welsh
Junkmaster
Yes, I think the historical record does suggest that if God didn't exist, man would create him (or her- I personally like the idea of a female nymphomaniac if I were go create a God image).
Is Christianity standing in the way of progress?
- Thread starter Sander
- Start date
welsh
Junkmaster
Cool, we'll have female priest with crotchless undies and orgies every Sunday!
Just Sundays?
ConstinpatedCraprunner said:
The system of reward and punishment is inherent in the laws of nature - god and religion are by no means necessary components of morality.
"Right" and "Wrong", or, to be clearer, "Correct" and "Incorrect" behavior does not need to have religious connotations. Religion has fairly monopolized the word "moral", but it's basic definition describes a concept that functions quite well without it.
Everything Voltaire said should be taken with a grain of salt. If you remove God, the only thing that falls apart is religion.
To respond to the topic, yes, I think that "Christianity" is holding us back - but considering the near exponential advance of science it isn't a bad thing to be held back. It would be a lot nicer if the people representing Christianity weren't hypocritical, vengeful, war-mongering plutocrats and lackeys who couldn't be further removed from Christ's teachings, and if their sole reason for holding people back was based on religion instead of a desire to make money and keep the world within their control. That must be God's will though, eh?
calculon000
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
Montez said:
Couldn't have said a better truth about the church myself.
Hell yes Christianity is holding us back, and I hate republicans like bush who are warmongers who think the cold war is still on and that everyone's about to get America.
I read in the paper today that George W Bush was nominated for a Nobel peace prize! In my opinion, Bush is the LAST person who should get the Nobel peace prize.
By the way, I don't believe in God and I'm a good person.
Here's something to think about: If you have morals and are NOT religious, then doesn't that make you a better person because you don't expect an award when you die?
Damn I love morons like Sander they are so full of shit but they never can see it them self. Of course Sander dont like christianity becouse most of believers are white, but Sander will bow dow to sandniggers anytime and he will be worship them becouse he is multiculture wacko. Tards like him wet their pants when they heard eu banned humans races becouse races just cannot be with out any real facts that would support the claim heheh.
Dude... 
WOw. I really love how you're a stupid fuck who can't read:
1) I don't hate Christianity.
2) I don't worship "niggers", I just think they're equal to white people.
3) Can you be any dumber?
4) I find it interesting how you claim that I hate Christianity, and then claim that I'm a religious wacko in a different topic.
5) I find it even more interesting that you don't even provide any arguments at all anywhere, and just go around attacking me, saying that I'm one thing or another. YOu don't even try to support your own viewpoint, you just type away..
6) COuld you be the guy who wrote "Nuke the sand niggers" etc. on the toilet at Azzy's work?
7) Maybe, just maybe, if you could provide me with some decent arguments, I could be tempted to listen to your ranting....
John Uskglass
Venerable Relic of the Wastes
Damn.
Just damn.
Sander...............I dont think that.
Damn.
Just damn.
Sander...............I dont think that.
Damn.
welsh
Junkmaster
I was thinking about this the other day and the answer is, generally but not completely, yes.
Why- the goal of Christianity and it's mandate is for you to get good with God, to study and live the life of Christ, to abide by the Golden Rule, to love God and no other, to be devoted to a life of a good Christian and spend your days trying to convince others to be Good Christians, etc.
But time is finite. You are all allowed to live on this world for a limited time, and (saving for accidents, war, etc.) just about everyone will not see a century, and if you do you'll be in diapers and probably without a memory left in your ancient skull.
The time that Christianity expects of you to "get good with God" comes at a sacrifice elsewhere. Judging by human nature that would probably be either just fucking around or being lazy, or trying to improve oneself and one's community.
Now imagine if most of those who spent their lives not focuing on the metaphysical or supernatural possibilities of Christian faith spent their time in improving the condition of their fellow man or, at least themselves. Such valuable time could be spent improving our lives- progress.
While it might be true that religion and Christianity generally, has helped give our society a moral compass, generally speaking we would find similar moral values in other faiths across the globe. So if no particular religion is necessary, are any?
If religion didnt' matter for teaching us morality, has it allowed us to engage certain immorality. Well for instance religion, especially the judeo-christian faiths, have allowed us to see "evil" as "the other" but we know from quantum physics and psychology that this notion of "us" and "them" is in fact a creation of our own perceptions. It is an artificial construct that we use to help explain our world. Yet, just as a construct allows us to define our world, it also provides boundaries that are often hard to surpass.
I wouldn't blame religion per-se for this. As Jesus teaches that "he that is without sin should cast the first stone," by adopting the Aristole's willingness to organize ideas, it does allow us to project and identify issues that also exist internally. Religion guides us to adopt some philosophies and sciences while denying others. But is this denial often good?
Let me add that there is one aspect of human nature which religion plays a significant role. Within each of us is the notion that we are bound and defined identities which raises the question of "is this all there is." This often manifests itself as a "spiritual" issue in which we seek to have greater meaning of our lives. Why? because we are self-aware, can imagine, can expect more, and perhaps because we want more of our lives that what science has told us- that we are little more than Apes up a few wrungs on the evolutionary ladder.
In that sense people often pursue religion to find "the other" in themselves, to connect with a presence that is beyond them. People also develop dependent relationships with others they love, they become addicted to drugs and other vices, they get into affairs and intrigues because they are bored with their existence, because it adds meaning in their lives.
But if science is right, than our existence is all that we really have, a few years on this earth to make the most of, and left to our own will to decide what to do with that existence. Some find solace and purpose through religion, and in that sense perhaps religion fulfills that gap that many face. Is it necessary, from a utilitarian perspective- no.
But is it necessary- no. Has it held us back, in terms of time wasted, yes- probably.
Why- the goal of Christianity and it's mandate is for you to get good with God, to study and live the life of Christ, to abide by the Golden Rule, to love God and no other, to be devoted to a life of a good Christian and spend your days trying to convince others to be Good Christians, etc.
But time is finite. You are all allowed to live on this world for a limited time, and (saving for accidents, war, etc.) just about everyone will not see a century, and if you do you'll be in diapers and probably without a memory left in your ancient skull.
The time that Christianity expects of you to "get good with God" comes at a sacrifice elsewhere. Judging by human nature that would probably be either just fucking around or being lazy, or trying to improve oneself and one's community.
Now imagine if most of those who spent their lives not focuing on the metaphysical or supernatural possibilities of Christian faith spent their time in improving the condition of their fellow man or, at least themselves. Such valuable time could be spent improving our lives- progress.
While it might be true that religion and Christianity generally, has helped give our society a moral compass, generally speaking we would find similar moral values in other faiths across the globe. So if no particular religion is necessary, are any?
If religion didnt' matter for teaching us morality, has it allowed us to engage certain immorality. Well for instance religion, especially the judeo-christian faiths, have allowed us to see "evil" as "the other" but we know from quantum physics and psychology that this notion of "us" and "them" is in fact a creation of our own perceptions. It is an artificial construct that we use to help explain our world. Yet, just as a construct allows us to define our world, it also provides boundaries that are often hard to surpass.
I wouldn't blame religion per-se for this. As Jesus teaches that "he that is without sin should cast the first stone," by adopting the Aristole's willingness to organize ideas, it does allow us to project and identify issues that also exist internally. Religion guides us to adopt some philosophies and sciences while denying others. But is this denial often good?
Let me add that there is one aspect of human nature which religion plays a significant role. Within each of us is the notion that we are bound and defined identities which raises the question of "is this all there is." This often manifests itself as a "spiritual" issue in which we seek to have greater meaning of our lives. Why? because we are self-aware, can imagine, can expect more, and perhaps because we want more of our lives that what science has told us- that we are little more than Apes up a few wrungs on the evolutionary ladder.
In that sense people often pursue religion to find "the other" in themselves, to connect with a presence that is beyond them. People also develop dependent relationships with others they love, they become addicted to drugs and other vices, they get into affairs and intrigues because they are bored with their existence, because it adds meaning in their lives.
But if science is right, than our existence is all that we really have, a few years on this earth to make the most of, and left to our own will to decide what to do with that existence. Some find solace and purpose through religion, and in that sense perhaps religion fulfills that gap that many face. Is it necessary, from a utilitarian perspective- no.
But is it necessary- no. Has it held us back, in terms of time wasted, yes- probably.
There is such a thing because people defined it as a concept, not because there is some universal law. I think its easier to think of it in the simplest terms in the context of a small community where everyone knows each other. "Good" would be any action that helps the community, and "Evil" would be any action that hurts it, usually done to benefit one's self. You could go a step further and look at Heaven as the love and respect of those in your community, Hell as being shunned or hated by your community, the Devil as the motivation to act for yourself at the expense of others, and God as the motivation to act for the benefit of others. I know absolutely nothing about religion or Christianity specifically so, this is just my uninformed view as an outsider looking in.zem said:
Of course that leaves a lot of ambiguity in how exactly to classify which actions are which, and these are reflected in the concepts of 'good and evil'. So it's not hard to see how distortions of these concepts can arise from such a setting. Is what is good for your community and bad for the one over on the next hill good or evil?
SkynetV4
Mildly Dipped
I think religion is also an anesthetic. A reasoning killer to make your life more bearable. It will certainly be easier to accept calamities like Bush, world hunger, world inequality, a relative with cancer (this is not a joke nor an attempt to mock whomever has a relative with cancer) as "God's Will". Also life becomes easier to live for some if one believes that not everything you have done in your life is in vain, worthless and irrelevant. If there is a "higher reward", eternal after-life, nirvana, Elyssium Fields or whatever rocks your "soul" then you feel less than a ephemerous (sp?) meatbag. On morality, I think that doing what most people define as "good", helps you in the end as it endears you to the good will of those affected by your choices. Of course there are exceptions to this rule but try being polite (you get served better, faster and with a smile), helping a hobo make a living for himself (people will believe you are generous), donating your organs while still alive (don't even get started with this one), et coetera and you will find most roads paved for you.
I just got back from an introductory day at my future university (Technical Unicersity of Eindhoven), and there, I followed a class of ethics and law (quite a weird course for a Technical Informatics study), and they happened to be talking about morality, and what moral codes were good and what moral codes were bad. More specifically, they were talking about two things:
1) Moral relativism
and
2) Absolutism (and utilitarianism).
On Moral Relativism the following was said:
Even though most students adhere to moral relativism, it is something that does not work well.
This is so, because it allows for certain moral trapholes to be used. "Oh, let them kill those people, it's just their own morality." Any action can be used, as long as it comes from some kind of cultural or moral background. This is, obviously, bad.
Furthermore, moral relativism is paradoxal in itself: It says that there are no universal norms and values, yet it contains a universal norm: that of respecting other morals and norms.
Interesting...
Then there was absolutism. The lecturer pulled up the example of the Ford Pinto, how it would explode when hit from behind, and what Ford said in court about it. Ford claimed that it was completely valid to leave the fuel tank in the dangerous place because:
Removing it would save society some $49 million (they had calculated the cost of human lives etc. Really really sickening) annually.
But removing it would also cost society some $127 million annually, because they sold 12.5 million cars, and changing them would cost $11 per car.
A classic example of absolutism and utilitarianism. Absolutism claims that there is one universal system of values and norms, and utilitarianism uses those to calculate extremely objectively whether something would be beneficial or not.
Conclusion: You have to adhere to another moral system than either of those. Which one, is pretty much up to yourself, but society can easily dictate the "good" morals. Whether these are good for you or not is up to you to decide, but do it wisely, and don't whine when, because of your different morals, you get thrown in jail.
PS: Is it just me or did CCR just admit to being pwned (well...just. Just as in, months ago.).
1) Moral relativism
and
2) Absolutism (and utilitarianism).
On Moral Relativism the following was said:
Even though most students adhere to moral relativism, it is something that does not work well.
This is so, because it allows for certain moral trapholes to be used. "Oh, let them kill those people, it's just their own morality." Any action can be used, as long as it comes from some kind of cultural or moral background. This is, obviously, bad.
Furthermore, moral relativism is paradoxal in itself: It says that there are no universal norms and values, yet it contains a universal norm: that of respecting other morals and norms.
Interesting...
Then there was absolutism. The lecturer pulled up the example of the Ford Pinto, how it would explode when hit from behind, and what Ford said in court about it. Ford claimed that it was completely valid to leave the fuel tank in the dangerous place because:
Removing it would save society some $49 million (they had calculated the cost of human lives etc. Really really sickening) annually.
But removing it would also cost society some $127 million annually, because they sold 12.5 million cars, and changing them would cost $11 per car.
A classic example of absolutism and utilitarianism. Absolutism claims that there is one universal system of values and norms, and utilitarianism uses those to calculate extremely objectively whether something would be beneficial or not.
Conclusion: You have to adhere to another moral system than either of those. Which one, is pretty much up to yourself, but society can easily dictate the "good" morals. Whether these are good for you or not is up to you to decide, but do it wisely, and don't whine when, because of your different morals, you get thrown in jail.
PS: Is it just me or did CCR just admit to being pwned (well...just. Just as in, months ago.).
bob_the_rambler
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
even though peoples morals are different, if you want to live in a culture that permits different morals and beliefs there must be a certian level of conformity.
welsh
Junkmaster
Conformity is for pussies.
The nazis wanted conformity, with everyone wearing jackboots and black and goose stepping all over the fucking place. And if you didn't, off to the gas chamber with you.
The Commies wanted conformity, know your Marx, work a commune, suck up a hard life and get paid shit for it. ANd if you didn't fit in, off to the Gulag.
The Born again Christians want you to be a conformist. If you believe in New Age, you're a Pagan, you're a homo, you're deviant, you're kinky, you're catholic, than you're going to hell and you just might get kicked out of town.
The Mormons want you to conform, don't drink no coffee or coke, don't use no drugs or liquor, and if you don't fit in, you won't make it to heaven where you can fuck everything you want.
Fuck conformity.
I'm from New York. There is no conformity, there's only survival, but at least you do it on your own and you are what you truly are.
The world is full of people who want you to dance to their tune, to sing their song, to pray to their god and to salute their flag.
Fuck 'em.
They didn't do shit for me, and they won't do crap for you.
This is a democracy- you can think what you want and do what you want.
If you want to conform, go join the fucking Nazis. They're all the same no matter what they call it.
The nazis wanted conformity, with everyone wearing jackboots and black and goose stepping all over the fucking place. And if you didn't, off to the gas chamber with you.
The Commies wanted conformity, know your Marx, work a commune, suck up a hard life and get paid shit for it. ANd if you didn't fit in, off to the Gulag.
The Born again Christians want you to be a conformist. If you believe in New Age, you're a Pagan, you're a homo, you're deviant, you're kinky, you're catholic, than you're going to hell and you just might get kicked out of town.
The Mormons want you to conform, don't drink no coffee or coke, don't use no drugs or liquor, and if you don't fit in, you won't make it to heaven where you can fuck everything you want.
Fuck conformity.
I'm from New York. There is no conformity, there's only survival, but at least you do it on your own and you are what you truly are.
The world is full of people who want you to dance to their tune, to sing their song, to pray to their god and to salute their flag.
Fuck 'em.
They didn't do shit for me, and they won't do crap for you.
This is a democracy- you can think what you want and do what you want.
If you want to conform, go join the fucking Nazis. They're all the same no matter what they call it.
OI!
*hands black flag to welsh*
*hands black flag to welsh*