I am no expert on Irish history so I will not debate you on this subject. However, I was not referring to either an Irish or Swiss Guard invasion. The Pope has others to do his dirty work for him. I merely suggested it as a staging ground, like Cuba was for the Russians. I certainly doubt there was any fear of Castro leading an invasion of Cubans into Florida. Simply look at U.S. strategy in the Gulf. You can't invade until you have somewhere to invade from, and nothing works better than friendly territory. Does this not sound plausible to you?
Why isn't faith embarrasing?
- Thread starter superluminal
- Start date
I am no expert on Irish history so I will not debate you on this subject. However, I was not referring to either an Irish or Swiss Guard invasion. The Pope has others to do his dirty work for him. I merely suggested it as a staging ground, like Cuba was for the Russians. I certainly doubt there was any fear of Castro leading an invasion of Cubans into Florida. Simply look at U.S. strategy in the Gulf. You can't invade until you have somewhere to invade from, and nothing works better than friendly territory. Does this not sound plausible to you?
It's not like the Vatican never tried anything like that before. Remember the Spanish Armada? That wasn't any Swiss Guard, but you can bet your sweet ass it was the Vatican that was responsible.
More wisdom from the Jesuit oath.
The Spanish armada was an attempted invasion from Spain for political reasons. Read a bit of European history. They were caught in a storm and some got washed up on the coast of Ireland. Some settled an intermarried. So what's new ? It seems like everybody was fighting everybody in those times. A bit like today I imagine
From my perspective greed and religion go hand in hand. The crusades had more to do with pillagiong and looting than religion, for example. How did the Anglican Church come into existence ? And so on ad nauseaum.
So the Jesuits are Freemasons. The Catholic Church is in decline, so don't lose any sleep over Jesuit conspiracies. You worry too much
I completely agree.
You're either equivocating the word "belief" or you are creating a complex question with the unsaid premise that moral systems can only reside in religions.
Or, it could be a humanist philosophy and Christians follow it the same way many cultures do that have never been exposed to Christianity.
superluminal,
It means more than that.
Surely you know that.
Jan.
Discuss.[/QUOTE]
It means more than that.
Surely you know that.
Jan.
Discuss.[/QUOTE]
But when they learn them, are they informed to them by a god or by people? If the former, why didn't the former reveal a morality through divine channels?
Moreover, given enough feral children, its reasonable to assume that if the humanist philosophy hypothesis were to hold, that they would develop morality through observation and experimentation. It *is* difficult for a single feral child to do so.
But since it would be unethical to conduct such an experiment (or so my humanist philosophy informs me), we would never be able to escalate it further than a thought experiment.
Moreover, given enough feral children, its reasonable to assume that if the humanist philosophy hypothesis were to hold, that they would develop morality through observation and experimentation. It *is* difficult for a single feral child to do so.
But since it would be unethical to conduct such an experiment (or so my humanist philosophy informs me), we would never be able to escalate it further than a thought experiment.
I've heard feral children aren't known for their social skills.
That only applies to all the female children abandoned in India
Then think of it as a group of friends at a dinner party, where one would pull out family photos.
The point is, if you do not believe in that particular superstition - such as Scientology, then it sounds completely ridiculous and can even be quite embarrassing for the follower.
Is there really any difference in believing in Xemu the Intergalactic WarLord OR in Mohammad and The Cloud-Surfing Fairy Horse? To some of us they are exactly the same superstition sort of thing. A fun fairytale but a little worrying if someone takes it with more than any thing but a grain of salt.
Michael
Forgive the interruption but I have already discussed this with her. She just keeps grinding the same old axes. She cannot understand that can be morality withouit religion.
I think all of us can agree to this one.
OR after reading a little further maybe not. It seems that the only reasonable manner in which society can develop is to have some sort of respect for one's neighbors. So any group of humans in something resembling a functioning social group (all I think??) would suggest it is something that arises without the need of any particular sort of religious beleif.
No all we have to do is look at societies around the world and the relationship between their religion and their morality.
And look for one that independently developed morality without any religious influence.
let me know when you find it?
Maybe that is your problem, its not mine. :shrug:
Perhaps one too many strawmen?
What's my problem? I never mentioned a problem. Embarrassment isn't a "problem" - it's embarrassment.
I maintain that
1) many people will feel some sort of embarrassment about a friends strong belief in Xemu the Intergalactic WarLord.
2) many people will form an opinion of the person's ability to think rationally based on thier strong belief in Xemu.
3) due to #2 some people may not want to be associated with such a person and perhaps their career will suffer for lack of collaboration.
4) there is no more, or no less, proof for Xemu as there is for God.
Isn't that a post hoc ergo propter hoc assumption? What if the same human quality that inspires morality also inspires religious belief?
If the question I just posed were true, how would we know? I would expect to see many religions throughout the many extant and extinct cultures of human history. I'd also expect to see some commonalities between the moral expectations of these religions along with the very different and frequently contradictory ritual and cult expectations between them.
The Fulani of West Africa believe in flying witches; the Baptists of West Fort Worth do not, but they *do* believe in a triune godhead whereas the Fulani find this to be absurd. Neither culture finds it appropriate to rape children; both cultures consider it a virtue not to steal from their neighbor.
If morality was divinely appropriated, why does it exist in every single human culture regardless of their religious beliefs?
I'm sure there's an apologetic answer from the theists, most likely in the form of "God reveals himself in different ways to different cultures," but this sort of argument is neither utilitarian nor is it demonstrable. Indeed, it probably creates more questions than it actually answers, such as why would a single god reveal itself to so many cultures in so many different and often contradictory ways? The answer precludes the notion that this god would be benevolent, perfect or good, begetting more questions.