Religions of Southperry

[Turtally]

I want to call myself a Christian because of my belief in God and my weekly church attendance. However, I don't feel like I actually deserve the label. Saying you belong to Christianity means that you are fully committed to it and that you live for God. And to be honest, I am not and I do not. My problem is that there seem to be people that hold on to calling themselves "Christian" but have way lower standards that me. I don't understand how anyone could sit through a sermon on giving everything you have to God on Sunday, and then go partying the following Friday.

[ThatWasMyKil]

Science and religion can definitely coexist, it depends on what individuals believe. I believe pretty much all science where there is reasonable to strong evidence. I believe God created science as a way for the world to work. I believe that 64 million years ago dinosaurs walked on this planet. The fossils combined with geology, chemistry, physics, biology, and paleontology give some very strong evidence to us. What science can not say though is whether or not a God exists. And the answer will not necessarily affect science as we know it at all.

If that's your belief more power to you but sadly a majority of Christians believe that the earth is 6000 years old and that god created us and that science has no place in schools I also dislike that parents force there beliefs on there children but that's for another time. While you postulate a very nice scenario, do you think the Vatican is just going to come out and say "oh hey guys god isn't real we just use him to control the masses and kill others that don't believe in what we believe in for the past 958 years, and now that we are out we 100% support homosexual marriage."

Heidi, please don't take this as a personal attack, I'm not directing this at you but rather pointing out the logical Fallacies. when you first posted you identified yourself as agnostic now as Christian.

@Luxeraph Religion was our way of explaining things we couldn't understand it helped ingrain morals and keep order in society - but as for if we still need it, I do not belive so.

[Afrobean]

oops a little late to the party...

Uhhhhh what? Morals are a huge part of religion.

No they aren't. Ethics is a philosophical study and, despite what some may feel, has nothing to do with religion.

Religion is about people coming together to share in belief systems centered around recognizing and worshiping supernatural beings, specifically Universe-creators and/or all-powerful intelligent beings. Notice that the "people coming together" and "worshiping" thing is why atheism isn't a religion. There ARE atheistic "religions", and there are religious organizations which are open to atheists. Humanism comes to mind immediately, although I'm confident that many Eastern religions could be considered atheist-friendly. See also: the very nature of irreligion. It's impossible to not have a "system of beliefs", as even the absence of beliefs is itself considered a "system". Thus, people who reject belief systems count as irreligious, and that's where most atheists lie. Interested persons should also look into the concepts of nontheism and secularism.

Many organized religions use their position to effect an influence on the morals of their followers, but morality exists outside of religion for anyone with a rational mind. Otherwise, agnostics, atheists, skeptics, etc., would have no sense of morality, and religious people would be measurably more ethical in all cases (hint: they're not, in fact, it could be exactly the opposite). Even the "Golden Rule" of ethics, often incorrectly attributed to Jesus of Nazareth, and a strong foundational element to ethics, has existed for ages, long before any written accord of it was ever put down to paper. Furthermore, many religious organizations don't even try to connect themselves with establishing moral law. Religions have historically had a few societal values: "historical" knowledge of Man's past, moral code, "scientific" knowledge about the nature of the World, entertainment through storytelling, etc. Not every religion plays a part in each of those sorts of roles, some have focused more heavily on certain aspects than others, and today, each of those roles can be filled by more grounded, academic fields.

Anyway, I'm atheist with a bit of agnosticism. I don't believe in any supernatural beings, but I'm willing to admit that it's theoretically possible for them to exist in some intangible form that has no measurable effect on the Real World around us. However, I also fall under the category of religious skepticism because although I'm willing to admit that it's possible for a supernatural being to exist, I'm confident that no religion has ever nor even could ever could get it right. I also have a general hatred for organized religion because of all the terrible things that have come directly out of religious wars or discrimination brought about because of terrible belief systems. I don't even care if individuals within religious institutions claim to individually be good. I still consider the system itself broken and terrible. I also hate the methods of indoctrination that religious organizations and parents apply to young minds who don't yet know how to think rationally for themselves yet.

ps I expect everyone to read every article I've linked to. Each and every one. Also, check out this one: Moral Relativism.

pps

It seems that you are assuming that science and religion must contradict.

They, by nature, do, even if they can exist side-by-side in many cases.

Religion is immutable and based on Faith. Science changes with new evidence and observations and is based on Reason. Reason is the complete opposite of Faith. Religion is about accepting things despite lack of measurable evidence, Science is about accepting ONLY things with measurable evidence.

[Heidi]

If that's your belief more power to you but sadly a majority of Christians believe that the earth is 6000 years old and that god created us and that science has no place in schools I also dislike that parents force there beliefs on there children but that's for another time. While you postulate a very nice scenario, do you think the Vatican is just going to come out and say "oh hey guys god isn't real we just use him to control the masses and kill others that don't believe in what we believe in for the past 958 years, and now that we are out we 100% support homosexual marriage."

Heidi, please don't take this as a personal attack, I'm not directing this at you but rather pointing out the logical Fallacies. when you first posted you identified yourself as agnostic now as Christian.

@Luxeraph Religion was our way of explaining things we couldn't understand it helped ingrain morals and keep order in society - but as for if we still need it, I do not belive so.

In this thread did I say I was agnostic? Prolly around 5 years ago I identified as firmly agnostic, but still had some lean towards theism at that point. I often just say online I'm agnostic cause it's easier than getting into arguements (and I am a bit in the middle), so maybe that's what you means. Anyway, I don't care, I know what I believe and Southperry doesn't have to agree or understand. Trying to argue with people on the internet is a dumb waste of time.

But yeah, I'll be quite honest, I DO see it as a personal attack as over the years I have read the facts and I have formed my opinion, and I'm arguing about why yours disagrees with mine, and you just resort to claiming a logical fallacy because you apparently lack a better arguement. btw incase you were unaware what you said about religion and clinical insanity is also attacking people.

To be honest I didn't even want to get into these arguements when I started in this thread, and I greatly regret doing so. I have removed all my posts on this thread, as I have decided that it was dumb to post my views on Southperry.

Edit: I apoligise for such a childish overreaction.

[Fiel]

when you first posted you identified yourself as agnostic now as Christian.

I don't see any issue with this. It's possible to be agnostic, theistic, and Christian at the same time. Read my previous posts.

Many organized religions use their position to effect an influence on the morals of their followers, but morality exists outside of religion for anyone with a rational mind. Otherwise, agnostics, atheists, skeptics, etc., would have no sense of morality, and religious people would be measurably more ethical in all cases (hint: they're not, in fact, it could be exactly the opposite).

I think the main issue for theists isn't the lack of morality, but the lack of a moral code or standard. Of course, I completely disagree with their reasoning, but that would take far too long for me to cover.

[ThatWasMyKil]

To be honest I didn't even want to get into these arguements when I started in this thread, and I greatly regret doing so. I have removed all my posts on this thread, as I have decided that it was dumb to post my views on Southperry.

This is what Locked(not so much) and Kalovale where addressing above in regards to not being able to have a healthy argument with those of faith. - I'm truly sorry that you feel as-though we are attacking you personally - although I can understand how pointing out certain things about a matter you hold very close can hurt, its not pointed towards you.

[Afrobean]

I think the main issue for theists isn't the lack of morality, but the lack of a moral code or standard. Of course, I completely disagree with their reasoning, but that would take far too long for me to cover.

Yeah, there is no such thing as absolute/universal morality. Every person, whether theist or atheist, religious or irreligious, agnostic or anything, make their own individual, subjective moral code. There is no universal code for morality, not within religion or without it.

Even within a single religion you will find individuals who disagree with parts of the moral code it stands for. For example, there are countless dozens of rules listed in the Christian bible which are simply ignored today by everyone. Because they're patently absurd. Things about slavery or child abuse or eating meat or which fabrics are acceptable to wear together. There are other things which some Christians latch onto and others ignore, like, for example, "homosexuality is an abomination." They're selective of the apparent "moral standard" that the book reports to them, as they should be.

And even outside of religious code, there is still no universal truth for ethics. Killing is wrong, right? What if it's an accident? What if it's to protect yourself? What if it's to protect someone else? What if it's to protect your property? Someone else's property? What if you kill an animal for food? For sport? What about capital punishment? Where is the line drawn for what killing is acceptable? Stealing is wrong, right? What if the owner came into possession of something fraudulently and stealing from them is the only way to get it back? What if you are starving and must steal food to survive? What if someone else is starving and you steal to help them? What about the government seizing assets of persons for various reasons? Where is the line drawn for what stealing is acceptable? Taking away someone's liberty is wrong, right? What if it's done to protect your life, liberty, or property? What about the government taking away the liberty of criminals who are convicted of crimes? How much liberty need be taken away in those cases?

And that's not even touching religious conceptions of "morality", like fundamentalist Christians believing homosexuality between consenting partners is wrong, Orthodox Jews going to extreme lengths to "keep the sabbath", Muslims requiring women to cover their hair and face.

[KhainiWest]

The main gripe I have with overzealously religious people is that you can't argue with them; We don't even talk the same language. Even if you start quoting the Bible (not out of context) to make your case, they'd still manage to dismiss it.

I may be overly wishful and naive, but I believe that the type of atheists you're referring to are the suppressed kids living within religious settings all their childhoods. All they want is to get back to those people whom they could do nothing about.
Also, believe me when I say a good portion of the vocal atheists aren't actually intellectually superior. They also do us a disservice by putting science on a pedestal and making a religion out of it.
"I SAY NO JESUS BECAUSE BIG BANG."
Makes me wish I could punch things through the internet.

Ah thanks, zealous was the word I was looking for. Don't get me wrong though, I don't stereotype atheists as that, every religion frankly has that problem. I mean hell bumper stickers with political garbage on it has that problem, it's just people who use freedom of speech as a power to be obnoxious. Personally I always put myself as an agonistic the last couple of years, but I really looked into it and I'm indefinately pantheist. I've always believed science(nature) had a connection to a higher power. It shouldn't be god vs science but how science could possibly instruments. I never in my life believed in the personal orthodox god, it just doesn't make sense to me. Corny as it sounds a lot of my "self finding" came from futurama episodes concerning god (and the movie) which to me, make more sense than how our ancestors portrayed him.

I won't judge you by your religion or beliefs, I will judge you on how you present and act on them, especially to those with different beliefs.

[MasPan]

If that's your belief more power to you but sadly a majority of Christians believe that the earth is 6000 years old and that god created us and that science has no place in schools I also dislike that parents force there beliefs on there children but that's for another time. While you postulate a very nice scenario, do you think the Vatican is just going to come out and say "oh hey guys god isn't real we just use him to control the masses and kill others that don't believe in what we believe in for the past 958 years, and now that we are out we 100% support homosexual marriage."

Heidi, please don't take this as a personal attack, I'm not directing this at you but rather pointing out the logical Fallacies. when you first posted you identified yourself as agnostic now as Christian.

@Luxeraph Religion was our way of explaining things we couldn't understand it helped ingrain morals and keep order in society - but as for if we still need it, I do not belive so.

First, I'd like to see the proof you're citing with the majority claim. Second, don't use the term logical fallacies unless you're specifically referencing one. They are a specific set of flawed arguments, not a general "I think you're wrong because x"

[Afrobean]

First, I'd like to see the proof you're citing with the majority claim. Second, don't use the term logical fallacies unless you're specifically referencing one. They are a specific set of flawed arguments, not a general "I think you're wrong because x"

Fundamentalist Christians who believe the world is only 6000 years old probably are a minority. Does that matter though? The fact that they're motivated to take that irrational stance at all is a problem, regardless of the fact that many Christians are able to ignore scripture and accept Reason in that case.

Also, logical fallacies are commonly associated with religious beliefs because, well, religious beliefs are not logical. When a person attempts to apply logic to Faith-based beliefs, they invariably fall into use of logical fallacy. If belief in deities were rationally consistent and logical, it would be possible to end the "debate" on the existence of a god or gods. The best logically correct philosophical argument in "favor" of a god's existence is that it's merely possible, and even then, one must accept that such a god's existence is completely immeasurable in any objective way.

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

It should be plainly obvious why many of these "arguments" are often employed by religious individuals attempting to argue the existence of their deity of choice. Appeal to authority is probably the most common, I think. But it's all for naught. Religion is non-debateable. Faith requires no logic, Faith requires no evidence. Faith only requires belief, a feeling. And subjective beliefs not based on logic or measurable evidence are simply outside logic. Such feelings exist apart from rationality. One does not need logic to decide they like the taste of chocolate just as one does not logic to decide that they feel like there's a Great Creator. These feelings are just inadmissible as rational arguments and arguing of the existence of deities will assuredly be fruitless. Religious "debate" can only lead atheist people to repeatedly say "there is no evidence" and religious people to say "I feel like it's true," along with possibly dropping plenty of fallacies along the way.

[Kalovale]

Yeah, there is no such thing as absolute/universal morality. Every person, whether theist or atheist, religious or irreligious, agnostic or anything, make their own individual, subjective moral code. There is no universal code for morality, not within religion or without it.

And even outside of religious code, there is still no universal truth for ethics. Killing is wrong, right? What if it's an accident? What if it's to protect yourself? What if it's to protect someone else? What if it's to protect your property? Someone else's property? What if you kill an animal for food? For sport? What about capital punishment? Where is the line drawn for what killing is acceptable? Stealing is wrong, right? What if the owner came into possession of something fraudulently and stealing from them is the only way to get it back? What if you are starving and must steal food to survive? What if someone else is starving and you steal to help them? What about the government seizing assets of persons for various reasons? Where is the line drawn for what stealing is acceptable? Taking away someone's liberty is wrong, right? What if it's done to protect your life, liberty, or property? What about the government taking away the liberty of criminals who are convicted of crimes? How much liberty need be taken away in those cases?

Universal morality is certainly easy to disprove, and so is moral subjectivism. Today, we run on something close to the compromise of the two, also known as cultural relativism which by itself isn't as ideal as society likes to make us think it is.

sample problem

If cultural relativism is true, then we essentially run on majority rule and any attempt at change/revolution from the minority is, by definition, immoral.

What does intrigue me, though, is how we managed to have these ethics system. In religions, I suppose it's simply divine command, whatever the deity wishes for becomes just. In a country, I suspect it comes from political/legislative decisions, which I suspect to be influenced by the masses. By that line of thought, wouldn't this ethical system essentially boil down to a compromise between the inhabitants within a specific community? A social contract of some sort?

EDIT: Depressing poll is depressing. Poll on creationists? Then those are some very promising numbers.

[Fiel]

Gallup did a poll on young earth creationists. I strongly suggest you guys check it out.

[Baklava]

I don't see 'Jedi' in the list.

[Zelkova]

I prefer to avoid these such threads.

My opinion is to never discuss politics or religion with your friends. You will lose more friends than you will gain that way.

[Kalovale]

I prefer to avoid these such threads.

My opinion is to never discuss politics or religion with your friends. You will lose more friends than you will gain that way.

Aren't friends supposed to be supplementary instead of complimentary? If we can't get over our differences and respect a good argument, we're in no good shape to make friends.

[Panacea]

I'm going to agree. If your friends can't handle your political or religious affiliations without getting their panties in a wad, they're probably better off not being your friend to begin with.