|
Catholics are outraged...again (pg. 8)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| woscar |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
That's what the "claims of knowledge" are for, Woscar. It gives purpose to the moral laws in the community (and makes themselves feel better too - aren't you much more comfortable being aware that, if you do what you're told, you're going to get some sort of reward and/or contribute to the larger scheme of things?). |
Interesting choice of words, Marcus. "Claims of knowledge". That's exactly what religions do. :p
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Next time you talk about science to a religious fundamentalist (sorry, Craig, you don't count, you're too smart :p) tell them they should ditch God because it is stupid. One of the most popular counter-arguments for the preservation of God is the following: Without God, there's no morality. |
Haha, I know. I get this argument every time I talk to someone about my atheism. At one point in the conversation, the words "so were do you get your morals from?" are inevitably uttered. Usually with a condescending smirk attached. No matter how much I explain things to them, it usually ends with an offer to pray for me so that one day I may see the light of God.
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Now you're thinking too much like an atheist.
|
Quit it Marcus! You're making me blush! :p
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
If you tell a Christian that her beliefs are completely nonsensical and that she's taking too much for granted, she'll be quick to point out that you assume far too much: that the universe is purposeless, and that your bleak description of reality is so meaningless as to be outrageous.
"But, such is life", you may say. But, to her, a life with faithful meaning is much more important (and closer to reality) than a cautious meaningless view of the universe. |
Very true, much to my dismay.
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Huh? Muslims belief in Jesus too, a blow on Christianity would eventually a(n albeit minor) blow to Islamic faith as well :conf: |
I already acknowledged that was a brain fart of sorts a few posts above. :p |
|
|
| woscar |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Sometimes I don't know if you don't understand or you simply disregard the finer points. I stated that the afterlife does't figure prominately in judaism which is true. I also stated not that Catholics don't believe in hell but that they don't believe that Christianity is the only path to God, this there is no join us or go to hell condition. With regard to whether or not some of those I mentioned are religions or philosophies we're probably into a semantics thing. So I hope this eithe cleared up your confusion or corrected your attempt at misdirection, whichever applies.
Man, posting from my blackberry sucks. F-you Mike and Jim! |
:stongue:
Get off your high horse, mate. All I did was point some things that you left out from your explanations. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
See, I thought you were taking the piss, but here’s my response to lira which im really saying to you now.
Well, its just such a retarded argument.
Yes, there is a (pointless and pedantic) argument that could be made that there is no objective morality without god. the fact that this is irrelevant* though is completely lost on most. Then there’s the fact that its impossible to reconcile the different laws of the 3 desert gods, so any claim that morality comes from god is completely moot, as there is no definitive moral framework which can be referenced. This therefore entails human beings having to make up their own minds about what is acceptable “moral” behaviour and what isn’t. this is rationality, not god’s word.
And of course, there’s the fact that human beings existed for thousands of years before the desert god deemed it necessary to dabble in human affairs, and I would posit that early man still had guidelines that benefitted the group and individual, so early foundations of “moral” behaviour pre-date, say, moses going up sinai with a chisel.
*Objective morality from god is irrelevant because human beings are more than capable of making laws that protect the group or individual, without having to reference external, spiritual forces. There are rational reasons for legislating against murder or rape or theft. Such laws benefit the society and while they might have evolved alongside the beginnings of spiritual belief, I think they could have easily existed separately. Indeed, since “modern” religions pay absolutely no heed to the extinct religion(s) they overran (you know, other than to borrow a few concepts here and there), I would like to see an argument from a theist to explain how early man survived its millennia of moral decay before the “true” word of the lord created objective morality. |
By the way, I agree with you, don't get me wrong. And, you're right, from an outsider's point of view, it is pedantic: It hastily concludes that there's no morality but the one imposed by an authority figure, and it's too simplistic for many reasons, some of which you pointed out.
What I'm saying is that the moment a religious person asks this sort of question, we're offered a good insight of what religion really is about. Can we live without it? Why, yes! Will we ever live without it? I can't see that happen in the near future.
| quote: | Originally posted by woscar
I get this argument every time I talk to someone about my atheism. At one point in the conversation, the words "so were do you get your morals from?" are inevitably uttered. Usually with a condescending smirk attached. No matter how much I explain things to them, it usually ends with an offer to pray for me so that one day I may see the light of God. |
People are often surprised when I tell them I'm an atheist exactly for that reason - I try to be as polite and honest as possible, and apparently these are not the sort of qualities you'd expect from the faithless.
My answer is usually something like "I've got 7 billion people to care about and that I share the planet with. Their existence and well-being matter more to me than what an entity I've never seen could ever say" and this is usually just met with a nod. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
By the way, I agree with you, don't get me wrong. And, you're right, from an outsider's point of view, it is pedantic: It hastily concludes that there's no morality but the one imposed by an authority figure, and it's too simplistic for many reasons, some of which you pointed out.
What I'm saying is that the moment a religious person asks this sort of question, we're offered a good insight of what religion really is about. Can we live without it? Why, yes! Will we ever live without it? I can't see that happen in the near future. |
so you agree then: em :tongue2 |
|
|
| The17sss |
 |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by MGT
Saddam doesn't represent China though. Totalitarianism in theory, yes, but how would one know what is and what isn't current Chinese government's or leader's agenda? Aside from your tendencies of painting an embellished picture that leaves an aftertaste of maybe personal vendetta instead of being objective, I agree that control may be the reason for anti-religious policies. |
Ah. You asked a question, received an answer, and when you received an answer which didn't suit you, you chose to engage with a poisonous-well logical fallacy in order to impugn my answers. Just because I may or may not have a vendetta against the Chinese Government, which I don't, does not lessen or negate the validity of what I have posted. While the Chinese government is changing, it's pretty safe to say that the changes being made are designed in such a way that they will be able to maintain control while accommodating a more capitalistic economic model. |
|
|
| MGT |
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
Ah. You asked a question, received an answer, and when you received an answer which didn't suit you, you chose to engage with a poisonous-well logical fallacy in order to impugn my answers. Just because I may or may not have a vendetta against the Chinese Government, which I don't, does not lessen or negate the validity of what I have posted. While the Chinese government is changing, it's pretty safe to say that the changes being made are designed in such a way that they will be able to maintain control while accommodating a more capitalistic economic model. |
You're putting words in my mouth again. I don't care if the answer is beneficial to China or not. I'm just saying that most of what you've said after the first paragraph were unnecessary or irrelevant to the question raised. Sounded to me like you were reaching, talking about Saddam and principles etc. Just saying. Don't want to drag this any further, so I agree. The end.
Now, onto the topic of this thread regarding religion, what's your take on this quote regarding Falun Gong:
| quote: | Some aspects of Falun Gong's teachings are considered implausible and peculiar and by observers, and Falun Gong's conservative and moralistic views on subjects such as homosexuality have attracted controversy. In 2001, for example, a nomination of Li Hongzhi for the Nobel Peace Prize by San Francisco legislators was withdrawn after they were notified of the group's views.[141][142][143]
David Ownby writes that interpreting Li Hongzhi's teachings presents numerous challenges because many of the things he says appear "somewhat puzzling." Startling assertions found in Li's writings, according to Ownby, include that there is a "small fluorescent screen like a television" positioned in the forehead that permits the initiated to possess the power of total recall; that animals can possess human beings in order to exploit humans' greater spiritual and supernormal capacities; and that the spiritual salvation of children of interracial marriages is problematic because, in the afterlife, the paradises are divided by race.[144]
Opinions among scholars differ as to whether Falun Gong contains an apocalyptic message, and if so what the consequences of that are. Li maintains that mankind has been destroyed 81 times, and, according to some interpretations, that another round of destruction may be imminent. At least one follower suggested there would be "some sudden change that will be good for good people, but bad for bad people."[145] In Heather Kavan's opinion, Falun Gong members don't leave the group because they believe that it's the only way to save themselves.[129] Richard Gunde, Assistant Director of the Center for Chinese Studies at UCLA, argues that Falun Gong is unlike western cults that fixate on death and Armageddon, but merely promises its followers a long and healthy life. "Falun Gong has a simple, innocuous ethical message," Gunde says, "and its leader, Li Hongzhi, despite his unusual, if not bizarre, statements, is in many ways simple and low key."[146] At the local level Li's fantastic claims seem to be of little theological importance, since Falun Gong practice does not require unquestioning acceptance of all of Li's teachings, and there is no overt emphasis on dogmatically enforcing orthodoxy, according to Craig Burgdoff.[34]
Adam Frank writes that in reporting on the Falun Gong, the Western tradition of casting the Chinese as "exotic" took dominance, and that "the facts were generally correct, but the normalcy that millions of Chinese practitioners associated with the practice had all but disappeared."[147] Sinologist Benjamin Penny sees Falun Gong's apparent last days message as largely innocuous, with Buddhist roots,[2] and suggests "the fact that [Falun Gong beliefs] are often difficult for Westerners to understand should not be any reason to relegate them to the anomalous or quirky or kooky."[40] |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falon_Gong |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by MGT
You're putting words in my mouth again. |
I made a statement which recognize your arguments as being tactically motivated. Wikipedia isn't exactly an iron-clad citation and being that most colleges don't accept such citations, I won't either.
There's a common refrain occurring - putting words in your mouth. It's quite a curious turn of phrase since it suggests a willful misinterpretation of your statements, on my part. Unfortunately, I can't help but recognize the stain of subterfuge in your language. It seems to be hiding an agenda and when you've engaged in no less, it would seem to be psychological projection, on your part.
| quote: | | Psychological projection or projection bias (including Freudian Projection) is the unconscious act of denial of a person's own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, such as to the weather, the government, a tool, or to other people. Thus, it involves imagining or projecting that others have those feelings. Projection is considered one of the most profound and subtle of human psychological processes, and extremely difficult to work with, because by its nature it is hidden. It is the fundamental mechanism by which we keep ourselves uninformed about ourselves. Humor has great value in any attempt to work with projection, because humor presents a forgiving posture and thereby removes the threatening nature of any inquiry into the truth. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection |
|
|
| MGT |
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
I made a statement which recognize your arguments as being tactically motivated. Wikipedia isn't exactly an iron-clad citation and being that most colleges don't accept such citations, I won't either.
There's a common refrain occurring - putting words in your mouth. It's quite a curious turn of phrase since it suggests a willful misinterpretation of your statements, on my part. Unfortunately, I can't help but recognize the stain of subterfuge in your language. It seems to be hiding an agenda and when you've engaged in no less, it would seem to be psychological projection, on your part.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection |
:stongue:
To be fair, I'm not arguing with you. Just wanted to know what you think of Falun Gong. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by MGT
:stongue:
To be fair, I'm not arguing with you. Just wanted to know what you think of Falun Gong. |
Glad you got the joke. ;)
I wouldn't join up, but from everything I've read and heard about them, they seem to be a legitimate spiritual movement. Their meditation, like their Vietnamese Buddhist Monk counter-parts, who protested the war in Vietnam through self immolation, allows them to engage in the same practice, in protest of China's policies, without losing the composure an untrained person would, given a rather painful suicide.
I'm automatically leery of anyone claiming to be the reincarnation of Christ, as I have heard their leader has. Still, they seem like they're very peaceful and mean no harm and most of the followers are interested only in being good people. |
|
|
| MGT |
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
Glad you got the joke. ;)
I wouldn't join up, but from everything I've read and heard about them, they seem to be a legitimate spiritual movement. Their meditation, like their Vietnamese Buddhist Monk counter-parts, who protested the war in Vietnam through self immolation, allows them to engage in the same practice, in protest of China's policies, without losing the composure an untrained person would, given a rather painful suicide.
I'm automatically leery of anyone claiming to be the reincarnation of Christ, as I have heard their leader has. Still, they seem like they're very peaceful and mean no harm and most of the followers are interested only in being good people. |
If I may ask, why wouldn't you join?
What do you mean by legitimate?
Is Falun Gong the same as Vietnamese Buddhism? How are they related? |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by MGT
To be fair, I'm not arguing with you. Just wanted to know what you think of Falun Gong. |
I think we need Spacechica back in the CORe :( |
|
|
|
|
