|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Great religious falsehoods | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jag Member (Idle past 5754 days) Posts: 41 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
CS writes:
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? Religion can inspire laws, no problem. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
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.
Each of these religiously inspired laws intrudes on the rights of those who do not follow the particular religion that inspired the law. For example: Dry Counties 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jag Member (Idle past 5754 days) Posts: 41 Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Well, yes, they are unconstitutional. Well, the Supreme Court disagrees with you.
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jag Member (Idle past 5754 days) Posts: 41 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
CS writes:
By that statement you have demonstrated your lack of knowledge of our constitution.
By the same right the government has the right to pass any law. By that statement you have demonstrated that you cannot refute my argument. CS=1jag=0
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jag Member (Idle past 5754 days) Posts: 41 Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024