Science VS. Faith

[CatsAndDogs]

People certainly have other things to fight for besides religion, but whether or not you believe that religion is a cause of those conflicts, you have to admit that believing in God is no cure for violence.

That is absolutely true!

But, God qua God (and the implications of His existence) gives people the only GOOD reason to have to resort of physical violence.

Now, god qua “thor-like thing” is a useful “scientistic excuse” for imposing an unfounded relativistic moral system on others, of course.

As to your question, I can’t imagine why the first atheist would want to murder the second or vice versa? Is this some sort of riddle?

I does sound like a variant of the, “Two guys walk into a bar and…” joke set-up, doesn’t it?

I think the point, though, is that the only answer to the question of why “bad” is “bad” is “because I say so!” if there isn’t an actual “above human” authority to give us a valid reason (in this case using “religious reasoning” as it’s a TRUTH question and not a UTILITARIAN question) to call bad bad.

Without that authority any act is “justifiable” as reasonable according to whomever has the power to impose their will.

:shamrock2:

 

[Shredderbeam]

buffalo:

Here is a little test to start with -

Go outside in your backyard and find something man created.

That really doesn’t answer my question.

 

[buffalo]

That really doesn’t answer my question.

Did you find anything man created?

 

[Leela]

Hi Ed,

…
Stability is necessary for international, local and interpersonal relationships. This requires a shared sense of right and wrong at the international and interpersonal level.

To make it up as you go along or to imagine you are treading in unexplored areas requires certain fundamental concepts from which to proceed. Without these foundational concepts, anarchy is the result; i.e. everyone off in their own direction.

I don’t believe relgion is necessary to be good. I think there are good reasons to be good that every successful culture has discoverd regardless of their religious beliefs. For example, though Catholics seem to think that they hold the patent on it, every culture seems to have some version of the Golden Rule.

If religions die out the basis for morality will remain: reason.

…
…
The bottom line is this: there is every evidence God is real. It has been experienced to greater or lesser degrees by all civilizations. In the end, the choice is simple: worship the mind of man and bow to the endless stream of experts and middle-men or worship God, fully informed by Him through divine revelation and untainted, unbiased knowledge.

This is a false choice. Worship the mind of man? How about we just stop pretending to know thing that we actually don’t know?

Best,
Leela

 

[Fran65]

Hi Leela,

Can you give me the non-religious reasoning for not committing infanticide when we already have abortion? Scientifically, nothing happens at birth that makes the infant any different to before birth, other than drawing breath. Society allows killing before ‘spontaneous’ birth right up to full term- (now you have to admit that from 6-8 weeks on the embryo/infant is a bit more than a blastocyst). This means that there is no reason for not committing infanticide. That would be a curious way to attribute personhood wouldn’t it - breathing? In which case we really shouldn’t be killing infants in utero either as, unless they are killed before the procedure or dismembered they will make breathing movements. So when would a movement become a ‘breath’? and how much air volume would their lungs have to move before we decided that it wasn’t a breath, so we can kill them after all?

Or maybe we shouldn’t kill infants that have been born because they are alive, but so are they before birth. Or perhaps we shouldn’t kill infants because they are people - but when do they become people? If we can kill people (at or before birth), why can’t we kill people when they are older? Do they become any more ‘valuable’ or more a ‘person’ with age? But some do kill people, the US has the death penalty in many states, so maybe it is okay (reasonable) to kill people in general. When they are inconvenient to society or maybe cost too much, or maybe no one wants them around and they aren’t contributing anything…

Who, using, reasoning, gets to decide all of this? Are we going to vote? Are we going to follow an articulate, persuasive person? Are we going to put on uniforms and do what we are told by anyone because its reasonable?