Morality

[pominoz]

Wow.

Okay, are religion and society two separate things? If so, how would religion spread its message? If religion needs society to spread and society is susceptible to an evolving morality, how does an evolving morality not change a religious point of view at some point?

Evolution effects everything. It just takes time.

The whole point of religion is it is meant to be above that, from a higher power and therefore any message from God would be aware of all these details and therefore reflect what you said.

It doesn't, so therefore we can conclude religion is a man made concept and completely useless and irrelevant in modern times.

You are completely mistaken and now I understand why you have such aversion. If you are casting derision on religion from an improper viewpoint, then nothing can shake your belief because of that standpoint. But, even I know this much:

According to Biblicist teachings God gave Man 'free will'. So this extends to the right to believe in Him or not as well as the things he does towards his surroundings.

What it also does, is allow for the evolving of morality through society's growth over a period of time. This expansion changes how religion reflects upon itself, from conception to now and beyond. Evolving takes time.

Does it not...?

The Bible, Torah and the Quran all claim to be the word of God, how can the word of God be reinterpreted, it is the word of God and stands alone , does it not?

 

[Rocket-footed kolarov]

The whole point of religion is it is meant to be above that, from a higher power and therefore any message from God would be aware of all these details and therefore reflect what you said.

It doesn't, so therefore we can conclude religion is a man made concept and completely useless and irrelevant in modern times.

You are completely mistaken and now I understand why you have such aversion. If you are casting derision on religion from an improper viewpoint, then nothing can shake your belief because of that standpoint. But, even I know this much:

According to Biblicist teachings God gave Man 'free will'. So this extends to the right to believe in Him or not as well as the things he does towards his surroundings.

What it also does, is allow for the evolving of morality through society's growth over a period of time. This expansion changes how religion reflects upon itself, from conception to now and beyond. Evolving takes time.

Does it not...?

The Bible, Torah and the Quran all claim to be the word of God, how can the word of God be reinterpreted, it is the word of God and stands alone , does it not?

It is a paradox but the paradox only exists within monotheism where the view is that God is perfect. Religion as a concept is much older than that and the paganism and animism forms of it can act in a whitewashing effect new Gods bringing new values and replacing their outgrown predecessors. Ironically Christianity has this same concept with Jesus, however they didn't go far enough and still clung to the older books. Now the evolution doesn't come from new Gods but the heresy concept, every time there is a schism one sect are the blasphemers and the others are the dutiful servants.

 

[BlueHammer85]

So... the conclusion to this, as a Atheist i can not claim an absolute moral right therefore not make a judgement that something is WRONG ?

 

[Bigga]

The whole point of religion is it is meant to be above that, from a higher power and therefore any message from God would be aware of all these details and therefore reflect what you said.

It doesn't, so therefore we can conclude religion is a man made concept and completely useless and irrelevant in modern times.

You are completely mistaken and now I understand why you have such aversion. If you are casting derision on religion from an improper viewpoint, then nothing can shake your belief because of that standpoint. But, even I know this much:

According to Biblicist teachings God gave Man 'free will'. So this extends to the right to believe in Him or not as well as the things he does towards his surroundings.

What it also does, is allow for the evolving of morality through society's growth over a period of time. This expansion changes how religion reflects upon itself, from conception to now and beyond. Evolving takes time.

Does it not...?

The Bible, Torah and the Quran all claim to be the word of God, how can the word of God be reinterpreted, it is the word of God and stands alone , does it not?

I would then have to ask, which of those hasn't been misinterpreted from its original state??

Even the Qur'an has been questioned as to its foundation. I am sure there was a documentary about a deviation of teachings in Eastern Europe than in Asia(for example the teachings about the '72 virgins' are not similar at all) as well as text found that have not been included or misinterpreted. We all know that the King James' Bible is not the origin. I cannot answer about the Torah, but I suspect the same alterations have happened over time.

Were these Books written on the spot? No, there is no record of that being true. And, like all information told over time, it dilutes and people put their own spin on it before someone decides to record it. How affected are these Books from the original Word, who is going to know...?

Just my take on it.

 

[metalblue]

So... the conclusion to this, as a Atheist i can not claim an absolute moral right therefore not make a judgement that something is WRONG ?

No, there is no such thing as an absolute moral, that applies to atheists and religious folk and all those imbetween.

 

[pominoz]

You are completely mistaken and now I understand why you have such aversion. If you are casting derision on religion from an improper viewpoint, then nothing can shake your belief because of that standpoint. But, even I know this much:

According to Biblicist teachings God gave Man 'free will'. So this extends to the right to believe in Him or not as well as the things he does towards his surroundings.

What it also does, is allow for the evolving of morality through society's growth over a period of time. This expansion changes how religion reflects upon itself, from conception to now and beyond. Evolving takes time.

Does it not...?

The Bible, Torah and the Quran all claim to be the word of God, how can the word of God be reinterpreted, it is the word of God and stands alone , does it not?

I would then have to ask, which of those hasn't been misinterpreted from its original state??

Even the Qur'an has been questioned as to its foundation. I am sure there was a documentary about a deviation of teachings in Eastern Europe than in Asia(for example the teachings about the '72 virgins' are not similar at all) as well as text found that have not been included or misinterpreted. We all know that the King James' Bible is not the origin. I cannot answer about the Torah, but I suspect the same alterations have happened over time.

Were these Books written on the spot? No, there is no record of that being true. And, like all information told over time, it dilutes and people put their own spin on it before someone decides to record it. How affected are these Books from the original Word, who is going to know...?

Just my take on it.

The original word is just stories handed down to the next generation ( chinese whispers, if you will).
The whole charade is obvious to those that really look into it, for those that believe this nonsense and claim a moral high ground is beyond ridiculous.

 

[Rocket-footed kolarov]

So... the conclusion to this, as a Atheist i can not claim an absolute moral right therefore not make a judgement that something is WRONG ?

You can do what you want Mark if you have valid reasoning behind it. One of your points is: "the Iraq war was wrong because it was brought about politicians lying to the public to bring it about is one viewpoint. The other viewpoint is that sometimes it is necessary to tell lies to bring about a greater good. Most people would agree with both the values behind the reasoning, it then becomes a balancing act. This could become a constitutional point where lying and other wrongful actions are prohibited by higher constitutional law, but that only makes it more difficult to get away with it. There may be a case for excusing somebody from punishment for procedural wrongs to bring about greater good.

On the whole though your brother is also wrong because he can not establish absolute morality because there is no objective view of God and he can't prove that it is not confined to the minds of human beings.

 

[metalblue]

it doesn't, you just haven't grasped how religion should work.

Wow.

Okay, are religion and society two separate things? If so, how would religion spread its message? If religion needs society to spread and society is susceptible to an evolving morality, how does an evolving morality not change a religious point of view at some point?

Evolution effects everything. It just takes time.

The whole point of religion is it is meant to be above that, from a higher power and therefore any message from God would be aware of all these details and therefore reflect what you said.

It doesn't, so therefore we can conclude religion is a man made concept and completely useless and irrelevant in modern times.

I'm not sure religion is supposed to be above moral evolution the problem, as I see it, is it thinks it is and has thus become less relevant.

 

[Skashion]

So... the conclusion to this, as a Atheist i can not claim an absolute moral right therefore not make a judgement that something is WRONG ?

So YOUR conclusion to this... I certainly haven't had my mind changed by this futile farce. I posted a full rebuke to his argument at the start of the thread and it's not moved on from there at all. Dogmatists repeating something over and over again works on weak-minded people but not me. No wonder vicars and priests refer to their congregations as their flocks. Bunch of fucking sheep. Exactly right.

Anyway, let's hear from the vicar, let's see him answer point for point:

1. Proof of God.
2. Proof of prophets communicating with God.
3. Proof of one interpretation of the Bible.
4. Proof that interpretation is any good at solving moral questions considering the Nazis claimed God was with them and it was Christians who handed him dictatorial power in order to ensure their own preservation. Speaking of which, don't Christians believe Jesus died for our sins? Well, the Catholics proved unwilling to do so in Nazi Germany - or pre-Nazi as it then was. No, they chose self-preservation instead. They handed Hitler power sooner than sacrifice their own prominence in Germany. I'm struggling to see the morality there.

Then, a full explanation of how that interpretation allows him to condemn the Iraq War. Which moral issues about the Iraq war does the Bible definitely solve?

C'mon vicar, make my day.

 

[Rocket-footed kolarov]

The Bible, Torah and the Quran all claim to be the word of God, how can the word of God be reinterpreted, it is the word of God and stands alone , does it not?

I would then have to ask, which of those hasn't been misinterpreted from its original state??

Even the Qur'an has been questioned as to its foundation. I am sure there was a documentary about a deviation of teachings in Eastern Europe than in Asia(for example the teachings about the '72 virgins' are not similar at all) as well as text found that have not been included or misinterpreted. We all know that the King James' Bible is not the origin. I cannot answer about the Torah, but I suspect the same alterations have happened over time.

Were these Books written on the spot? No, there is no record of that being true. And, like all information told over time, it dilutes and people put their own spin on it before someone decides to record it. How affected are these Books from the original Word, who is going to know...?

Just my take on it.

The original word is just stories handed down to the next generation ( chinese whispers, if you will).
The whole charade is obvious to those that really look into it, for those that believe this nonsense and claim a moral high ground is beyond ridiculous.

Exactly. Bigga, if you are interested?-take a look at youtube vids featuring Dan Dennett on the memetics of religion, or Jared Diamond on the anthropological basis for religion.