|
NookieNotes -> RE: thoughts on the power of religion (4/6/2015 7:40:18 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
You didnt express what points you believe are not connected so that remains undertermined.
I'm sorry. I thought I was quite clear.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
every thought that is accepted as true correct or fact starts with a personal 'belief' in its being true, then acting upon your accepted belief, (esp moral beliefs) are in fact 'your religion' and that holds true even for atheists since they have a moral code of conduct.
Not all codes of moral conduct or bases of thought for personal behavior are religion. Period.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: NookieNotes
Ah, but we are not living in the 17th century. You DO know that English is a living language, yes?
Well...yes and no. Not in that people can legitimately change the use of preexisting words. Especially words that are very clear in their original meaning and intent.
And yet, they do. It's a fact.
Words change meanings to their exact opposite. Saying you don't agree with it does not change it from happening or being reality.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: NookieNotes
What matters for constitutional translation does not apply to contemporary conversation.
Your choice of the word 'conversation' which I believe you wish to use to signify informal communication and 'contemporary' which I believe you used to establish the boundaries within your lifetime or the present is fine and works as long as you are among people who are in agreement with you.
Contemporary, as defined by the dictionary is:
con·tem·po·rar·y
kənˈtempəˌrerē/
adjective: contemporary
1. living or occurring at the same time.
2. belonging to or occurring in the present.
Seems simple. No inference necessary. I mean contemporary to refer to happening now, in the present. It's not about MY lifetime.
quote:
However as soon as someone disputes what is said the conversation legitimately imo turns to philosophy, metaphysics and theology etc which at that point would become a 'requirement' to sort out the disputed issues as opposed to the alternative route leaving everything hanging with no chance of resolution.
Ever thought that resolution is not the point of a discussion like this?
You can use words however you want. Simply understand that when you use words in ways they haven't been used for years (gay, for example), you will be regularly misunderstood.
Your choice.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: NookieNotes
Your point is a wonderful tidbit and insight, but it is not an open door to bring the meaning of the 18th century word into today's discussion. It has no current bearing.
Oh but as I have pointed out it would apply, the reason it would apply is (as shown above) the result of the meanings of the words used hundreds of years ago that by tradition or covenant or contract in the case of the constitution the word 'freedom which really means franchise' has a direct effect on our lives today as does the meaning of the word 'religion' and will continue to affect our lives into the future based on words constructed, written or contrived in the 18th century.
using the dictionary, most of them outside of 'ball-parking' do not provide any 'real' source to argue from without the need to fully research the etymology of each and every word used. You posted a dictionary definition:
quote:
ORIGINAL: NookieNotes
re·li·gion
noun: religion
1b. a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
for religion as shown in your definition above 1b respects the definition of natural religion as I have posted from 1700's.
It respects it, but is different. Suggesting that because two cars both have engines does not make them the same car.
You generalize too much for clear communciation.
quote:
So just for giggles I googed 'Natural Religion" which ties every living conscious person into religion in which the contemporary dictionaries rather than being a service become a disservice promoting argument through their omission rather than peace and understanding, well here is the first thing that came up;
nat·u·ral re·li·gion
noun: natural religion
religion, especially deism, based on reason rather than divine revelation.
So its there if you already researched it and know the magic words to look for. The old dictionaries list all the variant word usages which is why I go back to the days before people had to pay college extortion racketeers to do it for us and issue sheep skins as receipts proving we paid our mob dues. Oops digressing again lol
The important part of that is "especially desism."
quote:
My point being how useless the dictionaries are today.
I don't find that at all.
quote:
Had I not already knew the topic and the magic words they are not saying in the dictionaries of today through personal research I would have not known how to connect that dot, nor would I be able to discover it through the use of a contemporary dictionary without the need to actually research it.
so aside from method, it appears we may agree on the general premise and greater core constituent?
No. You didn't connect that dot. You are still over generalizing, in my view.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: NookieNotes
"Religion is a thought process. "
your turn
I have no idea what you think you've managed to communicate here. My point was, and still is:
Religion is a thought process. Not all thought processes are religion, as you are trying to suggest.
quote:
ORIGINAL: GotSteel
[image]local://upfiles/566126/07BD1E39BE8E4E6E992D9DD5EC3A8944.gif[/image]
While amusing, straw man.
Murderers come in all religious and non-religious forms.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tkman117
Funny coming the guy who makes unsubstantiated claims that athiesm was the reason Stalin and the others did horrible things. I'd rather be known for being a dick than a red neck moron who knows nothing about the world any day.
The excuse of why something was done is not as important as the fact it was done.
Racism, sexism, religion, and slavery rolled up into one are not nearly as powerful as the force of the idea that it's OK to subjugate and murder people who are different from you.
quote:
ORIGINAL: bounty44
here's something germane to the current direction of the thread:
quote:
Christian philosophers and theologians explain that there are causal links between mass murder and atheism. Atheism, lack belief in God, have the following characteristics that can lend itself to mass murder and can explain why the greatest mass murderers were atheists:
lack of recognition of an ultimate judge of moral actions and a judge who sets injustice aright in a last judgement, and thus do not recognize the immorality of murder.
lack of seeing the importance of human beings as images of God and so easily discarding them as merely material things, products of mere chance.
lack of acknowledging an external standard of moral perfection, thus ending up with self-created standards which can include killing for political survival.
absence of guidance by divine revelation of the moral law, such as "Thou shalt not kill".
following an ethic of atheistic evolutionism that is based on the survival and victory of the fittest, which is ultimately a bloodthirsty ethic - an ethic that is eager to kill and to maim. This ethic is about conquering others rather than self-conquest.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_Mass_Murder
And yet, there are plenty of Christians, Islamist, and Jews killing. So, it's not just atheists...
Not even speaking to truth or veracity, if there is any.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kirata
Atheists are just as capable of empathy and moral behavior as anyone else. All of the regimes mentioned in your quote followed an ideology that embodies a manifest lack of empathy for the dignity of the individual and a consequent subversion of individual rights and freedoms to the needs of the "collective". Ironically, this almost always seems to lead to an obscene number of deaths among the members of said collective. But the cause is a fundamentally psychopathic ideology, not Atheism.
K.
This. Said better than I said it.
|
|
|
|
