Jesus Camp Trailer

[Sharkith]

My point is - you all claim your right. Christians/Muslims/Hinduism/Buddhism/Jewism/Cultists etc etc... so tell me, why are you so sure that the path you have chosen is the only true path? I've asked this question several times in this thread now but had no reply. And as I've said before - I can assure you that there are billions of people that are 100% sure they belive in the one true religion. And Gandelf even claimed that unless you were reborn you were no real christian.
Are you willing to die for your belief? And if so, have you ever thought about the non-christians why they are willing to die for what they believe in? Are they wrong?

Others might make such claims Ankh but the key question here for you (and me in many respects) is if you don't stand for something what exactly do you stand for if anything at all?

Behind your question is a moral relativism and some would say this is infinitely more dangerous for society than any kind of religious conviction.

[Xest]

a) the idea that Darwinism is simply another creationist myth (all societies need one) - you never responded to this.

Many of Darwin's ideas (i.e. natural selection) are observable, whilst we can't observe it in species who have long lifetimes unless records have been kept, we can observe it in species with short lifetimes i.e. my example regarding moths earlier in the thread. Is the idea of something like natural selection rock solid? No, as humans we've proved that by finding ways of working around it, Darwin's set of ideas however provided the groundwork for modern research into the ideas of evolution.

b) that we owe many of our existing insitutions and practices to religion and if we are to argue deny "that religion has any place in modern society" (to quote Xest) are we not undermining some of the basis of our social institutions (ethics being the major case in point)? what would this society look like if we could not ask the question whether something was good or bad?

This is why I struggle to really understand how you can make comments you do, earlier in the thread you accuse me of putting people into boxes, yet here you are suggesting that various moral principles defined in religions texts aren't possible without being bundled with the rest of religion. It is entirely possible to seperate these principles and their existence in religious texts dates back to the fact that religion was used as a tool for control, making laws such as "Thou shall not kill thy neighbour" or whatever is a basic common sense rule for a peaceful society, to implement that doesn't require that you beleive in god, it requires that you are a decent human being. When I say that I feel a lot of the moral principles in various religions are a good idea, I'm not saying that these religions should be credited for those good ideas, I'm saying that religion is widespread enough to enforce these ideas on a large amount of people - people that are perhaps too weak minded to realise these principles without that help. People are generally educated enough nowadays to follow these principles without the need for having them imposed by fear of some greater being that will smite them down if they do not adhere to them - that's why religion no longer serves it's purpose in a modern society.

[<ankh>]

So is it possible to stand for nothing?

This is partly what I am driving at. I am pushing to expose just what is behind all these questions both you, Xest and others have. If we look closely enough I am a bit concerned we will find nothing. What then for the discussion?

Do I have to be on a particular side to discuss? Im open for both scientific and religious proofs. But atm Ive seen NO proof what so ever from religion. If you don't think our questions or replies are worth your time - just ignore them. Thats what most religious people does anyway when they have no real good answers.

Edit: Im sure Hitlers supporters thought they were right too...and Allahs..and stalins..and buddahs...and Hamas...and the kamikaze..and the crusaders... tbh, I think they were just convinced of being right as you lot seem to do atm. Not fair compare? Well, maybe not - but point is that they still belived in what ever they had decided to follow.

/Ankh

[Cromcruaich]

a) the idea that Darwinism is simply another creationist myth (all societies need one) - you never responded to this.

Ive really covered this in earlier posts. Evolutionary process and mechanism are observable phenomena that can be tested and verified. Since the start of the theory of Natural Selection, life sciences has proceeded to produce verifiable evidence of the process, milestones being the work of mendel and on to the discovery of the mechanism of inheritance at a molecular level.

To say its a myth and lump it in with no different from Religious creationism is truly misleading - thats why I so dislike the way the term Evolutionist is used - it really doesnt do any sort of justice to the huge (HUGE!) body of work that contributes to the ideas behind the diversity of life that occurs on this planet.

To deny that the mechanisms behind evolution dont exist is like denying that a table is a table, you can, but its a very different existential argument. If you accept the mechanisms do occur, then you seriously have to start accepting evolution.

Again why people cant make the jump between accepting the mechanism, to accepting evolution as the theort for the generation of species diversity is simply because they dont (or refuse to) grasp the timesclaes that are at work here.


Approach this from a different perspective. If you dont accept Religious Creationism, then there is another mechanism for the creation of the diversity of life observed both in the fossil record, and at this present time. That is explainable, it requires a mechanism.

Now we can dismiss Religous Creationism, its not a verifiable theory, there is no evidence for it whatsoever, its not supportable, its not reproducable, its not observable. And you know why...?

b) that we owe many of our existing insitutions and practices to religion and if we are to argue deny "that religion has any place in modern society" (to quote Xest) are we not undermining some of the basis of our social institutions (ethics being the major case in point)? what would this society look like if we could not ask the question whether something was good or bad?

Firstly you need to say what these institutions are. Then you need to go on to prove that they are beneficial, finally you need then to prove that without religion they wouldnt of existed, and this would now be a poorer world without them.

Additionally dont mix up religion with ethics. Religions might have their own ethics, but it is completely wrong to say that without religion, there would be no ethics. You dont need religion to surmise that murder is wrong. You certainly dont need religion to ask whether something is good or bad. Though i'd be interested to see you prove that you do.

Unfortunately it is impossible to unpick religious influence on modern society, because of the involvement of it in our very recent past. But just because it cant be unpicked, that doesnt make your point regarding any perceived benefit valid, it just makes it unproveable.

[Xest]

So is it possible to stand for nothing?

This is partly what I am driving at. I am pushing to expose just what is behind all these questions both you, Xest and others have. If we look closely enough I am a bit concerned we will find nothing. What then for the discussion?

Personally I'm just intrigued what makes them beleive the things they do and more importantly why they all to often feel the need to impose these beleifs on others. If they expect us to beleive these things, if they continue to allow their beleifs to influence our every day lives due to the way these beleifs effect political decisions and so forth do you not think I'm therefore entitled to know what it is about these beleifs that justifies them effecting my everyday life? Perhaps if I didn't get pestered on a Sunday afternoon by Jehova's Witnesses, perhaps if our elected prime minister hadn't squandered billions of tax payers money on a war that was no doubt started based at least slightly on Tony Blair's Christian taught anti-Muslim influence then I could ignore religion, but unfortunately that's not the case, it DOES impose on my day to day life.

If as you say that there is no answer, that there is no reason then it opens the path for us to ask why we are allowing these beleifs to influence our every day lives and hopefully do something about it such that we don't live in a world where major decisions are based upon whether someone or something is muslim, homosexual or whatever.

[<ankh>]

Others might make such claims Ankh but the key question here for you (and me in many respects) is if you don't stand for something what exactly do you stand for if anything at all?

Behind your question is a moral relativism and some would say this is infinitely more dangerous for society than any kind of religious conviction.

In what way would it be dangerous? Its much more dangerous to be single minded and just close your eyes to everything apart from the path you chosen.

You ask me what I stand for - care to expand that question abit? Cos you already know that I don't belive in religion, so exactly what do you want to know? Btw - just cus I dont belive in religion I havent said that I would like to stop others from doing so. But what I would like is to hear from others why I should belive in it.

/Ankh

[Sharkith]

These two comments are from similar positions so I will put them together:

Please define which beneficial characteristics you believe are a positive contribution, which you can say without doubt would not of occured without religous bodies of power. The point isnt what the world is with religion, but what i would of been without.

It's a truism to say that it owes its many characteristics to religious heritage, thats because of the dominance of religious belief and complete domination of the church in our very recent past.

This is why I struggle to really understand how you can make comments you do, earlier in the thread you accuse me of putting people into boxes, yet here you are suggesting that various moral principles defined in religions texts aren't possible without being bundled with the rest of religion. It is entirely possible to seperate these principles and their existence in religious texts dates back to the fact that religion was used as a tool for control, making laws such as "Thou shall not kill thy neighbour" or whatever is a basic common sense rule for a peaceful society, to implement that doesn't require that you beleive in god, it requires that you are a decent human being. When I say that I feel a lot of the moral principles in various religions are a good idea, I'm not saying that these religions should be credited for those good ideas, I'm saying that religion is widespread enough to enforce these ideas on a large amount of people - people that are perhaps too weak minded to realise these principles without that help. People are generally educated enough nowadays to follow these principles without the need for having them imposed by fear of some greater being that will smite them down if they do not adhere to them - that's why religion no longer serves it's purpose in a modern society.

Interesting question Crom. If it is true (and you obviously agree that we do) that we owe our democratic ideas in some part to a religious heritage then can I ask you why would we want to speculate on a fantastical world where these things might have existed without religion? What is to be gained?

Sure we can argue (as Xest has just done and as you appear to be doing) and mirror Kant in so doing that reason is transcendental and that it exists outside of people, religious institutions and society. If it does then who exactly is this reason you claim exists seperate from us and our history?

How is it possible for something to exist beyond us and history?

[Cromcruaich]

So is it possible to stand for nothing?

This is partly what I am driving at. I am pushing to expose just what is behind all these questions both you, Xest and others have. If we look closely enough I am a bit concerned we will find nothing. What then for the discussion?

This is a nice turn of phrase Shark, but it is completely meaningless to me. Can you elaborate?

[Sharkith]

Many of Darwin's ideas (i.e. natural selection) are observable, whilst we can't observe it in species who have long lifetimes unless records have been kept, we can observe it in species with short lifetimes i.e. my example regarding moths earlier in the thread. Is the idea of something like natural selection rock solid? No, as humans we've proved that by finding ways of working around it, Darwin's set of ideas however provided the groundwork for modern research into the ideas of evolution.

This point I am going to nail once and for all.

You often cite Darwin in this thread and claim it is 'fact' because it is observable. What is a fact Xest?

I am going to answer this question myself because I don't have time for further speculation. A fact is only observable with reference to an 'idea'. Natural selection is not observable without the 'idea' that somehow the selection that was made 'naturally' was superior to other selections that did not survive. This means that Darwin's whole theory has behind it reason and rationality. In other words the natural selections were somehow better than other selections.

Now how is it possible for 'nature' to have 'rationality' and reason? Is it possible that Darwin and all his followers are admitting to some form of design in nature? If so who designed the selections? God? Or Darwin himself?

We can go further because in many respects Darwin's theory is based on an interpretation of 'facts' using an idea. It is no more than that.

[Sharkith]

This is a nice turn of phrase Shark, but it is completely meaningless to me. Can you elaborate?

Simply put many of the arguments in this thread are made from a deeply skeptical position. Many of them are not constructive. Radical doubt is fine if you then use that doubt to put forward alternative propositions about how things would be better but without doing so I feel it is inherently destructive.

So my question "is it possible to stand for nothing?" comes from that position because I don't believe you can hold the position of doubting everything without risking standing for nothing.