(May 5, 2010 at 10:53 am)Thor Wrote:
1- No I don't think we need some "magic man" in the sky or God to tell us what's moral. I don't believe I ever said that.
2-I don't believe I said "universal" doctrine at all either. Why don't you ( and those who kudo'd that) just tell me what I'm saying and we'll call it a day. I'd like it if there was a universal doctrine, but since religion is so subjective it's very hard to come up with the "axiom of morality" everyone is looking for. It's not for lack of trying, mind you. They've rewritten the Bible numerous times to keep it relevant with today's society; and that's just one segmented religion's doctrine. I do however have a personal belief of my morality and I chose a doctrine that coresponds to what comes naturally to me morally.
(May 5, 2010 at 10:22 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:
[irony] I agree that the relgious bs attached to it like respect and reverence are unnecessary. Who needs to show respect anyways? [/irony]So what you're saying is that as long as the books they study in ethical classes aren't the bible it's ok? Or are you saying that as long as we don't flat out agree without any thought as to why relgious takes on ethics are ok?
I agree that there's nothing exclusive to religion that you can't find in secular society. That's because religion is a honing tool, that when used properly, can help elevate society's standards. I would not go as far as to say that nothing positive comes from religion which is what you imply here. Fanatacism in any form, I agree, is dangerous at best.
(May 5, 2010 at 10:03 am)tavarish Wrote:
1. Don't forget the holy wars, dark ages, the inquisition, Hui Minorities' War, the 30 years war, Hitler, ritual suicides and human sacrifices, etc. Or are you going to target only one or 2 religions. Modern Paganism, buddhism, shinto, Din-i-Ilahi, Confucianism, Bön, Māori religion, non-denominational Christianity, etc. are all religions that I believe teach tolerance of others and haven't started any wars, done any ritualistic killlings, mutilate their genitals, or hold child molestation seminars. Let me ask, is it fanatacism and intolerance you want to abolish or religion?
2. I'm not knocking on science, I love innovation and scienific principles. Just as the bible thumpers could use a lot less holier-than-thou attitudes; A lot of atheists I've spoken with could use anti-supr-smarmy pills. The world doesn't need religion to behave, but I'm not just going to throw it away. If we threw away all religions based off of small groups or singular people misguiding others against the doctrine's of their religion, why not get rid of the entirety of the house and senate. By percentage, I'd wager there was a lot more corruption in Govt. than in the entirety of religion.
3. Do you mind citing some references for your statement "It's no secret that the least religious nations are doing the best economically and developmentally" and "they give more to charities than their more religious counterparts." I'd like to do some of the reading on that.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari