Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Great religious falsehoods
jag
Member (Idle past 5754 days)
Posts: 41
Joined: 06-15-2008


Message 61 of 106 (472087)
06-20-2008 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by New Cat's Eye
06-20-2008 8:42 AM


A huge problem
CS writes:
Religion can inspire laws, no problem.
Yes, it is a problem. It is a huge problem. Are you aware that the impostiion of christian doctrine into the governments was a primary cause of the dark ages? Are you aware of the unmitigated brutality of the Taliban in the name of their religion?
The evidence I read shows all governments that have been based on religious belief have subjugated, tortured, killed and other wise mistreated the citizens who take a view opposing that of the dominant church. The CATHOLIC CHURCH has repeatedly demonstrated this. A small example, they continue to this day by restricting birth control in places where it is desperately needed.
Have you ever heard of Malleus Malefactorum? It is part of YOUR catholic history. It is the document that CATHOLICS wrote to justify burning witches at the stake. Possibly hundreds of thousands of people were killed under this religious horseshit. That is what happens when laws are based on religious principles.
And that is indeed what the writers of our constitution sought to prevent in the very first phrase of the very first article of what is known as the Bill of Rights.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-20-2008 8:42 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-20-2008 11:46 AM jag has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 106 (472100)
06-20-2008 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by jag
06-20-2008 10:38 AM


Re: A huge problem
CS writes:
Religion can inspire laws, no problem.
Yes, it is a problem. It is a huge problem. Are you aware that the impostiion of christian doctrine into the governments was a primary cause of the dark ages? Are you aware of the unmitigated brutality of the Taliban in the name of their religion?
The evidence I read shows all governments that have been based on religious belief have subjugated, tortured, killed and other wise mistreated the citizens who take a view opposing that of the dominant church. The CATHOLIC CHURCH has repeatedly demonstrated this. A small example, they continue to this day by restricting birth control in places where it is desperately needed.
Have you ever heard of Malleus Malefactorum? It is part of YOUR catholic history. It is the document that CATHOLICS wrote to justify burning witches at the stake. Possibly hundreds of thousands of people were killed under this religious horseshit. That is what happens when laws are based on religious principles.
And that is indeed what the writers of our constitution sought to prevent in the very first phrase of the very first article of what is known as the Bill of Rights.
Phail. You're Affirming the Consequent.
That a religiously inspired law has caused problems does not mean that religiously inspired laws must cause problems.
Plus, that's a Strawman.... ("ZOMG! THEMZ RELIGIONS IZZA SOOO EVIL!1!)
I'm not saying that a religiously inspired laws can't be a problem. I'm saying that religously inspired laws are capable of being of no problem.
For example: Dry Counties
Some counties have opted to be dry for religious reasons and passed laws to make them dry. This is not unconstitutional because of the seperation of church and state.
The 1st amendment isn't meant to "keep religion out" in that sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by jag, posted 06-20-2008 10:38 AM jag has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Coyote, posted 06-20-2008 11:53 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 65 by jag, posted 06-20-2008 12:22 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 63 of 106 (472102)
06-20-2008 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by New Cat's Eye
06-20-2008 11:46 AM


Religiously inspired laws
I'm not saying that a religiously inspired laws can't be a problem. I'm saying that religously inspired laws are capable of being of no problem.
For example: Dry Counties
Each of these religiously inspired laws intrudes on the rights of those who do not follow the particular religion that inspired the law.
You might feel that a single law, or two or three, is fine, but what is the logical extension of this?
Right, a theocracy.
A lot of folks would love to see a theocracy, but only if it involved their particular religion, and the state enforcing their particular beliefs. But they would hate it if some other religion was in charge.
Why don't we just leave religious beliefs out of the legal system, eh?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-20-2008 11:46 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-20-2008 12:08 PM Coyote has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 106 (472107)
06-20-2008 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Coyote
06-20-2008 11:53 AM


Re: Religiously inspired laws
Each of these religiously inspired laws intrudes on the rights of those who do not follow the particular religion that inspired the law.
How so?
You don't have to follow the religion, just the law. The counties have the right to be dry if they want too, no matter if the dryness was religiously inspired or not. It being religiously inspired doesn't force poeple to follow the religion.
You might feel that a single law, or two or three, is fine, but what is the logical extension of this?
Right, a theocracy.
Not neccessarily.
Besides, our constitution prevents us from becomming a theocracy. And we've been a democracy with religiously inspired laws fairly well without becomming a theocracy.
Why don't we just leave religious beliefs out of the legal system, eh?
Because poeple are religious and we live in a democracy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Coyote, posted 06-20-2008 11:53 AM Coyote has not replied

jag
Member (Idle past 5754 days)
Posts: 41
Joined: 06-15-2008


Message 65 of 106 (472112)
06-20-2008 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by New Cat's Eye
06-20-2008 11:46 AM


Re: A huge problem
cs writes:
Some counties have opted to be dry for religious reasons and passed laws to make them dry. This is not unconstitutional because of the seperation of church and state.
The 1st amendment isn't meant to "keep religion out" in that sense.
Well, yes, they are unconstitutional. I do not agree in the religious position that I should not be allowed to buy a beer or a glass of wine in any given county. Why do you think you have a right to prohibit me from buying a beer? Wine is acceptable in the bible. Why do religious zealots stagger to the polls to vote dry?
Just because there are enough people to make and enforce a law, does not make it right.
You are not knowledgeable of our constitution. You have not taken the time to make yourself aware of the circumstances of its creation and of the people that wrote it. Yes, the purpose of the first amendment is to keep religion out of our laws.
I want to repeat that question and set it as the only point of this post:
Why do you think you have a right to prohibit me from buying a beer?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-20-2008 11:46 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-20-2008 2:41 PM jag has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 66 of 106 (472116)
06-20-2008 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by New Cat's Eye
06-20-2008 8:42 AM


Religious Laws
I think they were against having a state sponsored religion like the Church of England. Not that they wanted no religious inspiriation for laws. Maybe not purely religious inspiration, but there's nothing wrong with having religion "in" the laws.
I fundamentally disagree.
Laws have to be rationally founded to be viable. Even if we disagree with a particular law there has to be a basis on which it's merits (or otherwise) can be rationally argued. Society will benefit, national security demands it, the rights of the individual etc. etc. etc. etc.
If a law is ultimately based on "I believe in something unprovable" then why should anyone who does not share that particular belief or ideology follow that particualar law? No viable argument can be made in favour of that law.
The reasoning behind such laws effectively amounts to 'Because I say so'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-20-2008 8:42 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-20-2008 2:29 PM Straggler has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 106 (472120)
06-20-2008 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Straggler
06-20-2008 2:06 PM


Re: Religious Laws
I think they were against having a state sponsored religion like the Church of England. Not that they wanted no religious inspiriation for laws. Maybe not purely religious inspiration, but there's nothing wrong with having religion "in" the laws.
I fundamentally disagree.
Laws have to be rationally founded to be viable. Even if we disagree with a particular law there has to be a basis on which it's merits (or otherwise) can be rationally argued. Society will benefit, national security demands it, the rights of the individual etc. etc. etc. etc.
If a law is ultimately based on "I believe in something unprovable" then why should anyone who does not share that particular belief or ideology follow that particualar law? No viable argument can be made in favour of that law.
The reasoning behind such laws effectively amounts to 'Because I say so'.
I agree with you on the need for rationality. That's what I meant by saying not purely religous inspiration. There should be more to it than that. And with the example of dry counties, there is. But they still were inspired by religion.
I don't think that the religious inspiration matters. What jag wrote in Message 37 is:
quote:
I want to see religion taken out of our laws as specified in the constitution.
Now, he never clarified what he meant by "taken out", but I read it to mean that these reigious inspritations shouldn't be there and that the constitution specifies this. I think it is a common misconception that the seperation of church and state means no religion in the laws whatsoever. I don't think this is what the 1st was meant to say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Straggler, posted 06-20-2008 2:06 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Straggler, posted 06-20-2008 5:08 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 106 (472124)
06-20-2008 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by jag
06-20-2008 12:22 PM


Re: A huge problem
Well, yes, they are unconstitutional.
Well, the Supreme Court disagrees with you.
quote:
A state may prohibit the sale of liquor absolutely or conditionally; may prohibit the sale as a beverage and permit it for medicinal purposes; may prohibit the sale by merchants and permit it by licensed druggists, and so held that the Michigan Local Option Act of 1889 is not unconstitutional under the equal protection provision of the Fourteenth Amendment on account of discrimination in making certain specific exceptions to the general prohibition.
Eberle v. Michigan
I do not agree in the religious position that I should not be allowed to buy a beer or a glass of wine in any given county. Why do you think you have a right to prohibit me from buying a beer?
By the same right the government has the right to pass any law.
You are not knowledgeable of our constitution. You have not taken the time to make yourself aware of the circumstances of its creation and of the people that wrote it.
There's no need for ad hominems, ass.
Yes, the purpose of the first amendment is to keep religion out of our laws.
Prove it.
I've already shown otherwise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by jag, posted 06-20-2008 12:22 PM jag has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by jag, posted 06-20-2008 2:46 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

jag
Member (Idle past 5754 days)
Posts: 41
Joined: 06-15-2008


Message 69 of 106 (472127)
06-20-2008 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by New Cat's Eye
06-20-2008 2:41 PM


Re: A huge problem
CS writes:
By the same right the government has the right to pass any law.
By that statement you have demonstrated your lack of knowledge of our constitution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-20-2008 2:41 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-20-2008 2:57 PM jag has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 106 (472132)
06-20-2008 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by jag
06-20-2008 2:46 PM


Re: A huge problem
CS writes:
By the same right the government has the right to pass any law.
By that statement you have demonstrated your lack of knowledge of our constitution.
By that statement you have demonstrated that you cannot refute my argument.
CS=1
jag=0

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by jag, posted 06-20-2008 2:46 PM jag has not replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 71 of 106 (472137)
06-20-2008 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Straggler
06-19-2008 12:29 PM


Re: Cause and Effect
If God is the cause of physical effects in the physical universe then the physical effects are themselves obviously empirically observable.
Indeed.
How we could relate these effects back to actually being evidence for (or against) an immaterial God is a more difficult question.
I would go so far as saying that it would be impossible to do - unless God desires that he be evidenced in this way.
The usual method seems to be to invoke God where there is no material explanation available. But I think you would agree that this is a diminishing God and a poor method of investigating this question.
Every material explanation available is but a partial explanation - meaning that there is no material explanation for anything. To suppose yourself to have evidenced a lack of puppet master just because you've figured out that it's the string attached to the puppets hand which makes the hand move as it does - is to suppose incompletely.
Every material explanation feathers out into mystery. To point to that fact doesn't diminish God anymore than strings leading into mystery diminish the puppet master.
1) Does God indeed have any direct physical effect on anyone (answering physical requests in prayers, physically punishing evildoers, physically rewarding the faithful and righteous etc. etc.)
2) If God does have any such physical effect can we trace these effects back to God in any way at all?
I think certainly yes to the first question and see no impediment given the means at God's disposal. But I don't see why his doing so need be traceable (by classically empirical means) so the answer to your second question would be not necessarily. Given good reasons for his not being so traceable, my own personal opinion is he has made sure he cannot be found empirically

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Straggler, posted 06-19-2008 12:29 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Straggler, posted 06-20-2008 5:22 PM iano has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 72 of 106 (472146)
06-20-2008 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by New Cat's Eye
06-20-2008 2:29 PM


Re: Religious Laws
I agree with you on the need for rationality. That's what I meant by saying not purely religous inspiration. There should be more to it than that. And with the example of dry counties, there is. But they still were inspired by religion.
Fair enough. I would go onto argue that if there is rational reason for a particulat law then the religious inspiration is just an unnecessary middle man in terms of advocating and implementing said law.
I want to see religion taken out of our laws as specified in the constitution.
Now, he never clarified what he meant by "taken out", but I read it to mean that these reigious inspritations shouldn't be there and that the constitution specifies this. I think it is a common misconception that the seperation of church and state means no religion in the laws whatsoever. I don't think this is what the 1st was meant to say.
I know next to nothing about the US constitution. But if there are good rational reasons for laws they, and the arguments for them, should stand on their own merits without need for reference to religious doctrine. No?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-20-2008 2:29 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 73 of 106 (472148)
06-20-2008 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by iano
06-20-2008 3:32 PM


Re: Cause and Effect
I would go so far as saying that it would be impossible to do - unless God desires that he be evidenced in this way.
OK. In the case of an omnipotent God this would obviously and indisputably be true.
Every material explanation available is but a partial explanation - meaning that there is no material explanation for anything.
It depends what questions are asked. If we assume that there is a 'why' to many physical phenomenon (why am I here? etc. etc. etc.) then this is correct. However if we accept that there is no 'why' your statement is less obviously true.
However religious answers to such 'why' questions are equally unsatisfactory as eventually we just end up pointlessly questioning the mind of God (or whatever). In short such quetions have no answers. Material or otherwise.
1) Does God indeed have any direct physical effect on anyone (answering physical requests in prayers, physically punishing evildoers, physically rewarding the faithful and righteous etc. etc.)
2) If God does have any such physical effect can we trace these effects back to God in any way at all?
I think certainly yes to the first question and see no impediment given the means at God's disposal. But I don't see why his doing so need be traceable (by classically empirical means) so the answer to your second question would be not necessarily. Given good reasons for his not being so traceable, my own personal opinion is he has made sure he cannot be found empirically
Why wold God make sure that he canot he found empirically?
How would this work in pratise? Would a dying child who would have been saved through prayer (forexample) not be saved if that prayer and it's results were being monitored for evidence of God?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by iano, posted 06-20-2008 3:32 PM iano has not replied

jag
Member (Idle past 5754 days)
Posts: 41
Joined: 06-15-2008


Message 74 of 106 (472173)
06-20-2008 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jag
06-15-2008 10:18 AM


summary question
Well, so far this has been an interesting thread. The starting premise was one of the great falsehoods of religion claim: god is not subject to science.
God is subject to science. Example: Prayer can be scientifically tested. So can many other aspects of religion.
Referring back to the OP, There have been no statements of evidence showing that any deity has been exerting any effect upon this world or anywhere in the universe.
We have seen again that the many (well, in this particular thread, a few) in the religions faction can not support their positions and are not knowledgeable in either science or law. But claim they are. And all the time, they think it right to force their religious doctrine down the throats of others. When asked pointed questions, they dodge the point, ignore the question, then give themselves points for being right.
Witness: They claim the right to tell me I cannot buy a beer in many counties. When asked why, effectively, because they said so.
And when we protest, they claim we (we being anyone that does not subscribe to their beliefs) are trying to assume god like powers and attempting control them.
And now a summary question: How can rational people deal with those of faith that will not and indeed cannot justify their positions yet have an overwhelming desire to force the world to live by their standards?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jag, posted 06-15-2008 10:18 AM jag has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Coyote, posted 06-20-2008 9:43 PM jag has replied
 Message 77 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-21-2008 12:53 PM jag has not replied
 Message 88 by Blue Jay, posted 06-26-2008 10:06 PM jag has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 75 of 106 (472175)
06-20-2008 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by jag
06-20-2008 9:36 PM


Re: summary question
And now a summary question: How can rational people deal with those of faith that will not and indeed cannot justify their positions yet have an overwhelming desire to force the world to live by their standards?
Bastinado seems about right. ; - )

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by jag, posted 06-20-2008 9:36 PM jag has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by jag, posted 06-20-2008 9:57 PM Coyote 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