does religion/God give people a voice?

[cacian]

I don't think you want to depend on instinct to tell you what's right and wrong

i think i do very much. it is my livelihood instinct. that is what makes a human.

2 We are more than just animals

just am minute. i am no animal. you may think you are. but i think i am not.

It's good to think things through. And I don't know why you think if someone adheres to Christianity he suddenly stops thinking. It's quite the contrary. It is easy to base morality off feelings, about what we like and don't like. You don't have to think much to do that. It's not like someone put a bible in front of me and said, "believe in it," and I said, "okay," without batting an eye. I think about my faith extensively every day. Christianity has made me think more than ever before.

i hear you but i could not be you. the difference between you and me is that you need the bible to tell you how you should conduct your life and feelings.
i however do not need a book to form my opinions. i have already got them in me. i already know what i am, how i think how i feel and who i am. god forbid i would need a book to tell me it. how miserable would that be?
if Christianity has made you think then you could not have thought before then who were you? a mere thoughtless being?
religion mad me realise conflict is heartful and mean but logic prevents it. i am more logic then that. no matter how much i try i find religion stifling lecturing and above all ignorant.

[Eman Resu]

I think it's instinctual in the way that driving a car is instinctual. Some of us may not have become instinctual drivers yet, and need to read the driving manuals, or talk to better drivers, and think things through. Unfortunately the Bible is a driving manual for a chariot.

That's pretty complimentary coming from a self-professed "liberal" who undoubtedly would like to make a dent in global warming by reducing carbon footprints.

See that - you're coming along nicely - in a few days we'll have to going to Confession and wearing an hair shirt.

[SentimentalSlop]

i think i do very much. it is my livelihood instinct. that is what makes a human.


just am minute. i am no animal. you may think you are. but i think i am not.

i hear you but i could not be you. the difference between you and me is that you need the bible to tell you how you should conduct your life and feelings.
i however do not need a book to form my opinions. i have already got them in me. i already know what i am, how i think how i feel and who i am. god forbid i would need a book to tell me how. how miserable would that be?
if Christianity has made you think then you could not have thought before then who were you? a mere thoughtless being?
the bible made me realise how logic and religion just simply do not add up. no matter how much i try i find religion stifling lecturing and above all ignorant.

1) I do not think we are just animals. We have animal-like instincts, but we can be much better or much worse than any animal.

2) I did have opinions before and still do. It is beyond easy to form an opinion. All I wanted was an absolute--a definite reason that transcends time and space--a real sense of justice and mercy. It is dangerous to live in a world of moral relativism. As I've gotten older and learned more about Christianity, the more I cannot tear myself away from it. I find the logic of it too overwhelming and the bible the greatest love story of all, and in that love story holds the greatest of the greatest love stories, the crucifixion of Christ.

3) I did not and do not think we're thoughtless beings. We're terribly complex compared to the rest of the life on this earth.

[Eman Resu]

1) As I've gotten older and learned more about Christianity, the more I cannot tear myself away from it. I find the logic of it too overwhelming and the bible the greatest love story of all, and in that love story holds the greatest of the greatest love stories, the crucifixion of Christ.

There you have it, mal4mac. Now repeat after me, "benedic mihi pater, quia peccavi."

[Eman Resu]

i am no animal. you may think you are. but i think i am not.

Are you mineral or vegetable?

[cacian]

[QUOTE]

1) I do not think we are just animals. We have animal-like instincts, but we can be much better or much worse than any animal.

i am not animal like. i am a human which puts me at a different level fromthat of an from an animal. i have an instinct different of that of an animal because i have speech. i talk using words and sound. an animal's instinct is therefore different from mine.

2) I did have opinions before and still do. It is beyond easy to form an opinion. All I wanted was an absolute--a definite reason that transcends time and space--a real sense of justice and mercy. It is dangerous to live in a world of moral relativism. As I've gotten older and learned more about Christianity, the more I cannot tear myself away from it. I find the logic of it too overwhelming and the bible the greatest love story of all, and in that love story holds the greatest of the greatest love stories, the crucifixion of Christ.

i understand what you are saying but the simple thing is for me is that i find instinct and logic the foundation of my personality and the way i am. religion to me is too busy and things in it do not add up. they make no sense and therefore i rebute all meaning of it. i find it lecturing and feary with a big sin on its shoulder. religion has too much blood in its hand. it has more victims then believers alive or dead.
logic is light inquisitive and above all long lasting. i am all this and more.

3) I did not and do not think we're thoughtless beings. We're terribly complex compared to the rest of the life on this earth.

we are certainly complex and the idea is to uncomplex.

[cacian]

Are you mineral or vegetable?

neither. i am a human i am me. the dictionary has not find the meaning to it yet and it is about to find out soon enough

[SentimentalSlop]

[QUOTE=cacian;1242782]

i am not animal like. i am a human which puts me at a different level fromthat of an from an animal. i have an instinct different of that of an animal because i have speech. i talk using words and sound. an animal's instinct is therefore different from mine.



i understand what you are saying but the simple thing is for me is that i find instinct and logic the foundation of my personality and the way i am. religion to me is too busy and things in it do not add up. they make no sense and therefore i rebute all meaning of it. i find it lecturing and feary with a big sin on its shoulder. religion has too much blood in its hand. it has more victims then believers alive or dead.
logic is light inquisitive and above all long lasting. i am all this and more.


we are certainly complex and the idea is to uncomplex.

1) Animal and human instincts are similar a lot of the time, but we must be stronger than our instincts.

2) You're being vague. What doesn't make sense?

3) The whole victim thing is entirely untrue, by the way.

4) Usually the simplest answer is the right one.

[mal4mac]

2) I did have opinions before and still do. It is beyond easy to form an opinion. All I wanted was an absolute--a definite reason that transcends time and space--a real sense of justice and mercy. It is dangerous to live in a world of moral relativism. As I've gotten older and learned more about Christianity, the more I cannot tear myself away from it. I find the logic of it too overwhelming and the bible the greatest love story of all, and in that love story holds the greatest of the greatest love stories, the crucifixion of Christ.

Why this demand for an absolute? You can have a sense of justice and mercy without an absolute. We do live in a world of moral relativism, and justice changes all the time, new laws are made. But relativism doesn't mean bad, indeed in the West laws have mostly improved. There has to be more than logic and good stories, there has to be empirical confirmation.

[SentimentalSlop]

Why this demand for an absolute? You can have a sense of justice and mercy without an absolute. We do live in a world of moral relativism, and justice changes all the time, new laws are made. But relativism doesn't mean bad, indeed in the West laws have mostly improved. There has to be more than logic and good stories, there has to be empirical confirmation.

Because if there is no absolute than no belief is better than another one. It just can't be in a world of moral relativism. To say one thing is better than another is an absolute statement, and you can't say such things in that philosophy. Then, beliefs are neither good nor bad. They're relative. Why would you ever want to live in a world where murder or rape is neither good nor bad?

[Eman Resu]

Why this demand for an absolute? You can have a sense of justice and mercy without an absolute. We do live in a world of moral relativism, and justice changes all the time, new laws are made. But relativism doesn't mean bad, indeed in the West laws have mostly improved. There has to be more than logic and good stories, there has to be empirical confirmation.

Why? Medieval man had no empirical confirmation of gravity, yet he didn't simply float away into space. Why "must" there be empirical confirmation? That's the equal to saying, "there must be Faith." Both arguments are at once meaningless and absolute.

For some, there must be empirical confirmation; for others, there must be Faith. Neither conflicts with the other, from the Big Bang forward. It's as easy to say that God created the Big Bang - and hence the physical universe - as it is to say, "it happened by accident." An accident is what happens when some fool is texting while driving his chariot, and he runs over a physicist; creation (or "Creation" if one prefers) is another matter entirely. Speaking of "matter" since it can't be created by forces known empirically (even I remember the law of conservation of matter), something beyond the "natural" explicable world must have created it. When we rule out the Loch Ness Monster, the Tooth Fairy, and the Honest Barrister, we're left with only one option: God.

[mal4mac]

Because if there is no absolute than no belief is better than another one. It just can't be in a world of moral relativism. To say one thing is better than another is an absolute statement. Then, beliefs are neither good nor bad. They're relative. Why would you ever want to live in a world where murder or rape is neither good nor bad?

"The sun is going to rise tomorrow" is a relative belief. A cosmic disaster might destroy the earth before tomorrow. But, like everyone else, I certainly live my life as if I'm going to see another day. In a similar way, I hold rape and murder to be wrong, and changing my mind about that is going to be as hard as changing my mind about the sun not rising tomorrow. All beliefs are relative, but that's no reason not to hold them very strongly.

[SentimentalSlop]

"The sun is going to rise tomorrow" is a relative belief. A cosmic disaster might destroy the earth before tomorrow. But, like everyone else, I certainly live my life as if I'm going to see another day. In a similar way, I hold rape and murder to be wrong, and changing my mind about that is going to be as hard as changing my mind about the sun not rising tomorrow. All beliefs are relative, but that's no reason not to hold them very strongly.

You hold rape and murder to be wrong, good for you. But there are people out there who find all sorts of logical reasons why rape and murder are not wrong. What are you going to say to those people?

[cacian]

[QUOTE=SentimentalSlop;1242784]

1) Animal and human instincts are similar a lot of the time, but we must be stronger than our instincts.

2) You're being vague. What doesn't make sense?

3) The whole victim thing is entirely untrue, by the way.

4) Usually the simplest answer is the right one.

let's rephrase that as instinct is different from that of a human. if you cannot see it then i cannot help you. ou must help yourself. may be the bible can shed some light on it.

[mal4mac]

Why? Medieval man had no empirical confirmation of gravity, yet he didn't simply float away into space. Why "must" there be empirical confirmation?

To be effective we need good theories, and we can only see that these theories are good by using empirical methods. Medieval man couldn't float away into space because he had bad theories, modern man could, using spacecraft, because he had good theories.

For some, there must be empirical confirmation; for others, there must be Faith. Neither conflicts with the other, from the Big Bang forward. It's as easy to say that God created the Big Bang - and hence the physical universe - as it is to say, "it happened by accident."

To say "God caused the Big Bang" is to cut short the possibility of further scientific investigation, such as the speculative theories of "universe from nothing", "multiverse", and so on. The church has always tried to put a halt to scientific speculation, trying to shut up Galileo because the Earth "must" be still, or Darwin because God "must" be the designer. The Roman catholic church is a bit cleverer than tea party fundies, these days, but here you reveal it is still encouraging scientific backwardness by suggesting God "must" have caused the Big Bang. If you then say "God caused whatever the physicists eventually discover that came before the Big Bang", then you are still left with an enigma: what caused God?