A theism, a theism, my kingdom for a theism

[TheMawn]

Originally Posted by gd_barnes

I think that most "gods" are caused by the brain making crap up to explain things that science has not yet been able to explain.

I am borderline anti-theist but I do see the merits of religion in early society. My opinion is that it's something that should have been naturally phased out as, like you mentioned, science begins to debunk each piece one at a time.

It comes back to morality and how some believe it cannot exist without religion. The Bible is, at its core, a code of ethics. The morals are just very deeply interwoven into stories and legends. A Pharaoh holds Israelites captive in his city and so God releases the Ten Biblical Plagues upon Egypt. The story sounds like it's all about the plagues themselves, but they're just to serve as a gruesome deterrent to similar behaviour (i.e., crimes against Catholics). It's a whole bunch of Do-Not-Steal-Or-You-Will-End-Up-Like-This-Bozo and Do-Not-Kill-And-Here's-Why.

I think this is good. Truly. Why? Let's go back tens of thousands of years to when humans were first beginning to form communities. Some people got together and decided that life was pretty good and that certain things should be disallowed. So, a guy with a sick beard named Moses (the man, not the beard) steps up at the evening's commune around the camp fire and says that killing is bad and we should all not do it. It sounds alright until the local brute asks why killing is bad. He just doesn't understand Moses' reasoning. At this point in time, humans probably lacked the mental capacity to understand why killing is bad.

Moses decides to conjure up a story of a great powerful Wizard who lives in the clouds and throws lightning at things that piss him off, who will punish you to eternal agony in a fiery cavern if you don't do as he says. Morality doesn't make much sense to the Brute, but fire definitely does and he decides to behave on the grounds that he will be punished if he doesn't.


I would say not very long ago (some countries are still not at this point even today) we reached a point where we were able to think on more ethical grounds and determine that killing is bad kind of just because it is. I know I think killing is bad because of not only the victim losing his life, but because of all the damage it would cause to those close to the victim. That's something I wouldn't want me or my loved ones to go through, so I extend the same gratitude to others.

If murder was made legal tomorrow, I would not kill. There is more stopping me from killing than the punishment. I have my own code of ethics. I have transcended the need for the Bible. Others it would seem, have not.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by chappy

Bob, it isn't worth fighting over since we both agree that it is wrong (see how easy that is Kasekoph?) but you are putting a label of "religious" on people who are enforcing a stupid policy without having any proof of their beliefs.

:

Don't put words in my mouth. The intolerance comes from those who
abused their power and authority by putting the policy in place.

Furthermore, "just following orders" is not an excuse for wrongdoing
on the part of those who enforce the policy. This was established
at Nuremburg.

[kladner]

Furthermore, "just following orders" is not an excuse for wrongdoing
on the part of those who enforce the policy. This was established
at Nuremburg.

+1.

I do believe that the publicity and exposure will likely be beneficial. At least more of us know now what's going on.

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by TheMawn

It sounds alright until the local brute asks why killing is bad. He just doesn't understand Moses' reasoning. At this point in time, humans probably lacked the mental capacity to understand why killing is bad.

I'd say it has less to do with lack of mental capacity than 'lack of historical precedent' and 'demonstrable usefulness [of killing-on-a-whim] in daily life'.

Also note the bible - especially the torah/old-testament portion of it, is chock full of 'righteous killing', often on a mass scale. AS long as it's killing of 'the other' [heathen, hun, ugly-mofo, whatever you call 'em] by the 'righteous' or 'chosen' ones, it seems to be ok.

And even if you look past those 'regrettable incidents', note that 'thou shalt not kill' is a poor translation [much like 'virgin Mary', a.k.a. the 'mistranslation that gave rise to a whole major religion'] from the original Hebrew - 'thou shalt not murder' [i.e. kill without justification] is my understanding of the original verbiage.

[jasong]

Originally Posted by gd_barnes

Despite these proofs, there will still be a certain (hopefully) small percentage of people that will hold on to their "god" beliefs because they just cannot let them go. It will be too painful to be proven wrong. It will then be that people who profess a belief in a higher being will be ridiculed or persecuted in a manner similar to the way that people who do not believe now or did not believe in the past.

Change the wording a bit, and the Bible predicts this as well. Of course, it sees things a bit differently then you, saying that "knowledge shall increase, and yet man will become more foolish as this happens." The persecution is predicted as well, though I forget the wording.

[jasong]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

Don't put words in my mouth. The intolerance comes from those who
abused their power and authority by putting the policy in place.

Furthermore, "just following orders" is not an excuse for wrongdoing
on the part of those who enforce the policy. This was established
at Nuremburg.

I haven't read the case, but it would seem more likely to me it's probably just a beauracratic(sp?) problem, some unusual circumstance that needs to be dealt with before she can be granted citizenship.

Ultimately, the solution might be to start a denomination for people who don't have any particular denomination. A beauracratic band-aid for something that normally works properly.

[kladner]

Originally Posted by jasong

Ultimately, the solution might be to start a denomination for people who don't have any particular denomination. A beauracratic band-aid for something that normally works properly.

As mentioned, in no particular order-

Church of the FSM
Universal Life Church
Unitarian Universalist

Almost forgot (Bob forgive me)

The Church of the Subgenius
http://www.subgenius.com/

I lean toward the first option, myself though we have also incorporated a good bit of Subgenius terminology as well. Since irony would be part of the canon of any religion of which I might conceive, it's just as well to stick with a parody. Also, I like saying "ARRGGHH!"

[Batalov]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

...note that 'thou shalt not kill' is a poor translation [much like 'virgin Mary', a.k.a. the 'mistranslation that gave rise to a whole major religion'] ...

A Guy Ritchie fanboy detected (...make it two).
http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_s...y-ritchie.html
http://www.bible-reviews.com/topics_...rds_almah.html

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by Batalov

A Guy Ritchie fanboy detected (...make it two).
http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_s...y-ritchie.html
http://www.bible-reviews.com/topics_...rds_almah.html

Awesome - thanks.

[TheMawn]

As for the supermods changing the titles of threads... Do they ever change them to something completely unrecognizable? I just browse through the new posts page for something I am interested in reading, so if it gets changed to something I wouldn't recognize as the subject of a thread I was once interested in, I might miss it...

[firejuggler]

no , the thread title will always keep a part of the original title... in this case the word ' atheism' and a general idea of the content.
For example , the thead named ' found a factor' have mutated multiple time, but still kept his 'found a factor?', but involving in time, aligator or lost property office.