click here for pele's theory on religion and arguments with/for/against it

[Zzagg]

Ahhhh, thanks Gild!

[peleschramm]

Originally Posted by GILD

If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.
-- Bertrand Russell

Hey!

That's the Quote of the Day on iGoogle!!!

It's funny, I read your post, and then I read the quote of the day around 2 minutes later.

[BillyTheMountain]

Originally Posted by GILD

If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.
-- Bertrand Russell

This is not a fact, and it's not supported by science.

Like so any who have Faith in Science, we believe.

[peleschramm]

Originally Posted by BillyTheMountain

This is not a fact, and it's not supported by science.

Like so any who have Faith in Science, we believe.

Actually, it's backed up by scientific psychological evidence acquired through hands-on experimentation. At least my in-car professor says so!

[BillyTheMountain]

Originally Posted by peleschramm

actually, it's backed up by scientific psychological evidence acquired through hands-on experimentation. At least my in-car professor says so!

ha!

[GILD]

Originally Posted by peleschramm

Hey!

That's the Quote of the Day on iGoogle!!!

It's funny, I read your post, and then I read the quote of the day around 2 minutes later.

Interesting.
I subscribe to "Quote Of The Day" and it was one of the four quotes for yesterday.

[peleschramm]

Originally Posted by GILD

Interesting.
I subscribe to "Quote Of The Day" and it was one of the four quotes for yesterday.

Well... You do live in the future!

South Africa, I mean. Time zone...

[GILD]

Not as far in the future as our australian brethren, but yeah.

Can I have coffee now?

[MrBoogiejuice]

Originally Posted by Zzagg

This religious thread is the first I cannot read so far. Please can someone send some "+1" "lol" "awesome" posts here and then so that my eyes can stop bleeding?

I've got to admit I'm struggling too.

I've made a few attempts to read it from the start then I spot a point to remark on which then hastily gets forgotten as I've spotted several more while reading the next couple of posts which in turn get forgotten as I move on.

I'm up for some fart jokes if you are.

[peleschramm]

How about we stay away from fart jokes, and make this the first unicyclist.com religious debate thread that actually has some good content, and is not just a flame war. Maybe with this one we'll actually get somewhere for once...

[phlegm]

Originally Posted by peleschramm

But we can't just ignore "the other" because there's always another! People have a tendency of trying to justify themselves, and whatever actions they are guilty of, whether wrong or right, to them is much more likely to be seen as right as opposed to wrong. If there is anything directly in opposition to what they have done, since what they have done is right in their mind, they are likely to see that as "wrong". I can tell you that very few cultures would conjure up a religion, and feel guilty for doing so, that statement is so obvious that it isn't even worthwhile to be asserted. Also, few cultures would go to war if they felt that going to war was wrong. While certain murderers within the culture are shunned, the culture at the same time applauds the murder of the murderers (aka execution), and applauds the murder of their enemies. People with certain religious view applaud their own religious views, and then shun others' religious views.

You read both paragraphs, right? I only temporarily "ignored" "the other" in the first paragraph to focus what I've been saying. Then I pointed out that being more aware of "the other" is a relatively recent development. And I think it's good that people are now considering how they treat "the other".

Execution is easily explained by seeing that a once someone becomes a murderer, they become "an other" that some cultures rationalize violence against in a similar fashion as wars are rationalized.

Originally Posted by peleschramm

I believe that everyone should consider the moral standing of each of their actions, prior to acting, to the best of their ability, using a more or less Utilitarian thought process, and in as objective a manner as they can conjure.

No ethical theory is perfect, otherwise we wouldn't need to have a variety of theories. Isn't the goal of an ethical theory to find happiness, and isn't happiness concerned with subjects (i.e., people with various ideas of happiness), not objects? Why should we try to think as objectively as possible?

Love is not an ethical theory but simply a concept that operates within our relationships to others. Love requires that we consider the other before ourselves. In a world that has traditionally abused "the other", love is of primary importance if we want to change that.

The theme of love destroying the "us vs. them" mentality is found throughout the New Testament. For example, the Gospels tell us that Jesus, the sinless one, gave up his life for "the others" (those who have sinned) as the ultimate demonstration of love. Also, the theme of subverting the Jew vs. Gentile mindset is found throughout the Apostle Paul's letters.

Finally, the reason I call myself a Christian is because of what the Gospels say about the person that was Jesus Christ. This is similar to how one who studies and/or admires Aristotle is called an Aristotelian. Defining a Christian as "one who holds a certain set of beliefs" doesn't work because Christians have held many different sets of beliefs throughout history.

[BillyTheMountain]

Originally Posted by peleschramm

How about we stay away from fart jokes, and make this the first unicyclist.com religious debate thread that actually has some good content, and is not just a flame war. Maybe with this one we'll actually get somewhere for once...

Get somewhere?

Like where?

And how will we know we've arrived there?

When Dave becomes a vegetarian 7th Day Adventists?

Billy

[peleschramm]

Originally Posted by phlegm

...

It is possible to have a perfect ethical theory. The reason why we need multiple ethical theories is because the subject is so vast, that it is hard for one theory to cover the entire topic.

And I'm starting to think that by "love", you mean "the ability to regard others in an objective manner", in which case we agree. I don't think love is exactly a suitable word to be used in such a manner, but if that is what you meant, then we agree. I can't imagine it being a very reasonable ethical theory that we all must "love one another" when using love in any other known form...

Originally Posted by BillyTheMountain

Get somewhere?
Like where?
And how will we know we've arrived there?
When Dave becomes a vegetarian 7th Day Adventists?
Billy

Get somewhere as in cause someone to change his/her mind in one form or another, from the introduction of concepts and arguments that the other hasn't heard or considered before. There doesn't have to be a complete change of mind, but as long as some of us turn out just a bit wiser and more knowledgeable, I would consider that to be getting somewhere.

[GILD]

Originally Posted by peleschramm

Get somewhere as in cause someone to change his/her mind in one form or another, from the introduction of concepts and arguments that the other hasn't heard or considered before. There doesn't have to be a complete change of mind, but as long as some of us turn out just a bit wiser and more knowledgeable, I would consider that to be getting somewhere.

Just say know, in other words?

[BillyTheMountain]

Originally Posted by GILD

Just say know, in other words?

As in:

Know GOD, Know Peace.

No GOD, No Peace.