Religion and Ethics - The topic of this USMB Discussion is an "oxymoron"

[IResist]

I wouldn't go that far. I think one can have ethics and religion. I also think one can have ethics without religion.

The notion that religion makes someone moral and ethical is one that I strongly challenge, and think morality ought to be defined by words and action, not by religion or lack there of.

Here's my problem with that... there is no accountability. It's a nice sentiment but it doesn't work.

You could say it's possible to have a store where nothing is priced and people just pay what they think things are worth.... nice sentiment, wouldn't work.

To have ethics and morality requires some means of accountability to some higher authority than self. If accountability for your morals are left to self it's like the store without pricing.

The authority is the law that we have and that we are accountable to the law. Not to any religious law but to human law.

I see you're from Birmingham. Bentley was a family values preaching Christian who resigned in disgrace over an affair even though his religion violates it.

Nobody is above the law, but the laws of this country and Biblical laws are not the same thing.

You're missing the point. Laws are based on an enforcing authority. Why have law enforcement and courts? Why can't people abide by their own self-determined laws? That's essentially your argument.

Morals mean nothing when nothing holds you accountable. Gov. Bentley is a good example. He's obviously a religious hypocrite.

That's not at all my point but we live under secular law, not religious law and Bentley is just one of many religious hypocrites out there. I am an atheist, yet I follow the law.

Nearly every law is rooted in someone's morality.

Yes, you follow the law because there is a consequence if you don't. If immortality has no consequence why be moral? Is it all based on self-serving rules you make as you go?

Except what is immoral isn't always illegal. Keep that in mind, too. Legality and morality are not the same thing.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

Breeze, until you can cite a denomination of Christianity that doesn't adhere to the teachings of Jesus, you have nothing. You're making an argument with no basis. You keep pointing to the 4th century... a number literally defined by the life of Jesus, as some sort of reference point for where the religion began. It's just shear ignorance not worthy of response.

The term “canon” is used to describe the books that are divinely inspired and therefore belong in the Bible. The difficulty in determining the biblical canon is that the Bible does not give us a list of the books that belong in the Bible. Determining the canon was a process conducted first by Jewish rabbis and scholars and later by early Christians. Ultimately, it was God who decided what books belonged in the biblical canon. A book of Scripture belonged in the canon from the moment God inspired its writing. It was simply a matter of God’s convincing His human followers which books should be included in the Bible.

... the cannon of the bible was completed in 397 AD by the Christian church ...

yes mr dictator, the bible was not written in the late 4th century, 397 ad ... because you say so.

The bible wasn't written then. Most of it was written centuries before. It's not because I say so, it's because it's a fact. It has also been translated and revised since then. None of that has to do with when Christianity began or how.

Do you honestly believe as the OP claims, that religions are antithetical to morals and ethics? If so, you're a dunderhead.

.

Do you honestly believe as the OP claims, that religions are antithetical to morals and ethics? If so, you're a dunderhead.

I'm not sure religions hold any special value above any other beliefs or are any different from ordinary beliefs concerning morals and ethics and particularly not the scripted ones.

... what point I winder would a 10,000 page document have in mind if only as a religious summation and does not rely on a single verifiable proof for any of its multitude of proclamations when referenced as a work of "moral" stewardship.


you did not answer my question on what day was Jesus made a christ while they were still alive.

The bible isn't a 10k page document. It's a collection of books written over a span of centuries. You can save yourself the trouble of trying to lure me into a debate over Christian dogma, I'm not interested. I'm not here to defend their religion, just to keep the facts straight.

.

The bible isn't a 10k page document. It's a collection of books written over a span of centuries. You can save yourself the trouble of trying to lure me into a debate over Christian dogma

you are disingenuous, the bible is not a compilation "of books written over a span of centuries" but a select collection of chosen and audited text cobbled together in the late 4th century for a specific purpose to promote their particular agenda.

and disingenuous to imply anyone is trying to lure you into a debate about c dogma, I am only responding to the content of the thread as above that makes it's point by your very response in denial of the stated facts.

 

[Boss]

.

Breeze, until you can cite a denomination of Christianity that doesn't adhere to the teachings of Jesus, you have nothing. You're making an argument with no basis. You keep pointing to the 4th century... a number literally defined by the life of Jesus, as some sort of reference point for where the religion began. It's just shear ignorance not worthy of response.

The term “canon” is used to describe the books that are divinely inspired and therefore belong in the Bible. The difficulty in determining the biblical canon is that the Bible does not give us a list of the books that belong in the Bible. Determining the canon was a process conducted first by Jewish rabbis and scholars and later by early Christians. Ultimately, it was God who decided what books belonged in the biblical canon. A book of Scripture belonged in the canon from the moment God inspired its writing. It was simply a matter of God’s convincing His human followers which books should be included in the Bible.

... the cannon of the bible was completed in 397 AD by the Christian church ...

yes mr dictator, the bible was not written in the late 4th century, 397 ad ... because you say so.

The bible wasn't written then. Most of it was written centuries before. It's not because I say so, it's because it's a fact. It has also been translated and revised since then. None of that has to do with when Christianity began or how.

Do you honestly believe as the OP claims, that religions are antithetical to morals and ethics? If so, you're a dunderhead.

.

Do you honestly believe as the OP claims, that religions are antithetical to morals and ethics? If so, you're a dunderhead.

I'm not sure religions hold any special value above any other beliefs or are any different from ordinary beliefs concerning morals and ethics and particularly not the scripted ones.

... what point I winder would a 10,000 page document have in mind if only as a religious summation and does not rely on a single verifiable proof for any of its multitude of proclamations when referenced as a work of "moral" stewardship.


you did not answer my question on what day was Jesus made a christ while they were still alive.

The bible isn't a 10k page document. It's a collection of books written over a span of centuries. You can save yourself the trouble of trying to lure me into a debate over Christian dogma, I'm not interested. I'm not here to defend their religion, just to keep the facts straight.

.

The bible isn't a 10k page document. It's a collection of books written over a span of centuries. You can save yourself the trouble of trying to lure me into a debate over Christian dogma

you are disingenuous, the bible is not a compilation "of books written over a span of centuries" but a select collection of chosen and audited text cobbled together in the late 4th century for a specific purpose to promote their particular agenda.

and disingenuous to imply anyone is trying to lure you into a debate about c dogma, I am only responding to the content of the thread as above that makes it's point by your very response in denial of the stated facts.

No, what you have presented is an opinion I disagree with because you can't support it with facts. The bible is not a singular document as you claimed and the various books which comprise it were written by various authors over many centuries. You can stubbornly insist you're right, I can't change that but it doesn't make you right. You're still avoiding the origins of the religion.

 

[Boss]

Here's my problem with that... there is no accountability. It's a nice sentiment but it doesn't work.

You could say it's possible to have a store where nothing is priced and people just pay what they think things are worth.... nice sentiment, wouldn't work.

To have ethics and morality requires some means of accountability to some higher authority than self. If accountability for your morals are left to self it's like the store without pricing.

The authority is the law that we have and that we are accountable to the law. Not to any religious law but to human law.

I see you're from Birmingham. Bentley was a family values preaching Christian who resigned in disgrace over an affair even though his religion violates it.

Nobody is above the law, but the laws of this country and Biblical laws are not the same thing.

You're missing the point. Laws are based on an enforcing authority. Why have law enforcement and courts? Why can't people abide by their own self-determined laws? That's essentially your argument.

Morals mean nothing when nothing holds you accountable. Gov. Bentley is a good example. He's obviously a religious hypocrite.

That's not at all my point but we live under secular law, not religious law and Bentley is just one of many religious hypocrites out there. I am an atheist, yet I follow the law.

Nearly every law is rooted in someone's morality.

Yes, you follow the law because there is a consequence if you don't. If immortality has no consequence why be moral? Is it all based on self-serving rules you make as you go?

Except what is immoral isn't always illegal. Keep that in mind, too. Legality and morality are not the same thing.

I didn't make that argument, I thought you did. Again, my point was that morals mean nothing with no means of accountability. Just as law means nothing without means of accountability.

 

[IResist]

The authority is the law that we have and that we are accountable to the law. Not to any religious law but to human law.

I see you're from Birmingham. Bentley was a family values preaching Christian who resigned in disgrace over an affair even though his religion violates it.

Nobody is above the law, but the laws of this country and Biblical laws are not the same thing.

You're missing the point. Laws are based on an enforcing authority. Why have law enforcement and courts? Why can't people abide by their own self-determined laws? That's essentially your argument.

Morals mean nothing when nothing holds you accountable. Gov. Bentley is a good example. He's obviously a religious hypocrite.

That's not at all my point but we live under secular law, not religious law and Bentley is just one of many religious hypocrites out there. I am an atheist, yet I follow the law.

Nearly every law is rooted in someone's morality.

Yes, you follow the law because there is a consequence if you don't. If immortality has no consequence why be moral? Is it all based on self-serving rules you make as you go?

Except what is immoral isn't always illegal. Keep that in mind, too. Legality and morality are not the same thing.

I didn't make that argument, I thought you did. Again, my point was that morals mean nothing with no means of accountability. Just as law means nothing without means of accountability.

Yet accountability and law means from secular law. Not Biblical or religious law.

Accountability in regards to morals is probably just being socially shunned. Governor Bentley's affair was wrong, it was immoral, but it wasn't illegal.

 

[BreezeWood]

.


yes mr dictator, the bible was not written in the late 4th century, 397 ad ... because you say so.

The bible wasn't written then. Most of it was written centuries before. It's not because I say so, it's because it's a fact. It has also been translated and revised since then. None of that has to do with when Christianity began or how.

Do you honestly believe as the OP claims, that religions are antithetical to morals and ethics? If so, you're a dunderhead.

.

Do you honestly believe as the OP claims, that religions are antithetical to morals and ethics? If so, you're a dunderhead.

I'm not sure religions hold any special value above any other beliefs or are any different from ordinary beliefs concerning morals and ethics and particularly not the scripted ones.

... what point I winder would a 10,000 page document have in mind if only as a religious summation and does not rely on a single verifiable proof for any of its multitude of proclamations when referenced as a work of "moral" stewardship.


you did not answer my question on what day was Jesus made a christ while they were still alive.

The bible isn't a 10k page document. It's a collection of books written over a span of centuries. You can save yourself the trouble of trying to lure me into a debate over Christian dogma, I'm not interested. I'm not here to defend their religion, just to keep the facts straight.

.

The bible isn't a 10k page document. It's a collection of books written over a span of centuries. You can save yourself the trouble of trying to lure me into a debate over Christian dogma

you are disingenuous, the bible is not a compilation "of books written over a span of centuries" but a select collection of chosen and audited text cobbled together in the late 4th century for a specific purpose to promote their particular agenda.

and disingenuous to imply anyone is trying to lure you into a debate about c dogma, I am only responding to the content of the thread as above that makes it's point by your very response in denial of the stated facts.

No, what you have presented is an opinion I disagree with because you can't support it with facts. The bible is not a singular document as you claimed and the various books which comprise it were written by various authors over many centuries. You can stubbornly insist you're right, I can't change that but it doesn't make you right. You're still avoiding the origins of the religion.

.

No, what you have presented is an opinion I disagree with because you can't support it with facts.

the facts have been provided on this subject and many others, you simply have a penchant to disregard them when they refute your position.

 

[Boss]

The bible wasn't written then. Most of it was written centuries before. It's not because I say so, it's because it's a fact. It has also been translated and revised since then. None of that has to do with when Christianity began or how.

Do you honestly believe as the OP claims, that religions are antithetical to morals and ethics? If so, you're a dunderhead.

.

Do you honestly believe as the OP claims, that religions are antithetical to morals and ethics? If so, you're a dunderhead.

I'm not sure religions hold any special value above any other beliefs or are any different from ordinary beliefs concerning morals and ethics and particularly not the scripted ones.

... what point I winder would a 10,000 page document have in mind if only as a religious summation and does not rely on a single verifiable proof for any of its multitude of proclamations when referenced as a work of "moral" stewardship.


you did not answer my question on what day was Jesus made a christ while they were still alive.

The bible isn't a 10k page document. It's a collection of books written over a span of centuries. You can save yourself the trouble of trying to lure me into a debate over Christian dogma, I'm not interested. I'm not here to defend their religion, just to keep the facts straight.

.

The bible isn't a 10k page document. It's a collection of books written over a span of centuries. You can save yourself the trouble of trying to lure me into a debate over Christian dogma

you are disingenuous, the bible is not a compilation "of books written over a span of centuries" but a select collection of chosen and audited text cobbled together in the late 4th century for a specific purpose to promote their particular agenda.

and disingenuous to imply anyone is trying to lure you into a debate about c dogma, I am only responding to the content of the thread as above that makes it's point by your very response in denial of the stated facts.

No, what you have presented is an opinion I disagree with because you can't support it with facts. The bible is not a singular document as you claimed and the various books which comprise it were written by various authors over many centuries. You can stubbornly insist you're right, I can't change that but it doesn't make you right. You're still avoiding the origins of the religion.

.

No, what you have presented is an opinion I disagree with because you can't support it with facts.

the facts have been provided on this subject and many others, you simply have a penchant to disregard them when they refute your position.

Your "secular law" argument still relies on something holding people accountable. If you don't have that, you really don't have laws. And again, I don't know of any law not rooted in someone's morality, most of which stems from religious views.

You can keep proclaiming you've refuted me and I refuse to accept it but you haven't and I don't think you can.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
I'm not sure religions hold any special value above any other beliefs or are any different from ordinary beliefs concerning morals and ethics and particularly not the scripted ones.

... what point I winder would a 10,000 page document have in mind if only as a religious summation and does not rely on a single verifiable proof for any of its multitude of proclamations when referenced as a work of "moral" stewardship.


you did not answer my question on what day was Jesus made a christ while they were still alive.

The bible isn't a 10k page document. It's a collection of books written over a span of centuries. You can save yourself the trouble of trying to lure me into a debate over Christian dogma, I'm not interested. I'm not here to defend their religion, just to keep the facts straight.

.

The bible isn't a 10k page document. It's a collection of books written over a span of centuries. You can save yourself the trouble of trying to lure me into a debate over Christian dogma

you are disingenuous, the bible is not a compilation "of books written over a span of centuries" but a select collection of chosen and audited text cobbled together in the late 4th century for a specific purpose to promote their particular agenda.

and disingenuous to imply anyone is trying to lure you into a debate about c dogma, I am only responding to the content of the thread as above that makes it's point by your very response in denial of the stated facts.

No, what you have presented is an opinion I disagree with because you can't support it with facts. The bible is not a singular document as you claimed and the various books which comprise it were written by various authors over many centuries. You can stubbornly insist you're right, I can't change that but it doesn't make you right. You're still avoiding the origins of the religion.

.

No, what you have presented is an opinion I disagree with because you can't support it with facts.

the facts have been provided on this subject and many others, you simply have a penchant to disregard them when they refute your position.

Your "secular law" argument still relies on something holding people accountable. If you don't have that, you really don't have laws. And again, I don't know of any law not rooted in someone's morality, most of which stems from religious views.

You can keep proclaiming you've refuted me and I refuse to accept it but you haven't and I don't think you can.

.

Your "secular law" argument still relies on something holding people accountable. If you don't have that, you really don't have laws. And again, I don't know of any law not rooted in someone's morality, most of which stems from religious views.

the religion of the Almighty is secular, being the same - The Triumph of Good vs Evil.


their political agenda is too without the christ.

 

[RWS]

Believing in an imaginary god doesn't make you religious. It just makes you wrong. Moreover, religion and ethics occupy the same realm--how we treat one another--and are therefore appropriately included under the same forum.

Ques: what does that mean "follow your morals"? Do you mean something like "go with your gut" or "act on impulse"?

Correct, except for the imaginary God bit.

What I can't figure out is that virtually no one of any intellectual capacity can fathom that there is no other life in the seemingly endless universe, and in the same breath, pretend that the notion of God is so absurd

Very odd.

I am very supportive of life, and intelligent life, outside of the earth. And I argue for it. I cannot fathom why you would make such a ridiculous statement! Actually, it's usually the religious folks that cannot accept the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere, because it goes against their biblical religion and the authority of their rulers. Especially when it means that if they came here, they may actually be our "gods".

Religion and ethics are opposites. You cannot have one and also the other, if you're following one of the trilogy. You either have ethics, or you support a religion that killed/tortured/raped everyone in its way in order to get popular. I'm sorry, you can be a dick and try to brush it off, but the reality is that this is what happened to get you to be your religion. And eventually, you will be compelled to do it again, once asked. And you will justify it based on a religion you were born into.

And btw, since we're about to get into grammar nazi's, your last sentence is a doozy.... But I understand... jus sayin for your buddy whose ass i'm about to kick...

Wait.....wut?

So the life that exists in the universe can include anything except God. Check. Got it.

So morality is absent in religion. Only those not religious can be moral. Check. Got it.

Do you smoke much reefer?

Whoa, dude, hold it up. The universe can exist with "god". It's just that your "God" is probably something that wants to kill everybody else.

Check? Got it?

A belief in "god" does not mean you have to kill anybody that thinks differently.

Dear RWS
What if "God" is defined to be
* nature
* life
* the universe

If God is the "Spirit of Life" or "natural laws of life"
then can "Life" or the "universe" exist
without the "spirit or laws of life" which cause it to exist and operate.

If life can exist without having a beginning source,
then can LIFE itself as "self-existing" with no beginning and no end
be taken to be the meaning of God?

Hi Emily,

Your first paragraph is something I can agree with.

But in the 2nd paragraph, you introduced the word "spirit". Which is existential. Math and science no longer works when you introduce the existential. My thinking is that there is an order to the universe. We just don't know what it is. But I describe it as the way particles interact in our universe in a certain way, to make this universe possible. That would be "god" to me. I think you think about it too much, and try to create a reason why you are here to explain things, when in fact there is no reason besides procreation.

Regardless, it is not something to kill or die for. Or try to convince others that they should do the same. That's the role of religion.

And the point of my thread.

This is not a discussion of spirituality, which can lead to many good things. It is a discussion of why religion is inherently evil, because people are fooled to follow the wrong things. And commit bad acts upon the rest of us based on what they were fooled to do.

And therefore, the trifecta of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is not ethical or moral. They promote the opposite of what good people would want, based on their actions throughout history.

 

[RWS]

I wouldn't go that far. I think one can have ethics and religion. I also think one can have ethics without religion.

The notion that religion makes someone moral and ethical is one that I strongly challenge, and think morality ought to be defined by words and action, not by religion or lack there of.

Well, you know, that's an easy posit to take. I'm trying to make it real.

So if you are a follower of a religion today (we are keeping it to the trinity for now), then you have to make excuses for what your religion did to get you here, if you intend to put yourself forward as a "good" person. You must excuse everything that occurred in order to make your religion dominant, and then you were born into it, and believe you are not guilty of past transgressions even though you commit to that religion.

Or, you can accept it and say that all those people deserved to suffer and die because they were non-believers. And you're a "good" person because you follow the winning religion.

Or, you can say that you had nothing to do with what they did, to justify yourself today as an innocent follower, and you're not guilty of those acts that were committed in your creation, and would never do it again.... Even though you follow everything they say in that religion, that led to those terrible acts.

So if you follow a trinity religion, there is no way you can be moral or ethical. Because to be a "good Catholic", you have to forget what got you there.

That doesn't mean it goes away because you choose to forget or ignore it.

It's what got you here, arguing about your religion and trying to justify it. (not you personally, but all the others).

You all know that you religious followers are guilty as heck. I'm just pointing out the obvious, and you all are freaking out over it. And you have to deny it to make yourselves feel better.

Let me give some advice. You will start feeling better, when you let your religion go, and start understanding reality. And at the same time, the world will become a better place because of it.

 

[Boss]

I wouldn't go that far. I think one can have ethics and religion. I also think one can have ethics without religion.

The notion that religion makes someone moral and ethical is one that I strongly challenge, and think morality ought to be defined by words and action, not by religion or lack there of.

Well, you know, that's an easy posit to take. I'm trying to make it real.

So if you are a follower of a religion today (we are keeping it to the trinity for now), then you have to make excuses for what your religion did to get you here, if you intend to put yourself forward as a "good" person. You must excuse everything that occurred in order to make your religion dominant, and then you were born into it, and believe you are not guilty of past transgressions even though you commit to that religion.

Or, you can accept it and say that all those people deserved to suffer and die because they were non-believers. And you're a "good" person because you follow the winning religion.

Or, you can say that you had nothing to do what they did, to justify yourself today as an innocent follower, and you're not guilty of those acts that were committed in your creation, and would never do it again.... Even though you follow everything they say in that religion, that led to those terrible acts.

So if you follow a trinity religion, there is no way you can be moral or ethical. Because to be a "good Catholic", you have to forget what got you there.

That doesn't mean it goes away because you choose to forget or ignore it.

It's what got you here, arguing about your religion and trying to justify it. (not you personally, but all the others).

You all know you are guilty as heck. I'm just pointing it out, and you all are freaking out over it. Because you deny it.

Trinity is father, son and holy ghost, it's not a description of Abrahamic religions.

The problem with your argument is you are attempting to say that religion is useless because it doesn't make people perfect and sinless. A quite preposterous expectation. Especially since Christianity says the exact opposite.

 

[RWS]

 

[RWS]

I wouldn't go that far. I think one can have ethics and religion. I also think one can have ethics without religion.

The notion that religion makes someone moral and ethical is one that I strongly challenge, and think morality ought to be defined by words and action, not by religion or lack there of.

Well, you know, that's an easy posit to take. I'm trying to make it real.

So if you are a follower of a religion today (we are keeping it to the trinity for now), then you have to make excuses for what your religion did to get you here, if you intend to put yourself forward as a "good" person. You must excuse everything that occurred in order to make your religion dominant, and then you were born into it, and believe you are not guilty of past transgressions even though you commit to that religion.

Or, you can accept it and say that all those people deserved to suffer and die because they were non-believers. And you're a "good" person because you follow the winning religion.

Or, you can say that you had nothing to do what they did, to justify yourself today as an innocent follower, and you're not guilty of those acts that were committed in your creation, and would never do it again.... Even though you follow everything they say in that religion, that led to those terrible acts.

So if you follow a trinity religion, there is no way you can be moral or ethical. Because to be a "good Catholic", you have to forget what got you there.

That doesn't mean it goes away because you choose to forget or ignore it.

It's what got you here, arguing about your religion and trying to justify it. (not you personally, but all the others).

You all know you are guilty as heck. I'm just pointing it out, and you all are freaking out over it. Because you deny it.

Trinity is father, son and holy ghost, it's not a description of Abrahamic religions.

The problem with your argument is you are attempting to say that religion is useless because it doesn't make people perfect and sinless. A quite preposterous expectation. Especially since Christianity says the exact opposite.

Please, I stated what i meant by "trinity". Why are you doing this? Just to argue? And that is not what I said about religion. Just stop dude.

 

[Boss]

Correct, except for the imaginary God bit.

What I can't figure out is that virtually no one of any intellectual capacity can fathom that there is no other life in the seemingly endless universe, and in the same breath, pretend that the notion of God is so absurd

Very odd.

I am very supportive of life, and intelligent life, outside of the earth. And I argue for it. I cannot fathom why you would make such a ridiculous statement! Actually, it's usually the religious folks that cannot accept the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere, because it goes against their biblical religion and the authority of their rulers. Especially when it means that if they came here, they may actually be our "gods".

Religion and ethics are opposites. You cannot have one and also the other, if you're following one of the trilogy. You either have ethics, or you support a religion that killed/tortured/raped everyone in its way in order to get popular. I'm sorry, you can be a dick and try to brush it off, but the reality is that this is what happened to get you to be your religion. And eventually, you will be compelled to do it again, once asked. And you will justify it based on a religion you were born into.

And btw, since we're about to get into grammar nazi's, your last sentence is a doozy.... But I understand... jus sayin for your buddy whose ass i'm about to kick...

Wait.....wut?

So the life that exists in the universe can include anything except God. Check. Got it.

So morality is absent in religion. Only those not religious can be moral. Check. Got it.

Do you smoke much reefer?

Whoa, dude, hold it up. The universe can exist with "god". It's just that your "God" is probably something that wants to kill everybody else.

Check? Got it?

A belief in "god" does not mean you have to kill anybody that thinks differently.

Dear RWS
What if "God" is defined to be
* nature
* life
* the universe

If God is the "Spirit of Life" or "natural laws of life"
then can "Life" or the "universe" exist
without the "spirit or laws of life" which cause it to exist and operate.

If life can exist without having a beginning source,
then can LIFE itself as "self-existing" with no beginning and no end
be taken to be the meaning of God?

Hi Emily,

Your first paragraph is something I can agree with.

But in the 2nd paragraph, you introduced the word "spirit". Which is existential. Math and science no longer works when you introduce the existential. My thinking is that there is an order to the universe. We just don't know what it is. But I describe it as the way particles interact in our universe in a certain way, to make this universe possible. That would be "god" to me. I think you think about it too much, and try to create a reason why you are here to explain things, when in fact there is no reason besides procreation.

Regardless, it is not something to kill or die for. Or try to convince others that they should do the same. That's the role of religion.

And the point of my thread.

This is not a discussion of spirituality, which can lead to many good things. It is a discussion of why religion is inherently evil, because people are fooled to follow the wrong things. And commit bad acts upon the rest of us based on what they were fooled to do.

And therefore, the trifecta of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is not ethical or moral. They promote the opposite of what good people would want, based on their actions throughout history.

Again, you argue nonsense. Science doesn't stop working when spirituality is acknowledged. Spirituality is a word we created to define what isn't physical... you know, as in physical nature. So it shouldn't be a shocker that physical sciences don't apply. That doesn't mean there's no such thing. If we simply dismissed anything science can't instantly explain, there are millions of things that we would never have discovered.

 

[Boss]

I wouldn't go that far. I think one can have ethics and religion. I also think one can have ethics without religion.

The notion that religion makes someone moral and ethical is one that I strongly challenge, and think morality ought to be defined by words and action, not by religion or lack there of.

Well, you know, that's an easy posit to take. I'm trying to make it real.

So if you are a follower of a religion today (we are keeping it to the trinity for now), then you have to make excuses for what your religion did to get you here, if you intend to put yourself forward as a "good" person. You must excuse everything that occurred in order to make your religion dominant, and then you were born into it, and believe you are not guilty of past transgressions even though you commit to that religion.

Or, you can accept it and say that all those people deserved to suffer and die because they were non-believers. And you're a "good" person because you follow the winning religion.

Or, you can say that you had nothing to do what they did, to justify yourself today as an innocent follower, and you're not guilty of those acts that were committed in your creation, and would never do it again.... Even though you follow everything they say in that religion, that led to those terrible acts.

So if you follow a trinity religion, there is no way you can be moral or ethical. Because to be a "good Catholic", you have to forget what got you there.

That doesn't mean it goes away because you choose to forget or ignore it.

It's what got you here, arguing about your religion and trying to justify it. (not you personally, but all the others).

You all know you are guilty as heck. I'm just pointing it out, and you all are freaking out over it. Because you deny it.

Trinity is father, son and holy ghost, it's not a description of Abrahamic religions.

The problem with your argument is you are attempting to say that religion is useless because it doesn't make people perfect and sinless. A quite preposterous expectation. Especially since Christianity says the exact opposite.

Please, I stated what i meant by "trinity". Why are you doing this? Just to argue? And that is not what I said about religion. Just stop dude.

But it makes you sound like an idiot. And yes, that's exactly what you're saying about religion.

 

[RWS]

Sorry "boss", you're the one sounding foolish... Insulting me is not going to work, except to get me to go deservedly off on you.

And I will enjoy that, when the moment comes. But in the meantime, you're a troll.

So I suggest shutting the fuck up... You ignorant slut.

 

[Boss]

I wasn't insulting you. I was trying to help you appear less idiotic. You've misused Trinity several times and I didn't know if you were aware.

And you don't get to tell me when to shut up. I'm going to challenge you because I don't agree with your argument. I think the world devoid of a godly morality would be a dark and evil place. That's not to say all godly morality is equal or religions are perfect, nor do they produce perfect people.

 

[Boss]

My thinking is that there is an order to the universe. We just don't know what it is. But I describe it as the way particles interact in our universe in a certain way, to make this universe possible. That would be "god" to me.

I think that's a very good argument for God.

Beyond that, there are some 40-odd physical 'constants' which must be precisely as they are or the universe we know couldn't exist. There is no scientific explanation why a universe must be finely tuned but ours is.

For me, there is no question some other force is at play. It's the only thing that makes rational sense. It doesn't bother me that physical sciences can't explain it.

 

[emilynghiem]

Okay RWS in place of spirit
Would you use the term energy
Life giving energy
What do you call the Collective level of either life energy, or collective truth/knowledge (since the only knowledge not faith based is what you experience and sense in the present you can refer to directly, and any other memory or perception is based on faith since its outside the immediate empirical senses ). What about collective society or humanity?
What do you call theLEVEL of any of these things that extends beyond your immediate perception and becomes abstract?
And which thing do you see collectively as the term you use for the highest absolute or whole of the universe?
I'm okay using your terms for whatever you place at the highest level on the scale. What do you call that? What terms do you use for what encompasses all humanity, all truth, all life and existence. Do you just call it the whole Universe?

 

[Divine Wind]

Religion and Ethics....

You can have one, but not both.

You're either on the side of religions, which advocate very unethical things...

Or you're on the side of ethics and morals, which makes you doubt religions and the evil things they want and do...

It's an "oxymoron"... Which is why we're pitted here in endless arguments.

But I will tell you right now that ethics is way more important than belief in an imaginary god. And you don't need people to tell you how to follow your ethics or morals either. They are part of you. Anybody trying to tell you they're not, is selling something.

If you still need someone to tell you how to follow your morals in this day and age of knowledge and enlightenment, then you are ripe to be taken advantage of, and part of the problem in this world.

Nice broad brush of all religions. Shall I do the same in comparing all atheists to Stalin and Mao? How many religious Americans do you want to send to "re-education" camps for not accepting atheism?