Religion

[(Q)]

Interesting; so we spend a large part of our country's budget on building the most efficient defence systems to fight the elements?

Did I say that?

It is similar in both developing and developed countries; as for being present only in the uneducated, it may be merely underreported in the educated, due to shame. I know of instances where apparently well educated and well respected men have been wife beaters (including doctors).
http://www.time.com/time/europe/html/030811/violence/story.html

It is reported, about 15% IMSC. It's about the same percentage as atheists in prisons.

This "fallacy" is supported by evidence, unlike your random theories.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-12/uow-wam121802.php

Well, I'll be a monkeys uncle, by about 15% more. Good one. I'll admit I'm wrong about that one. Next time I won't ask a Christian male that question.

Who said anything about gods? And we gained morality because what benefits the group also benefits the individual; hence morality is not extended to individuals perceived as adverse to our interests.

Yours, and most other montheistic religions make that claim.

 

[(Q)]

So does atheism, apparently, alongwith intellectual elitism as another side effect.

What exactly is atheism intolerant, besides theism?

 

[The Devil Inside]

Is it not better to kill a carrot then a cow?

both are delicious....so, both had better beware.

 

[S.A.M.]

Did I say that?

Did I misunderstand? So what did you mean? Do you disagree that defense systems are primarily required for self-defense by violent means? (which you apparently abhor)

It is reported, about 15% IMSC. It's about the same percentage as atheists in prisons.

Atheism may also be under reported, sweets.

Well, I'll be a monkeys uncle, by about 15% more. Good one. I'll admit I'm wrong about that one. Next time I won't ask a Christian male that question.

You missed,

The world's major faiths were included

I've heard almonds are also good for eyesight.

Yours, and most other montheistic religions make that claim.

Do you mean to say that polytheists and atheists do not? Claim to have theories on ethics?

 

[(Q)]

Then the question is who willingly chooses living?
Life is that which is in perpetual competition over resuorces.

Those who do not choose death.

But then I don't call myself a "victim" nor do I pretend I am selfless.
I accept full responsibility for my being.

Or, do you simply acknowledge it?

My comforts are another's suffering. I know it and admit it.

My comforts are of my own doing and have nothing to do with anothers sufferings.

My life depends on the death of another whether this other chooses or not to compete with me or feels like I'm being fair or competing fairly.

So, you kill people?

Is it because the cow reminds you of you?

I was victimized by a carrot and am seeking revenge.

Where do you draw your moral line?

Somewhere between genocide and suicide.

 

[S.A.M.]

What exactly is atheism intolerant, besides theism?

Yes

 

[(Q)]

Did I misunderstand? So what did you mean? Do you disagree that defense systems are primarily required for self-defense by violent means? (which you apparently abhor)

Of course, what about tsunami warning systems?

Atheism may also be under reported, sweets.

Fine. Is it so much as to swing the stats the other way, toots? Or, are you grasping at straws, again?

You missed,

I've heard almonds are also good for eyesight.

So are carrots. Eat lotsa carrots. KILL THEM ALL!

Sorry about that.

Do you mean to say that polytheists and atheists do not? Claim to have theories on ethics?

Theories, yes. Religion does not offer theories, only absolutes.

 

[perplexity]

Theories, yes. Religion does not offer theories, only absolutes.

That is not always true.

Buddhism especially proposes that some events are imponderable, not to be speculated about. Whoever speculates about them would go mad & experience vexation.

--- Ron.

 

[S.A.M.]

Of course, what about tsunami warning systems?

Good one.

Of course, such warning systems (tsunami) assume the morality of people who will respond to them, don't they?

Fine. Is it so much as to swing the stats the other way, toots? Or, are you grasping at straws, again?

Just using your example of comparing unrelated statistics.

So are carrots. Eat lotsa carrots. KILL THEM ALL!

Sorry about that.

That's beta-carotene, for protection against keratomalacia and against loss of night vision.

And it was not almonds, sorry, it was amla for eyesight.
http://www.ayurvediccure.com/amla.htm

Though almonds have their uses
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/10-20-2004-60634.asp

Theories, yes. Religion does not offer theories, only absolutes.

If religion offered absolutes, there would be no confusion over interpretation.

 

[Satyr]

Those who do not choose death.

And that is the only choice you have.
You cannot choose to never have the choice.

Or, do you simply acknowledge it?

I first acknowledge and then accept.
You?
Besides comforting yourself with moral idealisms and pretences of innocence and victimization, how do you deal with reality?

My comforts are of my own doing and have nothing to do with anothers sufferings.

Your comforts are based on another’s discomforts.
Are you a part of a self-contained system?
Do your actions not have repercussions or are all your actions benevolent and selfless?

So, you kill people?

I kill living matter with my need.
I purchase it.
You?
Do your feeding comforts involve eating what has never lived?
Do you grow food in vats?
If yes then you are truly a pious soul.
So...innocent you are.
Do you own a car?
If yes then you are so lucky to fuel it from your own reservoir of oil deposits.
Do you heat your home?
If yes then how fortunate for you that you run your own thermonuclear power plant and you are not reliant on the work and efforts of others - the exploitation of others.
Do you have sex?
If yes then how fortunate that your desire does not deny another his satisfaction or that you do not exploit the other.
A true innocent you are. A child.

Q?
Star Trek right?
Figures.
Fantasy is so much more pleasurable than reality.

I was victimized by a carrot and am seeking revenge.

Poor bleeding heart.
Where will you find your justice, now?

A carrot court, perchance?
You are lucky that you’ve never eaten a carrot and can claim, with total honesty, innocence.

Somewhere between genocide and suicide.

Such moral roadblocks to your piousness.
You are truly free or...holy ...or both.
But this would be easy for such as you, living in a self-contained universe with infinite amounts of energies. Then what energies you covet are not denied to another.
How lucky you are to be a world of one.

How you must cry at the sight of a large lion devouring a small baby gazelle, while it is still alive.
How unfair nature is. How people like you must correct it.
The poor gazelle trying to not compete and yet becoming a victim of competition.
How brutally the lion exploits the gazelle’s weakness.
That's just...just....uncivilized.
Better to watch Q verbally sparring Picard in a make-belief universe where the ‘good’ and the ‘evil’ are so easily determined and where a replicator offers you the comforts you need without denying them to another.

 

[(Q)]

Good one.

Of course, such warning systems (tsunami) assume the morality of people who will respond to them, don't they?

Don't you mean the majority of them will respond? There also working on earthquake warning systems. Even the weather channel could be considered a defence system.

Just using your example of comparing unrelated statistics.

If religion offered absolutes, there would be no confusion over interpretation.

Most everything written in the Quran is an absolute, yet much confusion reigns over its interpretation. Same with all other monotheisms.

If a god existed, there would be no confusion over religion or it's interpretation. It would be knowledge consistent and clear to all on a global scale, instinctive, so to speak. Another contradiction that eludes theists.

 

[(Q)]

And that is the only choice you have.
You cannot choose to never have the choice.

Huh?

I first acknowledge and then accept.
You?

Neither.

Besides comforting yourself with moral idealisms and pretences of innocence and victimization, how do you deal with reality?

No idea what you're on about.

Your comforts are based on another’s discomforts.
Are you a part of a self-contained system?
Do your actions not have repercussions or are all your actions benevolent and selfless?

Again, no idea what you're on about. My comforts are based on others profits, not discomforts.

I kill living matter with my need.
I purchase it.
You?
Do your feeding comforts involve eating what has never lived?
Do you grow food in vats?
If yes then you are truly a pious soul.
So...innocent you are.
Do you own a car?
If yes then you are so lucky to fuel it from your own reservoir of oil deposits.
Do you heat your home?
If yes then how fortunate for you that you run your own thermonuclear power plant and you are not reliant on the work and efforts of others - the exploitation of others.
Do you have sex?
If yes then how fortunate that your desire does not deny another his satisfaction or that you do not exploit the other.
A true innocent you are. A child.

You're really one mixed up puppy? Do you still live at home with your parents?

Q?
Star Trek right?
Figures.
Fantasy is so much more pleasurable than reality.

Sorry, I'm not convinced it is, but if you wish to continue living such, that is your perogative. And by the way, only those who watch TV all day would think Q comes from Star Trek.

Poor bleeding heart.
Where will you find your justice, now?

Who said anything about justice?

A carrot court, perchance?
You are lucky that you’ve never eaten a carrot and can claim, with total honesty, innocence.

Huh?

Such moral roadblocks to your piousness.
You are truly free or...holy ...or both.
But this would be easy for such as you, living in a self-contained universe with infinite amounts of energies. Then what energies you covet are not denied to another.
How lucky you are to be a world of one.

Huh?

How you must cry at the sight of a large lion devouring a small baby gazelle, while it is still alive.
How unfair nature is. How people like you must correct it.
The poor gazelle trying to not compete and yet becoming a victim of competition.
How brutally the lion exploits the gazelle’s weakness.
That's just...just....uncivilized.

Are gazelles and lions supposed to be civilized, or is that your fantasy world?

Better to watch Q verbally sparring Picard in a make-belief universe where the ‘good’ and the ‘evil’ are so easily determined and where a replicator offers you the comforts you need without denying them to another.

Try reading a book instead of watching so much TV.

 

[S.A.M.]

Don't you mean the majority of them will respond? They are also working on earthquake warning systems. Even the weather channel could be considered a defence system.

So could having a gun in every house.
What do they say? "An armed nation is a polite nation?"
Yup politeness increasing by leaps and bounds every day.

Don't you roll your baby browns at me!

Most everything written in the Quran is an absolute, yet much confusion reigns over its interpretation. Same with all other monotheisms.

This is YOUR opinion. But then you're a fundamentalist.

If a god existed, there would be no confusion over religion or it's interpretation. It would be knowledge consistent and clear to all on a global scale, instinctive, so to speak.

Why?

 

[KennyJC]

This is YOUR opinion. But then you're a fundamentalist.

How much of the Quran should we take literally?

 

[(Q)]

So could having a gun in every house.
What do they say? "An armed nation is a polite nation?"
Yup politeness increasing by leaps and bounds every day.

Nice strawman.

This is YOUR opinion. But then you're a fundamentalist.

Apparently, it's NOT my opinion:

Many religions have morally absolutist positions, regarding their system of morality as having been set by a deity or deities. They therefore regard such a moral system as absolute, (usually) perfect, and unchangeable.

Many Christians regard Christian theology as teaching a hierarchy of moral absolutes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism

Why?

Simple, because ONE god would exist. Think about it.

 

[S.A.M.]

Nice strawman.

Back at you; you know very well when I said defence services, I meant military defence.

Apparently, it's NOT my opinion:

Many religions have morally absolutist positions, regarding their system of morality as having been set by a deity or deities. They therefore regard such a moral system as absolute, (usually) perfect, and unchangeable.

Many Christians regard Christian theology as teaching a hierarchy of moral absolutes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism

From your link:

"Moral absolutism is the belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, devoid of the context of the act.

Many religions have morally absolutist positions, regarding their system of morality as having been set by a deity or deities. They therefore regard such a moral system as absolute, (usually) perfect, and unchangeable. Many philosophies also take a morally absolutist stance, arguing that the laws of morality are inherent in the nature of human beings, the nature of life in general, or the universe itself. For example, someone who believes absolutely in nonviolence considers it wrong to use violence even in self-defense. For another example, under some religious moral absolutist beliefs, homosexual behavior is considered fundamentally wrong, even in a committed monogamous relationship. Many who make such claims often disregard evolving norms within their own communities. For example, today almost no religious group endorses slavery, whereas in the past many communities held it to be perfectly ethical. The historical character of religious belief provides strong grounds for criticism of religious moral absolutism."

It seems to me that moral absolutism is a characteristic of human thought; e.g. you do not believe it right to fight in defence of self or property. That is also a moral absolute.

Simple, because ONE god would exist. Think about it.

The problem is not with one God; the problem is with many people, each of whom is convinced he/she knows best (e.g. look at us)

 

[perplexity]

The problem is not with one God; the problem is with many people, each of whom is convinced he/she knows best (e.g. look at us)

Not quite.

The problem is the infliction of the knowing best, as if the only reason to reason is to get to budge.

No problem if they mind their own business, content enough to know best for themselves.

--- Ron.

 

[(Q)]

Back at you; you know very well when I said defence services, I meant military defence.

Uh-huh. And I said that even the military will react to defend a country from other sources; ie. nature. Are we back at square one?

It seems to me that moral absolutism is a characteristic of human thought; e.g. you do not believe it right to fight in defence of self or property. That is also a moral absolute.

First of all, I showed you that you were wrong in that religion offers absolutes when you claimed it was my opinion, and you didn't even acknowledge that, after I acknowledged yesterday I was wrong. Intolerance?

Secondly, I never said we as humans DON'T create our own absolutes, regardless of whether we're right or wrong.

The entire point was that monotheistic religions (caveat for Ron) only offer absolutes, not theories.

Religion is man made, and there is much debate on whether "thought" was part of the equation. Thought would infer thinking, which is antithetical to monotheistic religions (another caveat for Ron).

The problem is not with one God; the problem is with many people, each of whom is convinced he/she knows best (e.g. look at us)

No, the problem is that there is no ONE god. If there were, we would all know about it and would all agree, there would be no confusion. There would be no so-called prophets as we would all instinctively know of that one god.

 

[S.A.M.]

How much of the Quran should we take literally?

Depends on when and where the verses are revealed.

There are two parts to the Quran. Some verses were revealed in Mecca and give the principles of Islam and the path of faith. Others were revealed in Medina at those times when the Prophet was under attack and was fighting for his life and for the lives of his followers. Any Arabic Quran has an index where the origin of the verses are given. Taken in this context, it is easy to distinguish between verses which outline the philosophy of the religion from those which were a response to the attacks and which outline the circumstances of a fair defense and a just war.

In addition some of the verses are pure parables; they denote a moral rather than a fact. When you read it in the original, you can tell by the change in inflexion that there is a shift in the direction of the verse (since it is in meter); but this is lost in translation.

Literal verses:

Many verses impress the importance of reason in gaining knowledge and are accompanied by examples of creation where reason may be employed ("the signs of creation); these are also written in the form of parables (e.g. the sun and stars are lamps while the planets are ornaments), they are not supposed to be used for confirming science, since the Quran says that to gain knowledge one must:

1. read (96:1-5)
Read! In the name of your Lord who created - Created the human from a drop. Read! And your Lord is Most Bountiful - He who taught (the use of) the Pen, Taught the human that which he knew not.

2. not be hasty to arrive at conclusions from the Quran (20:114)
Do not be in haste with the Qur'an before its revelation to you is completed, but say, "O my Sustainer! Increase my knowledge."

3. Ask people who know
[39:9] ...Say: Are those equal, those who know and those who do not know?

Such verses are literal since there are no conditions attached to them.


It is important to know the history of the religion and the place to understand when and why the verses were revealed; it makes no sense to read them in the context of the modern world (as fundamentalists do) and apply them indiscriminately. This defeats the value of both reason and mercy, qualities given considerable and repeated importance all through the Quran.

 

[perplexity]

No, the problem is that there is no ONE god. If there were, we would all know about it and would all agree, there would be no confusion. There would be no so-called prophets as we would all instinctively know of that one god.

Agreement is an act of will, not necessarily a symptom of knowing.

If you rather insist on attempting to rationalise that which is instinctive (i.e. by definition unlearned) I am not so surprised if you run into problems.

Why not try from time to time to agree instinctively instead of reasoning?

--- Ron.