seebs

Speaking for myself: Because this is the one that appears to be *true*.

Why do you reject Christianity? It's not like you think God exists, and Christ died for our sins, but reject the religion because you think it has bad effects. Belief is based on what seems to you to be *true*, not on anything else.

Adopting another belief system to better the world is incomprehensible; this belief system is part of how I evaluate the concept of a "better world".

I believe this because it's the best explanation I've seen yet. I am aware that other people have other explanations, many of which have various points to recommend them, but this was the one that won.

Amie

Hi tdekeyser

and I do as well.

he should be charged with a crime.

She was a very sick woman.

what would you like the president to do?

What are you hoping to accomplish?

I personally could not care either way...

so basically you want the freedom of speech taken away?

Its just other people opinions. shit happens. suck it up and walk it off.

seebs

As much in terms of "how many of these statements, taken out of context and at face value, do you accept no matter what"? No. As much in terms of "how much of this message do you accept"? More, in general.

Perhaps you should be a little less hasty to tell me what my religion teaches? My religion is rooted in tolerance and love. If some people have brought their bigotries to the table when starting to read about Christianity, well, so be it; I can try to educate them, but it sure doesn't help me any when we have people like you accusing me of "distorting, omitting, and just plain ignoring" these beliefs.

You're committing the error of letting someone say "this, and only this, could be considered Christianity." In so doing, you allow that person to define the terms of engagement, and carefully wall yourself off from anyone who may know more than that guy.

Falwell is not definitional of Christianity. He's an example, and not an example most of us are real proud of, but he doesn't *define* the religion; he brought his own beliefs and goals with him when he started.

Starboy

Seebs, let me make myself very clear on this point. People need guidance on how to live life well, to live in harmony with others and with their environment. As the population of the planet grows daily this need grows daily. The first century was over two thousand years ago. We have learned a great deal since then. The metaphor for understanding our surroundings is no longer ghosts, spirits, sin, gods, devils, demons, souls and so forth. It is now quarks, galaxies, quanta, energy, genes, molecules and so forth. Since that time we have discovered a way of knowing that doesn’t rely on proclaimed “truth”. In the past Christianity was the best that mankind could do, but it is no better than placebo as far as guiding people on how to live well. I would like to remind you that a placebo is a remedy that contains no effective ingredients. It is time we threw off ancient superstition, cast out the demons, spirits, ghosts and so forth from our minds and embraced the universe as we have learned it to be. Basing an ethos on actual reality has got to be magnitudes more effective then one based on superstitious nonsense.

Starboy

seebs

Begging the question! You're just asserting your model of "truth" as the Only Valid Model, same as everyone else. Get in line; lots of other people were here first.

Science is a good model for the physical world. It does not - *cannot* - address the supernatural. Now, if your answer is "no such thing as supernatural", that's fine; lots of people feel that way.

What's *not* fine is when you try to push your beliefs about the supernatural on other people.

All the science in the world won't answer the question "should I care what happens to the other bipeds? They look sort of like me." That's philosophy, and philosophy is, as always, purely arbitrary; no one has ever managed to make the leap from scientific observations to a moral system, because in the end, science never answers the question "why should I care". It *can't*. And that, my friend, is fine with me; science is not my only tool.

The idea that we should care what happens to the other bipeds is an old one, too; old doesn't mean "bad".

nowhereman

So you think we need religion for morals? A few thousand years ago they used it for a much wider range of things, like social order, weather forcasting, and generally making sense of the world. Why do we still need religion for morals?

seebs

No, I don't think we need religion for morals. I think that any system of morality is ultimately fully arbitrary from a logical standpoint, and based on personal emotional response from a practical standpoint.

There is no scientific "proof" of any kind of moral statement. Game theory tells me to play nice *if I want to do well*. But why should I? In the end, morality comes down to the question "Do I care?", and science cannot answer that kind of question.

Philosophy, religion, whatever; it's all "stuff I choose to believe", and most often, "stuff I choose to believe because it's similar to how I feel".

Starboy

Seebs, why do you throw up straw men statements that have little if nothing to do with what I am talking about? My claim is not that science is an ethos. My claim is that science is how we understand our world. Christianity is an ethos based on using the supernatural as the method for understanding our world. Wake up Rumplestiltskin! The supernatural is not how we understand our surroundings in this day and age. I am suggesting that clinging to an ethos based on such a flawed premise is foolishness. There is plenty of evidence to indicate that supernatural religion contains no active ingredient – in plainer language there appears to be no super nature. As an ethos Christianity is no better than placebo! That is not good enough for the world any more. Don’t you get it? The world must abandon Christianity not because is it based on a fairy tale but because it does not work in any sense of the word. We need to develop something that will allow all of us to live in harmony. If we allow this battle of the supernatural religions to continue I do not know which will dominate, but I do know that when it is over there will be a lot fewer people on the earth than there are now. There will have been a great deal of suffering and bloodshed. Is this what you want? If Christianity was, in fact and deed, a live and let live, peaceful, love your neighbor religion we would not be having this discussion.

Starboy

seebs

Morality is part of my experience of the world; science does not address it, so I'm gonna have to turn to philosophy.

I don't see the existance of assholes who adhere to a philosophy as sufficient to justify banning the philosophy.

Now you seem to have lost me. I think I practice something generally recognized as "Christianity". Ethos? Sure, I guess. "Using the supernatural as the method for understanding our world"? Not in general, no. It answers certain underlying questions - but only questions of the wrong *type* for other tools, in general. I do not use science for philosophical questions; it strikes me as just as stupid as using philosophy for scientific questions.

And in so doing, you are asserting certainty about the same kind of "truth" that all the religions have.

You and Falwell are doing the same thing; opposing the right of others to hold a belief you think is false. It's wrong both times.

You may believe whatever you wish. I personally am convinced, which is enough for me.

What exactly do you think the word "ethos" means? I think that "love thy neighbor as thyself" is a big step above "I dunno, whatever you feel is right, dude".

Says you. It's working for me. See, you're expecting Christianity to do things it isn't supposed to do.

Adding your "anti-supernatural" religion to the mix will not help; it'll just make things that much bloodier.

Focus on the *battle*, not the "supernatural", and you'll find that there are many other things - economics, politics, and such - over which people war. And you might, if you think about it, realize that the problem comes when people try to enforce their personal beliefs on others.

Which is what you're trying to do.

In that, you are part of the problem.

Christianity is marginally more unified than "atheism", but only marginally. We each bring our own experiences to the table when interpreting.

The problem is not the religious beliefs; the problem is that some people don't have a "live and let live" attitude. You, however, are *one* of those problematic people, and as long as you are, you will be making things worse, not better.

Starboy

Spoken like a "loving" and "tolerant" Christian. At the heart of everything I have posted is a desire for all of us to get along. Your religion does not serve you well in this regard. Consider alternatives for all our sakes.

Starboy