Science Creates Religion? Religion Creates Science?

[John Cuthber]

I'm not about to go through the Bible and make a list for you. You probably know more about it than I could point out. Everything that is included in the Bible was written down by men. If you read carefully, you will find places where the writer actually says that God spoke or revealed what the writer recorded. If you trust the writer then you may take what he recorded as attributable to God. The ten commandments and the book of Revelation are probably the most obvious examples.

 

There are many parts which no claim of God speaking or of a revelation is made. The song book, most of the histories and Paul's letters to the churches are obvious examples. I have seen much complaining about the law. I think most of the law given by Moses was his response to the society and not attributable to God.

 

My point was (and is) that men are not infallible and the works of men are rarely perfect. I expect an old oral tradition written down long after the original storyteller was gone, copied multiple times from copies, translated into other languages and interpreted in others to not be 100 percent true to the original and difficult to understand especially without the context of the original storyteller.

"I'm not about to go through the Bible and make a list for you.."

OK, that illustrates the problem nicely.

There is no way to go through it and work out which bits are "real".

As for the 10 commandments, even they are unclear.

Exodus 34:12-26 King James Version (KJV)

12 Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee:

13 But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves:

14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:

15 Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice;

16 And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.

17 Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.

18 The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, as I commanded thee, in the time of the month Abib: for in the month Abib thou camest out from Egypt.

19 All that openeth the matrix is mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male.

20 But the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty.

21 Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest.

22 And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end.

23 Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before the Lord God, the God of Israel.

24 For I will cast out the nations before thee, and enlarge thy borders: neither shall any man desire thy land, when thou shalt go up to appear before the Lord thy God thrice in the year.

25 Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.

26 The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.

 

The whole question is a mess(more on that here)

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments#How_many_Commandments.3F

and so there's no actual way of telling what bits of the Bible are the work of God and which bits are made up by people (for whatever reason)

Since you don't know what bits are actually "real" i.e. the Word of God, you don't know which bits to obey.

You have to make up your own mind about which bits are right and which bits are wrong.

Well if you are making up your mind about right and wrong, that's fine by me.

But remember- you are making the decision so it's not the work of God.

You are not basing your laws on the Bible- you are deciding which bits of the Bible fit your laws.

[Fred Champion]

You are mistaken, the books that would be included in the New testament were approved by popular vote of church officials. I doubt whether any of them were under threat of death to do what Constantine wanted..

 

http://en.wikipedia....uncil_of_Nicaea

 

Political naivete.

So slavery is ok?

I expect you know a slave then was more like an indentured servant of later times, not owned. The law provided ways for a slave to be freed didn't it?

 

So what ever you feel is good to you is what you should follow?

What else will you follow, something you think is bad for you?

 

Ok, so this [abstaining from sex outside of marriage] applies to men as well as women?

 

Yes.

 

Fred This makes no sense to me, could be more specific? You don't think birth control is a game changer? Safe sex prohibits both pregnancy and STD's

 

There is no such thing as 100 percent safe sex. If sex outside of marriage is not dangerous why do we encourage people to be "safe" when doing it? If there is no danger, don't worry, be happy.

 

So a woman has far more responsibilities when it comes to sex? This is just sexist twaddle...

 

Yes. In the real world the woman is left alone with the child most of the time while the man moves on toward his next conquest.

 

Why can you not grasp that men and women are not the same creatures? They are not the same in their bodies, their minds, their drives, their wants, their needs and the way they look at sex. It is a utopian fantasy to try and put a woman's values on a man or a man's values on a woman.

 

So group marriage is ok? One woman several men or one man and several women? How about Male male marriage or woman woman marriage? Let's be clear on what you call marriage and why...

 

Do I really need to define marriage? Check the law. Whatever it say is OK by me.

 

I would prefer that marriage would be defined by the government as a religious procedure. That would take any consideration of what the parties involved decided to do or not do out of the realm of government control and consideration. In other words, the government would not recognize the procedure in any way; no benefits, no hindrances, no laws regarding it, totally a non-issue, and completely ignore it.

 

Personally I don't give a rip if five men, four women, three dolphins, two condors and a snail all marry. I hope the family is happy. Just don't ask me to support them with my tax dollars.

...

 

and so there's no actual way of telling what bits of the Bible are the work of God and which bits are made up by people (for whatever reason)

Since you don't know what bits are actually "real" i.e. the Word of God, you don't know which bits to obey.

You have to make up your own mind about which bits are right and which bits are wrong.

Well if you are making up your mind about right and wrong, that's fine by me.

But remember- you are making the decision so it's not the work of God.

You are not basing your laws on the Bible- you are deciding which bits of the Bible fit your laws.

If you are Jewish, you sould be subject to the law as it is practiced today. If you are Christian or Muslim you should be subject to the law as modified by the appropriate text. If you are not one of these three, why would you think you should be subject to their laws? Is a citizen of Uganda subject to the laws of Canada?

 

Indeed you do "have to make up your own mind about which bits are right and which bits are wrong". Yes, you are making the decisions about how you will live your life; no one else can make it for you, not even God.

 

Unless you have established you philosophy for living with no contact with, or knowledge of, the Bible your "laws" are at least in part based on it as they are on all of your experiences. Everything, including the Bible, that has been part of your culture has influenced you in some way.

[John Cuthber]

"Unless you have established you philosophy for living with no contact with, or knowledge of, the Bible your "laws" are at least in part based on it as they are on all of your experiences. Everything, including the Bible, that has been part of your culture has influenced you in some way."

 

Indisputably.

 

The Bible has taught me to be very skeptical of authority and to make up my own mind about things.

But I don't follow its teachings, in many cases I actively reject them.

 

"Is a citizen of Uganda subject to the laws of Canada?"

No.

And yet many people would try to say that the laws of both countries are based on the Bible.

Well that's plainly not possible, because it's the same book in both cases, yet the outcomes are different.

 

There may, of course, be some influence from it (and from other philosophies) but the laws are independent of the scriptures.

We make up our minds about what is right and wrong in spite of the Book- not because of it.

The further civilisation advances, the less we look to old books for guidance.

[Moontanman]

Political naivete.

Possibly, I'll give you that but to me it is just as bad, the bible is the word of Emperor Constantine doesn't make it any better...

 

I expect you know a slave then was more like an indentured servant of later times, not owned. The law provided ways for a slave to be freed didn't it?

I suggest you read your bible, those laws only applied to Jews who were enslaved by other Jews...

 

What else will you follow, something you think is bad for you?

Considering much of the bible is indeed bad for you and the people around you...

 

Yes. In the real world the woman is left alone with the child most of the time while the man moves on toward his next conquest.

Horse feathers, I've been married for 40 years, I would never go on to other women.

 

There is no such thing as 100 percent safe sex. If sex outside of marriage is not dangerous why do we encourage people to be "safe" when doing it? If there is no danger, don't worry, be happy.

There is no such thing as 100% safe breathing either

 

Yes. In the real world the woman is left alone with the child most of the time while the man moves on toward his next conquest.

No,in the real world a man takes care of his family.

 

Why can you not grasp that men and women are not the same creatures? They are not the same in their bodies, their minds, their drives, their wants, their needs and the way they look at sex. It is a utopian fantasy to try and put a woman's values on a man or a man's values on a woman.

Why do you have this dystopian view of sexuality?

 

Do I really need to define marriage? Check the law. Whatever it say is OK by me.

You go from what the bible says to what the law says, if the law said men could marry little girls you would be ok with that?

 

I would prefer that marriage would be defined by the government as a religious procedure. That would take any consideration of what the parties involved decided to do or not do out of the realm of government control and consideration. In other words, the government would not recognize the procedure in any way; no benefits, no hindrances, no laws regarding it, totally a non-issue, and completely ignore it.

 

Personally I don't give a rip if five men, four women, three dolphins, two condors and a snail all marry. I hope the family is happy. Just don't ask me to support them with my tax dollars.

If they pay taxes do you not think they deserve the benefits of those tax dollars?

 

If you are Jewish, you should be subject to the law as it is practiced today. If you are Christian or Muslim you should be subject to the law as modified by the appropriate text. If you are not one of these three, why would you think you should be subject to their laws?

So you are ok with men marrying little girls and owning females as slaves?

 

 

Is a citizen of Uganda subject to the laws of Canada?

If as you say the laws are based on the bible then yes...

 

Indeed you do "have to make up your own mind about which bits are right and which bits are wrong". Yes, you are making the decisions about how you will live your life; no one else can make it for you, not even God.

So god is irrelevant and how ever you want to live your life be it a serial killer or having a harem of little boys is ok?

 

Unless you have established your philosophy for living with no contact with, or knowledge of, the Bible your "laws" are at least in part based on it as they are on all of your experiences. Everything, including the Bible, that has been part of your culture has influenced you in some way.

So you ignore the 4 or 5 billion people who do not follow the Bible, the Koran, or the Torah?

[Fred Champion]

Horse feathers, I've been married for 40 years, I would never go on to other women.

 

No,in the real world a man takes care of his family.

 

Did you miss the part that we're talking about sex outside of marriage? Outside of marriage, remember? Outside of marriage.

 

Are you saying in your version of the real world men never cheat on their wives? Maybe your horse does have feathers. Do these "real" men never divorce and fail to pay even child support? Maybe your dog has feathers too.

 

Last statistic I heard was that 50 percent of marriages end in divorce. And that's just for those who actually chose to marry. I'm not sure anyone keeps statistics on those who choose to live together without the bother of marriage.

 

I suppose in your version of the real world we're not approaching the point where the majority of households are headed by a "single mom". Check your cat; it may be scratching its feathers.

 

Why do you have this dystopian view of sexuality?

 

Wow, great word. Had to look it up.

 

Sexuality is not an accurate term for sex outside of marriage. Look it up.

 

I don't care if people get married or not. I don't care if they have sex all day and all night. I don't care who they have sex with. I don't care if they make a commitment to take care of their children or not, as long as they do take care of their children. I do care when they don't take care of their children. People who don't, and there are many who don't, seem to believe that they have some "right" to breed and think it is OK to saddle the rest of us with the job of taking care of their children. I think they are wrong.

 

You go from what the bible says to what the law says, if the law said men could marry little girls you would be ok with that?

 

We were talking about a definition of marriage. Does the law define marriage such that men can marry little girls?

 

If they pay taxes do you not think they deserve the benefits of those tax dollars?

 

Sure, I would be happy if they received benefits equal to the the tax they paid, and very happy if I received benifits equal to the tax I pay. Is that how it works in your version of the real world? It certainly isn't in mine. In my real world the government takes from me and gives to them, after taking a big cut for the government. I suppose in your real world it's OK that I pay a lot and get nothing while they pay nothing and get a lot. If you can't see that there's something wrong with that picture maybe you should pull the feathers away from you eyes.

 

So you are ok with men marrying little girls and owning females as slaves?

 

So god is irrelevant and how ever you want to live your life be it a serial killer or having a harem of little boys is ok?

 

So you ignore the 4 or 5 billion people who do not follow the Bible, the Koran, or the Torah?

Where in what I said was there anything about little girls and boys, serial killers, God being "irrelevant" or ignoring 4 or 5 billion people? Maybe it's all the feathers around you that prevents you from following what I actually wrote.

[John Cuthber]

Did you miss the part that we're talking about sex outside of marriage? Outside of marriage, remember? Outside of marriage.

 

Did you miss the bit about what Moontanman said?

He said "I've been married for 40 years, I would never go on to other women."

You do realise that the other women would be outside of his marriage don't you?

 

And, of course, what he said was sufficient to demonstrate the falsehood of your assertion that

"Yes. In the real world the woman is left alone with the child most of the time while the man moves on toward his next conquest."

because in at least one case (Moontanman's) that's not what man does.

I'm fairly sure that it's also true for at least some other men too.

[Moontanman]

Did you miss the part that we're talking about sex outside of marriage? Outside of marriage, remember? Outside of marriage.

 

Are you saying in your version of the real world men never cheat on their wives? Maybe your horse does have feathers. Do these "real" men never divorce and fail to pay even child support? Maybe your dog has feathers too.

 

Last statistic I heard was that 50 percent of marriages end in divorce. And that's just for those who actually chose to marry. I'm not sure anyone keeps statistics on those who choose to live together without the bother of marriage.

 

I suppose in your version of the real world we're not approaching the point where the majority of households are headed by a "single mom". Check your cat; it may be scratching its feathers.

So now you want to argue who has feathers and how many feathers they have?

 

Wow, great word. Had to look it up.

Glad you did...

 

Sexuality is not an accurate term for sex outside of marriage. Look it up.

 

I don't care if people get married or not. I don't care if they have sex all day and all night. I don't care who they have sex with. I don't care if they make a commitment to take care of their children or not, as long as they do take care of their children. I do care when they don't take care of their children. People who don't, and there are many who don't, seem to believe that they have some "right" to breed and think it is OK to saddle the rest of us with the job of taking care of their children. I think they are wrong.

Sad you didn't look up sexuality...

 

sex·u·al·i·ty

ˌsekSHo͞oˈalitē/Submit

noun

capacity for sexual feelings.

"she began to understand the power of her sexuality"

synonyms: sensuality, sexiness, seductiveness, desirability, eroticism, physicality; More

a person's sexual orientation or preference.

plural noun: sexualities

"people with proscribed sexualities"

synonyms: sexual orientation, sexual preference, leaning, persuasion;

We were talking about a definition of marriage. Does the law define marriage such that men can marry little girls?

It all depends on where you get your laws from, you keep mentioning this "book" care to tell me which one is correct and why?

 

Sure, I would be happy if they received benefits equal to the the tax they paid, and very happy if I received benefits equal to the tax I pay. Is that how it works in your version of the real world? It certainly isn't in mine. In my real world the government takes from me and gives to them, after taking a big cut for the government. I suppose in your real world it's OK that I pay a lot and get nothing while they pay nothing and get a lot. If you can't see that there's something wrong with that picture maybe you should pull the feathers away from you eyes.

This is in direct contradiction of what you said...

 

Personally I don't give a rip if five men, four women, three dolphins, two condors and a snail all marry. I hope the family is happy. Just don't ask me to support them with my tax dollars.

Where in what I said was there anything about little girls and boys, serial killers, God being "irrelevant" or ignoring 4 or 5 billion people? Maybe it's all the feathers around you that prevents you from following what I actually wrote.

You said:

If you are Jewish, you should be subject to the law as it is practiced today. If you are Christian or Muslim you should be subject to the law as modified by the appropriate text.

That quote thing is a bitch isn't it? Since there are billions of people not covered by the Abrahamic religion I suggest you check for your own feathers..

[Fred Champion]

Did you miss the bit about what Moontanman said?

He said "I've been married for 40 years, I would never go on to other women."

You do realise that the other women would be outside of his marriage don't you?

 

And, of course, what he said was sufficient to demonstrate the falsehood of your assertion that

"Yes. In the real world the woman is left alone with the child most of the time while the man moves on toward his next conquest."

because in at least one case (Moontanman's) that's not what man does.

I'm fairly sure that it's also true for at least some other men too.

Did you miss the part that we were discussing an unmarried woman getting pregnant? Unmarried. Not married. We have had no discussion of married women except what Moontanman has tried to interject.

 

 

 

Moontanman:

You said:

 

Quote

If you are Jewish, you should be subject to the law as it is practiced today. If you are Christian or Muslim you should be subject to the law as modified by the appropriate text.

That quote thing is a bitch isn't it? Since there are billions of people not covered by the Abrahamic religion I suggest you check for your own feathers..

 

 

And where in the quote of my post did I say anything about people other than Jews, Christians and Muslims?

 

Did you miss the part where I said "If you are ..."?

 

Didn't you get that what we were discussing was the religious law?

 

My only point there was that if you are in one of those religious groups you should consider yourself to be subject to the religious law of that group. Do I ignore the billions who are not in one of those religious groups because I do not say that they need not consider themselves subject to the religious law of those groups?

 

I think our discussion would be much better if you would put just a bit of effort into trying to understand what I post and what I mean rather than putting so much effort into looking for fault and adding words and meaning which I never intended. I expect I'm not the only one here having a hard time relating your responses to what I actually posted.

Edited July 21, 2014 by Fred Champion

[Nicholas Kang]

This topic is no longer suitable for a teenager to look at. I will ignore this forum from now onwards. No more replies from me. The whole topic have shifted from religion and Science to sex, and that is not my cup of tea. Never back to this topic/thread anymore.

[dimreepr]

This topic is no longer suitable for a teenager to look at. I will ignore this forum from now onwards. No more replies from me. The whole topic have shifted from religion and Science to sex, and that is not my cup of tea. Never back to this topic/thread anymore.

 

 

May I suggest you frame the topic question with care, if you want to avoid tangents.

 

And education should never be avoided whatever the subject; particularly sex education for a teenager, if memory serves, I could have used a little more than I had, I could have avoided a few nasty surprises.

[Nicholas Kang]

I have violated my own statement-No reply to this topic. Sex education is ok but your topic seemed to focus on debating with nasty sexual words and contains more porn elements than sex education.

[dimreepr]

I have violated my own statement-No reply to this topic. Sex education is ok but your topic seemed to focus on debating with nasty sexual words and contains more porn elements than sex education.

 

 

I seem to have missed that part.

 

 

I have violated my own statement-No reply to this topic.

 

 

 

A valuable lesson to learn "never say never".

Edited July 21, 2014 by dimreepr

[Nicholas Kang]

What do you mean? I am correct or you ignore my statement? Sorry, I am not good in English. I have seen this sentence for a few times but still can`t get the meaning. Anyway, if possible, please come back to the topic, Science and religion at least not touching sex and porn issues. Please. I beg you. Please... You know how bad my reputation is since most of you posted sex and porn issues in my topic. Hey! i am not involved in these things, but being affected by them because most of you posted them in my topic.

[dimreepr]

What do you mean? I am correct or you ignore my statement?

 

 

 

I mean, I’ve seen no post in this thread that could be classed as

“nasty sexual words and contains more porn elements”

 

 

Sorry, I am not good in English. I have seen this sentence for a few times but still can`t get the meaning.

 

 

 

If by this you mean “never say never” Then it simply means, it’s never a good idea to exclude or deny you will ever repeat yourself because you often will and it just makes you look indecisive or worse.

 

 

Anyway, if possible, please come back to the topic, Science and religion at least not touching sex and porn issues. Please. I beg you. Please... You know how bad my reputation is since most of you posted sex and porn issues in my topic. Hey! i am not involved in these things, but being affected by them because most of you posted them in my topic.

 

 

 

My thoughts on the topic as relates to the title were expressed in post # 56:

 

“Science is the search for answers to reality; religion has already decided.”

 

So, "no" as expressed in post #2

Edited July 21, 2014 by dimreepr

[Moontanman]

Did you miss the part that we were discussing an unmarried woman getting pregnant? Unmarried. Not married. We have had no discussion of married women except what Moontanman has tried to interject.

 

 

 

Moontanman:

And where in the quote of my post did I say anything about people other than Jews, Christians and Muslims?

 

Did you miss the part where I said "If you are ..."?

 

Didn't you get that what we were discussing was the religious law?

 

My only point there was that if you are in one of those religious groups you should consider yourself to be subject to the religious law of that group. Do I ignore the billions who are not in one of those religious groups because I do not say that they need not consider themselves subject to the religious law of those groups?

 

I think our discussion would be much better if you would put just a bit of effort into trying to understand what I post and what I mean rather than putting so much effort into looking for fault and adding words and meaning which I never intended. I expect I'm not the only one here having a hard time relating your responses to what I actually posted.

My basic question is why we should consider any religious laws at all, they consist of misogyny, genocide, infanticide, rape, child rape, murder, the list goes on and on in fact there are 613 of them.

 

You have yet to give any reason we should follow them which set we should follow and why you exclude billions of people who evidently can do anything they want.

 

Why I ask are you so obsessed with the sexual morals of others? Sex education and safe sex addresses your issues very nicely. Your.. I hesitate to say your "understanding" of human sexuality is poor to none. I would suggest you stop worrying about others sexuliaty or sexual behavior and take a long hard look at your own antiquated attitudes...

 

In our society, and that is all either of us can discuss with any real knowledge, there are problems, most of them caused by the very "books" you want to follow. The problems you seem to have are way above my pay grade...

 

Science and religion will never be reconciled because they deal with two completely different realms, fantasy and reality...

Edited July 21, 2014 by Moontanman

[MonDie]

That's a lot to read!

 

Perhaps certain religious beliefs can, for some individuals or in some situations, provide comfort or stave off nihilism. Unlike science, religion could be evaluating beliefs on something other than accuracy.

[Dr. Funkenstein]

Both Science and Religion are offshoots of Philosophy. Philosophy asked the question, science went that way with it, and religion went the other way. Now in 2014 we see that science has reached a point (Quantum mechanics) where it dissolves into a mystery. Religion has remained in that mystery since man invented it. The original philosophical question which spurned these two viens was/is, "Why are we here?". In search of that answer, they are both comparable to each other. But science is of a more practicle value. religion has made no gains since its inception, indeed it doesnt try to prove it's point, it relys on Faith. Science goes where empirical evidence takes it, thus is their difference.

[John Cuthber]

That's a lot to read!

 

Perhaps certain religious beliefs can, for some individuals or in some situations, provide comfort or stave off nihilism. Unlike science, religion could be evaluating beliefs on something other than accuracy.

You seem to have that the wrong way round.

The only criterion that religion seems to be able to use is "is it part of our 'Book'? if not it is Wrong".

On the other hand, science can judge a belief, on accuracy but also on some measure of simplicity.

You could, if you wished, set up some sort of experiment to establish which beliefs give the greatest comfort in given circumstances.

It would be a bit limited. but science can do it.

Religion never would.

[Phi for All]

I saw a bumper sticker yesterday that said, "God is too big for one religion". I know the sentiment wasn't meant to be taken this way, but I was reminded of this discussion, and how religion fails in its explanations. Some of those failures led to the formation of other religions, ones the founders felt explained things better, while the failures led others to wonder if there was something much more natural and observable going on here if we just stopped guessing and started organizing what we really know.

 

I think it's pretty insidious that this sentiment, that God is too big for one religion, basically says believe anyway you want as long as you believe in God. Specific practices and ideologies are insignificant apparently, and I think I detect a bit of the mysteriously-moving-God concept as well. So the specific bits are just guesses, but overall we can assume God exists?!

 

I don't think so.

[MonDie]

It's an ambiguous bumper sticker. It could express the idea that the god was revealing itself everywhere, not just in one region of the world.

 

---

 

You seem to have that the wrong way round.

The only criterion that religion seems to be able to use is "is it part of our 'Book'? if not it is Wrong".

On the other hand, science can judge a belief, on accuracy but also on some measure of simplicity.

You could, if you wished, set up some sort of experiment to establish which beliefs give the greatest comfort in given circumstances.

It would be a bit limited. but science can do it.

Religion never would.

 

More like, "is it part of [my interpretation of] our 'Book'?"

 

These other aims may have to remain covert to be achieved. Despite that, we see apologists argue that religion makes us moral or less nihilistic.

[Moontanman]

It's an ambiguous bumper sticker. It could express the idea that the god was revealing itself everywhere, not just in one region of the world.

 

---

 

 

More like, "is it part of [my interpretation of] our 'Book'?"

 

These other aims may have to remain covert to be achieved. Despite that, we see apologists argue that religion makes us moral or less nihilistic.

It only makes us more moral if we have the morals to cherry pick the parts we already know are moral....

This topic is no longer suitable for a teenager to look at. I will ignore this forum from now onwards. No more replies from me. The whole topic have shifted from religion and Science to sex, and that is not my cup of tea. Never back to this topic/thread anymore.

Can you point out where we said anything not suitable for teenagers? Just remember god watches you all the time

[Phi for All]

It's an ambiguous bumper sticker. It could express the idea that the god was revealing itself everywhere, not just in one region of the world.

 

I'm sure it does. That doesn't stop it from being an argument based on a Begging the Question fallacy. Religion may not be the answer but God definitely exists?! That's pretty much a license to say anything you want about whatever you want and just shrug and say, "Oh well, it's God, what are you gonna do?".

[MonDie]

It only makes us more moral if we have the morals to cherry pick the parts we already know are moral....

 

 

I don't know that it makes one moral even then. I find the death-coping hypothesis more plausible.

[John Cuthber]

I saw a bumper sticker yesterday that said, "God is too big for one religion". I know the sentiment wasn't meant to be taken this way, but I was reminded of this discussion, and how religion fails in its explanations. Some of those failures led to the formation of other religions, ones the founders felt explained things better, while the failures led others to wonder if there was something much more natural and observable going on here if we just stopped guessing and started organizing what we really know.

 

 

I must have missed something.

What did religion explain?

[Phi for All]

I must have missed something.

What did religion explain?

 

How the world was created, how life began, how to live forever. Take your pick.

 

Explanations should be good ones, but often aren't.