|
lol @ christianity (pg. 21)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| lex400sc |
 |
|
|
| Orbax |
| quote: | Originally posted by Miloir
They don't overlap?
- Abortion
- Gay Marriage
- Condoms
- Cloning
- Stem Cell Research
Just a couple to get you thinking.
My point is that religion is restrictive, and human nature is expansive. One cannot push boundries if there is an out-dated world-view impeding progress. Your analogy was overly simplistic and irrelevant to the true nature of the subjects you were trying to capture. |
How are those science? Science, as Ive stated previously is the method in which we observe the natural world. Those are not science, those are actions. Those are actions that may utilize scientific methodology, but science in of itself has no moral connotation.
And I disagree with you saying that "religion" (again that overbroad value-less statement) is restrictive. As you said yourself there are many religions and to say that all religions necessarily restrict human nature (and I dont know if would agree that it is "expansive" whatever you meant by that) is indeed a bold claim.
edit: also, are you saying that if there was no religion the issues you mentioned would not have moral problems surrounding them still? |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
| stem cell research is pretty sciency |
|
|
| Miloir |
| quote: | | Originally posted by Orbax How are those science? Science, as Ive stated previously is the method in which we observe the natural world. Those are not science, those are actions. Those are actions that may utilize scientific methodology, but science in of itself has no moral connotation. |
You are correct, those are not scientific ideas; but that was not my point.
Science has realized that human embryos prior to a certian age are basically nothing more than a growing mass of cells.
Science has found that condoms reduce the risk of pregnancy and transmission of STDs - christians preach that condoms are not to be used, because the semen that could have entered the female does not get a chance to create life.
Science has discovered ways to recreate organisms, albiet in a sloppy manner - and there was a monumental out-cry from Christian conservatives; why?
Ultimately, the scientific method is in direct conflict with faith. If you tried to have faith that an experiment would work, you would be getting nowhere fast; if you tried to apply the scientific method to a faith, you would be hard-pressed to find anything to work with.
| quote: | | Originally posted by Orbax And I disagree with you saying that "religion" (again that overbroad value-less statement) is restrictive. As you said yourself there are many religions and to say that all religions necessarily restrict human nature (and I dont know if would agree that it is "expansive" whatever you meant by that) is indeed a bold claim. |
I'll concede that "religion" is too broad a term. Alternatively, I felt that "Christianity" was too restrictive, and frankly I didn't want to single it out because it's not the only culprit here.
By human nature being "expansive" I was describing its tendancy to be curious, to move forward, to try new things; any form of outward movement - be it literal or metaphorical.
To say that the prominent religions of our day are restrictive, is not a bold claim unless said in a room full of hicks. To the objective bystander, a religion that forbids a man to do something moreso than his society requires is restrictive. Therefore, Christianity (and others, please don't forget any that apply here) is a hindrance.
| quote: | | Originally posted by Orbax edit: also, are you saying that if there was no religion the issues you mentioned would not have moral problems surrounding them still? |
Good question - I'm not entirely sure. For starters, you describe the issue as a moral one. Morality is not universal, it is relative to the society in which it is being described. So you would have to consider what a truly secular culture would do in these particular situations. I suspect that these issues I raised would have a much smaller opposition to them. |
|
|
| Orbax |
| quote: | Originally posted by Miloir
Science has realized that human embryos prior to a certian age are basically nothing more than a growing mass of cells.
Science has found that condoms reduce the risk of pregnancy and transmission of STDs - christians preach that condoms are not to be used, because the semen that could have entered the female does not get a chance to create life.
Science has discovered ways to recreate organisms, albiet in a sloppy manner - and there was a monumental out-cry from Christian conservatives; why?
Ultimately, the scientific method is in direct conflict with faith. If you tried to have faith that an experiment would work, you would be getting nowhere fast; if you tried to apply the scientific method to a faith, you would be hard-pressed to find anything to work with.
|
People used science and realized realized embryos prior...
People using science have found...
People using science have discovered...
Ultimately people using faith (that which explains supernatural) to explain natural matter would be incorrect in their methods.
| quote: | | I'll concede that "religion" is too broad a term. Alternatively, I felt that "Christianity" was too restrictive, and frankly I didn't want to single it out because it's not the only culprit here. |
To just end the terminology conflict, pick the specific group of beliefs you find faulty because there are so many types of religions from monotheism to polytheism to deism to atheism and non-theistic relgions...just find the one you are saying has a conflict and then put the premises that preclude the scientific premises.
| quote: | By human nature being "expansive" I was describing its tendancy to be curious, to move forward, to try new things; any form of outward movement - be it literal or metaphorical.
To say that the prominent religions of our day are restrictive, is not a bold claim unless said in a room full of hicks. To the objective bystander, a religion that forbids a man to do something moreso than his society requires is restrictive. Therefore, Christianity (and others, please don't forget any that apply here) is a hindrance. |
Well...human nature is to restrict excess . You cant say that societies' laws are all ecclesiastical. People restrict people through various codifications and "religion" does apply as one of those.
Although I would disagree that the "any" statement would apply to some of the eastern philosophies.
| quote: | | Good question - I'm not entirely sure. For starters, you describe the issue as a moral one. Morality is not universal, it is relative to the society in which it is being described. So you would have to consider what a truly secular culture would do in these particular situations. I suspect that these issues I raised would have a much smaller opposition to them. |
Do I detect traces of Moral Relativism in there? Just because the opposition would be less unified doesnt mean to say that the same number of people would be uncomfortable with ideas such as cloning humans. People used to think if you went over 25 mph your blood would boil so attack of the clones isnt gonna be any more comforting to the human psyche. |
|
|
| Miloir |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orbax
People used science and realized realized embryos prior...
People using science have found...
People using science have discovered...
Ultimately people using faith (that which explains supernatural) to explain natural matter would be incorrect in their methods. |
You have not negated my statement that faith and science are opposites. Furthermore, I don't think you've said anything.
| quote: | Originally posted by Orbax
To just end the terminology conflict, pick the specific group of beliefs you find faulty because there are so many types of religions from monotheism to polytheism to deism to atheism and non-theistic relgions...just find the one you are saying has a conflict and then put the premises that preclude the scientific premises. |
I cannot realistically refine my position any further than "religion" because I will not list the majority of world faiths every time I want to clarify. If I come across a specific situation where "religion" is not an applicable term, I will state such. (By the by, atheism is not a religion.)
| quote: | Originally posted by Orbax Well...human nature is to restrict excess . You cant say that societies' laws are all ecclesiastical. People restrict people through various codifications and "religion" does apply as one of those.
Although I would disagree that the "any" statement would apply to some of the eastern philosophies. |
Human nature is not to "restrict excess." Where are you getting this from?
I never said that society's laws are all related to religion. Again, where is this coming from?
Society tries to restrict people from doing things that would be negative to the cummunity. Religion applies additional rules that are unnecessary: No condoms, no meat on fridays, go do this on some day of the week, sacrifice a dozen sheep during the spring solstice. Etc... In truth, I have issues with these things each individually based on how silly and harmful they are, but I have a bigger problem with why they exist in the first place.
| quote: | | Originally posted by Orbax Do I detect traces of Moral Relativism in there? Just because the opposition would be less unified doesnt mean to say that the same number of people would be uncomfortable with ideas such as cloning humans. People used to think if you went over 25 mph your blood would boil so attack of the clones isnt gonna be any more comforting to the human psyche. |
Morality is not absolute and universal, it is relative; what of it? (and why did you capitalize it?)
"Just because the opposition would be less unified doesnt mean to say that the same number of people would be uncomfortable with ideas such as cloning humans." What does this statement of yours mean? Less unified? Same number of people? What are you talking about? It seems like you don't know what you want to say here, and you've put together some vague words to throw me off course.
Nonetheless, I've extracted from the above that you think people would be uncomfortable with cloning of humans even if they had no belief-system to derive excuses from; and like I said, there's no way of knowing. You'd have to consider exactly how the cloning would be used. Suppose it was a service wherein someone was cloned, and then the person's memories were implanted just before death into the clone, creating semi-immortality. I don't think people in a secular society would object to that with vigor, do you? |
|
|
| DJ Legs |
Honestly, who gives a ?:rolleyes:
We are here, lets leave it at that. |
|
|
| lex400sc |
| arguing religion is pointless and stupid. you can't argue with the faithful based on the merits of logic and epicurian thought when their belief structure has no space or purpose for it. faith can not be rationalized out of someone, it's something engrained into the fundamental psychology of someone either by their genetic predisposition towards spirituality or the fact that they were raised from birth by the people they trust the most to know no other way. you're all wasting time running around in circles! |
|
|
| Miloir |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Legs Honestly, who gives a ?:rolleyes:
We are here, lets leave it at that. |
It's a game of chess my man. |
|
|
| Miloir |
| quote: | | Originally posted by lex400sc arguing religion is pointless and stupid. you're all wasting time running around in circles! |
Then why did you bring it up? |
|
|
| lex400sc |
| quote: | Originally posted by Miloir
Then why did you bring it up? |
bring what up? the purpose of this thread was to laugh at creationist literature. it's already been assumed they are wrong, why argue it? |
|
|
| djmetatron |
| quote: | Originally posted by Miloir
It's a game of chess my man. |
hey man, whats up. you really sick today? |
|
|
|
|
