Who'S Religious In Here ?
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» thehemeraproject replied on Sat Feb 12, 2005 @ 10:48am |
 Coolness: 43660 | That's pretty interesting.
It is written in the Bible, that it is "unclean" food. [ www.themodernreligion.com ] You'll find tons of different theories on the subject. Simply type jewish and pork in google. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» michaeldino replied on Sat Feb 12, 2005 @ 11:50am |
 Coolness: 69885 | Originally posted by CINDERELLA SOUL...
Originally posted by DJneoform... You can very much explain morals, good/bad, right/wrong with science, i dunno why you'd think otherwise..
Don't kill: Why? [...] Don't Steal: Why? [...] Don't Rape.. don't lie..[...] . Your reasoning above is, I think, philosophical reasoning. The natural sciences (physics, chemistry,) are generally purely physical sciences and do not generally touch on morailty. Neoform, your reasoning reminds me of Immanuel Kant ( well-reputed philosopher): philisophical. I Immanuel Kant was not very scientific. He was actually a very religious man. And most of his philosophy was based on his trying to relate religious beliefs and moral philosophy. He wanted to show how, while not properly explained in the Bible, the ideals in it were good on a logical, philosophical way. He never really let up on his uber-religiousness, but if you read his stuff it is very evident that he is. I would compare him to Thomas Aquinas, another religious man who tried to tie religion to philosophy. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» cinderella_soul replied on Sat Feb 12, 2005 @ 12:34pm |
 Coolness: 57110 | I would agree that Kant was not very scientific. He did not specialize in the natural sciences. I've never read anything from him that was engulfed in natural science(physics, chemistry, mathematics etc.). Immanuel Kant is known to have belived in God, I think. I realize he was a religious man to what exact extent, in terms of his private life; I don't know.
I can see his religiosity in his writings. "He wanted to show how, while not properly explained in the Bible, the ideals in it were good on a logical, philosophical way" -dinosaur Well said and accurate I think. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» cinderella_soul replied on Sat Feb 12, 2005 @ 12:44pm |
| Coolness: 57110 | On Universalizability....
"Kant thought that for an action to be moral, the underlyinh maxim had to be universalizable one. It had to be a maxim which would hold for anyone else in similar circumstances. You should not make an exception out of yourself, but should be impartial. So, for example, if you stole a book, acting on the maxim 'Always steal when you are too poor to buy what you want, for this to have been a moral act, this maxim would have to apply to anyone else in your position." And then it goes on to explain that just because everyone can do something does not make that thing moral. "This notion of universizability is a version of the so-called Golden rule of Chritianity, 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Philosophy: The basics. Nigel Warburton 3 rd edition. I just thought I would share that... that's the theory that I thought resembled neoform's reasoning. Philosophy is a science because it is systematic and uses logical arguments as one of its methods. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» evilkitkatbar replied on Sat Feb 12, 2005 @ 1:10pm |
 Coolness: 78640 | Originally posted by VIOLENCE INC....
Religion does not give birth to wars, humans do that on their own, carrying so called righteous justification by human edict. Such happenings are not the fault of a belief in a higher being but the ones who bestow these false and contrived ecclesiastical doctrines to the masses. The idea of religion is a perfect one, just like how the ideology of any politic party makes sense… till you add human judgment and emotions to the equation. Every circumstance of ecclesiastical order and discipline was an abomination. Follow the Gospel of Jesus… the house of God is within you, not within brick and gold. You cannot blame a thought about being with no phsycical contact for causing murder, sorrow and lack of If religions didnt exist humans would for one, find something to beleive in and two, create wars with another pretext. Ideologies are great sometimes but dont work out the way they should, look at communism. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Sat Feb 12, 2005 @ 3:05pm |
 Coolness: 340575 | Funny, all this time i thought the reason communism doesn't work cause every communist country in the world is run by a dictator.. oh well. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» basdini replied on Sat Feb 12, 2005 @ 7:09pm |
 Coolness: 146110 | Originally posted by DJNEOFORM...
You can very much explain morals, good/bad, right/wrong with science, i dunno why you'd think otherwise.. Don't kill: Why? Because we as a society would go to shit if we killed everyone. Don't Steal: Why? Because taking other people's things would lead to killing (very simplistic view, but you get the idea). Don't Rape.. don't lie.. every moral rule you've got in your head can be logically reasoned.. and if it can't, well you'd better start thinking about why you're living by that rule. Science, the "observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena" absolutely applies to how we as humans come to our own, or group conclusions as to what is right and wrong. Anybody who simply says "that's wrong.. just because" IS WRONG, sorry to say it, but without a reason for believing something.. you have no reason to be believing it. dude, don't you see this is exactly what i'm talking about, there is nothing scientific about this, all your doing is being a consequencialist, when you say something is good or bad, if you follow this type of argument, all you end up saying is when you make a moral judgment, like murder is wrong or charity is good, is that 'i disapprove or approve" of this action, or more properly 'i prefer the world with or without" such and such, Don't you see there is nothing objective about this, it is totally and completley subjective, one person might think the world with institutionalized racism is unacceptable and unjust, where another person might be fully and happily acceptant of living in such a world. Consequence cannot form the basis for ethics. Think about this, if you do a bad action but at the same time it causes some good in the world(either known or not by you) than does that mitigate some of the wrong? The problem with the consequentialist position is that you seem to end up having to say 'might makes right' and that the 'ends justify the means', both of these are clearly unacceptable outcomes for me. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Screwhead replied on Sun Feb 13, 2005 @ 5:28am |
 Coolness: 686500 | Originally posted by DJNEOFORM...
Who knows why Jew's can't eat pork..? Because they didn't have proper meat preservation back then. Food poisoning anyone? It's not like they had proper cooking and storage conditions, and food poisoning can be fatal NOW, let alone back then before they had all these crazy immunities to everything. I'm pretty certain that people didn't know what "bacteria" was back then. Give any primitive civilisation something that they don't know how it works and their first guess is magic or some divine power. The spaniards raiding the aztecs and all the older civilisations for their gold were feard and worshiped because of their guns. Do guns work by magic? By the divine power of god? No, it's chemistry, physics and engineering that makes guns do what they do. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» thehemeraproject replied on Sun Feb 13, 2005 @ 9:46am |
| Coolness: 43660 | Why only pork and some birds ? Eating meat is something that humans did before the beginning of the Jewish religion...and not having a fridge wasn't a problem. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Deadfunk replied on Sun Feb 13, 2005 @ 4:31pm |
 Coolness: 153915 | Originally posted by EVIL-KIT-KAT-BAR...
Ideologies are great sometimes but dont work out the way they should, look at communism. . there was never any communism on earth ..... dont tell me cuba or russia was .. it was proletarean dictatorship(dunno if it writes like that) communish would work .. just not with human being |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» basdini replied on Sun Feb 13, 2005 @ 5:37pm |
| Coolness: 146110 | Originally posted by DEADFUNK...
Originally posted by evil-kit-kat-bar...
Ideologies are great sometimes but dont work out the way they should, look at communism. . there was never any communism on earth ..... dont tell me cuba or russia was .. it was proletarean dictatorship(dunno if it writes like that) so true, chomsky has an interesting take on this, he says the closest we ever came was durring the spanish civil war. I'm not sure what book it is in, it's either "class warfare,interviews by david barsmian" or "detering democracy" check it out if you can. it's all about having the revolution in urban industrail societies if that can happen then and only then, will 'communism' or more properly 'government shaped by marxist thought' be possible. i'd like to here what other people think about this |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» thehemeraproject replied on Sun Feb 13, 2005 @ 6:18pm |
| Coolness: 43660 | Revolution is impossible at this moment. Revolutions happen when there is no other choice than fighting. And right now, we have plenty of choices.
Spanish civil war ? I heard about it, but haven't read much on the subject. I'll check it out. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Deadfunk replied on Sun Feb 13, 2005 @ 7:21pm |
| Coolness: 153915 | yeah nice! ppl usually doesnt understand that,
they all stick with russia = pure communism |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» basdini replied on Mon Feb 14, 2005 @ 10:53am |
| Coolness: 146110 | Originally posted by DEADFUNK...
yeah nice! ppl usually doesnt understand that, they all stick with russia = pure communism well dude thats the whole problem VI Lennin and Mao Tse Tung, change 'communinism', from being a movement abou the urban factory proleteriat (working man/woman), to an argrian peasant based type revolution. These are both (china and russia) the misapplication of good theory created by Marx, i guess you can't hold people accountable for what they do irresponsibly with other peoples ideas in the world, maybe another place in history we came close to having 'real communism' was the 1968 revolution in france. Guy Debord, the situationists and that whole bag of tricks... |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Oliver_TwisteD replied on Mon Feb 14, 2005 @ 1:31pm |
 Coolness: 86595 | people are only religious cause so they'll have something to look forward to when they die- stupid fucks. i wish i could see the look on thier face when they realize it's just eternal non-existance. Sin while you can! |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Violence_Inc replied on Mon Feb 14, 2005 @ 2:55pm |
 Coolness: 175000 | i saw God last night.
end of thread. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Mon Feb 14, 2005 @ 3:26pm |
| Coolness: 340575 | i chose not to trust what you say. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» thehemeraproject replied on Tue Feb 15, 2005 @ 10:07am |
| Coolness: 43660 | Some people are religious because of death, and it is a reason why -some- people believe in them. All of them ? That's plain bs. In a lot of cases, it's education. Especially in poor countries.
And no, you do not know what will happen when you die. No one knows. You can have an opinion about it...and that's about it. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Tue Feb 15, 2005 @ 10:09am |
| Coolness: 340575 | If your best friend dies, wouldn't it be great to think that he/she somehow lives on somewhere/some place? That's exactly what a lot of people want, so they choose to believe what is not possible. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Violence_Inc replied on Tue Feb 15, 2005 @ 10:23am |
| Coolness: 175000 | you can as much disprove God as I can prove it...
why don't you all shut up. |
Who'S Religious In Here ?
[ Top Of Page ] |
Post A Reply |
You must be logged in to post a reply.
[ Top Of Page ] |
