Is religion good even if it's false?

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
Post Reply
User avatar
PaulNZ
Posts: 595
Joined: January 27th, 2011, 3:56 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Marcus Aurelius

Post by PaulNZ »

Spectrum wrote:PaulNZ, I appreciate you are ignoring the tone factor.
English is not my first language thus the tone may be
a bit awkward and lack grace on the more intense issues.

I am not an acdemician nor I am inclined towards that.
Philosophically, I am truth-driven and thus have the
tendency to break everything into its smallest piece
of knowledge, leave no stone unturned and explore from there.

As for Islam, I admit I am a bit bias, but that is
based on facts. Being truth-driven, I have studied Islam very thoroughly.
Note 17,035 Islam-related very violent attacks since 911.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
Muslims are better off without Islam, they should choose
another non-violent religion, be agnostic or non-theist.
Thanks for clearing that up Spectrum. We do lose a lot when we communicate in the written form only.

:wink:
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13821
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Post by Belinda »

From what I have read of PaulNZ's he is a liberal religionist probably I guess an Anglican, or whatever Anglicans are called in NZ, or maybe a Presbyterian of the gentler sort.

I am thinking of a contribution I read this morning on another thread about how 'science' is better as a verb(Keith Russell then Spectrum I think)and I suggest that 'religion' is another of those concepts that are wrongly 'thingified' when they are not things, but are something that people do or experience.Therefore, just as there are better ways to do science, so there are better ways to do religion. PaulNZ's and others' liberal way is better that the authoritarian way because the liberal way is not only less divisive but also can lead individuals to love the pursuit of truth and to question.

There are Christians,Jews and Muslims who prefer to blindly follow some leader (cultish) and there are also Christians, Jews and Muslims who blindly follow some doctrine without sceptically questioning it.Having said this however, I have to admit that Christians, unlike Muslims have not for quite a few centuries past killed and tortured in the name of Christ. Wasn't Bloody Mary the last English monarch to do this? In support of Muslims, the greater Jihad is not about colonising and killing other people but about overcoming the evil within oneself.
Socialist
User avatar
PaulNZ
Posts: 595
Joined: January 27th, 2011, 3:56 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Marcus Aurelius

Post by PaulNZ »

Belinda wrote: There are Christians,Jews and Muslims who prefer to blindly follow some leader (cultish) and there are also Christians, Jews and Muslims who blindly follow some doctrine without sceptically questioning it.Having said this however, I have to admit that Christians, unlike Muslims have not for quite a few centuries past killed and tortured in the name of Christ. Wasn't Bloody Mary the last English monarch to do this? In support of Muslims, the greater Jihad is not about colonising and killing other people but about overcoming the evil within oneself.
Thanks Belinda. I am liberal in thinking, Presbyterian but from an atheist upbringing, so wouldn't really know what I am! I am optimistic and keen to learn, I know that much! I challenged the minister to justify his thinking last night at a study group when he agreed with the content of a passage in Romans regarding homosexuality and stated that homosexuality is a sin. We stated our opinions on the matter which were poles apart and left it there.

The minister believed that sexuality was on a spectrum, which I can accept. But he went on to say that to "choose" to have a homosexual lifestyle is a sin, to which I couldn't agree with. On the positive he put others present right on their narrow minded hostile stance on the topic by tempering his opinion with "we must show them love" until they are ready.

Of course I think people are people and this passage has no place in modern society. This is scripture that we can choose to ignore because it is irrelevant. The church will change in time, should it have the necessary time left to change, it has to. Archaic thinking like this has no place in this day and age.

To get back on track, I believe this particular part of scripture to be outdated and should be ignored. I don't think it is false, I just believe that it is out of context in our society knowing what we know now. There are other sections and concepts like this which are outdated, women being thought of as inferior and treated as property for example.

Some sections of scripture are clearly allegorical and not true in the sense that they are historical fact. These sections often contain elements of wisdom and universal truths which have value and although false, clearly have value and should not be ignored.

Other sections are based on history and are verifiable via other means.

So as a whole, we are faced with accepting some bits and ignoring others for various reasons, whether those bits are true or false. I believe the value is in what we can take from it in a positive sense that translates to modern life.



:?:
Dewey
Premium Member
Posts: 830
Joined: October 28th, 2007, 1:45 pm
Location: California

Post by Dewey »

Just suppose. Jesus is a Moor living in a barren, inhospitable land. He and his Muslim followers are at war with their Meccan neighbors. The Meccans began the
conflict by raiding the caravans of the Moors. Jesus encourages his followers to economically recover as well as reprise by raiding the Meccan caravans. To increase their motivation, Jesus creates the Jihad concept.

Jesus, of course, motivates himself into this political defense by resurrecting the Abrahamic Covenant.

Juliet says:
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."

Jesus? Muhammad?
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13821
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Post by Belinda »

I think I would class Biblical injunctions against homosexuality under 'Hygiene and Social Needs' Homosexuality is bad according to social controllers because all sexual revelry tends to be uncontrollable therefore controllers want sex to be limited to necessary reproduction purposes, not pleasure.
Socialist
User avatar
Antone
Posts: 423
Joined: August 29th, 2010, 11:02 am

Post by Antone »

Belinda wrote:I think I would class Biblical injunctions against homosexuality under 'Hygiene and Social Needs' Homosexuality is bad according to social controllers because all sexual revelry tends to be uncontrollable therefore controllers want sex to be limited to necessary reproduction purposes, not pleasure.
Historically, homosexuality has been condemned by the majority of societies because communities (and memes) have the same imperative that individuals do... and that is to multiply and be plentiful.

It is the same reason that men have traditionally been the ones that go to war while women stay home. One man can impregnate a whole community of women, and build back up the communities numbers within a generation--so it is the woman that is the bottle neck to increasing the communities numbers.

That's why when the conquer takes his spoils (historically) the men and children were killed, but the women were take and added to the conquering tribe--to increase it's numbers.

This is the most fundamental imperative of every major religion that has enjoyed any modicum of success... and it is the reason that most successful cultures (and religions) have had a strong prohibition against homosexuality. Many of the 'witches' that were persecuted (over the years) were simply old lesbian couples living alone, away from the community.

In today's modern world, where war has become less common (and less death intensive), it would appear that such prohibitions are less important--because the community doesn't have as great a need to replenish its members.

Still, there are many effects of this sort of a social shift... for example, the surplus of elderly people world wide and the shortage of younger (work age people) is a direct result of increases in abortions, homosexuality, and various social pressures (and attitudes) that no longer encourage people to have large families. If you took the number of abortions that Family Planning has performed, and added that to the work force, we would not be having a retirement age crisis in America.

Bottom line, most social customs exist for a reasons. When the forces that made those customs necessary change... or the custom themselves change, for any reason, you are likely to have social difficulties for several decades while the customs realign themselves to the new conditions.
User avatar
pjkeeley
Posts: 695
Joined: April 10th, 2007, 8:41 am

Post by pjkeeley »

Antone wrote:...is a direct result of increases in abortions, homosexuality...
Please provide evidence of a supposed increase in homosexuality.
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13821
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Post by Belinda »

If you took the number of abortions that Family Planning has performed, and added that to the work force, we would not be having a retirement age crisis in America.
You are so right to view those two problems together, Antone, because old people do still despite so many benefical automatic aids need younger helpers to care for them. The other problem is that the world is over- populated by humans.

I think that immigration by low wage earners would solve the problem of old people's need for young carers, if the immigrants were suitably educated of course.This solution would also allow the poor immigrants to earn good enough money not to feel it necessary to have too many kids, and also with luck, get therselves liberally educated and become good Americans.

As for homosexuality, and masturbation too, both are alternative means of birth control which is good for the global environment and good for improving the lives of many child bearing women.Everntually a few carefully selected men may be retained only for purposes of procreation. :(
Socialist
User avatar
Antone
Posts: 423
Joined: August 29th, 2010, 11:02 am

Post by Antone »

Belinda wrote:The other problem is that the world is over- populated by humans.
I don't think the world is currently overpopulated--although some regions of the world may be. Mass starvation in Africa during a drought is a clear indication that that part of the world is TOO highly populated (given its level of technology, form of government, and so forth--and the deaths of many is the earth's way of equalizing that imbalance. But whether the overpopulation problem is in the FUTURE or the PRESENT it is undoubtedly a problem that is on the way and will have to be dealt with eventually--or the earth will do it for us, much as it has in Africa and other places.

One of the biggest problems, of course, is that we are living in a so-called, CIVILIZED, MODERN world. And one of the results of this type of world is ironically that fewer people die in war. Historically, WAR has been one of man's principle ways of re-balancing its communities.

As with all things, there are two reciprocal forces at work here. On the one hand, you have the need of WAR to whittle down the population counts. On the other, you have the necessity of building up the population levels so that your community will be strong enough to weather the next war and come out victorious.

Modern society has interfered with this global social dynamics--which has been universal throughout virtually all of human history, and which is a pattern also followed by the vast majority of other living organisms, including plants.
Belinda wrote:...immigration by low wage earners would solve the problem of old people's need for young carers, if the immigrants were suitably educated of course.This solution would also allow the poor immigrants to earn good enough money not to feel it necessary to have too many kids, and also with luck, get therselves liberally educated and become good Americans.
This sounds very much like the traditional method that America used to bring in immigrants... except that you failed to mention the most important ingredients--which is that they must be highly motivated, "legal" immigrants.

In addition, there are important traditional American principles that must be in place, in order to make this system work--and foremost among those is that each person must work hard to earn their own bread.

The Liberal social welfare system has largely destroyed this social ethic--and so many of the immigrants who enter the US end up being more dead weight. One of the reasons that health care costs are so high in America is because of the radically liberal policies, such as the one that says a hospital can't turn away a patient if they show up at the emergency ward and ask for help. Many poor (including illegal aliens) use ERs as their primary health care, and never pay their bills. Schools and prisons have similar dynamics, where illegals are a severe drain on society.

It used to be that immigrants would do almost anything to come to partake in the American dream of building a better life for themselves. And the vast majority of immigrants ended up being much better off within a few generations than they were before. But the current situation is totally different. This is not to say that there aren't illegal immigrants who might become law-abiding, productive citizens--but percentage wise, the numbers have shifted so far south that an immigration policy based on promoting cheap labor through an influx of illegal aliens is extremely destructive. It promotes lawlessness, it shifts the voter base towards the democrats who vote in destructive, big-government policies that stifle the economy, wrack up massive debt, and favor increases in the various destructive social welfare programs.

Illegal immigration is not a solution to the growing aged population--it is part of what is creating the problem. It would seem to keep inflation low--by providing low wage workers for those who would take advantage of them. But this is only a short-term gain, and only for the wealthy--who want to hire cheap servants and other employees. In the long run, however, it depresses the economy by impoverishing the average lower to middle class individuals, who must compete for the lower wages. And because these people have less money to save (to go into business for themselves) or to spend, the over all economy suffers as well.

Bottom line: When poor immigrants come to America these days, it's far too easy to become an additional drain, rather than a productive citizen.

I agree that immigration could solve much of America's demographic imbalance, but (particularly with the current liberal social welfare programs in place) we should be discouraging low-skilled, illegal immigrants and encouraging high-skilled, legal immigrants. Our policies on the former are WAY too liberal, while our policies on the later are far too limiting. It is far easier for the former to enter America than the later. And that causes problems too--because those law abiding immigrants see that they're being screwed--they had to spend years and a great deal of effort to EARN their citizenship, while the illegals jump ahead in line and don't have to do anything for their American 'perks'. This (justifiably) promotes resentment and a lack of respect for the law, and that is never a good way to begin one's membership in any society.
pjkeeley wrote:Please provide evidence of a supposed increase in homosexuality.
No thank you. I also do not feel the need to provide proof that the sun rises in the morning.

I will make one amendment to my comments, which may address your real concern. And that is that it may not actually be the incidences of homosexual tendencies which has increased, but rather the percentage of those who feel these tendencies that act upon them.

Also, I acknowledge that there have been a few other societies (throughout history) such as the Greeks, who did 'embrace' homosexuality with an unusual degree of openness. But some would argue that this 'openness' was part of what lead to the downfall of Greek. That's still an open debate, I suspect. lol.

However, I also recall a number of studies which seem to suggest that a rather large percentage of 'gay' individuals also had same-sex encounters during their early formative years--suggesting that exposure to such events can increase one's likelihood of adopting homosexual tendencies. (Which is why the gay-agenda to get pro-homosexual study material into the hands of very young children is so pernicious.)
http://www.biblebelievers.com/Cameron3.html
Two large studies asked homosexual respondents to explain the origins of their desires and behaviors - how they "got that way." ... Both reported essentially the same findings: Homosexuals overwhelmingly believed their feelings and behavior were the result of social or environmental influences.
This suggests that those societies where homosexuality is more openly accepted will also have a higher population of homosexuals. And given that homosexuality has become much more acceptable and openly practiced (and even 'taught' to our youngest children) seems to indicate (by logical deduction) that there would be a greater prevalence of homosexuality as a result.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a homophobe; and some of my best friends are gay. But that doesn't change the facts.
ANicholson
Posts: 2
Joined: April 27th, 2011, 6:13 pm

Post by ANicholson »

It sounds like you have no question on if religion is real, so i would say read Nietzche, he has a pretty decent view that when we were less intelligent as a species god played a role and we had a need for religion to teach morality, but it is now the 21st century and if you need god to tell you to be a good person then there's something wrong with you haha
Cronos988
Posts: 347
Joined: April 25th, 2011, 7:11 am

Post by Cronos988 »

Antone wrote:
pjkeeley wrote:Please provide evidence of a supposed increase in homosexuality.
No thank you. I also do not feel the need to provide proof that the sun rises in the morning.
Witty remarks don't absolve from the burden of proof, you know. Everyone has observed the sun rising in the morning, not everyone has seen studies indicating that homosexuality is on the rise.

I also do not see how more homosexuality can be considered "bad".
Antone wrote:
However, I also recall a number of studies which seem to suggest that a rather large percentage of 'gay' individuals also had same-sex encounters during their early formative years--suggesting that exposure to such events can increase one's likelihood of adopting homosexual tendencies. (Which is why the gay-agenda to get pro-homosexual study material into the hands of very young children is so pernicious.)
Two large studies asked homosexual respondents to explain the origins of their desires and behaviors - how they "got that way." ... Both reported essentially the same findings: Homosexuals overwhelmingly believed their feelings and behavior were the result of social or environmental influences.
This suggests that those societies where homosexuality is more openly accepted will also have a higher population of homosexuals. And given that homosexuality has become much more acceptable and openly practiced (and even 'taught' to our youngest children) seems to indicate (by logical deduction) that there would be a greater prevalence of homosexuality as a result.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a homophobe; and some of my best friends are gay. But that doesn't change the facts.
The Problem with that argument is that, if homosexuality were to be cause by outside influences, and at the same time, as you have stated, most societies have strong prohibitions against it, why did it not die out?

We know from many animals that sexuality is determined genetically, and it seems illogical to assume that out of all sexual "disorders" homosexuality would be the one externally caused.

Pointing out studies form 1940 (sic!) where most people did not even know what genetics are, does not much further the cause. Also those studies do not account for the fact that while homosexual behavior (like almost all behavior) is partly learned, it does not follow that the sexual orientation underlying it is too.

Lastly, it is hard to imagine how homosexuality could be "thaught". How can you be taught to be attracted to something? Are you attracted to the same kind of women all your friends like? Are we "taught" to like blondes over brunettes? All that argumentation seems rather unlikely to me.
User avatar
Antone
Posts: 423
Joined: August 29th, 2010, 11:02 am

Post by Antone »

Cronos988 wrote:Witty remarks don't absolve from the burden of proof, you know. ...
The remark was not intended to be witty, I'm simply not interested in having that argument. If you don't think it is self-evident that a sexually permissive society breeds an increase in whatever kind of behavior is permitted... if you don't think raising children in a particular environment will change the types of feelings they have about that environment... If you don't think the apparent statistical fact that people who have homosexual encounters as a youth tend to become homosexual as adults indicates that in a permissive society more people will be gay... then feel free to disagree with my conclusions.
Cronos988 wrote:I also do not see how more homosexuality can be considered "bad".
I don't think I ever said it was bad. I simply said that it lead to certain inevitable conditions. If you believe those conditions are bad, then increased homosexuality must be considered a bad thing--at least to the extent that in increases those conditions. If you don't, then it isn't.
Cronos988 wrote: The Problem with that argument is that, if homosexuality were to be cause by outside influences, and at the same time, as you have stated, most societies have strong prohibitions against it, why did it not die out?
Again, you are claiming that I've said things that I'm pretty darn sure I never said.

Homosexuality is not CAUSED by outside forces. In the wild, a certain percentage of a great many species will tend to engage in homosexual behavior--and humans are certainly no different. There is nothing genetically abnormal about this. This, however, is looking at the situation from the perspective of the individual. Society, however, often has different needs and different driving forces than the individual.

As an individual, a man wants to survive; but as a society, a community may need that man to go and sacrifice his life in a war.

Similarly, a person may be fascinated by a homosexual relationship and find personal pleasure from it. But historically, the main directive of every society (except those isolated in a micro-environment of plenty) has been to multiply and replenish the community so that their will be enough disposable males to populate the community's armies... and do the heavy, dangerous work require of men in non-modern societies. This makes the community stronger--and so it also tends to make the individual safer and more prosperous.

Because of this, there are many social factors that apply pressure to the individual--moving them away from the urge to experiment with homosexual desires. Because there are fewer people who are willing to openly explore such things, children are exposed to homosexual ideas much more rarely... And so, while their sexual appetites are developing, they are less likely to be thinking about the same sex... and so they are less likely to form habits that lead them to find satisfaction from same-sex behavior.
Cronos988 wrote:hard to imagine how homosexuality could be "taught".
Again you seem to be assuming far too much. I never said that homosexuality was picked up entirely from the environment. I don't think that would be correct at all, but I suspect that (as with all types of characteristics) more is learned than is often supposed.

In PSYCHO-CYBERNETICS, Maxwell Maltz tells a story about how a talented mathematician came to believe (as a child) that he was terrible at math. He did poorly on one of the early math tests and became convinced that he had no talent for it. He always got very poor grades and never seemed capable of understanding the lessons.

Then, one day, he noticed an answer in the back of the book that was wrong. When he pointed this fact out, the teacher was incapable of believing it. As a result of this event--and the realization that he was smarter than the teacher on this one question--his characteristics and abilities totally changed, and almost instantly he became a very good math student, pursuing rather advanced courses in college.

Similarly, experiments seem to indicate that infants pick up on subliminal clues that inform them as to the type of behavior that is appropriate (or inappropriate) for their sex. These subliminal social clues are believed to be largely what is responsible for many of the behavioral differences between boys and girls.

This explains why girls are much more likely to be talented athletes today than they were 30 years ago. The same social clues are no longer quite so prevalent--and so girls feel less inhibited about aggressively pursuing sports.

In the same way, children pick up sexual clues. If they live in a society where homosexuality is frowned on to such an extent that people would burn you at the stake for being homosexual--then fewer children will act on their homosexual urges. But there will also, I think, be fewer homosexual urges to begin with.

Who sits around daydreaming about slicing their arm open with a knife. But if a child experiences pain at the same time that they feel sexual stirrings, they can easily learn to associate the pleasure with the pain. And they can develop stronger and stronger urges in this direction over time. In the same way, if a boy happens to get a hard-on while their teacher is talking about homosexual topics, they might learn to associate their sexual gratification with men. It may simply start as a curious kind of thing--why did that happen when she was talking about a man? What's wrong with me? Is something wrong? Do I prefer looking at male bodies?

And the more these questions are asked, the more the possibility is reinforced. And the stronger the homosexual tendencies are likely to become.

But if no talking about homosexuals was being done--then this situation never arises. And so there's another person how develops heterosexual tendencies.

This is not to say that no people would develop homosexual tendencies--that's unrealistic--but it's a numbers things; and I do think a permissive and open society will skew the numbers in the direction of the permissiveness. To me, it's just common sense.
OTavern
Posts: 458
Joined: January 27th, 2008, 8:43 pm

Post by OTavern »

Keith Russell wrote:Every now and then, when someone learns of my atheism, the reaction is to question my morality.

The response usually goes like this:

"You're an atheist? Than, if you don't believe that "God" is watching over you, then there's nothing to stop you from stealing, raping, and murdering all the time?"

Whilw I (usually) don't respond this way, my thought is usually that if certain religious persons would happily rape, steal, and murder--except for the fact that they believe "God" is keeping tabs on them--then I don't want to do anything to disabuse them of their belief in "Him"!
Perhaps you are misunderstanding the religious person. If the universe is merely a material phenomenon, then deriving oughts from what "is" falls under the naturalistic fallacy, which means there is no universal moral principle to guide behaviour. After all, matter "just don't care" whether you is a rock, an ape or a dismembered, maggot infested lump of flesh.

Your answer might be, "Yes, but I care!" Certainly! But trying to universalize that "individual" sentiment and make it an absolutely binding moral principle such as, "All human beings should care in the same way as I do," has no cogent support except by sympathetically appealing to the same sentiment in other humans. After all, Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun, Adolph Hitler, et al, seem to have gotten a great deal of mileage and success stirring up contrary sentiments in their fellow earth dwellers. You would have failed in trying to convince them that you have found a "better way." Better in what sense, materially speaking?

However, to say "You should care about others because the Force that created the universe cares infinitely for human beings – and wants you to do likewise and because the "Tao" that is written into the fabric and meaning of existence ordains that you should always act rightly regarding other human beings [and this is important] whether you want to or not, whether you, at this moment, feel like it or not – is an entirely different matter.

The point here is that moral prescriptions, if they are merely based upon what you want or feel at the moment, are subject to alteration when you do not feel like following them and may, in fact, slowly erode because they are merely based upon what you as a frail, faulty, potentially maggot infested, human being can muster in the way of empathy or goodness. However, to base moral prescriptions upon something [or Someone] universal, timeless and the ultimate Source of the universe is to say that these principles are to be lived, regardless of your temperament, mental state or willingness to be congenial to others, at all times.

Personally, I would feel safer, morally speaking, in the hands of someone who believes their moral beliefs are grounded in the Creator of the universe, than at the mercy of anyone who sincerely believes they are the ultimate author of what is right "for them." The latter individuals seems to have a much more perfunctory and parochial grasp of ethics, since they believe only in themselves as having ultimate jurisdiction as the supreme arbiters of how and when others ought to be valued. That, to me, is a scary proposition.
User avatar
Oisif
Posts: 226
Joined: April 20th, 2011, 10:26 am

Post by Oisif »

ANicholson wrote:It sounds like you have no question on if religion is real, so i would say read Nietzche, he has a pretty decent view that when we were less intelligent as a species god played a role and we had a need for religion to teach morality, but it is now the 21st century and if you need god to tell you to be a good person then there's something wrong with you haha
Religion does not teach morality; it assumes it, as a universal, and addresses the effect of morality on the human psyche. Nietzsche's view is certainly applicable to 'organised religion', which in the West has steadily lost credibility since the Renaissance, to the point that the few who partake in it may do so out of loyalty to a social tradition rather than active belief in the humanly-regulated deity they purport to serve. Because official religion did not, does not, primarily address the personal human condition, but primarily social conditions.

There is no reason to suppose that mankind has gained in intelligence since the earliest recorded history. Men were just as sentient as now, at least as emotionally mature, and equally resourceful, given the limited knowledge of the time. What is notable is that, while their preoccupation was with the ineluctable forces of nature- flood, famine and the like- modern threats to humanity stem from humanity's own avoidable failings: warfare, desertification, starvation, terrorism, global warming, structural economic defects. So one might legitimately assert that people today, despite the Industrial Revolution, have made no advance in intelligence; and the ancients, were they somehow to be present now, might shake their heads in wonder at modern folly, and with reason conclude that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and perhaps a fatal one.

There have of course been claims for divine revelation since ancient times, that may be considered worth inspection. But the conclusion must surely be that human nature has not changed, at least, not for the better, and the case for religious faith in principle is as strong- or as weak- as it ever was.
Cronos988
Posts: 347
Joined: April 25th, 2011, 7:11 am

Post by Cronos988 »

OTavern wrote: Personally, I would feel safer, morally speaking, in the hands of someone who believes their moral beliefs are grounded in the Creator of the universe, than at the mercy of anyone who sincerely believes they are the ultimate author of what is right "for them." The latter individuals seems to have a much more perfunctory and parochial grasp of ethics, since they believe only in themselves as having ultimate jurisdiction as the supreme arbiters of how and when others ought to be valued. That, to me, is a scary proposition.
Yet the supreme arbiter of any religious tenant, and consequently of all religious moral values, is human, too. So you believe that religious leaders are better suited to observe morality than each person for themselves?
Is believing in the bible and it's interpretation by the pope different from believing in "Mein Kampf" and it's interpretation by Hitler? (Yes, I am exaggerating, but still, religions are as man made as anything else).
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021