What price religion?

Discussion in 'Religion and Spirituality' started by spect8or, Jan 20, 2004.

  1. What price religion? I ask what price science...

    How much do we have to pay for it Danny Boy? I'm all for science, but when an enitire race is so consumed with material growth that everything else is forgotten -- in the end is it worth it? We can send 4 men to walk on the moon, but most men on this planet haven't figured out how to walk accross the street and greet their neighbors. We have seventeen year old hookers in the Burbs of LA that solicit sex in the malls not to survive, but to buy the latest clothes at that very same mall. Kids don't want to take the time to read Dostoevsky or Joyce, they want MTV's Kribs. This race is quickly becoming as spiritualy bankrupt as the medium I am using to communicare this message.



    Okay, so the price you propose we are paying for science is spiritual bankruptcy?

    Sounds like a BARGAIN to me! :)

    Honestly, I just don't see it as a problem AT ALL if kids want MTV cribs rather than joyce or dostoevsky or cervantes or chopin or picasso.

    An appreciation of "the arts" is just another means to emotional satisfaction. Obviously the arty-farty crowd will tell you one is so much more "sophisticated" than the other, but there's nothing inherently better worse about either.

    I don't see materialism and commercialism as the problem, I see them as the best altenative.

    What does it take to achieve material wealth, in this day and age, under our legal system? Hard work, honesty (for the most part) an attitude of customer service, a willingness to provide develop products people want. I think most people would agree those are desirable things.

    And let's not ignore science either. Exercise that imagination of yours sonny. Or start reading some sci-fi to shake yourself up. It SCIENCE that is going to provide the BIG CHANGES (positive ones) to human kind. Science and commerce.

    Now, of course someone's going to have come up with the "it won't make you happy" argument. And I'll agree to it 100%. It probably won't. Not lasting happiness anyway. But happiness is actually VERY EASY to achieve, once you know how. And it doesn't require religion or reading dostoevsky.

    I know you like to bring up the "there's more to life than what you can grab with your two hands" line? Well, what is it? Why is it more important?





    The bible didn't create the bombs dropped on Hiroshima or Dresden and prayer isn't the only thing the Bible preached, it preached love. Their has to be a balance to all this. IMO, you people who preach science over all else are just as bad as the religious zealots. Whats gonna get us first Danny, a nuke or Jehovah witness? And don't start with the "look what the muslims did to WTC", because if you truly believe that religion was their sole motive, then you not only sound like Gekko with your science above all else, absolute claims, and incredibly annoying caps, but you might very well have his level of understanding too.




    Are you for real man? Science, in and of itself, isnt' going to get us nuked. That's absurd.

    Now, not to brag, but I'm pretty well read on muslims and believe me, it is IRREFUTABLE that there's is easily the most violent religion on earth today. Now, religion may not have been the ONLY factor in 911, but take religion out of it and 911 wouldn't have happened. Sad, but true.

    As for Jehovah's, they may not get us bombed, but I contend that religious thinking has other drawbacks. It does nothing to encourage scientific advancement. It can only stifle it. And scientific advancement, as I have stated, is, imo, crucial to optimizing human kinds survival in the coming MILLENNIA (I'm not just thinking about me here, see?). How many potentially great scientists are we losing thanks to religious BS?

    Religion is good for one thing only, emotional comfort. But once you realize that such emotional comfort is available without all the religious BS, religion can only get in the way. It's good for nothing.

    As for love, yes we all need it. But religion is no guarantee that we're going to get it. And if the facts of history are honestly assessed, I think there's a pretty clear picture that religion certainly does not lead to more love!

    Religion has certainly scared everyone into thinking the whole world order would collapse if religion wasn't true, but that is just pure BS.
    P1 There is no god.
    P2 XXX

    C1 I kill myself/others/lie/cheat/steal

    How do you get from P1+P2 to C1? What is the XXX that would lead to this? Nothing. It's just bullshit.

    One day, the whole show's going to be over. That's it, bang, gone, no more human kind. How's it going to happen? Comet impact? Virus? Environment going haywire? Who knows?
    But one thing is for sure, it is going to be scientific advancement that is going to help our odds of survival in the meantime, nothing else.
     
    #21     Jan 21, 2004

  2. There's no need for faith at all.

    Let me deal with those "points" you make.

    The "christian" west is at the forefront of science largely because it has stopped being so christian! (D you realize how few scientists are christians??) If you review history from the enlightenment forward, you'll see that christianity has always retreated from science, just as supernatural "explanations" have always given way to natural ones. It's because those nations you speak of gave room to science that they advanced. Not because they were christian. They could have been satanists for all it mattered. The main point is that once they allowed themselves to make room for scientific views of the world, their societies advanced.

    Soviet union and China didn't fail because of their 'pure science'. Lol. Ever heard of Economics?!

    By the way, your logic is simply terrible.

    (1) Man rules earth.
    (2) Man is made in image of god.

    (C) Man has rights.

    ?!?!?


    And lastly, yes, I think it's fair to say that religious people have a fear of knowledge. Of rational knowledge, anyway. Probably because rational thinking is so devastating to religious claims.

    That's why they NEED the "mysterious power" of faith. That's why we get all those capital letters when religious people describe their beliefs, like Truth, or Reality or Ultimate Reality or I Know, or the Peace. The capital letter is supposed to signify that their knowledge is somehow superior because it wasn't arrived at rationally, but through faith, it comes from god or something. In reality, it is just Wishful Thinking.

     
    #22     Jan 21, 2004
  3. Danny,

    My point was not that science or material growth are bad things in and of themselves, but become harmful when the collective ambtion of the mass hold them to such high standards that all else is excluded. I'm all for advancement Danny, but there needs to be some balance.

    As for the disdain you show for anything you can't "grab wit your two hands", hey who am I to argue? For me it's hollow, and the "happiness" is fleeting, but if you think "commercialism and materialism" is the way to go, then by all means walk your path young man. This is your world and I'm just a bit player in it.

    PEACE to you as always...
     
    #23     Jan 21, 2004
  4. you don't know what i think.

    you have kindergarten knowledge of my beliefs and are obviously many levels BELOW my understanding.

    i should not even reply to your endless bs..
     
    #24     Jan 21, 2004
  5. Then next time take the higher road and instead of taking the time away from your mother using her living room PC just walk your ass down to her basement you reside in and kindly shut the fuck up.

    Have a nice night Gekko.
     
    #25     Jan 21, 2004
  6. haha whatever you say, INTERNET TOUGH GUY! :D btw, you're the one who brought me into this discussion, you fool.

    apparently, you can't take the high road, either (what a surprise).

    made 10.5 ES points/contract today. if your mom wants her computer back, let me know and i'll buy you a new one.

    the rest of your post is bs, which i won't reply to.
     
    #26     Jan 21, 2004
  7. jem

    jem

    spect8or- you made some good points and I missed your question about inalienable rights in the bible. But it is interesting you brought up the king james version. Being that is a protestant version, a version must often used by fundamentalists. (Stay with me here you set up my point perfectly.)

    The whole - theological- point of the reformation was that in Jesus you are set free to do what you want. The whole- political- point of the reformation was to be set free of the controls of the Church and other leaders. You can trace this thought through to the founding principals of America... which lead to the french revolution. The protestant reformation was about freedom from oppression. What was the Point of the founding of America?

    I will explain.

    A good fundamentalist will tell you via reading paul's letters that in Jesus you are free to do anything you want. Jesus came to set you free from your laws and your binded life. If you desire eternal life you should believe in one of the promises God has made in the bible and act on it. If you believe, you do not have to worry about laws and dos and don't because they are not dispositive of eternal life. It is very had to believe for someone not exposed to true fundamentalist teachings but there a strong belief amoung many that once you are saved you are always saved. You see according to many fundamentalists you can do whatever you want. (as far as getting into heaven) Its what you believe that makes the difference. (This leads to all sorts of great questions and debates, of which I have been in many and still learning)

    For instance a fundamentalist will tell you that Jesus died for your sins past present and future. There are no restrictions if you believe that. It is very liberating. This is all according to a good fundamentalist. Now a good Catholic may read the four gospels and things like the sermon on the mount and tell you have to believe in Jesus and do good acts if you want to get into heaven. A careful reading of your Bible and you will see the (on the surface) split between the teachings of good works of Jesus and the teachings of Paul which stand for the fact that you can do whatever you want as long as you believe. (The split can be unified but it takes a great deal of study)

    Now along comes the reformation. The Germans did not like the Catholic Church dominating it politically. Luther did not like the corruption of the money collection practices. The Church said , you need to do good acts and you need to follow the rules. Luther said your rules are corrupt. He turns to reading Paul's epistles and says ahh, I am free in Jesus based on my faith, I do not need any rules or a Church. I am free to do and believe whatever I want.

    No rules no political structures. No dictators etc. No church authority. I am free to rule myself. These thoughts dovetailed into Rosseau and writings about people consenting to be governed.


    I could write about this for hours and if it was not so late I would have written more clearly. This is really a very elegant subject to which I can not really do justice. Look, I grew up a Catholic and learned about this stuff somewhat to my dismay. But I had to accept facts. The protestation reformation represented freedom from tyranny (as they perceived it). It was based on the letters of Paul. It lead to multiple revolutions and democracy.


    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No one really took the bait on the pope comment. But there have been books explaining that at least part and arguably the biggest part of fall of communism happened because of the Pope's influence in Poland and the subsequent movement towards openness. The Pope was always preaching human dignity.

    Regarding Jefferson please see a thread about deists where we had dual Jefferson quotes about the God of Israel and and deism.
     
    #27     Jan 21, 2004
  8. Turok

    Turok

    >she has no clue as to the real reason of the
    >west's success. it is a combination of faith
    >and rationalism that works best

    And of course access to capital markets. :)

    JB
     
    #28     Jan 21, 2004


  9. This is only true if there is no God. If there is a God and He interacts with human beings in any way, then everything you have said on this thread is probably completely wrong.

    Your thread should state, "What good is religion if I am right and there is no God?"

    Your thesis is based entirely on an assumption that you cannot prove. Obviously if there is a God and a spiritual side to life, then it can significantly effect human behavior.
     
    #29     Jan 22, 2004
  10. Here's a "fair assessment" of what you wrote:

    1. Religion is the source of all societal evils.
    2. Religious people are self-decieved, backward fools.
    3. Religious beliefs (and therefore religious people) are a "net drain on society".
    4. We are superior.
    5. We are mankind's only hope.

    You're well on your way. I can hardly wait for conclusion #6 and #7...
     
    #30     Jan 22, 2004