It’s just a small personal opinion of mine.. and maybe it’s a bad one… I really think separation of church and state should be forced upon all governments that want to participate in civilized society. religion has its place, but it’s place is not to give those that rule powers beyond what they should have.
I thank religion for giving us the basis for our morals and ethics. we’ve been given a good model, and we’re constantly amending it with reason. for example, most morals can be jsutified using a logical ethical code and do not require the defense of “because God says so.” the Golden Rule does not require a religious defense to stand up to an ethical debate. it is logical. the amending process comes when an ethical process is not quite logical or is questioned, and the only defense can be found in “because God says so.” Our ethics can, for the most part, be defended with the “gos says so” arguement, but do not REQUIRE that arguement. we can use logic and common sense.
Also, I think governments should be forced to answer to any crimes they commit against humanity. everyone should be allowed life liberty and the persuit of happiness. and it’s not arrogant for me to say that even though it’s my country that thinks the same thing. I think those are basic human rights. I don;t see why someone shouldn’t be allowed those. I haven’t met a person that could, or even wanted to, argue that with me. accordingly, any government who would reccommend, ore even endorse, or even allow a 2-year-old to be stoned to death should be removed from power with as much force and quickness as possible. reference: index.html
maybe I’m on my high horse. maybe there;s something to all this that I’m not seeing. maybe it’s a tragedy, I don;t know. I can’t prove that God does not exist. it wouldn;t be scientific of me to say that. no good scientist will ever rule something out 100%. I will say that the degree of uncertainty is very small. religion can explain everything around us with the blanket statement of “God makes it so.” we can explain most everything around us with Science as well, and none of those explainations require religion in any way. we don’t have 100% of the phenomena out there covered yet but we’re working on it.
-IggDawg
i think ‘religion: the source of the world’s evil’ will be my senor thesis. i could tell you why church and state will NEVER be separate anywhere. you might not want to believe it, but it’s the truth.
and don’t feel about the not proving god doesn’t exist statement, the satement itself is a fallacy. to say god exists is to simply say ‘god is’ there is no predicate and therefore is problematic. the same goes for the inverse.
Source? Nah….
I’m sticking with the ol’ human heart on that one. Magnified by scarcity of resources, hording instincts, jealousy, pride, sexual and territorial rivalry, etc, etc, etc.
Nature made the H2O of hatred, religion’s just one of the ditches in which is flows.
and oh does it flow!
Re: Source? Nah….
I disagree. if nature created hatred, it would not be a human characteristic. Cats don’t snub each other because of their color or language. the human heart (which i assume you are using to mean emotion) are really not a natural thing. in nature they are very very transparent. animals mourn their dead, and they show jealousy only when food is involved.
remember i’m not blaming religion for things like overpopulation (although the catholics don’t help this problem much) and before society (ie nature) territory was just where you got your food. you walk into my land, that’s fine, just don’t eat my carrots.
Re: Source? Nah….
I don’t think I follow. Unless you subscribe to divine faith, “Nature” gave rise to everything, including mankind and his societies. I include man as part of the natural world. Does mankind’s society feed his hatred? Sure. A lot. But the root emotion was right there in our simian-reptilian brain.
I’d say that cats don’t snub each other because they’re far too stupid for concepts like “color” and “language” to apply. But, then again, there’s plenty of cat fights…and they’re not fighting because they’re bored. Mates, foods, territory, etc.
And before society? I’m not sure that applies to man. Before society, we were social monkeys. Before being social monkeys we were….animals. I don’t think hatred applies to animals much below the monkey level. Rivalry, ruthlessness, aggression, and ceaseless competition certainly do though.
Re: Source? Nah….
Btw, noticed your name was Ian, which confused me, as igg is also Ian. So I checked out your profile. I-clubber? Either way, you’ve got some damn good interests. Schopenhauer, Ghost in the Shell, Fear Factory, Futurama, logic, and women.
Word.
Hmm…
I don’t necessarily disagree with you. More with the tone you’re taking. Religion is one of the most diverse things there is on this planet. It’s caused much goodness and much suffering. It’s very difficult to say whether it balances out or not.
Some would say the same about science. I grant them that as a reasonable response. Personally, I’d argue that science has brought good to far more than evil, but, like any tool, it’s been used for both. And allowed both good and evil to be employed on a wider and wider scale. And allowed us, for the first time, the means to wipe out our species with alarmingly reliability, although not quite certainty.
I’m pro good science (responsible) and pro good religion (responsible). I’m pro good. Anti-evil. I’m an unwilling atheist who’d very much like to believe in a God, but cannot and will not pretend to when I’m simply not convinced and don’t have that faith. It’s a profoundly comforting thing, and like a fine appreciation of wine and jazz, something I do not have and miss.
That said, evil religion has been more powerful in relation to good religion at the moment. At least in directly motivating actions. We’re at war with an barbarian horde of wily and irrational fanatics.
But I do think we need our own religion, as science is not an organizing social force, has failed to provide the moral courage necessary to act effectively against this foe, and science relies upon a worship of Truth. Since no moral religion of Reason and Truth has emerged, I’ll go with a secularized Judeo-Christian framework and build off that…
Re: Hmm…
“I’ll go with a secularized Judeo-Christian framework and build off that…”
I’m fine with that. I’d be very comfortable if only people would be a little more consistant with “building off that” instead of depending on it and stagnating in it. I’ll certainly admit that science has no footing in the land of morals and it never pretends to. I think common sense should play a part there though.
I don’t buy the “scarcity of sources” et al bit with that article I posted though. maybe if it was a mob that wanted to lynch her. the fact is that the ruling judicial body that governs the people is perscribing this course of action. that’s why my tone is so “woah am I bullshit about this.”
-IggDawg
Re: Hmm…
No no…I’m not saying it’s just economics. It’s the entire culture. But that culture developed for many reasons – but it’s a superstititious tribal culture in the 21st century. And that’s just no good.
Re: Hmm…
aah. yes. IC. agreed. on all points.
-Igg
What they want to do to that woman is sad and horrible 🙁
I guess “forgiveness” is a word that has no meaning in their culture.
I think American people who whine and moan and despise the government, military, and the United States as a whole, should spend a time in places like these so as to have a REAL understanding of the freedoms we are allowed here. I’m not saying I agree with all the practices of the above entities/organizations, or that people shouldn’t be able to demonstrate/protest, but I don’t think we’d be so ready to whine about the stupid stuff if we knew how well we had it compared to oppressive places like Africa, China, Korea, the Middle East, etc, etc…
My mom always said “we’ve got the worst system out there. except for all the others.”
if someone can come along and build a better system, I’ll gladly entertain it.
-IggDawg
Yep, to quote an article I recently read: The tirades against capitalism come from dreamers who compare it with an ideal system that never existed.
Same here.
“I can’t prove that God does not exist. it wouldn;t be scientific of me to say that. no good scientist will ever rule something out 100%. I will say that the degree of uncertainty is very small. religion can explain everything around us with the blanket statement of “God makes it so.” we can explain most everything around us with Science as well, and none of those explainations require religion in any way. we don’t have 100% of the phenomena out there covered yet but we’re working on it.”
Science can’t prove that god doesn’t exist, but by the same token, it can never, ever prove that God *does* exist. According to every deistic religion that I’m aware of, God is something that one can only know through faith. So until faith counts as legitimate scientific procedure (it shouldn’t and, really, can’t, lest “science” be rendered meaningless), science will never “discover” God–it will only discover previously-unaccounted-for phenomena. A science that *could* “discover” God, besides being impossible, would impoverish our concepts of “science” and “God.”
Further, science can never discover 100% of phenomena, because every phenomena only exists because of some other phenomena that enables it, and so on ad infinitum.
I say all of this, by the way, as an agnostic. And I agree with you about church-state.