RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster

RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Mercnbeth -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/4/2007 4:09:05 PM)
quote: As one who has studied the various religions of the world i can say with certainty that "religion" has done no such thing as recommend people not use condoms! Would one exception prove the rule? quote: The Roman Catholic Church is committed to honor and preserve life. But how best to do that? General principles are easy enough to pronounce, but specific cases are the source of enormous anger and misunderstanding, both inside and outside the church, and none has been more contentious than Vatican opposition to the use of condoms to fight AIDS. Indeed, one of the great problems for those fighting the spread of AIDS is, precisely, finding ways to protect wives from being infected by their husbands. ...church doctrine has held that use of condoms within marriage is a particular “moral evil” equivalent to oral sex, anal sex, mutual masturbation or any other act in which sperm is released without the possibility of procreation. Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12615605/site/newsweek/page/2/ In the spirit of fairness and in trying to avoid being a "Catholic basher" here is the Catholic position regarding condoms: quote: The Catholic Church is telling people in countries stricken by Aids not to use condoms because they have tiny holes in them through which HIV can pass - potentially exposing thousands of people to risk. The church is making the claims across four continents despite a widespread scientific consensus that condoms are impermeable to HIV. A senior Vatican spokesman backs the claims about permeable condoms, despite assurances by the World Health Organisation that they are untrue. Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,1059068,00.html

Zensee -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/4/2007 4:12:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tikkiee I am a scientist. The existence of a supernatural being will never be proven or dis-proven by science simply because one can not prove or disprove a belief. Do you have a degree in science? It is believed the moon is made of cheese. And expedition to the moon finds no cheese at all. The belief that the moon is made of cheese is disproven. Happens all the time. Z.

Tikkiee -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/4/2007 4:24:17 PM)
quote: Do you have a degree in science? It is believed the moon is made of cheese. And expedition to the moon finds no cheese at all. The belief that the moon is made of cheese is disproven. Happens all the time. Hmm does a degree in molecular biophysics count? /looks hopeful; grins and rubs her hands together in preparation of a good debate on theories and beliefs No, it is not believed that the moon is made of cheese. It was *thought* that the moon was made of cheese. It was a theory. Theories, when applied to science, are nothing more than a *possiblity*; one that can be either tested and proven; or proven as false. To have a belief or to believe in something simpy means that a person is convinced of the truth in regards to a statement or allegation. Beliefs are also subjective [:)]; they are not universal.

eyesopened -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/4/2007 4:25:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee quote: ORIGINAL: eyesopened As one who has studied the various religions of the world i can say with certainty that "religion" has done no such thing as recommend people not use condoms! You aren't a very attentive student apparently. There's this little religion called Roman Catholicism which has spent decades preventing the use of condoms, especially in the developing countries. Got any more of your own "sweeping generalizations {which} are not even facts but are designed simply to incite and inflame and should be left out of the discussion."? Pot / kettle / black ad infinitum... Z. sigh Roman Catholicism is not RELIGION it is only one religious sect among many and i can assure you that the Roman church does not tell people not to use condoms for the prevention of disease. You can think of these things like birth control as club rules but is not part of the religious creed of Roman Catholicism. i didn't insult anyone so i fail to see how insulting me helps anything. Do you feel better now? sheesh

Mercnbeth -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/4/2007 4:29:43 PM)
quote: sigh Roman Catholicism is not RELIGION Okay - how about Islam? Is that a religion? quote: Muslim clerics disagree about use of condoms to combat HIV-AIDS -15/12/06 Muslim clerics from 25 African countries failed to reach agreement on the use of condoms in preventing HIV and AIDS at a recent meeting in Zanzibar - writes Frank Jomo for Ecumenical News International. Source: http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2006/12/15/muslim-clerics-disagree-about-use-of-condoms-to-combat-hiv-aids/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ekklesia.co.uk%2Fcontent%2Fnews_syndication%2Farticle_061215condom.shtml&frame=true

eyesopened -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/4/2007 4:42:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: sigh Roman Catholicism is not RELIGION Okay - how about Islam? Is that a religion? quote: Muslim clerics disagree about use of condoms to combat HIV-AIDS -15/12/06 Muslim clerics from 25 African countries failed to reach agreement on the use of condoms in preventing HIV and AIDS at a recent meeting in Zanzibar - writes Frank Jomo for Ecumenical News International. Source: http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2006/12/15/muslim-clerics-disagree-about-use-of-condoms-to-combat-hiv-aids/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ekklesia.co.uk%2Fcontent%2Fnews_syndication%2Farticle_061215condom.shtml&frame=true i surrender. religion is stupid. how could i have been such an idiot. i am ashamed. Look, i may not be expressing myself well but religion is a belief system. It is not the belief itself that causes these problems but the abuse of power of those who put themselves in charge of the orgainzed group of believers. The Muslim clerics debate because the creed of their religion does not address the use of condoms for disease prevention. To make sweeping generalizations about religion, politics, science or BDSM for pity's sake never helps anything. Attack me, fine, but why paint with such a broad stroke that it tends to just incite people's emotions?

Mercnbeth -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/4/2007 4:53:45 PM)
quote: To make sweeping generalizations about religion, politics, science or BDSM for pity's sake never helps anything. eyes, Just remember your own quote and you'll find no need to "surrender". If "paint" is being applied you supplied the brushes and rollers. An example of a sweeping broad stroke statement? How about quote: As one who has studied the various religions of the world i can say with certainty that "religion" has done no such thing as recommend people not use condoms! I took that as a challenge. Being challenged is NOT the same as being attacked. I, for one, am sorry you feel that way. Any belief worth believing in stands up and becomes stronger as a direct result of being challenged. Come on - your belief can't be so weak as to surrender it to a flippant resonse generated as a result of a one minute google search.

luckydog1 -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/4/2007 4:59:09 PM)
Religion itself does not disapprove of Condoms, some religions do. Some people using Darwinism, decided that all the inferiors must be burned in ovens, not all people who believe Darwin was correct do.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/4/2007 5:05:04 PM)
quote: Religion itself does not disapprove of Condoms, some religions do. LD - Well I'd be the first to support a world of religion without religions; however you'll have to document the distinction for me. Is it the same as the "guns don't kill people" argument of the NRA? If your reference is to any and all "organized" religions, I'd support a global ban without disenfranchising any believers "true" or not.

luckydog1 -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/4/2007 5:15:21 PM)
Chain, I would like to apologize it was Zenrage who was saying believers have no place in society, not you. And other "athiest" posters had stuff pulled for hate( which I deplore, I think they should have been left posted for all to see. Apperantly the Mod wants to pull stuff that makes your side( of the debate) look bad.) But you do take all the benefits of Law and Society, which have all grown out of religion, ironically so did science. I never once said that religions never cause harm or do bad things. Perhaps that is the only way you can argue. A religion is an institution of Man, and will have all the same problems as any other institution of Men. You see the harm, but do not see any of the good. And with science you seem to not see any of the bad, and exalt the good. Because you draw a distinction between science and what people selfishly do with it. But you do not make that distinction regarding Belief in God. Hypocrisy.

eyesopened -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/4/2007 5:16:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: To make sweeping generalizations about religion, politics, science or BDSM for pity's sake never helps anything. eyes, Just remember your own quote and you'll find no need to "surrender". If "paint" is being applied you supplied the brushes and rollers. An example of a sweeping broad stroke statement? How about quote: As one who has studied the various religions of the world i can say with certainty that "religion" has done no such thing as recommend people not use condoms! I took that as a challenge. Being challenged is NOT the same as being attacked. I, for one, am sorry you feel that way. Any belief worth believing in stands up and becomes stronger as a direct result of being challenged. Come on - your belief can't be so weak as to surrender it to a flippant resonse generated as a result of a one minute google search. The point i was trying to make was better stated by others but really the religion itself isn't a collection of rules made up by the club leaders. The nicene creed doesn't address birth control or marriage in the priesthood or any of the other crap people get their knickers in a bunch over. If absolute power corrupts absolutely then spiritual power corrupts the spirit in my opinion. Whether it's the Roman church or the Teamster's union, there will always be the power-hungry and corrupt human being who will do anything to assume that power and corrupt that which had nobel beginnings. To look at corruption in politics and say government is the source of all evil wouldn't be correct although there are some who feel there should be no government at all. In my opinion it's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. That some religious leaders have committed atrocities doesn't mean religion in and of itself is atrocious. In comparing the principles of the vast majority of religious belief systems (not all) the basic theme is "be nice" and that's how i want to live my life.

luckydog1 -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/4/2007 5:20:39 PM)
Meat, I am sure that you have seen studies about what you are refering to with Morals. And I am sure you have faith that they are true with out any proof. So canabilism is ok in all moral codes? Killing outsiders is ok in all moral codes? Incest is ok in all moral codes? In virtually all pre contact American socieities these were considered Moral. In pre christian greek thinking Might= Virtue the highest of all moral qualities. Religion has changed that(somewhat). All moral codes are the same? A simple look around disproves that.

NeedToUseYou -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/4/2007 5:54:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Religion doesn't give moral codes either. Psychologists have done a lot of work in this field and found that human morality is the same across the board and even found that peoples in the Amazon rain forest who have little contact with the outside world and who don't have a formal religion give the same answers to questions about moral and ethical dilemmas as religious and atheist people do. (the questions were adapted to their environment.) In short, morals appear to have developed in us through natural selection. Morals breakdown when people are defending irrational beliefs and whether these are religious or quasi-religious political beliefs such as fascism or ideological communism, it makes no difference. So, the study says religious people don't act immoral compared to the rest of the population. So where is the damage being created by religions? It would reason that if the members of a group acted morally compared to the rest of the population, they wouldn't cause more damage than any other group. So, why the desire to eliminate a group that doesn't act immoral compared to the rest of society. By eliminate I just mean eliminate the belief. This assumes the study is true of course, which I'm sure it is, as this is what I've observed as well, and mentioned earlier in the religious I've personally known.

Chaingang -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/4/2007 9:42:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 But you do take all the benefits of Law and Society, which have all grown out of religion, ironically so did science. That reads as false to me. Many of the Founding Fathers of this country were pointedly adopting an anti-religious worldview in the creation of our most precious liberty documents. I always thought of the Code of Hammurabi as a mainly secular instrument. For more on religion and American jurisprudence see: http://www.collarchat.com/m_599470/mpage_1/key_/tm.htm#599575 It would seem that many Founding Fathers had no interest in laws having to do with the Divine Rights of Kings. Their secular legal views stem from that initial rejection of prior bodies of law. quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 And with science you seem to not see any of the bad, and exalt the good. As a philosophy and a process I do exalt science. But I do have opinions on ethics in science that would perhaps surprise you. I don't think Nazi medical experiments were justified nor perhaps the creation of the atom bomb. But those are also subjects for another thread and not necessarily this one. But while you are defending religious views, in what way do you justify the Old Testament "Book of the Conquest"? It is the primary myth of genocide, or didn't you know that?

luckydog1 -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/4/2007 10:26:33 PM)
Here is the first paragraph of the Code of Hammurabi " When Anu the Sublime, King of the Anunaki(they were the Gods who walked on the earth), and Bel( a God), the lord of Heaven and earth, who decreed the fate of the land, assigned to Marduk(also a God), the over-ruling son of Ea(yet another god), God of righteousness, dominion over earthly man, and made him great among the Igigi, they called Babylon by his illustrious name, made it great on earth, and founded an everlasting kingdom in it, whose foundations are laid so solidly as those of heaven and earth; then Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak; so that I should rule over the black-headed people like Shamash, and enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind." Sounds religously inspiried to me. In fact he litteraly says he was ordered by the Gods to create law. That is the basis of his right to impose his set of laws. How can you pretend that is secular. American founders, yes many were anti religion( the institution of religion) most were Diests, and did believe in a creator God, so I do not see your point there. Also the american Constition came almost 7000 years after the first cities were created, and would have absolutly nothing to do with the development of Law and Human society. It is true they did not want a system of Divine Right Kings, but who said they did?. I certainly never made any such assertion, nor did I see one in this thread. That is untill you brought up Hammurabi, who did claim divine right to be king and establish laws, which is somehow secular in your view...I don't really get your point there.. My Old Testament doesn't have a Book of the Conquest, so I can't really comment on that. Except to say that religion is much larger than Old Testament Judiasim, and I do not read that as literal anyway. Have people used religion as an excuse to do bad things, of course...have people used Science as an excuse to do bad things? Again of course(again see the justifaction for the Holocoust). The 20th century saw hundreds of millions put to death or brutalised under the banner of scientific socialism. BTW genocide is not a myth, it is a very real thing.

Chaingang -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/4/2007 11:40:18 PM)
I said "mainly" becuase like the laws of Moses most of what is gotten into is clearly secular in orientation. The god bit is the excuse and also a bid for authority. And you really need more history here. Sorry, but the subject grows tiresome with someone that doesn't understand the basis of the Enlightenment. Now I'm supposed to argue Locke, Montesquieu, et all?

meatcleaver -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/5/2007 12:01:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Religion itself does not disapprove of Condoms, some religions do. Some people using Darwinism, decided that all the inferiors must be burned in ovens, not all people who believe Darwin was correct do. Not true. If you are talking about the Nazis, their belief was a quasi-religious belief in the German nation. They tried to justify their beliefs with quack science but they were not the first and probably not the last religious sect/cult to do that.

luckydog1 -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/5/2007 12:07:11 AM)
Oh Ok, I don't understand the basis of the enlightenment(what does that have to do with this thread? Nothing at all), <falling on the floor laughing>, but yes I understand you are now tired of the subject, <falling out of my chair laughing my ass off>. Why are we arguing Locke,ect. that has nothing to do with the development of ancient civilastions, the ones our modern ones grew from. I said that society and law grew out of religion. It did. So did science. You positied the code of Hammurabi as proof it did not, but it did.. Yes, their religion was the basis for Hammurabi to create his laws. Thier(hammurabi's) entire civilisation grew up around the temples to the gods. Will you now post another thing I never said and argue against it? Do you think arguing aginst things I never said is a valid way to argue? If so are you pretending that it is Science to do so? That would explain why you think dawkin's arguments are based on science, insterad of the rhetoric he actually uses. Like I said many times, you are free to believe anything you want, but do not pretend you are basing it on science. Revel in your faith, and have a great 07.

meatcleaver -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/5/2007 12:08:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Religion doesn't give moral codes either. Psychologists have done a lot of work in this field and found that human morality is the same across the board and even found that peoples in the Amazon rain forest who have little contact with the outside world and who don't have a formal religion give the same answers to questions about moral and ethical dilemmas as religious and atheist people do. (the questions were adapted to their environment.) In short, morals appear to have developed in us through natural selection. Morals breakdown when people are defending irrational beliefs and whether these are religious or quasi-religious political beliefs such as fascism or ideological communism, it makes no difference. So, the study says religious people don't act immoral compared to the rest of the population. So where is the damage being created by religions? It would reason that if the members of a group acted morally compared to the rest of the population, they wouldn't cause more damage than any other group. So, why the desire to eliminate a group that doesn't act immoral compared to the rest of society. By eliminate I just mean eliminate the belief. This assumes the study is true of course, which I'm sure it is, as this is what I've observed as well, and mentioned earlier in the religious I've personally known. The problem I highlighted in my last sentence of the post you are answering. Morals breakdown when people defend irrational beliefs. It seems to make them....well, irrational. Now those irrational beliefs might not be religion pure and simple but quasi-religious beliefs such as fascism or some other political-religious doctrine that is a irrational belief.

meatcleaver -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/5/2007 12:11:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 I said that society and law grew out of religion. It did. So did science. Societies exist without religion.

Page: << < prev 9 10 [11] 12 13 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.1416016