Originally Posted by otherpuff

I really don't appreciate being banned for my beliefs either. Here are your facts.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html

Originally Posted by hanz0

... I'm pretty sure your source actually refutes your claim. Congratulations, you've made it unnecessary for me to respond to that ridiculous argument at all.

Originally Posted by Redundant

@Ray

Earlier in this thread you claimed that there only are ideologies that contradict our ideologies, no ideologies that would contradict our general idea of morals.
There can be very well ideologies that contradict obvious morals. In the most basic sense, I would say that murder is generally morally reprehensible. In your example of Nazi-ism, one of the aspects of their ideologies is to "purify" the human race by murder. These ideologies are mistaken, delusioned, and are extreme.
I can't say I agree.
First of all: I find many actions caused by ideological ideas very immoral. The hunting of women who are thought to be witches, for example.
Delusion, mistaken, and extreme.
They do not do it against their conscience, they really do believe that those women are evil and must be killed.
"The sense of right and wrong . . . is so delicate, so fitful, so easily puzzled, obscured, perverted, so subtle in its argumentative methods, so impressionable by education, so biassed by pride and passion, so unsteady in its course, that in the struggle for existence amid the various exercises and triumphs of the human intellect, the sense is at once the highest of all teachers yet the least luminous"
Basically, the conscience can be biased and made to believe things.

It somewhat feels like you are trying to separate ideologies and moral because they sometimes contradict each other if morals are universal.

They are very interdependent. An ideology is a worldview. That includes morals and ethics.
I am defining ideology and morality and splitting the difference because you are saying that morality is ideology in attempt to refute my claims that morality is a sense that all humans have in common.

You still have not defined what exact values of morals are universal.
If you mean things like family life, social behaviour etc in general:
We do not need something that cannot be explained, comprehended or perceived to explain why they are there. Plain and simple, why would you use goddidit as anwer when that is anything but satisfying?
There are no definitive exact moral values that are universal. I do not advocate moral uniformity or moral absolutism (certain acts are always bad, regardless the circumstance and culpability of all parties). Morality itself is universal.

As for your continuous goddidit point. "God did it" is a satisfying answer for religious faith. That is all it is good for for all science and such is concerned, and for all I am concerned. I do not and will not use "god did it" as an explanation for scientific, philosophical, ethical, biological, mathematical, and any other subjects that are not religious faith.

Originally Posted by Redundant

So uh, when an ideology contradicts your morals, it is mistaken?
I should have clarified. It is not simply mistaken. The logic used to support the ideologies are holey, and flawed upon basic examination. Instead of mistaken, let's say illogical.

If you exclude values then yes, I have to agree that all human beings who live in a social structure are forced to follow certain social norms. That is part of the human nature.
In a broad way, moral values are derived from the question "What is true good?" This question has never really been answered, and so values differ according to your understanding of what "true good" is.

There is no such thing as a subject that is nothing but religious unless you take everything a religion says as metaphor. The existence of a transcendent being is a theory that needs to be discussed.
Not in a secular understanding. And would you like to specify? What would be a subject other than philosophy or theology in which religion must taken in a non-metaphorical understanding.
If you do not use god as explanation for anything scientific you can't use him as explanation for existence itself either. And if you don't use him for that believing in god is entirely unnecessary.
You do not use god as an explanation for science because science is our purely secular understanding of nature and the cosmos around us. Though, you may use god as an explanation of the philosophical/theological theory of the cause of the cosmos. Belief in God is not scientific, that is to say, of natural science. It is philosophical.

The founder of Cognitive Dissonance Theory compared the psychological drive to physiological hunger.[i] Just as hunger is a motivation to eat and rid oneself of the hunger, dissonance is a motivation to explain inconsistency and rid oneself of the dissonance. Explanations, therefore, work toward satisfying dissonance just as nutrients work toward satisfying hunger. He suggested three modes that we use to rid ourselves of cognitive dissonance. 1) An individual can alter the importance of the original belief or new information. Suppose that you believe in the Judeo-Christian God. If someone presents evidence that contradicts your belief, you can alleviate the dissonance by deciding that the existence of God is not important to you or that the new information on his existence is irrelevant because the debate falls outside of human understanding. Encountering the former is rare, but we see the latter on occasion when discussing aspects of religion, particularly when an apologist for biblical inerrancy finally surrenders to the idea that the Bible might not be perfect. As one can decide that an inerrant Bible is not a necessity for believing in God, the question of inerrancy becomes moot. Note that this avenue does not necessarily resolve the discrepancy, but instead relegates it to a matter of non-importance–a move that successfully eliminates the uneasy feelings.
2) An individual can change his original belief. Suppose again that you believe in the Judeo-Christian God. If someone presents evidence that contradicts your belief, you can also alleviate the dissonance by deciding that the information is correct and your previous belief was premature. We almost never see this in matters of religion because of the perceived level of importance that childhood indoctrination has placed upon Christianity. Someone who cares very little about religion, on the other hand, is more likely to be persuaded by the veracity of the argument.
3) An individual can seek evidence that is critical of the new information. Suppose yet again that you believe in the Judeo-Christian God. If someone presents evidence that contradicts your belief, you can also alleviate the dissonance by convincing yourself that the new information is invalid. Needless to say, this is what we usually see in matters of religion. Since religious people do not want to trivialize or change their beliefs, finding information that supports the original belief and/or information that brings the new evidence into question is the quickest method to eliminate the cognitive dissonance. Therefore, cognitive dissonance primarily drives confirmation bias. We will thus consider this phenomenon for the remainder of the section.
It makes perfect sense for an individual to want to study the issue in question when a conflict arises, but unfortunately, we often fall victim to confirmation bias and use illogical reasoning to rid ourselves of the conflict when it manifests on important issues. In situations where the information cannot support our decisions, such as the undeniable reality that we have based our religious affiliations primarily on environmental cues (without any real knowledge of other religions), we often resort to methods that will increase the attractiveness of our decisions and decrease the attractiveness of the unchosen alternatives.
Petty and Cacioppo cite a number of studies in which subjects utilize the practice of spreading the attractiveness of two contrasting decisions, even when there are no objective facts on which to base the reevaluations of the alternatives. People simply become increasingly sure of their decisions after they have made them by “rationalizing one’s choice of alternatives, [which] serves to reduce the cognitive dissonance produced by foregoing the good features of the unchosen alternative and accepting the bad features of the chosen alternative.”[ii] When it comes to religion, a believer will defend his faith and attack the alternatives in part simply because he has already rendered a decision on the matter.
Furthermore–and this is where the strength of the motivation kicks into overdrive–Petty and Cacioppo explain that the effects of cognitive dissonance and the subsequent practice of confirmation bias increase as the positions between the two beliefs diverge and the perceived importance of establishing a position grows.[iii] Could any two positions be in sharper contrast than the existence and nonexistence of God? Could any dilemma be more important to the Christian than whether or not God exists? It naturally follows that questions on the issue of God’s existence provoke the most cognitive dissonance within those who are deeply involved in the issue. As this debate generates the greatest amount of cognitive dissonance, it naturally follows that people are increasingly willing to accept explanations that alleviate the uncomfortable feelings and decreasingly willing to consider disconfirming arguments. As the uneasiness becomes more powerful, people become more willing to surrender to whatever arguments are offered–just as when hunger becomes more powerful, people become more willing to eat whatever food is offered. This will subsequently lead to highly illogical justifications for maintaining highly important beliefs.

He has written a very good version of the bible, because he was able to decrypt it's hidden messages. That was only possible because he realized you can only decrypt he bible, when merging it with the koran and reading it with exact the same code, as it is used for the Talmud. It is simple mathematics, which you are able to find on every ankle of a pyramid, and especially the cheops pyramid, where the end of a tunnel, shows exactly at the draconis star, where, what walter found out, a very ancient race, called Zylons, left a moralistic pamphlet, how every living creature in our solar system has to behave. Anyways Walter F. has been able to contact jesus because he also learned how to build a mechanism for psychic power enhancing,which he is selling for 39,99$ with a 4 disc. special psychic lesson, and when you pay upfront with a flyer about "how to understand jesus message and his universal morals".

Originally Posted by fickarika

g
-----
Everyone whojust gives no shit what im writing here, just skip most of my text to " the cool argument" just strg+f for it. It is about how american politics is secular .

For the rest just start here:
mere belief in the bible is just a payout for a wrong moralic system, even though you cannot defend something, which you both aren't able to comprehend and also admit being flawed. So your basic statement is just, that you believe somehow in a entity, being able to intervene somehow into our free will, but somehow affecting everyone in an personal manner.


Yes i agree with you on that point, because belief is really as you mentioned a feeling like "trust", so everyone is free to feel whatever is needed. That does also explain your attitude.
I'm sorry, but I really don't know why you are saying I have an attitude. I'm not trying to insult anyone, I'm not trying to impose my beliefs on anyone, but I am trying to defend my points and refute my opponents' points. And yes, everyone is free to feel whatever. I never said everyone must believe in certain beliefs. Stop shoving fundamentalist words in my mouth.

This perception just derives from that feeling, and everyone will be agreeing with me, is used, like any other feeling as well, for the conception of our personal reality. There is no person in the world, not breaking reality for their own purpose. Everyone has his own aims, and ways to achieve them or whatever make out of their life.
Your jargon here is puzzling me. You may say reality is subjective, but that is a totally different discussion altogether. Everyone does have their own aims and ways to achieve them, or make of their lives. That is called ideology.
And then everyone is also able to interprete everything.
If you don't adhere to any philosophical, theological, rational sides; sure.

So every word in a positive manner about religious beliefs is a persuasive statement; and every word against it, indifferent wheter it is stating, about the existence of god, even when not related to the worlds worshipper religions. This discussion is above all, read and interpreted by other people, so you persuade, by just defending your thoughts.
I am defending my thoughts which coincide with that of the Catholic Magisterium and many aristotelian philosophers.

What i can't imagine is, someone really being affected by our statings at all. I am telling this, because there is no argument, being able to convince someone, who has already made up his decision. I mean the shit i've written to insult religion, will be sufficent for an atheist, as your shit will be for a religious person.
I really hope I am not insulting any side.

Well you don't need the bible to get the christian thinking spreading, in fact i would assert, that there is a slight disatvantage for people getting atheists, or just not bothering at all, because of the "generational transfer" of the "message". For example, a big part of the Sowjet population believed in communism, as it's message has been spread among the people. The message itself was not the cause of their dillema, but peoples belief in it, did surely not help to overcome this system.
You touch upon the problem of pragmatism here. You should not say that everyone should be Christians or Atheists alike simply because it works better for society as a whole. I am not going to say that, and don't say I am.

I would like to quote a text in here

Ahh, old friend, cognitive dissonance. So, I've stated to dundant that its vagueness makes us interpret the Bible in ways that suit our needs. This is cognitive dissonance. Though, a problem arises, and I addressed this in my replies to dundant. The Bible itself is not a one text suits all, Sola Scriptura collection of books. It is a record. The reasons why there are so many Christian denominations because the bible is interpreted in so many different ways, and I take the interpretation of the Catholic Church.

Even earth religions are fighting each other because of their own religious thruth, when in fact there is always only one scientific thruth, which is proven.
You are right. Science is descriptive. It spells out its facts word for word. Religion is prescriptive. It is up to the believer to believe.
Religious people somehow always pretend their belief is self-evident, well an apple falling down a tree may be self evident, and there will be a vast scientific agreement about that circumstance, and therefore it is a scientific truth.
Belief cannot be self-evident, otherwise, where does it come from in the first place? Belief is supported by thousands of years of sacred tradition, sacred scripture, and in my opinion, many facets can be supported by reason, such as the conceptual support of God, as posited by Dr. Mortimer Adler, an argument which you said, all arguments against are futile.
A religious truth is just no truth at all, unless you redefine the definition of validity.
Religious truth is true according to your belief system. It is opinionated truth.
Religion, when comprehended to science is "true" as this following statement : [[[[[ I would like to quote a very famous critic Walter F. Kennedy jr. the third.
Hahah. I like that quote. I see no point made, other than the fact that you are trying to say the the man's opinionated truth of the bible is just as legitimate as the major religious ones. But it isn't because it is ridiculous, and unreasonable.


No it is simply not a minority at all, because of it's generational persistence.
You wont get people together just like that you know, so religion is just a twisted use of human social behavior . And overtime people got frightened by such conglomerates like vatikan (now dont tell me you didnt consider that, when stating religion as minor). In all those centuries there has been a high amount of preachers, telling people how they will suffer if they don't oblidge.
Religious people are a minority in places like England and Germany. Your statement that religion is a twisted use of social behavior is left alone and cold. You didn't support it, just said it to say it. Please elaborate. Also, I feel nothing but sympathy for those who are simply frightened into believing. They do not have the opportunity to actually dig themselves into the philosophy, the rationality, and the entirety of the faith itself.

Or do you think they would build gigantic churches just like that? Or give their belongings away for nothing? People are seeking FORGIVENESS in religion.
Sure. Like I said, becoming affiliated with a religion is a big deal. One must not simply change their beliefs because they want forgiveness. That belief is lopsided and not wholesome.

Todays religion is just not as deadly and embarrassing as it was then, but every man fighting in their own manner and defending it, is maybe building a new ground for new wars and suffering... Beside those wars, just being held like in africa for example. Or like the bosnian massacres 20 years ago, well this list could be extended vastly by some good historians.
Thats a high price for some insights, out of some books you know...
Extremism on either wing is always a bad thing. I'll put it this way. The Catholics in Vietnam oppressed the Bhuddists because of their extreme take on their religion, both in their ideology and politics. Adolf Hitler oppressed the Jews because of his extreme take on his non-religion, as evidenced by nazi ideology.

And of course it does add very much to the debate because where is your universal moral, if people have like two decisions, being perfectly good. Maybe everything we do is universal in your eyes? Like me deciding wheter im going to eat meat today or not.
I'm sorry, I could've phrased my earlier statement better. When I said I believed in universal morals, I meant universal sense of morality. Not moral absolutism in any way.

Im perfectly fine with "Believers", wouldn't they be affecting minors decisions and teaching to worship with rituals. I would not be teaching my children, would not take them to chruch etc. Everyone handles it like me, church aint no more in 100 years...
Because your way of un-indoctrination is better than the Church's indoctrination. Now, this is how I will handle raising my children. I will not tell them that Catholicism is necessary for them to believe. I will not force feed them any beliefs or non-beliefs. Simply, I will teach them to accept and coexist with any belief or non-beliefs, and when they are of age when they can make life-changing decisions themselves, I will talk to them. I will tell them why I believe what I believe, why others believe what they believe, and why they need to make the decision on their own

It is also a matter of faith, as it is a matter of numbers my friend.
For the most part, you are right. But so is atheism.



Some sort of common sense? you kidding? Everyone is building his own reality, you can't explain all people with one assertion, and expacially not with such a complex problem- An example : A black person is offended by the word Nig..., another is not. Where would their common moral be. Such a question, you can place nearly for every moral problem and you will always get a multitude of different answers.
You'r belief somehow just makes it easier for you not to comprehend so much or to get infracted by every unsolvable question coming on your way.
"Common sense is fixing problems"
So, if one is born and raised with no parents, you think they will not have a "reality?" You need to define your terms. Human beings have certain things in common. These are logic, humor, personality, and many more aspects of humanity.


You are just falling into the standard scheme of a religious person by that assertion. Church is no school goddamn.
As you previously said about science and faith : church is chruch and school is school.
There are Church Schools which teach with a cirriculum. Whether a school's cirriculum is well made or not, the fact that it teaches subjects like math, science, grammar, literature, writing, and many other makes it a school.


You are telling the bible is not mential conditioning a few paragraphs above, and now you are just crushing your argument.
Religious people are simply trying to spread their faith and give more people the opportunity to save their own souls.

Capiche? Do you me understand?

What? You need to explain. You need to refute. You aren't making a point here. Just because religious people are trying to spread their faith does not make it mental conditioning. It would be though if they were forcing people to believe it under threat of death, or the likes, but that isn't the case.

Well it certaintly is not in the United States and above all not in the republican party. Even the biggest german party is called Christian Party. I'm totally ok with that, because you won't find a politian in germany wasting one second of their time brazzing about religion.
The republican party derives many of its beliefs because of their religion and the like. Due to the fact that politics are secular, and that not everyone in the states are christians, I think that is a flawed argument. This does not make the government and religion one. It makes the most powerful person in the democracy impose his religious beliefs upon the law. These guys are using their religion as political reasoning because they are trying to infuse religion into a purely secular political system. Here you are saying "because they think so, it is"

The cool argumentOh my god, where should i begin, pwease light my way )))
OK OK first this video Rick perrys gop ad !http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxzON...eature=related

Rick santorum here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZcc1D0YhE0
Ok. So? Like I said before, that does not make government conform to religion. It makes the most powerful person impose his beliefs on everyone.

In fact mitt Romney decleared his atheistic father to be a mormon before the gop. His father was one year dead already.

Whom would you vote for btw?, so i can write something on top of that next time
I'm not up to speed at all on politics, but if I had to pick the lesser of all evils, it would be Ron Paul.

Just let me get clear here , WHAT DO THESE TWO ADS HAVE EVEN SLIGHTLY IN COMMON WITH POLITICS!!
The person being advertised is running to be the president. You seem to have missed the point. The fact that their policies depend on their religion does not make it a religious ad automatically.

And now think about that. How people just see political leaders in them, when they are pooving what good christians they are and how well functioning their family is, instead putting some Real Issues on the desk!
Im fickaricka and i approve this message!
They are trying to deal with real issues. But they are going about it in a way that only coincides with their religions.

Alright, here is a point I can talk about. A majority of pedophiles are religious men are so because religion deals significantly with children. They are not pedophiles because they are religious.
Well i did not mean priests directly, i was trying to speak about normal people "with universal morals" like you would say. Priests are just the peak of an iceberg, cause they manage to rape so many children at once.
No, priests who are pedophiles are the problem. The Vatican isn't having kids raped. No one else is doing any raping. What iceberg are you referring to?

I'm speaking about people trying to explain their problems with their faith, like you are trying for example with those moral issues of yours.
You could simply refute my argument by telling, that 80% of americans for example are christian, so there must be a also a majority out of that simple fact.
No.That does not make the point I am trying to make. That also does not refute your argument because it is not simply "Most americans aren't christian"

Isn't it enough priests raping children at all? What is there to add...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholi...nited_States_2

Those cases are constantly growing and are also bubbeling up strongly in germany. I would say there are few less potentially dangerous enviroments for children than their priests office.
Ok. I will explain the issue to my understanding. The screening process for sifting out pedophile priests was not so good, so many actually became priests and got to the children. The bishops, instead of having the priests arrested, simply moved the priests to other districts, and had those with knowledge of the abuse commanded to shut the fuck up or else they were excommunicated. Nice moves, your holinesses.


Well i still do not understand, what this common sense of yours, might be.
You are partially agreeing about the development in progress, but underlying it with a "rational" point, for which it is indifferent, wheter it is secular or not.
Or in other words. Even when no one would believe in god, which would be surely common sense to me. An universal moral would exist anyhow:There is an immaterial and true creator. Wheter we don't surely know it exists and not bothering about our belief at all.
What is the development in progress? That is not a universal moral. This argument is not of morality. This argument is of existence of The Supreme Being. An argument you have yet to touch upon.

Thats no intersocial moral at all. What you name universal morals, i call simply faith or religion. Otherwise proove me one actual existing universal moral.
Morality. Everyone has morality. Everyone has a sense that some things are good and some are bad. What these things are can be shaped and influenced by their culture, religion and ideology.

In other words. If we are totaly able to do what ever we like and make our own decisions, is there a possible act, god could make to change something?
How would it manifest, and how would it be purely right or wrong. For example god could give us super fuel bottom less gallons of it.
Or would he do it "through" someone, lets say a very intelligent scientist.
Or would he let people do whatever they want, and never get inflicted, just watching until the end?
You ask questions, but do not posit a personal answer. Do you just want me to answer these questions for you?


Explain it, why ? What is your argumentative ground on that assertion?
So he wanted all of us to be vegeterians and you are a sinner by eating cheeseburgers?
I'm confused, so confused right now...
Lol. No. First to say, I do not believe in creationism at all. It simply dumps a supernatural, superstitious explanation onto everything biology. Now to the point. Without creationism, how is animal life here in the first place? Science posits the answer of evolution. That mutations and natural selection work in conjunction to produce the animal life we have today, very possibly even us humans. Regarding whether it is a sin to eat meat, I don't give a shit whether anyone is a vegetarian or not. I certainly am not, and I don't say I'm a sinner for doing it. I am not saying it is a sin to do so. I am saying that God doesn't care either. I explicitly said that God does not have animals live solely to be eaten, or to not be eaten. I am saying it is not morally or religiously reprehensible at all. Eat whatever you want, God doesn't care. I do not advocate murder and subsequently cannibalism either.

For my part, I respect the honest clear-minded atheist who denies that God exists and tries to offer thought out reasons for the denial. I respect the honest, critically minded agnostic who denies we can ever know whether God exists or not, and treats religious belief as a pure act of faith, incapable of being supported or challenged by rational analysis or empirical knowledge of the world. I respect the person who, in his horror of the superstitions and persecutions that have attended the practices of religious institutions, rejects the whole of religion as something from which man should emancipate himself. But I cannot respect those who corrupt the integrity of words in the very act of addressing matters of central importance in theology and religion. I cannot respect those who instead of calling atheism by its right name, contrive a peculiar set of excuses for atheism (as in the "death of God movement") and then – in spite of laws against false labeling – call the result a new theology.