The God Poll - Page 5

kang · 10:03 AM

As for benefits, I've posted this before, but belief in god/religion meets many personal needs:

1) Something to explain the unexplained
2) The need to know that death is not the end
3) Something to absolve guilt, e.g. forgiveness from your “sins”
4) The need to belong to a group
5) The need to feel superior to others
6) The need for unconditional love
7) An absolute authority for morals
8) Direction on how to live your life

Taz's Master · 05-15-2007, 10:15 AM

kang, other than the moral authority (which ties into direction on how to live life), how do those benefit society? Those are individual benefits, religion can make the individual feel good. What are the sociteal benefits or dangers of religion aside from moral behavior (which IROC has proof is not impacted by religion).

IROC · IROC's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by Taz's Master
kang, other than the moral authority (which ties into direction on how to live life), how do those benefit society? Those are individual benefits, religion can make the individual feel good. What are the sociteal benefits or dangers of religion aside from moral behavior (which IROC has proof is not impacted by religion).

OK, you're right - the dangers of religion to society far outweigh the benefits - let's just abolish it.

Taz's Master · 05-15-2007, 10:35 AM

kang, what are the dangers to society aside from moral behavior?

IROC · IROC's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by Taz's Master
kang, what are the dangers to society aside from moral behavior?

Teaching religious mythology in science classes? For instance, teaching that intelligent design or creationism are valid hypotheses for human origins? I wouldn't call that "immoral behavior", but even the controversy associated with this represents a danger to society as we're diluting the science education of our children with ancient religious teachings while the rest of the world passes us by...

Taz's Master · 05-15-2007, 10:53 AM

Certainly forcing religious teachings on society at large is a moral behavior.

72doug2,2S · 72doug2,2S's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by IROC
Teaching religious mythology in science classes? For instance, teaching that intelligent design or creationism are valid hypotheses for human origins? I wouldn't call that "immoral behavior", but even the controversy associated with this represents a danger to society as we're diluting the science education of our children with ancient religious teachings while the rest of the world passes us by...

I think I could sum up your argument in five words.

Thinking for yourself is dangerous!

Moneyguy1 · 05-15-2007, 10:56 AM

I suppose anything that cannot be explained with our current understanding could be considered "magic" and "supernatural". Imagine introducing someone from 1807 to television.

IROC · IROC's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by Taz's Master
Certainly forcing religious teachings on society at large is a moral behavior.

Well, I suppose that if you term all actions taken by religious people as morally driven, then by your definition all benefits or dangers would be manifestations of "moral behavior", but I don't think most people view it that way. Semantics, maybe...

kang · 05-15-2007, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Taz's Master
kang, what are the dangers to society aside from moral behavior?

Well, the bible was used to justify slavery when we still had it. Now it is being used to decide who can and cannot marry, whether a woman has a right to choose, what gets taught in science class, and block stem cell research.

72doug2,2S · 72doug2,2S's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by kang
Well, the bible was used to justify slavery when we still had it. Now it is being used to decide who can and cannot marry, whether a woman has a right to choose, what gets taught in science class, and block stem cell research.

Slavery -sometimes used to pay ones way out of debt, not really the human rights abuse we think of today.

Marriage - Religious institution, adopted by society granted.

Choice/Embryonic Stem Cell research - Ending an innocent life, murder is wrong

Science Class - Actually offering an alternative theory is not getting to decide what gets taught in science class. Keeping that alternative theory out of the classroom is getting to decide what gets taught in science class.

Moneyguy1 · 05-15-2007, 11:22 AM

Define "theory" before defining intelligent design or creationism as such.

Slavery and indenturism(?) are two different things...one has a end date.

Is an embryo a person? Subject to debate and without resolution.

Marriage: logical action; insures the security of the mother and child; not specifically a moral question. Responsibility.

Murder, in a moral sense, is wrong. Therefore, killing those who engage in abortions is also wrong. War is wrong. Euthansia is wrong, even though in some cases we permit an individual with terminal disease and unending pain to live while we call it "merciful" to end the life of a pet with the same condition. Murder in God's name is definitely wrong, but condoned in certain cultures.

Morality is relative and changes with the society in which you find it.

IROC · IROC's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by 72doug2,2S
Science Class - Actually offering an alternative theory is not getting to decide what gets taught in science class. Keeping that alternative theory out of the classroom is getting to decide what gets taught in science class.

ID and creationism are not "alternate theories". They are religious mythology that have no scientific basis. Teach them in a class on religion if you like, but they do not belong in a science classroom. Do you also propose that we teach astrology along side astronomy and let the students decide for themselves which one is correct?

Moneyguy1 · 05-15-2007, 11:47 AM

Alchemy, anyone?

72doug2,2S · 72doug2,2S's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
Define "theory" before defining intelligent design or creationism as such.

Slavery and indenturism(?) are two different things...one has a end date.

Is an embryo a person? Subject to debate and without resolution.

Marriage: logical action; insures the security of the mother and child; not specifically a moral question. Responsibility.

Murder, in a moral sense, is wrong. Therefore, killing those who engage in abortions is also wrong. War is wrong. Euthansia is wrong, even though in some cases we permit an individual with terminal disease and unending pain to live while we call it "merciful" to end the life of a pet with the same condition. Murder in God's name is definitely wrong, but condoned in certain cultures.

Morality is relative and changes with the society in which you find it.

Define Morality. I don't accept relativism on basic moral behavior.

Theory is defined in the traditional sense, for you hypothesis.

Embryo is resolved for me, this is a human.

Marriage. Your social evolution definition makes me smile. Many of those who who point to social evolution are the very ones not getting married and not starting families. It is ironic then that they point to those who, as a group, do not believe in social evolution as proof of such evolution.

War is an action of the State and not of an individual. In that sense it operates under a different set of rules. I agee with you it is open to debate.

Taz's Master · 05-15-2007, 11:49 AM

IROC, not religious people, just people. The impact individuals and groups have on society are either intentional or unintentional. Of the intentional ones, generally there is a moral decision to either harm or help. The dangers religion presents to society, as I see them, are the influence it has on moral behavior. But since there is no difference between religious and non-religious people in their sense of moral behavior (if someone can countenance killing someone else because their beliefs are different, they'll justify their actions as moral regaardless of their belief system), the debate boils down to: believe like me because you are wrong, not because it matters to society.

72doug2,2S · 72doug2,2S's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by IROC
ID and creationism are not "alternate theories". They are religious mythology that have no scientific basis. Teach them in a class on religion if you like, but they do not belong in a science classroom. Do you also propose that we teach astrology along side astronomy and let the students decide for themselves which one is correct?

What you say boils down to this. Thinking for yourself is dangerous, censorship of ideas and thought are good, listen to me I have all the answers. Sound good? Not to me.

Moneyguy1 · 05-15-2007, 12:03 PM

Doug:

You have a right to your belief system. I just point out different "theories" to yours and they are just as valid. And just as unprovable. Back to the dictionary...theory vs. hypothesis.

One can have faith without religion and belief without codified doctrine.

I asked before for folks to differentiate the two concepts of faith and religion. They are NOT the same........Faith is individual; no two people have the same precise beliefs. Religion is codified and contains rules and regulations which members of the specific religion are bound to follow if they wish for the benefits promised by that specific religion.

the · 05-15-2007, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 72doug2,2S
Define Morality. I don't accept relativism on basic moral behavior.

Morality is a code of values.

The highest human value is LIFE.

Among 2 choices presented to any individual, the moral one is the one which most rationally promotes and advances one's life and happiness on earth.

72doug2,2S · 72doug2,2S's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
Doug:

You have a right to your belief system. I just point out different "theories" to yours and they are just as valid. And just as unprovable. Back to the dictionary...theory vs. hypothesis.

One can have faith without religion and belief without codified doctrine.

I asked before for folks to differentiate the two concepts of faith and religion. They are NOT the same........Faith is individual; no two people have the same precise beliefs. Religion is codified and contains rules and regulations which members of the specific religion are bound to follow if they wish for the benefits promised by that specific religion.

I agree.

Here is my take. Religion is the actions of men toward God. It is created by man and as such subject to error, not implying it is necessarily rife with it. It is purely reactionary.

Faith is not from man, but from God, if you believe in such a thing. It is a gift to man and requires nothing but acceptance in return. It is deeply personal and cannot be, as some would hope, removed before entering a political office, for example.

Theology is the study of or philosophy of God. This, I hope, is the focus of this thread.