this discussion so I think it is pretty unfair of you, to have such expectations of me needing to be a religious scholar to question some objectively bad things in religion or partake in discussion. I'm just trying to be objective here about some awful texts that would objectively be a big turn off to shaping my worldview accommodating them.. I mean do you really think it would be hard to dig them up? So let me ask you CB - you can't dig up one thing said in religious text that you can't reconcile as being anything other than detestable?
For me, we can try to go into pretzel twists trying to go back into the minds of individuals who wrote this stuff and come up with a different meaning but to what end - how much of the texts can be trusted as credible in such instances. Objectively I don't think they are but sure - if you want to find some overarching subjective coherent meaning to it that is fine by me - I just don't see the appeal.
Sorry I didn't respond earlier. I forgot about this thread lol..
Sure i'll fire one at you
Leviticus 20:13
"If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have
committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense."
I mean i'm not sure how much digging needs to be done with this or any sort of woopidity doopity context blah blah blah about it.. By all means though - if I'm missing the gay love in this please help me to understand it..
In terms of my authority - well i'm just like the rest of us in here tapping away on my keyboard not professing to be an authority. If we needed to be experts in here i'm sure most of us wouldn't be having this discussion so I think it is pretty unfair of you, to have such expectations of me needing to be a religious scholar to question some objectively bad things in religion or partake in discussion. I'm just trying to be objective here about some awful texts that would objectively be a big turn off to shaping my worldview accommodating them.. I mean do you really think it would be hard to dig them up? So let me ask you CB - you can't dig up one thing said in religious text that you can't reconcile as being anything other than detestable?
For me, we can try to go into pretzel twists trying to go back into the minds of individuals who wrote this stuff and come up with a different meaning but to what end - how much of the texts can be trusted as credible in such instances. Objectively I don't think they are but sure - if you want to find some overarching subjective coherent meaning to it that is fine by me - I just don't see the appeal.
What's interesting to me is that we have at least one poster on our forum who, in a different era, would have probably been put to death for witchcraft.
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.
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.
