Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Religion Mandating Life
acmhttu001_2006
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 52 (17788)
09-19-2002 4:07 PM


Should Religion[I mean all applications of this word] be granted the authority or exclusive mandate to define morality, purpose, the
meaning of life, or other questions such as these,
I got this question or idea off of my NOMA thread. Q. stated it in a reply. It is an interesting question to consider, and I wanted to see what you guys thought about it.
------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day
[This message has been edited by acmhttu001_2006, 09-19-2002]
[This message has been edited by acmhttu001_2006, 09-20-2002]
[This message has been edited by acmhttu001_2006, 09-20-2002]

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by John, posted 09-19-2002 4:39 PM acmhttu001_2006 has replied
 Message 3 by nos482, posted 09-19-2002 4:40 PM acmhttu001_2006 has replied
 Message 4 by gene90, posted 09-19-2002 8:05 PM acmhttu001_2006 has replied
 Message 22 by peter borger, posted 09-27-2002 1:09 AM acmhttu001_2006 has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 52 (17794)
09-19-2002 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by acmhttu001_2006
09-19-2002 4:07 PM


quote:
Originally posted by acmhttu001_2006:
Should Religion[I mean all applications of this word] be granted the authority or exclusive mandate ot define morality, purpose, the
meaning of life, or other questions such as these,
I got this question or idea of my NOMA thread. Q. stated it in a reply. It is an interesting question to consider, and I wanted to see what you guys thought about it.

No. Religion can appeal for support to nothing but the personal biases of its adherents. And with religion, those biases become infused with the force of God's will. That is a very dangerous combination.
Human culture-- our survival-- is held together by moral principles, by what is allowed and by what is not. To pass these decisions off to an organization supported by nothing substantial is absurd.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 09-19-2002 4:07 PM acmhttu001_2006 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 09-20-2002 11:19 AM John has replied
 Message 10 by Brad McFall, posted 09-20-2002 12:33 PM John has not replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 52 (17795)
09-19-2002 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by acmhttu001_2006
09-19-2002 4:07 PM


quote:
Originally posted by acmhttu001_2006:
Should Religion[I mean all applications of this word] be granted the authority or exclusive mandate ot define morality, purpose, the
meaning of life, or other questions such as these,
I got this question or idea of my NOMA thread. Q. stated it in a reply. It is an interesting question to consider, and I wanted to see what you guys thought about it.

No. The Founding Fathers of the USA had set it up so that this wouldn't be the case, even though there are those now who want to subvert this and impose their religious beliefs on all through the power of law.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 09-19-2002 4:07 PM acmhttu001_2006 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 09-20-2002 11:21 AM nos482 has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 4 of 52 (17799)
09-19-2002 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by acmhttu001_2006
09-19-2002 4:07 PM


No, non-believers usually have moral codes comparable to those of religious adherents. As for 'the meaning of life' it is highly subjective and up to each person to decide.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 09-19-2002 4:07 PM acmhttu001_2006 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 09-20-2002 11:22 AM gene90 has not replied

  
acmhttu001_2006
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 52 (17862)
09-20-2002 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by John
09-19-2002 4:39 PM


So in reply to you post, where do you think that the moral system comes from? Do not all morals come from some type of religion? Are the basic ethics based off of a religion? I am curious.
"Religion can appeal for support to nothing but the personal biases of its adherents. And with religion, those biases become infused with the force of God's will. That is a very dangerous combination."
When you say God's will, you are meaning the particular deity of that religion are you not? The will of God being what the adherents would like that will to be? Am I correct? Please correct me if I am wrong. Regardless of the meaning, I do agree with the dangerous combination. It has brought much division and grief.
Thanks for the post, look forward to hearing you replies.
------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by John, posted 09-19-2002 4:39 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by John, posted 09-20-2002 12:32 PM acmhttu001_2006 has replied
 Message 49 by RedVento, posted 10-01-2002 12:59 PM acmhttu001_2006 has not replied

  
acmhttu001_2006
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 52 (17863)
09-20-2002 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by nos482
09-19-2002 4:40 PM


I wonder then, why we who are Americans, who are very patriotic after 9/11/01, do not remember the fact which you posted.
I have heard nothing short of the great way this country was founded and also the constitutioin [sorry mispelled] which is the backbone to our survival. Why do the religion activists continually forget that there is "separation of church and state"? Surely with everything going on as it is today, they would be continually reminded of this priniciple.
I do not understand how anyone could forget this basic principle, it is like forgetting 2 + 2 + 4.
------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by nos482, posted 09-19-2002 4:40 PM nos482 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by nos482, posted 09-20-2002 12:22 PM acmhttu001_2006 has replied
 Message 25 by leekim, posted 09-27-2002 11:51 AM acmhttu001_2006 has replied

  
acmhttu001_2006
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 52 (17865)
09-20-2002 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by gene90
09-19-2002 8:05 PM


I agree.
------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by gene90, posted 09-19-2002 8:05 PM gene90 has not replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 52 (17878)
09-20-2002 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by acmhttu001_2006
09-20-2002 11:21 AM


quote:
Originally posted by acmhttu001_2006:
I wonder then, why we who are Americans, who are very patriotic after 9/11/01, do not remember the fact which you posted.
I have heard nothing short of the great way this country was founded and also the constitutioin [sorry mispelled] which is the backbone to our survival. Why do the religion activists continually forget that there is "separation of church and state"? Surely with everything going on as it is today, they would be continually reminded of this priniciple.
I do not understand how anyone could forget this basic principle, it is like forgetting 2 + 2 + 4.

It is because they mistakenly believe that separation of Church and State is only one way. That the State stay out of the way of Church. But what they don't (won't) see that if they are allowed to influence the State than it is the same as the State interfering in the beliefs of others. They won't see this contradiction, but what can one expect since they also ignore all of the contradictions in their belief system as a whole as a rule.
[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-20-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 09-20-2002 11:21 AM acmhttu001_2006 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 09-23-2002 11:15 AM nos482 has not replied
 Message 15 by Brad McFall, posted 09-23-2002 11:37 AM nos482 has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 52 (17881)
09-20-2002 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by acmhttu001_2006
09-20-2002 11:19 AM


quote:
Originally posted by acmhttu001_2006:
So in reply to you post, where do you think that the moral system comes from? Do not all morals come from some type of religion? Are the basic ethics based off of a religion? I am curious.
I think people typically associate morals and religion causally, the former due to the latter. I thought the same until recently, when I realized that I had it backwards or maybe sideways. Both morality and religion come from the same source-- our ancestor's experiments in survival over many many many millenia. Individuals of any primate group will exibit certain behaviors which serve to maintain the group. Our morality is akin to these behaviors. It is nothing but human arrogance that tries to make something metaphysical out of it.
quote:
When you say God's will, you are meaning the particular deity of that religion are you not?
Yup.
quote:
The will of God being what the adherents would like that will to be?
Right.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 09-20-2002 11:19 AM acmhttu001_2006 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 09-23-2002 11:17 AM John has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 10 of 52 (17882)
09-20-2002 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by John
09-19-2002 4:39 PM


If I connect the word dots, words: "granted" and "appeal" that begin this thread then what I READ is that $$ in question can not be afforded to faith based groups of any stripe and these assocations of inviduals can only have legal recourse throughout the court system. This is not fair even if my reading is also not fair. I would say then that even to try this as an academic double jeoporday class action is acitivity no person can loom even if it was possible to CONTINUOUSLY use both arms and legs which was once tried in GErmany etc.
I know I am harsh with only these words but I really would like to get to the threads you all use more regularly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by John, posted 09-19-2002 4:39 PM John has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by nos482, posted 09-20-2002 1:26 PM Brad McFall has not replied
 Message 14 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 09-23-2002 11:23 AM Brad McFall has replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 52 (17896)
09-20-2002 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Brad McFall
09-20-2002 12:33 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Brad McFall:
If I connect the word dots, words: "granted" and "appeal" that begin this thread then what I READ is that $$ in question can not be afforded to faith based groups of any stripe and these assocations of inviduals can only have legal recourse throughout the court system. This is not fair even if my reading is also not fair. I would say then that even to try this as an academic double jeoporday class action is acitivity no person can loom even if it was possible to CONTINUOUSLY use both arms and legs which was once tried in GErmany etc.
I know I am harsh with only these words but I really would like to get to the threads you all use more regularly.

I get the impression that you are actually talking to yourself from most of your replies that I have read.
[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-20-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Brad McFall, posted 09-20-2002 12:33 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
acmhttu001_2006
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 52 (18029)
09-23-2002 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by nos482
09-20-2002 12:22 PM


LOL
------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by nos482, posted 09-20-2002 12:22 PM nos482 has not replied

  
acmhttu001_2006
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 52 (18030)
09-23-2002 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by John
09-20-2002 12:32 PM


I shudder at the things done in the Name of God.
So religion comes from making morals metaphysical. Why do we need religion? Obviously it does not encourage human survival [persecutions and Middle Ages]. Would the world be better off without religion? We should have left it at morals, and not made anything metaphysical about it.
------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by John, posted 09-20-2002 12:32 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Quetzal, posted 09-23-2002 12:28 PM acmhttu001_2006 has replied
 Message 18 by John, posted 09-24-2002 2:15 PM acmhttu001_2006 has replied

  
acmhttu001_2006
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 52 (18032)
09-23-2002 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Brad McFall
09-20-2002 12:33 PM


How dare you try to conncect word dots that are not even there?
I merely posed a question? There is a connection between answer and question, but it stops here. In no way can two posts connect completly. You are very wrong to assume.
"READ is that $$ in question can not be afforded to faith based groups of any stripe and these assocations of inviduals can only have legal recourse throughout the court system. This is not fair even if my reading is also not fair. I would say then that even to try this as an academic double jeoporday class action is acitivity no person can loom even if it was possible to CONTINUOUSLY use both arms and legs which was once tried in GErmany etc"
I know what you are answering out of, as it was postes in another post somewhere. You cannot use personal experiences in a open minded debate. Then your position would be biased, which it is. I do not agree with what happened. But then again, you would use personal beliefs and not personal circumstances to answer this question.
------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Brad McFall, posted 09-20-2002 12:33 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Brad McFall, posted 09-23-2002 11:49 AM acmhttu001_2006 has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 15 of 52 (18034)
09-23-2002 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by nos482
09-20-2002 12:22 PM


The state of RHODE ISLAND in the United States of America had from the time of Roger Williams, if I have my religous criticism correctly timed and remembered instituted a *State* policy that there ^was^ to be --NO DOUBLE EDUCATION--; meaning that institutions of higher learning in the state could NOT duplicate the teaching in two different places.
My feeling is that you may have misunderstood this form of historical re-reading of documents. I may be wrong about it's intended application in truth about the seperation you speak, but with regard to any discussed principle whether on the National Level after Scopes or prefering to discuss this purely in its natural station and existing historical continuity this kind of State Law Prevents the Governmetn from forming a religous instruction by INSTITUTIONALLY seperating the people who participate in acquiring the teaching ( i did not say learning). This is not necesarily about HOW the teachers learnt what was taught.
But the net provides a means, OUTSIDE, the legal stripes of any such accusation TO discuss both and to double both if possible but what I see happening is that evolution gets myred into the same discussion I had BEFORE i talked with friends about snakes about evolution my grandad said to me ONE day while Creationism IS able to re-iterate its own creation AND THIS PRECISIELY BECAUSE INSTIUTIONALLY THEY HAVE BEEN IF NOT LEGALLY ACUTALLY taken out of the educational system.
Those who think they can use the Unix of Net WEbs to erase inthe same sense are indeed mistaken but this does not mean they can not maintain some raw material captial able to NOt keep the state variable in state but WE DO NOT HAVE techonolgy desgined for (other) side so, 1/2 is not a squared number. Anne, please do understand that using the word "state" in this sense may be inviolation of "interstate commerce" but I am not judge and jury. And as for the rossetee stone I would have had to spend a couple hours preparing a post for which it does not seem that you need much of my encourgment. If only other c/e posters were not the parasites I once was.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by nos482, posted 09-20-2002 12:22 PM nos482 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024